What is the identity of the above image? The correct answer to that question could be considered scientific: a precise location (name for it).

As a former psychology professor, I have seen how many students prefer fill-in-the-blank type questions vs. true/false or multiple choice.

What?! There is one correct answer?! Don’t I get credit for thinking, period?

True, simply parroting “the answer” is not indicative or a deeper type of learning. But to simply string words together in a longer answer that seems familiar to the instructor (resembling his/her own word strings) . . . ? Is that a higher learning, or just clever?

Hmm.

[photo of Devil's Tower thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: education, NASA

A new research finding lands a blow to lazy parents everywhere. It seems you can’t just plunk your young child in front of a television screen and they will learn. In a test of the effectiveness of educational DVDs, for one, the results came back negative. Maybe even worse than negative!

Researchers at University of California, Riverside did this:

…studied vocabulary acquisition among 96 children age 12 to 24 months. Participants were tested on measures of vocabulary and general development, and their primary caregivers (77 mothers, seven fathers and four others) answered a series of questions about their children’s development and previous exposure to educational media. Half of the children were then given an educational DVD to watch in their homes. [source]

The Negative Result:

When additional tests were conducted after six weeks, there was no evidence children learned the words specifically highlighted in the DVDs, and watching the DVDs was unrelated to measures of general language learning. [bold mine]

“Negative” in a scientific sense, simply means not. As in “not related.” How could the results then be worse than “not related.’

The Worse Than Negative Result:

While watching the DVD was not related learning new words, the researchers did find a relationship between age when parents began use of educational media for their child and score “on a test of vocabulary knowledge.”

As is expressed in the news release, this could simply be a case of a non-causal correlation. Rather than the DVD exposure causing the relative delay, parents may resort to educational DVDs when they have a sense the child already needs additional help. Or something.

Some futurists have envisioned a time when all learning is done in separate cubicles, with media tailor-fit to the individual’s present capabilities. But while human beings can be described as learning sponges, we tend to sop up certain types of information better. We also tend to attend better to certain sources of information. At least for children, I really wonder whether anything could replace face-time with a real living and breathing tutor, whether that tutor is mom, dad, grandma, or a caring professional.

—

Addendum: Got to give kudos where they are due.  Just noticed the title — “Infants do not appear to learn words from educational DVDs.”

Do not appear.  Excellent.  For this is only one study.

Technorati Links: education, psychology

The above photo taken in our yard of ivy climbing a live oak got me thinking about the term “Ivy League.” These schools are notoriously prestigious. A place for Richie Rich and other affluent bastards to attend–those lucky guys and gals.

Of course, luck has little to do with attending a Harvard or Yale. Family connections and the benefits of upper-class resources, sure. You might say, however, that luck has something to do with the prosperity of these schools and, by consequence, their students. An argument could be made that the ivy of affluent education climbs upon a mass of work-generated surplus.

Face it. Education is expensive. When guys and gals are in school, they aren’t engaged in resource-generating work. In a sense, they live off the fat of the land. A fat produced and harvested by others.

Advanced education has affluence to thank for its existence. And, almost ironically, the affluent have the less-affluent to thank for the resources they benefit from. For crops don’t grow themselves, goods don’t manufacture themselves . . . etc.

So sure, go ahead a be proud you attended Princeton. But be thankful as well.

Technorati Links: affluence, education

Okay, I’ve got to be fair. New research has just come out that with this finding: Abstinence-only intervention may play a role in preventing sexual involvement among teens.

Admittedly, I’m biased. Because it is overwhelmingly religious folk pushing for abstinence-only sex “education” in schools, I’m wary of it. Perhaps extra-skeptical. But because I am committed to science, I’ve got to be fair. If research shows a failure of abstinence-only programs, I’ll note it. And if research shows a success, I’ll note that too.

Here’s the science, in brief:

After two years, one-third of the abstinence-only group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the control group. . . .

While abstinence-only intervention did not eliminate sexual activity all together, this is the first randomized controlled study to demonstrate that an abstinence-only intervention reduced the percentage of adolescents who reported any sexual intercourse for a long period, in this case two years, following the intervention. [bold added]

Alright, a study found effectiveness for abstinence only. I await replication. And a footnote to the article makes that point:

“No public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policy makers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies. Well-done studies, especially randomized controlled trials, are an important element of the data on which informed policy rests. They should be reviewed carefully to develop policies that promote the health of our nation.” [bold added]

Hear, hear, for the “preconceived ideologies” part. Yet even if replicated, I would not be for abstinence-only programs. Why? Because the effectiveness of a program is just one element. While a theory-based abstinence-only programs may lack any overt connection to religion, it is a moral issue, despite this passage:

The abstinence-only intervention was based on principles shown to be effective in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS, and did not use a moralistic tone or portray sex in a negative light. It encouraged abstinence as a way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STIs. [bold added]

Sex and morals are tightly interwoven. Look at the big issues in the major religions. Sex, sex, sex. Abstinence-only programs, in the least, have social and moral implications. The title alone, “abstinence-only” is exclusive.

Effectiveness aside, I’d opt for sex-ed programs that include not-only abstinence information. For I believe in providing education for education’s sake, with an eye out to pragmatic concerns, sure, but not limited by them. My values include honoring the freedom of all individuals and families to select their own path in a full range of alternatives.

Technorati Links: morality, sex education

Ever here that grade-school song about skeletons?

With the toe bone connected
to the foot bone,
and the foot bone connected
to the ankle bone,
and the ankle bone connected
to the leg bone.

New research has revealed an odd sort of connection between body parts. Well, not the parts so much as how they function. Here’s the science:

Around one in every 100 people is mixed-handed. The study looked at nearly 8,000 children, 87 of whom were mixed-handed, and found that mixed-handed 7 and 8-year old children were twice as likely as their right-handed peers to have difficulties with language and to perform poorly in school. [source]

How, pray tell, is the “handedness bone” connected to the “tongue bone”? The most logical possibility at this point is that the brain’s natural dominance of one hemisphere over the other is disrupted. And brain lateralization/dominance plays a role in handedness (righty/lefty), language, and a host of other behaviors.

Teachers may want to keep an eye out for young learners that keep switching their crayon from one hand to the other. Those students may have some problems in school further down the line.

Technorati Links: education, psychology

I recently read a blog post, and listened to a podcast, about what to do when confronted with a family member or friend that . . . subscribes to patent nonsense. Call it woo, whether it be religious, paranormal or other.  I got to thinking. I’d here like to share my two cents.

1. Responding to woo is not an all or nothing affair. There are more options than these two: either you go guns blazing and blast that b.s. out of the air or you remain politely silent — an act that could be misinterpreted as tacit agreement.

Instead, your response can be individually tailored according to a number of important factors: the what of the belief, the who of the believer, the how of your relationship to the believer.

2. It is my aspiration to get better at gently planting seeds of doubt in the minds of family members and friends when confronted by their woo. Rather than tearing down another person’s beliefs, the more effective approach for me might be to explain how I arrived at my own position, in effect building it up. Perhaps more importantly, beyond any specific issue I hope to generally model an fair-minded yet skeptical attitude through asking good questions and expressing the educational virtues of curiosity and rationality.

Of course, my thinking about confrontations over beliefs may merely reflect my own preference for how to be corrected when wrong. I rarely respond well to being publicly bitch-slapped by the truth. Instead, I appreciate having a breadcrumb-trail of clues placed before me so I may make the progress and then own the conclusion myself.

Technorati Links: education, skepticism

(Recycled material: I’m in holiday/travel mode. This material first posted on Jan 30, 2009)

The Campus Crusade for Christian Assumptions

It is fully reasonable for skeptics to question the existence of the Loch Ness Deity. Or of a god, however clearly or poorly defined. I would argue that for a skeptic to take a hands-off approach to religion would be to fail to be consistent in their thinking and worldview.

Yesterday, after teaching a developmental psychology class, I passed by the door of the host professor (if that’s what you call them) for the Campus Crusade for Christ. Right there on my campus. On the professor’s door hung a display holding a bunch of brand-new pamphlets for students and staff to take. So I took one. What was I supposed to do, put blinders on and walk past it as if it didn’t exist?

As an exercise in critical thinking I’m going to go through the pamphlet, line-by-line. This will be the first post in a series.

Front cover (title):

“Where will you spend eternity?”

How many assumptions are inherent in that question? I find three. Let’s spell them out.

1) That there will be an eternity. It is possible that time began at the birth of our universe. We don’t know one way or the other. Before the big bang there may have been no substance and no time and space as well. To strip eternity of its essential temporal characteristic would be to speak nonsensically.

2) That there will be a “you” to persist for eternity. There is no evidence of a spirit or soul that continues to exist after death.

3) That there are a number of possible destinations for your spirit/soul to go after death. The “where” part of the question would be unnecessary if there was only one location to “spend” eternity at.

Notice that I didn’t say any of the above are untrue, just that they are assumptions: they have been untested and/or lack empirical backing.

Technorati Links: Christianity, critical thinking, education

For years now, teachers have been teaching other teachers that there are different learning styles — visual, auditory — and that it pays to tailor your teaching to the student’s style. But maybe it ain’t so. A recent report in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest has seriously questioned that assertion.

Do teachers of teachers need to go back to the black board and begin teaching differently? May be. But before the old is erased and replaced with the completely new, there is some homework to be done. And by “homework” I mean research. It seems the problem is with the first batch.

What was the problem? The report -

reviews the existing literature on learning styles and finds that although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as “auditory learners” and “visual learners”), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible. [source]

Oops. Of course, the problem can be remedied. Maybe there really is something to “the notion that teaching methods should match a student’s particular learning style.” But maybe there isn’t.

The final sentence of the news release might be a bit overstated, but valid:

Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources.

Interestingly, the initial title to the Eurekalert post was also a bit overstated: Learning styles debunked. Overnight it was changed to Learning styles challenged.

See, people can learn.

Technorati Links: education, research

Valerie Talerico is a fairly vocal, non-believing writer who frequently has articles appear on the Huffington Post.

I have read a couple of these recently, and have criticisms about each.

1) When Science Teachers Don’t Believe In Evolution

As an example of positive criticism, I give Valerie an enthusiastic huzzah! for this idea she expresses:

These people, in my mind, worship an idol with clay feet. They don’t worship a Power that is actually great enough to create the intricacies of the natural world, but rather a golden calf called the inerrant Bible or the inerrant Koran. (Call it bibliolatry—text worship. In an age of widespread literacy and printing presses, what better golden calf than a literally perfect book?)

Bibliolatry indeed! Most educated/liberal folk consider this particularly crazy, considering the many versions/translations of the Bible and the many different “holy” books found worldwide. But I wonder: is bibliolatry simply a relatively retrogressive, rigid way of supporting beliefs in a god, and conservative notions of what that god wants?

While god-belief not strictly tethered to the writings in ancient texts may strike some as a “more enlightened” version of religion, this form strikes me as merely better streamlined for acceptance by educated minds. Though the fat has been trimmed away, the rotten meat remains.

2) Like Alcohol, Religion Disinhibits Violence, Doesn’t Cause It

In this article, Tarico argues that religion doesn’t outright “cause” violence, but instead disinhibits it. Like alcohol disinhibits violence.

Here’s the problem: Our thinking about the cause of specific behaviors is tremendously flawed if we persist in attempting to find the cause of some behavior or class of behaviors, verses attempting to identify the causes, plural.

When I taught introductory psychology I would include in my very first lecture this analogy about why seeking simply answers can be problematic and naive:

Think of human behavior as a “spilling of beans.” Akin to the old Milton Bradley game, Don’t Spill the Beans, human psychology spills over into a given behavior not due to a single, causal bean. Instead, there are a number of beans that topple the pot. While we habitually focus on one “bean” as being the most important, or unimportant, this can be deeply misleading.

Consider the reasons, plural, that one person might take the life of another (engage in homicidal behavior): jealously, anger, social stress, fear, self-defense, hormone levels, mental illness, drug use, etc, etc.

Clearly, one reason alone infrequently causes homicidal behavior. Rather, a number of factors are usually involved.

Turning to religion “inspired” violence, it is foolish to insist that religion alone is or is not THE cause. Yet can religion be one of the causal factors? Definitely.

In some circumstances (when combined with other “beans”) religion can be part of the group of factors that result in a person tipping over into violent behavior. To claim otherwise, including arguing that religion merely “disinhibits” a pre-existent tendency, seems to me borderline apologetic folly.

Technorati Links: psychology, religion, violence

Here’s a research finding on teen behavior that might elicit this response from people: “Well that’s just common sense!”

A new study using brain imaging to study teen behavior indicates that adolescents who engage in dangerous activities have frontal white matter tracts that are less adult in form than their more conservative peers. [bold added]

A pet peeve of mine is when people refer to common sense as some sort of magical conduit to correct answers. It’s common sense!

As for the above research finding, I pulled a fast one. For the actual finding, replace the bold “less” with “more.”

Huh!? Teen brains more adult in form have been associated with riskier behavior? Well that’s not common sense.

While common sense may equip us with a fast, unschooled hunches as to what is true and right and what is not, it has limits. Sometimes those limits are outright intellectually crippling. Fortunately, science is not thus confined. In extreme cases, such as relativity and quantum theories — science will provide us with a knowledge that violently violates unschooled hunches. In less extreme cases we should likewise put greater trust in science.

On my page, “The Two Arms and Four Elements of Science,” I included these thoughts about common sense:

If considered to be inborn knowledge or reasoning ability, there is probably no such thing as common sense. What we call common sense usually refers to basic ideas and knowledge acquired through exposure to a culture. Common sense is thus relative to a culture. (For example, most people in our country would consider it common sense for a woman to avoid walking city streets alone at night. For a woman living in Tokyo, a very safe city, this might not be considered common sense.) Frequently, when a case is based on an appeal to common sense, it reflects common assumptions.

Technorati Links: cognition, science