Search

Coordinating meaning across sentences is crucial to reading comprehension, because sentences can take on quite different meanings depending on the surrounding context. The same need applies in a far more complex way when reading textbooks. Writers organize the material hierarchically, so readers often need to connect what they're reading now to something they read a few pages ago. But readers expect a simple format, since people first learn to read storybooks. Stories are easy to understand because the structure is simple and linear: A causes B, which causes C, and so on. Textbooks' hierarchical format and content are more challenging, so one shouldn't sit down to read a textbook and expect that the author will make the job easy. There needs to be a different approach to reading such content. This article provides tips for reading carefully, both to learn now and to develop the knowledge, skills, and habits that will make one a successful reader in the future.

Educators and researchers have been fighting the reading wars for the last century, with battles see-sawing literacy instruction in American schools from phonics to whole language and, most recently, back [...]

In this regular "American Educator" column, findings from the field of cognitive science that are strong and clear enough to merit classroom application are considered. Individuals vary in their views of what students should be taught, but there is little disagreement on the importance of critical thinking skills. In free societies, the ability to think critically is viewed as a cornerstone of individual civic engagement and economic success. In this column, Daniel Willingham offers a commonsensical view. One is thinking critically if (1) the thinking is novel--that is, not simply drawing a conclusion from a memory of a previous situation; (2) the thinking is self-directed--that is, not merely executing instructions given by someone else; and (3) the thinking is effective--that is, it respects certain conventions that make thinking more likely to yield useful conclusions. These would be conventions like "consider both sides of an issue," "offer evidence for claims made," and "don't let emotion interfere with reason." This column focuses on this third characteristic and shows how what constitutes effective thinking varies from domain to domain.

There's no doubt that research bearing directly on classroom practice is crucial. In this article Daniel Willingham maintains that it's useful for educators also to know the basic science around children's cognition, emotion, and motivation, because beliefs about what children are like inevitably influence teaching practice. The purpose of learning the science would be to broaden and deepen that knowledge, and to disabuse teachers of any misconceptions they might have. Still, not everything of concern to scientists is valuable to educators. The author makes the point that some statements concerning children's learning are perfectly sound scientifically but should not influence educational decisions. That includes some statements that seem like they ought to have a direct bearing on classrooms. In this article, Willingham describes three types of statements scientists make, only one of which he thinks ought to influence teaching practice, but he points out that even that type of statement, can be misapplied.

In this regular "American Educator" column, findings from the field of cognitive science that are strong and clear enough to merit classroom application are considered. Research over the last 10 years measuring whether participants learn better when new content fits their purported learning style shows little to no support for style distinctions. However, there is emerging evidence that people have a propensity to engage in one style of processing over others and that the type of mental processing people use often has a substantial effect on task success. According to the research, people can control the type of processing they use, and there is no evidence that overruling their processing bias incurs a cost to thinking. This research suggests that educators need not worry about their students' learning styles and that students should be taught fruitful thinking strategies for specific types of problems. Students can be taught useful strategies for committing things to memory, reading with comprehension, overcoming math anxiety, or avoiding distraction, for example, and their learning styles will not influence these strategies.

Scientific evidence is regularly invoked in defense of one classroom practice or another. Yet teachers, for the most part, ignore these studies. Why? First, teachers may view research as somewhat removed from the classroom, with further translation needed for the practice to be ready to implement in a live setting. Second, teachers may judge a practice to be classroom-ready in general but delay implementation because their particular students and setting seem significantly different from the research context. Third, teachers may resist trying something new for reasons unrelated to its effectiveness--because it seems excessively demanding, for example, or because it conflicts with deeply held values or beliefs about what works in the classroom. Finally, teachers may be unaware of the latest research because they only rarely read it. No matter the reason, it seems many teachers don't think education research is directly useful to them. The authors opine that these teachers have it right and that the problem lies with researchers, not teachers. The first three obstacles listed above--two concerning applicability of research and one concerning perceived constraints research puts on practice--are products of the methods researchers use. Research seems irrelevant to practitioners because it does not pose questions that address their needs. Teachers feel constrained by research because they feel pressured to use research-approved methods, and research creates clear winners and losers among practices that may be appropriate in some contexts but not others. The root of these issues lies in two standard features of most studies: how researchers choose control groups and their focus on finding statistically significant differences. The norm in education research is that, for a finding to be publishable, the outcomes of students receiving an intervention must be noticeably different from the outcomes of an otherwise similar "control" group that did not receive the intervention. To show that an intervention "works," the research must show that it makes a positive difference relative to the control. The authors ask if such comparisons are realistic, reasonable, or even helpful for teachers; and what researchers can do differently to make it so.

A newly identified character trait defined as "passion and perseverance for long-term goals," grit adds to our understanding of student behavior. While certain parts of grit can be taught, research is only beginning to examine how educators can do so.

The education field, these authors assert, often alternatively ignores, belittles, or "weaponizes" scientific findings and evidence relevant to education. They show examples of how education does a worse job than other fields at either rushing to apply approaches without enough evidence of effectiveness or "underdelivering"--not using approaches backed by evidence. Other reasons educators struggle to tap into evidence (such as a refusal to openly discuss values) are explored.

This article asks American adults the question: How should teens spend their leisure time? The activity with the highest response, irrespective of race, education, and other demographic factors, was reading. Adults thought teens ought to spend about an hour and 15 minutes reading for pleasure each day. How much time do teens actually spend reading? On average, six minutes per day. What prompts a teen to choose reading over a different activity? In a nutshell, the problem of motivation is this: we want the student to do something we think is important, but they choose not to do it. That is, of course, not an unusual problem in classrooms, and a potential motivator is some kind of negative consequence. This article provides some positive entry points parents and teachers can employ to tempt their children to give reading a try--such as offering a book with a story the child already knows, perhaps a novelization of a movie they love. Use of electronic readers was another suggestion offered. The author closes with a cautionary reminder to parents and teachers to remember that the true goal is that children enjoy reading... not necessarily enjoying reading in the same way you do. A list of resources for free books is included.

How does the mind work--and especially how does it learn? Teachers' instructional decisions are based on a mix of theories learned in teacher education, trial and error, craft knowledge, and gut instinct. Such knowledge often serves us well, but is there anything sturdier to rely on? Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field of researchers from psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, and anthropology who seek to understand the mind. In this regular "American Educator" column, we consider findings from this field that are strong and clear enough to merit classroom application.

How does the mind work--and especially how does it learn? Teacher's instructional decisions are based on a mix of theories learned in teacher education, trial and error, craft knowledge, and gut instinct. Such knowledge often serves teachers well, but is there anything sturdier to rely on? Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field of researchers from psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, and anthropology who seek to understand the mind. In this regular "American Educator" column, we consider findings from this field that are strong and clear enough to merit classroom application. This month's issue discusses math anxiety. Math anxiety is not limited to a minority of individuals nor to one country. International comparisons of high school students show that some students in every country are anxious about math. Is is perhaps not surprising that there is an inverse relationship between anxiety and efficacy: countries where students are less proficient in math (as measured by the Program for International Student Assessment) tend to have higher levels of math anxiety. Topics discussed in this month's column include: when and how math anxiety emerges; which students tend to be most susceptible to math anxiety; social influences that may impact math anxiety; and what teachers can do to remediate math anxiety.

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field of researchers from psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, and anthropology who seek to understand the mind. This paper considers findings from this field that are strong and clear enough to merit classroom application. Although many teachers and parents worry that high school students don't sleep enough, research shows that the impact of sleep deprivation on learning is not as dramatic as typically thought. Even so, research does show that teenagers can learn to get more shuteye, and that doing so can improve their mood and behavior. (Contains 51 endnotes.)

Distinguishing between good and bad science is not easy. Evaluating whether or not a claim really is supported by good research is like buying a car. There is an optimal solution to the problem, which is to read and digest all of the relevant research, but most people do not have time to execute the optimal solution. What they need is a good shortcut. The shortcut this author has developed is composed of four steps: (1) strip it and flip it; (2) trace it; (3) analyze it; and (4) make the decision about whether to adopt it. In this article, he provides some detail on the first of the four steps: strip it and flip it. To get started, one needs to be very clear on three points: (1) precisely what change is being suggested; (2) precisely what outcome is promised as a consequence of that change; and (3) the probability that the promised outcome will actually happen if one undertakes the change. All other considerations are secondary and should be considered distractions. (Contains 2 footnotes and 19 endnotes.)

Disadvantaged children face a host of challenges to academic success. These challenges fall into two broad categories. First, as one might expect, wealthier parents have the resources to provide more and better learning opportunities for their children. Second, children from poorer homes are subject to chronic stress, which research from the last 10 years has shown is more destructive to learning than was previously guessed. But research also shows it's not all about money. Research shows that besides social service supports, a classroom teacher's warmth toward and high expectations for disadvantaged children can help them reach their potential. (Contains 79 endnotes.)

Self-regulation refers to the ability to inhibit the automatic response and to do something else; more generally, it refers to the ability to control one's emotions, to control attention and other cognitive processes, and to plan and control behavior. This capacity turns out to have enormous consequences for academic and social success. And, as teachers observe daily, children differ widely in how much of this capacity they seem to have. Recent research indicates that teachers can help students--especially students having the most trouble--by providing an organized classroom environment, and by removing elements in the environment that can trigger impulsive behavior. Helping students better self-regulate is a daunting task because it seems such a personal, permanent quality of an individual. But researchers have shown that it is open to change, and they also have shown that good self-regulation is associated with a broad spectrum of positive academic and social outcomes, and that poor self-regulation is associated with greater risk for correspondingly bad outcomes. These facts highlight the urgency for teachers to do all they can to help students grow in this area. (Contains 49 endnotes.)

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field of researchers from psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, and anthropology who seek to understand the mind. In this article, the author considers findings from this field that are strong and clear enough to merit classroom application. He examines how technology has changed the way students think and how it might influence classroom practice. The author contends that classroom technology can increase student engagement, but using it effectively is complicated. And, although multitasking seems efficient, focusing on one task at a time is actually more efficient. (Contains 33 endnotes.)

A growing number of business leaders, politicians, and educators are united around the idea that students need "21st-century skills" to be successful today. It's exciting to believe that one lives in times that are so revolutionary that they demand new and different abilities. But in fact, the skills students need in the 21st century are not new. What's new is the extent to which changes in the economy and the world mean that collective and individual success depends on having such skills. The authors argue that if these skills were indeed new, then Americans would need a radical overhaul of how they think about content and curriculum. Developing students' skills requires a content-rich curriculum, well-supported teachers, and sophisticated assessments. The authors seek to call attention to the magnitude of the challenge and to sound a note of caution amidst the sirens calling the political leaders once again to the rocky shoals of past education reform failures. Without better curriculum, better teaching, and better tests, the emphasis on "21st-century skills" will be a superficial one that will sacrifice long-term gains for the appearance of short-term progress. (Contains 5 endnotes.)

Shouldn't teachers learn how children think during their training? In this essay, the author considers why they don't and what we might do about it. Many U.S. teachers report that their education is overly theoretical and not of great utility. It's clear that they are required to learn some basic principles of psychology as part of that education, but it is not clear that practicing teachers remember what they were taught. The author highlights two prominent ideas for the reform of teacher education: eliminating the traditional requirements for a teaching career, or radically changing those requirements to maximize student-teaching experience and minimize coursework. The author suggests a third way: change the content of education degree coursework to focus on consistencies in children's thinking, and greatly curtail how much scientific theory we ask future teachers to learn.

Although most teacher education programs include instruction in the basic science of psychology, practicing teachers report that this preparation has low utility. Researchers have considered what sort of information from psychology about children's thinking, emotion, and motivation would be useful for teachers' practice. Here, I take a different tack. I begin by considering three varieties of statements in basic science: empirical observations, theoretical statements, and epistemic assumptions. I suggest that the first of these can support classroom application, but the latter two cannot. I use that conclusion as a starting point for considering the instruction of prospective teachers in psychology.

Theories of learning styles suggest that individuals think and learn best in different ways. These are not differences of ability but rather preferences for processing certain types of information or for processing information in certain types of way. If accurate, learning styles theories could have important implications for instruction because student achievement would be a product of the interaction of instruction and the student's style. There is reason to think that people view learning styles theories as broadly accurate, but, in fact, scientific support for these theories is lacking. We suggest that educators' time and energy are better spent on other theories that might aid instruction.

Public policy meant to improve educational outcomes has focused on within-school factors, even though it is known that factors within the home influence these outcomes more. This article suggests that some aspects of academic work are well enough understood that researchers can offer advice as to changes that parents might make in the home, so as to improve children's academic performance. Reading is taken as a sample case, and research is reviewed with an eye toward home-based practices to improve decoding, comprehension, and motivation.

Researchers have asked college students how they study, and the results show that most use four inefficient strategies that do not often work: (1) reading assigned chapter, trying to understand individual sentences as he goes but not necessarily ensuring he's got the overall gist; (2) marking what he takes to be important points with a highlighter; (3) not looking at the chapter again until a day or two before the test; and (4) rereading the chapter in preparation for the test, with a focus on only the highlighted sections. So what can teachers do to ensure learning that lasts? This article provides four strategies that make student learning last: (1) Elaborative Interrogation and Self-Explanation--asking ones-self how the passage read relates to what they already know; (2) Distributed Practice--allocating study hours over a few days; (3) Interleaved Practice--study and practice of different concepts within a single session; and (4) Practice Testing--taking a brief quiz, rooting around in memory, trying (perhaps struggling) to remember something, is actually a great way to ensure that the memory sticks. Each of these techniques has been studied, not only in the laboratory, but also in classrooms, and are useful additions to a teacher's toolbox.

Previous studies of motor learning have described the importance of cognitive processes during the early stages of learning; however, the precise nature of these processes and their neural correlates remains unclear. The present study investigated whether spatial working memory (SWM) contributes to visuomotor adaptation depending on the stage of learning. We tested the hypothesis that SWM would contribute early in the adaptation process by measuring (i) the correlation between SWM tasks and the rate of adaptation, and (ii) the overlap between the neural substrates of a SWM mental rotation task and visuomotor adaptation. Participants completed a battery of neuropsychological tests, a visuomotor adaptation task, and an SWM task involving mental rotation, with the latter two tasks performed in a 3.0-T MRI scanner. Performance on a neuropsychological test of SWM (two-dimensional mental rotation) correlated with the rate of early, but not late, visuomotor adaptation. During the early, but not late, adaptation period, participants showed overlapping brain activation with the SWM mental rotation task, in right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the bilateral inferior parietal lobules. These findings suggest that the early, but not late, phase of visuomotor adaptation engages SWM processes.

After more than 20 years of lamentation, exhortation, and little improvement, writes the author, perhaps it is time to ask a fundamental question: Can critical thinking actually be taught? People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once learned, it can be applied in any situation. Research from cognitive science indicates that thinking is not that sort of skill. The writer discusses the nature of critical thinking and explains why it so difficult both to do and to teach. Studies cited lead to three major conclusions: (1) Critical thinking (as well as scientific thinking and other domain-based thinking) is not a skill, but is context-dependent; (2) Certain metacognitive strategies may be learned that make critical thinking more likely; and (3) Ability to think critically depends on domain knowledge and practice. (Contains 2 notes, 20 endnotes, and 1 figure.) [This article is reprinted with permission from the Summer 2007 issue of the "American Educator.]

Although many articles have addressed the relationship of neuroscience and education at a theoretical level, none has considered as a practical matter how one integrates neuroscientific data into a behavioral theory that uses hypothetical constructs. We describe 4 techniques by which researchers may do so: (a) direct observation of hypothetical constructs in the brain, (b) validation of hypothetical constructs through brain imaging, (c) using neural architecture to infer a behavioral architecture, and (d) using well-developed knowledge of brain function to select among competing behavioral theories. A detailed examination of these 4 techniques indicates that they are amenable to educational research and, indeed, have been used to inform research and theory. We argue that these techniques are not applicable to all educational research problems, but rather they are appropriate to relatively low-level behaviors (e.g., reading) rather than complex behaviors (e.g., classroom management).

Mel Levine writes about learning disabilities in a way that sometimes invites satire. The premise of his 2003 book, "The Myth of Laziness," for example, is that a child who appears lazy probably does not lack motivation, but rather suffers from "output failure." Levine, a professor of pediatrics at the University of North Carolina Medical School and director of UNC's Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, is that rare author whose work affects not only millions of parents, but hundreds of school systems as well. While "The Myth of Laziness" had some success, his 2002 book, "A Mind at a Time," reached #1 on the "New York Times" best-seller list and brought coverage by the national media, including (every publisher's happiest hope) an appearance on "Oprah." There are two questions that parents and educators should ask about Levine's program. First, Is his theory of how the mind works correct? Theories of learning disabilities (including Levine's) are theories of what happens when learning abilities have gone wrong. If one mischaracterizes the abilities, the description of potential problems is inaccurate. The second question one should ask is, Does the evidence indicate that his proposed treatments help? The answer is that there is no evidence, positive or negative, as to whether or not the program helps kids. Given the inaccurate description of the mind on which it is based, however, it seems unlikely that it will prove particularly effective. In this article, the author describes how Levine's broad-strokes account of the mind agrees with that of most researchers: there is a memory system, an attention system, and so on and how he is often wrong on the detailed structure he claims to see within each of those systems. (Contains 1 figure.)

This article discusses Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner became a hero among educators simply by redefining talents as "intelligences" in a theory first proposed in 1983. Since then, his theory has undergone incremental but not fundamental change, including the addition of one intelligence (bringing the total to eight), the rejection of others, and consideration of the theory's applications. In this article, the author presents the three core claims on which the theory rests: (1) Most psychometricians, those who devise and interpret tests as a way of probing the nature of intelligence, conceive of intelligence as unitary; (2) There are multiple, independent intelligences; and (3) The multiple intelligences theory has applications to education. The author evaluates each of Gardner's claims in turn and discusses Gardner's criteria for defining intelligences. (Contains 2 figures.)

Based on decades of research on learning and memory, this article asserts that "what you think about is what you remember," noting that implications for teaching and assignments are substantial. Suggests that in the early stages of learning, students may display shallow learning, but deep, connected knowledge must be encouraged by getting students to think about the interrelation of the various pieces of knowledge they have acquired. (SM)

Opportunities, not obligations. That is how Providence Country Day School (Rhode Island) characterizes its daily one-hour "Community Time." The block, from 9:25 to 10:25 a.m., is used chiefly for students to partake in activities of their own making--as a daily lesson in the value of students taking charge of their own education. On any given day, you will see them engaged in a wide variety of activities during this hour--in student-driven clubs, in one-on-one tutorials with teachers, in special programs, in self-directed learning, and in open-ended socializing. For many adults and students in the school, it has become the favorite hour of the day. This article discusses how Community Time, an exercise in rethinking the structure of the school day, connects with the research on how students develop ­habits for lifelong learning.