In the past two decades, thanks in part to new technologies such as fNMI, PET, and MEG, science\u2019s understanding of how the brain works, learns, and solves problems has increased dramatically. This new knowledge can be of great assistance to instructors and students — after it is translated out of its technical terminology and mined for import to the classroom.<\/p>\n
Thankfully, someone has done much of this work — with the aim of helping educators.<\/p>\n
Since 2002, University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham has sifted the gold standard, controlled variable, peer reviewed scientific <\/em>research (as opposed to less rigorous \u201ceducational\u201d research). In jargon-free columns in the American Educator,<\/em> a quarterly professional journal (with free<\/em> online access provided by the American Federation of Teachers), Willingham\u00a0 shares the nuggets most useful to instructors.<\/p>\n What science has discovered is different in some areas from what has been claimed by various educational philosophies. Frankly, the science is not necessarily what we wanted to hear. A summary might be: \u201cEvolution has given humans a brain designed to help children learn a language naturally, but other learning is hard work.\u201d<\/p>\n The good news is that science has identified what does work to make study and instruction more effective and efficient. Willingham presents both the findings and the science that supports them. Most of his examples reference K-12 instruction, but for college-level and high school instructors, combining Willingham\u2019s research summaries with the practical tips in the book Make It Stick<\/em> (see the Read Recs<\/em> tab above) provides a marvelous summary of the new scientific consensus on learning.<\/p>\n A full listing of Willingham\u2019s articles is available at \u00a0http:\/\/www.aft.org\/newspubs\/periodicals\/ae\/authors5.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Of the 26 columns published to date, below are brief summaries of 9 that I believe are especially relevant to chemistry. Trust me: the summaries below do not do the articles justice. The hope is to entice you to clink the link to the column and explore topics of interest.<\/p>\n To focus on a \u201cscience-instruction\u201d perspective, I have \u201cre-titled\u201d the questions addressed by each article as follows:<\/p>\n I\u2019d suggest: pick a numbered topic above, check the summary below, then try a column or two. For topics in addition to what is in the articles, see Willingham\u2019s book:\u00a0 Why Don\u2019t Students Like School?<\/em> available in paperback for under $12.<\/p>\n Article Summaries:<\/strong><\/p>\n The article is Why Don\u2019t Students Like School? <\/em>at:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.aft.org\/sites\/default\/files\/periodicals\/WILLINGHAM%282%29.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Willingham diagrams the interaction of working and long-term memory. In a human brain which evolved to support the \u201cfluent remembering\u201d required for speech, successful problem solving favors remembering how a similar problem was solved in the past. One welcome finding is that \u201csolving problems brings pleasure\u201d if a problem somewhat<\/em> challenging but solvable with guidance.<\/p>\n In the age of the internet and calculators, why is it important to memorize? Being a scientist, most of Willingham\u2019s descriptions of research are carefully qualified, so his response here is noteworthy:<\/p>\n \u201cData from the last 30 years lead to a conclusion that is not scientifically challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts, and that\u2019s true not simply because you need something to think about. The very processes that teachers care about most\u2014critical thinking processes like reasoning and problem solving\u2014are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is in long-term memory (not just in the environment).\u201d<\/p>\n He also cites recent studies indicating \u201cthat children do differ in intelligence, but intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work.\u201d<\/p>\n The article How Knowledge Helps: It Speeds and Strengthens Reading Comprehension, Learning\u2014and Thinking<\/em> is at: http:\/\/www.aft.org\/newspubs\/periodicals\/ae\/spring2006\/willingham.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n In learning, Willingham documents the Matthew Effect: \u201cThose with a rich base of factual knowledge find it easier to learn more\u2014the rich get richer.\u201d When listening or reading, being able to fluently recall knowledge in memory helps in making inferences that improve comprehension. In addition, when students have more background knowledge, space is more likely to be available in working memory to identify and process for long-term memory the conceptual implications: \u201cWhereas novices focus on the surface features of a problem, those with more knowledge focus on the underlying structure of a problem.\u201d<\/p>\n Also noted are studies in science<\/em> education showing that, to improve students\u2019 problem solving abilities, teaching \u201cproblem-solving strategies\u201d was less effective than \u201cimproving students’ knowledge base.\u201d<\/p>\n The column is Allocating Student Study Time: “Massed” versus “Distributed” Practice\u00a0 <\/em>at: http:\/\/www.aft.org\/newspubs\/periodicals\/ae\/summer2002\/willingham.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Is \u201ccramming\u201d a smart way to study? In research comparing students who studied for 8 sessions in one day to those who studied in 2 sessions a day for 4 days, those who spaced their practice were able to remember more than twice<\/em> as much on a quiz a week later. Other studies showed positive effects of spaced practice on vocabulary retention on tests eight years later.<\/p>\n Willingham suggests:<\/p>\n The article is What Will Improve a Student\u2019s Memory?<\/em> at\u00a0\u00a0 https:\/\/www.aft.org\/sites\/default\/files\/willingham_0.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n What science-based advice can we offer students on how to study? Willingham reviews<\/p>\n The book Make It Stick<\/em> by Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel (see the Read Recs<\/em> tab) does a more detailed review of study strategies such as self-quizzing (including flashcards), summary sheets, interleaved practice, and elaboration, but Willingham\u2019s explanation of the cognitive principles sets the stage for understanding why<\/em> those strategies work.<\/p>\n Inflexible Knowledge: The First Step to Expertise <\/em> is at:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.aft.org\/newspubs\/periodicals\/ae\/winter2002\/willingham.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n Willingham notes that much of what is deprecated as \u201crote learning\u201d is actually \u201cinflexible knowledge:\u201d knowledge with a narrow meaning that is not tied to a deeper conceptual structure. While organizing knowledge by its deeper structure is the goal in learning, he cites extensive evidence that during initial<\/em> moving of information into memory, \u201cthe mind much prefers that new ideas be framed in concrete rather than abstract terms.\u201d<\/p>\n His advice for teachers?<\/p>\n \u201cIf we minimize the learning of facts out of fear that they will be absorbed as rote knowledge, we are truly throwing the baby out with the bath water\u2026. What turns the inflexible knowledge of a beginning student into the flexible knowledge of an expert seems to be a lot more knowledge, more examples, and more practice.\u201d<\/p>\n Students Remember … What They Think About <\/em> is at: http:\/\/www.aft.org\/newspubs\/periodicals\/ae\/summer2003\/willingham.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n How do we move students from \u201cshallow\u201d learning of facts to seeing the deeper structure that conceptually organizes facts and procedures? The brain tends to remember what it thinks about and elements of the context in which content is encountered.\u00a0 That context is a key to meaning, and the context is tagged to the knowledge in memory if the context is also thought about.<\/p>\n One consequence of this rule is that while students are more likely to remember what they \u201cdiscover,\u201d such learning must be done carefully. \u201dStudents will remember incorrect \u2018discoveries\u2019 just as well as correct ones.\u201d<\/p>\n Willingham describes how \u201cstudy guides\u201d for text assignments can be especially helpful if questions steer students toward linkages that construct deeper understanding.<\/p>\n The article is Practice Makes Perfect\u2014but Only If You Practice Beyond the Point of Perfection <\/em>at: http:\/\/www.aft.org\/newspubs\/periodicals\/ae\/spring2004\/willingham.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n In order to minimize forgetting what has been learned, cognitive studies recommend spaced overlearning<\/em>: practice to perfection in recalling new content, repeated over multiple days. \u201cRegular, ongoing review \u2026 past<\/em> the point of mastery\u201d is necessary to gain expertise.<\/p>\n Willingham notes that experts generally attribute their success not to talent, but to extensive practice in a domain, and that experts generally must practice extensively \u201cfor at least 10 years\u201d before they make substantive contributions to their field.<\/p>\n In introductory courses, what knowledge and skills are most important to practice? \u201cCore skills and knowledge that will be used again and again.\u201d<\/p>\n The article Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard To Teach<\/em> is at https:\/\/www.readingrockets.org\/article\/critical-thinking-why-it-so-hard-teach Willingham\u2019s summary: \u201cCan critical thinking actually be taught? Decades of cognitive research point to a disappointing answer: not really.\u201d<\/p>\n He explains that critical thinking is not, for the most part, a generalized skill. Though students can and should be taught to \u201clook at an issue from multiple perspectives,\u201d or \u201cestimate to check a calculator answer,\u201d to do so requires content knowledge that can be recalled from memory. Most critical thinking strategies are \u201cdomain specific:\u201d different, for example, between Pchem and organic synthesis. Though critical thinking strategies can be taught, they nearly always can be explained quickly. In learning, the slow, rate determining step is moving new information into long-term memory, and, via practice, tagging the information with meaning.<\/p>\n In a final section, he describes why scientific thinking in particular depends on scientific knowledge in memory.<\/p>\n (An 2020 update on this issue by Willingham is at https:\/\/www.aft.org\/ae\/fall2020\/willingham\u00a0 )<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n