Targeted to children as young as 3 months old, there is a growing number of baby media products that claim to teach babies to read. This randomized controlled trial was designed to examine this claim by investigating the effects of a best-selling baby media product on reading development. One hundred and seventeen infants, ages 9 to 18 months, were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Children in the treatment condition received the baby media product, which included DVDs, word and picture flashcards, and word books to be used daily over a 7-month period; children in the control condition, business as usual. Examining a 4-phase developmental model of reading, we examined both precursor skills (such as letter name, letter sound knowledge, print awareness, and decoding) and conventional reading (vocabulary and comprehension) using a series of eye-tracking tasks and standardized measures. Results indicated that babies did not learn to read using baby media, despite some parents displaying great confidence in the program’s effectiveness.

And speaking of products with false claims, USC Morgan Polikoff is beginning to unleash his research on the meaningless practice of calling a textbook “Common Core Aligned.”

Publishers are marketing all kinds of new textbooks they say align with the Common Core standards.

In reality, “they do not look that different from the previous versions,” said Morgan Polikoff, an associate professor at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.

In a study debuted last weekend at an Education Writers Association conference in Los Angeles, Polikoff analyzed three “Common-Core aligned” fourth-grade math textbooks adopted in Florida and one commonly used textbook that is not aligned to any particular standards.

He found that 15 to 20 percent of textbooks cover topics outside the Common Core standards, while 10 to 15 percent of the standards are not reflected in the texts.

In the long run, this probably isn’t a big deal, but over the next few years it’s going to be a big pain to get this right.

This study examined one aspect of the marketing of colleges by examining the portrayal of racial and ethnic diversity. Through a content analysis of over 10,000 photographs from 165 four-year institutions in the US, the accuracy of the photographic portrayal of diversity in recruitment materials was assessed. Findings indicate that the majority of institutions provided images of diversity to prospective students in 2011 that were significantly different than the actual student body. Furthermore, diversity was typically symbolized by portraying African American students at higher rates rather than presenting a more representative student body.

A new study led by San Diego State’s David Marx proposes that when positive female role models express doubts it can mitigate their positive impact. Furthermore, Marx and his team believed that the opposite would happen with men. Because men are more likely to feel threatened by not living up to the expectations of a positive academic stereotype (rather than confirming a negative stereotype), a doubtful male role model might help alleviate some of the pressure of those expectations.

As predicted, doubtful female role models increased threat for females, while doubtful male role models decreased threat for males.

Past work has shown that female role models are effective buffers against stereotype threat. The present research examines the boundary conditions of this role model effect. Specifically, we argue that female role models should avoid expressing doubt about their math abilities; otherwise they may cease to buffer women from stereotype threat. For men, a non-doubtful male role model should be seen as threatening, thus harming performance. A doubtful male role model, however, should be seen as non-threatening, thus allowing men to perform up to their ability in math. To test this reasoning, men and women were exposed to either an outgroup or ingroup role model who either expressed doubt or did not. Participants then took a math exam under stereotype threat conditions. As expected, doubtful ingroup role models hurt women, but helped men’s performance. Outgroup role models’ expressed doubt had no differential effect on performance. We also show that expressions of doubt take on a different meaning when expressed by a female rather than a male role model.

The broader lesson is that over the course of many years the way students think about academic expectations and social and cultural norms can have an enormous impact. It’s not only important to focus on what students are learning and how they’re learning it, but on how they think about those things in the broader context of their lives.

A longitudinal study found that the psychological approach individuals take when immersed in a general multicultural environment can predict subsequent career success. Using a culturally diverse sample, we found that “multicultural engagement”—the extent to which students adapted to and learned about new cultures—during a highly international 10-month master of business administration (MBA) program predicted the number of job offers students received after the program, even when controlling for important personality/demographic variables. Furthermore, multicultural engagement predicted an increase in integrative complexity over the course of the 10-month program, and this increase in integrative complexity mediated the effect of multicultural engagement on job market success. This study demonstrates that even when individuals are exposed to the same multicultural environment, it is their psychological approach and engagement with different cultures that determines growth in integrative complexity and tangible increases in professional opportunities.

The implication is somewhat depressing. If politicians allow the economy to deteriorate, the resulting increase in risk aversion could make many voters more likely to support delinquent incumbents. That’s not to say sabotage is a good electoral strategy. Job and income growth will always be the most important factors. But it would seem that regardless of performance, the economy mitigates its own impact on the election by altering the level of risk aversion in society. When the economy is strong, lower risk aversion harms incumbents. When the economy is weak, higher risk aversion helps incumbents. Given that we’re still waiting for a true economic recovery, incumbents ought to get another boost in 2014.

Read the whole thing!

The second article is on new research that suggests personalizing questions based on student interest can have a positive impact.

The study dovetails nicely with work done by Na’ilah Suad Nasir and Carol Lee on the importance of embedding learning in culturally relevant contexts. The type of personalization in Walkington’s experiment was rudimentary compared to that found in the work of Nasir–who examined mathematical thinking during games of dominoes–and Lee–who investigated the impact of culturally relevant literature on literacy. Still, Walkington’s findings support the idea that there’s more to learning than the bare bones structure of a lesson, and perhaps more importantly, that technology can be used as a means to add on to that structure.

Read on.

Developing ToM is an important part of childhood. It’s what allows kids to get along with others and make sense of the world around them. An improved theory of mind among adults could ultimately lead to less conflict and a society better geared toward improving human welfare.

What helps and hinders the development of Theory of Mind? A 2009 study (pdf) led by York University’s Raymond Mar suggests that books and movies may help, but that television does not. And that’s the rosy view of television. A new study led by Ohio State’s Amy Nathanson suggests that television is detrimental to ToM development. 

This study explored the relation between preschoolers’ television exposure and one important indicator of cognitive processing called theory of mind (ToM). A total of 107 preschoolers and their parents provided data on the preschoolers’ television exposure (including both intentional viewing and exposure via background television), parent–child discussion of television, and preschoolers’ ToM. The results indicated that preschoolers who were exposed to more background television and who had a television in their bedroom performed more poorly on ToM assessments compared with other children. Parent–child discussion of television was positively related to ToM performance, however. These results have implications for how we understand the effects of television on preschoolers.

The study is largely correlational, so there’s still a question of causality. Perhaps a lack of social interaction in the family — the kind that might help with ToM development — drives kids to watch more TV. It’s also possible that kids with a less-developed ToM tend to be drawn to television. But the most likely explanation is that when young children watch TV they don’t develop an understanding of how other people think to the extent that they do when they interact with actual people.

A lot is written about the dangers of modern media, but much of the criticism tends to focus on how communication platforms like Twitter and Facebook dumb us down. While this is a serious concern — one that Neil Postman was somehow able to foresee with regard to television nearly 30 years ago —  I think a less-publicized and perhaps more serious threat is that human interaction will be replaced by inferior alternatives.

When two people choose to have an argument over Twitter rather than publishing competing essays or engaging in face-to-face debate, the dialogue may be less fruitful, but at least there is authentic human interaction. With that comes certain emotions and thoughts — for example, what the other person is thinking —  that can be stored for later use. But if people fulfill their need for cognitive and emotional arousal by observing fictional television characters rather than engaging in human interaction, the result may be less positive cognitive development. It’s the equivalent of getting calories from candy rather than through real food.

Nathanson’s study is just one data point, but in general the less you do something the worse you’re going to be at it. If we allow Netflix to start filling cognitive or emotional needs that social interactions used to fill, people will probably get worse at optimizing social interactions.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Nathanson, A.I., Sharp, M.L., Alade, F., Rasmussen, E.E., & Christy, K. (2013). The Relation Between Television Exposure and Theory of Mind Among Preschoolers Journal of Communication DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12062

Across the experiments results suggested that when participants felt competent, choice increased motivation relative to situations with no choice. However, when participants did not feel competent, choice decreased motivation and had a negative impact on future intentions to engage in the activity. It would appear that without a feeling of competence, the presence of choice can drive people away from a given task.

[…]

Hoxby’s information packets are seen as useful because they make students aware of their options. Patall’s study shows that it’s also possible the packets help because they raise feelings of competence, thereby motivating students to dedicate more time and effort to the college application process. The takeaway is that organizations attempting to improve student-college matches should consider emphasizing the message that students are fully capable of conquering the process. It’s good to give people information about choices, but it’s better to also ensure that the information instills a sense of competence.

Read the whole thing!

The broader point is that the impact of education goes beyond simply knowing a new fragment of information. Possessing more knowledge can have a slew of motivational and behavioral consequences, most of which are positive.

There are individual preferences in circadian rhythm, also known as chronotype, ranging from morning-orientation to evening-orientation. In adolescence, the sleep rhythm shifts from morningness to eveningness while school schedules are early. School performance – short-term attention and gradings – may decrease with increasing evening-orientation. One thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven adolescents aged 10–17 provided self-reported information on their chronotype as well as their gradings and completed an attention test. Controlling for age and gender, earlier chronotype was a significant predictor of better gradings and better performance in the attention test. Moreover, concerning the attention test, we found a slower and more considerate completion strategy in morning-types and faster and a more impulsive strategy in evening-types. Using structural equation modeling, age had a negative influence while class level had a positive influence on gradings and attention. The authors suggest a delay of school start times by 1 h as a measure to improve the school performance of late chronotypes.

Get ready for the morning person-evening person achievement gap! Obviously this is an issue we’re ill-equipped to prioritize at the current moment, but getting kids on a learning schedule that’s more in line with their natural rhythms is not necessarily a trivial matter. In addition to improved learning, students will likely be more engaged and develop higher overall levels of positive affect toward school.

I want to go into this in more depth at some point, but the potential benefits of later school times is one of the many reasons that self-driving cars could be the most important education innovation of the next 30 years. As long as school transportation requires a great deal of adult supervision and central planning, school hours will always mirror the standard adult work schedule. But with cheap (or free) and secure self-driving cars that come to your door, students can go to school at any time.

And that’s just a small part of what self-driving cars can do. Overall, they have the ability to transform the education system by vastly expanding the geographic area in which a student can attend a school. Proponents of school choice often ignore the serious geographical roadblocks to a utopian system where the great schools thrive and the bad ones are left without students. If there are only two or three schools near your house, there’s no guarantee you’ll be able to choose a great school. But self-driving cars put more schools into play. Not only will this lead to beneficial differentiation and specialization — such as the creation of schools that start later — it will make it less likely that students will be forced to attend a school because it’s their best bad option.

One some level, education seems like a matter of luck. Fancy private schools, personal tutors, and college-educated parents surely create inequality of opportunity. But educational attainment also involves some legitimate amount of hard work. Clearly people’s views about education will fall somewhere along the spectrum between “Pure Meritocracy” and “Total Randomness,” but the question is, what’s likely to influence where those views fall?

A clever new study led by Gerald Eisenkopf attempts to find a basic answer. The study combines a series of experimental manipulations with the dictator game in order to reveal how certain people (in this case, German college students) perceive educational advantages.

Here’s how the study was set up: Two partners answered a series of trivia questions. Each partner received a small amount of money based on their individual performance, while a much larger sum was given to the two partners based on the pair’s combined performance. The pair then had to divide up the sum using the ultimatum game (one person proposes a certain split, and if it’s accepted by their partner, that’s how the money is split up, but if it’s rejected, they each get nothing.)

The key manipulation was that before answering the questions participants were given an “education” period. During this time they could review certain questions that might be on the test, but the conditions varied in ways that were designed to mimic the educational inequities in most seemingly meritocratic societies. In the “skill” condition, only 5% of the practice questions appeared on the actual test, thereby making the education period relatively useless. The result was that performance was mostly based on each person’s true trivia ability. In the “luck” treatment, each person in the pair could learn 50% of the answers, and so a person’s performance had little to do with their actual level of knowledge. Finally, in the “education” condition, one partner was able to learn 95% of the available answers, while the other partner only saw 5% of the answers. There were two types of education conditions. In one, participants had 15 minutes to go through the sample questions, plenty of time to learn all the answers. In the other education condition, participants had only four minutes, and therefore effort and skill played a larger role in determining the advantage provided by access to more answers.

When the partners were later forced to divvy up their winnings in the ultimatum game, the results revealed that educational opportunities influenced how people viewed merit. As expected, high achievers in the “skill” condition were allotted the most money by both high and low-achievers. However, there was divergence between the two groups when one partner was randomly given a better “education.” In these cases those who received a quality education and scored higher believed they were entitled to a larger share. Conversely, those who were not granted a quality education tended to propose splitting up the winnings in an egalitarian manner that was reminiscent of the proposed splits when performance was based on luck. In other words, the high-achievers who had studied hard to learn the answers believed they deserved more, while the low-achievers who didn’t have the same privileges as their partners felt their partners were less deserving.

While not earth-shattering, the results provide some confirmation for the half-baked perception of meritocracy that you might expect: People are more likely to view their own experiences as worthy of merit. You remember your hard work, but not your privilege.

One remaining question is whether there are other things that influence how people view access to educational opportunities. For example, what if your cousin was granted access to education? Would you view his accomplishments more like the way you would view your own (hard work, lots of merit), or more like the way you would view that of a stranger (all privilege, no merit.) And is it possible that changes in the structure of our education system alter the degree to which people see education as consistent with meritocracy? For example, would a noticeable increase or decrease in standardized testing cause people to view educational attainment as more or less dependent on hard work? There’s a lot riding on the way people view educational attainment, and so the answers to these questions could ultimately prove to be important.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Eisenkopf, G., Fischbacher, U., & Follmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Unequal opportunities and distributive justice Journal of Economic Behavior & Organizaiton DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.07.011

Here’s Willingham:

There’s a case to be made that American society is going too far in emphasizing self-regulation. But the way to make it is not to suggest that the natural consequence of this emphasis is the crushing of children’s spirits because self-regulation is the same thing as no exuberance. The way to make the case is to show us that we’re overdoing self-regulation. Kids feel burdened, anxious, worried about their behavior.

Weil doesn’t have data that would bear on this point. I don’t either. But my perspective definitely differs from hers. When I visit classrooms or wander the aisles of Target, I do not feel that American kids are over-burdened by self-regulation.

Weil also fails to properly acknowledge that many students are not from stable backgrounds, and in doing so she glosses over a key feature of teaching self-regulation.

Here’s Mead:

Weil’s article also reflects one other feature that drives me up the wall in elite media pieces on education–a heavy focus on the experience of elite, largely white, professionals and their concertedly cultivated children whose experiences are highly unrepresentative of the nation’s families and children–particularly those who are most vulnerable. Maybe Weil knows too many children who are being diagnosed with “sensory processing disorder,” but what about kids in less privileged neighborhoods? Things like the peace tables Weil describes can seem ridiculous, but children from communities where adults don’t usually display strong self regulation or settle problems by “using their words,” may need instruction to help them do so. And so forth.

Weil’s piece is emblematic of a common problem in policy writing, and education policy writing in particular. Almost no policy benefits everybody. Most policies are good ideas if they benefit 60%-70% of people without causing disproportionate harm on the other 30%-40%. But nobody wants to engage with the downsides of their preferred policy because there’s little to gain. Furthermore, in many cases there’s just not enough data to say something definitive about that 30%-40% (such as whether it’s actually 30%-40%.) So everybody pretends their policy is great for every single person, and the result is that people don’t argue by saying, “Here’s why the gains of my policy outweigh the losses,” they argue by saying, “Here are the gains of my policy and oh gosh aren’t they all so awesome.” Both sides tend to embrace this one-sided vagueness because it makes arguing easier. You often see these types of arguments in writing about charter schools, where people talk about the consequences of enrollment patterns or disciplinary models without any attempt at a measured weighing of trade-offs or a specific discussion about the proportion or characteristics of students most likely to be helped or hurt.

Such is the state of affairs in which it’s normal for Weil to spend 3,500 words attacking a policy without making the case that the policy hurts a majority of students or a disproportionate number of the students we should be most concerned about. Granted, Wail doesn’t argue for cutting back that fervently. Her inquiring tone is one that’s commonly found in the “here’s a downside we haven’t thought of…” articles that have become a staple of web journalism. But those tend to be short pieces. Dedicating 3500+ words requires a careful analysis of the pros and cons. Weil doesn’t supply that, and she would have been better off acknowledging this problem (or simply writing a piece that was much less ambitious.)

Finally, Weil should have done more to develop an accurate understanding of what self- or emotional-regulation entails. The word “suppress” appears twice in the article, and I think this is where Weil veers off course. Regulating yourself is not about suppressing desires. It’s about moving beyond your initial impulse, examining the situation, realizing your initial impulse was unwise, and then charting a different course. Take the example of 1st grader who wants to dance instead of listening to a presentation. Rather than suppressing the desire to act out in a creative fashion, regulation would entail understanding that such behavior could distract others and harm her own learning. Ultimately, a new desire to follow classroom rules is formed. Crucially, the child hasn’t learned that the desire to dance is bad or that it should be suppressed.

Perhaps we’d be better off occasionally replacing “regulation” with “re-evaluation” or “reappraisal” (the latter is more common in academic literature.) Doing so would emphasize that there’s no suppression of any kind going on, and it would help curtail the narrative that blossoming bundles of creativity are having their impulses stifled by dry school psychologists.