boundary conditions – Page 2 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Tag: boundary conditions

Newer posts
The Limits of Retrieval Practice, Take II…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November 13, 2018

The Limits of Retrieval Practice, Take II…

Read More

Just two weeks ago, I posted about a study showing potential boundary conditions for retrieval practice: one of the most robustly supported classroom strategies for enhancing long-term memories.

As luck would have it, the authors of that study wrote up their own description of it over at The Learning Scientists blog. Those of you keeping score at home might want to see their description of the study, and their thoughts on its significance.

The short version: boundary conditions always matter.

We should assume they exist, and look for them.

A teaching practice that works with some students — even most students — just might not work with my students.

In that case: I’m happy it helps the others, but I need to find the strategy that will work with mine.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October 30, 2018

The Limits of Retrieval Practice: A Helpful Case Study

Read More

Here on the blog, I write A LOT about the benefits of “retrieval practice.” (For example: here and here.)

retrieval practice limitations

In brief: our students often review by trying to put information into their brains. That is: they “go over” the material.

However, they learn more if — instead — they review by trying to pull information out of their brains. That is: they fill in blanks on Quizlet, or use flashcards, or outline the chapter from memory.

AT THE SAME TIME…

I also write about the importance of “boundary conditions.”

A particular research finding might be true for this group (say, college students learning chemistry) but not that group (say, 3rd graders learning spelling rules).

(For example: here and here.)

So, I really should ask myself: what are the boundary conditions for retrieval practice?

Retrieval Practice Limitations?

In the first place, retrieval practice has become so popular because it works so well in so many circumstances.

It helps 2nd graders and adult learners.

It helps with declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge.

And, it helps Red Sox fans and Dodgers fans. (I might have made that one up.)

However, I have recently seen research into two retrieval practice limitations, and I think they’re important for teachers to keep in mind.

“Narrow” vs. “Broad” Learning

Researcher Cindy Nebel (nee Wooldridge) wanted to know if retrieval practice helps students learn only the information they retrieve. That is, it might have a narrow, focused effect.

Or perhaps it helps students remember ideas related to the information they retrieve. Retrieval of one memory might broadly influence other memory networks.

In my geography class, for instance, students might learn that the capital of Egypt is Cairo, and that its main economic drivers are tourism and agriculture.

I encourage my students to make flashcards to help them remember capitals. When a student looks at her Egypt flashcard, will remembering its capital (“Egpyt!”) help her remember its main industries as well? Or, does it help consolidate only that specific memory network?

Alas, according to Nebel’s research, RP has a “narrow,” not a “broad” effect. It helps students remember the specific information they retrieved, but not related concepts.

Practically speaking, this finding suggests that we should be sure to tailor retrieval practice exercises quite precisely to the specific memory we want students to form. A question about triassic fossils won’t necessarily help them recall specifics about the end of the cretaceous era.

If we want them remember asteroid impacts, we should use RP to foster those memories.

Question Difficulty, Difficult Questions

A more recent study has looked at other retrieval practice limitations: fluid intelligence, and question difficulty. This research is still behind a paywall, and so I haven’t looked at the specifics.

The abstract, however, suggests that — especially on difficult items — students with relatively low fluid intelligence might benefit more from review than RP.

This research finding raises several questions: how, precisely, do we measure question difficulty?

And: how much stock do we want to put into measures of fluid intelligence?

Classroom Decisions

As always, the question comes down to this: “what should I, as the classroom teacher, actually do?”

Based on this research, I think we can reach a few clear conclusions:

In many circumstances, retrieval practice helps students remember more than simple review.

As much as possible, we should ensure that we have students retrieve the precise information (or process) we want them to remember. Nearby questions might not help enough.

When working with difficult material, or with students who really struggle in school, we should keep an open mind. Try different learning strategies, and see which ones prove most effective with this student right here.

I’ll keep you posted as I read more about boundary conditions for retrieval practice.

The Benefits of Prediction; the Dangers of Vocabulary
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November 27, 2017

The Benefits of Prediction; the Dangers of Vocabulary

Read More

AdobeStock_6446201_Credit

What’s the best way to study complex material?

Working with Charles Atwood at the University of Utah, Brock Casselman tried an idea:

He had students in a general chemistry class do weekly online problems and practice tests; after completing that work, the students received detailed feedback.

In addition to this online practice, half of the students also predicted their scores before they took the tests; they then made study plans after they received the feedback.

Did this additional work help?

Indeed it did. On average, it raised grades on the final exam by 4%.

Even more impressively, those in the bottom quartile of the class raised their exam grade by 10%.

Especially for those who struggled with the material, making predictions and updating study plans boosted learning.

Reasons to Celebrate; Reasons to Pause

Of course, this research is quite helpful in giving us specific teaching advice. The more we can encourage our students to stop and predict their success, the more we can prompt them to make thoughtful study plans, the more that they’re likely to learn.

So far, so good.

However, I do see two reasons to add a note of caution.

First, this study was done in a difficult college class; according to this interview, only 2/3 of the students who take the class ever pass it.

A study technique that helps in such a difficult class might be beneficial to students in less rigorous classes…but, we can’t be sure based on this research.

Second, I do worry about the broad vocabulary used to describe this study technique: “metacognition.”

No doubt you’ve heard of metacognition: it means “thinking about thinking.” When I stop and ask myself, “now, why did I get that problem wrong? What patterns do I notice with other mistakes I made?” I’ve engaged in metacognition.

Here’s the potential danger. While it is true that Casselman’s particular set of metacognitive strategies helped these students, that doesn’t mean that ALL metacognitive strategies will help ALL students.

For instance, you might read that “using context clues” is a metcognitive strategy. It certainly is. And, of course, using context clues might well help students to important discoveries.

However: that’s not the metacognitive strategy that was used in this case. So, this study doesn’t show that using context clues would help students in this chemistry class.

Or that it would help your students.

Boundaries Matter

In a recent post, I encouraged teachers to look for boundary conditions. In other words: we’re interested in researchers’ general findings, but we want to be sure that they apply specifically to our students.

To do so, check out the “participants” section of the research you’re reading. If the students who participated in the research resemble your students, then you’re good to go. If not, use your own best judgment about the applicability of that research.

Equally important: be sure that the specific techniques described as “metacognition” are in fact the ones that you’re using. If not, you should look for more research to be sure you’re on the right track.

After all, my predictions about the benefits of metacognition might be correct–but if my results show that a particular metacognitive strategy didn’t work, I need to develop a new study plan.

Cell Phones and Boundaries
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November 07, 2017

Cell Phones and Boundaries

Read More

AdobeStock_151049690_Credit

Regular readers of this blog—and, people who have even a glimpse of common sense—already know that mobile devices distract college students during lectures.

(If you’d like a review of research on this topic, you can check out The Distracted Mind by Gazzaley and Rosen.)

You can picture college students now: squinting at small screens, thumbing away at tiny keyboards, chuckling at oddly inappropriate moments of the lecture.

How can there possibly be any reason to research this question further?

One Reason to Research this Question Further

When scientists discover any kind of principal, they quickly start investigating the specific conditions under which it applies.

For example: we know that retrieval practice is—generally speaking— a great way to review. But, does it work equally well for 8-year-olds, 18-year-olds, and 80-year-olds?

We know that a growth mindset—generally speaking—enhances motivation. But, does it work for athletic as well as academic endeavors?

We know that—generally speaking—stress is bad for learning. But: how much stress is bad? Is there a low level of stress that might be good? Or, are there some tasks that benefit from high levels of stress during learning?

Researchers call these boundary conditions: a finding applies under these particular circumstances, but not those particular circumstances.

And so, we might want to investigate use of mobile devices during lectures even further to discover their boundary conditions. Are there ages at which cell-phone use matters less? Are there class lengths where it matters more? Are there personality types who learn more while surfing away?

A Surprising Answer

A group of researchers in South Africa wanted to find boundary conditions for the harm done by mobile devices in college lectures. In particular, they wanted to know: do cell phones lower grades equally in all disciplines?

Perhaps history students are more distractible than classics students. Or, perhaps physics concepts can be obscured more readily than biology concepts.

By surveying students and by doing a meta-analysis of other studies, le Roux & Parry found that mobile phones did less harm in Engineering classes than in Arts and Social Sciences classes.

So: cell phones distract students during lectures, but they don’t distract students equally during lectures on different topics.

Teaching Implications

I, for one, wouldn’t encourage my Engineering students to break out the iPads during class. Those devices might not be as distracting as in other classes, but they’re still distracting.

(And: they’re probably distracting to other students: see Faria Sana’s research.)

Here’s what I would do: follow le Roux’s example and look for boundary conditions.

If a speaker says “working memory limits preclude students from remembering more than 2 instructions,” ask if that rule applies to your 11th graders. Ask if it applies to written instructions as well as verbal instructions. Ask if it applies to instructions given in a foreign language class. Ask if it applies to instructions that students must follow over the next 30 minutes.

Look for boundary conditions.

(By the way, the answer to those questions are:

  1. Because WM capacity increases with age, most 11th graders can recall more than 2 instructions.
  2. Written instructions don’t take up much working memory capacity at all.
  3. Because foreign language instruction is VERY WM taxing, students might struggle to remember even a small number of instructions.
  4. The longer students have to remember instructions, the harder that effort becomes. That’s why you make shopping lists: it’s hard to remember what you want at the store when it’s 30 minutes away.)

In Sum…

Cognitive sciences offers teachers general principles—and those principles can be mightily helpful. (For instance: retrieval practice DOES work well for 8, 18, and 80 year olds.)

But, most of those principles do have important boundaries. Your students, your class size, your discipline, your age group, your personality—all these variables just might be outside those boundaries.

And so: be curious about the general principles. And, be equally curious about their boundaries.

Chocolate and Cocoa Help You Learn, Right?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July 19, 2017

Chocolate and Cocoa Help You Learn, Right?

Read More

AdobeStock_88446344_Credit

What’s not to love? The photo shows a mug of cocoa, with an already-nibbled chocolate bar in the background. Even better, the headline alerts us that both the cocoa and the chocolate “enhance cognitive abilities and memory.”

For once, this headline is not overselling the scientific article. In the abstract, the authors really do say

Although still at a preliminary stage, research investigating the relations between cocoa and cognition shows dose-dependent improvements in general cognition, attention, processing speed, and working memory.

WOW.

The authors even use the word “nutraceutical”–new to me–to emphasize that chocolate is both nutritious and pharmaceutically beneficial.

New that sounds this good can’t be true. Can it?

Maybe the News Really Is That Good

For their review, Valentina Socci’s team assembles a solid list of articles touting the physical benefits of cocoa flavanols: compared to control groups, those who have chocolate or cocoa over several days/weeks show better blood pressure, insulin resistance, and brain blood flow.

They also show exciting changes in various kinds of brain activity. One study, looking at a particular measure of brain activity (SSVEP), showed

changes in SSVEP average amplitude and phase across several posterior parietal and centro-frontal sites that indicated an increased neural efficiency in response to the working memory task.

Increased neural efficiency on a working memory task! Now you’ve got my attention…

Then Again, Maybe Not…

All that chocolate may have changed SSVEP average amplitude and phase. However, as teachers, we don’t really care about that: we care about learning. Did this “increase in neural efficiency” actually improve working memory?

Nope.

Similarly, another study showed that chocolate improved neural activity “in various brain regions in response to an attention switching task.”

But, that improved neural activity didn’t make them any better at switching attention.

In fact, of the six studies that focus specifically on one-time doses (not weeks-long doses), two showed no meaningful cognitive differences for those who had chocolate/cocoa, and the others showed differences in some measures or some participants–but not in all.

In other words, the research is suggestive and interesting, but hardly persuasive.

Who Is Learning?

I suspect that most of the people reading this blog are in the world of PK-12 education. How many of the people being studied were PK-12 students?

None.

For the studies looking at one-time doses of cocoa, most were in college.

For the studies looking at daily shots, many (most?) of the participants were older than 55.

In fact, many of these studies focused on people with some kind of cognitive impairment: typically dementia.

Reasonable Conclusions

Based on the data gathered here, I think we can reasonably say that for older people–especially those with some cognitive problems–cocoa flavanols might have some physiological benefits (blood pressure, insulin levels), and might even offer some cognitive boosts as well.

That’s exciting and helpful if you teach people, and especially if you are taking care of someone, in that group. (If you’re looking after someone with dementia, by the way, don’t rely on a blog for medical advice: talk with a doctor.)

However, we have no good reason to think that chocolate offers cognitive benefits for PK-12 students. Perhaps it does–but this article simply doesn’t present direct evidence to support that conclusion.

At the same time, I am entirely willing to hypothesize that chocolate offers substantial emotional benefits. For this reason, S’mores will be served at the upcoming Learning and the Brain Conference…

Newer posts