Every Day is Election Day — Even in Your Classroom, by Betsy Hill

August 30, 2016

As I was driving to work this morning, I listened to an interview with Rebecca Sive, the author of Every Day is Election Day.  While Sive focuses specifically on women in elective office, my first thought when I heard the title of the book was, “Yes!  This is what I have been saying for years.”

To be precise, what I have been saying for years is that we are all elected to our office (job/role) every day.  Every day, the people around us decide whether to listen to us, to follow us, to imitate us or to ignore us.  They decide whether to step up and join us in championing what we want to accomplish, or they join the opposition or they just decide to “sit this one out.”

At one time in my career, I was working for an organization in a consulting role.  The vice president of sales was the number two person in the organization.  But that VP was a poor role model; he didn’t make logical decisions; he didn’t have a vision that he could get people behind; he wasn’t proactive; and he didn’t encourage others in the organization to come to him with ideas or challenges.  In short, he didn’t get things done.  People started coming to me.  Several months later, I was named chief operating officer and was the clear number two in the company.

Why?  Because I ran for my office every day.  I worked to build trust.  I created a vision and worked to get buy-in.  I worked hard, never asking anyone to do anything I wouldn’t do myself (and they could see me doing it).

The application to the workplace is so obvious that I started to consider another environment I spend a lot of time in – a classroom.   What does it mean to think about every day as election day?  Are students voters?  You bet!

One piece of advice in Sive’s book is “you can’t care too much.”  That reminded me of another true statement I heard from a school district superintendent several years ago:  “Students don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”  Caring builds trust and trust is critical to an environment in which students choose to learn.  In fact, students vote (decide) every day, in every class, whether to engage, whether to strive, whether there is anything of value to pay attention to.

Teachers, of course, do have some authority from the outset, just as that vice president of sales did in the company I worked for.  But our ability to create a vision, to engage students’ minds and hearts, to inspire trust, and to show how much we care, are what keeps us in the role of teacher, not just somebody at the front of the classroom.

I’m running for election again today.  How about you?


When Brain Training Works – Points of Controversy, by Betsy Hill and Roger Stark

August 23, 2016

Pre-publication publicity for a new book on the value of brain training claims that there are 5 conditions that make it effective.  While it surfaces some important considerations, it is likely to disappoint anyone who adheres strictly to the five conditions.

Here’s where the advice falls short:

  1. It must engage and exercise a core brain-based capacity or neural circuit identified to be relevant to real-life outcomes.

Response:  First of all, if there is a brain-based capacity or neural circuit that hasn’t been identified as relevant to real-life outcomes, then it probably doesn’t exist.  The purpose of our brain is survival, so all mental capacities are arguably relevant to real-life outcomes.  But more importantly, it is insufficient to say that training must target a mental process shown in research to be relevant to real-life performance.  The training should actually be able to demonstrate improvement in whatever that real-life performance is.   This is actually where much brain training falls down.  It’s not that the training doesn’t connect the exercise to a specific neural process, but that it can’t demonstrate actual change in real life application.

2.  It must target a performance bottleneck.

Response: The issue here is the model of brain functioning that underlies the statement.  A bottleneck is relevant for a linear process.  If step 2 of 10 in a manufacturing plant is slow, then that produces a “bottleneck.”  Speeding up step 2 will speed up the whole manufacturing process.  But our brains are not manufacturing processes.  Rather, they are complex systems with multiple processes occurring simultaneously (and hopefully in coordination).  In fact, recent research supports the idea that multiple mental processes are involved in just about everything we do and they have to work together.  While there is some truth to targeting weaker functions, it is at least as true that brain training, to be effective, is about integrating multiple systems.

3.  It requires a minimum “dose” of 15 hours total per targeted brain function performed over 8 weeks or less.

Response:  It’s refreshing, actually, to see a consensus emerging that a few minutes or hours of training here and there won’t do much for cognitive fitness.  But there is a fundamental flaw in the implication that each brain function must be trained independently.  If that were the case, then a training regimen of 150 hours would be required to address 10 targeted brain functions.  In our research, we have found that a dramatic impact on multiple brain functions is achieved in 35 to 50 hours of training multiple cognitive skill areas in an integrated fashion (using BrainWare SAFARI 3 to 5 times per week, in 30-45 minutes sessions over about 12 weeks).  We can agree that noticeable differences start to appear at the 6-8 week mark, but much more can be accomplished than this description of the book suggests.

4.  Training must adapt to performance, require effortful attention, and increase in difficulty.

Response:  This is all true, but it neglects what we know about what actually motivates effortful attention and persistence in training.  Parents and clinicians we talk to tell us, over and over, that most other brain training programs they have experienced are BORING.  Even when they are adaptive, increase in difficulty, and require focus (effortful attention).  Human beings don’t expend effortful attention when things are not engaging.  Students don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.  The design of the training program needs to be motivational, engaging and reward, not just demand, persistence.

5.  Continued practice is required for continued benefits.

Response:  This condition suggests that one needs to continue training essentially forever.  First, we want to say, “Wrong,” but then we want to relent and acknowledge that, “It depends.”  It also requires that we consider what “practice” means.

When children complete a brain training program (which we think is better termed cognitive training), they bring their improved attention skills, working memory, or visual-spatial processing to an educational environment that, in most cases, continues to put demands on those very cognitive skills.  In other words, they are using and practicing those enhanced cognitive skills every day.

If you are an adult in the workplace, the same would be true, by and large.  You are in an environment where you “practice” your improved skills constantly.  After all, if they haven’t transferred to real life, what’s the point?  If your goal, as an adult, is not to perform better, but to be a “high functioning couch potato,” then that is another story altogether.

One situation where continued benefits may require ongoing training is for those who want to build cognitive reserve and/or mitigate the effects of the declining demands of everyday life as they age.  For many individuals who are not as active as they used to be in intellectually demanding activities, ongoing training makes sense.

The idea behind brain training is that getting skills to the level of automaticity so that they are used in real life, means that real life becomes the practice.  While continued training may be useful for some, the better the training, the better the transfer, the better the individual applies their stronger cognitive functions in everyday life, the more challenges they take on, the more problems they solve … and the less need they will have for ongoing training.

We welcome the opportunity to explore the fascinating topic of brain training – and everything we know and don’t know – with you.  Please comment or feel free to email us at bhill@mybrainware.com or rstark@mybrainware.com.


The Mystery of Reading Comprehension, by Betsy Hill

June 18, 2016

Many students can read a passage,but afterwards are unable to tell you what they read.  Or perhaps they can answer simple factual questions (regurgitate), but it really has no meaning for them and will be forgotten the next day.

How students make the leap from decoding to understanding is something that has challenged teachers since the very beginning of reading and writing (I don’t really have a reference for comprehension problems with the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I suspect that I’m not far off the truth).

And what is reading comprehension, anyway?

The way our minds comprehend what we hear or read is to connect what we are hearing or reading to knowledge and information we already know.  Regurgitating is not comprehending.  Regurgitation only involves short-term memory.  Our brains are designed to discard what is held in short-term memory if we haven’t found a way to make it meaningful.  So, of course, we can “read” but still not have understood a darn thing.

Comprehending involves making meaning, by visualizing and applying the information from the text being read, relating ideas to what is already known, and holding ideas in mind while we think about them.  But most reading instruction doesn’t address “visualizing”, or “holding ideas in mind.”  In fact, those mental processes are only two, although a very important two, of the cognitive skills (or mental processes) that must be working efficiently and accurately for comprehension to take place.

More importantly, these are the very skills that stand int he way of that leap to comprehension for many students.  It isn’t enough to hope that students will magically solve the mystery of comprehension themselves and make that leap.  Reading comprehension requires a mind prepared for that challenge.

Learn more at http://www.mybrainware.com/Skate-Kids-and-Ramps-to-Reading.

 


Are These Children from Lake Wobegon?, by Betsy Hill

March 5, 2015

A little over a week ago, I was in Canada — Sault Ste Marie, Ontario. to be exact.  It was excruciatingly cold, of course, but that’s not why I was thinking of Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon.  The reason I was thinking of Lake Wobegon is that I was remembering the way he closes his Prairie Home Companion show by stating that all of the children in Lake Wobegon are above average.  And the reason that I was in Sault Ste Marie was to share with a school district how the 3rd grade students who used BrainWare SAFARI last year went from pretty much average performance on cognitive tests to way better than average, and how their academic achievement soared as well.

The students who used BrainWare SAFARI in the fall of the 2013-14 school year, had overall scores on the CCAT (the Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test) that were 32 percentile points higher than at the beginning of the year, resulting in 50% of the students scoring at the 70th percentile or above.  At the 70th percentile and above, students are able to thrive in academic work.  Below that, they are likely to need some additional support to reach grade-level expectations.  In fact student performance improved across the spectrum of abilities, as we have seen in numerous prior studies in the U.S. with the CogAT, the U.S. counterpart to the CCAT).  Remarkably, immediately after using BrainWare SAFARI, 70% of students were above the national average.  It sounds a little like Lake Wobegon, doesn’t it?

Often in education, we are in the position of assuming that children arrive in our classrooms with all of the cognitive equipment they need or will ever have.  We need to understand that cognitive ability is something we can actually help students develop.  Shouldn’t every student have an opportunity to be “above average,” as in Lake Wobegon?


Giving Every Student the Equivalent of a Time Turner — by Betsy Hill

October 28, 2014

In The Prisoner of Azkaban, the third book in the Harry Potter series, Hermione Granger manages to attend extra classes with the help of a Time Turner. The Time Turner allows her to go back in time so that she can, in effect, take two classes at once. To use the parlance of renowned education Robert Marzano and others, it gave her “more time on task.” Of course, Hermione was “quite the brightest witch of her age” and so learned an even more prodigious amount with extra class time.

Many educators would like to figure out how to put more hours in the day – both for teachers and students. But, of course, the time-space continuum is what it is, using a Time Turner isn’t an option. Sometimes, schools look at extending the school day, or the school year, and that seems to have helped in some situations, but perhaps we need to take a step back and look at the time-on-task equation in a slightly different way.

Here is the equation. If Johnny needs an hour to learn to a particular concept, or a series of steps to solve a problem, or set of vocabulary words, then 30 minutes of instruction and study time will leave Johnny short of mastery. The problem for many teachers is that they are pressed to simply “cover” the material. If “covering” a topic takes 30 minutes, that’s just the way it is. The question then becomes whether there is a way to help students learn more material in less time.

I can think of two, and neither of them is a Time Turner. Both ways of helping students learn more material in less time can be effective for those that are the “brightest of their age” and those that are not.

The first is to teach more effectively. It may be that students will “get” whatever it is more quickly if the material is presented in a more effective way. Teachers who understand how learning happens in the brain can often get more and better learning to happen for their students in less time.

The other is to improve the efficiency of learning by building a student’s learning capacity.   What if Johnny could grasp that concept in less time, or manipulate the steps of a story problem more effectively? What if he could sustain his attention better so that he is actually attending to the instruction rather than needing it to be repeated multiple times? What if he could take notes while listening to the teacher? What if he could monitor his own pacing and progress to finish his work?

Many teachers assume that they are stuck with their students’ learning capacity, leaving them to choose between just “covering” the material or taking more time to teach. That assumption no longer holds. Dramatic improvements in students’ capacity to learn are possible in a very short period of time. In 12 weeks of using BrainWare SAFARI, for example, students have improved their cognitive skills by an average of 4 years, according to peer-reviewed published research.

So, if we can help students learn more in less time, how much time will we spend helping them get to that point? Is it worth the investment of time?

Let’s do the math again. The time spent using BrainWare SAFARI is typically 30 to 50 hours over those 12 weeks – usually no more than 30 hours.

If we assume that a typical school year involves 1,000 hours of instruction, 30 hours of cognitive skill development is a one-time investment of 3 percent of instructional time in that particular school year. If one considers that the improvement could be amortized over three years of elementary school (since 3rd grade is a common year in which to incorporate BrainWare SAFARI in the curriculum), the investment of time diminishes to about one percent of instructional time. If learning capacity, then, is only one percent more efficient, it would be an even trade, but learning capacity is likely to be much more efficient than that because learning is not linear and learning one thing better provides the groundwork for learning everything that comes afterward more efficiently. It also doesn’t account for the cumulative effects of students who go on to middle school and high school with the capacity and preparation to succeed at those levels.

Maybe, Time Turners aren’t an option, but that doesn’t mean we can’t enable our students to learn more than they currently do.


What Teachers Should Know About the Brain — by Betsy Hill

October 21, 2014

A recently published research study on teachers’ understanding of the brain and neuroscience research has been getting a lot of attention.  The findings, based on surveys of teachers in the U.K., Greece, Turkey, Holland, and China, showed that teachers had many misconceptions about the brain.  The findings echoed a survey of teachers in the U.S. finding that teachers in American schools have the same misconceptions.

The translation of  neuroscience research to classroom practice is something that is getting increased attention, but unfortunately most teacher training programs do not include much discussion of the brain or how neuroscience research findings can be used to help students perform better.  This gap was documented in a research report by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).

As I’ve been reading the stories about how teachers’ misconceptions are potentially harmful to students, I asked myself what factual neuroscience information would be most important to replace those misconceptions.  Here are three neuro-myths — misconceptions that teachers have about the brain — along with something they should know about the brain and may not:

Neuro-myth:  we only use 10% of our brains.

What teachers need to know:  the brain is “plastic” and is constantly changing.  Everything that happens in the classroom physically changes children’s brains.  Teachers need to know more to take advantage of this amazing plasticity.

Neuro-myth: we need to teach differently to right-brained and left-brained children.

What teachers need to know:  first, no one is right-brained and no one is left brained.  Teachers need to teach to whole brains.  But there are very different ways that teachers should teach different types of materials and skills.  If teachers don’t have an in-depth understanding of the difference between procedural memory and declarative memory and how that matters in the classroom, they need to know what the implications for teaching and learning are.

Neuro-myth: children’s brains shrink if they don’t drink 6 to 8 glasses of water a day.

What teachers need to know: physical exercise has a tremendous impact on brain development.  Scheduling time into the day for active physical activity is more likely to improve students’ academic performance than trying to get so many glasses of water down their throats (kids generally drink liquids when they are thirsty, just as adults do).

If you are interested in expanding teachers’ understanding of neuro-reality, I would welcome an opportunity to share ideas!

 


Rethinking Remediation in Higher Education – by Betsy Hill

July 23, 2014

The remediation statistics are sobering. Over half of students who enroll in 2-year colleges take remedial courses in English and/or math. Almost 20% of those enrolling in 4-year colleges do so. The rates for low-income students are even higher – 68% and 39% respectively.

Of even greater concern is that higher education’s remediation efforts don’t seem to be working. Of those enrolled in remedial courses in a 2-year college, 62% complete remediation, but less than 10% graduate within 3 years. For students taking remedial courses in 4-year colleges, almost 75% complete remediation, but only 35% graduate within 6 years. It doesn’t seem that remedial courses in college are delivering the skills required for post-secondary academic success.

While remediation at the college level has traditionally focused on bringing student up to speed in reading and math, being ready for post-secondary work is not simply a matter of reading at a sufficient level, or knowing algebra. It is also a matter of “non-academic” skills like communication and collaboration, as well as the level of a student’s cognitive development. In fact, cognitive development is not a requirement for high school graduation nor is it measured as a prerequisite to college admissions, but it is nonetheless critical for success. And the lack of fully developed cognitive skills may, in fact, be the root cause of students’ lack of achievement in reading and math. As the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development pointed out in a recent report, “The evidence points to differences in cognitive skills as an explanation of a majority of the differences in economic growth rates across OECD countries.”

In fact cognitive skills are more than just a complement to academic skills. They are foundational, and in many respects they are precursors to educational success and the learning process itself. In the last several years, an awareness of the connection between cognitive skills and educational success has grown and research is showing that cognitive abilities contribute to academic achievement.

Many researchers have illustrated how brain development can impact school readiness and achievement, including cognitive control, visual-spatial skills, planning, attention, simultaneous and successive processing and a variety of other cognitive processes. As a result of these and other research efforts, educational and developmental psychology researchers are starting to see the need to find ways to add training of cognitive skills to the education system.

While the principles of cognitive skill training have been developing over several decades, only recently has there emerged a practical and scalable approach to the development of cognitive skills that can rapidly improve cognitive capacity and a student’s potential for success. The effectiveness of cognitive skills training in a video-game format was shown in research published in 2007. The software program that was the subject of the study was, of course, BrainWare SAFARI. Since then, we have worked with public, private and charter schools across the U.S. to replicate and extend the findings from the original research. While the initial study and much of the subsequent field research has examined the impact on elementary and middle-grade students, what is known about the plasticity of the brain and the essential principles of cognitive development would suggest that positive results could also be achieved in a college-age population.

The evidence suggests that it is time to rethink remediation in higher education and make sure that college students have access to cognitive skills training to address their lack of preparedness, academically and cognitively. Doing so may provide an opportunity for many students to achieve their dreams of a college education and the advantages that entails by giving them the foundation and the capacity for academic success at the post-secondary level.

If you’d like a copy of a more expansive and referenced white paper on this topic, please click here.