The Bigger Picture: When teachers convert averages into absolutes — like, say, the 10 minute rule — we’re likely to miss out on the distinct needs of our particular students.
Today’s Example
Should students listen to music when they study or read?
If we go by averages, the answer is: no! We’ve got data to prove it. We’ve even got meta-analyses.
While mean of the grand distribution may show a small hit to comprehension when background music plays, it’s NOT the case that every child reads a little worse with background music on.
He’s got a specific example in mind:
Some of my students say they like music playing in the background because it makes them less anxious. It could be that a laboratory situation (with no stakes) means these students aren’t anxious (and hence show little cost when the music is off) but would have a harder time reading without music when they are studying.
In other words: psychology research can be immensely helpful. It can produce useful — even inspiring — guidance.
At the same time: when we work with our own students, we should always keep their individual circumstances in mind.
If this student right here needs music to stay focused and relaxed, then data on “the average student” just isn’t the right guide.
I met yesterday with several thoughtful teachers who had resonant questions about education research.
How do we balance factual learning and deep thinking?
What’s “the right amount of stress” during a test?
How can we promote collaboration while honoring individual differences?
And:
What’s the optimal class length?
This question comes up often. Should we have lots of short classes, so every subject meets every day? Should we have a few longer classes, so that we can dig deeply into a particular topic without interruption?
Debates sometimes fall along disciplinary lines. Foreign language and math teachers often want frequent class meetings; English and History teachers typically like bigger chunks of time for discussions.
Science teachers just gotta have 80 minutes to run a lab well.
But: what does research show?
Class Length: What Research Tells Us
As far as I know, we just don’t have a clear answer to that question.
Over at the Education Endowment Fund, for example, they’ve investigated the benefits of block scheduling: that is, a few long periods rather than several short ones.
The finding: we can’t really say. Or, to quote EEF: “There is no consistent pattern in the evidence.”
More precisely:
The evidence suggests that how teachers use the time they are allocated is more important than the length of lesson or the schedule of lessons, and hence that the introduction of block scheduling is unlikely to raise attainment by itself.
By implication, a change away from block scheduling shouldn’t raise attainment either.
The point is not how long we teach but how well we teach with the time we’ve got.
For this reason, I often counsel schools and teachers: before you change your schedule, study human attention systems.
Once teachers know how attention works — and, it’s A LOT more complicated that we might have thought — we’ll be much better at helping students learn. (If you have the chance to attend a Learning and the Brain session about attention: RUN, don’t walk.)
Class Length: What Research Can’t Tell Us
Research doesn’t answer this question, I think, because it can’t. There’s no one correct answer.
If you teach 2nd graders or 7th graders or 11th graders, you’ll probably find that different lengths of time work better.
If you teach in cultures that inculcate patience and concentration, longer classes will work better than in cultures with a more get-up-and-go kind of pace.
The number of students in the class might matter.
The experience of the teacher almost certainly matters.
When your school starts investigating schedules, therefore, I suggest you start with these essentials:
First: study human attention.
Second: don’t design “the optimal schedule.” Design the optimal schedule for your school and your students. It might not work at anyone else’s school, but it doesn’t need to.
A schedule that works for you and your students is the closest to optimal that you can get.
We all want to know if technology benefits learning.
And yet, that question is far too large to answer sensibly. We need to focus.
Do laptops help learning. (There, that’s narrower.)
Do laptops help students take notes?
Do laptops help college students take notes during a lecture?
Now we’ve arrived at a question precise enough research.
Divided Attention?
In a recently-published study, Glass and Kang asked just such a precise question:
In college lecture halls, do technology distractions — especially laptops and cellphones — harm short-term learning? Do they harm long-term retention?
Because Glass teaches college lecture classes, he had the perfect opportunity to investigate this question.
The study design is straightforward. During half of the classes, his students were allowed to use technology. In the other half, they weren’t.
(The study design is a bit more complicated than that. Unless you’re really into research methodology, that’s the essential part.)
Did the absence of technology improve learning?
Divided Attention!
No. And, yes.
In the short term, the technology ban made no difference. Students did equally well on in-class quizzes whether or not they were distracted by their cellphones.
In the long term, however, the ban made a big difference. On the final exam, students scored higher on information they learned during distraction-free classes than on information they learned during classes where laptops were allowed.
How much better? About 7 points better. A jump from an 80 to an 87 is a lot of extra learning.
And here’s an essential point: students scored worse in classes where technology was allowed whether or not they themselves used technology.
As other researchers have found, technology distracts both the users and those around them. Divided attention interferes with retention, no matter whose cell phone does the dividing.
Practical Implications
This study shows, persuasively, that technology interferes with learning when it distracts college students from lectures.
However, it does NOT show that technology is bad for learning, or even that laptops and cellphones are bad during lectures.
In fact, the professor required students use their laptops and cellphones to answer retrieval-practice questions during class.
On “no technology days,” Glass had a proctor stand at the back of the lecture hall to ensure that no one used technology inappropriately. But: all Glass’s students used technology to help them learn. And they all used that technology during the lecture.
That is: technology wasn’t the problem. Misuseof technology was the problem.
To help our students learn, in other words, we needn’t ban technology. Instead, we should ensure that they use it correctly.
We might even share Glass’s research with them, and explain why we’re being so strict. They might not notice a problem in the short term. But in the long run, they’ll learn better with undivided attention.
In the bad old days, schools seem to have thought about learning this way:
There are two kinds of students: smart ones, and not-smart ones. It’s easy to tell them apart.
If you teach it and I learn it, I’m a smart one.
If you teach it and I don’t learn it, I’m a not-smart one.
(To be clear: I’ve never heard anyone say that so crudely. But that tone suffuses the mythic past of our profession.)
Of course, this theory suffers from one deep flaw: it just ain’t true.
Those are simply false learning categories. We all can learn, but we all learn differently.
If I teach it and you don’t learn it, the problem may very well be with my teaching. You might well learn it some other way.
A Solution, A Bigger Problem
And yet, this optimistic reframe comes with perils of its own. If, in fact, “we all learn differently,” then teachers face an almost impossible challenge.
We have to figure out how each of our students learns, and then tailor all lessons for all of them. A class with 30 students requires 30 lesson plans.
How on earth can such a system work?
Another Solution?
Facing this baffling challenge, I would LOVE to sort my students into reasonable categories.
Instead of saying “there are smart students and not-smart students,” I’d rather say “students can be smart this way, or that way, or t’other way.”
With this framework, I can now have three lesson plans, not thirty. Or, I can have one lesson plan that teaches all three ways simultaneously.
For example: maybe left-handed students learn one way, right-handed students learn a different way, and ambidextrous students learn a third way. If true, this model allows me to honor my students’ differences AND create a coherent lesson plan.
As it turns out, people have proposed many (MANY) systems for sorting learners into “reasonable categories.”
Perhaps boys and girls learn differently.
Maybe introverts differ from extroverts.
Perhaps some people have interpersonal intelligence, while others have musical/rhythmic intelligence.
Maybe some learn concretely while others learn abstractly; some learn visually while others learn kinesthetically.
The list goes on.
Another Problem: False Learning Categories
Let’s add one more to that list:
Perhaps we can sort students according to the Myers-Briggs test. This student here is an ENTJ (extroverted, intuitive, thinking, and judging), while that student there is an ISFP (introverted, sensing, feeling, perceiving).
This system allows me to teach with distinct categories in mind, and so makes my teaching life easier.
Alas, this system suffers from a (familiar) deep flaw: it just ain’t true.
In fact, it can’t. For example: the MBTI acts as if extroversion and introversion are two different personality types. In truth, we’ve all got a some of both — and, different settings bring out the introvert or extrovert in each of us.
All of the seemingly “reasonable categories” listed above are, in fact, false learning categories.
Whenever a professed expert suggests you to divide students into different learning categories, assume those categories aren’t valid. Each of us learns our own way.
In a pithy sentence:
You are a learning style of one.
Replacing False Learning Categories with True Ones
That feel-good summary brings us back to the same problem. If each of my students learns differently, then I need to create 30 lesson plans. What to do?
Here’s the good news:
Although we all learn differently, we resemble each other more than we differ.
We all use working memory to learn. When teachers prevent working-memory overload, we benefit all our students. (Including the “introverts” and the “ENTJs.”)
We all use attention to learn. When teachers learn about alertness, orienting, and executive attention, we benefit all our students. (Including the “auditory learners” and the boys.)
Long-term memories form the same way for us all. Spacing, interleaving, and retrieval practice help (almost) all of us learn (almost) everything. (Yup: including the “abstract learners.”)
And so: teachers don’t need to pigeon-hole our students into particular learning categories.
Instead, we can focus on categories of cognitive function. The more we learn about the mental processes that enhance (or inhibit) learning, the more we truly benefit all of our students.
If you’re like me, you get this question often. Especially on a beautiful spring day…
But do your students have a point? Might there be good reasons to move class outside every now and then?
Outdoor Class Advantage: What We Know
We’ve already got research suggesting that your students might be on to something.
Some researchers suggest that classes outside help restore student attention.
Other studies (here and here) indicated that they might enhance student motivation as well.
We’ve even got reason to think that exposure to green landscape helps students learn. For example: this study in Michigan suggests that natural views improve graduation rate and standardized test scores.
None of the evidence is completely persuasive, but each additional piece makes the argument even stronger.
Outdoor Class Advantage: Today’s News
If I’m a skeptic about outdoor class, I might make the following argument. Outdoor classes might be good for that particular class. However, they might be bad for subsequent classes.
That is: students might be so amped up by their time outside that they can’t focus when they get back indoors.
To explore this concern, Ming Kuo and colleagues put together an impressive study.
Over ten weeks, two teachers taught several pairs of lessons. Half of the time, the first lesson was taught outside. For the other half, the first lesson was taught inside.
Researchers then measured students’ attentiveness during the second lesson in these pairs.
The results?
The Results!
Students were more attentive — A LOT more attentive — after outdoor classes than indoor classes.
In almost 50% of the lessons, attention was a full standard deviation higher after outdoor classes. In 20% of the lessons, it was two standard deviations higher.
Technically speaking, that difference is HUGE.
(By the way: the researchers came up with several different ways to measure attention. Outdoor classes led to improved attention in four of the five measures.)
The Implications
This research suggests that teachers needn’t worry about outdoor classes leading to distraction in subsequent classes.
That finding doesn’t necessarily mean that outdoor classes benefit learning, but it does mean we have fewer potential causes for concern.
If you have a chance, I highly recommend reading The Distracted Mind — especially if you’ll be attending the upcoming conference.
Authors Adam Gazzaley (a neuroscientist) and Larry D. Rosen (a psychologist) explain our current difficulties with attention by looking at — hold on to your hat — foraging theory. If that sounds crazy, let me explain…
Imagine you’re a squirrel foraging for nuts in a particular tree. How long should you spend in this tree, and when should you head out for a neighboring tree?
The answer depends, in brief, on two variables: the richness of the tree you’re in, and the distance to the next tree. If you’re in a particularly nutty tree, you’re likely to stay longer. If another tree is quite nearby, you’re tempted to make the leap sooner than if it were far away.
Gazzaley and Rosen argue that humans are information foragers. We are a curious bunch, and we constantly want to know more: information relevant to our survival, information about people who are close to us, information topics that pique our interest. (Deflate-gate anyone?)
In this framework, technology distracts us so much because it makes information available to us constantly. The cell phone in your pocket is like an oak tree moving closer and closer to a squirrel.
(Gazzaley and Rosen joke that a text message ping is like a tree throwing a nut at a squirrel to say, “Hey! Come forage over here!”)
They support this argument with several chapters detailing the psychological and neurobiological functions behind our attentional systems; they also map the practical effects that these distractions have on learning and on life.
G&R conclude with two chapters of solutions. While their ideas here aren’t revolutionary, the foraging framework they offer helps clarify how and why each of these strategies might improve our concentration and cognition.
By the way: The Distracted Mind is written with admirable clarity. It doesn’t dumb down the science, and it remains lively, clear, and well-organized.
Now that I’ve got your attention: what effect does the location of your cell phone have on your attention?
Researchers have recently found some predictable answers to that question–as well as some rather surprising ones. And, their answers may help us think about cell phones in classrooms.
The Study
Adrian Ward and Co. wanted to learn more about the “mere presence” of students’ cellphones.
That is: they weren’t asking if talking on the phone distracts drivers (it does), or if a ringing phone distracts that phone’s owner (it does), or even if a text-message buzz distracts the textee (it does).
Instead, they were asking if your phone lying silently on the desk in front of you distracts you–even if its not ringing or buzzing.
Even if you’re NOT CONSCIOUSLY THINKING ABOUT IT.
So they gathered several hundred college students and had them complete tests that measure various cognitive functions.
The first group of students left all their stuff–including phones–in another room. (That’s standard procedure during such research.)
The second group brought their phones with them “for use later in the study.” After silencing the phones (no ringing, no buzzing), they were told to put them wherever they usually keep them. Roughly half kept them in a pocket; the other half kept them in a nearby bag.
The third group brought phones along, and were instructed to put them in a marked place on the desk in front of them. (These phones were also silenced.)
Did the proximity of the phone matter?
The Expected Results
As is so often true, the answer to that question depends on the measurement we use.
When the researchers measured the students’ working memory capacity, they found that a cell phone on the desk reduced this essential cognitive function.
Specifically, students who left phones in their bags in another room averaged about a 33 on an OSpan test. (It measures working memory–the specifics aren’t important here.) Those who had cell phones on their desks scored roughly 28.5. (For the stats pros here, the p value was .007.)
If you attend Learning and the Brain conferences, or read this blog regularly, you know that working memory is ESSENTIAL for academic learning. It allows us to hold on to bits of information and recombine them into new patterns; of course, that’s what learning is.
So, if the “mere presence” of a cell phone is reducing working memory, it’s doing real harm to our students.
By the way, the students who had their phones on their desks said that they weren’t thinking about them (any more than the other students), and didn’t predict that their phones would distract them (any more than the other students).
So, our students might TELL US that their phones don’t interfere with their cognition. They might not even be conscious of this effect. But, that interference is happening all the same.
The UNEXPECTED Results
Few teachers, I imagine, are surprised to learn that a nearby cell phone makes it hard to think.
What effect does that phone have on the ability to pay attention?
To answer this question, researchers used a “go/no-go” test. Students watched a computer screen that flashed numbers on it. Whenever they saw a 6, they pressed the letter J on the keyboard. They ignored all the other numbers.
(The researchers didn’t go into specifics here, so I’ve described a typical kind of “go/no-go” task. Their version might have been a bit different.)
To do well on this task, you have to focus carefully: that is, you have to pay attention. Researchers can tell how good you are at paying attention by measuring the number of mistakes you make, and your reaction time. Presumably, the slower you are to react, the less attention you’re paying.
So, how much difference did the cell phone on the desk make? How much slower were the students who had the phone on the desk, compared to those whose phones were in the other room?
Nope. Sorry. No difference.
Or, to be precise, the students who had the phone on the desk reacted in 0.366 seconds, whereas those whose phones were elsewhere reacted in 0.363 seconds. As you can imagine, a difference of 0.003 seconds just isn’t enough to worry about. (Stats team: the p value was >.35.)
Explaining the Unexpected
Ward’s results here are, I think, quite counter-intuitive. We would expect that the mere presence of the phone would interfere with working memory because it distracted the students: that is, because it interfered with their attention.
These results paint a more complicated picture.
The explanation can get technical quickly. Two key insights help understand these results.
Key Insight #1: Attention isn’t just one thing. It has different parts to it.
One part of my attentional system brings information into my brain. I am, at this moment, focusing on my computer screen, Ward’s article, my keyboard, and my own thoughts. Sensory information from these parts of my world are entering my conscious mind.
Another part of my attentional system screens information out of my brain. I am, at this moment, trying not to notice the bubble-and-hum of my cats’ water gizmo, or my cat’s adorable grooming (why is his leg stuck up in the air like that?)–or, really, anything about my cats. Sensory information from those parts of my world are not (I hope) entering my conscious thought.
The attention test that Ward & Co. used measured the first part of attention. That is, the go/no-go task checks to see if the right information is getting in. And, in this case, the right information was getting in, even when a cell phone was nearby.
Key Insight #2: Working Memory INCLUDES the second kind of attention.
In other words, we use working memory to keep out adorable cat behavior–and other things we don’t want to distract our conscious minds. Other things such as–for example–cell phones.
The nearby phone doesn’t interfere with the first part of attention, and so the correct information gets into student brains. For this reason, students do just fine on Ward’s “attention” test.
However, the nearby phone does make it hard to filter information out. It’s bothering the second part of attention–which is a part of working memory. For this reason, students do badly on Ward’s “working memory” test.
Classroom Implications
Ward’s research, I think, gives us some clear pointers about cell phones in classrooms: the farther away the better.
Specifically, it contradicts some teaching advice I’d gotten a few years ago. Some have advised me that students should silence their phones and put them on the desk in front of them. The goal of this strategy: teachers can be sure that students aren’t subtly checking their phones under their desks.
While, clearly, it’s beneficial to silence phones, we now know that their “mere presence” on the desk interferes with working memory.
In brief, we need another solution.
(Sadly, Ward doesn’t tell us what that solution is. But she warns us away from this phone-on-the-desk strategy.)
Implications for Brain Science in the Classroom
Teachers LOVE learning about psychology and neuroscience research because it can offer such helpful and clarifying guidance for good teaching.
(I should know: I’ve spent the last ten years using such research to be a better teacher.)
At the same time, we teachers occasionally stumble into studies like this one where psychology gives us results that seem strange–even impossible.
After all: how can you tell me that cell phones don’t interfere with our students’ attention? And, if they don’t interfere with attention, how can they possibly interfere with something like working memory?
The answer–as described above–is that psychologists think of attention as having multiple parts, and one of those parts overlaps with working memory. Because psychologists define the word “attention” one way and we teachers use it a different way, research like this is potentially very puzzling.
(You can imagine our students reading this study and crowing: “See! Cell phones have NO EFFECT on attention! “)
For this reason, we need to be especially careful when we enter into the world of brain science. Definitions of basic words (“attention,” “transfer,” “significant”) might trip us up.
And so, you’re wise to be attending Learning and the Brain conferences, and to be consulting with experts who know how to read such studies and make sense of them.
In brief: teachers should be modest when we try to interpret primary research in neuroscience and psychology. These fields are so complicated that we just might misunderstand even basic terms.
By the way, the same point holds in reverse. Neuroscientists and psychologists should be modest when telling us how to teach. Our work is so complicated that they just might misunderstand even basic classroom work.
This mutual modesty is–I believe–the basis of our field. We all come together to learn from and collaborate with each other. Our students will benefit from this complex and essential collaboration.
People are inherently information seekers. In today’s high-tech world this tendency can draw us to distraction and keep us from accomplishing our goals. Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Francisco, and Larry Rosen, a psychologist at California State University, Dominguez Hills put forward these ideas in their 2016 book entitled The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High-Tech World. This book will help people who have wondered why they are so susceptible to distractions and interruptions and how they can limit the adverse impacts of distraction on achieving goals.
The human ability to plan and set long-term goals distinguishes us from other species and has allowed our species to achieve greatly. Yet, our cognitive control abilities are limited and can interfere with our ability to set and achieve goals, which can make people dissatisfied. Cognitive control consists of three components: 1) attention, which directs our focus; 2) working memory, which is the ability to maintain and manipulate information in the short-term; and 3) goal management, which allows us to pursue more than one goal at a time.
Because of our limited cognitive control abilities, people are poor multi-taskers. In fact, we cannot actually do two tasks at once; rather, both neuroscientific and psychological evidence demonstrate that people rapidly switch back and forth between tasks. Even though we are not skilled at task-switching, we are often drawn to do so because we are inherently hungry for information, and task-switching helps prevent boredom and anxiety while seeking information. Additionally, ignoring distractions—whether they are from internal mental or external environmental events—is very challenging for people, and even when people want to disengage from a distractor it can take a long time. Indeed, even though we are generally not happy while doing it, people spend nearly 50% of their waking life mind-wandering.
Several factors impact cognitive control. These abilities peak when individuals are in their early twenties. Older adults are just as good as people in their twenties at bringing information to mind, but they are slower at suppressing irrelevant information. The quantity of information people can store in their working memory and the accuracy with which they store it decreases with age in adulthood. Other factors such as genetics, sleep deprivation, and drug or alcohol consumption can also affect cognitive control. There are also some clinical populations—e.g., people with ADHD, Alzheimer’s diseases, and post-traumatic stress disorder—that are known to be more distractible.
Modern technologies, such as the internet, smartphones, and social media, lead to more task-switching, have taxed our cognitive control abilities, and have exacerbated our distracted minds. Teenagers report spending over 30% of the day multitasking. Both teens and older adults struggle to be alone with their thoughts without checking email or a phone application.
Frequent task-switching and excessive media use have adverse impacts on our lives in big and small ways. They have been associated with lower college GPA, more alcohol and drug consumption, and even a rise in hospitalizations due to accidents. They can also hurt our relationships; the mere presence of a phone while conversing undermines trust and empathy between conversational partners. Use of technology is a major contributor to Americans’ substantial sleep deficit. Amount of daily technology use even predicts the severity of one’s anxious, depressive, and narcissistic symptoms. Of concern is that people are extremely poor judges of how successfully they can multi-task.
Fortunately, Gazzaley and Rosen offer several strategies for changing our brains and behaviors to reduce distractibility and increase cognitive control. Traditionally schools have not attempted to directly improve cognitive control. Rather than asking students to memorize content, we should assess and support them in developing cognitive control abilities. Meditation, video game play, time in nature, and dedicated break times may all be ways to enhance cognitive control. There is mixed evidence about so called “brain games” improving cognitive control. Increasingly students are using prescription drugs, such as ADHD medications, which are unlikely to be useful for students without a clinical need. Neuroscientists are testing new ways to improve cognitive control such as through transcranial alternating current stimulation and neurofeedback. Gazzaley and Rosen state that the best way to reduce distractibility may be one of the oldest recommendations of all—getting physical exercise.
The authors argue that to improve our habits we need to recognize the costs of multitasking, design our environments so as to decrease the accessibility of technology, and accept that decreasing interference from technology may take time. Especially if a task is urgent, important, risky, or requires substantial thought, we need to resist the urge to multitask. Changing our media use habits can lead people to be more productive, healthier, happier, and more fulfilled.
Gazzaley, A., & Rosen, L. D. (2016). The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High-Tech World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[Editor’s note: this guest blogger piece is by Cindy Gadziala, Chairperson of Theology at Fontbonne Academy in Milton, MA.]
I am a veteran teacher, and yet sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all that I am supposed to be doing in my 21st century classroom.
The “wave of the future,” instructional technology—with its one-to-one initiatives, and Google platforms—offers many benefits: for example, individualized instruction, or applications that promote problem-solving skills. I have had students demonstrate their learning by creating electronic posters and comic strips. I have even sent them on a virtual archaeological dig!
But, there are days where classroom 102 becomes a battleground; and my enemy appears to be technology. As a Theology teacher I am supposed to love my enemy, but I need the best help I can get.
Enter — brain science!
Technology Problems: Working Memory and Attention
Psychology researchers are working diligently to understand how we get information “in and out” of our brains, and working memory is now understood as an essential gateway for learning. We also know that working memory is both precious and limited. [1]
Part of our challenge in the classroom is to avoid overloading a student’s working memory, thereby causing a catastrophic failure…those glazed looks and blank stares that send a chill through the fiber of any teacher’s being!
So, teachers can employ proactive strategies to reduce the strain on working memory to facilitate learning. For example: lots of new information, or too many instructions, can create working memory burdens for overtaxed students.
And yet, paradoxically, classroom technology can sometimes require students to master new material, and to follow all sorts of instructions.
Just as it might overwhelm working memory, technology can also distract students’ attention.
For example: I often project images from my iPad to help my students focus. And yet, when the projector times out and kicks over to a screen saver, the swirling colors and images can disorient the very students whom I was helping focus.
These kinds of problems intensify all my questions about use of technology in the classroom:
Should I be allowing students to take notes on their laptops and tablets?
What happens to working memory when a student clicks a tab to go someplace else?
How does this affect the working memory of the student seated next to the web surfer?
While I hope that I am creating brilliantly engaging lessons to minimize such distractions, I have my limits.
Enter — “the conundrum!.”
Technology Possibilities
One of the boasts of technology in the classroom has been that students can use their devices for efficient note taking, yet the well-known Mueller and Oppenheimer study [2] suggests that laptops make note-taking too easy. Counter-intuitively, this ease reduces cognitive processing, and thereby reduces learning. Between the risk of distraction and the reduction to learning I hear the cry go forth from teachers everywhere: Victory! Ban technological devices in the classroom!
I have seen kids take amazing notes on a laptop. Often, they work quite thoughtfully with information, creating their own visual representations and mind maps as they go. I do not want to take this beneficial tool away from them.
So, my task is to teach appropriate use of technological devices, build note-taking skills and…oh, by the way…teach content: all without overwhelming my students’ working memory.
I wanted to know: how can I make technology my ally in the classroom to accomplish all these objectives? I have found an option that may help teachers to reduce strain on working memory in class, and facilitate cognitive processing both in class and at home.
Because the Rocketbook has QR codes built into its pages, students can take handwritten notes in class, and then use a cell phone app to upload notes into the cloud. (Rocketbook supports Google Drive and Evernote, for example.)
Symbols on each page can be assigned to different destination folders, and so students can upload work for multiple disciplines to distinct places in the cloud. Once their notes are uploaded, students can re-work them into a mind map or graphic organizer.
From a teacher’s perspective, Rocketbook’s combination of paper and technology provides many benefits:
I reduce the strain on working memory in class because no devices should be open when students are engaged in note taking. In this way, I also make my classroom management easier.
I increase their cognitive processing, because they are writing by hand.
I increase their touches with content, because they are re-organizing their notes into the cloud.
I can use my LMS and Google Drive in concert to make this process part of their homework. When students provide me with a link to their uploaded notes, I can see their work from class, provide feedback on their note taking, see how they are processing and reorganizing the information, and create the opportunity to correct misinformation or redirect them to concepts they missed.
Of course, all innovations include some downsides; in this case, I sacrifice teaching my students about appropriate use of their devices in the classroom.
(A unique feature of the Rocketbook is that when the notebook is full, you can zap it in the microwave; the ink disappears and you start all over!)
Choices, Choices
While I have used the Rocketbook myself and find it both functional and cost effective (under $40.00 for pens and notebook!), there are some other interesting options available that teachers and students could use in a similar fashion. (My thanks to Learning and the Brain tech guru Scott MacClintic for these suggestions.)
First, there is the LiveScribe Echo Pen by Anoto. There are several versions of this product and the functions increase with the price tag. (Average setup cost comes in around $200.00.) The premise here is that as you write your notes, the pen records what is being said in class. This recording allows students to sync notes with the audio, review what was said and expand, revise and reorganize material from class.
While the Echo Pen’s marketing is often directed to LD students, their tagline “write less, listen more” speaks to all learners. If students are coached on how best to use the tool, hearing class again combined with re-working the material could reap cognitive processing benefits.
Equil’s Smartpen 2, (coming in around $160.00) does not offer the audio feature, but it does not require special ink or paper either. When students take notes with a special Bluetooth-enabled pen, those notes appear both on the paper where they write and on a Bluetooth-linked tablet. Like the Rocketbook, in other words, it converts pen-and-paper notes into a laptop version—eliminating potential distractions from websites, advertisements, and Facebook.
In Sum…
While technology offers both challenges and benefits to students and teachers, it is clear to me that there are no magic bullet solutions with technology alone. Teachers cannot abdicate their role to technology. To use it effectively, we need to know how it affects learning and the brain. We must be all the more deliberate in our lesson planning, classroom management, and relationship building with our students.
We equally must inform the art of teaching with the science of the brain. When we start integrating instructional technology, brain science and good pedagogical practice, as teachers we provide truly great opportunities for student learning!
Willingham, D. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers question about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 1-10, doi: 10:1177/0956797614524581. [link]
