In the Annals of "I Could Have Told You That" Research

Teachers who 'teach' in large lecture halls give exams on different colored sheets to reduce cheating. The questions are put in a different order on the two forms.

That way students who look around to steal answers won't be able to easily copy their classmates' presumably correct answers.

Because this practice is so widespread, and because more than a few students have complained that test printed on different colored sheets are "unfair" (because you can't cheat as easily then?), a few lecturers of humongous lecture halls got together and conducted a study to determine whether the color of the paper affects exam performance at all.

Guess what? It didn't.

I have no idea why instructors use different colors of paper to keep the different versions of the exam straight when they could just put an A or B or whatever code on the top and use white paper.

I figure all-white exams serve two purposes.

• Dye isn't used so they're more environmentally responsible. Of course, unbleached paper would be the best from a solely environmental standpoint. And if, as the study found out, even primary as opposed to pastel colored paper doesn't have a significant effect, then why not just print them on Kraft paper that is 100% post-consumer content or unbleached paper?
• Students might believe all of the exams are the same so copiers would be penalized because they'd end up copying down the wrong answers.
  

In any case, this study certified the obvious: Printing exams on different colors doesn't affect exam performance and is therefore not "unfair." Different colored exams are totally useless in my book.

And furthermore, students should never be lectured in large auditoriums anyway. Lectures do little to teach students. They don't usually make students think, or process what they've learned.

And for that matter, neither do multiple choice exams. The questions that come out of instructor test banks nearly always test factual rather than conceptual knowledge and none of them ask students to apply or synthesize material. In other words, they don't demand much of students. They don't demand much of instructors either since most lecturers can have the department secretary type up exam questions the instructor chooses from the exam book. A machine grades them.

It's unfortunate so many college students have this inferior form of education inflicted on them in the first place.

Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time

You've no doubt heard that young American adults have poor knowledge of geography, science, mathematics, and history. It's easy to chalk that up to our lackluster system of education, but rather than never having learned it in the first place, our students might simply have forgotten what they learned.

Ever wondered what study tips to offer your students so that they may study more effectively and retain what they're learning?

I certainly have. I think for a lot of professors, we take for granted that we are good students, practiced students - and our students are not. We need to take the time every now and then to meta-teach, which is to say, teach our students how to learn.

If you teach psychology classes, especially introductory ones as I have, it's easy to integrate study tips into units on memory and learning, but those units often don't appear until the middle of the semester when it's too late to make a big difference early on. Freshman or as they are more typically called at SLACs, first-year students, may already be floundering. That's why I'd advocate doing a little meta-teaching on learning the very first day of class when you go over the syllabus. But remember, there's never a wrong time to discuss it!

So what are the tips? Rather than imparting my own personal experience or anything based on intuition (which can be faulty), I'll share tips gleaned from a great review article of experiments on human learning.

The article "Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time" by Rohrer and Pashler was published in Current Directions in Psychological Science (2007). It's only 4 pages long and is well worth a full read. Using an ecologically valid approach which had students learning vocabulary, geography, foreign languages, and mathematics, the authors report that overlearning does not produce long-lasting benefits. So, if students learn something to a criterion (say of getting items correct at least once) and then go over it again, they don't recall any more a month later than if they had just done it once. However, overlearning is beneficial in the short term.

Basically, this confirms that what our students call cramming is effective if the test happens right away, but they won't have retained anymore by the end of the semester. Cramming takes time and doesn't provide very much bang for the buck.

So if studying for an extended session (aka rehearsing in a massed practice) isn't effective for long-term retention, what is? Distributed practice. Retention is much better if the study time is spaced out. But how much time should go by between study sessions for optimum retention?

That depends on when the test is. If it's about 10 days away - once a day (studying to the criterion). If it is 6 months away - about once a month.

That's why I'd advocate for having a cumulative final. It encourages students to revisit what they have learned earlier in the semester, and if you do a good job of pointing out what is important to learn along the way, they don't have to spend a whole lot of study time out of class revisiting every little detail of what they learned. Once a month for the big picture ideas will do. I know that's an oversimplification, or more easily said than done, but setting up your course in such a way that students have to use previous knowledge to answer exam questions later is actually quite difficult to do if you aren't teaching math, chemistry, etc. If you are in a content based survey course where there is "a lot of material" it is imperative to help your students navigate through the forest of information by teaching them landmarks along the way. If they don't know which trees are important, they will get lost and never make it to their final destination.

Also, encourage students to study by testing themselves, either alone or with a friend testing each other. I often asked my dad to test me when I was in high school. I'd hand him my history or biology notebook or textbook and ask him to make up questions. I'd try to answer them and if I didn't know the answer or got it wrong, he'd tell me the correct answer. Such retrieval practice is much more effective than re-reading notes or the book.

So remember spaced practice - and - self-testing.

The Gift of Language

One of the benefits of sticking around the college (and specifically sitting in on a colleague's class) even though I'm not teaching this semester, is that I still get to have engaging conversations with bright students. These conversations truly are gifts. Oh man, it also reminds me of what I miss out on by not teaching. Well, I'll be back into it soon enough! That's what I remind myself in moments of doubt.

This morning's conversation evolved from a simple comment at the end of class about how a video of Washoe, a sign language trained chimp, which was shown in a different class was not as impressive as the one I showed in class last year. Here I had to negotiate the murky territory of being this student's prof last year, sitting in a class as a 'student' with him, and hearing comments about my colleague and how he should have used some other (better) video.

First, I asked the student to defend his statement that the video I had shown was in fact more impressive. I simply responded, "Oh yeah? What part?" To which he gave a typical student response, "Oh uh, mmmm, the whole thing." He conveyed his enthusiasm for the video nonverbally.

We then proceeded to have a wonderful conversation that brought up some core issues in the evolution of thought on language evolution. I was even able to impart a bit of information that he found utterly fascinating. It was all so very rewarding, and just what I needed. I'm finally beginning to understand what Henry Gleitman meant when he told me "Research is your bread; Teaching is the cake."

I shared with this student that for me, what excited me the most was the scene where Sue (Savage-Rumbaugh) cooks alongside Kanzi in a kitchen. He follows her spoken directions to rinse off a knife, turn on the burner, and other actions involved in preparing a meal with such seemlessness that it appears he must for certain understand language. I added - "BUT my scientific mind remains critical off this. They could have gone through these motions so many times and be so well rehearsed that all Sue does is add labels to his actions."

I don't really believe this because I have seen the results of many double blind tests that show definitively that Kanzi understands spoken language, can produce language with lexigrams, and shows evidence of understanding syntax. He can tell the difference between "Pour the water into the Coke" and "Pour the Coke into the water" for example. But I wanted the student to think critically about the possibility that Kanzi has been conditioned to do what he does. Incidentally, the topic for the intro psych class was classical conditioning so we had a perfect prime for our discussion.

"Couldn't we say then that human language is learned conditioned associations?" He asked.

"Oh yes, indeed! You've just hit on one of the great debates of psychology," I said. "B.F. Skinner proposed that very idea in his book Verbal Behavior."

So then is it all learning? he ponders aloud. "Well that is the age-old debate," I added.

At this point we transitioned into a conversation about how one system of communication (human language, chimp gestures, dog signals, squirrels squeaks, etc) is not inherently superior to another and that really they all exist because they solved some problem or conferred advantages. I asked him to consider what language does for us that chimps miss out on - the ability to share information, talk about what's not present, and plan ahead. This gives us a tremendous advantage and may explain why humans took the evolutionary trajectory they did rather than go the direction chimps did.

Here the student asked a terrific question: "But why did we develop language and not chimps when it's so beneficial?" He adds, "And why does Kanzi have what he has; what does that say about bonobos?"

I told him that Steven Pinker writes about this and his theory of language evolution in his book The Language Instinct. Pinker proposes that Language is the product of a freak genetic mutational accident. I even called it a gift.

At this point my student, who is now trying to wrap his head around the idea, asks or comments on something that prompts me to say:

"Ah! But yes there is - it's the FOXP2 gene."

I told him about how deficiencies in this area of genetic code are associated with deficiencies in language that mimic Broca's aphasia, a condition remarkable for the utter lack of patients' ability to produce syntactically correct sentences. They produce pure gibberish.

"Woah! Really?" he exclaims. "So we really are biochemical machines." He must have been picturing Descartes. "I already was already heading there but now I'm there!" (or something like that) he mutters as he walks off in the direction of the science building...

Students like him make my day.

If you'd like to read some of my other thoughts on language and apes, click here.

1 Blown Tire = No Chimp Sighting

Today I rode with my former colleague to Central WA Univ. to see the sign language using chimp Washoe and her relatives.

I went along as the resident chimp expert and was relieved to see the names of several former students on the roster. In fact, more than half of them were my students. Despite speaking in front of an audience for a living, I still get social anxiety around those I don't know. For some reason when I'm teaching my tendency to be reserved and introverted totally dissipates. I become loquacious. My friends tease me about being completely quiet for hours at parties until I finally deliver an Emancipation Proclamation. Students don't believe I'm shy, but I am. It's amusing how many professors are. I think it goes with the territory of being a bookworm turned professor. Anyhow, aside from being shy and uncertain about socializing with students as their quasi-equal, I was really looking forward to meeting Washoe and hearing about Roger Fouts and his students' work with the chimps. But, right before Yakima, our van blew out a tire. We ended up coming right back.

It was a let down for all except the students who were at least 21 and who could buy wine at the winery we happened to stop near. See, this area of southcentral WA is serious wine country. In fact, Walla Walla was Sunset magazine's wine destination of the year for 2005. There are at least a dozen wine tasting rooms just within walking distance of my house alone.

Back to the van - I actually scored a seat by myself so I used the time to read some of Adapting Minds by David Buller. It's a critique of evolutionary psychology - the paradigm - that got a lot of attention when it was published last year. So far, he has done a great job of reviewing some of the core ideas of evolutionary biology (especially frequency dependent selection, conditional strategies, developmental plasticity, etc.) and is now explaining the modularity of mind concept developed by Cosmides and Tooby. It's well-written and devoid of the vitriol present in so many other EP criticisms that dismiss it on political rather than scientific grounds (see for reference much of the book Evolution, Gender, and Rape). I like to keep up with what the other side thinks.

A few months ago on a job interview I was asked if I had read the book. I hadn't. But neither had the person asking - and she really should have too. So, I figure I should use my enforced time-off from teaching to gain some more perspective on my field. Thus far, it is interesting and I will keep reading it.

But back to Washoe - there's a lot to say about her and her family. For a primer, check out the book Next of Kin by Roger Fouts. Right now I'm in the process of transfering my black and white Washoe clips from VHS to my digital video camera to DVD (read: worth-it pain-in-the-butt). My favorite parts are Washoe putting three fingers up to her ear to name herself, identifying things she doesn't like as "black," and her signing "hurry, open" repeatedly to get her people to open a door.

There's a great story about "black" in the Fouts book. When the young Washoe first saw other chimps (she was raised entirely by humans as part of the cross-fostering technique), she called them "black bugs." Woah!

There you have it - evidence of in-out group mentality in a chimp. Question is - did she pick this up from her human environment or is it part of some shared hominoid evolutionary makeup?

Whichever way, I agree with E.O. Wilson (father of sociobiology) who said something like this:
As long as we draw distinctions between us and them, there is little hope for global harmony.

Every time I hear that Amajaniahdhihad (deliberate misspelling here) talk about how his nuke plan is for peaceful purposes, I think about his view of anyone who is Jewish. Why can't we all focus on our similarities and downplay our differences?

I think this about most things in life - including the debate about whether chimps understand language. From an academic perspective it creates an opportunity to practice critical thinking, but at the end of the day, I think it's more important to accept that humans and chimps are really quite similar.

Intro Psych Student Common Misconceptions

From my first day of class I gathered the following insight about what baggage students bring with them to their first class in psychology.

Students think:

1) Instinct determines many of our behaviors.
- WRONG. The key word is MANY. The list of bona fide instincts is short compared with the long list of what we learn. This view, like evolution & religion, is compatible with the view that evolutionary forces have impacted our development. As a species we are very flexible in response to environmental situations. I'd say that many animals are well-equipped to learn but are far from tabula rasa. Few have demonstrated Fixed Action Patterns, the closest to a scientific definition of instinct I can provide.

2) How a person demonstrates happiness depends on culture and upbringing.
-WRONG. Look at facial expressions of happiness. Around the world they are they same. Sure, we see some subtle cultural differences in the situations we show our emotion. Display rules govern when and where we'll actually smile when happy. If you're from MN or had MN parents, or have been married to someone from MN or raised by someone from MN, it may take a lot to make you smile! But when you do, you will move the same facial muscles that a Papau New Guinean who has never seen anyone from another culture moves. Read more about Paul Ekman's research on emotional expressions here.

3) Most of us would not follow instructions from an authority figure to hurt another person.
-WRONG. Take a look at Stanley Milgram's experiment. When he asked a bunch of his colleagues at Yale if his experiment was ethical, they said of course - no one will actually hurt anyone. Turns out most of them did. Milgram's experiment goes down as the most shocking one in the history of psychology.

4) The more motivated and aroused you are, the better your performance will be.
-WRONG. This is true, but only up to a certain point. For tasks that we know well and have practiced many times, a little arousal definitely helps. Not enough - you performance suffers because you're not as pumped. Too much - you choke under pressure. If you perform well under pressure, you've got an optimal level of arousal or are doing something that comes easy to you. If you choke under the pressure of a crowd, the arousal provided by an audience got to you.

5) We only use about 15% of our brains.
-WRONG. Although you probably believed your fourth grade teacher who first told you this because at the time s/he was the smartest person you knew, this is flat out wrong. Think abouit it this way: What would happen if someone scooped out 85% of your brain. You'd be less than a vegetable. It's possible to lose huge portions of one's brain as an infant and be fine. Young brains are very resilient. For a delightful story on the plasticity of young brains, check out this New Yorker Annals of Medicine story.

First Day of Class - What to wear?

Recently I've read some posts about what to wear the first day of class, what to wear if you're a young-looking studentesque female professor, and what to wear in general if you don't fit the stodgy white male professor image. Most people say jeans are a big no-no because students won't take you seriously, will walk all over you, etc.

The first day I taught at Bowdoin College I wore jeans. I didn't care if students cared what I wore. I knew no matter what clothing I taught in, I would still have to earn their respect because: I am female, I am young, and I am also very likely to be mistaken as a student. Plus, even though it was the East, formality wasn't part of the atmosphere. How many benefit-of-the-doubt points could I expect to earn from donning a suit? Not many.

I am a firm believer that nonverbal communication (including clothing) is incredibly important in all sorts of situations. I ought to know: I teach an upper-level seminar in the subject. The sage advice of Polonius: The clothing oft proclaims the man, rings true to some extent. However, any initial bonus points you earn from dressing up will evaporate when you're subsequent behavior doesn't match. If you let your students walk all over you, regardless of whether you're wearing a suit or not, they will.

At W College, I rarely wore jeans. I rarely wore my beautifully tailored Ann Taylor suits either. I strove for somewhere in between. WC is a seriously informal place. Students and faculty usually address each other with first names, faculty rarely wear suits (ditto for the administration), and the whole place runs like butter this way.

Today I sat in on the first day of an Intro Psych class a former colleague teaches. Given that I won't be teaching this year and have few responsibilities others than finishing my dissertation, I look at this time as an unpaid pre-doctoral sabbatical. My own intro class has been the same for three years; I need some fresh ideas. My colleague was more than welcoming of my presence in class (I okay-ed it with him first). It is always neat to see how someone else does it. I very much recommend watching others teach. It doesn't matter if they are horrible or so outstanding you think you should switch careers because you'll never be that good; you will learn and gain inspiration for improving your own teaching. If you can watch master teachers, they are certainly going to provide the best fodder.

By the end of the semester I will be well-prepared to revamp and revitalize my class.

By the way, this prof wore jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers. He hardly looked like a professor at all.

Perhaps it's just small liberal arts colleges that make it possible for us to get away with this informality, but I wouldn't want to work anywhere that had a dress code that made me feel uncomfortable or reinforces the notion that clothing makes up for lack of behavioral authority.

Explaining Evolution to the Masses

Francois asks over on his blog, in the face of such little acceptance of evolution among the general population in my country, how do I explain my research to non-scientists?

That's a good question - How do I explain my research?

I just come right out and say it, using non-jargon filled language. I explain it as if I am talking to my grandma or a 10 year old.

I study the nonverbal behaviors that humans have in common with primates. These include facial expressions, gesture, and patterns of touch. I want to know what we do, why we do it, and what it means when it happens.

Being someone who works in the field of evolutionary science (and specifically the much poopoo-ed version known as evolutionary psychology or SOCIOBIOLOGY) and being someone who is not shy about saying exactly what I think, I have experienced a variety of responses to my research.

From a lifelong family friend who is an evangelical Christian - how can you talk about animal cognition when they don't have souls? I guess I could see the point if psychology is taken as it literally means from its root PSYCHE meaning soul so that psychology is the study of the soul at least as it was originally conceived, but my field has changed a lot in the 130 years that the discipline has been around. Matter of faith have a very small place in psychology now. I think having the question of having a soul is totally irrelevant and arbitrary way to decide what should and should not be studied in psychology.

When I told a distant relative that I had just met that I study the behaviors that humans have in common with primates, she said "oh, ew" and didn't ask anymore questions of me the entire night. It was weird.

Others - scientists! - have expressed a lot of encouragement for my exploration of human-primate similarities.

But at least one person in my field, Kanazawa, has gone on the record (in a peer reviewed journal) to say that it is better to hide the similarities so as not to fuel discontent for our field among the uneducated masses.

I don't agree with him.

I have NEVER had a student attack evolution or the concept of applying it to human behavior. Perhaps that is a function of the types of colleges I have taught at.

Nevertheless, I am fully prepared to discuss evolution and human behavior with anyone, anywhere, anytime. I think it is my responsibility to keep doing what I'm doing.

Trouble is, the average American won't really read my stuff. We are self-selecting consumers. We like to consume what we like and know already.

"give us something familiar
something similar
to what we know already
that will keep us steady
steady
steady going nowhere"
~Fiona Apple

If you ask me, discomfort is the only way to g(r)o(w).

Those of us in evolutionary science ought to write columns for our local papers.

I wish I could do that but given that my husband works at the paper as an editor, I can't.

However, I do very much look forward to making my students (and any evangelical crusaders who knock on my door) uncomfortable.