March 2023 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Monthly Archives: March 2023

Think, Pair, Share: Does It Help? If Yes, Why?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March 26, 2023

Think, Pair, Share: Does It Help? If Yes, Why?

Read More

On some days, I find myself drawn to esoteric research studies.

A few months ago, for example, I wrote about the effect of earworms on sleep. (Yes, scholars really do research earworms.)

Two students in conversationToday, I’ve found as straightforwardly practical a study as I’ve seen.

Teachers everywhere have been encouraged to have students “think, pair, and share.”

That is:

I ask my students a question: “what are the metaphors in this poem?”

We all pause for several seconds, so that students can think about their individual answers.

Students then pair up: “okay, everyone, chat with the person next to you about your answers.”

Finally, I ask students to share their thoughts: “who has spotted a metaphor they want to discuss?”

Voila: they thought, they paired up, they shared.

The Bigger Picture

In truth, LOTS of classroom strategies have such popular currency that we don’t really think to question them.

Is it a good idea to have students write answers on the board? (I’ve never thought to ask; after all, ALL teachers have students write on the board.)

Should I really do those handshake dances at the door? (My colleagues LOVE a good handshake dance.)

College professors everywhere are banning laptops, because handwritten notes are superior. (Aren’t they? Like, obviously?)

In other words, we don’t need to have a research basis for absolutely everything we do in the classroom.

At the same time, when a scholar does explore my classroom practice in a research-y way, I ought to be at least a little curious about the results. (If you clicked on those links above, you’ll notice that our teacherly instincts might be wrong…)

So, what happens when researchers turn to “Think, Pair, Share”?

Will our beloved habit get the research seal of approval? Or, do we need to rethink this standard practice…?

Worth Checking

Researchers in Erfurt, Germany — led by Lukas Mundelsee — undertook a straightforward study with 9th graders.

Researchers introduced students to a topic, and then asked questions.

In some cases, they just asked students to raise their hands (SHARE only).

In some cases, students THOUGHT individually, and then SHARED.

And, of course, they sometimes THOUGHT and PAIRED and SHARED.

Finally, the researchers measured other useful variables — for instance, how shy do students report themselves to be?

So, what do you think Team Mundelsee found?

Sure enough, “think, pair, share” led to more handraising than “share” alone.

And, in particular, this strategy helped students who reported higher levels of shyness.

In other words: researchers got the result that (I suspect) most of us predicted. And, the underlying explanation makes sense.

If I’m shy, I don’t want to get the answer wrong in public. But if I can pair up to discuss my answer first, then I’m less worried about my potential wrongness.

Beyond the Research

Since “sharing” is under discussion here, I’ll share my own approach to “think, pair, share.”

When it comes to the final step — “who wants to share with the group” — I myself cold call.

That is, I don’t ask for someone to volunteer; I call on a student at random.

Now, I should be clear:

First: Mundelsee’s research does NOT investigate this approach. He’s looking at voluntary sharing.

Second: “cold-calling” does generate some controversy. Some folks consider it stress-inducing, even (brace yourself) ‘carceral.’

Now, I don’t doubt that cold-calling can be done badly. (If pizza can be bad, anything can be bad.)

But I explain my thinking to my students at the beginning of the year, and they seem to get in the grove fairly easily.

In this case, I worry that students need a little incentive to think. After all, if the student knows s/he has a pair coming up, then s/he can simply use the other students’ idea as a share.

ESPECIALLY because students have time to test-drive their ideas when they pair, I think cold-calling should be low stakes enough for them to feel plenty comfortable sharing.

Of course, my classroom climate might not match yours; teachers always adapt and balance to get their teaching strategies just right.

TL;DR

Yes, “think, pair, share” helps students feel comfortable sharing.

And, yes, it does so by reducing anxiety.

Hat tip to Alex Quigley, who first pointed out this study to me.

Mundelsee, L., & Jurkowski, S. (2021). Think and pair before share: Effects of collaboration on students’ in-class participation. Learning and Individual Differences, 88, 102015.

A Mind for Numbers by Barbara Oakley
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD
March 21, 2023

A Mind for Numbers by Barbara Oakley

Read More

A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science (Even If You Flunked Algebra) is an excellently constructed tour of the mind improving your approach to learning and problem-solving. While there are many learning strategy books out there, Barbara Oakley’s stands out due to its entertaining, educational, well-researched, and refreshed cognitive foundation. You are in for a real treat as each bite-sized chapter draws you in with engaging stories, enticing your curiosity with cognitive principles and historical tidbits asking you to constructively reflect on the machinery of your mind.

While this book says it is for Math and Science learning, the concepts addressed here can be applied to a wide array of subjects from language learning to time management, procrastination, and reading. Although it is filled with useful and updated information about how memory works, it is not simply a book about memory techniques. Throughout, there is a continual nod to social-emotional learning concepts and metacognitive awareness, including understanding how the ways you are learning may lead you to develop a false sense of confidence in your knowledge. Enabling you to understand your own learning profile, Oakley shares both what is effective and what is not effective, making it a great book for study skills classes or anyone who just wants to identify what learning practices are helpful and which ones are simply a waste of time.

Faithful to its inner teachings, the book is organized into very useful chunks of information that allow the reader to build their stores of knowledge in a systematic way. Each chapter is packed with great lessons followed by a “Pause and Recall” section and containing “Now you try” sections, encouraging us to pull away from the reading for a moment and relate the concepts to our lives and process them at more meaningful and deeper levels. We also get nice neat summaries pulling the chapters together integrating across chapters and allowing for a quick skim of some of the highlights. This structure naturally lends itself to classroom discussions. As an instructor, I have even used some of the “Now you try” sections with my college students who find them to be useful and revealing reflections.

Illuminating the intriguing history of psychology, we are treated to fascinating discussions of real people including arsenic eaters, a man who had an unnatural ability to remember details at some cost to other cognitive abilities, and an infamous neuroscientist who was put into jail for building a small cannon that destroyed a neighbor’s gate. These little bits of historical psychology are a gateway for the psychology novice to enter the field and engage students. These morsels from history led me to also jump on the internet and learn a bit more about these characters, demonstrating Oakley’s ability to open up new worlds.

I would be leaving out an important part of this book if I did not mention the memorable, fun, and useful visuals in this book. I’m particularly fond of the octopus representing attention mechanisms in the brain and pinball machines representing the semantic closeness of ideas. When discussing the removal of faint connections, we are offered illustrations of ‘metabolic vampires’ that suck the remaining life from neurons¬–images that really leave a lasting impression. The creative use of these and other metaphors throughout the book will help the novice student grasp the concept and act as useful teaching tools for the instructor to reframe the concept and make it accessible while staying true to the science. While the metaphors and illustrations are fun, they are not diminutive. The reader never feels talked down to, and the material is not oversimplified.

From mathematics to learning a new hobby and managing your life, Oakley enhances the learning experience and makes you the game-maker in your learning adventure. She makes learning fun and you will walk away with a growth mindset and new tools opening your mind to try or try again to learn concepts you thought were out of your reach–’even if you flunked algebra.’

Cultural Field Trips: Do They Really Enhance SEL?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March 20, 2023

Cultural Field Trips: Do They Really Enhance SEL?

Read More

Here at Learning and the Brain, we like research-informed teaching suggestions.

At the same time, we remember Prof. Dan Willingham’s timeless motto: “one study is just one study, folks.”

Young girl looking intently into a museum display case

That is: one study might show a particular conclusion – but one study isn’t entirely persuasive.

Instead, we’d like SEVERAL studies looking at roughly the same question. If those studies all point the same direction, then we can feel increasingly confident that this conclusion has merit.

For instance:

Several years ago I blogged about an impressive study by Dr. Jay Greene. It suggested …

… that attendance at live theater improved students’ knowledge of the play (not a big surprise)

… and, it improved students’ tolerance (surprise!)

… and, it enhanced their desire see the world from another’s perspective.

Because I REALLY WANT those statements to be true, I looked at this research with extra skepticism. But I was ultimately persuaded that the study design made lots of sense.

Of course, “one study is just one study.”

It would be GREAT to see more research on this topic. Well, I have good news…

Take Two

I’ve recently come across a second study looking at the benefits of live theater — this one led by Angela Watson (no relation that I know of).*

As is often the case, this research team looked at some of the same questions, and some additional questions as well.

So, they asked:

Does live theater provide benefit for students? How about art museums? How about symphonies?

Do these cultural field trips benefit students in different demographic groups?

The Greene study looked at tolerance and “social perspective taking” – the desire to see the world from another’s perspective. Watson’s research also asked questions about conscientiousness and empathy.

So, what did they find?

Methods and Conclusions

As you can imagine, these questions require lots of logistical complexity.

We can study – say – “retrieval practice” fairly easily in a classroom. But, schlepping large groups of students to plays, museums, and symphonies takes a lot more coordination, planning, and cooperation.

Basically, these researchers had students attend different numbers of plays, symphonies, and museums: as few as one trip, or as many as six.

And, they had students fill out questionnaires. And, they followed up for two years!

So, do additional “cultural” field trips make a difference for these students?

As is so often the case, the answer is both “yes” and “no.”

So, for instance, attending the theater/symphony/museum did NOT make students more interested in going back.

And, contrary to Greene’s study, it did NOT make students more “empathetic.”

Specifically, students responded to statements like these: “After seeing a play or a movie, I have felt as though I were one of the characters.”

Their responses did not vary depending on the number of field trips they went on.

At the same time, Team Watson did find some benefits.

Attending field trips did increase “social perspective taking.”

That is: students were asked questions like “When you are angry at someone, how often do you try to ‘put yourself in his or her shoes’?”

Students who attended more field trips put on those shoes more often.

Also, female students — although not males — demonstrated higher levels of conscientiousness after participating in more cultural field trips. (Alas, this change didn’t last as long as the others.)

The news isn’t all good, but not all bad either.

What About Tolerance?

The case of “tolerance” is especially tricky.

When Watson & Co. ran the numbers, these field trips didn’t affect the students’ answers to questions like:

“Some people have views you oppose very strongly. Do you agree that these people should be allowed to come to your school and give a speech?”

So, strictly speaking, field trips didn’t increase tolerance.

However, Watson speculates that the wording of these questions was especially complicated. And, she notes that the students in this cohort had relatively low reading scores.

So, perhaps, students really did feel more tolerant, but the question’s complexity masked that change.

Watson supports this hypothesis by noticing that the students at the high end of reading comprehension DID have higher tolerance scores.

In other words: the students who understood the question better expressed higher levels of tolerance — and might reflect a truer understanding of the field trips’ effects.

TL;DR

We now have even more research showing some SEL benefits for field trips to cultural events.

This trips…

… consistently help students “put themselves in someone else’s shoes,”

… might increase students’ tolerance of others’ opinions,

… enhance girls’ conscientiousness (albeit temporarily).

We have less certain evidence that field trips enhance empathy, or that they encourage students to attend more cultural events.

Equally important: having MORE studies on one topic allows us to contemplate these SEL benefits with greater nuance and sophistication.

* To be precise, Watson’s study is a “working paper.” It hasn’t been peer reviewed in an academic journal.

Watson, A., Greene, J., Holmes Erickson, H., & Beck, M. I. (2019). Altered attitudes and actions: Social-emotional effects of multiple arts field trips.

Should We Teach Math and English the Same Way?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March 12, 2023

Should We Teach Math and English the Same Way?

Read More

Because we teachers are a busy lot, we sometimes want simplicity and clarity:

“I’m honestly too busy to sort through all the options and variables; just tell me what to do.“

In fact, when I went to my first Learning and the Brain conference in 2008, that was exactly my plan.

The researchers would tell me what to do.

I would do it.

VOILA: brain-based teaching.

The more time I spend in this field, the more I doubt that logical chain. In fact, I frequently warn people against that kind of thinking.

4 students sitting at a table discussing something visible on a laptop

My regular mantra:

“Don’t just DO this thing. Instead, THINK this way.”

In other words, we teachers always have to translate research-based advice to our own context.

Today’s News

I recently came across a study looking at twelve different instructional activities in English and math classrooms.

In this study, “instructional activities” include …

… open discussion among teacher and students,

… use of whiteboard by teacher

… students working in groups

… one-to-one teaching

… students copying from the whiteboard

And so forth.

The research team asked: do students benefit from the same instructional activites in both disciplines?

To answer this question, researchers had observers keep track of teachers’ instructional activities. These observers — during more than 2500 visits! —  recorded whether teachers did these 12 activities “none or very little,” “some of the time,” or “most or all of the time.”

And, they then looked at the students’ scores on national exams in English and math. (This study was done in England, where most students take the GSCE when they’re 16 years old.)

So, what did they find when they put all those pieces together.

Fascinating Results

First, this research team found that teachers do different things:

Some teachers spend much of class time using traditional direct instruction, including lecturing and the use of textbooks, while other teachers devote more class time to students working with their classmates or individual practice.

For instance: one third of teachers use “open discussion” most or all of the time, but one quarter don’t do so at all.

Second, those different instructional activities matter.

In math classes, students benefit from a) practicing on their own, and b) teachers’ checking for understanding.

Students who engage in these activities “all or most of the time” score significantly higher than those who do so “some of the time.” (In this case, “significantly higher” is a bit hard to describe. Probably the easiest way to say this is: both statisticians and the students themselves would notice the difference.)

In English classes, however, students benefit from working and talking with each other (and the teacher).

So, to answer the question in this post’s title: at least according to this study, we shouldn’t teach all disciplines in the same way.

What This Finding DOES Mean

If you teach math or English to high-school students in England, I think you should give this study a careful look to guide your classroom practice.

That is: I’ve given an introduction — but the study includes A LOT more information that could be practically helpful to you.

Even more important:

If you don’t fit in that teaching category, this study means that research-based teaching advice always requires translation and adaptation.

Students benefit from different instructional activities in math and English. And, presumably, in other disciplines as well.

That is: you might go to a conference session that highlights the importance of mind-maps. (I’m picking this example at random.) That session shows research about its effectiveness in helping students learn.

However, this study clearly reminds us that we might need to adapt that advice to our own classrooms.

High-school English teachers might have students create mind-maps together; remember, students benefit from “working and talking together.”

High-school math teachers might have them create mind-maps solo; students benefit from “working on their own.”

More generally, this study might prompt you to ask some direct questions during that mind-map session. Was the research done with students in different grades? In different school or community cultures? Studying different topics? With diagnosed learning differences?

In other words: this specific research finding reminds us of a general lesson. We should be curious about and open to research-based suggestions. AND, we should check and be sure the research aligns with our teaching context before we make drastic changes.

What This Finding DOESN’T Mean

The flipside of my last point is: this research should encourage you to adapt your teaching practices only if your classrooms look like these classrooms.

Do you teach history? This research might not (or might) talk directly to you.

Do you teach second grade? Ditto.

Perhaps you teach in a different cultural context — say, Korea, Cairo, or Kansas.

Perhaps your school has a specific teaching philosophy (a Montessori school; a military academy) that rules out these approaches.

In other words: don’t just DO what this research tells you to do. THINK about your teaching practice with these ideas in mind — and see if they fit and make sense in your world.

Burgess, S. M., Rawal, S., & Taylor, E. S. (2022). Teachers’ use of class time and student achievement (No. w30686). National Bureau of Economic Research.

When Prior Knowledge Bites Back: The Dangers of Knowing Too Much
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March 07, 2023

When Prior Knowledge Bites Back: The Dangers of Knowing Too Much

Read More

In this blog, we typically highlight the benefits of prior knowledge.

For example: if a student knows a lot about baseball, she’ll be much more successful in understanding a reading passage about baseball.

Young rowan tree seedling grow from old stump in a sunlit forest.

That same student could struggle mightily with a passage about cricket. What’s an “over”? A “wicket”? A “badger”?

In the world of cognitive load theory, prior knowledge helps because it reduces working memory load.

An expert knows relevant definitions, concepts, procedures – and the relationships among them.

And because experts have all that knowledge in long-term memory, they don’t need to noodle it around as much in working memory.

The teaching implications of this insight:

First: find out how much prior knowledge students have on any given topic.

Second: ensure student have the prior knowledge they need before starting on any given topic. Don’t start it until they do.

NB: This second insight has important implications for many project pedagogies.

This conclusion is well settled in cognitive load theory. But: is it always true?

Is it possible that prior knowledge might increase working memory load? Could it make thinking and problem solving more difficult?

Thinking the Unthinkable

Here’s a question:

“To mitigate the effects of climate change, would it be a good idea to plant more Douglas fir, oak, and beech trees in the Black Forest?”

I know a bit about climate change, and a bit about trees, and I’m generally inclined to say “yes.” Because I’m a novice – that is, I don’t have lots of prior knowledge on these topics – the question strikes me as straightforward.

However, if I were an expert, I might draw on my prior knowledge to see additional complexities in the question.

For instance…

…those trees might be vulnerable to particular diseases or pests,

…they might harm the ecosystem in the Black Forest,

…they might – paradoxically – do some tree thing or another that would ultimately exacerbate climate change rather than mitigate it.

In this case, an expert’s prior knowledge could introduce complicating variables – and thereby increase working memory load.

A research team, made up of scholars from Germany and Australia*, tested this hypothesis.

As you would expect, they asked forestry experts and forestry non-experts to consider (roughly) the tree-planting question above.

The experts considered the question more complicated than the novices did. That is: that said that it required more thought, more simultaneous contemplation of variables, and more complex thinking..

And – here’s the kicker – their answers weren’t any better than the novice’s answers.

In Other Words

Putting all these pieces together…

Forestry experts’ higher level of prior knowledge increased their perception of the problem’s complexity;

It did so (probably) because they thought of additional variables not included in the question;

These additional variables increased working memory load;

Because of additional strain on working memory, these experts didn’t benefit from their prior knowledge – and didn’t answer the question more effectively than novices.

Wow.

The research team then went ahead and tested this same idea with 4th graders in Australia.

As often happens in research, the details get complicated. The headline is: when they tested a classroom analog of the same problem, they got somewhat similar results.

Students with higher levels of prior knowledge DID perceive the cognitive load to be higher.

However, when those students solved problems, they scored higher than when they did not have relevant prior knowledge. (Remember: for the forestry example, higher cognitive load eliminated the experts’ advantage in solving the problem.)

In other words: the potential dangers of prior knowledge do show up in the classroom, not just in abstract research exercises.

Teaching Implications, Take II

Above I wrote:

First: find out how much prior knowledge students have on any given topic.

Second: ensure student have the prior knowledge they need before starting on any given topic. Don’t start it until they do.

Based on this study, I think we should add another implication:

Third: stop and consider – how might a student’s expert prior knowledge interfere with their learning of this concept? What other concepts or procedures might they draw into a question in ways that unhelpfully complicate their thinking?

At this point, I don’t think we have enough research into the dangers of prior knowledge to have refined or thorough guidance in answer to those new questions.

I do think, however, we should get in the habit of asking them.

TL;DR

Typically, prior knowledge benefits students by reducing working memory load.

Therefore, typically, we should ensure they have relevant prior knowledge before starting a topic.

In some cases – according to this research – prior knowledge can complicate thinking when experts bring in too many ideas from their knowledge base.

In these cases, we should be sure to think through those potential dangers, and head them off as best we can.

And: we should follow this research pool. It’s an intriguing topic!

* One of the researchers here is none other than Ollie Lovell, who wrote an EXCELLENT book on Cognitive Load Theory for teachers. You can read my review here.

Endres, T., Lovell, O., Morkunas, D., Rieß, W., & Renkl, A. (2022). Can prior knowledge increase task complexity?–Cases in which higher prior knowledge leads to higher intrinsic cognitive load. British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Practical Advice for Students: How to Make Good Flashcards
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March 01, 2023

Practical Advice for Students: How to Make Good Flashcards

Read More

Flashcards feel to me like a research sweet-spot.

In the first place: for the most part, students believe that they help — and are even willing to make them!

In the second place: flashcards should help. After all, flashcards promote retrieval practice. And as you know, research shows that retrieval practice really helps students learn.

So, if we can find specific research about flashcards, it should be especially useful in our work.

portrait of father teaching daughter how to read by using simple words and letters on a flash card at home

It would be even better if one of the researchers were Mark McDaniel — who co-authored make it stick: one of the great books on memory research for teachers.

If you agree with me on these points, I’ve got some good news for you today!

Starting with Questions

Far and away the most common flashcard question I hear is: “does it matter if students make the flashcards themselves?”

The logic behind this question makes sense. When students think about the material in order to make good flashcards, then that thought might promote learning.

In other words: flashcard making isn’t just the bad kind of “active learning” (students are BUSY!) but the good kind of “active learning” (students are THINKING!).

I have two doubts about this thought process.

First: students might not know enough to make good flashcards.

If their cards prompt them to recall relatively unimportant ideas and processes, then the subsequent retrieval practice won’t really help.

Second: making flashcards takes time.

If students have access to good flashcards — ones that highlight the core concepts, procedures, and facts — then studying with those cards will (perhaps) be more efficient than taking time to make their own.

Two other questions also suggest themselves:

What kind of questions should be on the flashcards?

Most students make detail flashcards. That is: flashcards that focus on facts, definitions, dates, and so forth.

They might also — or instead — make “conceptual” flashcards. That is: flashcards that combine details in compare/contrast patterns, or process steps.*

Question #3:

Do flashcards help some students more than others?

The good news: a recent study explores all those questions.

The First Question

Researchers started with a straightforward experiment. They had students read textbook passages – one about biological anthropology, the other about geology – and then study for a quiz.

The students were divided into four groups, based on how they studied:

Group A studied however they chose.

Group B received 12 flashcards prepared by the textbook makers.

Group C made their own 12 flashcards. They didn’t get any instructions about them.

Group D made their own 12 flashcards. They did get special instructions: “include 4 ‘conceptual’ questions” – that is, questions that compare/contrast, or that highlight several steps in a process.

Let’s return to the first question I asked above: did the students who made their own flashcards learn more than those who studied with pre-made flashcards?

Nope.

That is: students in Groups C & D (who made their own cards) did NOT learn more than those in Group B (who received pre-made flashcards).

Even worse: they DID spend more time.

So, at least in this experiment, asking students to make their own flashcards just isn’t very efficient. They DO spend more time, but DON’T learn more. A bad combination.

Okay, but what about the second question I asked above?

Did the students who made “conceptual” flashcards learn more than those who got no special instructions?

Again, Nope.

Students in Group C — who got no special instructions — mostly made “detail” flashcards. Students in Group D — who were instructed to make 4 “conceptual” flashcards – basically followed those instructions; they made 4 “conceptual” and 8 detail flashcards.

But: both groups spent the same amount of time, and got the same score on the quiz.

Digging Deeper

This research team had hypothesized that the “conceptual” flashcards would benefit learning, and were therefore surprised by the results of this first experiment.

However, they quickly saw a plausible explanation.

C-Group students – who got no instructions – made 12 flashcards. On average, 10 of them were detail flashcards, and the other 2 were “conceptual.”

D-Group students – instructed to make 4 conceptual flashcards – did so: 8 detail cards and 4 “concept” cards.

So you can see, not much of a difference there.

In their next experiment, these researchers doubled down on these two different strategies.

Two new groups of students read the same two passages.

Group E received detail-only flashcards.

Group F received “conceptual”-only flashcards.

Now is there a difference?

By George I think they’ve got it.

Sure enough, in high enough percentages, “conceptual” flashcards do help students learn more.

Now We’re Getting Somewhere

Based on these first two experiments, I think we have some useful answers to our initial questions:

First: at least so far, we don’t have good evidence that students learn more when they make their own flashcards. Alas, this strategy seems inefficient, based on experiment #1.

Second: conceptual flashcards do help students more than detail flashcards, as long as there are enough of them.

I do think this second conclusion requires further nuance.

In the first place, some disciplines really do require lots of detail knowledge. When I studied Czech, I had (literally) HUNDREDS of vocabulary flashcards. Other fields might require a similarly detail-heavy flashcard deck.

In the second place, I do think K-12 students might need detail flashcards more than college students. After all, college students already know more details than younger students do – especially at the highly selective college where this study was performed.

Finally, the distinction between “detail” and “conceptual” might be overdrawn. Here’s a technique I’ve used in my own work.

Step 1: ask a student to draw two vocabulary flashcards, and to define those words.

In my English class, the student might define the words “protagonist” and “sympathetic.”

Step 2: ask the student to make a connection between the two words.

Now the student might say: “Well, a protagonist is typically a sympathetic character – like Janie Mae Crawford. But not always: Macbeth certainly is the protagonist, and certainly isn’t a sympathetic character.”

With this technique, two “detail” flashcards combine to require “conceptual” thinking – at least as defined by the researchers.

TL;DR

As long as we allow for nuance, and the possibility that future research will invite us to rethink these conclusions, this study suggests:

A: Students don’t benefit from making their own flashcards – as long as we provide them with good ones, and

B: Students DO benefit from flashcards that ask them to combine and organize information, not simply recall free-standing facts.

These suggestions – and others that have good research support – give us useful pointers to pass along to our students.

A Final Note:

Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that I didn’t answer my third question: “do flashcards benefit some students more than others?”

This study does point to an answer, but … I don’t fully understand it.

In brief, “high structure-building” students don’t benefit as much from conceptual flashcards, because they already do better than “low structure-bulding” students – who DO benefit from conceptual flashcards.

Sadly, I don’t understand exactly what “high and low structure-building” means here. Those words sound like a proxy for “high scoring” and “low scoring,” but not exactly. Rather than pretend I know, I’m simply fessing up that there’s an extra variable here.

If you figure it out, please let me know!

* The authors of the study I’m describing acknowledge that this definition of “conceptual” is incomplete. They’re using that word as a handy shorthand for “flashcards that go beyond single details.”  In this blog post, I put the word “conceptual” in quotation marks to highlight the narrow specificity of their definition.

Lin, C., McDaniel, M. A., & Miyatsu, T. (2018). Effects of flashcards on learning authentic materials: The role of detailed versus conceptual flashcards and individual differences in structure-building ability. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 7(4), 529-539.