Skip to main content
(How) Do Emotions Affect Learning?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

When a conference speaker announces that “a student’s emotions matter for their learning,” few teachers rock back in surprise. OF COURSE emotions matter for learning. Who would have thought otherwise?

At the same time, we’re probably curious to know how emotions influence learning.

A young student with long dark hair stands pensively by a school hallway window, clutching a green notebook and wearing a blue scarf over her white uniform shirt. Her expression appears troubled or thoughtful as she gazes outside. In the background, other uniformed students interact in the corridor. The image captures a moment of isolation or contemplation within the busy school environment, suggesting themes of teenage emotional challenges in educational settings.

In fact, once we ask that question, some sense of surprise might start to creep in. After all, the word “learning” falls squarely in the realm of cognition. And the word “emotion” sounds much more like … well … emotion.

 

Aren’t cognition and emotion two different sets of mental processes? If they are, how does one affect the other?

Here’s where research can be really helpful, if we read it carefully.

One of the best known (and most misunderstood) insights in this field comes from LatB regular Mary Helen Immordino-Yang:

“It is literally neurobiologically impossible to think deeply about things that you don’t care about.”

Why? Because — in the words of a recent study led by Benjamin Hawthorne — “the brain mechanisms that give rise to conscious emotions are not fundamentally different from those that give rise to cognition.”

In other word: the parts of your brain that do the emotional work also do the thinking work. Yes, LOTS of the same neural networks operate in both processes. These two seemingly “different sets of mental processes” share very substantial plots of neural real estate. (I will, by the way, come back to the misunderstanding of Dr. Immordino-Yang’s quotation at the end of this post.)

So, STEP ONE in this multi-step argument: “students’ emotions influence their learning because — at the neurobiological level  — ’emotion’ and ‘cognition’ overlap.

Step Two

With this neuroscience understanding of the cognition/emotion relationship established, let’s turn to psychology. What mental processes might explain this relationship?

One potential answer: WORKING MEMORY (often abbreviated as WM)If emotions — positive or negative — have an effect on WM, then we can easily understand how those emotions affect learning.

This hypothesis is at the heart of that recent study, led by Dr. Hawthorne, that I quoted a few paragraphs ago.

Hawthorne’s team explored this question through the concept of “cognitive load theory.” The full theory is too complicated to review here, but the headlines are straightforward:

  • Students who can manage a WM task are facing an appropriate cognitive load.
  • When that cognitive load becomes excessive, then they experience WM overload.

Team Hawthorne hypothesized that:

  • negative emotions (or what the researchers call ‘painful’ emotions) might increase cognitive load, and thus result in WM overload. Result: less learning.
  • positive emotions might reduce cognitive load, and thus make WM overload less likely. Result: same (or more) learning.

Because they have this cognitive load theory framework (often abbreviated as CLT), they can rely on all the tools and surveys that CLT uses.

What Students Did; What Reseachers Learned

To pursue this line of inquiry, Hawthorne and his team followed a straightforward plan.

Roughly 350 students — 11 to 15 year olds in Australian schools — went through this process during their math class. In brief, they…

… watched videos teaching increasingly complicated algebra processes (that is: their cognitive load increased over time),

… rated their own experience of cognitive load for each problem,

… rated their positive and negative emotions, and

… took a final test, to see how well they learned the algebra processes.

When Team Hawthorne put all these data into the appropriate graphs and charts, they arrived at an interesting pair of results.

First:

Yes, negative emotions add to the students’ perceived cognitive load. Result: less learning.

Second:

But: positive emotions had no effect on their perceived cognitive load — although  happier students did learn more.

And so, third:

Hawthorne’s team speculates that positive emotions might help cognition via another mental process … such as motivation.

What’s a Teacher to Do?

Given these results, we might reasonably ask: “so what? What can we do with these findings?”

Good questions. I have tentative answers.

First: we now have good reasons from two distinct scientific disciplines — neuroscience and psychology — to argue that emotion and cognition aren’t different categories: they overlap a lot.

Second: we know that students experiencing more negative emotion ALSO experience more cognitive load. Potential result: less learning.

Third: because of ambiguity in the study’s language, we can’t say if the negative emotions led to the higher cognitive load, or if the higher load led to negative emotions. (Because the study measured students’ emotions only once, we can’t know if the answer is “both.”)

For that reason, I think we need a rough-n-ready, flexible set of classroom responses.

  • If I see my students are upset, I can predict their WM might be reduced; I’ll need to simplify instruction for a while.
  • If I see my students’ just can’t get their WM in gear right now, I might wonder if there’s some emotional complexity underlying the problem. So: I should check out that hunch.

Neither of these suggestions is revolutionary, but they do let me think through the two-way relationship between negative emotion and WM.

A Two-Way Street

A few hundred words ago, I wrote that Dr. Immordino-Yang’s well-know quotation is widely misunderstood. When she says:

“It is literally neurobiologically impossible to think deeply about things that you don’t care about.”

Many people hear:

“And therefore we have to start by getting students to CARE about things, because otherwise they won’t learn about them.

In other words: students’ EMOTIONS preceed their COGNITION.”

But that conclusion a) violates the research we’ve been looking at, and b) doesn’t follow logically from the original statement. Let’s try another example:

“It is literally biomechanically impossible to walk (normally) without using your ankle joints.”

We should not, I think, extend this statement to say:

“We have to start by getting walkers to focus on their ANKLES, because otherwise they can’t walk.”

The sentence really means: “ankles are an essential sub-component of the walking process. They are one of many body parts that we should be aware of as we’re teaching walkers.”

So too, I think, Dr. Immordino-Yang’s statement means: “emotion and cognition always work together. Rather than prioritize one over the other, we should be aware of their intricate interactions as we make moment-by-moment teaching decisions.”

In other words:

Yes, of course, my emotional state influences my ability to think effectively. If I’m stressed and unhappy, I might well struggle to figure out whatever academic problem faces me.

AND

Yes, of course, my ability to think effectively influences my emotional state. If I accomplish a difficult thinking task — like, say, learning a complex algebra process — I might well feel less bad and more good.

The title of this blog post asks: “how do emotions affect learning.”

I hope I’ve persuaded you that the answer is: “don’t rely on people who offer a simple answer to that question. Emotion and cognition overlap substantially, and we must keep that overlap in mind as we think our way through leading schools and classrooms.”

And also: “at a minimum, we have good reason to think that negative/painful emotions complicate working memory. No wonder they’re bad for learning!”


Hawthorne, B. S., Slemp, G. R., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Hattie, J. (2025). The relationship between positive and painful emotions and cognitive load during an algebra learning task. Learning and Individual Differences117, 102597.

Awe by Dacher Keltner
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

aweWe often center our lives around familiar emotions like joy, sadness, anger, anxiety, or disgust, using them to shape our narratives and interpret experiences. Yet, there’s a whole spectrum of more complex and often overlooked emotions that deeply enrich our lives. Take for instance—that profound mix of humility, wonder, and connection you might feel while gazing at a breathtaking sunset or witnessing an act of pure altruism. In those moments, you’re reminded of how small you are in the grand scheme of things, yet deeply connected to something much larger.

In his thought-provoking book, Awe: The New Science of Everyday Wonder and How It Can Transform Your Life, Dacher Keltner explores the transformative power of awe and how it can elevate our lives. He invites us to transcend beyond routine and mundane limited attention, helping us find meaning and richness in everyday moments. Through awe, we can reconnect with the beauty of our own story and discover a more expansive, fulfilling way of living.

Keltner, a psychology professor and expert on emotions, defines awe as the experience of encountering something vast and beyond our understanding. Through a blend of personal stories, scientific research, and cultural insights, he reveals how moments of awe—big or small—can reduce stress, spark creativity, deepen our connections, and foster a greater sense of purpose. Research shows that awe lowers cortisol levels, boosting emotional well-being and promoting a sense of calm. It even has physical benefits, like reducing inflammation, improving heart health, and enhancing overall resilience.

At the core of the book, Keltner delves into eight primary sources of awe—universal experiences that resonate deeply with us all:

  • Moral beauty: Witnessing acts of courage, kindness, or strength that inspire us to be better.
  • Nature: The breathtaking vastness of mountains, oceans, or a starry sky that makes us feel small yet deeply connected.
  • Collective effervescence: The electrifying energy of a concert, a sports game, or a shared moment in a crowd.
  • Music: Those goosebump-inducing melodies that stir our emotions and remind us of life’s depth.
  • Art and architecture: The beauty of great paintings, sculptures, or awe-inspiring buildings that showcase human creativity.
  • Spirituality and religion: Moments of transcendence found in mindfulness, prayer, or meditation.
  • Life and death: The raw emotional power of witnessing birth or contemplating the end of life.
  • Epiphanies: The sudden clarity of a life-changing idea or realization.

While these categories capture the essence of awe, the emotion itself is profoundly personal and can emerge from countless unexpected moments

Keltner’s writing feels like a heartfelt conversation with a wise friend. He doesn’t just present data; he shares personal reflections, including how awe helped him through moments of grief and loss, making his insights feel real and relatable. Yes, awe can be found in death and grief and we are taken on a journey with the author as he experiences this himself. It was in fact the death of his brother that brought him to appreciate this colorful emotion.

Importantly, Keltner doesn’t shy away from awe’s complexities, exploring how it has been used throughout history to manipulate or dominate. This balanced perspective adds depth to his exploration, reminding us of the need to approach awe responsibly.

One of the most inspiring takeaways is that awe is accessible to everyone. You don’t need wealth or extraordinary experiences to feel it. Awe lives in the everyday: the beauty of the clouds, a powerful piece of music, or a stranger’s small act of kindness. These moments remind us of life’s vastness, offering perspective and a renewed sense of purpose.  Teachers, parents, and anyone looking to enrich their lives will find practical ideas, from encouraging kids to explore nature to fostering a sense of wonder in everyday moments.

Ultimately, Awe is a powerful invitation to slow down, pay attention, and savor the beauty and mystery all around us. Whether you’re a teacher hoping to inspire students, a parent looking to create meaningful family moments, or simply someone wanting to feel more connected to the world, this book offers a practical and uplifting guide to living a richer, more awe-filled life.

So why not pause today—step outside, lose yourself in a favorite song or appreciate the beauty of everyday human interactions? As Keltner beautifully illustrates, those moments of wonder aren’t just fleeting joys; they’re transformative experiences that can shape how we see ourselves, each other, and the world.

Research Advice That’s New + Useful: Improve Learning by Reappraising Emotions?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Research benefits teachers if it gives us new, useful ideas.

We can feel relief and gratitude if research simply confirms our prior beliefs — that is, if it doesn’t give us “new” ideas — but we don’t necessarily reap substantial benefit from such confirmations.

A happy student wearing a vest, bow tie, and an upside-down colander on his head, holding a finger up in the air as lightbulbs glow around him

Likewise, research that offers a new perspective but doesn’t inform our teaching feels disappointing. If I can’t do something with the research-based perspective, I’m not sure why I should dwell on it very long. (Most teachers just don’t have time for pointless dwelling…)

So: our sweet spot is, “research that gives new, useful advice.”

Strangely, research into emotions and learning can struggle to fit both those criteria.

For instance, we’ve got lots of research saying—in effect—“don’t be mean to your students.”

That advice sounds useful (criterion #2), but not particularly new (criterion #1). How many people come to Learning and the Brain conferences thinking: “I wonder if research encourages me to taunt my nine-year-olds…”?

So too, I’m glad to see research saying that “the teacher’s sense of humor can lift students’ spirits.” At the same time, that research doesn’t offer much new information; does anyone seriously think that humor is a bad thing?

And I’m not sure how useful such research is. If a teacher isn’t especially funny, the advice “You, be funny!” doesn’t sound very practical. (It’s hard to learn to be taller; it’s also hard to learn to be funnier.)

Because I don’t often find emotion research in this “new + useful” sweet spot, I don’t often write on this topic.

Today’s News

One researcher who does work in the “new + useful” zone is Dr. Sarah Rose Cavanagh, currently at Simmons University.

In a recent study, she and colleagues explored this sensible logical chain:

First: if students feel better during class, they just might learn more.

Second: we’ve got strategies to help students feel better.

Third: so, let’s see if those “feel better” strategies work in class, and do help students learn more!

This plan sounds so sensible. In fact, depending on the study’s findings, it might give us advice that is “new + useful”!

To check out this possibility, Team Cavanagh used two different “feel better” strategies.

The first included “cognitive reappraisal.” Students got brief training in deliberately rethinking their negative experiences. For instance, they were shown this prompt:

“IF I find myself becoming irritated and frustrated with my progress, my professor, or my peers, or find myself feeling lost and confused, THEN I will instead think that the best rewards in learning occur by working through initial confusion.”

You can feel the deliberate reappraisal process here: “instead of thinking THIS, I’ll choose to think THAT.”

The second strategy to help students manage negative emotions is the (more familiar) mindful meditation perspective. As part of their training, students got this prompt:

“IF I find myself becoming nervous about my performance in answering questions in class or on quizzes or tests, or about my grade in the class, THEN I will instead let this nervousness be, accepting it as it is, not trying to change it or make it go away.”

Cavanagh also had a control group as well.

So, here are some of the key questions:

Did these “feel better strategies” work? Did the students rate their emotional state more positively after receiving them?

Did they help students learn more in the short term — that is, at the end of class?

How about the long term — that is, on the final exam?

What did Cavanagh’s team find?

So Many Envelopes

As you can see, Cavanagh’s study produced LOTS of data, and requires careful parsing.

To focus on a simple summary, Cavanagh found that most of those questions get the clear answer “NO.”

As in:

No, neither cognitive reappraisal nor mindful meditation improved the students’ ratings of their mood (compared to the control condition);

No, students didn’t think they learned any more — and (based on quiz results at the end of class) they didn’t learn any more.

Amidst all this “no” news, Cavanagh did get one “YES”:

Yes, students who used cognitive reappraisal (but not mindful meditation) remembered more information on the final exam.

In this one sentence, it seems to me, we’ve found research-based advice that’s both new + useful.

NEW: Although I’ve read about cognitive reappraisal in the past, I’ve never thought to train my students in doing so.

USEFUL: This intervention sounds quite simple to do…and produced the results I care about: long-term learning!

That’s a powerfully tempting combination.

Now I’m A Believer?

I don’t typically make strong recommendations based on one study. In this case, I’ve checked out my usual sources (scite.ai, connectedpapers.com, elicit.org), and found…not much. We just don’t have lots of research on the benefits of cognitive reappraisal in typical classrooms.

I am, however, drawn to this study for a few reasons.

First: the modesty of its conclusions inspires trust. Cavanagh’s own research disconfirmed most of her hypotheses — so I’m likelier to trust her and her team for the one that came through.

Second: it rhymes with other research I trust.

Specifically, mindful meditation has many enthusiastic proponents; I know lots of people who believe it will cure all sorts of school-based ills. However, as I wrote in 2022, an ENORMOUS study (8000+ participants!) showed essentially no benefit to mindfulness practices in schools.

I understand why this study included mindfulness as an option, and I don’t doubt there was real enthusiasm for this strategy. But Cavanagh got the same results as that 8000 person study. This congruence — in the face of such potential pressures — increases my confidence.

 

For all these reasons, I will keep an eye out for more research on cognitive reappraisal and its classroom benefits. If you try this strategy in your classroom, I hope you’ll let me know how it goes.


Cavanagh, S. R., Lang, J. M., Birk, J. L., Fulwiler, C. E., & Urry, H. L. (2021). A multicourse, multisemester investigation of the impact of cognitive reappraisal and mindfulness instruction on short-and long-term learning in the college classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology7(1), 14.

Advice: It Is Better to Give than Receive
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

When students struggle, we typically offer them advice. It seems obvious to think that receiving advice might help them learn.

What if we tried a different approach? What would happen if we thought that giving advice might help students learn?

Several researchers–including Angela Duckworth–recently tried this approach in a large high-school study. Almost 2000 students participated.

Working at a computer, students offered advice to “an anonymous younger students who was hoping to do better in school.” Specifically, they answered 14 questions on how and where to study.

They also wrote a brief motivational letter.

The Theory Behind The Practice

Duckworth & Co. hypothesized that this brief advice session might help advice-giving students for three reasons:

First: they might actually believe the advice they offer. (Psychologists call this the “saying is believing” effect.)

Second: when they offer this advice, they might come up with specific plans to apply it to their own studying.

Third: “giving advice, unlike receiving advice, can increase confidence.”

So, what happened?

When Small Effects Aren’t Small

The researchers kept track of grades in two courses: a) math, and b) a course that students themselves identified as one in which they particularly wanted to improve.

The students completed the advice exercise at the beginning of the 3rd quarter. Would that make a difference, compared to the control group, at the end of the 3rd quarter?

The short answer: yes, a little bit.

On the graphs, the 3rd quarter grades in the advice group look about 1 point higher than those in the control groups. In stats terminology, Cohen’s d was 0.12 for the class the students chose, and 0.10 in math class.

Did those effects last? Not really. By the end of the 4th quarter, the differences were no longer statistically significant.

At first, these data seem quite discouraging. The intervention didn’t make much of a difference, and didn’t make a lasting difference.

Duckworth’s team, however, feels much more optimistic.

First, most interventions have no effect at all. A small effect is better than none.

And, second, most interventions cost a lot. This one cost … [does quick calculation on back of envelope] … practically nothing. Even the opportunity cost is small: the whole exercise lasted eight minutes!

What’s Next?

I suspect that other researchers will pick up on this approach, and we’ll see other studies exploring it. (Joshua Aronson tried a similar strategy to combat stereotype threat back in 2002, and had similarly good results.)

In the meantime, what should teachers do?

First, I think we can adapt this approach to our own work. If our schools have a mentoring program, or a buddy system–or, heck, if our students have younger siblings, we’ve got a natural opportunity for this confidence-building approach.

Second, I think we ought to offer students some guidance about the advice they give. If the “saying is believing” effect consolidates beliefs about learning styles, for example, that would be counter-productive. A small menu of suggestions might be good for everyone involved.

Third: if an eight-minute intervention had an effect that lasted a few months, surely we could create more than one opportunity to give advice. Repeated doses of this educational medicine might be lots more helpful than just one.

If you try this approach in your classrooms, I hope you’ll let me know about your results.

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.

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.

Handshakes at the Door: Hype, or Helpful?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

You’ve seen the adorable videos. Teachers have special handshakes they use to greet students as they enter the classroom. For instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0jgcyfC2r8

I can’t help but smile when I see a video like that. What could set a better mood to start an academic day?

Of course, I’d smile even more if we had research to show such a strategy might be effective.

Well, let me shake your hand this morning with good news: we do have such research.

Beyond Cute Videos

All teachers recognize the problem. In the hallway between classes, students revel in their freedom. We want them to settle down and get working.

How can we best make that vital tonal transition happen?

A large research team investigated a proactive strategy they call “positive greetings at the door.” The strategy focuses on two steps:

First: greeting each student positively at the door: “Good morning, Dan — great hat!”

Second: offering “precorretive” reminders: “We’re starting with our flashcards, so be sure to take them out right away.”

The researchers trained five teachers (in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades) in these strategies.

Happily, the researchers did a great job to ensure the validity of their research. For instance, the control group was not merely five other teachers going about “business as usual.” Instead, this control group was also trained by school administrators in other classroom management strategies.

In other words: all ten teachers got training. Five practiced “positive greetings”; five practiced “attention control.” Overall, more than 200 students were in these classrooms.

The Envelope Please

What effect did all these greetings and all these proactive reminders have?

Researchers video-taped classes before and after these trainings.

For the control group, little changed. Time on task was in the mid-to-high 50%, while disruptive behaviors took place about 15% of the time.

For the positive greeting group, researchers saw big changes.

Time on task went from the high-50% to more than 80% of the time.

Disruptive behaviors fell from ~15% to less than 5% of the time.

All that from positive greetings.

Will This Strategy Work for Each of Us?

Researchers chose classrooms that were both racially and economically diverse.

At the same time, they asked principals to nominate classes that had seen higher-than-average levels of disruption.

That is: if your class is already well behaved, you might not see much of a change. (Of course, if your class is already well behaved, you don’t really need much of a change.)

Another important point: the video above shows a teacher demonstrating verve and drama. If that level of energy doesn’t match your style, don’t worry. You DO NOT need a big performance to make the strategy work.

You can keep it simple and quiet.

Stand at the door. Greet students by name. Perhaps shake their hands. Give them proactive reminders of how to start well.

The volume level doesn’t matter. Your daily personal reconnection with each student does the work.

Two Swings, Two Misses: The New York Times on Education
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Two recent articles in the New York Times have gotten lots of teacherly attention.

What’s Love Got to Do With It?

The first, an op-ed by David Brooks, announces that “students learn from people they love.”

Brooks’s piece includes some heart-warming anecdotes, and name checks some important researchers: Antonio Damasio, for instance, and Mary Helen Immordino-Yang.

(Everyone admires Immordino-Yang’s work. An interview with her appeared on the blog just six weeks ago.)

The hyperbole of the headline, however, strikes me as profoundly unhelpful. “Love” just isn’t a useful word for considering the research that Brooks cites.

Said differently: lots of people learn all sorts of things from people they don’t love.

Students learn better when they have strong positive relationships with their teachers.

They learn better when they feel safe and taken care of.

They learn better with appropriate levels of stress. (Not “lots and lots,” but not “none” either.)

By all means, teachers should keep emotions in mind when we teach. But if “love” isn’t central to your teaching, don’t let Brooks worry you.

(Honestly: too much talk about “love” makes me worry about professional boundaries. We should respect and care about our students. Let’s keep it at that.)

Strike Two

The Times also offers an article about memory training techniques.

I often hear from teachers about Moonwalking with Einstein-like strategies for learning list of words and numbers.

(Another favorite: the method of loci — associating words with a string of familiar places.)

While I don’t doubt these strategies help people memorize random collections of names or digits, I have to ask: how often do teachers want our students to do that?

Most teachers answer that question: “almost never.”

As an English teacher, I want my students to understand the meanings of words, or to know how to subordinate a quotation in a participial phrase, or to explain the concept of “group protagonist” in Grapes of Wrath.

I simply can’t think of a long list of random stuff I want them to memorize.

(A student recently told me she’d been required to memorize information about 60 chemical elements. The method of loci might have helped her.

However: a) I’ve yet to find a chemistry teacher who thinks that this homework assignment was a good idea, and b) how much time would it take to learn those memory techniques in the first place?

Oh, and, c) I’m not sure that assignment really happened in the first place. It’s just possible that student exaggerated a smidge.)

In Sum…

Read the Times (or don’t) for its political coverage. Subscribe (or not) for the crosswords.

But: if you see education advice, check with a friendly MBE professional before you make changes in your classroom.

 

This Is Your Amygdala on a Cliff…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

If you’ve seen the documentary Free Solo, you know about Alex Honnold’s extraordinary attempt to climb a 3000 foot sheer rock face.

Without ropes. Without protective gear of any kind.

And without, it seems, a typically functioning amygdala.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF-7H5Dk26E

Free Solo briefly mentions Honnold’s visit to Jane Joseph’s lab. (You see a quick image in this trailer.)

At the time, Joseph studied high sensations seekers: people who are “drawn to intense experiences and are willing to take risks to have them.” That is, for example, people who habitually scale sheer walls of granite.

(Descriptions of Honnold’s visit appear in J. B. MacKinnon’s excellent essay: “The Strange Brain of the World’s Greatest Solo Climber.”)

The Case of the Quiet Amygdala

Using fMRI scanning, Joseph’s team examined Honnold’s brain. In particular, they focused on the reactivity of his amygdalae.

These  small, almond-shaped regions of the brain sit at the tip of the hippocampus. Their function, simply put: to process strong negative emotions, like fear.

(For scrupulous readers, “amygdala” is singular; “amygdalae” is plural.)

Jane Joseph — like many others — wanted to know: did Honnold’s amygdalae react differently than those of others?

To test the question, she showed him 200 pictures, many of them gruesome or disgusting: “corpses with their facial features bloodily reorganized; a toilet choked with feces.”

Neurotypical observers — like the control subject Joseph also scanned — show strong reactions to these images.

Honnold’s amygdalae? Nothing. Nada. Bupkis.

Explaining the Inexplicable

MacKinnon describes Honnold’s free climbing this way:

“On the hardest parts of some climbing routes, his fingers will have no more contact with the rock than most people have with the touchscreens of their phones, while his toes press down on edges as thin as sticks of gum.”

Honnold’s quiet amygdalae might explain his fearlessness. But, what explains his quiet amygdalae? How can you stand 2000 feet about the ground on a stick of gum without gut-tormenting terror?

amygdala

(If you’re like me, your palms start sweating when you see him standing there. Now, imaging being there…)

To be clear, we should note that Honnold does have amygdalae. The MRI scan shows them, looking perfectly normal.

(Very rarely, some people have deformed or absent amygdalae. They don’t typically grow up to be free soloists, but they do demonstrate much less fear than others.)

Two explanations might help us understand Honnold’s remarkable brain. [Edit: to be clear, both these explanations appear in MacKinnon’s article.]

In the first place, genetic variability creates a range for all human functions and characteristics. For example, men average a height of just under 5’10”. The tallest man, however, towers at 8’2″.

In this case, Honnold might have — by the luck of the genetic draw — extremely under-reactive amygdalae.

Beyond Genes

In the second place, he might also have developed techniques for re-evaluating scary/terrifying situations. By mentally “reviewing the tapes” of his climbs, by deliberately re-evaluating them calmly and rationally, he can desensitize himself to the fear that would grip practically anyone else.

In other words: a combination of nature (genetics) and nurture (deliberate re-evaluation) might tame Honnold’s amygdalae, and allow him to face extra-ordinary terrors with extra-ordinary calm.

In just the right conditions, our brains can help our bodies do almost anything. Like: scaling a cliff with preternatural sang-froid.

 

To hear Honnold talk about his experience of fear, click here.

For other strategies to calm the amygdala, click here.

To learn A LOT more about emotions and fear, read Joseph LeDoux’s The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. Also, Behave by Robert Sapolsky.

Edited to credit MacKinnon’s article explicitly for the two explanations of Honnold’s unusual neural inactivity.

The Surprising (Potential) Benefits of Stress
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

How realistically do you process bad news?

stress helpsIf you’re like most people, the answer is: “not very.”

We’ve got lots of research showing that people change their beliefs when they hear good news. However, they don’t change their views much when they hear bad news.

For example: I might ask you, “what are the odds that — in your lifetime — your house will be burgled?”

You answer “40%.”

Later on, I inform you that the real number is 30%. Given your initial estimate, I just gave you good news! You’re safer than you thought.

When I ask you the same question later, you’re likely to update your answer. You might guess 32%. That number is still high, but much more accurate than it was.

However, if you initially guessed “20%,” then the real number “30%” is bad news. You’re in more danger than you thought!

When I ask you the same question later, you probably won’t update your answer much. You’re likely to say “21%.”

You just didn’t process the bad news.

Surprise! Stress Helps

Recently, researchers wondered if stress helps us process bad news more honestly.

To find out, they invited people to their lab and stressed out half of them.

(The stressed-out half heard they would have to give an impromptu speech in front of judges. And, they were given challenging math problems to solve.)

The researchers then asked them several questions like the one above: “how likely is it that your house will be burgled?”

How honestly did these participants process the correct information they got?

As before, the un-stressed participants learned from the good news, but not from the bad.

However, the research team found that stress helps. That is: the participants who worried about their upcoming public speaking gig processed the bad news as well as the good.

Next Steps

The research team double checked their results with fire fighters in Colorado. They got the same results. That’s helpful news.

However, all of this research focuses on adults. The average age in the first study was about 25 years. In the second study, 43 years.

We know that adolescents and children process emotions quite differently. So: we should cross our fingers and hope that the researchers try out their idea with school-aged children.

The more we understand the benefits as well as the detriments of stress, the better we can help our students navigate the appropriate challenges that school provides.

——————————————————————————————

For further thoughts on stress in schools, check out this earlier blog article by Rose Hendricks.

And, for fun, here’s a video of the lead researcher talking about some of his earlier work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1-1rbBarCk