This confused ‘neuro-educationalist’ claptrap won’t help educational neuroscience. 

The notion of a ‘brain-friendly’ education always reminds me of ‘pet-friendly’ hotels, and I think the comparison actually bears some scrutiny. Arriving in even the most ‘pet-friendly’ of hotels, for example, you would not be surprised to find out that you were still expected to exercise some degree of control over your pet. Pet-friendly hotels do not expect the dog to be in charge; they don’t lay sheep carcasses around the lobby for them (and you) to roll in, and the decision to be ‘pet-friendly’ wouldn’t necessitate a complete redesign of the hotel layout and operating system. It is still a hotel, with some allowances made. ‘Brain-friendly education’, on the other hand, seems to often suggest that educational systems need to be subjected to a root and branch overhaul in order to accommodate learners who are entirely subjugated by a ‘developing brain’ which is in-charge, capricious, and requiring of special allowances. It seems less about being ‘friendly’ towards a brain, as much as desperately trying to appease its dictatorial authority.

If you will allow me to coin a few terms here, this ‘despotic-brain’ vision of adolescence assumes what we might call “neuro-determinism” – the primacy of a neuroscientific level of explanation over and above other levels of explanation such as the cognitive and the behavioural. This assumption is central to the claims of an increasing number of ‘neuro-educationalists’, who advocate educational reforms based on recent insights into the developing adolescent brain. It was at the heart of an article in the Washington Post today, which seemed to encapsulate many of the claims and argument techniques of those in the field: ‘Brain-hostile’ education: how schools are failing adolescents. As someone working in the intersection of neuroscience, psychology and education, what irritates me most about articles such as this is that potentially very good ideas are being badly used, with a handful of sensible propositions being swept along in a flood of premature, excessive or unwarranted extrapolations into real life. Some suggestions are deeply impractical, others ignore effective insights from other psychological disciplines which can be far more easily integrated into educational settings. Here is my reaction to some of the points made in the article, and why I think dealing with this sort of misinformation is crucial for the emerging academic field of educational neuroscience.

  1. Brain-friendly”, “brain-hostile”, “brain-ignorant

As I have said any phrase like this sets alarm bells ringing, hinting as it does at an unwarranted primacy of neural level explanations over other levels. This creates a false impression that we are nothing more than a slave to our neural wiring, which is simply untrue. See here for a good summary of the recent trend towards excessive neuro-hype.

2. “ A large-scale national survey of middle and high school students revealed that more than half of all 10th grade students were bored in class and less than half enjoyed being at school… “If we were doing right by our students and our future,” says Brandon Busteed, executive director of Gallup Education, “these numbers would be the absolute opposite. For each year a student progresses in school, they should be more engaged, not less.’’ 

Why? And why does this support anything ‘brain’ related? If teenagers are often bored in school, this is not automatic evidence of a’brain-hostile’ curriculum. If I find a topic boring, I don’t automatically conclude that the topic was at fault for not being sufficiently ‘friendly’ to my brain. Is it realistic that, as they get closer to the major summative exams which will end their school careers, students should also be expected to be enjoying themselves more and more? On a separate note, as people such as Greg Ashman have pointed out, engagement is a poor proxy for learning, so reduced enthusiasm does not necessarily translate into reduced learning.

3. “At a time when adolescents’ emotional brains are jacked up to the max, the middle and high school curriculum suddenly “gets down to business” and becomes emotionally flat in tone.”

It’s true that emotional processing may exercise disproportionate influence in the adolescent brain (see previous post here), but it doesn’t follow from this that we need some sort of tempestuous, emotionally-charged curriculum for them. Admittedly, I don’t know what an ’emotionally-charged curriculum’ would look like, but then I don’t know what an “emotionally-flat” one looks like either.

4. “At a time when the adolescent’s brain increasingly craves stimulation from peers, education becomes more teacher-centered, offering less small-group interaction and cooperative learning than elementary classrooms.” 

Again this suggests an excessive level of neuro-determinism. Also, just because of the (accepted) fact that adolescents brains respond to social interaction differently (see e.g. Chein et al., 2011 or Somerville, 2013), why does this lead to the conclusion that we must place them in these situations more? Adolescent brains also have increased sensitivity and neural responses to risk taking and rewards (e.g. Fryt & Czernecka, 2015) but I can’t imagine the author complaining that “at a time when the adolescent’s brain craves stimulation, society increasingly makes an effort to prevent them from driving too fast or taking large quantities of recreational drugs.

On a more educational note, the idea that more collaborative work would lead to improved learning in teenagers (or any age groups) is generally pretty flawed, for reasons that are well documented by Tom Bennett here.

5. “In addition, teachers promote student embarrassment by posting students’ grades and test results for everyone to see, and ban or restrict social media that could facilitate interpersonal learning in the classroom.”

When does this happen? It certainly isn’t standard practice anywhere I’ve ever worked or heard about. This seems to be a descent into simple misinformation and inaccuracy. Also, with regards to the ‘social media’ point, it should be noted that the use of technology to assist learning is often met with mixed success, especially social media (see e.g. McCoy, 2013;  Sana, Weston & Cepeda, 2013; Junco & Cotten, 2012)

6. “At a point when students’ decision-making skills are at a critical stage of development and the prefrontal cortex is going through a process of fine-tuning, zero-tolerance discipline policies run roughshod over students’ capacities to learn from their mistakes.” 

I’ve written about the adolescent brain’s ability to learn from feedback, and it is true that rewards seem to need to be more salient to produce the same level of response in adolescents as in adults (see e.g. Galvan, 2013)… but is the suggestion here that there should be some sort of brain-differentiation of discipline systems in a school? “Pupil A can have one more warning than pupil B on account of her more immature frontal cortex”? Nonsense. Adolescents are not idiots. They understand right and wrong. The fact that they may push boundaries, break rules and respond slowly to feedback will indeed have neuroscientific roots (as well as partly resulting from increased social freedoms to be able to do these things), but this in no way means that they should be exempted from our normal societal (or school) rules. If anything it makes it more important that they aren’t. Again, this is unwarranted neuro-determinism.

7. “In addition, schools heap required courses on students to prepare them for college, some actually requiring students to declare a major or course of study in ninth grade or even earlier. This approach deprives students of opportunities to take electives that are interesting to them and that might lead to a vocation in adulthood.” 

The make-up of the school curriculum is always a contentious issue. No idea what it has to do with neuroscience though.

8. “During a point when students are entering the developmental stage of formal operational thinking and are able to engage more deeply in metacognition, the curriculum begins to devote more attention to lower-order skills, such as recall of facts, formulas, and details.”

Once we’ve cut through the jargon salad here, we’re left with a point that is a) not about neuroscience, and b) incorrect, creating as it does a false dichotomy between ‘lower-order’ and ‘higher-order’ skills which does not exist. ‘Lower-order’ facts and ‘higher-order’ problem-solving are not rivals; indeed ‘lower-order’ knowledge is a necessary condition for higher-order problem-solving. They are inseparably linked. E.D. Hirsch has spent 50 years trying to get this message out.

9. “Finally, at a time when adolescents have a huge appetite for rewards, teachers start employing higher standards in judging student competence and tend to give lower grades than elementary school teachers.” 

Now I happen to think that the well-documented changes in the processing of reward stimuli in adolescents might be something which could be relevantly exploited in educational settings… but imagine if the ‘solution’ that a school came up with was to simply increase teenagers’ grades (to what? ‘A++’? ‘A****’? ‘A^^^!!@^^”’?). Quite apart from the the obvious stupidity in the idea of an arbitrary increase in teenage grades (and the small problem of looming external examinations, which presumably would not be so inflated), this again falls foul of the fallacy of neuro-determinism. It treats adolescents (or anyone) as drooling idiots, helplessly controlled by their all-powerful developing ‘brain’ and therefore unable to display any skill unless it is in a ‘brain-friendly’ setting. It also ignores the fact that rewards are context-dependent. Getting a ‘C’ grade can feel like a Nobel prize in some contexts, and an ‘A’ grade would be a kick in the teeth if everyone else was getting A****.

10. “The sensation-seeking behavior that can lead adolescents to drug abuse could alternatively be directed toward a highly engaging student-centered learning project. The reward-seeking behaviors that might lure teens into Internet addiction could be tapped through a game-based learning experience in the classroom.” 

A bizarre and slightly threatening conclusion. So are teachers to blame if a student has an internet addiction, because they haven’t game-ified their lessons enough? The sad thing is that, minus the hyperbole, there are relevant and interesting things to say about some of these ideas. Take reward-seeking and game-based learning experiences. As it happens, a large-scale trial of a particular teaching approach derived from neuroscientific evidence about teenage reward processing is currently ongoing in schools. The ‘Sci-napse’ project, lead by Paul Howard-Jones in Bristol, is based on findings about neural responses to uncertain rewards, and involves a ‘gaming’ like system for points scoring within lessons. this is a really exciting and promising project, and I can’t wait to see the results… but we’ll have to wait another year at least for those. Would it really be so boring then, instead of threatening teachers with drug-abusing students if they don’t include enough group work, to have a more measured and sober conclusion? Something like “games involving uncertain rewards in the classroom may allow us to effectively exploit changes in adolescent reward processing for educational benefit, but the tests are ongoing and we’ll know more when they’re done

Ironically, it is the power of ‘neuroplasticity’ – that buzz word of popular neuro-educationalism – which is actually the reason that most of their propositions fail to hold water. Plasticity is precisely what allows us to rise above the ‘determinism’ of our developing (or regressing) cortices. It is what allows us to create behavioural and cognitive strategies which mitigate our weaknesses, be that learning the flute when we’re 80, or revising the Tudors even when we’re bored. These strategies are ‘brain-based’ in the facile sense that pretty much everything that we do is brain-based to some degree, but they are implemented at a level above the neuroscientific. The interplay between these levels is hugely complex and poorly understood, but what is clear is that any developed picture of learning (and so any coherent theory of education) requires all levels to be taken into account. Too often, neuro-educationalists ignore these non-neural levels entirely, creating a neuro-deterministic picture of us (and especially teenagers) as cerebral automatons; slaves to our circuitry without considering the programs that those circuits might be able to run.

The thing which frustrates me most about these sort of articles is that I genuinely believe that neuroscience has a lot to potentially offer to education… just not like this. Hyperbolic depictions of schools as “brain-hostile” dystopias where adolescent dreams go to die (and where the only the only saviour is neuroscience) fly in the face of reality and evidence, and create the impression that educational neuroscience is attempting to circumvent the knowledge and expertise of other established disciplines, such as developmental, cognitive and educational psychology. This is not true at all (certainly it is not true in my mind). I have referred to ‘neuro-educationalists’ in this article to try to differentiate them from ‘educational neuroscientists’, who I see as playing a collaborative role in connecting cognitive theories of learning with the underlying neuroscientific evidence and constraints. Educational neuroscience is struggling for acceptance as a discipline. I briefly covered (and linked to) some of these criticisms in my first ever blog. In a slightly hostile environment it can be tempting to grab onto any show of support, and indeed I first saw this Washington Post article when it was tweeted by a prominent ‘ed neuro’ advocate. But by promoting these articles we only strengthen the case of the detractors and increase the perception of a charlatan enterprise. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

 

References:

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003

Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59, 505–514. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023

Somerville, L. H. (2013). The Teenage Brain: Sensitivity to Social Evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 121–127. http://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413476512

Galván, A. (2013). Current Directions in Psychological Science The Teenage Brain : Sensitivity to Rewards. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 88–93. http://doi.org/10.1177/0963

Fryt, J., & Czernecka, K. (2015). Cognitive control, reward sensitivity and risk-taking in adolescence – research perspectives of the dual systems model. Postępy Psychiatrii I Neurologii, 24, 231–238. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pin.2015.10.004

Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14(2), F1–F10. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x

McCoy, B. R. (2013). Digital Distractions In The Classroom: Student Classroom Use of Digital Devices for Non-Class Related Purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4(4), 5–12. Retrieved from http://en.calameo.com/read/000091789af53ca4e647f

Advertisements
This confused ‘neuro-educationalist’ claptrap won’t help educational neuroscience. 

From the Enlightenment to neurobollocks: The ‘myth of progress’ in teaching

In my last post I looked at recent research which illustrated that brain-training is not as effective as the adverts might make out, as well as reminding us that many of the benefits claimed by brain-training programs are available using existing, often time-honoured and rather mundane methods. This lead me to think about why this bias towards the novel exists, to the point where we may systematically ignore solutions that have been effective for years.

The concept of universal education can be traced back to the Enlightenment, indeed it is one of the most enduring products of the period. In a “post-factual” age when, in the words of Stephen Fry,

the achievements of the enlightenment are questioned, ridiculed, misunderstood and traduced by those who would reverse the progress of mankind

it is notable that the notion of universal education has never been seriously questioned. It was the product of two major Enlightenment advances, one scientific and one philosophical. Firstly, scientific breakthroughs from the likes of Newton, Kepler and Galileo led to an optimistic outlook regarding humans’ ability to comprehend and shape the world around them. Subsequently, John Locke and other figures from the emerging philosophical school of Empiricism began to argue that knowledge could only be gained through the senses; through our interactions with the world and by our subsequent reflections on the impressions that these interactions created. Empiricism led naturally on to ideas of universal education; since we all have pretty similar faculties for the sensation of the world, there seemed no obvious reason why all people should not be able to benefit from educational experiences which had, to that point, only been available to a privileged few. Presumably, then, the more people that were educated, the faster still would be the progress and development of the species. The confluence of these two factors – optimism about our scientific capabilities and an empiricist notion of education for all – created a powerful narrative which persists today: humans are capable of greatness and education is the tool for that greatness to be realised as widely and as effectively as possible. Education as the engine of human progress. So far so good, and I agree…

But this optimism can also have a corollary. It can create a general belief that, the occasional blip notwithstanding, we are on something of an inexorable march of ‘progress’. Indeed the notion of ‘progress’ was an important one for many Enlightenment thinkers, who drew a sharp distinction between more ancient voices such as Plato and Aristotle who saw society as a cycle, with periods of progress and development unavoidably followed by decline and disaster. Enlightenment thinkers, especially those armed with the emerging theories of evolution in the late 18th century and beyond, often presented ‘progress’ as an essential part of human nature, with our increasingly successful adaptation to our surroundings reduced to a simple (and inevitable) biological necessity. This narrative of progress is powerful and seductive, but it is also potentially dangerous one. Theories regarding the ‘progression’ of the species have been at the heart of some of the worst of subsequent human thought, justifying eugenics and genocide. In a less serious form, however, a blinkered faith in human ‘progress’ can lead to either a casual over-optimism regarding our current actions, or a tendency to embrace the ‘new’ and to reject the status quo. In both cases, this novelty bias can encourage us to change systems without due scrutiny being applied to their newer replacements.

Teaching, as we have said, is an Enlightenment profession. The nature of teaching means that many of the goals of the Enlightenment are also implicit assumptions of the profession. The belief in improvement through information, that the widest benefits for the world will come from the widest dissemination of knowledge, a passion for the democratisation of learning and so on. It is hard to imagine anyone entering the profession without holding these basic assumptions. In addition, it is not a profession where we can ever conceivably judge that we have done enough, or produced the ‘best possible’ results, so there is always a desire for progress: better exam results, value-added scores, enrolment figures, university entry rates etc etc – something could always be improved. Yet perhaps the same Enlightenment-era zeal which drives us can become something of a double-edged sword, leaving us vulnerable to falling for the ‘myth of progress’. I would argue that, just as it embodies many of the virtues of the Enlightenment, teaching is also prone to demonstrate the occasionally casual over-optimism of the time, and to embrace the novel over the time-honoured too unquestioningly. ‘Change for change’s sake’ is a frequent lament in the classroom in response to yet another management initiative, but teachers also need to critique their own classroom practice in the same spirit. How often do we jump to incorporate trendy new ideas or the latest cultural craze into our lessons (Pokemon Go, Minecraft, iPads etc etc), without really assessing how we are expecting it to make for a more effective learning experience? Another example might be the over-eager and premature adoption of new scientific ideas (gleefully exploited by unscrupulous edu-quacks), which has lead to widespread misinformation about the brain and learning amongst teachers (see e.g. here), and bogus interventions like Brain Gym, the Dore program or inappropriate use of the ‘growth mindset’. We also have explicitly named ‘Progressive’ education movements, which may embody many modern values, some of which have been translated into educational programs without due assessment of the relevance or efficacy of this translation. Changes in conceptions of individual rights and freedoms have metamorphosed into doctrines of student choice or ‘personalised learning’, which in turn have engendered such ineffective educational enterprises as ‘free-schools’ or learning styles.

I should be clear here that I don’t think that these problems are unique to teaching as a profession; I am sure that a good deal of this novelty bias is a natural human tendency shared by us all. But I do think that the aims of the profession, along with the inherent difficulty in ever defining or measuring ‘success’, make it especially vulnerable to a headlong search for the next new magic idea. Sometimes, however, what we’ve got already may actually work pretty effectively. Let’s try to remember that for when the next bandwagon rolls into town.

References:

Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429

Howard-Jones, P. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, (October). http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817

From the Enlightenment to neurobollocks: The ‘myth of progress’ in teaching

The silver bullets we already have

The recent finding (following a detailed review of all available evidence on the subject) that brain-training games are not effective (nicely summarised here if you don’t fancy all 80 pages worth) is the latest in a line of setbacks for the idea that repeated training of a particular mental function can have wide-ranging benefits for cognitive functioning and health (e.g. see here and here). This is not to say that brain-training is dead; it is possible that further research or new techniques (such as neurofeedback) could still allow for more effective forms of cognitive training which transfer over to other skills and domains. So the research should continue… but the hype should stop.

The Simons et al. article was published in the journal ‘Psychological Science in the Public Interest’, and it came with a fascinating commentary, which provided a delightful counterpoint to the main article. The basic thrust of ‘Brain-Training Pessimism, but Applied-Memory Optimism’, by McCabe et al. was that many of the purported benefits that are so desperately being sought by the proponents of ‘brain-training’ are already available to us, and in some case have been so for a hundred years or more, through the application of years of cognitive psychology research into memory. They give the example of three related memory strategies which have been consistently found to improve recall: elaboration, testing and spacing.

What’s really interesting about the McCabe et al. article is just how refreshingly low-key the authors’ solutions are. No novel tricks, or creative new strategies for their use – merely a reminder that before we go out searching for new silver bullets, we should check the ammunition store that we already have. The tragedy is that, for whatever reason, this does seem to happen; McCabe at al. cite a number of studies demonstrating that students still report not knowing how to study effectively. Another great champion of applied memory strategies, the Learning Scientists, have recently taken to re-tweeting students lamenting their lack of study skills as an illustration of the problem.

how-to-study

The great advantage of these applied memory approaches over brain-training type interventions is that they work on the level of strategies, rather than on abilities. Abilities are specific, hence the problem of transferring the development on one into the development of another (becoming very good at doing crosswords won’t necessarily make you better at Sudoku). Strategies can be used across multiple different abilities; I can self-test on geography and on history, and gain benefit in both. This is not to say that any strategy can be used regardless of the domain – the type of self-testing that works best in music may be different from that in maths – but the general principle of testing leading to effective learning does seem to hold across different areas (for excellent recent examples see Dunlosky et al, 2013 and Roediger & Pyc, 2012).

Assessment of the utility of learning techniques, from Dunlosky et al. (2013):dunlosky

Perhaps it is simply natural human nature to be a chronological snob, and to search for newer, shiner solutions to problems than the ones we already have. I suspect, actually, that teachers are unusual in their desire for ‘new’ solutions to problems, something that I will try to explore in my next post. In any event, the lesson that I felt was elegantly made by McCabe et al. is that sometimes finding new solutions can be less important than making sure that everyone knows about what we already have.

Other links for practical suggestions to apply memory strategies to their classroom (or to direct students towards):

References:

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. a., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

McCabe, J. A., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Brain-Training Pessimism, but Applied-Memory Optimism. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 187–191. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616664716

Roediger, H. L., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 242–248. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.002

Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 628–54. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027473

Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983

The silver bullets we already have

Psychology for teachers

There are many superb blogs on teaching, and some which focus specifically on the links between teaching and the psychology of learning. What I feel is sometimes not available to teachers are short and accessible introductions to some key ideas regarding how we learn.

This section consists of a series of short blogs designed to introduce teachers to research findings about how students learn, with suggestions for how these ideas could influence practice and links etc for further reading. I hope that you enjoy reading them and find them useful. If anyone has any suggestions for other topics which could be added, please let me know!

It is important to realise that none of these strategies is a magic ticket on their own! Instead, they are a foundation, from which each teacher can experiment and adjust their practice as best suits their teaching style and their school environment. The ‘suggestions for practice’ are simply that – suggestions. You may be able to think of much more effective ways of incorporating a particular piece psychology into your lessons. Feel free to try out new things and to experiment, but use these evidence-based ideas as a starting point. Why not use one or more of these as the basis for a new scheme of work or learning policy at your school? Or arrange an internal CPD day to share ideas and resources?

If you find a particularly effective method that seems to improve student progress, why not contact a Psychology or Education department at a university and see if you can arrange for a larger scale trial of the idea. In fact I would encourage all teachers and schools to take part in research projects into what works in education. The more teachers and schools that can become the driving force behind research (and key partners in it), the more progress we will make in discovering what techniques really work in schools.

The ‘Psychology for Teachers’ section currently contains introductions to (in alphabetical order):

Psychology for teachers

Working memory

Basic idea:

Any time you are ‘holding something in your mind’, such as calculating a bill, remembering a new phone number or a set of directions you’ve just been given, you are using working memory – it’s the name given to our ability to hold (and also manipulate) information in our minds over short periods of time.

In adults, famous experiments from the 1950s suggested that the capacity of this memory store was ‘7 plus or minus 2’ items – in other words between 5 and 9 items, depending on the individual. We can increase this capacity with clever strategies or if the information is in different forms… but it’s still a useful guide.

Children’s working memory capacity is still developing until their mid-teens in most cases, and approximately 10% of children in any one class may display impaired working memory. This means that in a class of 9 year olds, we might expect at least 3 or so to have a WM capacity of not much more than 2-3 items. This is important, as teachers may quite often give instructions which consist of a number of steps (e.g. “Cut out the shape from the piece of paper and stick it in your, books, then finish the exercises from yesterday”). This might exceed the WM capacity of some children, leading to organisational difficulties.

Suggestions for practice:

  • Reduce the number of steps in instructions that are given at one time, or breaking down tasks into chunks.
  • Provide instructions in written forms, or some other form that can be referred back to.

Team this idea also with ‘load theory of attention’ – aim to produce activities which have high attentional load but low working memory load. Also with ‘cognitive load theory’, which helps to clarify the sorts of activities which influence working memory.

Further reading:

The WM bottleneck… https://evidenceintopractice.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/the-working-memory-model-a-brief-guide-for-teachers/

http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/WM-classroom-guide.pdf

Turn it off! Working memory limitations explain why music and learning don’t often go together…

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/dont-listen-music-while-studying-david-cutler

Working memory

Metacognition: thinking about thinking

Basic idea:

Metacognition means ‘thinking about thinking’ (sometimes also translated as ‘learning to learn’), and the term is used to cover a range of approaches where students are encouraged to analyse their own learning process. For example, they might be asked to explain their thought processes and how they reached a certain conclusion or evaluate a piece of work or their academic progress. The obvious aim of these strategies is that students develop a greater degree of independence with their learning. They discover what strategies work for them, and they are able to find their own solutions to problems. They should also, presumably, become more self-reliant and resilient as well (see ‘growth mindset’).

When done well, there is good evidence that metacognition is an effective tool in improving student learning. However, successful interventions tend to be very carefully planned and thought out in terms of when and how students self-monitor, and when they don’t.

Suggestions for practice:

  • Allow the opportunity for students to discuss learning strategies for particular topics.
  • ‘Scaffolding’ in which specific strategies are taught, but with this support gradually withdrawn. Students could also have the opportunity to evaluate and adapt these strategies.
  • Give students plenty of opportunity to evaluate their work and to monitor their own progress… though not as replacement for feedback from the teacher!
  • Allow students to set goals and targets, but ensure that these are achievable and that the student actually understands what the target is and how to get there (e.g. “I must show more creativity and insight in my written answers so that I get a level 5” is likely to not be a helpful comment for a student to make, as it does uses buzzwords copied from a mark scheme rather than spelling out specifically how they are to improve).

Further reading:

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/meta-cognition-and-self-regulation/

Metacognition: thinking about thinking

Sleep

Basic idea:

Many of us live our lives in sleep debt – having had less sleep than we should have done. Like financial debt, sleep debt can accumulate and become more severe over time: after 2 weeks of getting 6 hours sleep a night people perform as badly on tests as people who have been awake for 24 hours non-stop (and also at the same level as people who have had a couple of alcoholic drinks!)

Children are particularly prone to sleep deprivation, which can have severe impacts on a developing brain. It is recommended that children up to age 11 are getting 10-12 hours per night of sleep, and that teenagers get 8.5-10 hours. This means that if they are getting up for school at 7am, under 11s should be in bed not long after 7pm, and adolescents not long after 9pm.

Now, of course, sleep is primarily the responsibility of parents to monitor, but given its impacts on school progress, it is something that teachers can (and I think should) take an interest in. Potentially, there are huge academic benefits to be gained through some simple (and free!) changes to students’ routines. this should be something of interest to all teachers.

Suggestions for practice:

Assuming that you do not have the authority to change your school’s start time to later in the morning (on which has been some promising research done with teenagers), you could:

  • Get your classes to keep a sleep diary (works especially well with tutor groups). I have done this and never fail to be amazed both at the variation and at how little sleep those at the extreme end are getting (from my experience 4 hours a night is not uncommon for some teenagers).
  • Educate students about sleep habits and the importance of sleep routines. A set bed time and routine building up to that time have been found to be the best predictor of children getting enough sleep.
  • Encourage them to have a ‘dark hour’ before bed, where they are not using screens
  • Suggest that caffeinated drinks are avoided in the evening.

Further reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/sleep_matters/

http://sleepcenter.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=63

Sleep