adolescence – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
Understanding Adolescents: Emotion, Reason, and the Brain
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Kurt Fischer — who helped create Learning and the Brain, and the entire field of Mind, Brain, and Education — used to say: “when it comes to the brain, we’re all still in kindergarten.”

He meant: the brain is so FANTASTICALLY complicated that we barely know how little we know.

Yes, we can name brain regions. We can partially describe neural networks. Astonishing new technologies let us pry into all sorts of secrets.

And yet, by the time he left the program he founded at Harvard, Dr. Fischer was saying: “when it comes to the brain, we’re now just in 1st grade.”

The brain is really that complicated.

Fascinating Questions

Adolescents — with their marvelous and exasperating behavior — raise all sorts of fascinating questions.

In particular, we recognize a real change in their ability to think abstractly.

Unlike their younger selves, teens can often “infer…system-level implications…and lessons that transcend the immediate situation.”

We can say in a general way that, well, teens improve at this cognitive ability. But: can we explain how?

More specifically, can we look a their brains and offer a reasonable explanation? Something like: “because [this part of the brain] changes [this way], teens improve at abstract thinking.”

A research team at the University of Southern California wanted answers.

Networks in the Brain

These researchers showed 65 teens brief, compelling videos about “living, non-famous adolescents from around the world.” They discussed those videos with the teens, and recorded their reactions.

And then they replayed key moments while the teens lay in an fMRI scanner.

In this way, they could (probably) see which brain networks were most active when the teens had specific or abstract reactions.

For example, the teen might say something specific and individual about the teen in the video, or about themselves: “I just feel so bad for her.”

Or, she might say something about an abstract “truth, lesson, or value”: e.g., “We have to inspire people who have the potential to improve society.”

If some brain networks correlated with specific/individual statements, and other networks with abstract/general statements, that correlation might start to answer this question.

As usual, this research team started with predictions.

They suspected that abstract statements would correlate with activity in the default mode network.

And, they predicted that concrete statements would correlate with activity in the executive control network.

What did they find?

Results and Conclusions

Sure enough, the results aligned with their predictions. The orange blobs show the teens’ heightened neural activity when they made abstract statements.

And: those blobs clearly overlap with well-established regions associated with the Default Mode Network.

Neural correlates of abstract construals. Results from a whole-brain analysis reveal regions whose activity while responding to documentary-style stories positively correlates with abstract construal scores from the interview (N = 64). The image is subjected to a cluster forming threshold of P < 0.001, and cluster extent thresholded at k = 177 voxels (for illustrative purposes). The in-set image depicted in purple correspond to 6 mm spherical ROIs located in the DMN. The in-set scatterplot depicts participants’ average parameter estimates (β) from all voxels within the identified ROIs relative to abstract construal scores. Each dot represents one participant. Inf-post PMC = inferior/posterior posteromedial cortices; DMPFC = dorsomedial prefrontal cortex; VMPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The study includes a second (even more intricate!) picture of the executive control network — and its functional overlap with concrete statements.

The headline: we can see a (likely) brain basis for concrete and abstract thought in teens.

Equally important, a separate element of the study looks at the role of emotion in adolescent cognition. (One of the study’s authors, Dr. Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, has worked on this topic for years.)

In brief, emotions don’t necessarily limit thinking. They can focus and motivate thinking:

“Rather than interfering with complex cognition, emotion in the context of abstract thinking may drive adolescents’ thinking forward.”

The much-discussed emotionality of teenage years might not be a bug, but a feature.

A Final Note

I’m especially happy to share this research because its lead author — Dr. Rebecca Gotlieb — has long been the book reviewer for this blog.

If you’ve ever wondered how she knows so much about the books she reviews, well, now you know.

Because of work that she (and so many other) researchers are doing, Dr. Fischer could now say that we’re entering 2nd grade in our understanding of the brain…


A Final Final Note

Neuroscience studies always include more details than can be clearly summarized in a blog post. For those of you who REALLY want to dig into the specifics, I’ll add three more interesting points.

First: knowing that scientific research focuses too much on one narrow social stratum, the researchers made a point to work with students who aren’t typically included in such studies.

In this case, they worked with students with a lower “socio-economic status” (SES), as measured by — among other things — whether or not they received free- or reduced-priced lunch. Researchers often overlook low SES students, so it’s exciting this team made a point to widen their horizons.

Second: researchers found that IQ didn’t matter to their results. In other words, “abstract social reasoning” isn’t measured by IQ — which might therefore be less important than some claim it to be.

Third: teachers typically think of “executive function” as a good thing. In this study, LOWER activity in the executive control network ended up helping abstract social thought.

Exactly what to make of this result — and how to use it in the classroom — is far from clear. But it underlines the dangers of oversimplification of such studies. Executive functions are good — obviously! But they’re not always beneficial for everything.


Rebecca Gotlieb, Xiao-Fei Yang, Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, Default and executive networks’ roles in diverse adolescents’ emotionally engaged construals of complex social issues, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2021;, nsab108, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab108

Yes or No: “Video Games Can Promote Emotional Intelligence”?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Video games stir up passionate debates among teachers.

Some of your colleagues (probably) argue that video games curdle our students’ wits, addle their morality, and disrupt their attention. (For instance: here.)

Others (probably) argue that games are the future of education, and we should be getting on board as fast as we can. (For instance: here.)

As is so often the case, I think we should avoid sweeping generalizations. Instead, let’s look carefully at each specific research claim, and see what trends develop over time.

A recent example: “can videogames be used to promote emotional intelligence in teenagers”?

Recent Claims

That suggestion, in fact, is the title of a recent study based on research in Italy. (In other words: I’m not exaggerating the claim. Those are their very words.)

This study, alas, is behind a (steep!) pay wall, so I can’t be sure of all the specifics.

At the same time, the study design looks promising. Some high-school seniors played 12 hours of a video game called “EmotivaMenta,” designed to be an “experienced based learning tool” to promote emotional intelligence.

Compared to a control group, they improved at recognizing their own emotions. And, they got better at managing their emotions by cognitive revaluation. (That means what it sounds like: deliberately thinking your way through a problem to which you initially had a strong emotional reaction.)

So, here’s one potential answer. Can video games promote emotional intelligence?

YES.

Another, Better Answer

Let’s dig a little deeper.

First, researchers note that these students got better at recognizing their emotions in the short term. But, when retested 3 months later, they were no different from the control group. (The trend-line for the “cognitive revaluation” isn’t clear.)

Second, the status of the control group isn’t clear. (Drat that paywall!) Was it an active control group? That is, did they do something similar to a video game for 12 hours? Or, was it a “business as usual” control group: just a bunch of students in the same school who didn’t do anything special?

Of course, we’ll be more persuaded by an active control group than a BAU group.

Third, notice that this was a specially designed video game.

When I read the title of the research, my first thought was that researchers had identified a commercially available game that, when used or framed the right way, increased emotional intelligence.

That’s not what happened.

Instead, it seems, they created a lesson about emotional intelligence in the form of a video game.

So, here’s a different answer to our revised question. Can a lesson about emotional intelligence in the form of a video game influence Italian high-school students?

In the short term YES–assuming the control group is active. But, in the longer term, it seems no.

Case Closed?

Given those caveats, should we give up this effort? Should we conclude that video games can benefit perceptual capabilities, but not emotional ones?

My own view is: let’s keep looking.

After all, these researchers did have some success. Their study wasn’t a home run, but they did get some positive results.

So, perhaps this game would work better if …

…students played over a longer period of time, or

…it were played by younger students, or

…it were redesigned to include some cool new element.

After all, if we can help adolescents with their emotional self-regulation, that’s a real win. ESPECIALLY if we can do it by having them play a game they enjoy.

Simply put, I DON’T think we yet know the answer to this question. But, we DO have reason to believe that video games might be a promising avenue to continue investigating.

An Exciting Event in Mindfulness Research
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Let’s imagine a GREAT study on the benefits of mindfulness.

As school people, we’re happy that mindfulness might be helpful at home or at work, but we really want it to be helpful to students. So, we’d love for this study to take place at school.

We’d like the study to show that mindfulness changes mental processes. For instance, we’d love to know that it helps students feel less stress.

And, we’d like the research to look at brains as well as minds. That is: we’d like to have some fMRI data showing relevant changes in brain regions.

At the same time that students report they feel less stress (that’s the mind), we might see neural modulation typical of less stress (that’s the brain).*

Finally, the study’s methodology would hold up to scrutiny. It would, for instance, include a plausible control group. (I’ve written about problems with control groups, including this study about mindfulness.)

Lo and Behold

Sure enough, this study exists!

Working with 6th graders at a school outside Boston, Clemens Bauer randomly assigned half to a mindfulness program and half to a coding training program.

Both groups devoted 45 minutes, four times a week to this effort, for 8 weeks. And, by the way, students in both groups enjoyed this time equally. (So: AT LAST we’ve got a plausible and active control group.)

Bauer’s team had students fill out a stress survey before and after this 8-week stretch. (Sample question: “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”)

And, he performed fMRI scans on them before and after as well.

When looking at those scans, Bauer’s team had a specific prediction. High stress responses typically includes elevated amygdala activation. Often, we can manage that stress response by using the prefrontal cortex–the part of the brain right behind your forehead.

If mindfulness helps manage stress, we would expect to see…

…greater connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, and

…concomitantly reduced activity in the amygdala.

That is, we’d be able to see that mindfulness strengthened connections between self-control systems in the prefrontal cortex. In turn, this increase in self-control would help mitigate stress responses in the amygdala.

Of course, I’m offering a very simplified version of a fantastically complex neural story. Books have been written on these connections, and it’s not blog-friendly kind of information.

Results, Please

If you’re a fan of mindfulness, you’re going to LOVE these results.

Students who practiced mindfulness reported less stress than those in the control group.

They showed higher levels of prefrontal cortex connectivity with the amygdala.

They showed lower levels of amygdala activity when they looked at angry faces.

So: both in their mental activity (reported stress level) and in the neural activity (in the amygdala, between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex), eight weeks of mindfulness led to beneficial results for these students.

Technically speaking, that’s a home run.

What’s Next

First: to repeat, this study is powerful and persuasive. We can simply revel in its conclusions for a while.

Second: as teachers, we’re glad that student stress levels are lower. The next question is: do students learn more? We can assume they do, but we should measure as well. (To be clear: I think lower stress is an important goal on its own, whether or not it leads to more learning.)

Third: as the study’s authors acknowledge, the sample size here is relatively small. I hope they get funding to repeat it on a much larger scale.

As noted in this study, there’s a disappointing history in the world of mindfulness research. Small studies–often lacking random assignment or a control group–come to promising conclusions. But, the bigger the study–and the better the methodology–the smaller the results.

So: now that we’ve gotten strong effects with a randomized study and a plausible control group, I hope to see these same results at a much larger scale.

I might go sit quietly for a while, and try to clear my mind of extraneous thoughts.


* This sentence has been revised to read “neural modulation” rather than “neural behavior.” (9/18/19)

Sleep Is Essential. And, COMPLICATED.
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

My cat and I enjoy blogging about sleep, for the obvious reason that sleep is delicious.

And, of course, essential for learning.

Most often, I’ve written about the importance of high school start times. Occasionally, I write about naps as well. For instance, a recent study in Brazil found that in-school naps promoted learning. (My cat was pleased, but not surprised.)

I’ve come across two studies recently that help us think about sleep (and its relatives) in new ways.

Study #1: Memory Benefits of “Brief Wakeful Resting”

We’ve got lots of research showing that naps promote learning. Heck: even a 6-minute nap enhances subsequent learning. (Not joking.)

Let’s push the envelope on this question. If a six minute nap helps learners remember, perhaps actual sleep isn’t essential. Perhaps a period of mental down time might do the job.

For instance: maybe a ten minute period of “brief wakeful resting” might be enough to promote better learning.

Sure enough, in this study, participants remembered a story better if they “reste[ed] quietly with their eyes closed in the darkened testing room for ten minutes” than if they engaged in active cognitive task.

In fact, they remembered the story better a week later. In other words: this benefit wasn’t merely temporary, but lasting.

The teaching implications here are intriguing.

Should we build in brief intervals of “wakeful rest” after complex lessons? Should we redesign school schedules to allow such breaks?

At present, we don’t really know–because this research was conducted with 70-year-olds. Now, I have nothing against 70-year-olds. Some of my best parents have been in their 70s. But, few of us teach 70-year-olds.

So, I hope that this research will be tried with younger learners. Perhaps we might find a whole new way to organize the school day.

Study #2: The Best Way to Sleep Too Little

You read that right. Is there a better way to get insufficient sleep?

Of course, we know that adolescents simply don’t sleep enough. (Did I mention high-school start times?)

We’ve got lots of research showing that they benefit from more sleep. For instance, we know that they learn more if they get afternoon naps.

But: what if we could keep the total amount of sleep constant, and change the sleep schedule? Is there a better way to get too little sleep?

Researchers tested this question in Singapore. They had one group of adolescents get 6.5 hours of night-time sleep during the week, and 9 hours of sleep over the weekend.

In other words: like many teens, they’re just not sleeping enough on school nights.

Researchers had a second group of students sleep 5 hours at night and take a 1.5 hour nap during the day.

That is: they also got 6.5 hours of sleep–but that total amount of sleep was divided into night-time sleep and a nap.

Did that make a difference?

Results, and Implications

Sure enough, the group that slept 5 hours at night and 1.5 hours during the day showed superior cognitive function, compared to the group that slept 6.5 hours straight through at night.

More specifically, they did better on visual learning tasks, and on factual learning tasks.

In other words: they had a less-than-optimal amount of sleep. But, they had a better schedule for their less-than-optimal-sleep.

What are the implications?

My own view is: this study gives us reason to believe that afternoon naps will benefit adolescents.

Either teens will get more sleep–which will benefit them.

Or, even if they foolishly sleep less at night knowing they can nap during the day, this split-sleep schedule will still help them learn.

That’s as close to “win/win” as we get with teenagers and sleep.

So, what’s next?

In my experience, most teens currently use afternoons to practice their extra-curriculars: sports, or theater, or debate. That is: if we encourage them to do more afternoon napping, we necessarily leave them less time to do these other things.

For this reason, I hope that soon we’ll see research comparing students who nap to students who exercise.

Information about those bigger-picture trade-offs could give schools, teachers, and parents helpful–and practical–guidance.

Teens Who Recognize Their Emotions Manage Stress Better. We Can Help (Maybe).
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Why are teens so adolescent?

Why are they so infuriatingly wonderful? So wonderfully infuriating?

Researchers have offered an intriguing suggestion:

Children can tell you what they’re feeling with confidence. They believe they can experience only one emotion at a time, and so they label it with certainty.

Adults can also tell you what they’re feeling with confidence. They know they can experience many emotions at once, and they have lots of experience figuring out the combination that they feel right now.

Adolescents — sometimes — don’t really know what they’re feeling. Like adults, they know they can experience many emotions. But unlike adults, they don’t yet have much experience describing combinations. And so, unlike children, they’re uncertain what they’re feeling.

We’ve blogged about this research here.

Individual Differences Matter

So, adolescents don’t distinguish among complex emotions as well as adults do.

Of course: individual teens develop along different paths. Some differentiate among emotions better than others.

Researchers at Emory wanted to know: do those differences have meaningful effects?

In particular, they asked this intricate question: does a teen’s ability to distinguish among negative emotions have an effect on their experience of depression?

In other words: do the hassles and stresses of life lead to depression more often among teens who distinguish among negative emotions less skillfully?

To answer this question, Dr. Lisa Starr and her team interviewed 225+ teens, and then had them fill out online diaries for several days. They then followed up with those teens up to a year-and-a-half later.

In other words, they got LOTS of data spread out over LONG periods of time.

Given all the variables at play, it’s not surprising that the results here are complex: probably too complex to explore in detail. (Click the link if you want the nitty-gritty.)

But the headline is clear: teens who distinguish among negative emotions effectively can manage life stress better than those who don’t.

To say that the other way around: teens who struggle to distinguish among negative emotions are likelier to experience depression as result of life’s hassles and stresses.

What Can We Do?

Students benefit from skill in distinguishing among negative emotions. In fact, those who lack those skills face a higher chance of depression.

So: what can we do to promote those skills?

I’ve asked lead researcher Dr. Starr that question. She pointed me to this study, which suggests that mindfulness training might have some benefits.

That suggestion lines up with this recent meta-analysis, showing that mindfulness can indeed help people manage depression.

Of course: we shouldn’t rely too heavily on just one study. I hope this question leads to greater exploration soon.

Given the scary numbers about adolescent depression, we should do all we can to manage this problem.

More Contradictions in the Adolescent Sleep/Technology Debate
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

A month ago, I described an impressively large study (17,000+ adolescents) looking at the effects of technology on adolescent sleep and well being.

As I summed it up in the title of that post: “Surprise! Screen time (even before bed) doesn’t harm adolescents.”

Today, I’m linking to another large study (6600+ adolescents) showing … just the opposite.

The main findings for this study was that late-night technology use — especially once the room lights were off — predicted a lower “health-related quality of life” for adolescents.

At this point, I’m frankly flummoxed. I just don’t know how to sort out the contradictory research findings in this field.

For the time being, to preserve sanity, I’d keep these main points in mind:

First: don’t panic. The media LOVE to hype stories about this and that terrible result of technology. Most research I see doesn’t bear that out.

Second: don’t focus on averages. Focuses on the child, or the children, in front of you.

Is your teen not getting enough sleep? Try fixing that problem by limiting screen time. If she is getting enough sleep, no need to worry!

Is your student body managing their iPhones well? If yes, it’s all good! If no, then you can develop a policy to make things better.

Until we get clearer and more consistent research findings, I think we should respond — calmly — to the children right in front of us.

Surprise: Screen Time (Even Before Bed) Doesn’t Harm Adolescents
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We’ve got lots of research on the complexity of adolescent life. And: lots of research on the importance of sleep.

We’ve also got some research showing that technology can clutter our cognitive processes. (To be clear: technology might also be fantastically useful.)

So, what happens when you put all that together and ask about technology and adolescent well-being?

Predictions

I myself would have made two predictions:

One: except at the very extreme end of screen use, I would have doubted technology time matters much for adolescent well-being. Over the years, I’ve seen plenty of studies suggesting that teens do just fine — even socially — when they’re often on line.

In brief: I’ve heard lots of exaggerated concerns, but little persuasive data behind them.

Two: sleep is, of course, essential for human well-being. We can’t think or learn well without it. Heck, we can’t function very well without it.

And, we’ve got research showing that the light from screens delays melatonin onset — and therefore makes it hard to fall asleep.

For those reasons, I would have predicted that screen time before bed — especially LOTS of screen time before bed — would make life hard for adolescents.

The Findings

According to this review, I’m half right. And: not the half I was confident about.

A study that looked at more than 17,000 adolescents in the US, England, and Ireland found that technology use generally didn’t affect adolescent well-being.

(More precisely, they found that screen time accounted for less than 1% of the difference in adolescent well-being.)

And — SURPRISE — they found that technology use before bed had no statistically significant effect.

Amazingly, even one hour of screen time produced no ill effects in this study.

What Teachers and Parents Should (and Should Not) Do

This study reconfirms the point that screen time — except extreme amounts — probably isn’t hurting teens. Even pre-bedtime screens aren’t such a big deal.

(If you’re still having trouble wrapping your head around that second point, don’t worry. I am too.)

So, what should we do?

Well, if we want to improve adolescent well-being, we should NOT focus our efforts on changing their technology habits. After all, if this study is correct, even an optimal change would improve their well-being by less than 1%.

That is: we should NOT be alarmed by the alarmists.

Instead, we should find out what really is stressing them out and focus on those problems instead.

As I find persuasive, research-based evidence to answer that question, this blog will let you know.

“We Can No Longer Ignore Evidence about Human Development”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

The more teachers learn about neuroscience and psychology, the more we admire Dr. Mary Helen Immordino-Yang.

Unlike most researchers, she has spent time as a classroom teacher.

And, her extensive research—in both neuroscience and psychology—offers us wise perspectives on our craft.

For instance, she has zealously emphasized the inextricable connection between emotion and cognition—although we live in a society that wants to keep the two apart. As she has shown in her books and articles, we can’t think deeply about thinking without understanding the importance of feelings.

Thinking and feeling aren’t two different things. They’re names for distinct perspectives on the same thing.

(You can check out her essay in Mind, Brain, & Education: Neuroscience Implications for the Classroom, edited by David Sousa.)

More recently, working with Linda Darling-Hammond and Christina Krone, Dr. Immordino-Yang has published a lucid and practical summary of our field. In 20 jargon-free pages, she makes a strong case for focusing on development as an essential variable in schools and in learning.

You can download The Brain Basis for Integrated Social, Emotional, and Academic Development here.

That’s a mouthful of a title. But it synthesizes an impressive range of complex and vital topics: age-appropriate teaching strategies, neural development across the lifespan, epigenetics, even cultural well-being.

As an introduction to The Brain Basis, I interviewed Dr. Immordino-Yang. This transcript is edited for clarity and brevity.


Andrew:

You’ve packed a lot of information into this document. What’s your goal in putting it all together this way?

Mary Helen:

I wanted to tell a story about what it means to be a human being.

From there I thought we could think back to retrofit what are we doing in schools to support the development of our full humanity.

And so I aimed to tell a story of many fields—of biological, genetic, developmental, and cognitive research that would help people understand why human development and learning are so closely tied together.

Schools really can no longer ignore the new evidence about human development in thinking about our aims and our strategies in educational environments.

Andrew:

A big chunk of this brief talks about different developmental stages, and the appropriate educational strategies to use during each one.

Where you get the most pushback? What are people most surprised about?

Mary Helen:

One of the things that people have been very surprised about, and where I get a lot of pushback, is in adolescence. I talk about adolescence being a fundamental time of plasticity—but also of vulnerability.

And this means that teenagers really need deeply supported opportunities to explore alternate identities: scholarly ways of thinking and being, social ways of thinking and being.

This is a time when kids can develop very deep interests, and connect those interests to their world—how it is now, how it has been in the past, and how it could be different in the future– like they never have been able to do before to the same extent.

Schooling needs to capitalize on that. Yet we really do not in the way that standard schools are designed. In fact we directly undermine that kind of agency, that kind of exploration of self and ideas that’s just fundamental to adolescence.

Andrew:

In schools, I’m guessing that would mean more electives, fewer requirements. You’d like more open-ended, freeform opportunities for high school students?

Mary Helen:

Well, yes. But all that in the context of very strategic support and close relationships, in addition to intellectual and social opportunities to really get invested in important work: more like an apprenticeship model of schooling in adolescence, as compared to a didactic transfer model.

There are schools doing this extremely well. They tend to be schools built for kids one step away from failing out of society, though.

For example: The New York Performance Consortium Schools got special dispensations to not have standardized testing. Instead they do performance-based portfolio work as a graduation requirement.

These students were mostly at risk of failing [in their prior schools]. And then lo and behold, when you redesign their educational experience so it’s more of this apprenticeship model—students focus on broad, relevant problems—they begin to think in scholarly ways. They develop deep understanding and explore innovative solutions.

These kids go on to college at far higher rates. They’re graduating college. They’re just ever so much more engaged than their peers.

We’ve got this misunderstanding that when kids are doing poorly and flailing around, you want to double down on discipline. You want to straighten them out and get them on the straight and narrow. Control them first, and then you can teach them.

In fact what you need to do is offer them opportunities to really utilize the energy that they have, and to question and rethink their ideals, to build their deep desire for inventing themselves. And give them a creative, scholarly, structured outlet in which to productively explore that.

Andrew:

And, as you say, that makes a lot of developmental sense.

Let’s change gears. This document talks about three essential brain networks: the Executive Control Network, the Default Mode, and the Salience Network.

This is essentially a neuroscientific way of thinking about learning.

Another approach is the psychological approach: let’s think about motivation, let’s think about attention, let’s think about working memory.

When you talk with teachers about this neuroscientific approach, does it deepen their understanding of the psychological framework? Does it conflict with it? Does it confuse it?

Mary Helen:

I think it really does [deepen their understanding]. I hope it does. My aim was to teach educators about the dominant models of brain development right now.

There are hundreds and hundreds of studies demonstrating how these networks work. And those networks had really not been explained to educators to this point.

What you notice about them is: none of them is emotional or cognitive. These networks are both [emotional and cognitive] all the time. No one of them is the social network. They all have a role to play in sociality.

Andrew:

In the past you’ve written that there’s relatively little neuroscience that teachers need to know. So this approach is quite a change for you.

Mary Helen:

Well, not really. What I really think people do need to know is about human development. And one of the sources of evidence is neural development.

Understanding the basic functionality of the [neural] system is important for supporting the development of the person.

And don’t get me wrong: in some of the best schools in the world the teachers don’t know diddly squat about brain development.

But they really, really understand what their aim is for their students. They know in a deep way about the kinds of thinking and relating and reflection that they want their students to be capable of.

And in that case you don’t need the neuroscience anymore.

I think we need it in the United States because we have such a faulty model of how learners learn, and what to do when they’re not doing as well as we would like.

I’ve written several papers about the default mode network for example. We in education are potentially undermining the development of deep thinking, deep understanding, deep integration of content because of our overly task-oriented focus.

We shift people into an outwardly directed task-oriented state too much at the expense of reflection and synthesis that happens internally in a narrative constructive process.

Andrew:

So much of our vision of good teaching is a kind of a performance. It’s external, it’s what the students are doing.

Mary Helen:

That’s right. It’s about what you do, it’s not about how you think. And good thinking takes time. It takes skills for reflecting. Those skills are often neglected in our schools.

We have this kind of “frantic productivity model” which is basically a lie about what meaningful accomplishments students are actually accomplishing.

Andrew:

The “frantic productivity model” sounds a lot like schools where I’ve worked.

American education has been battling between constructivism—“inquiry-based” and “project-based learning”—on the one hand, and direct instruction on the other.

Your brief is calling for a truce. You say that these approaches can work well together, and we’re looking for a wise balance.

My question is: as a teacher how do I know when I’ve gotten that balance right? What does that feel like? What does it look like?

Mary Helen:

Yeah, great question.

So here’s the thing: this is where the teaching skill comes in.

And what skill do you need to have? What teaching artistry do you need to have? You need to deeply understand your students, and deeply understand your aim for them.

What’s your intent in the lesson?

Too much of what we do in education is designed around an outcome—a “learning outcome.”

Instead, it should be designed around this question: what are the kinds of mental capacities and habits of minds that students will be practicing?

To balance constructivism with direct instruction, think about the how much more than the endpoint. And then the answer will look really different in different contexts: different kids, different content, different supports and scaffolds, at different times.


At this point, our conversation turned to a description of a specific school focusing exactly on these complex questions and difficult choices.

That discussion was so interesting that it deserves its own blog post. I’ll have that live for you within the month.

Surprise: The Adolescent Brain Isn’t Broken
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Chapter 2 of Inventing Ourselves: The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain kicks off with a teenager’s diary entry from April of 1969:

I went to arts centre (by myself!) in yellow cords and blouse. Ian was there but he didn’t speak to me. Got rhyme put in my handbag from someone who’s apparently got a crush on me. It’s Nicholas I think. UGH.

Man landed on moon.

This anecdote marvelously captures common perceptions of adolescence.

adolescent brain

Self absorbed. Dotty about crushes and boys/girls and clothes. Too addled by hormones to focus on epochal events — like, say, Neil Armstrong’s small step onto the moon.

In Defense of the Adolescent Brain

Researcher Sarah-Jayne Blakemore would like to change your mind about all of these perceptions.

Drawing on decades of research, she focuses on one essential claim. Teenagers’ brains aren’t incomplete versions of adult brains. They’re not hyper-hormonal versions of children’s brains.

Instead, adolescence results from distinct, meaningful neural developments. Teenagers do the developmental work that their life stage calls upon them to do. Their brains help them along with exactly this task.

The Stories that Science Tells

More than most researchers, Blakemore manages to describe scientific studies precisely and readably.

You get a very clear picture of what researchers did, and why they designed their experiments as they did. And: what they learned from doing so.

And yet, you’re never bored or baffled. Blakemore’s descriptions just make sense.

(I try to do exactly this almost every day on this blog, so I can tell you: that’s REALLY hard to do well.)

As a result, you’ll come away with a clearer understanding of the cognitive developments that take place during the teenage years.

Also, some of the surprising deficits. (Teenagers are worse than 10-year-olds at recognizing emotional facial expressions!)

By the way: teens also don’t recognize the difference between high- and low- stakes as well as we would expect.

Because of Blakemore’s clarity, you’ll also know how we know each of these truth.

Conclusions

Blakemore doesn’t end with a step-by-step program for teaching or parenting teens.

Instead, she offers a way of thinking about this vital stage of development.

She helps us step back from day-to-day adolescent conflicts to see the bigger neuro-biological picture.

For example: it’s not just teenagers who drink more alcohol with their peers. Adolescent MICE drink more alcohol when surrounded by other adolescent mice. No, really. (See page 4.)

She also resists the popular temptation to rage against technology use. Based on her lab’s analysis (undertaken by one-time LatB blogger Kate Mills), we don’t really know enough about technology use to draw firm conclusions about its perils.

In particular, we don’t have good at all about the influence of adults’ technology use on the children around them.

In brief, we should read Blakemore’s book not for quick solutions but for long-term perspectives.

 

Teenagers, Hormones, and Other Stubborn Myths
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

teenage hormones

There’s a short video about adolescence making the rounds on social media.

The video offers a quick explanation for highly-emotional teenage behavior. And it has a suggestion or two for parents.

The suggestions themselves make good sense:

Reassure your child that s/he’s normal.

Listen. (Ahem: turn off your cellphone first.)

Take courage: adolescence is a phase, and doesn’t last forever. (And, keep in mind: good things are happening in the brain as it matures.)

However, its “quick explanation for highly-emotional behavior” misses the mark.

This video returns to that old nemesis: teenage hormones.

The Fact and Fiction of Teenage Hormones

True enough, physical maturation does trigger a new hormone profile at puberty. And, those hormones do affect bodies and behaviors. So, this explanation isn’t entirely incorrect.

However, it’s substantially misleading.

In her book The Teenage Brain, Frances Jensen summarizes the “misconceptions and myths about the teenage brain and teenage behavior than are now so ingrained they are accepted as societal beliefs.”

The first misconception/myth on her list? “Teens are impulsive and emotional because of surging hormones” (p. 4).

Instead, we should focus on changes in neural development, especially myelination.

Here’s the short version: brains communicate (in part) with electrical signals. Many of those signals are carried by “uninsulated” wires.

As we age, the brain takes care to insulate more wires. That is: it covers them with myelin.

That process results in lots of good stuff. But, it takes time, and produces some real bumps along the way.

For instance: when the parts of the brain that generate emotional behavior (say, the amygdala and the nucleus accumbens) are more myelinated than the parts that control it (say, the prefrontal cortex), that imbalance allows for bad decisions and emotional over-reactions.

When trying to understand adolescent behavior, we should focus less on teenage hormones and more on the normal process of neuro-biological development.

Some Handy Sources

If you’re really interested in this topic, you should look at Jensen’s book. Also:

The Behavioral Neuroscience of Adolescence by Linda Spear

Age of Opportunity by Laurence Steinberg

Untangled by Lisa Damour

One more book I’d like to recommend: Inventing Ourselves: The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain.

Its author, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, has done lots of the research behind the “imbalance hypothesis.” And, the book just won the Royal Society Book Prize.

For all these reasons, I assume it’s great. However, I haven’t read it yet, so I can’t be certain. I’ll update this post once I’ve got a confident view, one way or the other.