Skip to main content
Rewired by Carl Marci
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

rewiredIn Rewired: Protecting Your Brain in the Digital Age, Dr. Carl D. Marci takes readers on a fascinating journey into how our brains are adapting (or struggling to adapt) in the digital age. According to Marci, our brain wiring is not predetermined but develops extensively outside the womb as we encounter new challenges. He seeks to explain the emerging landscape for brain development by exploring the history of media and advertising, setting the stage for the smartphone revolution. What is our brain becoming? Despite our unprecedented connectivity, many of us feel more isolated than ever. Marci argues that our constant engagement with smartphones and social media is reshaping our brain functions, overstimulating our reward centers, and hindering our ability to form deep, meaningful relationships crucial for our mental and physical health.

Marci delves deep into the concept of neuroplasticity—the brain’s incredible ability to reorganize itself based on our experiences, thoughts, and behaviors. This adaptability can lead to both positive and negative changes in our neural pathways. While technology has the potential to contribute to distraction and emotional distress, Marci believes it also offers opportunities for proactive brain reshaping. By engaging actively in our brain’s development, we can influence its structure and function to support personal growth and well-being. But we need to take control rather than allow the digital landscape to determine our path.

The book is divided into three main parts. Part 1, “Wired: Connected Brains,” explores how the evolution of media and advertising has prepared the ground for the smartphone era. It highlights the prefrontal cortex’s crucial role in managing our interactions and behaviors. Part 2, “Rewired: Assaulted Brains,” addresses the negative impacts of smartphone use, such as diminished attention spans, increased multitasking, and the risk of developing unhealthy habits and addictions. Marci emphasizes the importance of understanding these effects at various life stages. Finally, Part 3, “Beyond Wired: Better Brains,” offers practical strategies for mitigating the negative impacts of digital technology. Marci provides actionable recommendations for enhancing brain health through digital literacy and mindful tech use, advocating for a balanced approach that maximizes technology’s benefits while minimizing its potential harms.

Rewired covers a wide range of relatable topics, from porn addiction and FOMO to the influence of advertising on obesity and self-image. It tackles how passive technology use affects cognition, attention, and mental health, supported by well-researched studies that separate fact from fiction. Marci’s focus is not just on the negative aspects but also on the brain’s remarkable power to rewire itself. By harnessing the powers of neuroplasticity and cognitive control, we can mitigate the downsides and amplify the benefits of our digital environment.

Marci outlines key principles affecting neuroplasticity, such as how mindfulness, self-reflection, and healthy habits positively impact brain function. For instance, mindfulness and meditation can increase gray matter density in areas associated with memory, learning, and emotional regulation. Positive habits like regular exercise and a nutritious diet also support brain health, improve cognitive function, and reduce inflammation linked to mood disorders.

The book also explores experience-dependent plasticity, which is the idea that our brains change in response to specific activities. Learning new skills—like playing an instrument or acquiring a new language—creates and strengthens neural pathways. Marci provides compelling examples of how people with learning disabilities or cognitive challenges can improve their cognitive functions through targeted exercises and therapies.

Moreover, Rewired addresses the role of emotions in neuroplasticity. Positive emotions such as joy and gratitude can enhance brain health, while negative emotions like stress and anxiety can impede it. By fostering a positive emotional state through practices like mindfulness and meditation, we can promote beneficial brain rewiring and improve our overall well-being.

Marci also highlights the importance of social connections in supporting neuroplasticity. Positive relationships and meaningful social interactions are vital for brain development and adaptability. Strong social bonds not only contribute to emotional resilience but also enhance the brain’s ability to adapt and grow.

Overall, Rewired is both a critical examination of our digital habits and a practical guide to achieving a balanced life. Dr. Marci provides valuable strategies for managing technology use and restoring genuine connections. While acknowledging the significant changes brought about by smartphones and media consumption, he shows that with conscious effort and healthy practices, we have the power to shape our brain’s future. The book offers a hopeful perspective on navigating the digital age, providing actionable advice to help us thrive in both our virtual and real-world interactions.

Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

anxiousFrom the author of The Coddling of the American Mind, The Righteous Mind, and The Happiness Hypothesis, comes another compelling social commentary that helps us better understand and take part in our social evolution. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the Stern School of Business (NYU), once again asks what kind of society we want to create and empowers us with the knowledge to become agents of change.

In Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, Haidt identifies a critical period between 2010 and 2015 when our phones and computers became more than tools for communication and work, but they became “platforms upon which companies competed to see who could hold on to eyeballs the longest.” (p. 115) Not coincidentally, it was during this same industrial change that the western world saw  a rapid increase in anxiety and depression among teenagers, revealing a society unprepared for the technological upheaval it faced.

Haidt contends that the “virtual world” is disembodied, limiting communication to language without the physical contact and expressive synchronous communication that our brains evolved to master. It’s a world with little real physical risk, offering bursts of addictive dopamine as we scroll from post to post. Individuals can join many communities online but often do so without the social investment and learning necessary in face-to-face interactions. It’s a new world, one which has capitalized on our biology, but one we have not yet biologically or socially evolved to handle in a healthy way.

But this is not an anti-technology book, it’s a book about how two “experience blockers” disrupt the natural trajectory of development, making us lonelier and more anxious. Changes in parenting practices are the second “experience blocker.” Our efforts to keep teens safe have been changing over the decades, we’ve overprotected and overscheduled them, denying them the necessary risk-taking and discovery opportunities essential for brain development during adolescence. We have denied them even the basic joys of unstructured play. But our protections have been unbalanced, linked to his first point, we’ve failed to protect them in the digital world, where there’s no consensus on rites of passage or developmentally appropriate use of technology.

Haidt refers to these combined issues as the “Great Rewiring.” The book provides an excellent historical overview of changes in parenting and adolescent behavior over generations. You’ll see reflections of your parents, grandparents, and children, noticing the significant differences in practices and the physical environment for development. Effective images and graphs drive home his main arguments without overwhelming the reader with data points. The data presented speaks for itself, but lest you have doubts Haidt effectively handles and incorporates arguments he has gotten and wondered over the years. Allow him to open your eyes to the data that led him to writing this book.

While directed at parents, this book is important for socially responsible technologists, scientists, legislators, and educators. Throughout the book, Haidt offers a social scientist’s and parent’s perspective on guidelines for teens’ interaction with technology and social experiences. Supporting his thesis with reams of extensive but easily accessible research, Haidt explains the skills we need to rekindle and the new skills we need to develop to overcome the mental health damage inflicted on a generation by changing parenting practices and social media. He provides specific developmental timetables and strategies, backed by research and parenting experience, explaining how and when certain types of technology should be introduced. While you may not agree with every perspective or suggestion, Haidt’s chapters provide essential talking points and critical issues that must be addressed in our changing world.

Haidt assertively demonstrates that a laissez-faire approach to technology has led to an era of psychological problems that can only be combated with collective change of which we are all individually a part. As technological change shows no signs of slowing, his insights are more crucial than ever. We need to invest individually and in communities through real-world interactions preparing for our future.

To Insta or Not to Insta: That Is the Memory Question
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Here in the US, we’re having something of a national debate about the benefits/harms of social media.

The potential ban of Tik Tok is just the most visible example of the current fervor on the topic.

A serious-looking college student examining her phone

When we consider such heated question, research offers us several benefits.

Specifically, it helps us get past vast and unproveable assertions:

“Social media is destroying a generation!”

“No! Social media will transform education and allow discovery and dialogue across the globe!”

When we turn to a research-based approach, we start asking narrow questions, measuring precise variables, and following well-established protocols.

So, let’s ask one of those precise questions: “does time on social media help consolidate new learning, or does it interfere with new learning?”

A research team in Germany wanted to know just that

Let’s Get Quizzical

Happily, memory researchers have lots of experience in measuring this kind of question. So, they could follow well-established procedures.

In this study, sixty seven college students in Germany learned Icelandic-German word pairs.

Immediately after doing so, half of them chatted away on Facebook or Instagram for eight minutes.

The other half put their heads down and rested quietly for eight minutes.

The research team measured their memory for those word pairs the following day.

Did the social-media users remember more, or fewer, word pairs?

I’m so glad you asked…

Possibilities, Possibilities

Before we open that envelope, let’s consider possible outcomes.

We could predict that social media usage would distract these students from the word pairs that they just learned. So much tweeting and ticking and toking will naturally interefere with memory formation.

Or, we could predict that social media will let students explore and extend their thinking. They might be intrigued by a particular Icelandic word, and start looking up cool Icey stuff and sharing Viking-sounding words with their online friends. All these connections might strengthen memories.

So, which is it?

In this case, the answer was clear: time on social media distracted students and reduced learning. (How much? The Cohen’s d was 0.33; not huge, but certainly noticeable.)

When we set our passions aside, ask a precise question, and measure the answer — we get helpful new data.

 Not So Fast Now…

Although I (for one) am glad to have these data, we always have to acknowledge the limits of our research-based conclusions.

This research was done with German college students learning word pairs.

Would we get the same results with, say, Brazilian 2nd graders learning math?

Or, Japanese students on the autism spectrum practicing art?

We can’t say for sure, because this study didn’t examine those combinations of participants and disciplines. I don’t see any obvious reasons why the results would be different, but we should remain open to those possibilities.

More substantively, this one study does NOT allow us to conclude…

… students who use MORE social media are worse students than those who use LESS, or

… social media destroys children’s ability to focus, or

… parents should forbid their children from using Instagram or Facebook.

Other research studies might answer the first two of those questions; parental judgment will have to take on the third.

All those caveats being duly registered, I think we can draw this reasonable conclusion:

Common sense suggests that that social media use will distract students from stuff they might want to remember — especially they turn to Instagram right away. This research supports that presumption.

Keeping social media away from active learning experiences is — in most cases we can reasonably foresee — almost certainly a good idea.


Martini, M., Heinz, A., Hinterholzer, J., Martini, C., & Sachse, P. (2020). Effects of wakeful resting versus social media usage after learning on the retention of new memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 551-558. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3641

Evolutionary Intelligence by Russell Neuman
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

Neuman-cover-art-e1678309913861I have recently been reviewing human-technology interactions with a team at Brookings, and it is abundantly clear that we all have strong opinions about technology. Questions about technology surface with trepidation, curiosity, and personal doubt: How is technology affecting our development? What should we be worried about? What are the policy implications? What is happening to society? What is fact and what is driven by fear of the unknown? Then I was introduced to a book that addressed just what we needed.

Meet Russell Neuman, the friendly face behind the media technology scene at New York University. As a founding faculty member of the MIT Media Laboratory and a former Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Russell brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the table. Neuman points out that behind the questions above is always a need to not only understand the technology but also a greater need to understand ourselves (our cognition and our history) in his exciting new book, Evolutionary Intelligence: How Technology Will Make Us Smarter.

We are evolving with our technology. Our brains have adapted to help us cover the globe, but those adaptations are also limited by the stretch of our genes and the limits of our biology. With technology, we move beyond the genetic and beyond social biases developing new skills as well as developing new worlds to adapt to. But we are the ones with the agency and the ability and drive to push ourselves forward to create our own futures for better or worse. As Neuman points out, we need to take the reins of responsibility, not with fear but getting to know ourselves.

In this book, readers are invited on a captivating exploration of the intricate interplay between emerging technologies and human cognition. The first chapter unveils the transformative potential inherent in these advancements, emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between humans and machines as the cradle of developing intelligence. Rather than merely admiring technological marvels, the book underscores the paramount importance of human agency and historical context in shaping our technological trajectory. Neuman then offers an intriguing overview of the mechanics behind upcoming technologies, including innovative modes of human-machine interaction like direct-to-brain communication, accompanied by a measured skepticism regarding its implications. But as we are often fearful of AI taking over our lives, there may be some places where the technology can actually overcome our more detrimental natures. The author tackles this head-on, illuminating the potential of AI to rectify systemic prejudices in human perception—a formidable challenge in its own right. However, the fourth appropriately lengthy chapter aptly warns: great innovation demands great responsibility, addressing urgent concerns such as privacy breaches, social disparities, and the erosion of human autonomy in the digital era.

As the author points out, we often do not recognize social revolutions as we are in the middle of them. From this perspective, Neuman adds some fascinating historical context to his argument. Our interactions with new technologies have always been fraught with fear, trepidation, excitement, and misunderstanding. Drawing parallels to Darwin’s insights on evolution, Chapter 6 underscores the pervasive presence of evolutionary intelligence in contemporary society. We are then taken on an exploration across domains of our lives and how technology may interact with these domains from healthcare to finance, highlighting the need for thoughtful navigation in this rapidly evolving landscape. The book is polished off with discussions of our personal responsibility and technology and the ethics of how we are using it and moving it.

Like me, you will fill the book’s pages with highlights and notes that point to important aspects for parents, students, policymakers, and teachers. You will also savor the historical and research tidbits that can make you the life of the party. But it is the framing that makes this a worthwhile read and a personally reflective experience.

So, will AI replace us? It’s not a war but a coevolutionary dance: its evolutionary intelligence. This is a great primer on the important issues preparing you for the so-called singularity, the point at which technology allows us to ‘transcend the limitations of our bodies.’ When is that supposed to be? Futurists agree; this is only about 20 years away. Best to be prepared—join Russell Neuman in a fresh perspective and get to know yourself and the technology that will evolve with you and the new generation of humans.

My Detective Adventure: “VR Will Transform Education” [Reposted]
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Our blogger is off this week. He asked us to repost this piece, because he’ll be chatting with these researchers again soon!


 

A friend recently sent me a link to an article with a click-baity headline: something like “Virtual Reality Will Change Education Forever.”

Man wearing Virtual Reality goggles, making gestures in the air

Her pithy comment: “This is obviously nonsense.” (It’s possible she used a spicier word that ‘nonsense.’)

On the one hand, I’m skeptical that ANYTHING will change education forever. Heck, if Covid didn’t transform education, who knows what will.

More specifically, ed-tech claims about “transforming education” have been around for a long time. Their track record doesn’t dazzle. (Smart boards, anyone?)

On the other hand, I always like to find reserch that challenges my long-held beliefs. After all, if I can’t learn from people who disagree with me, who can I learn from?

So, I followed my usual process.

In essence, I switched into Detective Mode, and started asking lots of questions.

If I ask the right questions, I thought, I’ll get a much clearer picture of potential educational benefits of VR.

Act I: The Investigation Begins

When I reviewed the article my friend sent, I noticed a troubling gap: the article didn’t link to underlying research.

As I’ve written in the past, this absence creates a red flag. If the article champions “research-based innovation,” why not link to the research?

So, I asked my first detective question. I emailed the author of the article and asked to see the research.

How simple is that?

Obviously, any resistance to this request — “sorry, we can’t share that at this moment” — would underline my friend’s skeptical verdict: “nonsense.”

However, the author responded immediately with a link to a research summary.

A promising development…

The Plot Thickens

This research summary showed real promise.

In brief:

Some college students in an introductory Biology course followed the typical path — readings, lectures, labs. (That’s the “control group.”)

Other students in the same course followed an alternative path: readings, lectures, supplementary Virtual Reality experience, alternative labs based on the VR experience.

When researchers looked at all sorts of results, they found that students on the alternative VR path did better.

That is: not only did the students enjoy the VR experiences; not only did they engage more with the material; they (on average) learned more.

However — and this is a BIG however — this research didn’t look like it was published.

In fact, when I asked that direct question, the article author confirmed that the research hadn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Now, the topic of peer review creates LOTS of controversy. The peer-review system has MANY troubling flaws.

However, that system probably reduces the amount of deceptive nonsense that gets published.

I almost never blog about research that hasn’t been peer reviewed, and so I thought my detecting was at its logical end. The VR claim might not be ‘nonsense,’ but it didn’t yet have enough published evidence to strengthen it.

And then, an AMAZING thing happened: the lead researcher emailed me to say she would be happy to talk with me about the study.

Over the years, I have occasionally reached out to researchers to be sure I understand their arguments.

But no researcher has EVER straight-up volunteered for such a meeting. And I mean: EVER.

The Payoff

Honestly, I’d love to transcribe my conversation with Dr. Annie Hale and Lisa Fletcher (“Chief of Realm 4”) — both at Arizona State University because it was both fascinating and inspiring.

Because you’re busy, I will instead boil it into three key points:

First:

Hale and Fletcher have done — and continue to do — incredibly scrupulous research.

For instance, in the description above, I put the words “control group” in quotations marks.

I did so because of Hale and Fletcher’s insistance. The two groups of Biology students had somewhat similar academic experiences.

But the research paradigm required enough differences to make the words “control group” technically inappropriate.

Hale and Fletcher insisted on this precision throughout our discussion. For instance, they regularly pointed out that a particular calculation suggested a positive result, but didn’t reache statistical significance.

In other words, they highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of their own argument.

This habit, it my view, makes them MUCH more reliable guides in this field.

Second:

Here’s a shocker: Hale and Fletcher do not claim that virtual reality will transform education.

No, really, they don’t.

The headline of the article my friend sent me made that claim, but the researchers themselves don’t.

Instead, they make a very different claim. The alternative Biology path included at least three big changes from the typical path:

Change #1: students had the VR experience (and their lab was based on that experience)

Change #2: the key underlying biology concepts had been translated into stories. For instance, this “narratively-driven virtual reality” includes an imaginary species called the Astelar. (Some of the students got QUITE protective of these imaginary creatures.)

Change #3: the TAs in these alternative path classes got special training, inspired by Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion.

We can’t know — and, Hale and Fletcher don’t say they know — which of these three parts made the biggest difference.

We can tentatively suspect that these three elements working together produced all those learning benefits. And, Hale and Fletcher are planning lots of further research to confirm this tentative belief.

But, they’re not trying to get VR goggles on every forehead.

Key Point #3

Here’s one of my mantras:

Researchers isolate variables. Teachers combine variables.

In other words: research — as much as possible — looks at the effect of just one thing.

For instance: “mid-lecture aerobic movement improves learning in college students.”

However, teachers juggle hundreds of variables at every second. All those isolated variables studied by researchers might not provide me with useful guidance.

For instance: if I teach in a business school, my formally-dressed students might not appreciate my insistance that they do jumping jacks in the middle of the lecture hall.

My particular combination of variables doesn’t helpfully align with that isolated exercise variable.

Here’s my point: Hale and Fletcher seem to be changing the research half of this paradigm.

In their research, notice that they aren’t isolating variables. They are, instead, looking at combinations of variables.

VR + stories + Lemov training –> more learning

In fact, if I understand their argument right, they don’t really think that isolating variables can produce the most useful results — at least not in education research.

After all (and here I’m adding my own perspective), if teachers combine variables, shouldn’t research also look at combinations?

An Early Verdict

I set out on this detective adventure feeling quite skeptical. Both the initial claim (“transform education!”) and the absence of links made me all-but-certain that the strong claim would implode. (Example here.)

However, by persistently asking reasonable detective questions, I’ve arrived at a very different place:

VR + [concepts as stories] + [Lemov-inspired TA training] just might produce big learning gains, at least for some students.

And — crucially — a thoughtful, precise, imaginative, and cautious group of scholars is exploring this possibility in detail.

As I said back at the beginning, I’ve always got something to learn.


This post was edited on April 7, 2023 to correct Lisa Fletcher’s title.

My Detective Adventure: “VR Will Transform Education”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

A friend recently sent me a link to an article with a click-baity headline: something like “Virtual Reality Will Change Education Forever.”

Man wearing Virtual Reality goggles, making gestures in the air

Her pithy comment: “This is obviously nonsense.” (It’s possible she used a spicier word that ‘nonsense.’)

On the one hand, I’m skeptical that ANYTHING will change education forever. Heck, if Covid didn’t transform education, who knows what will.

More specifically, ed-tech claims about “transforming education” have been around for a long time. Their track record doesn’t dazzle. (Smart boards, anyone?)

On the other hand, I always like to find reserch that challenges my long-held beliefs. After all, if I can’t learn from people who disagree with me, who can I learn from?

So, I followed my usual process.

In essence, I switched into Detective Mode, and started asking lots of questions.

If I ask the right questions, I thought, I’ll get a much clearer picture of potential educational benefits of VR.

Act I: The Investigation Begins

When I reviewed the article my friend sent, I noticed a troubling gap: the article didn’t link to underlying research.

As I’ve written in the past, this absence creates a red flag. If the article champions “research-based innovation,” why not link to the research?

So, I asked my first detective question. I emailed the author of the article and asked to see the research.

How simple is that?

Obviously, any resistance to this request — “sorry, we can’t share that at this moment” — would underline my friend’s skeptical verdict: “nonsense.”

However, the author responded immediately with a link to a research summary.

A promising development…

The Plot Thickens

This research summary showed real promise.

In brief:

Some college students in an introductory Biology course followed the typical path — readings, lectures, labs. (That’s the “control group.”)

Other students in the same course followed an alternative path: readings, lectures, supplementary Virtual Reality experience, alternative labs based on the VR experience.

When researchers looked at all sorts of results, they found that students on the alternative VR path did better.

That is: not only did the students enjoy the VR experiences; not only did they engage more with the material; they (on average) learned more.

However — and this is a BIG however — this research didn’t look like it was published.

In fact, when I asked that direct question, the article author confirmed that the research hadn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Now, the topic of peer review creates LOTS of controversy. The peer-review system has MANY troubling flaws.

However, that system probably reduces the amount of deceptive nonsense that gets published.

I almost never blog about research that hasn’t been peer reviewed, and so I thought my detecting was at its logical end. The VR claim might not be ‘nonsense,’ but it didn’t yet have enough published evidence to strengthen it.

And then, an AMAZING thing happened: the lead researcher emailed me to say she would be happy to talk with me about the study.

Over the years, I have occasionally reached out to researchers to be sure I understand their arguments.

But no researcher has EVER straight-up volunteered for such a meeting. And I mean: EVER.

The Payoff

Honestly, I’d love to transcribe my conversation with Dr. Annie Hale and Lisa Fletcher (“Chief of Realm 4”) — both at Arizona State University because it was both fascinating and inspiring.

Because you’re busy, I will instead boil it into three key points:

First:

Hale and Fletcher have done — and continue to do — incredibly scrupulous research.

For instance, in the description above, I put the words “control group” in quotations marks.

I did so because of Hale and Fletcher’s insistance. The two groups of Biology students had somewhat similar academic experiences.

But the research paradigm required enough differences to make the words “control group” technically inappropriate.

Hale and Fletcher insisted on this precision throughout our discussion. For instance, they regularly pointed out that a particular calculation suggested a positive result, but didn’t reache statistical significance.

In other words, they highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of their own argument.

This habit, it my view, makes them MUCH more reliable guides in this field.

Second:

Here’s a shocker: Hale and Fletcher do not claim that virtual reality will transform education.

No, really, they don’t.

The headline of the article my friend sent me made that claim, but the researchers themselves don’t.

Instead, they make a very different claim. The alternative Biology path included at least three big changes from the typical path:

Change #1: students had the VR experience (and their lab was based on that experience)

Change #2: the key underlying biology concepts had been translated into stories. For instance, this “narratively-driven virtual reality” includes an imaginary species called the Astelar. (Some of the students got QUITE protective of these imaginary creatures.)

Change #3: the TAs in these alternative path classes got special training, inspired by Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion.

We can’t know — and, Hale and Fletcher don’t say they know — which of these three parts made the biggest difference.

We can tentatively suspect that these three elements working together produced all those learning benefits. And, Hale and Fletcher are planning lots of further research to confirm this tentative belief.

But, they’re not trying to get VR goggles on every forehead.

Key Point #3

Here’s one of my mantras:

Researchers isolate variables. Teachers combine variables.

In other words: research — as much as possible — looks at the effect of just one thing.

For instance: “mid-lecture aerobic movement improves learning in college students.”

However, teachers juggle hundreds of variables at every second. All those isolated variables studied by researchers might not provide me with useful guidance.

For instance: if I teach in a business school, my formally-dressed students might not appreciate my insistance that they do jumping jacks in the middle of the lecture hall.

My particular combination of variables doesn’t helpfully align with that isolated exercise variable.

Here’s my point: Hale and Fletcher seem to be changing the research half of this paradigm.

In their research, notice that they aren’t isolating variables. They are, instead, looking at combinations of variables.

VR + stories + Lemov training –> more learning

In fact, if I understand their argument right, they don’t really think that isolating variables can produce the most useful results — at least not in education research.

After all (and here I’m adding my own perspective), if teachers combine variables, shouldn’t research also look at combinations?

An Early Verdict

I set out on this detective adventure feeling quite skeptical. Both the initial claim (“transform education!”) and the absence of links made me all-but-certain that the strong claim would implode. (Example here.)

However, by persistently asking reasonable detective questions, I’ve arrived at a very different place:

VR + [concepts as stories] + [Lemov-inspired TA training] just might produce big learning gains, at least for some students.

And — crucially — a thoughtful, precise, imaginative, and cautious group of scholars is exploring this possibility in detail.

As I said back at the beginning, I’ve always got something to learn.


This post was edited on April 7, 2023 to correct Lisa Fletcher’s title.

Remembering and Forgetting in the Age of Technology by Michelle Miller
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

The cognition of remembering and forgetting is central to our lives and our intellectual valuation of ourselves. Remembering and Forgetting in the Age of Technology: Teaching, Learning, and the Science of Memory in a Wired World refreshes our knowledge and shares best practices, but it also situates and reframes the way we approach thinking about memory. The author, Michelle D. Miller, is a professor of psychological science and President’s Distinguished Teaching Fellow at Northern Arizona University. Her experience teaching, consulting, and listening to educators make this book an authentic dialog with the reader.  She displays a nuanced understanding of how the concepts of memory have not only cognitive and instructional relevance but also are embedded in deeply held cultural beliefs, persistent half-truths, and pedagogical value systems. Media coverage and coffee-shop conversations about the promises and pitfalls of technology and memory have been rife with incomplete knowledge, myths, and overzealous myth-busting. In this very accessible but thorough book, Miller helps us navigate this and get our footing.

Miller respects the idea that teaching instructors is a social-emotional endeavor, not an act of transmitting a set of best practices. Before beginning to evaluate the science, it is important to understand our preconceived notions and how our value systems bias our perspective. What is hype and what is fearmongering? Where has the science been misrepresented to preserve traditions or sell the next big idea? In all her chapters, as well as the structure of the book overall, Miller helps us to situate ourselves within the larger cultural value systems surrounding this area of cognition. She helps us understand the foundations of arguments and only then does she guide us through the science that supports or refutes some of these beliefs.  We cannot seek to improve our practices without first respecting and understanding our current dispositions.

As Miller points out, many of us remember foundational models of memory from introduction to psychology courses or some highlights from a text read long ago. The science examining the mechanisms of memory has come a long way and the basic models have been updated but not yet socialized. These early models led many of us to design instructional material, but it’s time for an update. The science has become more ecologically valid and nuanced, and Miller pulls these updates into the text, not through a dense academic literature review, but by illustrating research findings through our everyday experiences: she shows us that the updates make sense. Moreover, the summaries of the studies presented are accurate and well-cited translations of cognitive-neuroscience for those seeking a deeper dive.

The book’s topics are clearly organized, easily referenced, and situated in a narrative structure enjoyable for a long plane ride or summer beach read. She starts the book with a review of the place technology has in our culture and how we generally feel about it, separating the arguments over morality and hype from the arguments over the impact. In the second chapter, she dives into the science, painting a picture of updated models and evidence. This includes some fun but measured myth-busting. We then get into some very concrete best practices: How can we improve our memory? How can we enhance instruction? And where is memory improvement necessary, and where is it important to rely on technology as a cognitive extension of ourselves? As she moves into the topic of attention, we are reminded that technology has often been demonized, but technology is a double-edged sword; it both supports and distracts. We see in the final chapters a balanced view helping to sort out the wheat from the chafe and set up a framework for evaluating the ongoing rapid development of cultural innovations.  Technology will continue to evolve, and we need to develop a healthy, critical, curious, and exploratory disposition towards its integration.

While one gets many very concrete suggestions from this book, it is the framing that really lands this book. It trains the reader to think flexibly about the present and the future. I can’t wait to read it again and share Miller’s insights with my students and colleagues.

Is “Cell Phone Addiction” Really a Thing? [Reposted]
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

A well-known Education Twitter personality claimed that “cell phones are as addictive as drugs.”

Are they? What should we do when someone makes that claim?

Reposted from November of 2021


I recently read a tweet asserting “the fact that cell phones are proven to be as addictive as drugs.”

Of course, people casually use the word “addictive” about all sorts of things: chocolate, massages, pumpkin-spice lattes. (No doubt somewhere Twitter is being described as “addictive.” My mother tells me that this blog is addictive.)

But all that casual language doesn’t add up “proving the fact” that cell phones are “as addictive as drugs.” So I started wondering: has this “fact” been “proven”?

Good News, Bad News (Good News, Meh News)

Over the years I’ve adopted a simple strategy. When someone makes a factual claim about research, I ask for the research.

In this case, I simply asked the tweep for the research behind the claim.

Good news: He answered!

I’ve been amazed over the years how often people make “research-based” claims and then refuse to provide research to support them.

In this case, he did in fact point toward research on the topic. (I found one website claiming that 16% of adolescents, and 6.3% of the population, are addicted; alas, no sources cited. Happily, they do provide treatment…)

The tweep’s willingness to cite evidence enhances his credibility. Let’s check it out…

Bad news: hmm. “Evidence,” in this case, means “links to newspaper articles.” Generally speaking, USA Today and Vice.com aren’t the best places to find research. Research is published in journals. (Heck, I’ve even criticized the New York Times for its research credulity.)

So: the tweep’s credibility clicks down slightly.

Good news: All three of the links do, in fact, point to underlying research! I didn’t get a direct connection to the promised research, but I can keep digging to find it.

Credibility clicks back up.

Meh news: it turns out that all three articles point to the same underlying research. That is: I didn’t find three studies supporting the claim that “cell phones are proven to be as addictive as drugs”; I got one.

Now: one study isn’t nothing. But [checks notes] one isn’t three.

This Just In: Correlation Isn’t…

Given how much is riding on this one study, let’s check it out.

First off, we can see right there in the title that the study focuses on correlation. As you’ve no doubt heard dozens (thousands?) of times, “correlation isn’t causation.”

In this case, the authors asked 48 people questions about their cell-phone usage. Based on their answers, they categorized some of those people as “addicted.” And they then found brain differences between the “addicted” and “not addicted” people.

This quick summary leads to several concerns.

First: one study of 48 people doesn’t “prove a fact.” It might be an interesting data point, but that’s all.

Second: this study doesn’t claim to “prove a fact.” Using a questionnaire, it DEFINES some folks as addicted and others as not addicted.

Third: “brain differences” always seems like a big deal, but trust me — they might not be.

People who throw the javelin probably have a different “average muscular profile” than people who run marathons, because they’re using different muscles.

People who play the piano probably have different neural profiles than people who dance ballet, because they’re spending more time using THIS part of the brain than THAT part.

It seems likely people who score high on this “cell-phone addiction” questionnaire behave differently than those who don’t; so it’s not dramatically surprising that their brains are different.

Did the phone cause to brain differences, or brain differences cause phone use? We don’t know. (Because, “correlation isn’t …”)

Important to Note

One interesting point does jump out. The brain differences found by this research team do — in some ways — align with plausible predictions about addiction.

Now, the researchers don’t make strong claims here: the word “drugs” appears only once in the body of the study.

This finding isn’t a big surprise to me. Very roughly, the  brain differences have to do with “our ability to control what we pay attention to.” It’s not hugely surprising that heavy cell-phone users have brain differences there (and that people addicted to drugs do too).

Don’t Stop Now

If the tweep’s study doesn’t support the claim that “cell phones are proven to be addictive,” does other research?

To answer that question, I did a simple google search (“cell phone addiction real”). The first scholarly article that pops up says…not so much.

Here’s their summary:

Although the majority of research in the field declares that smartphones are addictive or takes the existence of smartphone addiction as granted, we did not find sufficient support from the addiction perspective to confirm the existence of smartphone addiction at this time.

The behaviors observed in the research could be better labeled as problematic or maladaptive smartphone use and their consequences do not meet the severity levels of those caused by addiction.

In brief: “maladaptive,” yes; “addictive,” no.

As I continued clicking, I found other skeptical reviews (for instance, here), and also found some that embrace the category (with some open questions, here).

Oh, and, by the way: “cell phone addiction” isn’t included in the DSM-5.

In other words, I think we can reasonably describe the category of “cell phone addiction” as an active scholarly debate. To be clear, this conclusion means we can’t reasonably describe it as “a proven fact.”

Why I Care

I am, believe it or not, open to the idea that cell phones might be addictive. If they are — if at some point research “proves that fact” — then this label might help us treat a real problem effectively.

My objection springs from another source entirely.

I worry when debate about measurable claims sinks to applying insulting labels.

If I think that asking students to memorize is a bad idea, I could study research on the topic. Or, I could dismiss it as “drill and kill.” The insulting label replaces the argument.

If I think that teacher talk is bad, I could study research on the topic. Or, I could mock it as “sage on the stage.” The dismissive label replaces the argument.

If I think that cell-phone usage is bad for teens, I could study research on the topic. Or, I could call it “an addiction.” The alarming label replaces the argument.

If we’re going to rely on research to make decisions about teaching and education (which is, after all, the GOAL of our organization) we should never replace research with labels.

Instead, let’s try something else. Let’s replace labels with research…


Horvath, J., Mundinger, C., Schmitgen, M. M., Wolf, N. D., Sambataro, F., Hirjak, D., … & Wolf, R. C. (2020). Structural and functional correlates of smartphone addiction. Addictive behaviors105, 106334.

Panova, T., & Carbonell, X. (2018). Is smartphone addiction really an addiction?. Journal of behavioral addictions7(2), 252-259.

Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Can disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on current evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction Reports2(2), 156-162.

Gutiérrez, J., & Rodríguez de Fonseca, F. (2016). Gabriel Rubio.: Cell Phone Addiction: A Review. Front. Psychiatry7, 175.

Failure to Disrupt by Justin Reich
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education is a well-written critical synthesis of overzealous claims and unrealistic attempts to revolutionize education through technology. Its author, Justin Reich, is an Assistant Professor in the Comparative Media Studies department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he studies future learning. He is also the creator of several publications and EdX courses on education as well as the designer of online courses for teacher education (which he offers a critique of in the current work). His writing here, while critical of the field’s progress, is also inspiring with down-to-earth realism that gives the reader access to a balanced evaluation of technology’s impact on education.

The previous decades have been loaded with unfulfilled promises offered by technology. Fears that teachers would be replaced by computers were ultimately unrealized but too was the dream of a radical improvement and the democratization of a suffering education system. Bombarded by every innovation and the pandemic, the teacher and administrator could be forgiven for not seeing through the weeds of their own learning management systems. The claims have been loud, but the practice has become habitual and administrative without time or cognitive space for critical evaluation (although we have all had the best of intentions). Training new teachers on technology and standardizing systems have become the practices of everyday teaching. There is a lot out there, but no clear way to sort through it. This book is a nice place to catch up and get back in the game.

There is no doubt that this book is critical of aspects of the education-via-technology revolution, but Reich is not ranting against the use of technology. He instead grounds evaluation in research, breaking his insights into several themes. Schools, teachers, and society will often use new technologies not to innovate and transform ways of educating but instead they become new playgrounds for old practices. Current systems exhibit a strong gravity to maintain practices, and new technologies can become just another way to duplicate previous methods pulling along for the ride both what works and what doesn’t. Regarding computer-assisted instruction and assessment, we have found that these still are most effective at routine learning and highly formalized technical knowledge. They do not yet effectively tackle the development of communicative competence, critical thinking, abstract thinking, and reasoning. Furthermore, the promise of equity has not been borne out so far by the technology. It seems to be that those with greater access use the technology more frequently and more efficaciously than those who have been traditionally neglected by the system; as Reich argues, educational technology may widen already existing gaps. And finally, the promise of big data insights that have been so useful in other sciences has been severely limited by privacy laws and restrictions on student experimentation. The author dissuades us of the notion offered by the sales reps that the technology will be the magic pill of education. However, while these claims appear pessimistic, there is much more to this text than deconstructing the ed-tech industry.

Through engaging the book, the reader develops a better understanding of the larger ecology of instructional technologies. Reich arms the reader with systems of thinking and methods of evaluation that empower readers to be informed consumers of existing and emerging computer-aided instruction. Through this evaluation, Reich also makes the reader aware of their own practices in existing frameworks. I found myself rethinking what I was using technology for in the courses I teach but also learned about many other systems that were out there. What others are doing well, and how I could capitalize on their learnings to broaden my own impact. The reader can use this book similarly to tinker around the edges and discover what might work well for their content-specific learning goals while being aware of the potential caveats, persistent pitfalls, and opportunities while integrating technology in instruction.

One of Reich’s main points is that learning technologies are not wholly new. They are new forms of previous technologies and ways of thinking. We can also learn about current technologies by looking back at their historic forms and the theory that the new forms are built upon. This is also probably true of the field of education, often new theorists and practitioners repackage previous ideas and their successes or failures are somewhat predictable based on previous iterations.  Reich’s assessment of emerging systems helps unify this history and our ongoing missions in education.

Let’s Get Practical: How Fast Should Videos Be?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Research often operates at a highly abstract level.

Psychologists and neuroscientists study cognitive “tasks” that stand in for school work. If we’re being honest, however, we often struggle to see the connection between the research task and actual classroom learning.

HOWEVER…

Every now and then, a study comes along that asks a very practical question, and offers some very practical answers.

Even better: it explores the limits of its own answers.

I’ve recently found a study looking at this (incredibly practical) question:

Because students can easily play videos at different speeds, we need to know: which video speed benefits learning the most?

So: what advice should we give our students about learning from videos?

Exploring The Question

Let’s start with a specific example:

If a student watches a video at double speed, she (obviously) spends only half as much time mentally interacting with its information.

Does that reduction in time lead to an equal reduction in learning? Will she learn half as much as if she had watched it at regular speed?

Dr. Dillon Murphy starts with that question, and then quickly gets interested in crucial related questions:

What about other video speeds? That is: what about watching the video at 1.5x speed? What about 3x speed?

Does the topic of the video matter?

And, here’s a biggie: what should students do with the time they save?

Even before we look at the results of this study, I think we can admire its design.

Murphy’s team ran multiple versions of this study looking at all these different variables (and several others).

They did not, in other words, test one hypothesis and then — based on that one test — tell teachers what to do. (“Best practices require…”)

Instead, they invited us into a complex set of questions and possibilities.

Maybe 1.5x is the most efficient speed for learning.

Maybe 3x is the best speed if students use the time they saved to rewatch the video.

Maybe regular speed is best after all.

Because Murphy’s team explores so many possibilities with such open-minded curiosity, we have a MUCH better chance of figuring out which results apply to us. *

The Envelope Please

Rather than walk you through each of the studies, I’ll start with the study’s overall conclusions.

First: watching videos at higher speeds does reduce learning, but not as much as you might think.

That is: spending half as much time with the video (because a student watched it at double speed) does NOT result in half as much learning.

To be specific: students watched ~ 14 minute videos (about real-estate appraisals, or about Roman history).

A week later, those who watched them at regular speed scored a 59% on a quiz. Those who watched at 2x speed scored a 53%.

59% is higher that 53%, but it’s not twice as high. **

Second: students can use that “saved” time productively.

What should a student do with the 7 minutes she saved? She’s got two helpful choices.

Choice 1: rewatch the video right away.

Students who used their “saved” time to rewatch the video right away recaptured those “lost” points. That is: they had the same score as students who watched the video once at regular speed.

Choice 2: bank the time and rewatch the video later.

In another version of the study, students who watched the 1x video once scored a 55% on a quiz one week later.

Other students watched the 2x video once, and then once again a week later. They scored a 63% on that quiz. (For stats types, the d value is 0.55 — a number that gets my attention.)

In other words: rewatching at double speed a week later leads to MORE LEARNING in the THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME (14 minutes).

Practical + Practical

Murphy takes great care to look at specific combinations.

His example encourages us to take care as well. For instance:

His team worked with college students. Will this result hold for 8th graders, or 2nd graders?

You can look to you your teacherly experience and judgment to answer that question.

Will this effect hold for longer videos: 30 minutes, or one hour?

We don’t know yet.

These videos included a talking head and slides with words — but not closed captions. Will some other combination (no talking head? closed captions on?) lead to different results?

We don’t know yet.

In other words: Murphy’s study gives us practical guidance. We should use our judgment and experience to apply it to our specific teaching circumstances.


* I should note: This study is unusually easy to read. If the topic interests you, you might look it over yourself.

** Important note: I’ve seen news reports about this study saying that watching once at double speed results in the same amount of learning as watching once at regular speed. That claim is untrue. And: Murphy’s study does not make that claim.

Murphy, D. H., Hoover, K. M., Agadzhanyan, K., Kuehn, J. C., & Castel, A. D. (2021). Learning in double time: The effect of lecture video speed on immediate and delayed comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology.