Andrew Watson – Page 64 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Andrew Watson About Andrew Watson

Andrew began his classroom life as a high-school English teacher in 1988, and has been working in or near schools ever since. In 2008, Andrew began exploring the practical application of psychology and neuroscience in his classroom. In 2011, he earned his M. Ed. from the “Mind, Brain, Education” program at Harvard University. As President of “Translate the Brain,” Andrew now works with teachers, students, administrators, and parents to make learning easier and teaching more effective. He has presented at schools and workshops across the country; he also serves as an adviser to several organizations, including “The People’s Science.” Andrew is the author of "Learning Begins: The Science of Working Memory and Attention for the Classroom Teacher."

Neuroscience and Neuromyths
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_157864475_Credit

Does neuroscience education help reduce a teacher’s belief in neuromyths?

According to this recent study: not as much as we would like.

In some cases, neuroscience education does help teachers.

For instance, 59% of the general public falsely believe that listening to classical music increases reasoning ability. That number is 55% for teachers, but drops to 43% for teachers who have had neuroscience training.

Similarly, teachers with knowledge of neuroscience are less likely to embrace a “left-brained vs. right-brained” understanding of learning than teachers without. (See video here.)

However, neuromyths about learning styles and about dyslexia persist–even among teachers with neuroscience education.

Among the general population, 93% of people incorrectly believe that “individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style.” That number falls to 76% among teachers–but is almost identical (78%) for teachers who know from neuroscience.

And: teachers who have studied neuroscience believe that writing letters backwards is a sign of dyslexia at almost the same rate as those who haven’t.

The Big Question

Studies like these lead me to this question: why are some neuromyths so sticky? Why do so many of us teachers believe in, say, learning styles theory despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary?

Why does this belief persist even among those–like we who attend Learning and the Brain conferences–who have placed science at the center of our professional development?

I welcome all thoughts on this question…

Parents, High School Start Times, and Sleepy Teens
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_39639084_Credit

Research findings that support later high-school start times have been more and more common in recent years. (See also here.) And teachers I know are increasingly vocal about letting teens sleep later.

And yet, when I talk with high school leaders, they ruefully cite sports schedules to explain the impossibility of making serious changes.

(I’ve also read that bus schedules get in the way.)

Here’s another–quite surprising–reason that this change might be hard to accomplish: parental uncertainty. According to this recent study, published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, half of parents whose teens start school before 8:30 don’t support a later start time.

The study concludes that we need to do a better job educating parents about the biological changes in adolescent sleep patterns.

The more that parents understand how melatonin onset–and, hence, sleepiness–changes with adolescence, the more they might understand that their awake-at-midnight teens aren’t simply being willful. They are instead responding to powerful chemical signals.

Given all we know about adolescent sleep, and the effect of sleep on learning, teachers and parents should be champions of reasonable high school start times.

More Thoughts on Gender Differences
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_118569932_Credit

Regular readers of this blog know that I’m a skeptic about gender differences in learning. Although they certainly do exist–I think particularly about differences in 3d mental rotation–I often think they’re overstated or overemphasized.

At the same time, my emphasis on this point might obscure the fact that at the population level, gender differences in learning do sometimes exist. Two articles are, I think, particularly helpful in understanding these ideas.

First, this weighty research review considers the number of women in STEM fields and reaches three broad conclusions:

  1. “Males are more variable [than females] on most measures of quantitative and visuospatial ability, which necessarily results in more males at both high- and low-ability extremes; the reasons why males are often more variable remain elusive.”
  2. “Females tend to excel in verbal abilities, with large differences between females and males found when assessments include writing samples. “
  3. “We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics.”

The article stands out to me not only for its thoroughness, but for its all-star list of authors. Janet Shibley Hyde, for example, is well known for her skepticism about gender differences; in fact, she authored a widely-cited article called The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. If a known skeptic is on board with these conclusions, then I’m comfortable being there too.

(Another author, Diana Halpern, by the way, is a former president of the American Psychological Association.)

Second, Hyde has published an exploration of the first argument above: that men show greater variability in quantitative and visual abilities. This hypothesis suggests that–although large populations of men and women will have the same average math scores–we would expect to see more men who are very good at math (say, the top 5%) and also who are very bad at math (say, the bottom 5%).

Hyde’s article shows the complexity of this hypothesis. In particular, given that these variations differ from country to country, and can change over time, we have to recognize the social and historical context of any data set.

The Effect of Alcohol on Learning…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_9945053_Credit

…might not be what you’d expect.

My prediction would have been that if I have a glass of wine before I learn some new vocabulary words, I won’t learn those words as well as I would have fully sober.

That prediction, it turns out, is correct. New learning that takes place post-alcohol just doesn’t consolidate very well. It seems that alcohol inhibits long-term potentiation.

I also would have predicted that if I have a glass of wine just after I learn some new vocabulary words, that wine would muddle my memory of those new words as well.

That prediction, however, is just wrong. My post-study wine–surprise!–improves my recall of those words the next morning.

In fact, a recent study shows that this effect holds true not only in the psychology lab, but also at home. When participants (not just college students, by the way) went home after they learned new words and raised a pint or two, they remembered more of those words than their fully-sober counterparts.

Even more remarkable, they did better than their alcohol-free peers not because they forgot less, but because they remembered even more. That is, their recall score in the evening was in the mid 30% range; the next morning, it was in the low 40% range.

Theories, theories

The standard hypothesis to explain such a result goes like this: when we drink alcohol, the brain forms fewer new memories. The hippocampus takes advantage of this pause to consolidate previous memories.

In other words: since the brain has some alcohol-induced down time, it uses that time to firm up what it already knows.

The authors of this study suggest an alternate explanation: sleep. As they explain, alcohol increases the proportion of slow-wave sleep compared to rapid-eye-movement sleep. Because slow-wave sleep is good for the formation of factual memories, this SWS increase benefits factual learning.

(An implication of this hypothesis is that alcohol might be bad for other kinds of memory formation–such as procedural memory–which require more rapid-eye-movement sleep. That is: alcohol might help you learn more facts, but fewer skills.)

Some Caveats, and an Invitation

Needless to say, I’m not encouraging you to drink heavily to promote learning.

And, I wouldn’t share these results with my 2nd graders.

However, after a long evening of study, I just might feel a bit less guilty about relaxing with a cozy Cabernet.

And, when you come to this fall’s Learning and the Brain conference, you should definitely join us at the wine and cheese reception.

Criticizing Critical Thinking
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_29005489_Credit

Over at Newsweek, Alexander Nazaryan wants to vex you. Here’s a sample:

Only someone who has uncritically mastered the intricacies of Shakespeare’s verse, the social subtexts of Elizabethan society and the historical background of Hamlet is going to have any original or even interesting thoughts about the play. Everything else is just uninformed opinion lacking intellectual valence.

If you’d like a more nuanced version of this argument, check out Daniel Willingham’s Why Don’t Students Like School. 

In particular, you might read…

Chapter 2: “Factual knowledge must precede skill”

Chapter 4:  “We understand things in the context of what we already know, and most of what we know is concrete”

Chapter 5: “It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a mental task without extended practice”

and chapter 6: “Cognition early in training is different from cognition late in training”

From another vantage point: my own book Learning Begins discusses the dangers of working memory overload lurking in efforts to teach critical thinking.

Whether you prefer Nazaryan’s emphatic declamations, or Willingham’s and my more research-focused commentary, take some time to think critically about all the cognitive legwork that must precede real critical thought.

Lighten the Load
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_44554611

You’d like an 8 page summary of Cognitive Load Theory, written in plain English for teachers? You’d like three pages of pertinent sources?

Click here for a handy report from the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (That’s not a typo; the Centre is in New South Wales, Australia.)

For example: you might check out the “expertise reversal effect” described on page 7; you’ll gain a whole new perspective on worked examples.

How Best to Count
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_50754220_Credit

Should young children count on their fingers when learning math?

You can find strong opinions on both sides of this question. (This blog post uses 4 “No’s” and 5 exclamation points to discourage parents from allowing finger counting.)

Recent research from the University of Bristol, however, suggests that finger counting–when combined with other math exercises–improves quantitative skills more than either intervention by itself.

The study design is quite complex; check the link above if you’d like the details. But, the headline is clear: for 6- and 7-year-olds, a taboo against finger counting may well hinder the development of math skills.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Here on the blog, we write a lot about desirable difficulties: that elusive middle ground where cognitive work is hard enough but not too hard.

Over at The Learning Scientists, they’ve got a handy list of resources to guide you through this idea more fully.

For an added benefit, the article begins with a brief criticism of the theory.

Enjoy!

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Like you, the Effortful Educator knows that retrieval practice benefits learning. But: how to get your students to do it?

Here‘s one strategy he proposes…if you’re like me, you’ll admire its wisdom and simplicity.

Lefty or Righty?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_158208473_Credit

You’ve surely heard about students being left-brained or right-brained. And: you’ve probably heard that this belief is a myth.

The folks over at Ted Ed have made a helpful video explaining the genesis of this belief, and the ways that we know it’s not true.

An important note in this controversy: it is certainly true that some people are more creative than others. It’s also certainly true that some are more logical than others. After all–to summarize psychology in three words–people are different.

Also, the phrase “left-brained” may be useful shorthand for “rather more logical,” and “right-brained” for “more creative than most.”

After all, we can use the phrase “heart-broken” without believing that this lovelorn person’s heart is–you know–actually broken.

But, we should be quite clear that creativity and logical thought aren’t “happening” on different sides of the brain. In fact, we should also recognize that a sharp distinction between creativity and logical thought doesn’t even make much sense.

So: you might be left-handed or right-handed, but you aren’t left-brained or right-brained–except in a rather creative way of speaking.

(By the way, if you’d like to learn about AMAZING research into people who literally have only half a brain, click here.)