{"id":5534,"date":"2020-03-16T08:00:49","date_gmt":"2020-03-16T13:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/blog\/?p=5534"},"modified":"2020-03-13T12:02:11","modified_gmt":"2020-03-13T17:02:11","slug":"what-do-teachers-get-right-about-cognitive-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/what-do-teachers-get-right-about-cognitive-science\/","title":{"rendered":"What Do Teachers Get Right About Cognitive Science?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s a chance to test your knowledge about the teaching implications of cognitive science<\/em>. Which answer would you pick to this question?<\/p>\n

After teaching students the names of the branches of the US government and what each does, which would be the most effective way a teacher could help their students remember this information?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A) Have students read the facts for 10 days at the beginning of class.<\/p>\n

B) Have students copy the facts into a notebook where they can reference them as needed.<\/p>\n

C) Have students take a once-a-week quiz for 10 weeks where they recall the facts from memory.<\/p>\n

D) Have students participate in a review game where they have to recall the facts from memory several times in one class period.<\/p>\n

As you think about that question — which I’ll answer later in the post — ask yourself: what basic principle of learning informs your choice?<\/p>\n

How Can We Discover What Teachers Know?<\/h2>\n

For several years now, Deans for Impact<\/a> have worked to improve teacher education. In particular, they want schools of education to emphasize well-established principles from cognitive science.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

They have done lots of great work to further this mission — including publishing this invaluable resource on the science of learning<\/a>. (Quick: download it now!)<\/p>\n

Of course, if they — and we — are going to help teachers improve, we have to know what teachers already believe and do<\/em>. If teachers don’t believe in learning styles theory, then we don’t have to debunk it. (Alas, lots of teachers do.)<\/p>\n

To answer that question, Deans for Impact developed a 54 question assessment of teacher beliefs, and administered it to 1000+ teachers in the fall of 2019. The question you answered above is one of those 54 questions.<\/p>\n

Based on the answers they got, they now have a much better idea of typical beliefs and misunderstandings. As they note, however, these teachers are enrolled in education schools that are interested in cognitive science. So:<\/p>\n

“the data generated from this assessment is more likely to overstate what most teacher-candidates know about learning science.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

With that caveat in mind, what did they learn?<\/p>\n

What Do Teachers Know about Cognitive Science?<\/h2>\n

Unsurprisingly, D4I found a mixed bag<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In some categories, teachers-in-training did quite well. In particular, they had good information about the importance of building, and the right ways to build, feedback loops.<\/p>\n

That’s really good news, of course, because feedback is so important.<\/p>\n

In general, teachers also had a clear understanding that\u00a0prior knowledge\u00a0<\/strong>matters a lot. When students lack relevant background knowledge, they struggle mightily to learn.<\/p>\n

Sadly, teachers overestimated the possibility of\u00a0critical thinking<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Of course we want our students to have strong critical thinking skills. But, for the most part, those skills don’t exist generically<\/em><\/a>. That is: I must have a great deal of specific content knowledge<\/em> before I can think critically about a particular topic.<\/p>\n

If that claim seems surprising or suspect, try to answer this question: are Dreiser’s novels more like Wharton’s or Dos Passos’s? Unless you know A LOT about Dreiser and Wharton and Dos Passos (and novels), you’ll struggle to have much to say.<\/p>\n

Needs Improvement<\/h2>\n

Alarmingly, teachers-in-training scored only 33% on questions relating to “practicing with a purpose<\/strong>.” We learn almost everything by practicing in the right way, so this finding should encourage us to focus quite emphatically on this research field.<\/p>\n

To do that, let’s return to the question at the top of this post. What kind of practice would help students remember information about branches of the US government?<\/p>\n

A) Have students read the facts for 10 days at the beginning of class.<\/p>\n

This choice\u00a0spaces practice out<\/em>. That’s good. But, it doesn’t allow for active recall. As we know from the world of retrieval practice<\/em>, recall creates more lasting memories than mere review.<\/p>\n

B) Have students copy the facts into a notebook where they can reference them as needed.<\/p>\n

This choice is a dud. It requires students to do minimal processing (“copying”!), and to do it once. Nothing to see here. Move along.<\/p>\n

C) Have students take a once-a-week quiz for 10 weeks where they recall the facts from memory.<\/p>\n

Choice C requires recall (a quiz). And, it includes spacing (over 10 weeks!). Spacing + retrieval looks great!<\/p>\n

D) Have students participate in a review game where they have to recall the facts from memory several times in one class period.<\/p>\n

This option sounds fun — it’s a game! And, it includes active recall. But, alas, active\u00a0recall combined with fun<\/strong><\/em> isn’t as beneficial as active\u00a0recall combined with spacing<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

So, we might be tempted by option D — in fact, 60% of teachers-in-training chose it. Only 13% opted for choice C: the one best supported by cognitive science<\/em>. (By the way: if you’re interested in combining retrieval practice with spacing, check out this research<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

In Sum<\/h2>\n

Generally speaking: keep Deans for Impact on your radar. They’re a GREAT (and greatly reliable) resource for our work.<\/p>\n

Specifically speaking: this most recent report lets us know where we should focus most urgently as we help teachers improve our profession.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A new report from Deans for Impact offers us valuable insight into teachers’ understanding — and misunderstanding — of cognitive science.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":5538,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[12,76],"class_list":["post-5534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-retrieval-practice","tag-teacher-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5534"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5534\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5541,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5534\/revisions\/5541"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}