Dan Willingham has debuted a new feature over the the Washington Post’s Answer Sheet blog aimed at debunking scientific claims made on behalf of educational products. The first case on the docket is a computer program called eyeQ, which purports to improve reading speed by teaching kids to use both hemispheres of the brain during reading. A recent article about eyeQ in a Salt Lake City newspaper quotes company officials saying the product offers “strength conditioning for the eyes and the brain. Willingham found nothing in research literature about eyeQ, and takes a dim view of the science on which the company bases its claims.
The website makes much of the fact that only the left hemisphere of the brain is active when you are reading. It neglects to mention that the left and right hemispheres are both active in inexperienced readers. The coup de grace for me is the website’s claim that the left hemisphere is associated with scientific ability and logic, whereas the right brain is associated with intuition and artistic ability. This cartoon characterization of the brain was discredited 30 years ago.
eyeQ, which is currently in use in 750 schools, claims to be based on a “revolutionary information process” developed in Japan by Dr. Akihiro Kawamura, who has “conducted extensive research and has authored 72 books related to brain function, reading and learning technology,” according to the company’s website. Heard of him? No? Well, Google him then. Still nothing?
The books do not show up in a web search, says the company’s president, “because they are in Japanese.”
Is the product ineffective at increasing kids’ reading speed or is it just overhyped? I don’t really care whether or the claims about how it works hold up to scrutiny, but rather whether the results are worth the investment in money and time spent using the product.
As long as he’s at debunking products schools are buying based on faulty research, here’s one I’d like Mr Willingham to expose: ‘Why Try’.
Though I think their product is a good one to give structure to some touchy issues like choices & consequences (not exactly CK-friendly ideas, but I do see a need for students to have these things addressed by caring, concerned adults–and in a school setting is always better than in no setting), I found myself aghast at a presentation of theirs I recently saw in a conference.
The presenter (read: salesman–a really good salesman) spent the bulk of his 60 minutes displaying his product’s superior visual orientation and hip-hop soundtrack to an entire crowd of nodding, enthralled people. He then moved on to the “research”, positing that that such methods of delivery naturally work better with human cerebral cortexes, medulla oblongatas, and all kinds of other brainy words that made it sound like real science. Like, he actually talked about research that followed various types information through the brain (and I’m not kidding–he talked about magic technologies that have literally tracked the travels of the infobits) and found how some “bounced off” while others stuck.
Now, I’m no cognitive scientist. I’m pretty sure, though, that such research–and even capabilities to measure–do not exist. If I’m wrong, I’d love for Dan or some other cog sci person to set me straight.
The whole thing was staggering. It really gave me a better picture, though, of why so much of the ed community walks around believing the false to be true and then adjusting their practice around it: because it sounds right and official coming out of some engaging person’s mouth at a well-intentioned conference or professional development. I can’t imagine Why Try? is the only organization who frames their sales pitches this way, either.
Sic ‘em, Dan. (Or set me straight. Whatever. If I’m the wrong one, I”d like to know.)
Crimson Wife: There’s no telling whether it increases kids reading speed. My point is that a principal’s *first* question ought to be whether there is research that something works. And I agree, whether it meets the company’s claims is less important than whether the administrator thinks it’s worth it. . .IF the administrator has any objective information about what is likely to happen if the product is used. If, as in the case of eyeQ, there are no objective data, you can at least look at the company’s *reasoning* about why it works. In this case, the reasoning is full of errors. In principle, the product might work, just not for the reasons the company thinks it should. In practice, this seems pretty unlikely, and would be a bad gamble for the principal to take.
Eric: thanks for the tip. I’ll have a look.
Here’s a statement in need of some good debunking. It seems even too silly to debunk, except that it is often touted as established truth.
“Studies prove that students who have frequent opportunities for discussion achieve greater learning than those who do not. In fact, research maintains that students retain 10% of what they read, 20 % of what they hear, 30% of what they see, and 70% of what they discuss with others.”
In this case the quote is taken from an official NYC DOE publication, Strategies for Reading and Writing: Grade 1 Sample Unit of Study. But I have seen it elsewhere. I have received it on leaflets. I have heard it in PDs. I have read it, seen it, listened to it, but not discussed it–it was never presented as something up for discussion.
What could a statement like that mean, and where does it come from? What we learn when reading (or listening, or seeing) is different And don’t we “see” what we “read”? And even within one of them, there is great variation.
I have no trouble believing that certain kinds of discussion can reinforce and even bring about understanding. But there are also many things that we learn that don’t make their way into discussion, and many understandings that may come in quiet.
I’m very curious to find out about Diana’s example too, having heard that touted a number of times (each time with different numbers). What I remember hearing — although the nice round numbers make me skeptical — is more like “10% of what they read, 20% of what they read and hear, 30% of what they read and hear and see in graphic form,” etc. So when we add discussion ON TOP OF those aforementioned skills, yes, 70% sounds pretty reasonable. But has it been tested, and how?
I think there are a lot of ideas that could use some debunking. How about this:
“Children really want to learn.”
Call me a heretic for even suggesting that that a little debunking of this sentiment might be in order. I plead guilty.
But I want something more than a simple debunking, because it’s not totally bunk. There is some truth in it. But is it sufficient to base an education system on, or even an educational method? Is it all we need to know and understand about motivation?
As usual I have answered my own questions on my website. Here’s a link to “Motivation And The Willingness To Be Taught.” http://www.brianrude.com/mot-wt.htm
Brian, I think it is an incomplete statement. “Children really want to learn what they want to learn.”
The challenge for adults is to get them to want to learn what WE want them to learn. As a homeschooling adult, I feel as if I am dancing with my granddaughter: first she leads, then I lead. She is grateful when I help her achieve her goals so she is patient with me when I say, “Let’s do this. I think it is interesting.” (or, “It something you need to know.”)
Now I’ll go read you essay.
Diana — A while back, I stumbled across the most marvelously thorough debunking of the statistic you mention: http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/05/people_remember.html