Brain and Learning Sciences

Revolutionizing dyslexia screening: Technology to empower teachers

Olivia Peterkin — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 02:23:39 +0000

Revolutionizing dyslexia screening: Technology to empower teachers Olivia Peterkin Thu, 06/12/2025 - 19:23

Brain and Learning Sciences | Impact | Learning Differences

On this episode of School’s In, Associate Professor Jason Yeatman discusses early screening for students with reading challenges.

June 26, 2025

By Olivia Peterkin

When it comes to mitigating the effects of dyslexia and other reading challenges in young students, research says that the sooner the difficulty is identified, the better.

In fact, adults can spot certain identifiers of potential challenges even before a child first enters a classroom, according to Jason Yeatman, an associate professor at �� Graduate School of Education (GSE) and director of the Brain Development and Education Lab.

“When you’re thinking about screening for dyslexia, what you’re trying to do is tap into these various mechanisms [that] are developing early on,” Yeatman said. “They’re developing before a kid learns to read. So language skills broadly are one factor that contribute to learning to read.”

Once they enter school, children begin developing written language skills on a foundation of spoken language skills, he said. “But [for] kids that are struggling for a variety of reasons with spoken language, it’s going to be harder learning to read.”

Yeatman joins hosts GSE Dean Dan Schwartz and Senior Lecturer Denise Pope on School’s In as they discuss early screening for students with reading challenges, and how the Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR) uses gamification to deliver fully automated, highly accurate reading assessments. The tool also enables large-scale data collection to help researchers, educators, and now parents understand children’s learning.

“Our goal is to democratize access to high-quality data" on kids’ reading and other skills, said Yeatman, who is ROAR’s program director.

They also discuss how assessment technology can help free teachers up to focus on supporting student learning.

“Technology should be there to support the teacher, and I think assessment is this perfect place,” Yeatman said.

“If you’re running a school district and you have a limited amount of time for professional development with your teachers, I would prefer that you spend that time working on strategies to intervene and improve kids’ reading skills as opposed to ... hammering away on how [to] deliver this assessment in compliance with the technical manual,” he said.

Transcript

Jason Yeatman (00:00):

Technology should be there to support the teacher, and I think assessment is this perfect place.

Denise Pope (00:08):

Welcome to School's In, your go-to podcast for cutting-edge insights in learning. From early education to lifelong development, we dive into trends, innovations and challenges facing learners of all ages. I'm Denise Pope, senior lecturer at ��'s Graduate School of Education and co-founder of Challenge Success.

Dan Schwartz (00:31):

And I'm Dan Schwartz. I'm the dean of the Graduate School of Education, and the faculty director of the �� Accelerator for Learning.

Denise Pope (00:41):

Together we bring you expert perspectives and conversations to help you stay curious, inspired, and informed.

(00:50):

Hi, Dan.

Dan Schwartz (00:51):

Denise, it's always good to be with you.

Denise Pope (00:54):

How you doing?

Dan Schwartz (00:55):

Well, I'm good. So here's your question of the day. So it seems to me there are certain things with young children that you'd kind of like to know early because it's going to affect their abilities to learn going down the line. So it seems like glasses, do kids need glasses? But I kind of heard all these stories that nobody discovered this kid needs to sit in the front of the room. Is there a history to them sort of finally saying, "Gee, we should measure whether kids can see"?

Denise Pope (01:26):

Yeah, no, I know, a lot of times you don't find out until it's too late. And I know there are things that you want to catch early on because you can do some interventions early on that maybe won't be as effective later. So I think glasses, hearing, yeah.

Dan Schwartz (01:39):

So here's one, reading. So reading's important for everything to keep learning and it's kind of a tough space, because how do you measure reading before they've had a chance to learn to read?

Denise Pope (01:51):

Oh, total catch-22.

Dan Schwartz (01:54):

Yeah. So we have the guest who's going to answer this. So we're really pleased to have Jason Yeatman back. He's a professor in three separate departments at ��. He's very ��. The Graduate School of Education, the Department of Psychology, and he's in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics in the School of Medicine. Jason is very busy. He's a neuroscientist, but he is the neuroscientist of behavior, of how people behave, and one of his areas is reading. It's an important area. And he developed a new tool called ROAR or the Rapid Online Assessment of Reading. And he's going to explain to us how he manages to measure people acquiring a skill before they've acquired it. So welcome, Jason.

Jason Yeatman (02:40):

Good to be here.

Dan Schwartz (02:42):

Is it the case that we used to measure reading at the end of third grade was the first time that we'd actually do some formal assessment of reading?

Jason Yeatman (02:51):

Yeah, and that's something that's changed a lot now. I think either 42 or 43 states have universal screening legislation. This is legislation that mandates screening all students for dyslexia. So dyslexia, which is a developmental challenge in learning to read. And this universal screening legislation usually requires screening a couple of times a year starting in kindergarten through grades one and two. And then now getting to this grade three you're talking about, that's usually when state testing starts. So the idea is that students are screened for reading difficulties right away and for the underlying factors that are going to predict future reading difficulties. This has been a huge legislative achievement in trying to bring more equity to screening.

Dan Schwartz (03:34):

Can I ask a tangential question for a second?

Jason Yeatman (03:36):

Only if I'm allowed to give a tangential answer.

Dan Schwartz (03:40):

If you follow my tangent, yes. So dyslexia is not a thing, right? Dyslexia just means bottom 5% of readers and then there's different types of dyslexia or are all dyslexias the same thing?

Jason Yeatman (03:53):

Yeah, so dyslexia refers to a challenge learning to read. Amongst people with dyslexia, there are a number of different contributing factors. And so when you're thinking about screening, you said this was a tangential question, but actually wasn't, it's core to your first question.

Denise Pope (04:07):

I know. I think it's totally on topic and very important.

Dan Schwartz (04:09):

Yay, yay.

Jason Yeatman (04:10):

Yeah, so when you're thinking about screening for dyslexia, what you're trying to do is tap into these various mechanisms which are developing early on. They're developing before a kid learns to read. So language skills broadly are one factor that contribute to learning to read. First you establish various aspects of spoken language, and then upon that foundation of spoken language, you start layering on written language. And that's the job of school is to start building up written language on top of your spoken language skills. But kids that are struggling for a variety of reasons with spoken language, it's going to be harder learning to read.

(04:47):

But there's more detailed factors as well. So most well-known one, the one that's written into pretty much all of these policies across all the states that have universal screening is measures of phonological awareness. Phonological awareness refers to your ability to hear that speech is composed of constituent sounds. Take the word cat, which is composed of K-æ-T, I can hear those as separate sounds. And if you aren't able to attend to the sound structure spoken language, then the idea of saying, "Well now, Dan, take K-æ-T, and assign a visual symbol to represent each of these sounds," that would just make no sense to you. So phonological awareness is one of these foundations where you can really see the clear connection, right? As I explained that like, oh yeah, of course, if you can't break down speech into its constituent sounds, then how can you learn to represent these sounds with visual symbols?

Denise Pope (05:41):

Okay, so this is super fascinating. If I have a kid in kindergarten and they don't know how to read yet, you're telling me that you can do some kind of measure that will predict that they're going to have a hard time reading, am I understanding that right? Is that right?

Jason Yeatman (06:01):

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, so phonological awareness, this is one thing you can measure. Actually, I have a five-year-old, just turned five-year-old at home, she doesn't know how to read yet. She's still in preschool, one of the wonderful preschools here on campus. And as someone who studies reading, I'm starting to play these games with her of looking at her ability to attend to the sounds in language and looking informally at these different risk factors that I know are going to predict reading development.

Denise Pope (06:27):

Give an example. Do you say, "K-æ-T, what does that mean?" Give an example of how you do this. Maybe not with your own five-year-old, but in real life.

Jason Yeatman (06:36):

No, I'll be reading her a book and ask her if she can tell which words start with the same sound. She doesn't know all the letters, it's not looking at the text. But I can say, "Today three people were on a podcast together, Jason, Denise, and Dan, which of these names starts with the same sound?" The answer is Denise and Dan, they both start with a 'Duh'.

Denise Pope (06:58):

That's so great. I actually would not have thought about that. And if they can't figure that out yet, how do you know they're just not ready to read? How do you know that it's not like a challenge versus they're just not ready? Because I had a kid who didn't start reading until he was kind of end of first grade.

Jason Yeatman (07:17):

Now you're getting into the measurement question. So now we're going from... I'm going to restate your question, you're saying, "Jason, how do you go from you and your daughter hanging out and playing games to something that works for a system, a school system where we want to not just assess Jason's kid and Denise's kid, but we want to universally screen all the kids that are entering all the California kindergarten classrooms?" And that's where you build measures. So within ROAR, Rapid Online Assessment of Reading, we have a phonological awareness measure that looks at your ability to hear the first sounds in words, hear the last sounds in words, segment the middle sounds and words. So kind of different aspects of phonological awareness, your ability to attend to rhymes. So there's a suite of phonological awareness measures. And we've now had tens of thousands of kids around California, but all around the country, now ROAR is used I think in either 29 or 30 states.

Denise Pope (08:10):

Congrats.

Jason Yeatman (08:11):

So that allows us to collect normative data and make sure that the phenomenon I'm talking about isn't just some unique phenomenon to like, the kids that I see around ��, but really reflects typical development across the incredible diversity of learners around the United States. And then based on that, we start running studies of predictive validity. So we have a scientific hypothesis, this work started in the mid-late '80s, like the idea that phonological awareness is a key foundation. So researchers started developing measures to tap into phonological awareness, started running studies to look at how these measures collected before a kid starts school, predict their reading into the future. And now we've built on that and we've built ROAR to this whole automated platform, which rather depending on me as a researcher going and administering measures to each kid, we can have, for example, all the incoming kindergarteners in California log in, take our ROAR measures, and we can come back a year later and measure the reading skills and look at how these measures predict each other.

Dan Schwartz (09:11):

So pause there for a second. So the way we used to do it was it was a one-hour in-person assessment with third graders with an adult in the room administering it. Now I have a kindergartner in front of a computer, how do you make sure they're actually looking at the screen and that they don't drop off out of boredom?

Denise Pope (09:35):

Right, or they're dogging it.

Dan Schwartz (09:37):

Right. So while that's a great challenge, how do you make an assessment that people want to take?

Jason Yeatman (09:42):

Yeah, that's the challenge. This intersection, the part that's fun and fulfilling is this intersection between design and thinking about gameplay and child-centered design and designing technology for kids is a challenge in its own, right? You have to have something that's engaging, that's fun, that's intuitive. But there's also a science to that too, right? ROAR started off as a pandemic project, but since then it's grown where each aspect of ROAR were- for example, have a hypothesis about how an aspect of gameplay is going to improve the fidelity of the data we get by keeping students more engaged. We can run that now as a randomized control trial and experiment where we randomly give different participants different versions of ROAR and we study how it affects the engagement, how it affects the reliability of the measure. These are all aspects-

Dan Schwartz (10:38):

What's the answer?

Jason Yeatman (10:40):

Yes.

Dan Schwartz (10:40):

Yes?

Denise Pope (10:42):

Some kids... This is my hypothesis, the kids who have the fun version are going to stay more engaged than the kids who have the not fun version. Is that a fair hypothesis, Jason?

Jason Yeatman (10:53):

Yeah, and it turns out to be true. So actually I was joking around a little bit, but yeah, no, this is actually a serious study we did. Because as you start gamifying things, you come to decisions about giving people trial by trial feedback. One of the thing about gameplay that's engaging is that you know when things are going well versus not.

Denise Pope (11:12):

The player knows.

Jason Yeatman (11:14):

Yeah, yeah. Exactly, right?

Denise Pope (11:15):

Yeah.

Jason Yeatman (11:15):

So you're getting feedback, that's part of what keeps you engaged in a game, which is different than a normal assessment where, you know Dan, you were talking about delivering in-person assessments, and when you're trained on these as a teacher, you're trained to not give any feedback, to reward the fact that they're listening to you, but not to give any indication. And so we ran a study looking at how trial by trial feedback affects performance and there's different camps of teachers that had worries different ways. So we work with about a half dozen schools that specifically serve children with dyslexia. And in those schools, some of the teachers were worried that getting feedback that they'd gotten answers incorrect could be just emotionally hard for the kids, or that getting feedback that they're getting them correct would allow them to game the system in some way.

(12:05):

So this is why it's really important to actually study this rather than just sticking with an old approach of saying, "Okay, well rather than, there's all these worries that come when you start gamifying things, let's just not do it," right? That's one way we could. We're going into this, it's studying each step, and Denise is correct, adding in trial by trial feedback increases kids' engagement, they provide more useful data, they stay focused longer, and it doesn't lead to any kind of gaming the system. There are going to be some portion of students where you don't know if their low score was because they really were struggling with it or because they weren't putting in their full effort. And that's an issue whether it's delivered one-on-one or through a platform. And it turns out you engage different kids different ways, and in many ways I spend a lot of time developing technology, but I also think technology should be there to support the teacher.

(12:59):

Technology should be there to support the teacher, and I think assessment is this perfect place. You think about, Dan, if you're running a school district and you have a limited amount of time for professional development with your teachers, I would prefer that you spend that time working on strategies to intervene and improve kids' reading skills as opposed to, you know, hammering away on how do you deliver this assessment in compliance with the technical manual. And that's where technology can lift up teachers, right? Through this automated approach where we can study the different aspects, gamify, get a standardized measure, it allows teachers to spend more time doing what teachers want to do, which is teaching.

Dan Schwartz (13:43):

So Denise, when I taught English or language skills, I often thought kids who weren't doing well the problem was motivation.

Denise Pope (13:53):

What grade are you teaching?

Dan Schwartz (13:53):

Seventh, eighth.

Denise Pope (13:54):

Seventh, eighth grade, okay.

Dan Schwartz (13:56):

Yeah, and I've decided that the problem's motivation. So I do a lot of work to try and create the reading activities be more meaningful, more interesting. But I had no way to know that kids were having trouble sounding out letters. I never had kids read aloud in class. I didn't like to do that. Did you have this kind of problem when you taught?

Denise Pope (14:18):

Yeah, I mean, I don't think you should have kids read aloud in class in some sense exactly for that reason, right? Well, I'll tell you here, this is how my husband was taught history. I'm not making this up. Okay? You would come in and you would start with the first person at the front of the row and you would read the first paragraph of the history book, and then the second person would read the second paragraph and the third person would read the third paragraph and he would count ahead to know what paragraph that he was going to read to see if there were any big words or hard words or whatever, and get kind of practice. And if anyone was out of line or whatever, he was totally, totally toast, right? He'd practiced the wrong paragraph. And if you got lost or you didn't know where you were, you had to stand up, you had to stand up for the rest of the class. So it was very much this very scary... Imagine if you had dyslexia-

Dan Schwartz (15:10):

You had to stand up for rest of the class, what theory is that?

Denise Pope (15:14):

This is punishment for not paying attention because, same thing, the teacher did not understand that it was a reading struggle or you didn't want to read out loud or maybe you were embarrassed by an accent or whatever, right? The teacher was just pissed that you messed up the system and you weren't paying attention.

Dan Schwartz (15:34):

Wow.

Denise Pope (15:35):

I know.

Dan Schwartz (15:35):

Sorry. Just the idea that you would've someone stand up so that they're both physically and socially uncomfortable.

Denise Pope (15:41):

Yeah, talk about a total degradation ceremony, right?

Dan Schwartz (15:44):

That's wrong.

Denise Pope (15:46):

But I agree with you. I would never have students read out loud, and I will tell you this, sometimes it's a play, like Romeo and Juliet, where it is actually kind of important to have someone read out loud or to hear it read out loud. And you have to be careful because you don't know what's going on with those kids. You don't know who's going to be comfortable and not comfortable and stumble over words or whatnot. You really don't want to shame kids, particularly when it comes to anything in the classroom, but reading especially. But yeah, I would have no idea. I would think it was motivation too, right? If you have no idea, and by the way, we weren't trained to assess reading skills, were you? I wasn't.

Dan Schwartz (16:25):

No, no.

Denise Pope (16:27):

Never. Never.

Dan Schwartz (16:31):

So Jason, something I've seen about computerized assessments is they can be a lot more precise than teacher's ability to develop instructional interventions, right. And so isn't there a model where the computer does the assessment and then does the treatment as well and the teacher's out of the loop?

Jason Yeatman (16:53):

You know, I think humans learn best from other humans. Social learning is hugely important, and I think we often think about the goal of school of just filling the brain with more things. And it's important, at some level, if you were to tell me that my kid was going to go to a classroom where the teacher was not going to have the ability to teach them, would I want technology to step in? Most certainly, yes. But I'd much rather be in a classroom that's resourced with a teacher that supported the student's needs holistically more than just filling them with more letters.

Dan Schwartz (17:30):

So there's that second grade teacher you never really like, Jason. On the other hand, there's a computer that has Luke Skywalker praising you for getting all the right answers.

Jason Yeatman (17:40):

I think it has a place, but I think I'm still sticking with that we want to empower teachers, empower the compassionate, caring humans to be the lead here. And technology can be a great supplemental resource, right? And I think we often ask the question in the wrong way. We're often asking, "Can AI do this" or "can technology do this?" But we should be asking, "Do we want technology to do this? Do we want AI to step in here?" And I think often the answer, I don't know, when you think about your kids, do you want them just learning exclusively from the computer? No, you want it to be a supplement where for the individualized parts of it, sure that there's an engaging teacher that's working with students on their skills, practice is a great thing to do through an app. If you're just needing more practice to master skill, a teacher can't spend that much individual one-on-one time. Tutoring is a great option, but if financial resources preclude tutoring, great place for technology to support learning. But not to be the place where all the learning's done.

Dan Schwartz (18:40):

Okay.

Denise Pope (18:42):

I agree 100%. I love having this conversation with Dan in the room, Jason, just come with me every time I have this conversation with Dan. I love it.

Dan Schwartz (18:50):

Hey, just to be clear, I think teachers are really important. My point was simpler, which is our diagnoses may be more precise than the available actions to the teacher.

Jason Yeatman (19:00):

Yeah, that is a good question. And what we think about with ROAR, so ROAR has gone from a research tool to a tool working at the scale of systems, and what we like to think about with school districts is how to build an effective multi-tiered system of support. So that's the goal here is that you're catching problems early and you're finding students that just need a little bit more help. And then as some of those students that just need a little more help are getting the help they need, they're fine. And others continually need to be brought to a more intensive directed, sometimes one-on-one, and this is where there is this interplay where technology can thoughtfully fill a lot of these gaps. But it's not the solution on its own, right? It should be integrated with a thoughtful, multi-tiered system of support.

Denise Pope (19:49):

Okay, building on what you just said, I still want to know how you can tell the difference between a kid who's just having a little bit of a slower role to learn how to read, may need a little bit of one-on-one, versus someone who is going to be diagnosed, have an IEP, which is going to get them special support, can you tell that in kindergarten or is that something you have to give to older students?

Jason Yeatman (20:14):

Now that's something you look at over time, right? So back to this idea of a multi-tiered system of supports. First, everyone should have high quality basic instruction. And you should screen kids and some kids are going to be struggling, those need a little additional support. And then there are those that are going to keep struggling on the screen or struggling on all the assessments and yeah, those are the ones that are going to need a different level of support. Is it important to have a diagnosis? That's really a policy question, not a science question. Because what I would say is assessments provide data on who needs support and what. If you have a system that's resourced to provide students the support in the areas they need, the diagnosis itself is not important. However, for a policy standpoint, the diagnosis gives you access, sometimes, in certain scenarios, gives you access to services you wouldn't otherwise have.

Dan Schwartz (21:05):

Let me switch a little bit. So I taught English in middle school and I don't remember ever giving a straight up reading assessment.

Denise Pope (21:13):

I taught it in high school and I never gave it, ever.

Jason Yeatman (21:16):

Let me give you now the two areas, you guys just asked about the two areas that I'm most excited about with ROAR, and it is upper elementary school into middle school and high school. Let's take this Dan teaching middle school, and there's probably a bunch of students... So students come into your class, you probably don't have a lot of information about them, about their foundational skills, you just have students that are struggling across everything. I would be willing to bet that you take that section of your class that's just struggling with everything, third, half of those students, the issue is really that they never mastered foundational reading skills. They're still stumbling through decoding words. They're still struggling to read fluently enough to read large passages, to digest information, to read the instructions on a math test.

(22:01):

And this is what we find, this is through research partnerships with many dozens of middle schools and high schools, we're finding that of the students that are not meeting standards on the state tests, a huge portion of those are also struggling with the foundations of reading. Now, I find this both sad and concerning, but also a place of hope because it's actionable. We know how to teach reading. When we think about how do we teach the middle school student that is not meeting many of the standards, how do we teach all these standards? That's a very complex problem. But how do we teach them to decode words and read fluently? There's an extensive literature on how to do that.

(22:42):

The challenge though, for you, Dan, as the English teacher, I guess not really within the structure of your day, right? So this requires thinking about structuring middle school differently if we're going to start addressing these challenges. Early screening legislation, the ideal is that these challenges all get addressed early and this fact that I'm telling you is no longer a fact, but in the real world we live in, I think that there's a lot of power to thinking about addressing reading challenges at whatever age they are.

Denise Pope (23:14):

I think it's awesome that ROAR works not just for the young kids then, right? You can use it with an eighth grader, you can use it with a 10th grader, you can use it with an adult. The population in prisons and whatever. A lot of people I've heard in the adult correctional institutions are struggling readers as well. I mean, this is a problem that goes well beyond.

Jason Yeatman (23:34):

It's a huge problem. And this is why we've decided to keep ROAR at �� and run it through a research practice partnership model as opposed to spinning off a company. Because there's so many important research questions and also ways to serve underserved populations of society. You brought up one of prison populations, that's an area where assessments are not common, but as they do make it there, they could play a really important role.

(24:02):

The other thing we're working on now, hopefully when this podcast goes live it'll be right around the time of our launch of ROAR at Home, our parent portal. Our goal is to democratize access to high quality data to any parent that wants to learn more information about their kids' reading skills, their kids' math skills. We have math assessments in ROAR as well. We also, back to the example you gave at the beginning, are building a suite of vision assessments. There's a lot of aspects of way your visual system processes information that we can also measure through tasks we've developed, and this will give parents access to score reports in real time. It'll also allow parents and families to contribute to and participate in research.

Denise Pope (24:43):

Okay, I love that there's this idea of ROAR at Home and there's a part of me that's a little bit afraid because we have some really hyper, uber-

Dan Schwartz (24:53):

I can solve it. I can solve it, Denise.

Denise Pope (24:56):

Wait. But I didn't even say the problem yet.

Dan Schwartz (24:59):

Yes. The answer is, Jason, they're not allowed to use the assessment on their kid more than once every two months.

Denise Pope (25:05):

Okay.

Dan Schwartz (25:05):

Did I get it right, Denise?

Denise Pope (25:07):

Yeah. There's someone who's going to be like, "Do you read yet? Do you read yet? Let's do it again. Wait. Oh my gosh, now I need all these interventions. We're going to pay all... We're going to workbook you to death. We're going to flashcard you to death." That's my fear. What do you think?

Jason Yeatman (25:20):

I think that we are neither going to prevent nor cause that.

Denise Pope (25:25):

That's like you're going to push that off to policy and economics and all that. Someone else is going to solve that problem.

Jason Yeatman (25:32):

You know, if a parent wants to test their kid 1,000 times and buy every single intervention program, whether or not I'm involved. But no, I mean to Dan's point, we can set up guardrails here. And one of our goals is to provide high quality information, right? And we provide instructional recommendations, we don't provide recommendations for a specific curriculum or a specific product to buy. We provide information on approaches to work with students that have different kinds of challenges. So our hope is really to curate the scientific literature. We're always hoping to do better on this. We're a small team. Unfortunately, we don't have enough people to do as comprehensive a job as we'd like. That's the goal, is to curate the scientific literature in a way that a parent could digest and learn about their child's strengths and weaknesses. Not test them every week, maybe test them a couple of times a year. Quarterly, quarterly is pretty good. Can see growth curves then, you can chart growth over time. Monthly would be okay too.

Denise Pope (26:31):

Oh no, no, no, no, no. There's so many other things little kids need to be doing than sitting and testing. But I love the availability of this for people at home, for schools that aren't using it yet or whatever. We want early intervention for sure. Jason, thank you so much for being here. Some final words?

Jason Yeatman (26:51):

For me as a laboratory scientist, as Dan opened with, I'm a neuroscientist, my career started off really examining details of brain development, intersection between brain development and learning, and I find that being in the real world, doing research in the real world, engaging with the world just makes the core research so much richer as well. We discover things we would not discover living in the confines of the lab by working with diverse populations from around the country, from different school districts across different states.

Denise Pope (27:23):

It's such a huge point, and I love that you kept it at �� instead of spinning it out to a company, which a lot of research people do, so that you can continue to improve, so that you can continue to make it better, so that you can continue to study it. So that is just kudos to you, Jason, and your team. Super, super excited.

(27:42):

Dan Schwartz, looks like you were going to say something. Final words here.

Dan Schwartz (27:45):

So summarizing, I think this is an amazing demonstration of what science and smart design can do.

Denise Pope (27:53):

Yeah.

Dan Schwartz (27:54):

Right? Where you really take what we know about the world and render it in a form that's just so helpful, so useful. It's not guessing all over the place and really, it's very precise. I think this is a testimony to what educational research can do.

Denise Pope (28:10):

Thank you, Jason, for being here, and thank all of you for joining this episode of School's In. Be sure to subscribe to the show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you tune in. I'm Denise Pope.

Dan Schwartz (28:21):

And I'm D-AN.

Podcast

split

GSE area

Faculty and Research

Faculty mentioned in this article: Jason Yeatman

Reimagining education in the age of longevity

Olivia Peterkin — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 22:10:56 +0000

Reimagining education in the age of longevity Olivia Peterkin Wed, 06/04/2025 - 15:10

Brain and Learning Sciences | Early Childhood | Research and Practice

In this episode of School’s In, GSE Professor Mitchell Stevens discusses ways to prepare young people for long lives of learning, work, and transitions.

June 12, 2025

By Olivia Peterkin

With the average human lifespan doubling in the 20th century, and people living well past traditional retirement age, how might education and work evolve to enable people to thrive across that lifespan?

Mitchell Stevens, a professor at �� Graduate School of Education (GSE), believes that the idea that people stop learning and contributing to society after they turn 65 is not only an expensive way to age, but “a terrible waste of human talent.”

“A much more ambitious but challenging way to make use of that gift [of longer lives] is to reorganize the other institutions of life,” said Stevens, who is also co-director for the �� Center on Longevity, which is redefining aging by advancing research, education, and public engagement that create lifelong opportunities for growth, connection, and contribution.

“Specifically …[to reorganize] the institutions of education and work to enable people to prosper and enjoy longer lives in advance of old age,” he said.

Stevens joins hosts GSE Dean Dan Schwartz and Senior Lecturer Denise Pope on School’s In as they discuss new ways to prepare young people for long lives of learning, work, and transitions. They also discuss the critical importance of early learning to enhance the cognitive capacity and desire for learning that will serve children well across long lifespans.

“As a society, we need to think about early investments in everyone's children as a good investment for all of us into the future,” Stevens said.

“I'm neither a psychologist nor a learning scientist, but I will say I've learned enough from my colleagues to know that motivation is a huge component of effective learning,” Stevens said. “And we currently organize education and training in such a way that there's no reason for us to expect that the people in our classrooms are motivated.”

They also discuss the �� Center on Longevity’s work to research and answer questions of the future of work.

“How can we take the lessons that we've already learned about the benefits of education and learning to enable transitions and self-discovery and build new forms of educational provision for people to enjoy over the course of their lives?,” Stevens said. “It's a much more optimistic framing of our complicated future than a lot of others on offer.”

Transcript

Mitchell Stevens (00:00):

The goal of a well-educated life is to create a desire for learning.

Denise Pope (00:09):

Welcome to School's In, your go-to podcast for cutting-edge insights in learning. From early education to lifelong development, we dive into trends, innovations, and challenges facing learners of all ages. I'm Denise Pope, senior lecturer at ��'s Graduate School of Education and co-founder of Challenge Success.

Dan Schwartz (00:32):

And I'm Dan Schwartz, I'm the Dean of the Graduate School of Education and the faculty director of the �� Accelerator for Learning.

Denise Pope (00:42):

Together, we bring you expert perspectives and conversations to help you stay curious, inspired, and informed. Hi, Dan.

Dan Schwartz (00:52):

Hi, Denise. Imagine you live till you're 100, what are you going to do for the last 25 years?

Denise Pope (00:59):

You know what? I am not the type of person who's going to retire. I can't imagine retiring. I will work less than what I'm working now and I'm very happy to read books and cook and hike and spend time with my hopefully grandchildren, et cetera. But this whole idea of retirement and just do nothing for 20, 30 years, whatever, not me.

Dan Schwartz (01:21):

Huh, interesting. I plan to just, I'll play pickleball. So if you keep going, are you going to need to keep learning or are you sort of learned everything and you'll just keep doing the same job for 25 years?

Denise Pope (01:35):

Oh my gosh, Dan, don't you think you're learning every day? I just learned literally a new trick on my phone. No, seriously, I didn't know I could do this. I just learned it. I was very excited. I will use it. I'm learning literally every day, I'm learning something new. Are you not?

Dan Schwartz (01:51):

I was thinking more about like learning differential calculus as opposed to like the new button that plays a video. So today we're going to talk about growing older and are you going to continue working? And if so, do you need to be educated again to learn these new jobs as times change or was what you learned as a kid in the first 12 years of school enough to carry you through? These are hard questions, but the good news is we have an expert to help us understand these complex waters. So it is my pleasure to welcome back Professor Mitchell Stevens to School's In, our favorite guest. And he's a professor of education and by courtesy, sociology. He's also the co-director of the �� Center on Longevity, which is highly relevant to today. So welcome, Mitchell.

Mitchell Stevens (02:45):

Thanks for having me back.

Dan Schwartz (02:47):

So could you tell me like A, really, are people going to live until they're 100? And then what are they going to do? If they're living to 100, I assume that 72 will be like 57, right? So when I'm 80, I'm actually sort of like I'm 60 and so I'm still got the jam of a 60-year-old, so I'll want to be doing a lot of stuff.

Denise Pope (03:08):

Hip and healthy. A hip and healthy 60-year-old.

Dan Schwartz (03:11):

Yeah, 67. Exactly.

Mitchell Stevens (03:13):

I'm looking at 60 right now.

Dan Schwartz (03:14):

It's not bad.

Mitchell Stevens (03:16):

So give me 18 months and I'll tell you.

Dan Schwartz (03:19):

It's the new 40. It's okay.

Mitchell Stevens (03:21):

The big fact of longevity is that our lifespans worldwide have essentially doubled in the 20th century. Those lifespans, of course, vary by wealth and health and other important demographic variables, but everyone is living longer. In fact, lifespans grew worldwide in the 20th century more than in all previous recorded human history. It's a huge gift that the 20th century has given us. Worldwide societies have essentially parked those additional years in old age. We've made old age longer, which is a very expensive way to age and arguably a terrible waste of human talent. A much more ambitious but challenging way to make use of that gift is to reorganize the other institutions of life. Specifically, we'll talk today about the institutions of education and work to enable people to prosper and enjoy longer lives in advance of old age. And that has been the premise of the Center on Longevity for its 15-year history, and I have been given the opportunity to convene a national conversation about how education and learning might be reframed to enable longer lives with a specific focus on public policy in the United States.

Dan Schwartz (04:47):

Can I ask a naive question?

Mitchell Stevens (04:49):

Sure.

Dan Schwartz (04:50):

I'm sort of looking forward to retirement. I'll be on Disney cruise ships every week. This is the traveling dream. And now you're saying, "No, Dan, you don't want to do that. You actually want to keep working and contributing to society." Do most people feel that way or am I-

Mitchell Stevens (05:09):

Well, no one wants to tell other people what to do. If one wants to end one's working life and spend the rest of one's time on Disney cruise ships and can afford that, fantastic.

Dan Schwartz (05:20):

Okay, fine. It may be a van, fine.

Mitchell Stevens (05:24):

But a lot of people don't want to spend large portions of their lives that way and many of us will frankly not be able to afford to live without working. And so both for the pleasure of longer lives and for the economic necessity of taking care of ourselves and our loved ones, more of us will be working for much longer periods of time than our parents or grandparents did.

Denise Pope (05:48):

So let me ask you a question because I always thought it was weird that we smush all the learning, like literally all the formal learning into age 5 to let's say 21, although I know half of America doesn't even go into higher ed, right. But we're smushing that learning. And so even when we weren't living to 100, it seemed already out of balance, right?

Mitchell Stevens (06:14):

Yeah, I think that's a very good point. One of my favorite things to point out is when Social Security was created in the 1930s in the United States, only a small proportion of the population lived past the age of 65. And so providing some sort of guaranteed income for men and women, when 66 was old, it made more sense to think about, say a 20 or 25 year career that was preloaded by education and training. But as the lifespan has expanded, precisely what you're saying, this notion that we frontload, let's call it frontload human capital development in the first 18 or 22 years of life, it doesn't seem to make nearly the same kind of sense that it might have made even three generations ago.

Dan Schwartz (07:02):

So are there going to be enough jobs?

Mitchell Stevens (07:04):

It's a funny thing about technological change and employment. The world has seen massive technological transformations in the past. There has never been a sort of magnificent under-supply of jobs despite promises that current kinds of employment might be rendered obsolete. But there's no reason to expect that employment per se won't change. Part of it, frankly, is the dynamism of the capitalism that we created in the 20th century. The desire to generate wealth creates ongoing conditions for employment. What people do and how many different things they will need to do over the course of longer careers is a question that's already become quite relevant in policy circles, as you know.

Denise Pope (07:53):

So how many jobs is a normal person going to do or how many careers are they going to have and what do they need to know then?

Mitchell Stevens (08:02):

Okay. Well, I am not a futurist, so I'm not going to make counts of estimates, but I do think it's probably pretty safe that people's career spans, as life course researchers call them, are going to continue to expand. And if the character of work given technological change continues at even a portion of the pace that we anticipate, people are going to be doing multiple different things at different stages in their lives and they're going to have to anticipate transitions between different kinds of work and perhaps entirely different career fields over time. So how do we prepare people for that? On my view, the most important and perhaps the most radical change will be to fairly radically recast how we socialize our children to think about their future lives.

(08:52):

And you think, especially in relatively affluent families, how much of childhood is organized around getting into something called college, which is supposed to begin at the age of 18 and conclude at the age of 22 so that you can start something called your career, which is understood usually as a singular phenomenon. That's a very short-sighted way of thinking about a hundred-year lives. How do we encourage our children to anticipate perhaps entering and re-entering formal training several times over the course of their lives, having not just one, but two or three careers? That's a very different way of thinking about preparing young people for their futures than the current script that we inherit imagines.

Dan Schwartz (09:39):

So Denise, do you think your children would have understood this?

Denise Pope (09:42):

Well, I was just thinking what's so interesting. Yeah, so my kids, I don't know about your kids, Dan, but- your kid, but my kids have already held multiple jobs. Like, my dad was a doctor, when he got out of medical school, he went and stayed at one hospital his whole life and he couldn't even understand when my husband started to switch jobs, which was a very normal thing. And now with our kids, they're switching jobs a lot. I don't know if it's the new thing or if because as technology comes around, I was just talking to someone like software engineers maybe aren't as needed because AI can do a lot of coding on its own.

(10:24):

So what are all those software engineers, which were like the hit, the thing that you were supposed to be to get a lot of money when you get out of college, what are those guys and women and people going to do next, right? So I think it's a combo. So yeah, I think they would be prepared or at least understand that you're going to have multiple jobs. I think we are not preparing people well for the skills that they will need to be adaptable and successful citizens, let alone workers. So I'm going a little bit deeper.

Dan Schwartz (11:00):

Mitchell, so now we have the image of people changing jobs a lot, and then there's some assumption that they will need to learn hard things as they switch jobs or easy things. And then either way, we need to think of an ecosystem with providers who are going to provide this as opposed to them... Or they just go to YouTube and learn it.

Mitchell Stevens (11:26):

One of the most important pieces of this new life course, the new map of life, as we call it at the Center on Longevity, is just how important inputs are from ages zero to five. Longevity means that the returns on those zero to five-year investments are all the greater. So lesson one is doing everything that we can to enhance the cognitive capacity, the desire for learning in young children is going to pay off even more substantially in an era of longer lives. And so I find that to be very heartening news actually because it's so consonant with where so much policy discourse is at present.

Denise Pope (12:09):

Wait, Mitchell, so what does that mean to an average mom or dad or a preschool teacher? What does that look like?

Dan Schwartz (12:18):

At their young age, it means you teach them to handle different bosses. So like, they're three years old and you keep bringing in a different boss.

Denise Pope (12:25):

And one's a mean boss and then one's a nice boss and one lets you play in the sandbox. No, Mitchell, seriously, what does that mean?

Mitchell Stevens (12:32):

Well, Denise, I think that's a good question. I think I would say for relatively affluent and well-educated families, they're probably doing everything more or less that their young children need for healthy longevity in terms of creating rich learning environments. It's really about variation in families' capacity to provide that kind of cognitive richness and for neighborhoods and communities to do it as well. So I wouldn't say, do this differently to enable your child's a hundred-year life. But as a society, we need to think about early investments in everyone's children as a good investment for all of us into the future.

Dan Schwartz (13:17):

So you get a trillion dollars, and this is always kind of the debate in education, should we invest in early childhood? So in California, we've now decided to make school for four-year-olds. And so you need to build the infrastructure for that.

Denise Pope (13:31):

Universal preschool.

Dan Schwartz (13:32):

Yeah. You could have made it so you made high school go till grade 13. Or you could take that money and invest it in making college more universally accessible. Or you could spend it making infrastructure for adults in their 70s who are changing jobs.

Denise Pope (13:48):

Can I say yes to all? It's a lot of money.

Dan Schwartz (13:54):

No, it's not. President Pope, help me decide.

Denise Pope (13:54):

I will tell you this, I know that certain things are broken. I 100% am a backer of universal preschool, especially based on what Mitchell is saying about the early years. I think the current higher ed system is not working for a whole bunch of reasons and I think that we as people age are going to need a structure. So I'm going to combine those two. I'm going to combine those two and put my money there. Post 18 years old, change the structure, putting my money there. But not taking any money away from universal preschool because that needs it too.

Dan Schwartz (14:26):

Okay, it's done.

Denise Pope (14:26):

We solved it.

Mitchell Stevens (14:34):

Another thing that is fun to talk about is I think we need a social science of transitions. We need to encourage people to embrace and celebrate transitions rather than seeing them as onerous tasks to be overcome. And what would it mean to give people tools to make transitions, to normalize them?

Dan Schwartz (14:54):

Sorry, transitions be from one ecosystem to another?

Mitchell Stevens (14:58):

From school to work, yes. From occupation one to occupation two. From household one to household two. I mean, many of us know just how hard it is to dissolve households and create new ones. It's also very hard to make career transitions because people's identities are so tied up in their work. Thinking about how do we equip people to navigate change is I think a better way of thinking.

Dan Schwartz (15:25):

That's a good question.

Denise Pope (15:28):

Think of some major industry changes. And right now, because the environment's on my mind, I'm just thinking about the coal miners and the changes that are going on for those families, for those towns, where that was their identity, to your point, Mitchell, and we're coming in with electric or solar or whatever, and we're trying to say, "You're still needed. You're just needed in a different way, with a different field and that's going to take some different learning. And yes, some of those skills that you've adapted for years and years and years and learned and honed are not needed anymore. But that doesn't mean that you're not needed anymore." And I think that's a big... We're losing huge populations of people in these towns because of the lack of comfort or understanding around transition. Is that right, Mitchell?

Mitchell Stevens (16:17):

One of the ambitions of the Futures Project is to develop a language that gets us beyond skills. I think it's a very limiting way of thinking about human capital development because it presumes that a job is a composite of discrete things that I know or don't know how to do. But that's just a very small part of work. Work is about relationships and embodiment and identity, right. And so asking a truck driver to become a childcare worker is only very minimally about giving that person new skills. It's about asking them to essentially reconfigure their entire sense of self for a different kind of occupation. Now, school can be a very good mechanism for managing transitions. That's why historically people, quote "Go back to school," unquote, to make career transitions. So I think in a sense, we have the right scaffolding, it's education, but we don't think of it as flexibly as I think we might. And so we think about education and transitions as sort of simultaneous ventures and then design educational opportunities to enable more transitions at more phases in the life course. You know, then I think we're in very promising innovation terrain.

Dan Schwartz (17:33):

I want a concrete example. And of course it involves me 'cause all things do.

Denise Pope (17:39):

All things, all things Dan.

Dan Schwartz (17:39):

So I've just been fired as dean and I'm pissed off and I've had it with the academy.

Denise Pope (17:47):

What did you do to get fired? No, just kidding.

Dan Schwartz (17:50):

I interviewed Mitchell and that was enough.

Denise Pope (17:54):

That was it. Pull the cord now.

Dan Schwartz (17:58):

Pull the plug. No, I left for whatever reason, emeritus, I got pushed out because of time. And there's two scenarios. One is I know what kind of job I want next and I go try and find the thing that can put me in the position to be capable in that setting. And the other one is I don't really know what I want to do next and I need to explore and find out what's appropriate for me at this stage of my life. So let's take the first one. In your vision, is there like a... is the industry going to provide the training if I decide to become a programmer? Or is there going to be a grown-up community college that does this? What does the ecosystem need to change to provide those educational opportunities past college?

Mitchell Stevens (18:45):

Yeah, that's great, Dan. And I would say in line with the famous dictum that the future is here, it's just not evenly distributed. At the high end, shall we say, those with the means to do such things, there are options like ��'s Distinguished Career Institute, which is specifically for the retired dean of the Graduate School of Education who isn't sure what he wants to do next. So how about a year at a knock-your-socks-off university where you can take any classes you want and build relationships with people you never would have met before? That's a transition that's spectacular. It's just that it's really expensive.

Dan Schwartz (19:22):

That is good. And my point is to get away from the university, I've had enough of it. But it is a great idea.

Denise Pope (19:28):

He's done. He's so done, Mitchell.

Dan Schwartz (19:30):

I got fired, remember? I got fired because I interviewed you.

Denise Pope (19:33):

He's bitter and angry.

Dan Schwartz (19:34):

So I'm done. Having these specialized curated programs are exciting, but like you said, there's a price tag.

Mitchell Stevens (19:43):

Another piece of our conversation this year is in the United States, the social contract for education and learning ends with a high school diploma. The only thing you are owed by right as a resident of this country is a high school diploma or equivalent. After that, you might call it the United States of You're on Your Own or the United States of Good Luck with That. Is that an adequate social contract? And if the answer to that question is no, if we decide as a country that our people deserve more education and training than that, then we have some very large questions.

(20:19):

How much more are they owed? And who's going to pay for that? Is that a government responsibility? Is it a philanthropic responsibility? Is it an employer responsibility? And furthermore, employers may need older workers, much will likely need older workers much more than they currently do because of steady declines in fertility. So the talent of the future is very likely going to be talent that is living in the third and fourth quarters of its life. Who's responsible for those transitions? And as a country, we've barely begun to ask those questions.

Denise Pope (20:53):

So super interesting, Mitchell. So just to push back a little bit, right now in many, many, many states, community college is free. You actually don't even need a high school degree to go ahead- You can be 18 years old, you walk in. So you can get free education. The sticking point is they're not also paying you a salary. So unless you are working, and oftentimes have a family to take care of, and going to school, it turns into a nearly impossible roller coaster of a ride. So it sounds good that community college is free, but we're forgetting about the other parts of people's lives that they're trying to then balance at this really precarious time.

Dan Schwartz (21:33):

Oh my God, I've got to start going to school now.

Denise Pope (21:36):

I know. This is what I'm saying. Then we have this other model, the Walmart and the Starbucks or whatever, I might not be getting these right, who will actually pay to have you go to school. If you're a worker, they will pay to have you go to school. So I like that model. I know there's handcuffs built in, like you've got to come back. But I like that model of we understand that just going to community college and trying to work and trying to have a family is really hard, so we're going to try and make it a little bit easier. Am I reading this right, Mitchell? Is this the way of the future?

Mitchell Stevens (22:08):

Again, those conversations are just beginning, but the questions are quite profound. So yes, Starbucks and Chipotle, for example, both offer pretty substantial post-secondary education benefits to their employers. Is that a gift or is that a responsibility? If it's a responsibility, then who ultimately pays for that? And should Starbucks and Chipotle receive federal government subsidy for doing that? Those are the kinds of questions about responsibility that we're, again, sort of just beginning to address. And your other point is really important too. I mean, even if education and training is free in dollar terms, adults almost always inherit some sort of caregiving responsibility and so they experience investment in themselves as a trade-off from care work. So that's another important avenue. If we're going to expect and enable people to make education and learning transitions over their lives, you know, how are we going to accommodate the care costs that that will entail?

Dan Schwartz (23:14):

So Mitchell, I know you're a sociologist, but I'm going to ask a psychological question.

Denise Pope (23:18):

Uh-oh

Dan Schwartz (23:19):

Well, you've been in this space, so you may have heard. Is there some reason to think that the way I teach a 70-year-old should be different than how I teach, say, a 21-year-old? Or the same, nothing changes and they'll sit in front of lectures and hate them just like 22-year olds?

Denise Pope (23:38):

That's not how you're supposed to do 22-year olds either. Thank you very much, Dan Schwartz, Dean of the School of Education at ��.

Dan Schwartz (23:44):

Thank you, Denise. Now, do we know if there's differences?

Mitchell Stevens (23:48):

I'm neither a psychologist nor a learning scientist, but I will say I've learned enough from my colleagues to know that motivation is a huge component of effective learning. And we currently organize education and training in such a way that there's no reason for us to expect that the people in our classrooms are motivated. I think we want to imagine a future world in which not only the desire to learn, but the imperative to learn and the maturity to take advantage of a learning responsibility creates conditions for very different motivational contexts than what we currently see in many of our young people.

Dan Schwartz (24:27):

So I know how to solve that with older people.

Mitchell Stevens (24:30):

I'm listening.

Dan Schwartz (24:31):

Give them frequent flyer points for doing well on tests.

Denise Pope (24:36):

So they can go on the cruise if they do that-

Mitchell Stevens (24:39):

I know a few 17-year olds for whom that would work too.

Denise Pope (24:41):

I was just going to say that it comes right back to the zero to five. Hear me out. You want people to be curious. You want to keep the light on in their eyes. You don't have to teach a four or five-year-old to be curious and to love learning. They explore. They learn. They're constantly doing. They'll play with the wrapper of the present more than the present. But somewhere we are losing that light of curiosity and that engagement, as Mitchell was saying, that intrinsic motivation, and I think we've got to double down. That would be my two cents.

Mitchell Stevens (25:15):

What I very much enjoy about this project is I hear a lot of doom and gloom in the future of work discourse. What are we going to do with the truck drivers? Is there going to be enough jobs for everybody? Will human beings be able to keep up with technology? All of those questions are important, but they're very frowny-faced questions, right. Longevity is a smiley-faced question. How are we going to make this work? How are we going to take advantage of this extraordinary gift that our ancestors have given us? How can we take the lessons that we've already learned about the benefits of education and learning to enable transitions and self-discovery and build new forms of educational provision for people to enjoy over the course of their lives? It's a much more optimistic framing of our complicated future than a lot of others on offer.

Denise Pope (26:05):

I love the happy-faced questions better than the frowny-faced questions. If you could give a parent or an educator one piece of advice, Mitchell, based on what you know and the longevity of education, what would that be?

Mitchell Stevens (26:17):

Don't presume that the goal of good parenting is to get your kid into a fancy school and graduated by the age of 22. That is not the goal of a well-educated life. The goal of a well-educated life is to create a desire for learning, a flexibility and a recognition that different kinds of opportunities make sense for different people at different stages in their lives. I think if we could get that, the mania that's associated with getting our children into a small number of schools at a very specific stage in their life course, if we could put brackets around that and get people to think more broadly and flexibly about what a well-educated life looks like, I think we'll make a great deal of progress.

Denise Pope (27:07):

Well said. Well said, Mitchell. Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us. Really fascinating conversation. Thank you all for joining this episode of School's In. Be Sure to subscribe to the show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you tune in. I'm Denise Pope.

Dan Schwartz (27:23):

I'm Dan Schwartz.

Podcast

split

GSE area

Faculty and Research

Faculty mentioned in this article: Mitchell L. Stevens

Learning design: AI and machine learning for the adult learner

Olivia Peterkin — Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:15:43 +0000

Learning design: AI and machine learning for the adult learner Olivia Peterkin Tue, 04/08/2025 - 11:15

Brain and Learning Sciences | Faculty and Programs | Research and Practice

In this episode of School’s In, GSE Associate Professor Candace Thille discusses how to build on prior knowledge and target skills for adult learners, and the intersection of machine learning and human agency.

April 17, 2025

By Olivia Peterkin

With emerging technologies like generative AI making their way into classrooms and careers at a rapid pace, it’s important to know both how to teach adults to adopt new skills, and what makes for useful tools in learning.

For Candace Thille, an associate professor at �� Graduate School of Education (GSE), technologies that create the biggest impact are interactive and provide feedback that is targeted and timely.

“Practice with feedback, and the opportunity to refine your performance based on that feedback, makes perfect,” said Thille, who is also the faculty director for workplace learning at the �� Accelerator for Learning.

Thille joins hosts GSE Dean Dan Schwartz and Senior Lecturer Denise Pope on School’s In as they discuss learning system design, including the importance of deliberate, iterative practice, how adult learners differ from child learners, and the interaction between machine learning and human agency.

“It’s important in these [AI-assisted learning] systems . . . that the human actor, whether that’s the teacher or the learner, always be in the position of making the decision,” she said. “You always want them to have agency, to be the one who is taking the action.”

They also discuss the role of motivation in learning design.

“Motivation is huge in adult learning,” Thille said. “When I’ve worked in workplace settings, I don’t do compliance training, where we have to prove to people that our employees were exposed to this information.

“I would always partner with business units that had a real business problem, something they really cared about, for which they believed changing the knowledge and capability of the people in that unit would make traction on that problem,” she said.

“And then the learning designer’s goal is not make something where people complete it and like it, but make something that you can demonstrate actually supported the people to develop the skills and knowledge they needed.”

Never miss an episode! Subscribe to School’s In on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Transcript

Candace Thille (00:00):

Where is the learner now? Where are they trying to get to? And what kind of strategy is going to be the most helpful?

Denise Pope (00:09):

Welcome to School's In, your go-to podcast for cutting-edge insights in learning. From early education to lifelong development, we dive into trends, innovations, and challenges facing learners of all ages.

(00:25):

I'm Denise Pope, senior lecturer at ��'s Graduate School of Education and co-founder of Challenge Success.

Dan Schwartz (00:33):

And I'm Dan Schwartz. I'm the Dean of the Graduate School of Education and the faculty director of the �� Accelerator for Learning.

Denise Pope (00:42):

Together, we bring you expert perspectives and conversations to help you stay curious, inspired, and informed.

(00:52):

Hi, Dan.

Dan Schwartz (00:53):

Denise, it's great to see you. Great to hear you.

Denise Pope (00:56):

We have a fun show today. I'm going to open us up with a question for you. This might be hard to answer. I don't know. I can't decide. A lot of people look to technology as a way to really change – a super game-changing way to change – teaching and learning. And so as you think about technology, and I don't mean a chalkboard or pencil or whatever – I know some people consider those technology – but as you think about technology, what do you think is an example of the best technology that's made the biggest difference?

Dan Schwartz (01:31):

Oh, that's easy.

Denise Pope (01:32):

It's easy? That's an easy question?

Dan Schwartz (01:33):

That's easy. It's easy. If we ignore hardware, the number one technology for learning is YouTube.

Denise Pope (01:39):

YouTube?

Dan Schwartz (01:40):

By far.

Denise Pope (01:41):

YouTube?

Dan Schwartz (01:42):

Yeah. How many . . . by far. You use it to fix the toilet. That, if you're a teacher, you show a YouTube video of the planets orbiting because it's so much more effective than looking at a picture in a textbook.

Denise Pope (01:54):

Interesting. First of all, I did not think you were going to say YouTube. And second of all, I don't use YouTube in my classroom, is that bad? I use YouTube all the time. I do. I use it when I need to fix something. I use it, well, mostly when I want to fix something, actually, yeah?

Dan Schwartz (02:12):

Yeah, that's a good use for it. If it's some sort of procedural thing, YouTube's pretty good. But you're probably . . . If you're trying to teach science, YouTube's got a lot of good videos, things like that.

Denise Pope (02:22):

I can see that. Interesting.

Dan Schwartz (02:22):

But I don't know. I don't know.

Denise Pope (02:27):

Well, this is why we're so lucky. We have an expert today who can talk about probably a lot more than YouTube but can certainly weigh in to that question. I'll let you do a little introduction, Dan.

Dan Schwartz (02:38):

Well, thank you. Thank you. This is a YouTube video of me introducing Candace. Hi, it's my pleasure to introduce Candace Thille, who is a professor at the Graduate School of Education, and she particularly focuses on adult learning, say, in the workplace, but also community college, and she's a big-time commitment to technology.

(03:02):

So Candace, is there a technology that's done something in education? Like, is there a big winner there?

Candace Thille (03:10):

You know, I actually wouldn't have picked YouTube as my number one

Denisd Pope:

OK?

Candace Thille:

But I figured I'd get a chance to weigh in on that. And I agree with you both that YouTube is great for – I mean, I use it when I want to learn how to pan fry salmon. I pull up a YouTube video. But what happens is the video is telling me what to do, and I'm doing it while the video is showing me, and I can stop it and rewind it and go, "Oh wait. How long am I supposed to put it on for? How much salt should I put on?"

(03:38):

And so I would say that the reason I learned how to cook salmon . . . the first time, I do it that way, step by step. The second time, I might use YouTube, have it playing, but I'm kind of doing it, and then it's like, "Oh wait, yeah, there's that part." And then the third time, I might quickly just review it and then just go cook the salmon. But, so you could say that the YouTube taught me how to cook the salmon.

(04:04):

I would say that the YouTube was a resource I used while I was learning how to cook the salmon. And what was really teaching me how to cook the salmon was I was cooking the salmon, and I was getting feedback from my experience that oh, I turned the heat up too high, I put in too much salt, it tasted funny, and I kept modifying what I was doing. So I was building my knowledge through my experience of what I was doing, and the YouTube was helping me perform that experience.

Dan Schwartz (04:34):

Oh, so your conclusion about the most important technologies will be ones that can give you feedback?

Candace Thille (04:40):

Well, feedback is important.

Denise Pope (04:43):

She also said experience is the best teacher.

Dan Schwartz (04:47):

I'm saying the key to experience, besides feeling the heat of the pan in your hand, is saying –

Denise Pope (04:52):

Don't underplay that.

Dan Schwartz (04:53):

No, no, I know that's very important.

Candace Thille (04:54):

And the taste of the salmon.

Denise Pope (04:56):

Don't underplay experience.

Dan Schwartz (04:58):

Well, the taste of the salmon is feedback.

Candace Thille (05:00):

That is. It is feedback. So feedback can come in many forms. It can be someone directly saying to me, "You have the stove up too high," or it could be, ooo, my salmon got cooked more than I wanted it to, maybe it's because I had the stove up too high. They're both feedback.

Dan Schwartz (05:18):

Right. And so, my proposal was that the technology that you are going to like the most is one that can provide the learner with feedback as they try and accomplish a task.

Candace Thille (05:28):

That's part of it, but not just any kind of feedback. Feedback that is . . . well, there's that old saying. Finish this sentence: Practice makes . . .

Denise Pope (05:38):

Perfect.

Candace Thille (05:40):

Nah, practice makes permanent. Practice with feedback. And I would add and the opportunity to refine my performance based on that feedback, makes perfect.

Denise Pope (05:52):

Wait, let's unpack that. Practice, and what does that practice look like, Candace? Because I know there's different kinds of practice. Right?

Candace Thille (05:59):

I would say deliberate practice.

Denise Pope (06:02):

And for the listeners, say what that is because I know that's a particular kind of practice, deliberate practice.

Candace Thille (06:08):

So, if I'm trying to learn how to play tennis, for example, I could just play a game. That’s what a lot of us do with our friends – go out and play a game – and I'll learn how to play tennis. However, if I get a coach who I'm intentionally trying to improve my tennis game, they'll look at me and say, "Oh, your problem is your serve, and it's that you're not throwing up the ball high enough, so I want you to practice throwing the ball up and getting it to just the right height."

(06:34):

Now, that's not as much fun as playing the game, but it will – if I get that component of my game – improve it. Then I can incorporate that into my game, and I'll play better tennis.

Denise Pope (06:46):

So deliberate practice is when you're practicing, but you have somebody telling you specifically what you should focus on. Yes?

Candace Thille (06:52):

It is practicing in a way where you are deliberately trying to improve or learn or achieve something.

Denise Pope (06:59):

So it's experience with deliberate practice, and then you had something else.

Candace Thille (07:04):

Yeah. So, part of the deliberate practice is you try something. You get feedback on it. You have the opportunity, then, to use that feedback to refine your practice.

Dan Schwartz (07:16):

So back to my assertion. For you, the technologies that are going to make the biggest impact are the ones that can provide feedback? That they're interactive?

Candace Thille (07:25):

That they're interactive, and they provide feedback that is targeted and timely.

Dan Schwartz (07:31):

Targeted and timely. I like that. So YouTube does not do that?

Candace Thille (07:34):

YouTube does not do that.

Dan Schwartz (07:34):

Not yet.

Candace Thille (07:35):

Not yet.

Denise Pope (07:38):

So . . . Dan's wrong. I like that. I like it when Dan's wrong.

Dan Schwartz (07:41):

Nice! Nice summary statement.

Candace Thille (07:45):

OK, we've learned everything we needed to learn here.

Denise Pope (07:47):

Exactly.

Dan Schwartz (07:47):

End the show.

Denise Pope (07:49):

But Candace, you really do work with adult learners, and you have this vast experience doing that in lots and lots of different ways.

(07:57):

So when you think about that versus maybe a younger learner or a child learner, what would you say are some of the key differences?

Candace Thille (08:06):

Oh. One is physiologically they're different in terms of brain development. Secondly, and I think actually probably the bigger difference, is experience and prior knowledge. Adults just have more of it. So much experience, so much new knowledge, is built on prior knowledge.

Denise Pope (08:25):

So let's talk about experience, though, because I also know – just like I said practice makes perfect – there's also: It's harder to teach an old dog new tricks. So how do you factor that in?

Candace Thille (08:40):

Yeah. So, that adage oversimplifies the situation. If the new trick that you're teaching me is lined up well with my prior knowledge, then it's actually easier for me to learn that new trick. If it interferes with something that – the meaning that I've already made in the world, then it's going to be harder to learn it because I don't have a . . . As I said, all prior knowledge either supports or inhibits the development of new knowledge.

Dan Schwartz (09:06):

So I have a paper that the title is “Prior knowledge: you can't live with it, you can't live without it.”

Denise Pope:

Oooo.

Dan Schwartz:

You like that?

Denise Pope (09:14):

I do. Wait, explain that. You can't live with it because . . .

Dan Schwartz (09:18):

Because it gets in the way. You have all these prior beliefs that can get in the way. You can be stubborn. But if you don't have any prior knowledge, it's so hard to make sense of things in the world.

Denise Pope (09:29):

Can't live with it, can't live without it. It makes sense. It makes sense, folks. I like it. I'm learning so much.

Dan Schwartz (09:35):

Candace, I've enjoyed this digression. It's been very good. Bring it back to technology. So I was setting you up to explain the kinds of technologies that you like to create, which are: bring copious feedback, opportunities to practice, so they're kind of create a world –

Denise Pope (09:53):

For adults. Just to clarify, Candace, you specialize in doing that for adults?

Candace Thille (09:56):

For adults.

Denise Pope (09:57):

Yes.

Candace Thille (09:59):

So, the kinds of strategies that you need to help adults build sort of new skills in their field. First off, you have to kind of know, have a clear articulation of what are the skills and knowledge that the adult's trying to build. So you need a clear target.

(10:14):

Then you need to kind of get a sense of where is the adult relative to that target. And once you have a clear idea of the learner's sort of current state relative to that desired state, then you can select a strategy that considers the kind of knowledge or skill that's being learned and things about the context and other things about the adult. And figuring that out is really complex.

(10:41):

So, if every time you had to make a decision about what should I do next, you need an insight into, where is the adult, where is the learner now? Where are they trying to get to? And what kind of strategy is going to be the most helpful? And you have to consider all of those features of the learner, features about the context, features about the thing that's being learned. That's too complex for most of our cognition.

(11:05):

And that's where the technology can really help. It can help on multiple levels of that very complex problem.

Denise Pope (11:13):

OK. It's so interesting because I teach curriculum construction, and I teach backward design, which is exactly that. Like if you're the teacher, you have to look at where you're going, look at where the learners are compared to where you want, and then what are you going to do to get them there. And so you're saying it's so complex, and I think teachers are doing this all over the world. This is what teachers are doing. So you've created technology to make that easier?

Candace Thille (11:36):

Yes. In the sense of, if you think about it, there are several human actors in that learning system, right? There are the learners, and they're trying to make good decisions to help move them from where they are to where they're getting to. There's the teacher who's trying to support those learners to go from where they are to where they're trying to get to. Then in the adult learning world, there's often a third party, which is the designer that people are often teaching curriculum or using assets that they didn't create. And the designer's trying to figure out what kind of asset's going to help my target learner move from there to there. So everybody's trying to make good decisions to help move that learner forward.

(12:19):

But in order to make that good decision, having that insight about: Where is the learner? Where are they getting to? Given what we know about the learner, what kind of activity is going to best help them? That's a very complex decision that has to get made very quickly. Now, teachers . . . You'd say, the teachers, really good teachers, use their intuition, and I would say their intuition is kind of based on, it might be on their formal training if they take classes from you.

Denise Pope (12:47):

I think teachers learn from experience.

Candace Thille (12:48):

They totally do. They totally do. And their experience is their observation, right? Of either what worked for them when they were trying to learn it, or, when they've tried to teach people it, what seems to work. They look at their students and go, "That worked. That got it," and they file that away. And they build up an intuition based on their observations and based on their experience, right?

Denise Pope (13:09):

Right.

Candace Thille (13:11):

So, if you think about thousands and thousands of teachers building up those observations, and they don't really . . . there's no way that I get to benefit from all of your observations, so I'm making my decisions based on my limited set of observations. If we had a way where teachers could make those decisions, and we collected the output from the student learning of that decision on a moment-by-moment basis, then we could start to build a database of interventions and outcomes and include in that data set features about the learner, features about the thing being learned, and features about the context. And then we could start to use the AI to help discover patterns.

Dan Schwartz (13:59):

So you're creating teaching machine that can engage in deliberate practice?

Candace Thille (14:06):

Yes. The machine itself would learn, yes. But the fun part about building these sorts of things is . . . so the machine is learning and can refine its insight and decision-making, but how do you communicate that insight to the different human actors in the system so that they make their own decisions? It's important in these systems – even when the machine has insight to make a good decision – that the human actor, whether that's the teacher or the learner, always be in the position of making the decision. But helping support their decision with what the machine knows. You always want them to have agency, to be the one who is taking the action.

Dan Schwartz (14:53):

So Candace, I'm trying to think of concrete instances to wrap my head around this.

Candace Thille (14:58):

Okay. So, let's say I'm in the workplace, and I'm trying to develop a skill or some new knowledge. So using a system that I may have developed at some point, maybe I'm trying to learn the skill of how to give good feedback or good coaching to a direct report. So, there could be a system that would tell me that larger skill – giving effective feedback – and that might have certain sub-skills that are required for me to be giving effective feedback.

(15:28):

With me so far?

Denise Pope (15:29):

Totally with you.

Candace Thille (15:30):

You have a system that'd say, "I'm going to learn today about how to give effective feedback." And so then I'd start engaging with an activity, like possibly giving a virtual entity feedback and engaging that conversation. Then I'd get feedback from the learning system on it, and then I could try again, et cetera.

Dan Schwartz (15:49):

So there's some scenario where I am looking at a fake employee representation, maybe it's just text, and something's happened, and then I am giving feedback. Something like that?

Candace Thille (16:01):

Well, actually, three things happen. Let's say I'm in some kind of environment where an employee comes in. I give them some feedback. Then based on the feedback, they respond in some way. Well, actually, the system knows, given that feedback, then this is how an employee would respond to that feedback. So, I get the next step in the scenario.

(16:23):

The action that I took is coded in some way and gets sent to a database, essentially, that is tracking my actions that are associated with different skills. And, at the same time, that action is put into a model that then estimates how well or not I am developing whatever the target skill is. And so then I have a dashboard or an indicator that I can always look at that tells me, on this set of five skills I'm trying to build, where's the system estimating I am relative to where I'm trying to get to.

(17:02):

And then I can choose – this is where the agency part comes in – these are the skills I'm trying to develop. I see that I'm doing great on listening well. I'm not doing so well on giving a positive statement before I give a negative statement or whatever. And so I think I want to work on that more. So, then I can choose that I want to work on that. And then the system will say, "Well, here's some more activities that will, given what we know about you, will help you develop that skill."

Dan Schwartz (17:30):

Is that where the choice is? The agency is me choosing what to work on?

Candace Thille (17:35):

Me choosing what to work on, when I feel like working on it. Also, I can say that the system can be doing these estimates saying, "You're there. You're great," or it can say, "We don't think you're there yet." I can say, "You know what? I think I'm there, so I don't want to work on this anymore because I get what you're saying. I believe I understand it well enough."

(17:56):

So, agency on so many levels. I'm just getting insight from the system about where this – given what I'm trying to achieve, the system's trying to tell me where I am relative to that, and I can decide what I want to work on, when I feel like working on, what I don't feel like working on.

[Music]

Dan Schwartz (18:16):

So Denise, I believe I've come up with a new construct. Well, this is how you survive an academy – in the academy. You come up with a new term. It's called feedback deprivation.

(18:31):

I think feedback is a basic human need. And if you get deprived, it's really miserable. And my example is that earlier today I gave a presentation to about 30 people I don't know. I'm sweating. I'm giving it my whole heart. It's the best thing I've ever done, but it's on Zoom, and nobody gets to say anything. And then the Zoom window closes, and it's over. There's no even, like, elevator music to allow me to leave quietly and softly. And then, you know, an hour later, I will get an email from the host who says, "Great job. Thank you so much," and that'll be it.

Denise Pope (19:08):

OK. That great-job email is feedback. I mean-

Dan Schwartz (19:11):

No, no, no. They have ChatGPT write it. Because I've done this 100 times, and it's always the same email.

Denise Pope (19:17):

"Great job. Thank you so much."

Dan Schwartz (19:18):

It doesn't matter who I'm talking to. Yeah, it’s "Thank you so much. That was great." Sometimes they use the word “fabulous.” Sometimes they say, "Nice."

Denise Pope (19:27):

So, OK, so here’s my – because I'm right there with you. I think it's so, so hard. It's literally like you're just shouting into the abyss. And so here's my trick. I just need one person. I don't need all 150 whatever. I need one person's face on screen that I can watch, and I can see, and that's how I get my energy. They're my target person.

Dan Schwartz (19:48):

Yep. Hence you decided to have me as a co-host.

Denise Pope (19:52):

Yes, this is why we do the podcast –

Dan Schwartz (19:53):

So you didn't have to do it alone?

Denise Pope (19:55):

100%. This is why we –

Dan Schwartz (19:55):

Now, I know.

Denise Pope (19:56):

... do the podcast together, so I could see your face, and I get my energy off of your expressions or your eye rolls or your falling asleep or whatever it is. But no, 100%, and I would choose you every time.

Dan Schwartz (20:06):

Thank you, Denise.

[Music]

Denise Pope (20:13):

OK, so I just did traffic school online. [Groans] OK? I'm admitting this to you all.

Dan Schwartz (20:19):

Rolled through a stop sign?

Denise Pope (20:19):

Don't even get me started.

Dan Schwartz (20:21):

Rolled through a stop sign?

Denise Pope (20:24):

No, I was speeding. I was speeding. OK. Uh, traffic school online, right? So, I'm doing it, and I'm answering a question, but they're asking a scenario. "What would you do?" This is not your normal traffic school online. This was a little bit more advanced kind of thing, or it seemed it. They're asking a scenario, and I'm answering what I would do in that scenario. And then if it likes my answer, I can go on. And if it doesn't like my answer, they'll be like, "Let's rewind and try again."

(20:50):

So, how is this different from that? Because I think what you're saying is more advanced than this little traffic school thing that I just took, but how is it different?

Candace Thille (20:58):

There are multiple ways it's different. One of the ways I would actually start with is your motivation. What was your motivation in doing traffic school? Were you actually-

Denise Pope (21:05):

I had to.

Candace Thille (21:06):

...You had to. Your motivation was to finish traffic school so that you get the points taken off of your driving record.

Denise Pope (21:15):

Exactly.

Candace Thille (21:15):

Your motivation wasn't, "Oh! I need to learn how to drive more effectively, so I'm really trying to build some knowledge and skills here."

Dan Schwartz (21:22):

Say, Denise. Denise ... Sorry.

Candace Thille (21:25):

Go ahead.

Dan Schwartz (21:26):

This is why you have kids. Let them do the online school for you.

Denise Pope (21:29):

First of all, don't even laugh. That is illegal. Don't think that we didn't look into this before. You cannot have to . . . You have to swear that you are the one taking the class.

Dan Schwartz (21:36):

Fine.

Denise Pope (21:39):

I know how you're thinking, Dan.

Candace Thille (21:40):

I took online traffic school once, too. And one of the things I also noticed that they did – because what I figured out with the online traffic school – well, it wasn't very sophisticated at all. They told you all the stuff they wanted you to know, and then the next screen they asked you questions basically saying, "Did you read what I told you to read?" They even put nonsense things in there like, "Jenna wears a black jacket," and one of the questions would be, "What color is Jenna's jacket?" They were really just trying to see, did I read it? They weren't really concerned with my learning anything.

Denise Pope (22:12):

Correct.

Candace Thille (22:12):

So, what I did (uh-oh, probably shouldn't say this). Um, what I did was I just got two screens, and I copied all the text off of it because I knew they were going to ask me questions about that page. And then I just searched “Jenna” and found oh, her jacket is black. I never read any of it, but I could answer every single question.

Denise Pope (22:30):

OK, so . . . cheating or shortcut or whatever.

Candace Thille (22:34):

No, it's all about what I started off asking you. What's your goal? If your goal is to actually build knowledge and capability, or is your goal to finish it? And that's why in all the workplace training work that I've done, I never would do compliance training.

Denise Pope (22:51):

Wait, compliance meaning . . . ?

Candace Thille (22:53):

Compliance. Companies are like, "You have to take a class on sexual harassment." That's the classic, right? And it's not that most people – the reason that most people are taking that is because you get told you have to do it, and you keep getting hammered to do it. For most people, it's not because they genuinely believe they need to understand better what sexual harassment is and to stop that behavior and so on like that.

(23:18):

So, motivation is huge in adult learning.

Denise Pope (23:21):

So, you are consciously only taking on projects where you think people will actually want to learn the skills that this technology is going to help them learn?

Candace Thille (23:29):

Yes. And also, I never use as an outcome measure completion.

Denise Pope (23:34):

Oh . . . say more about that. Why?

Candace Thille (23:36):

Because implicitly then the message to me as a learner is my job is to work through all of this learning material and get to the end. So that's my job as a learner. My job as the designer of that learning experience is design something where people get all the way to the end and at the end give it a good customer satisfaction score. "Did you like it, or didn't you like it?"

Denise Pope (24:00):

Or did you learn? Isn't it also, did you learn?

Candace Thille (24:02):

No.

Denise Pope (24:02):

No?

Candace Thille (24:02):

People don't ask that. People ask, "Did you complete it?" Because people assume completion is a proxy for learning.

Denise Pope (24:10):

Oh . . . that's key! That's a key misconception.

Candace Thille (24:12):

It is a key misconception. And so exposure . . . I mean, exposure, completion doesn't . . . like, like your driving school thing. You completed it. What did you really learn except for how to complete that most efficiently?

(24:29):

And when I've worked in workplace settings, I don't do compliance training where the only goal is, we have to prove to people that our employees were exposed to this information. So, when I was building learning experiences in the private sector, I would always partner with business units that had a real business problem, something they really cared about, for which they believed changing the knowledge and capability of the people in that unit would make traction on that problem.

(25:01):

Then you have to build that whole causal chain back to it, and then learners have to believe, "Yeah, I want to build that skill." And then the learning designer's goal is not make something where people complete it and like it, but make something that you can demonstrate actually supported the people to develop the skills and knowledge they needed.

Denise Pope (25:20):

It's cool stuff.

Dan Schwartz (25:21):

How brittle is this kind of technology? Like, just let me take a wild example, that you know a lot about. I'm trying to teach people how to service heat pumps. Heat pumps, right, they're environmentally much more friendly, and so people are switching from furnaces and air conditioners to heat pumps. There's not enough experts out there to teach everybody, right? So we got to go to the computer to train those 800,000 heat pump . . . but it's really physical. Right? Like you got to reach inside and turn your elbow just to the left.

(26:00):

Can the technologies do this? Or is it just like –

Denise Pope (26:04):

But, I mean, also can't you just learn that on YouTube? Sorry. Not to demean the agent, but, like, right? Are we right back to YouTube here? Go ahead, Candace.

Candace Thille (26:15):

Actually, skilled trades like that, like heat pump installation, there is a real shortage of what we call the climate trades workforce. And there, as Dan pointed out, one of the real challenges is there aren't enough mentors. Apprenticeship is the historic model for learning those kinds of skills. And there just aren't enough mentors for all the people that we need to achieve the climate goals.

(26:40):

So, we are working. We've got a project called HVAC Hero, and we're working with local heat pump installers to develop a blended, computer-mediated human learning experience. And we're targeting accelerating the time it takes to move someone from, "I want to be a heat pump installer," 'til they are at a certain level of customer-ready to go out and do the installation.

(27:08):

From a learning science perspective, it's a really interesting and fun problem too because it's not just cognitive. It's cognitive and physical, and how do you integrate, but it's not either or. It's cognitive and physical at the same time. So how do you integrate paying attention to both dimensions and learning that?

Denise Pope (27:29):

Especially through a screen, which is why I think that's why it's hybrid with a human, right?

Candace Thille (27:34):

Well, you can hybrid with a human. You can hybrid with simulations. You can hybrid with actual fake models of things. There are all kinds of ways that you can incorporate the physical and the cognitive together.

Denise Pope (27:49):

So cool. So cool. Oh, my gosh, Candace, we have learned so much today. I'm excited. Dan, I'm going to put you on the spot, as I tend to do at the end of these episodes. Sum it up.

(28:01):

What do you think you learned about our main question, technology as a game changer for adult learning? What would you say?

Dan Schwartz (28:07):

I think the interactivity is really special. And so, you need an environment where people can take actions, and you sort of want to set them up working on the right actions given what they know, but then you have that challenge of choosing the right feedback.

(28:22):

What's the right feedback at this moment? I think it's an interesting problem. It's something that teachers face. When you're grading essays, there's a million different things you could say. And figuring out ways to get smarter about that, even automate it, save a lot of time for a lot of people and be good for learning.

Denise Pope (28:42):

And Candace, how'd he do? Feedback. Feedback for Dan.

Candace Thille (28:48):

He did great, and I would draw a little bit of the analogy to the homework problem. Just like you can't give the students three hours of homework and expect them to really develop and refine their knowledge, you can't do the same thing with teachers. You can't have them – ask them – to pay attention to 5,000 things all at the same time and refine and develop their skill at teaching. So having the support of the technology that helps both collect the data, model the data, give them the insights so they can make good decisions and refine their teaching.

Denise Pope (29:26):

Very cool. Very cool. All right. So exciting. Well, thank you. Thank you for being here, Candace.

Candace Thille (29:31):

Sure. It was fun.

Denise Pope (29:32):

And thank all of you for joining this episode of School's In. Be sure to subscribe to the show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you tune in. I'm Denise Pope.

Dan Schwartz (29:42):

I'm Dan.

Podcast

split

GSE area

Faculty and Research

Faculty mentioned in this article: Candace Thille , Dan Schwartz , Denise Pope

The education marketplace: How to make edtech more effective

Olivia Peterkin — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:07:58 +0000

The education marketplace: How to make edtech more effective Olivia Peterkin Mon, 11/18/2024 - 13:07

Brain and Learning Sciences | Innovation | Technology

On this episode �� Accelerator for Learning Executive Director Isabelle Hau discusses edtech, and the balance between profit and public good.

November 21, 2024

By Olivia Peterkin

The education technology industry has boomed in recent years, with investments increasing more than forty-fold over the last decade. As a result, the market is being flooded with new tools and ed tech startups, making it difficult for administrators and educators to sort out what will be most effective in the classroom.

“Only 11% of education decision makers were looking at any type of evidence to make a purchasing decision on an edtech tool,” said Isabelle Hau, executive director of the �� Accelerator for Learning, which works to improve educational outcomes for children and adults. “And only 7% of global edtech tools have any form of rigorous evidence.”

In addition to a lack of available research around which tools produce the best outcomes for students in the burgeoning education technology space, Hau says that creating equitable access to these tools has also been a challenge.

“A lot of these tools are not getting equitably distributed because of who funds, and how it's being funded,” Hau said. “Internationally there is still a huge divide from a digital access perspective.”

Hau joins hosts GSE Dean Dan Schwartz and Senior Lecturer Denise Pope on School’s In as they discuss education technology’s meteoric growth, what’s driving that growth, and how administrators, the government, and other organizations can help teachers access the tools that will best serve their students.

“A lot of people are working on it, including us at the accelerator, of course, because we have a big role to play in improving learning outcomes for children and educators,” Hau said.

She also shares tips and resources for entrepreneurs looking to get into the education technology space.

“You need to start small, and you need to start with a handful of partners that love your solution,” she said. “And then from there you can start expanding.”

Never miss an episode! Subscribe to School’s In on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Transcript

Isabelle Hau (00:00):

Only 11% of education decision makers were looking at any types of evidence to make a purchasing decision on an ed tech tool.

Dan Schwartz (00:15):

Today, we are diving into a conversation about tools and technology and education. They're all around us, but are they effective? How do you find out? And how do you get into this business if you're interested in making education tools? That's all coming up.

Denise Pope (00:29):

Yeah, those are really, really good questions, Dan. Super important. And you've got to consider those as you are thinking about creating something, right? But it gets a little bit sticky when profits and public good collide. So let's get started.

(00:50):

Welcome to School's In, your go-to podcast for cutting-edge insights in learning. Each episode, we dive into the latest trends, innovations and challenges facing learners. I'm Denise Pope, senior lecturer at �� Graduate School of Education, and co-founder of Challenge Success. And I'm with Dan Schwartz, Dean of �� GSE, and Faculty Director of the �� Accelerator for Learning.

Dan Schwartz (01:16):

I believe it's about 90% of our kids go to public schools, and they get the service that the public provides. People don't think of school as a product. If there's a product, I get to choose which washing machine I want. So there are people who would like that, the version of schools as a product, but for a lot of people, schools a public good.

(01:37):

At the same time, everything inside of the school, they had to buy. They had to buy products.

Denise Pope (01:42):

Who's they?

Dan Schwartz (01:43):

Schools. A school has to go buy desks.

Denise Pope (01:46):

Yeah, okay.

Dan Schwartz (01:46):

They have to go buy the chips that they're going to put in the kids' heads. And so these are all products. And so I'm kind of interested in whether the monopoly over the creation of those products is changing. It really used to be textbook publishers.

(02:04):

Let me ask you a question, Denise. About 10 years ago, roughly, there were zero unicorns in education. A unicorn is a startup that's worth a billion dollars. How many do you think there were, say, last year? 10 years ago, there were zero billion dollar startups in education.

Denise Pope (02:25):

I have no idea, but I would think there would be a lot more than zero, given all that's going on in the ed tech world. Is that a fair answer?

Dan Schwartz (02:37):

Is a lot more two. Two times zero is infinity.

Denise Pope (02:38):

I'm going to say I have no... Over a billion? A hundred. I don't know.

Dan Schwartz (02:44):

That was good. Yeah, so it's about about 50.

Denise Pope (02:47):

Okay.

Dan Schwartz (02:47):

50 plus.

Denise Pope (02:49):

All right.

Dan Schwartz (02:49):

So this is a big change. And so it's kind of, how did all these companies start to get into the market creating products that schools are buying? This is a change.

(03:02):

We've brought in Isabelle Hau, who is a world's expert. She's worked at the intersection of philanthropy, impact investing in education, for over two decades. She was the founding director, or a partner, of a firm called Imaginable Futures. She serves on several nonprofit organizations to improve student outcomes.

(03:24):

She's going to have a book on early childhood.

Denise Pope (03:26):

We're very lucky. She's the director of the �� Accelerator for Learning, which is a university level initiative to try and get all of �� working on the problem of how to improve educational outcomes for children and adults. So Isabelle, thank you for coming.

Isabelle Hau (03:42):

Yeah, thank you for having me, Dan and Denise. Such a joy to be with the two of you.

Denise Pope (03:47):

We're excited.

Dan Schwartz (03:48):

What is the answer? How come suddenly there's all these startups making lots of money in education? What's changed?

Isabelle Hau (03:54):

Yeah, I mean a lot of what has changed, and by the way, it's not only the number of unicorns, it's just the amount of investments has risen in this education technology space, broadly speaking, by forty-folds. Four zero times increase over the past 10 years.

(04:13):

So huge increase in education technology investments, for sure. What has driven this? I mean Dan, on your question, I think a lot of it has to do with this theme that you have highlighted for a long time around the scientific revolution. And two of the sub themes being best rise in technology, in education, best driving both education technology startups, and companies and organizations.

(04:42):

Some are for profit, some are nonprofit. And then the amount of data that schools are managing is increasing too. That also leads to new forms of pedagogy, new forms of assessments. Anyway, so I think these two themes are leading a number of private sector providers to come in in this public, traditionally public, sector education.

Dan Schwartz (05:08):

So to free up the money to purchase these new products, what's getting squeezed out? I'm not paying teachers because I can get a cheaper teaching machine?

Isabelle Hau (05:19):

A lot of it has been increasing budgets, rather than squeezing existing budgets from schools. As well as new pools of capital being created to fund some of those organizations that didn't exist before. So a lot of private sector funding has supported some of those organizations that's not coming from public pools of funding.

Dan Schwartz (05:46):

So Denise, you think this is a good thing?

Denise Pope (05:48):

Well, I'm struggling with it, right? Because on the one hand, it's a good thing that people are paying more attention. And if this is going to help students and teachers, if it's going to do some real good, I'm excited about that. And the other thing, I worry that there's this tension because people who want to make money from products don't necessarily always put what's best for students and teachers at the center of that. Is that a fair way to say that Isabelle? Can you say more about that tension?

Isabelle Hau (06:22):

Totally, totally agree. For me, there are three levels of issues. One is simply that schools are buying, and a lot of those tools, two folds of those tools are not actually being used. So there's a waste somewhere. Whoever is spending the money, there's a big waste in terms of those tools not actually reaching out to the students as it was intended.

(06:48):

A second issue regarding equity. A lot of these tools are not getting equitably distributed because of who funds, and how it's being funded. And then there is a third issue that we are addressing, or we're trying to address, the accelerator for learning, which is that a lot of tools we don't really know if they actually are delivering on the outcomes for kids or for teachers. So we don't know if they work.

Denise Pope (07:11):

So can we take that one by one? So the first one is, they might not even getting to the audience that they're supposed to reach. And I can tell you when I first started teaching, this is actually true. We got all these new computers, and they were sitting in their boxes in a locked room that I could not access because people, there was some rule that did not allow me to access these computers until I went through some training. Which nobody had taken at our particular school. So brand new stuff sitting in boxes.

Dan Schwartz (07:42):

So Denise, I have a theory about this, actually.

Denise Pope (07:45):

Yeah?

Dan Schwartz (07:45):

I think it's no longer applicable. So this is a long story. Everybody be patient.

Denise Pope (07:51):

Oh boy.

Dan Schwartz (07:52):

So before I went to college, I taught in Kenya, in rural Kenya. And the equivalent of the mayor of the town invited me to his house. And he had whitewashed the floor. It was a big deal because I was from the US. And he put me in a room with a portable radio. And the radio was on me in the radio for 15 minutes, and the radio played nothing but static. And then he came back in and he said to me, how do you like my radio? And I said, it's lovely. So I think over the years I finally figured out why he did that.

(08:28):

He was showing that he was thinking of the future. There's no radio stations yet, but he's going to be ready for it. And technology was the signal. So I think that's what a lot of the computer purchases were. They were a statement to the families, to the community, that we are looking to the future. Which I think was frivolous a little bit, too expensive, but I understand why they did it.

(08:50):

Now I don't think you can do that, right? I think the technology's so integrated, it has to be used and useful. Anyway.

Denise Pope (08:57):

Well, but that goes to the second point, Isabelle, right? Of equity. Why the inequity? What's going on there?

Isabelle Hau (09:04):

Yeah. So internationally there is still a huge divide from a digital access perspective. So I was recently in Senegal visiting some rural schools. And while the schools had access to a few computers, those computers were not in use because the school didn't have money to pay for electricity to wire those computers. Nor did it have any broadband access.

(09:33):

In the U.S it looks a little different. I think we have made meaningful strides on the digital access piece. But we are still struggling on the digital use, and the training and the access to tools that's still very uneven based on funding pools. And the Department of Education, at the federal level, just published a really interesting report on the digital divide.

Denise Pope (09:58):

So what are some answers there? What can we do to prevent this in the future? Particularly I would say for for-profit companies, they're about trying to make money. So they're not going to lower their price for these schools who can't afford their product.

Isabelle Hau (10:11):

Yeah. So there are some efforts going on. I think there are probably two levels to your question. One is funding streams, and policy questions. And then there's a second one, which is more on the professional learning side on, how can we support schools and teachers and educators in accessing those tools that they are the most excited about, and that they feel can make the greatest difference in their context?

Dan Schwartz (10:38):

So Denise, when it comes to my great-great-great-great-great-grandchild who is now a teacher.

Denise Pope (10:43):

Yeah.

Dan Schwartz (10:43):

And some new technology comes out, the company will also have a chip that they can put into their head so they know how to use the technology. It's all going to be solved.

Denise Pope (10:53):

Oh my gosh.

(10:58):

Here's a thought experiment. I got asked to do this a couple of weeks ago at a retreat that was led by a futurist, which for those of you who don't know what that is, I'm actually not even a hundred percent sure what a futurist does. They think about the future, and then I guess backwards plan to think about how that helps you think about what you should do today. I probably botched that. In any case. Here was the question I was asked.

(11:25):

You need to design a school for your great-great-great-grandchild.

Dan Schwartz (11:33):

Okay.

Denise Pope (11:34):

All right. Dan, putting you on the spot. What does that school look like? Tell us.

Dan Schwartz (11:39):

It looks like a doctor's office. My child comes in, and they put in the new math chip into his head. And then later he gets the English writing chip and that's it.

Denise Pope (11:52):

Okay. That's the scariest thing I ever heard. So they're literally just putting in chips into people's head, and that is what the role of learning is going to look like for our great-great-great-grandchildren?

Dan Schwartz (12:04):

You just can't stuff their head with enough knowledge. So let's just cut to the quick, and just put in the chip.

Denise Pope (12:10):

Well, so your answer and my answer were completely different.

Dan Schwartz (12:16):

You think?

Denise Pope (12:16):

Yeah. Do you want to know what my answer was?

Dan Schwartz (12:17):

I do.

Denise Pope (12:18):

And I'm usually, you know me, I am a glass is half full person. I am an optimist. And yet here was my answer. I said, I honestly don't think schools are going to be all that different from what they are today. Years and years and years and years from now. With a few exceptions.

(12:36):

You might get there in a flying car. It might take place in a really futuristic looking building, or whatever. But they're still going to be probably some adult/robot at the front of the room, filling people's heads in some way, shape or form. And that is because I just know how sticky the grammar of schooling is. Which is a Larry Cuban and David Tyak word. It's just sticky.

Dan Schwartz (13:05):

Sorry, did you just say, no change? It could be a robot in front of the classroom and that's not a change.

Denise Pope (13:10):

No, it's a change. But if you think about actually how learning occurs, I don't know that it's going to be that different. It's still going to be some kind of interaction between an educator type thing, or person, and a learner type thing or person.

Dan Schwartz (13:28):

So do you think schools will still have bells? It's like time to switch from period one to period two.

Denise Pope (13:35):

I'll tell you some of the challenge success schools have gotten rid of bells, and it seems like such a little thing, but it's huge. It makes you feel not like a widget in a machine.

Dan Schwartz (13:43):

And you don't think by the seven generations from now it'll just be the chip in their head that vibrates to tell them to move?

Denise Pope (13:52):

Oh God. That's just sounds so scary.

Dan Schwartz (13:54):

I know.

Denise Pope (13:54):

So scary to me.

Dan Schwartz (14:00):

Let's get to the third one, which is, how do we know that the software's any good? Or the technology's any good? So education's a very inefficient market. The consumer may not know what's good.

(14:13):

So it's hard to tell if something's good learning, particularly if you're considering a 10, 15 year timeline. So market forces may not work to find the best product. So what I've heard, and I don't know if this is true, but what I've heard is that most superintendents, when they're deciding whether to purchase some educational product, don't look to evidence.

(14:35):

They go ask other superintendents, what have you used? And, has it worked for you? It's really tough. So the question is, how do we evaluate whether these products are any good, and should this some body take responsibility for this? Like the FDA takes a lot of responsibility for drug testing, but we don't really have one in education. So Isabelle, help. How do we solve this problem?

Denise Pope (15:00):

That's a good question.

Isabelle Hau (15:02):

Yeah, let me actually just give a few stats to emphasize your point Dan, because those are really interesting. One is a little bit of an old stats, but it's a few years old. Where I know a great organization surveyed this education decision makers, including a lot of superintendents. And what they found is exactly in line with what you were sharing. They found that only 11% of education decision makers, we are looking at any types of evidence to make a purchasing decision on an EdTech tool.

(15:35):

The other stats that I really like, which is also in line with all these themes, is that only 7% of global ed tech tools have any form of rigorous evidence.

Denise Pope (15:51):

Seven? Only seven.

Isabelle Hau (15:53):

Seven, seven percent, yes. So that doesn't necessarily mean that the 93% remaining are not working. Let's be clear.

(16:02):

What it means is that we don't know. Okay? So there is a lot of work both on the product development side, and the connection to research, and for academia to be closer to those product developers. As well as on educating decision makers on some of those techniques of evaluation. And what makes a validation of a product. So there have been a lot of efforts on this over the years. A lot of people are working on it, including us, of course. Because we have a big role to play, I think, in improving some of those stats, and improving learning outcomes for children and educators. But there is a lot of work here.

(16:47):

And some examples have been, for example, at the federal level, there was still this clearing house that looks at different products. There is EdReports that does a great job at listing what is working. So there are some great initiatives that exist. But we need a lot more of those to continue improving that connection between what we know from research, and then the application in the real world.

Dan Schwartz (17:16):

So could we possibly make a consumer reports? Where they go and they take this car, and they drive it around and they then have these six areas where they tell you it was a good car or not? Would that work in education? And companies couldn't fund them to do the research, it would have to be independent.

Isabelle Hau (17:34):

Yeah. There have been some attempts at this, and there are some great partners like Common Sense Media that has a listing of EdTech tools, with some readings that are coming from educators, and maybe for some of them on parents from parents. So there are some attempts at this, but it's, again, there needs to be more. And I would argue that with a new phase that we are in with a lot of AI tools, that artificial intelligence coming into play with a lot of new innovations happening, as we all know at the moment. Including a lot of innovations on education, in education, this is actually feels like a right time to think through what could be better ways to connect research and ed tech developers?

Dan Schwartz (18:28):

So my solution to this so far, is to create a master's of science in educational data science, at the school of education, with a hope that these students will be able to play that role. It's interesting, about half of them want to start their own companies.

Denise Pope (18:43):

Well, so wait, so that's a problem, right? Because we actually don't want them to start their own companies. I want them to go and help all these superintendents learn the right questions to ask, and learn how to evaluate the products.

Dan Schwartz (18:56):

I agree. As this was going on, I was thinking we should get those students to go talk to superintendents and principals, and ask them, what would you like to know? What should they collect data and analyze it about?

Denise Pope (19:08):

If you're a parent listening to this, I think you would be a little bit horrified. It's a little bit of the wild, wild West. Products are coming into schools that affect our kids, and nobody's checking for standards, and nobody's checking the FDA on what could possibly go wrong? That's scary.

Dan Schwartz (19:29):

Yes, it is. Although it's a great opportunity for innovation.

Denise Pope (19:34):

Isabelle, what do you think?

Isabelle Hau (19:36):

They are obviously not to see that there's no regulation or policy around all of this. They are. I mean especially on privacy, other dimensions of safety for children in schools. So let's be clear, there are some policy frameworks that exist.

Denise Pope (19:52):

From the federal government, you're saying.

Isabelle Hau (19:54):

From the federal government, and from some states too, that districts and superintendents are obviously very close to. So just to clarify on this, where there is less, or a lot more that could be done is on this question about evidence. And how are those solutions really supporting children and educators, depending on who they are serving or administrators? There are variety obviously of different people who are benefiting from those tools.

Denise Pope (20:25):

So it's less scary as a parent. I know my kid's going to be okay, but now I'm just pissed that maybe my tax money is going to something that isn't working.

Isabelle Hau (20:34):

Yeah.

Denise Pope (20:36):

Still a little less scary, but still equally frustrating.

Isabelle Hau (20:41):

Yeah. Yeah. There was one big piece of regulation that has made some impact called ESSA a few years ago, that has been asking, and requesting actually schools to start making a portion of their decisions based on some levels of evidence.

(21:02):

So there has been some progress on the policy side, but it's a small portion of those tools that need to comply with that requirement on evidence. So most of those purchasing decisions are not required to comply.

Dan Schwartz (21:17):

Denise, an attitude like yours is why your great-great-great-grandchild is going to be in exactly the same classroom now.

Denise Pope (21:22):

I know. And I'm such an optimist. This is so not like me, Isabelle, I promise this is so not like me.

Dan Schwartz (21:27):

No. So you can do a lot of sniff tests. You look at things and you can sort of look at it and sort of say, yeah, I don't think this is a good idea. Or this is a good idea. The concern about evidence, I don't want to harp on this too long, but is it mostly evidence will be very short term? Did the kid get the next math problem right? And so it's going to really push things towards highly measurable outcomes that may not be the kinds of grand things we want for our children.

Denise Pope (21:58):

That's a really good point.

Dan Schwartz (21:59):

So that would be a concern. But I'd like to switch it for a second.

(22:03):

So I worry about getting people started. How can we make sure that they have a good pathway? We had a student who came up with a very good idea. I always thought. It was called Nomster Chef. And you would get a box sent to your home, and would have ingredients, a very simple cookbook with pictures, and plastic knives, and you would cook with your child. And I thought it was really sweet. I gave a hundred dollars to their Kickstarter campaign. And then I bumped into the person who started this a couple years later at an alumni event. And I asked, how's it going? And she said, no one ever told me that I need a budget for marketing.

(22:43):

So how do we help these people go from great idea to invention succeeds out in the world?

Isabelle Hau (22:51):

Yeah, Dan, it's a great question itself. By the way, it's the same question as any startup in any field, any industry. Education is no different from that standpoint. You need to start small, and you need to start with a handful of partners that love your solution. So whether they are parents, whether they are schools, whether they are educators, you need to figure out with your initial set of a few teachers, few parents, few schools, if a solution that people are really enjoying using.

(23:26):

And then from there you can start expanding. Word of mouth is the ideal. So from this initial set of users who love your solution, then you start getting referrals effectively from this group of users and that starts spreading. And then you can use more different types of channels as you continue growing. But the initial set is a lot of try to find your first few users that are going to love what you do.

(23:55):

And so it's a lot of who you know, or networking with key people. And we have classes that help on that front, such as Lean Launchpad, or the Learning Design Challenge at �� that helps some of our students who are interested in doing this, in finding this initial set of users that you can try your solution with, and test it.

Dan Schwartz (24:20):

So that's good. So now I've got a fan base and I realize I need a million dollars. Then what happens?

Isabelle Hau (24:28):

Yeah, you have multiple pools of funding that you can access, that one can access. Ranging from one group is called Angel Investors, or Angel Philanthropists. Depending if you are a non-profit or a for-profit. But essentially a group of wealthy individuals or families that want to support your solution. And those are called either, Angel Investors on the for-profit side, or Angel Philanthropists on the grant side.

(25:07):

You also have the second pool that you can go to is there are a set of grants. So non-dilutive capital for non-profit, or for-profit, that exists that support innovation in education. One that I personally really admire is SBIR, which is a pool of funding affiliated with the Institute of Education Sciences. Which is open to innovators in education that actually are aiming for some form of evidence early on. So it's a great way for innovation and evidence to be paired early on.

(25:41):

A third one, a third pool then, is what is called seed funds. So this initial group of investors that are very comfortable with very early stage, very risky type of investment early on. And then the last pool that I was part of for many years is called, Impact Funders, Impact Investing. And that's a newer category of funders that are seeking to have both impact in the world, in positive impact, both socially or environmentally. Combined with positive financial return. So it's a concept of doing good, and doing well financially combined.

Denise Pope (26:21):

There's your pathway, Dan.

Dan Schwartz (26:25):

So Denise, there's all these innovators out there. There's new way, they can create things that didn't exist before. There are easy distribution channels. And you still think your great-great-great-great grandchild's going to be using chalk on a green chalkboard?

Denise Pope (26:46):

No. Okay, I didn't say the chalk on the green chalkboard. It might be like a neon virtual hologram type chalkboard.

(26:52):

But no, I would like to think that Isabelle and her people, and all the institutions and education universities out there, are really going to help to get these to market in a way that people, I liked what Isabelle said, do good, and really change the bottom line. I think that's the hard part, right, is assessing the outcome.

Dan Schwartz (27:15):

The double bottom line.

Denise Pope (27:16):

And really getting kids to learn, or doing what we know that the current situation of schools is not doing around a whole host of issues. So I'm glad there's a bunch of Isabelle's out there. And maybe we'll be doing this. Well, we won't be doing this show, but maybe the great-great-great grandchildren of ours will be doing a show like this over the airwaves that beams to Mars. And there's no need for Isabelle's out there because we've solved the problem of education.

Dan Schwartz (27:52):

So I'm not sure I'd buy the premise that there is ever a final. The point of education is to keep handling a future that comes.

Denise Pope (27:57):

Exactly, exactly.

(27:58):

Exactly. We'll need Isabel's all the way throughout. But it would be cool to think about this in the future. It'd be cool to think about this in the future to say like, okay, Denise, you were wrong. Which you love proving me wrong, Dan. So there you go.

Dan Schwartz (28:13):

Thank you Isabelle. There's been a lot we can take away from this conversation. Denise, you go first.

Denise Pope (28:19):

Oh, okay. Oh my gosh. Okay. Putting me on the spot. I think there's so much, but the main thing is, as we build these new tools, I think we really need to focus on effectiveness. We want them to work. And we also really need to think about equity.

Dan Schwartz (28:36):

So on the effectiveness side, it's important to pay attention to the research that sort of says how you can do things well. Don't just innovate and then see if it works. You can incorporate the research to make the product better from the start. On the business side, I really like the blueprint Isabel walked us through. Find that core group to trial and navigate the development of the product. Find investors that align with your goal. And make sure that after all that you have some money so you don't get stuck in your parents' garage when you discover you've got to market the tool. Because there's so much stuff out there, you need a way for people to pay attention to what you've done.

Denise Pope (29:16):

Yeah, I think that's right. It's really hard to break through. And of course we don't want people stuck in their parents' garages. So lots of great advice. Thank you. Thank you again Isabelle for chatting with us today.

(29:27):

And thank you all for listening to this episode of Schools In. Remember to subscribe to our show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you tune in. I'm Denise Pope.

Dan Schwartz (29:37):

And I'm Dan Schwartz, from my parents' garage.

Podcast

GSE area

podcast

Faculty mentioned in this article: Dan Schwartz , Denise Pope

Youth mental health: Teaching (and learning) empathy

Olivia Peterkin — Mon, 21 Oct 2024 18:05:06 +0000

Youth mental health: Teaching (and learning) empathy Olivia Peterkin Mon, 10/21/2024 - 11:05

Brain and Learning Sciences | Child Development | Students

Professor Jamil Zaki discusses the roles of empathy and compassion in bettering our relationships with ourselves and others.

October 24, 2024

By Olivia Peterkin

For most young people, one of the most important things on their minds is how they’re perceived by their peers.

Though this focus can sometimes be seen as a negative distraction, �� psychology Professor Jamil Zaki says that the adults in their lives can use this preoccupation with the thoughts of others to help youth create a community centered around empathy, a skill that will in turn build their overall mental health.

“We find that social norms are a really powerful lever that we can pull if we want to encourage empathy, especially among young people,” said Zaki, who leads the �� Social Neuroscience Laboratory and is faculty in the School of Humanities and Sciences.

A few years ago Zaki worked with middle school students in the Bay Area to ask them how they felt about empathy and its value in their lives. In private, students shared that it was useful and powerful — something they might not have said in public if they were unsure of how others felt.

“We then showed students’ responses to each other. And when students learned those social norms, compared to students who didn't, they were more motivated to empathize,” Zaki said. “And then when we came back to these classrooms a month later, those students who learned about the popularity of empathy were also more likely to be acting kindly towards their fellow seventh graders.”

Zaki joins hosts GSE Dean Dan Schwartz and Senior Lecturer Denise Pope on School’s In as they discuss the power of empathy and how to cultivate it in young people. His research focuses on the neuroscience behind decision making, self regulation, social cognition, and perception, among other social and behavioral functions.

In the episode he also talks about self compassion, and how practicing it can have a positive effect on mental health and performance.

“In fact, we find at �� that when students are not self compassionate, they have a harder time bouncing back if they get a bad grade,” Zaki said. “So not only is it hard to be self compassionate. We have a backwards notion in our culture of what self compassion even means.

“It’s, in essence, extending the same grace and kindness to ourselves as we would to somebody else we care about.”

Never miss an episode! Subscribe to School’s In on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Transcript

Jamil Zaki (00:00):

If you want somebody else to listen to you, one of the best things that you can do is listen to them first.

Dan Schwartz (00:11):

Today, we're continuing our conversation around mental health that we've been having over the last few episodes. We know this is a big subject, and there's so much to unpack in this space for both students and educators.

Denise Pope (00:22):

That's right. We'll be focusing on empathy and how it can play such a large role in our ability to have healthy relationships with others and also, kind of interestingly, the role of empathy with ourselves.

Dan Schwartz (00:35):

Denise, I have this feeling that I may be the kind of student that our expert likes to teach because I think I'm something of a cynic.

Denise Pope (00:43):

Dan Schwartz, what? You a cynic? Please. Come on. Yeah Dan, I think that's right. Let's get into the episode and find out.

(00:56):

Welcome to School's In, your go-to podcast for cutting-edge insights in learning. Each episode, we dive into the latest trends, innovations, and challenges facing learners. I'm Denise Pope, senior lecturer at �� Graduate School of Education and co-founder of Challenge Success. And I'm with my co-host, Dan Schwartz, Dean of the �� GSE and faculty director of the �� Accelerator for Learning.

Dan Schwartz (01:23):

It's my pleasure to introduce Jamil Zaki. He's a researcher, author, teacher, professor, working to understand how people connect with each other and how we can learn to connect better. I've been learning the wrong direction, I think. And his research focuses on how empathy works, how it helps people in situations that make empathy harder. People like me. He is the author of The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World, and he has a new book called Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness. I got it. That's why I'm a cynic. I've been waiting my whole life to hear the truth of this.

Denise Pope (01:58):

Hope for Cynics is ... It has Dan Schwartz written all over it. I'm excited to talk. Good. Good. Welcome, Jamil.

Jamil Zaki (02:04):

Thanks for having me.

Dan Schwartz (02:07):

Just as a starter, empathy, sympathy ... Can I be empathetic for myself? What..? Help.

Jamil Zaki (02:14):

Big questions. Empathy is the word that we probably associate the most with the science on this subject. Researchers think of empathy as an umbrella term that describes at least three ways that we connect with each other's emotions.

(02:28):

One, Dan, is that sense of feeling what other people feel. Taking on their emotions. The thing that would make a mind reader go absolutely haywire if they were around a lot of people hearing their voices and feeling their emotions.

(02:41):

A second type of empathy, which we all often call cognitive empathy, is our ability to travel into the perspectives of others and understand how their version of the world might be different from ours.

(02:54):

And then a third piece of empathy, empathic concern or compassion, is our desire to help other people thrive. And it's the piece of empathy most connected with things like volunteering and donating to charity.

(03:07):

You asked about sympathy. Sympathy is a word with a much muddier scientific status. Back in the day, philosophers like Adam Smith used sympathy to describe what we would now call emotional empathy. But since the early 20th century, that idea was sort of market corrected by the rise of empathy as a notion. And so, we don't really use sympathy that much in the science anymore.

(03:32):

Your last question, can you have empathy for yourself? Absolutely. And there's this whole science of self-compassion, and oftentimes we think of being empathic towards ourselves as selfish or self-indulgent or lazy, but it actually turns out that being compassionate for ourselves helps us be resilient, bounce back from failures, and to be there for other people more effectively.

Dan Schwartz (03:56):

I'm having a little trouble with that. It feels very recursive. I'm empathetic for me. I'm empathetic for the me who's being empathetic for me. Does this stop? Do I reach some higher level of empathetic consciousness?

Jamil Zaki (04:12):

Compassion is a response to suffering, and every living being suffers, and that includes ourselves. The idea that we have to only feel compassion for others actually is not recursive, but it's strange in that it almost treats you as an exception to the human race. And I think a lot of times we try to do that. People in leadership. People in healthcare. Teachers. We often think that we're supposed to be kind to others, but we act as though we are not human beings who ourselves require kindness. And I think that, actually, being compassionate towards ourselves is less recursive than it is human. It's an acknowledgement that we are human beings too.

Denise Pope (04:52):

I love that. I love that. And I also know that it plays a role really in terms of mental health. In our work with teens, there's a lot of self-berating, beating themselves up, "Why didn't I do this better? Oh, my gosh. I'm stupid. I'm an idiot," and they start to internalize what they think other people are thinking about them. And I think your notion of self-compassion, then, and being empathetic to yourself goes a long way.

Jamil Zaki (05:18):

And it's really hard, especially in high-achieving settings. I teach a class on empathy and kindness here at ��, and I ask students to practice different things. Reach out to somebody you disagree with and listen better. Try to help somebody in need, and students love to do all this stuff.

(05:34):

But then when I say, "Try to be there for yourselves," they hesitate. They think that the way that they've achieved so much is by being really hard on themselves and beating themselves up.

(05:44):

In fact, we find at �� that when students are not self-compassionate, they have a harder time, for instance, bouncing back if they get a bad grade. Not only is it hard to be self-compassionate. We have a backwards notion in our culture of what self-compassion even means. We think it's a form of weakness, and actually it's more like a strength.

Dan Schwartz (06:05):

I'm kind of a procedural guy. Give me some tips about how to have self-compassion. Generally, I say, "Dan, you screwed that one up. We'll go get it next time." That's sort of as far as I get.

Jamil Zaki (06:21):

Well, that's not terrible. I mean, that's actually a good start.

Denise Pope (06:24):

You're okay, Dan. You're okay.

Dan Schwartz (06:27):

Thank you Denise.

Jamil Zaki (06:28):

I think the first thing is to, I guess, reflect on what we're talking about here. In our research, we find that when we teach people that self-compassion is adaptive, can help them do a better job in the future, they're more willing to try it out. The first is to kind of lay the groundwork by changing people's beliefs about self-compassion.

(06:48):

The way that Kristin Neff, who's the, I guess, the scientific guru of self-compassion in my field ... The way that she suggests practicing this is through three steps. The first is mindful awareness. Simply saying, "Wow, this is hard. I'm suffering." Sort of, Dan, like what you just said. "I screwed this up." Just naming the problem and naming that it's actually causing us some suffering.

(07:11):

The second step, which I've been alluding to already, is called common humanity, and that's the understanding that our suffering and our failures don't make us different or worse than other people. That, in fact, one of the only things that every single person does is to suffer. The fact that we are hurting just makes us like other people.

(07:30):

And the third is what we could call goodwill. It's, in essence, extending the same grace and kindness to ourselves as we would to somebody else we care about. One thing that I often tell people to do is try to reverse the golden rule. The golden rule. Treat others as you'd like to be treated, but lots of us actually treat other people really well and treat ourselves really poorly. I often ask folks, "Hey, if you're suffering, try to think about what you would say to a really close friend or family member who is suffering in the same way, who had failed in the same way that you just have." And oftentimes, people can generate really kind, understanding, and open-minded things that they would say to somebody else, but they've never even thought about being that kind to themselves. That's one trick, one procedure, that you can try to practice self-compassion.

Dan Schwartz (08:21):

What do you think, Denise?

Denise Pope (08:23):

Well, I like it. I know we use that with teens. I mean, one thing that we talk about often is, who do you talk the most to in your life? And it's really yourself, right? People don't realize that, but your inner voice. And so, we do that same flip, which, Jamil, is, how would you talk to yourself like you would talk to your friend? And I love that. I love that. We talked about how to teach self-compassion.

(08:44):

How would you teach what you're calling cognitive empathy? What are some lessons?

Jamil Zaki (08:50):

Cognitive empathy - the ability to understand others. There are two big routes that we take to it. The most famous is perspective taking. This is the idea of walking a mile in somebody else's shoes. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that phrase. And it's a well-intentioned notion that by imagining how I would feel in your position, I can better understand you.

(09:14):

The problem is that perspective taking often fails. If I understand or try to understand how I would feel in your position, I often end up understanding how I would feel in your position, not how you actually feel in your position.

(09:29):

In fact, I think walking a mile in somebody else's shoes is a perfect analogy for perspective taking. If I wanted to know, Dan, how comfortable your shoes are, the last thing I would ever imagine doing is taking them from you and putting them on myself. First of all, it's kind of gross. And second, your shoes probably don't fit me and neither does your experience.

(09:50):

And so, a better alternative, and the way that I try to train cognitive empathy, is through what I call perspective getting. That is directly inquiring in a careful way with other people about their experiences and practicing active listening as they answer. And I know that sounds almost trivial in its simplicity. If you want to know how people feel, just ask them. But asking good questions and listening well, I think, are more complex than people realize.

Denise Pope (10:18):

Can you give just two or three quick examples of some really good questions?

Jamil Zaki (10:22):

I mean, I think that it's not so much the initial question. It's how we follow up. One of the techniques from psychology and actually that people like journalists and detectives and good physicians also use is called looping to understand. You ask someone a question. For instance, tell me about your best moments over the long Memorial Day weekend. And they tell you. And instead of just saying, "Okay, I've understood your answer. We are perfectly aligned now," you follow up. You say, "Okay, what I heard is," and then you paraphrase to the best of your ability what the gist of what they've shared is. And then you ask. You say, "What am I missing? What else is there?" Right? And you iterate until both people agree on one person's experience, right? Until you and I both agree about what you've been through, what your experience is like. That technique of iterating and paraphrasing can get us much closer to true cognitive empathy than just assuming that somebody else would experience something the same way that we would.

Dan Schwartz (11:26):

When you go to a movie that has a sad moment, do you cry? Like Steel Magnolias. I don't know if people remember that movie. It's basically designed to make you cry the whole time.

Denise Pope (11:42):

First of all, you're dating yourself, Dan, but I have seen Steel Magnolias. This is what you should know about me. And people probably already do. Listeners probably do. I cry at everything. I cry at commercials that are sappy. I cry at sad books. I cry when I ... I just cried, we were saying goodbye to a board member at Challenge Success, and I broke down. I am a sap. True sap.

Dan Schwartz (12:04):

Do you go to movies where you get to cry? Do you seek it out?

Denise Pope (12:08):

Well, I mean, it's kind of... There's a nice release. I will purposely read Holocaust fiction because I know it's going to be sad and intense. And I'll be on a beach reading Holocaust fiction, and my family thinks that's the weirdest thing, right? But I like to get it out sometimes, a really good cry, very cathartic, but I just also can't help myself. I mean, literally, I can't help myself.

Dan Schwartz (12:32):

Do you think this is something you learned? Your parents somehow trained you to be teary-eyed and empathetic?

Denise Pope (12:40):

I think I come from a long line of criers. My grandfather. I feel like there's might be a genetic component, but I don't know. How about you? Are you a crier?

Dan Schwartz (12:54):

No. No, not really. I was born so empathetic, Denise. I was just so empathetic that I learned to actively suppress it.

Denise Pope (13:05):

Wait, Dan, first of all-

Dan Schwartz (13:07):

No, I'm serious.

Denise Pope (13:09):

You're being serious?

Dan Schwartz (13:10):

If I didn't suppress my empathy, I'd be like that vision of the poor mind reader walking down the street, hearing the voices of everybody on the street, and going crazy.

Denise Pope (13:19):

Oh, my God.

Dan Schwartz (13:19):

If I freed up my empathy, I'd be overwhelmed. Just looking at you, I'm feeling a little teary-eyed. I've got to suppress-

Denise Pope (13:27):

Flaclench. Flip flaclench is the word. Oh, my gosh. Well, Dan, I ...

Dan Schwartz (13:32):

Put it another way. I could never give people bad news if I didn't suppress my empathy because I don't want to feel their pain.

Denise Pope (13:41):

You seriously have done some thinking about this and trained yourself not to empathize in order to give someone bad news?

Dan Schwartz (13:49):

Or to get a little abstract about my empathy. To switch over to sympathy.

Denise Pope (13:52):

We're throwing around some words here.

Dan Schwartz (13:54):

We have so many questions.

Denise Pope (13:54):

Yes. Yes.

Dan Schwartz (13:56):

Is it possible that I didn't learn to be empathetic? I learned to shut it down. I just made up this theory.

(14:08):

We got to get to the cynic book because-

Denise Pope (14:11):

Can you tell already, Jamil, that we need to get to the cynic book?

Dan Schwartz (14:15):

I imagine this conversation where ... I've had this conversation. How did that make you feel? And then I sort of say, "Oh, it was sort of like this." I'm trying to make the bid to hone in on it. The answer is, "No, you just don't understand me." Then they say something else, and I go, "Oh, it's kind of like this." "Gosh-

Denise Pope (14:32):

Dan, what you're basically saying-

Dan Schwartz (14:33):

... you just don't understand me."

Denise Pope (14:33):

... is you need to take Jamil's class. You need extra practice.

Dan Schwartz (14:40):

No, I'm thinking I need eight-hours-a-day therapy for four months.

Jamil Zaki (14:46):

Four months is a pretty fast track, actually.

Dan Schwartz (14:48):

Is that right?

Jamil Zaki (14:49):

I mean, I would say, Dan, that you're right. A perspective getting ... Trying to understand people is an art. It's really hard work as well. And I think that your experience is really common. It can be really frustrating when you're trying your absolute best, and you still aren't getting through. This is why I think that oftentimes we can ask people to help us.

(15:11):

Empathy often seems like it's supposed to mean having the right answers, but it can actually mean having better questions. Instead of saying, "Oh, so you felt this," which sort of sounds like you're suggesting that you already know the answer, you say, "It sounds like you are feeling this. Can you help me, though? What am I missing here? How could I understand this a little bit better?" Collaborating with people to understand them can be a powerful technique.

Denise Pope (15:36):

You could see that tone is really different from what you said, Dan-

Dan Schwartz (15:44):

No, it's good. It's good.

Denise Pope (15:44):

That's good.

Dan Schwartz (15:44):

okay so it's six months. No, that was good. That was good.

Denise Pope (15:45):

You mentioned that it was really around perspective getting and perspective taking. In your class, you work with students to reach out to someone who they disagree with, and I can only imagine, given the state of the world right now, just how important this concept is. Talk to us. What's your take on why this is such a crucial time for empathy?

Jamil Zaki (16:08):

Well, let me first say that I think every time is a crucial time for empathy. Empathy is simply one of our fundamental human skills. And if you think about our species, the special thing about us is not what a single human being can do. It's what we do together. And empathy is one of the psychological foundations that allows us to collaborate, cooperate, to treat each other kindly. It's related to all sorts of metrics of personal and social wellbeing. Everything from mental health, happiness, strong relationships, to strong communities.

(16:45):

I think, right now and in a polarized and divided time, empathy is perhaps even more crucial than ever. I'm often laughed at when I say that empathy can be a powerful tool in a polarized setting because it seems like, gosh, division is so toxic. Empathy is bringing cotton candy to a gunfight or something, but it turns out that actually being empathic is an immensely powerful tool in the face of difference and division.

(17:16):

In our lab, we find that when people believe that empathy is a strength, they communicate with people they disagree with much more effectively. They don't pretend they don't have opinions. They represent their own view just as strongly, but they appeal to common values, and they communicate compassionately in a way that makes the other person, the person who disagrees with them, feel more understood, more connected, and, get this, more convinced.

(17:45):

Actually, if you want somebody else to listen to you, one of the best things that you can do is listen to them first. That's a scarce resource in our current moment, but I think a precious one.

Denise Pope (17:55):

Can we send you to the Senate? Can we send you to different places? All the red and blue states all over the place. Just more empathy, people. We need it. We need it.

(18:06):

I can also see how this would play a role in schools right now. I mean, we're hearing division in schools and teachers and kids not seeing eye to eye, parents and teachers not seeing eye to eye, but also just in general how to get along well. Talk to us. I know that you've worked with schools.

Jamil Zaki (18:26):

I think that there are lots of ways to encourage empathy among communities. One that we found that's especially powerful in schools and among adolescents, in particular, is using social norms. What do 12 and 13-year-olds care about more than anything on Earth?

Denise Pope (18:43):

Themselves. Being popular. Being popular?

Jamil Zaki (18:48):

Yes. Yes. Thank you, Denise. Other 12 and 13-year-olds. What other kids think.

(18:54):

And so, we worked with a few middle schools in the Bay Area a couple of years ago, and we asked students, "How do you feel about empathy? Why do you value it?" And students, first of all, when answering in private, love empathy. They talk all about how useful it is and how powerful it is and how much they want to have an empathic community, but they might not say that in public if they don't know that's what other people feel.

(19:20):

What we then did is we showed students' responses to each other. There are no lies here. We're presenting students with each other's actual opinions and beliefs. The social norm in these schools was invisible but powerful. People wanted empathy. And when students learned those social norms compared to students who didn't, they were more motivated to empathize. And then when we came back to these classrooms a month later, those students who learned about the popularity of empathy were also more likely to be acting kindly towards their fellow seventh graders, in this case.

(19:56):

We find that social norms are really a powerful lever that we can pull if we want to encourage empathy, especially among young people.

Denise Pope (20:05):

It's a teachable skill is what you're saying? I mean, even just hearing that, I think, gives me hope. I know we're moving into Hope for Cynics, the name of your book, but the fact that it's a teachable skill ... I think some people think, "Oh, she's a really empathetic person, and he's not," or whatever. It's a born thing. It's a trait.

Jamil Zaki (20:26):

Well, it is absolutely both. People are born more or less empathic. Empathy is heritable, meaning that it passes down from generation to generation, but it's also extraordinarily malleable. People can change and do change over the course of their lives. Specific events in our lives can cause our empathy to go up or down, but also the right practices and habits can help us cultivate empathy on purpose. Yes, it is a skill.

(20:57):

And my sense from the last 20 years of research that I've done in this space is that it's a skill that we can build, but one of the hardest things is not helping people practice it. It's getting people to want to practice it, right? Basketball is a skill as well, but I'm never going to make it to the NBA. I've tried, and it's just not in the cards for me. I don't practice my jump shot because there's nothing in it for me. One of the important things to do is not just teach people how to empathize but teach people why to empathize. Give them motives to understand how this can be a powerful tool in their lives, and then they're more likely to practice it and to learn it.

Dan Schwartz (21:39):

Back to me. Tell me about-

Denise Pope (21:42):

Someone who needs practice.

Dan Schwartz (21:43):

Well, no, tell me about Hope for the Cynic.

Jamil Zaki (21:45):

Well, I've studied empathy forever. And more recently, I've become interested in a big massive social trend around the world, which is that people have lost faith in each other and in virtually every institution you can imagine. People around the world believe less in science, education, the media, government, industry, everything than they did before. I've become really curious as to why that's happening, what it's doing to us, and what, if anything, we can do about it.

(22:22):

And one of the big messages that I discovered in going through decades of evidence on this is that cynicism often feels a lot smarter than it is. We have this stereotype that if you are hopeful and optimistic, you're a gullible rube. And if you think people are awful, then you're probably real wise. It turns out that that's almost exactly the opposite of the truth. Cynics perform less well on cognitive tests than hopeful people. They tend to be worse at understanding who's a liar and who's telling the truth. And it turns out that cynicism, in many cases, reflects not wisdom but bias. A bias to see the worst in others.

(23:03):

That's bad news, but the good news is that if we pay closer attention to the data around us, and I don't just mean scientific data but the everyday data of how people really act, there are pleasant surprises everywhere. People tend to be a lot better than we think they are.

Dan Schwartz (23:20):

What is the test that you give to see how cynical people are? I need to start studying.

Denise Pope (23:24):

I knew this was coming. I knew this was coming. Dan does not like to do poorly on tests. On any test. He's already worried. He's already worried, Jamil.

Jamil Zaki (23:33):

There's something ... The original cynicism test was developed by educators, actually, to measure whether teachers would get along with their students. Cook and Medley, these two psychologists in the 1950s, developed this test. And it has questions in it like, "People are only honest because they're worried about getting caught," for instance. And so, there's 50 statements, and the extent that you agree with them reflects how cynical you are. And again, Cook and Medley designed this for teachers, but it turned out that this cynical hostility, which is what it's now called, predicted all sorts of outcomes for all sorts of people. If you're high in this, you're not just a great time at parties. You also tend to, for instance, be more prone to loneliness, depression, divorce, alcoholism, and even heart disease.

Dan Schwartz (24:25):

You're imputing negative intent is sort of the-

Jamil Zaki (24:27):

Yes. That's right. That's right.

Denise Pope (24:30):

And it's bad for your health. I mean, this is ... I love that point. I could see that. I can see how a cynic just is more and more blah, right?

Jamil Zaki (24:39):

I mean, one of the best things that protects our health and well-being is our connection to other people. And cynics, by imputing, Dan, as you're saying, ill intent from folks all around them, including their friends and family, deprive themselves of the benefits of connection. They live this sort of ... There's this internal split between themselves and the rest of the world, and that turns out to harm them in basically every way you can measure.

Dan Schwartz (25:06):

That sounds lousy. Be walking around suspicious of everybody. It's kind of a cynicism meets paranoia. Denise, I'm not a cynic. I'm an ironist.

Denise Pope (25:16):

Care to define?

Dan Schwartz (25:19):

I enjoy the contradictions in existence.

Jamil Zaki (25:23):

Dan, can I offer something?

Dan Schwartz (25:25):

Yeah.

Denise Pope (25:25):

Yes.

Jamil Zaki (25:26):

I think you might be neither a cynic nor an ironist, although I've never heard that term, so I can't say conclusively. I think you might be a skeptic. And oftentimes people confuse cynicism and skepticism, but they're really quite different.

(25:40):

Cynicism is basically having this bias against people and, often, assuming that you're right in the absence of any evidence. Skepticism is thinking like a scientist, not willing to rest on your assumptions but looking for evidence, even pugilisticly demanding evidence from people for their own claims.

(25:59):

What I argue in the book that we should aim for is not to replace mud-colored glasses with rose-colored glasses, to replace cynicism with blind or naive gullibility and trust, but rather to replace it with what I call hopeful skepticism. That is taking a data-driven view on our lives and relationships and people and also understanding, this is the hopeful part, that our assumptions are often worse than reality. Understanding that people are probably better than we think. Using that as a starting point and then thinking like a scientist.

Dan Schwartz (26:36):

I'm buying 50 copies. I'm doing it now.

Denise Pope (26:40):

I know. First of all, look at that. Right? You just made Dan so happy. Tips. Tips. You say there's hopes for the cynics, and I love the distinction here. I think it's really important.

(26:50):

What are some quick tips for folks to try out?

Jamil Zaki (26:55):

A bunch come to mind. The first is to be skeptical of your own cynicism. Remember, when you start to draw sweeping conclusions about people, that you might be biased against them. That this is the way that our minds work. We pay so much attention to negative versus positive information.

(27:14):

A second tip would be to collect more data. If you feel, for instance, that people at your job are all lousy and selfish, ask a few folks for a favor. If nobody helps, then maybe you're right. But if anybody helps, which they probably will, maybe it's time to start questioning your assumptions.

(27:33):

And the third, I guess, would be to remember that we have much more influence on others than we realize. When we treat people like they are awful and selfish, they actually often end up becoming more awful and selfish around us, making us decide that we were right all along. When we instead trust people, they often step up to meet our expectations. This is something that economists call earned trust. One thing you can do, if you want to treat your life like an experiment in small ways, is to take leaps of faith on people to purposefully put your faith in them as a sort of, again, as a little study of your own and see what comes back. And notice the positive effect that your trust and faith have on others.

Denise Pope (28:18):

I mean, can you imagine teachers and parents take that leap of faith, put the trust in it, right? Approach with curiosity, approach with good feelings, like this is going to work. And how different schools would be. How different the parenting is when you're doing that as opposed to rules, rules, rules, rules. If you break them, that's it. Boom. Right? It's a real different feel. I love it. I love it.

(28:43):

Jamil, thank you so much for joining us. We have learned a lot. Dan Schwartz has now learned that he is neither a cynic nor an ironist, but ... Right, Dan? You're happy.

Dan Schwartz (28:57):

I am a scientific skeptic about my own emotions.

Denise Pope (29:05):

Oh, my gosh, Dan. That is perfect. Jamil, well done. We figured it out. Yay.

Dan Schwartz (29:12):

Thank you, Jamil, for sharing everything with us today. It was great. I learned a lot. I think I learned a lot about myself, which makes it even better. Thank you.

(29:21):

Denise, I think it's your turn. What did we take away from this?

Denise Pope (29:25):

Well, I think the biggest takeaway is really just the importance of why we need to empathize with others. That we cannot make it through this world alone, right? We're much stronger as a community when we show up with empathy.

Dan Schwartz (29:40):

I agree, and I like the point that it's not just about the questions you ask, but also about how you respond to those answers. Be curious. Ask, why is that important? How did that happen? Follow up if you need more information about how someone is feeling, and it's okay to keep asking people and be truly interested and gain a deeper understanding. Just that shift alone can have a huge impact.

Denise Pope (30:05):

I agree. And what was also really interesting to me was this idea of how to do this internally. Hold experiments in your own day-to-day life. Who does that? That could be really helpful, right? Challenge your cynicism with some hope, Dan Schwartz, right? Really treat yourself how you would treat others. I think that's really hard for people to do, and not enough people do it.

(30:27):

And then for school settings, this idea of social norms, I think, is so important. To show kids, "Hey, most of you really do want to show up with empathy." And if you show kids that this is what most people want, then it kind of draws them in, right? It's the cool thing to do.

Dan Schwartz (30:44):

Well said.

Denise Pope (30:46):

Jamil, thank you. Look what you've done for Dan alone. And thank you, really, for being here and informing us today. And thank all of you for joining us on this episode of School's In.

(30:56):

Remember to subscribe to our show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you tune in. I'm Denise Pope.

Dan Schwartz (31:03):

And I am Daniel Lewis Schwartz.

Denise Pope (31:05):

Is Lewis your middle name?

Dan Schwartz (31:16):

Yes, it is.

Denise Pope (31:17):

My God. I don't think I knew that.

Podcast

GSE area

podcast

Faculty mentioned in this article: Dan Schwartz , Denise Pope

��-led study links school environment to brain development

Carrie Spector — Sun, 19 May 2024 21:45:29 +0000

��-led study links school environment to brain development

Carrie Spector Sun, 05/19/2024 - 14:45

A new study finds that children who attend higher-performing schools show greater year-by-year advances in brain development, even those coming from a wide range of socioeconomic environments. (Photo: Allison Shelley for EDUimages)

Brain and Learning Sciences | Child Development | Learning Differences

Researchers found increased white matter development in children from higher-performing schools.

May 21, 2024

By Rebecca Beyer

For decades, researchers have linked differences in school-age children’s brain development to their out-of-school environment, using indirect socioeconomic factors such as parental income and neighborhood characteristics.

In a new paper, researchers from �� Graduate School of Education (GSE) demonstrate for the first time that, even when controlling for those other factors, there is a direct link between a child’s school environment and the development of their white matter, or the network of nerve fibers that allows different parts of the brain to communicate.

In other words, schools that do better than average at promoting learning are showing greater year-by-year advances in brain development, even for students coming from a wide range of socioeconomic environments.

For their study, the authors, including GSE doctoral candidate Ethan Roy, Professor Bruce McCandliss, and Associate Professor Jason Yeatman, leveraged data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, the largest long-term study of brain development and child health in the United States, and the �� Education Data Archive (SEDA), a national database of academic performance developed by the Educational Opportunity Project at �� University.

Their findings show that children who attend higher-performing schools have accelerated white matter development, including in an area of the brain closely associated with reading skills.

Roy said the results, published in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience on April 26, were “striking.”

“What jumped off the page for us is that, even when controlling for things like parental income, parental education, neighborhood context, and household conflict levels, we were still able to observe a significant relationship between the school environment of an individual and growth properties of their brain,” he said.

Filling a gap in learning science research

Yeatman, who along with McCandliss serves as an advisor to Roy, said the study is the first to show how variation in the educational opportunities afforded to children is related to brain development.

“Essentially, two children from similar families who are born on two sides of a school boundary have measurable differences in how their brains wire together,” said Yeatman, who holds a joint faculty appointment at the GSE and �� Medicine, is a faculty affiliate of the �� Accelerator for Learning, and directs the Brain Development & Education Lab and Rapid Online Assessment of Reading.

The study looked at fractional anisotropy, a measure of how water moves through brain tissue and an indication of how insulated, or myelinated, a neuron’s axons are (higher myelination increases the speed of transmission between neurons and is associated with improved learning). The observational results show that fractional anisotropy is directly linked to a school’s national grade equivalence score, or a measure of how third graders from that school perform compared with the national average.

The paper fills a gap in learning science research. Although past studies have linked socioeconomic status to white matter development, they have not been able to focus in on specific attributes of a child’s development, such as the school they attend. Other research — including from Yeatman’s lab — has shown that educational interventions can lead to changes in white matter, but those have been relatively small-scale studies with participants who are not representative of the broader population.

“This is one of the first cases where we can measure the thing we actually care about at the population level,” Yeatman said.

The authors also trained a deep learning model to conduct a global analysis of white matter, finding that children who attend schools with higher SEDA scores had brains that appeared developmentally “more mature” than their chronological age.

A measurable impact

The implications are “potentially game-changing,” said McCandliss, who directs the �� Educational Neuroscience Initiative (SENSI) and is a faculty affiliate of the �� Accelerator for Learning.

“National discussions of the importance of elementary school quality have never before been framed in terms of having a measurable impact on physical brain development of our young children,” he said. “I think this changes the frame of the discussion and decision-making around the impact of inequity.”

The study was only possible because of the comprehensive data included in the ABCD Study and SEDA, the researchers said. McCandliss, an investigator in the ABCD Study, first approached the ABCD team leaders about linking the SEDA data with the ABCD data in 2018, and his SENSI team spent about two years creating the resulting “crosswalk.”

McCandliss called the ABCD study a “dream come true,” and the linked data a way to “finally” answer “elusive questions about how inequities in educational opportunities may actually be changing the course of physical and functional brain development during the vulnerable elementary school years across the nation.”

To analyze the brain white matter from the MRI data included in the ABCD study, the authors used pyAFQ, an open-source software developed by Yeatman’s lab. “It was a really fruitful collaboration across both labs,” Roy said.

The authors hope their methods and the newly linked ABCD and SEDA data, which is now freely available to a community of registered researchers around the world, will allow other scholars to pursue their own ideas and hypotheses at the intersection of education and neuroscience.

Yeatman said the methods and data used in the study will allow researchers to be more precise about environmental factors linked to brain development and the mechanisms behind those connections.

“The environment influences brain development,” he said. “That’s obvious. But what about the environment influences brain development? This is the first step in actually unraveling that specificity.”

Research Stories

daps

ships

split

GSE area

normal

DAPS

SHIPS

Faculty mentioned in this article: Bruce McCandliss , Jason Yeatman

Getting a head start

Carrie Spector — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 21:56:52 +0000

Getting a head start

Carrie Spector Thu, 12/07/2023 - 13:56

A program run by the Brainwave Learning Center engages middle school students in neuroscience research. Here, Simran Thakur and Jackson Rose affix an EEG cap onto a fellow student to observe brain activity in real time. (Photo: Peter DaSilva)

Brain and Learning Sciences | K-12 | Research and Practice

At the Brainwave Learning Center, middle school students work with �� scientists to study how educational experiences affect the brain.

December 14, 2023

By Carrie Spector

Jackson Rose was in seventh grade when he took a class at school that sounded interesting, an elective exploring the science of sleep and its impact on the brain. Two years later, he and a classmate, Caroline Walker, were invited to an international neuroscience conference to share the findings from a research project they helped develop, presenting their work alongside leading scholars and scientists in the field.

How did two teenagers end up exhibiting cutting-edge research at a major scientific conference?

Rose and Walker were students at Synapse School, an independent school in Menlo Park, Calif., that’s also home to the Brainwave Learning Center, a research-practice partnership in collaboration with �� Graduate School of Education (GSE). The on-site lab engages students with neuroscience in the classroom while advancing research in the field, bringing researchers, teachers, and students together to study how young learners’ brains respond to different learning experiences.

The center – which launched in 2019 as part of the Educational Neuroscience Initiative, led by GSE Professor Bruce McCandliss – is a fully integrated part of life at Synapse. �� neuroscientists collaborate with teachers to develop and conduct studies on cognitive development, including math and reading. Students learn about and watch their own brain activity, in real time, during research sessions. Researchers teach a unit on neurobiology for upper-level science classes, and host roundtable discussions for teachers on mind, brain, and education work.

The center also runs an immersive Middle School Research Assistant Program, where seventh- and eighth-grade students learn about research methods, receive training on how to use neuroscience equipment such as electroencephalography (EEG) to observe electrical brain activity, explore their own scientific interests, interact with scientists on a daily basis, and drive independent research projects.

From left: Radhika Gosavi, associate director of the Brainwave Learning Center; former Synapse students Jackson Rose, Arav Ramchandran, Anya Jain, Simran Thakur, Caroline Walker, and Alexandra Lu; and Elizabeth Toomarian, director of the Brainwave Learning Center. (Photo: Peter DaSilva)

Through the program, about 20 Synapse students have been supported in developing research projects over the past two years – which is how Rose and Walker’s work ended up at the 2023 conference of the Flux Society for Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, an influential forum for professional scientists, graduate and postdoctoral students, physicians, and educators.

“Initially, we just thought it might be interesting for the middle school students to get an idea of the scientific method, the type of science we do, and what the field is all about,” said Radhika Gosavi, a trained scientist and associate director of the Brainwave Learning Center, who leads the research assistant program. “But it’s grown into so much more.”

Rose, for one, who has dyslexia, was curious about how a dyslexic brain might interpret information differently from a neurotypical one. As a seventh grader he started exploring studies on audiovisual integration – how the brain combines sounds and images, which early research suggests may differ between dyslexic and neurotypical thinkers. He worked closely with Gosavi to understand the scientific literature, shape research questions, and design an EEG study.

Then Rose and Walker, who joined the program the following year, were introduced to Lindsey Hasak, a GSE doctoral candidate whose research focuses on audiovisual integration in the process of reading. “I’d worked on the proof of concept for a few years of my PhD with neurotypical adults, and because of the students’ interest, we were able to expand the scope of the study,” Hasak said.

Rose and Walker recruited a study sample of fellow students with and without dyslexia, learned all the steps involved in an EEG experiment, and carried out the research using ethical protocols. The Brainwave Learning Center team worked with them to analyze the data, which shows differences in brain activity between those with and without dyslexia.

Caroline Walker (left) and Jackson Rose (right) discuss their research with Priscilla Zhao during a research showcase at Synapse School in 2023.

To give students the experience of presenting their work to an audience, the Brainwave Learning Center hosts a showcase at the end of each school year, drawing members of the school community, �� researchers, and others interested in educational neuroscience, including philanthropic organizations.

Students also submit their projects to local science fairs, and in 2023, three teams from the Middle School Research Assistant Program placed first or second in their category at the San Mateo County STEM Fair. One team went on to win first place in the cognitive science category at the California Science and Engineering Fair and qualified to submit their project to the Scientific Juniors Innovators Challenge, a national competition for middle school students.

The center also submitted the project Rose and Walker worked on to the Flux Society’s 2023 conference. Their submission was accepted – an accomplishment itself for any scientist – and Rose went to the event to present it at the poster session (Walker was unable to attend).

Their poster, one of more than 130 at the conference, won the society’s annual member’s choice award.

The research assistant program may introduce middle school students to the scientific method, Gosavi said, but its lessons aren’t only for aspiring scientists.

“Yes, the kids are learning science and scientific methodology. They’re coming up with creative ideas for research projects, and they’re winning science fairs and presenting at conferences,” she said. “But there’s also so much value added to their journey as a learner. When kids understand more about how their brain learns, it gives them a different perspective on the learning process, and a sense of ownership over that process.”

Rose has no idea whether he’ll pursue a career in science, but he agreed that the program had an impact well beyond the technical skills he developed. “Knowing how the brain works has absolutely changed the way I think about learning,” he said. “I could see myself as a learner in a way that I never saw before.”

Research Stories

daps

split

GSE area

normal

DAPS

��-led center honored for innovation in educational neuroscience

Carrie Spector — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 01:55:50 +0000

��-led center honored for innovation in educational neuroscience

Carrie Spector Wed, 12/14/2022 - 17:55

At the Brainwave Learning Center at Synapse School, students engage with neuroscience lessons in the classroom while �� researchers advance research in the field. (Photo: Peter DaSilva)

Announcements | Awards | Brain and Learning Sciences

The Brainwave Learning Center is recognized for creating infrastructure that enhances collaboration in the field.

December 15, 2022

The Brainwave Learning Center (BLC), a collaboration between �� University and Synapse School in Menlo Park, Calif., has been recognized with a 2022 award from the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society (IMBES).

The center, which is embedded at Synapse and part of the Educational Neuroscience Initiative at �� Graduate School of Education (GSE), brings together researchers, teachers, and students to explore the impact of educational experiences on brain development. Through the partnership, �� researchers engage elementary and middle school students with neuroscience in the classroom while advancing research in the field.

Selected among educators, institutions, and programs worldwide, the center was honored for best exemplifying IMBES’ central mission: to facilitate cross-cultural collaboration in biology, education, and the cognitive and developmental sciences. The award recognized the center for building infrastructure that enhances collaboration to improve educational research and practice.

“The BLC model offers a powerful example for MBE [mind, brain, and education] work in authentic learning environments, exemplifying how bidirectional collaboration between researchers and practitioners can support research, teaching, and learning,” said Stephan Vogel, an associate professor at the University of Graz, who presented the award at a ceremony at the society’s biennial meeting in Montreal in July.

“We’ve been very intentional about building connections between our researchers, teachers, students, and families, and this has allowed us to explore scientific questions in ways that just weren’t possible before,” said Elizabeth Toomarian, a �� researcher and director of the BLC. "It’s a tremendous honor to be recognized by IMBES for this translational work."

The BLC, established in 2019, explores how changes in the brain's neurocircuitry support emerging skills that are foundational to education such as reading, math, and attention. Students in kindergarten through eighth grade engage with neuroscience through lessons and activities developed by researchers and Synapse teachers, while researchers learn about brain development. At the same time, Synapse students get to see scientists in action, formulating research questions and using state-of-the-art equipment to try to answer them.

The center “provides an important example of how to address the longstanding MBE challenge of actually working at the intersection of mind, brain, and education,” said Courtney Pollack,a cognitive neuroscientist who nominated the center for the award. “The BLC is truly exceptional in both harnessing and moving beyond the traditional institutional partnership model, trailblazing an innovative new infrastructure for MBE work.”

GSE News

split

GSE area

school_news

Faculty mentioned in this article: Bruce McCandliss

�� Education Professor Roy Pea honored for achievements in learning sciences

Brooke Donald Gorlick — Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:22:40 +0000

�� Education Professor Roy Pea honored for achievements in learning sciences

Brooke Donald … Tue, 09/27/2022 - 17:22

�� Professor Roy Pea won the 2022 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education.

Awards | Brain and Learning Sciences

Pea, who focuses on research, tools and social practices of technology-advanced learning, won the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education

September 27, 2022

�� Graduate School of Education Professor Roy Pea was among the 2022 winners of the prestigious Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education.

The award, announced Sept. 27 by the McGraw Family Foundation and the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education, recognized Pea’s extraordinary achievements in the learning sciences. Cheryl Logan, superintendent of Omaha Public Schools, and Barry Dunn, president of South Dakota State University, also were recognized for K-12 and university education, respectively.

"The McGraw Prize was established in 1988 to honor my father's commitment to literacy and education and to shine a spotlight on innovative and dedicated educators who empower our students and enhance our society,” said Harold McGraw III, former Chairman, CEO and President of The McGraw-Hill Companies. “I salute this year's winners -- Cheryl Logan, Barry Dunn and Roy Pea -- who meet the highest standards of excellence and who have changed the lives of so many by their leadership and passion."

The 2022 winners:

Learning Science Research Prize: Dr. Roy Pea’s work to enhance learning for people of all backgrounds and circumstances has been propelled by a spirit of innovation, impact and leadership lauded by the McGraw Prize. At �� University, he was the director of the H-STAR Institute and co-director and co-principal investigator of the LIFE Center. Pea’s body of work is vast; he has built training programs in learning technology and design at universities, created research partnerships, and developed professional development programs for teachers and K–12 learning technologies. He is a past president of the International Society for the Learning Sciences and co-author of the 2010 National Education Technology Plan for the U.S. Department of Education.
Pre-K–12 Education Prize: Dr. Cheryl Logan, superintendent of Omaha Public Schools since 2018, has spent her career building engagement and alignment among all the key stakeholders in student success. Her innovative leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and commitment to providing opportunities for students to achieve their highest potential embody the essence of the McGraw Prize. Logan led the district through a groundbreaking SARS-CoV-2 testing pilot study with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, enabling Omaha to be one of the first large, urban school districts in the nation to return to in-person learning in 2020.
Higher Education Prize: Dr. Barry Dunn’s work to improve college access for Native Americans advances the principles of equity and inclusion and demonstrates the power of education to elevate human potential, two core principles of the McGraw Prize. Dunn is president of South Dakota State University, where he created the Wokini Initiative to increase programming and support for students from South Dakota’s nine tribal nations. He was also instrumental in advocating for a new federally funded grant program for tribal students at 22 land grant universities and tribal universities.

“These inspiring education leaders have changed the lives of so many individuals through their work. Each represents the best in our field and what it means to be an educator. Their impact is profound, and we are so proud to honor their outstanding contributions,” said Pam Grossman, dean of Penn GSE and a leading expert on teacher quality.

The Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Family Foundation selected Penn GSE as the home for the McGraw Prize in 2020. The partnership includes administering the annual prize, an awards ceremony and celebration in November and ongoing programming with more than 100 past winners, including symposiums and a webinar series.

Through a public nomination process, McGraw Prize awardees were submitted for consideration by their peers, with winners then selected during three rounds of judging, including a final round by an independent panel of esteemed leaders in the field. Past winners have included teachers, professors, superintendents, university presidents, non-profit leaders, entrepreneurs and public officials.

___

This story was adapted from the press release posted at University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.

GSE News

split

GSE area

school_news

Faculty mentioned in this article: Roy Pea

New online tool developed by �� researchers helps schools spot struggling readers in a fraction of the usual time

Carrie Spector — Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:58:06 +0000

New online tool developed by �� researchers helps schools spot struggling readers in a fraction of the usual time

Carrie Spector Wed, 06/08/2022 - 12:58

A new online tool allows school districts to assess their entire student population for struggling readers in the time it currently takes to run a standard assessment on a single student. (Photo: Kurt Hickman)

Brain and Learning Sciences | K-12 | Language and Literacy

�� researchers are working with local schools to transform a pandemic workaround into a tool for screening students with reading difficulties.

June 9, 2022

By Carrie Spector

Identifying struggling young readers can be a time-consuming and costly task for schools, requiring a teacher or reading specialist to sit with students one-on-one to gauge their proficiency as the child reads aloud.

A new online tool developed at a �� lab lifts that burden without compromising any of the reliability of one-to-one assessments while advancing research into why some kids have trouble with reading in the first place.

The Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR), developed at the Brain Development & Education Lab at ��, introduces a way for school districts to assess their entire student population for struggling readers in the time it currently takes to run a standard assessment on a single student.

In addition to giving teachers useful insight into the challenges a particular student faces, the collective data generated by the assessment is helping to further the lab’s research into factors linked to learning differences in young readers.

“With the ROAR, schools and clinics can assess and monitor kids’ progress at a scale that just wasn’t possible before,” said Jason Yeatman, an assistant professor at �� Graduate School of Education (GSE) and the School of Medicine, who directs the Brain Development & Education Lab. “And because the tool is tied to research that’s ongoing, it gives us data that can answer a lot of questions about the mechanisms of reading development – data that can help us understand why some kids struggle and others don’t.”

"The hope is that, as we begin to understand the barriers for some kids, we can develop targeted interventions."

Jason Yeatman

Assistant Professor, �� Graduate School of Education and the School of Medicine

A pandemic workaround takes off

The ROAR actually originated as a COVID-19 research workaround for the lab, where Yeatman and his team study the mechanisms in the brain that underlie learning.

One focus of the lab is to develop interventions for young children with dyslexia, research that relies on brain imaging studies to observe the effects an intervention has on the brain. That work includes developing targeted measures to evaluate a child’s growth in specific reading skills.

“All of this requires working in close, one-on-one or small group settings with children,” said Yeatman. “When the pandemic hit, with all of its uncertainty, we realized that we needed to come up with some new innovations in order to continue pushing our research forward.”

The researchers thought an online assessment might function reasonably well in place of the standardized in-person version they had been using, and they developed a prototype of the ROAR. Subsequent validation studies showed a remarkably high-reliability rate: Scores generated by the ROAR correlated strongly with those from standardized in-person screenings, including the Woodcock-Johnson assessment of basic reading skills, widely considered the gold standard.

“The correlation was almost perfect, meaning these measures are tapping into a very similar construct,” said Yeatman. “Honestly, we didn’t expect it to work as well as it did.”

Meanwhile, Yeatman and his team had been working with local school officials around new California guidelines issued to help teachers identify and support students with dyslexia. That relationship – developed through the ��-Sequoia K-12 Research Collaborative, a partnership launched in 2018 to connect GSE researchers with San Mateo County school districts to explore challenges facing the districts – laid the groundwork for helping to pilot and refine the ROAR.

“We’d had a lot of conversations [with Yeatman] about how we could get more data, where we could find a good universal screener, how to go about implementing the guidelines – we learned a lot from him and his team,” said Marta Batlle, student services director at the Woodside School District, one of the districts in the collaborative. “When they asked if we wanted to partner to administer the ROAR, we were really interested in having more data, and we wanted to be part of the research process.”

Making a game of it

The ROAR, which runs on any web browser, launched with an assessment that measures students’ ability to quickly recognize words, a foundational skill for reading fluency and comprehension. It’s designed to feel like a computer game, with cartoon-like characters walking students through the activity and encouraging them along the way. A mix of actual and made-up words flash on the screen; the student’s task is to determine whether each word is real or not.

“The kids love it,” Batlle said. “They’re engaged, and they want to do it.”

Students as young as first-graders can do the assessment on their own, in the classroom or at home.

The lab collaborated closely with school leaders to develop interactive score reports for the educators, providing statistics and visualizations from the district level down to individual classrooms and students.

“The reports provide immediate, actionable data back to reading specialists and teachers, right after students have taken the ROAR,” said Amy Burkhardt, director of research and partnerships at the Brain Development & Education Lab. (The scores are stripped of any identifying student data for ��’s use.)

“With the ROAR, we got a measure for every student in the classroom in about the same amount of time it takes us to administer our usual screener with one child,” said Ching-Pei Hu, assistant superintendent at the Belmont-Redwood Shores School District, another district in the ��-Sequoia K-12 Research Collaborative that worked with �� to pilot the ROAR. “It’s fast, it’s efficient, and it was reliable in giving us a baseline of who we need to dig into some more.”

Looking ahead

As they work with schools and clinics to refine the ROAR’s tool for assessing single-word recognition, Yeatman and his team are developing others for more complex reading skills, including phonological awareness (the ability to recognize and manipulate sounds) and the ability to silently read and understand full sentences quickly and accurately.

Through pilot funding from ��’s Office of Community Engagement, the team recently expanded their research collaborations to include KIPP Schools of Northern California. The lab is also collaborating with the Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics clinic in the �� School of Medicine to explore the use of these assessments as a screener for children with learning differences who enter �� Hospitals and Clinics.

Beyond providing a practical tool for clinicians and educators and a better understanding of learning differences, the researchers hope the data generated by the ROAR will ultimately help in developing tailored approaches to help struggling readers.

“You can see kids from the same background – the same families, even – entering kindergarten, where they learn how letters can be combined to make words and represent human language,” said Yeatman. “Some kids dive right into that and they’re suddenly reading, but others struggle deeply for many years to learn this mapping, to make it automatic, to be able to use written language as a fluid form of communication. We’re trying to understand the difference – and the hope is that as we begin to understand the barriers for some kids, we can develop targeted interventions.”

The Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR) is among the projects of the initiative on Learning Differences and the Future of Special Education at �� Graduate School of Education. The �� Transforming Learning Accelerator, which creates and delivers new learning solutions, helped facilitate the use of the ROAR with schools and other partners.

Early funding for the tool was provided through a Neuroscience:Translate award from the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute at ��.

Research Stories

split

GSE area

normal

Faculty mentioned in this article: Jason Yeatman

Brain and Learning Sciences

Revolutionizing dyslexia screening: Technology to empower teachers

Reimagining education in the age of longevity

Learning design: AI and machine learning for the adult learner

The education marketplace: How to make edtech more effective

Youth mental health: Teaching (and learning) empathy

������������-led study links school environment to brain development

Filling a gap in learning science research

A measurable impact

Getting a head start

������������-led center honored for innovation in educational neuroscience

������������ Education Professor Roy Pea honored for achievements in learning sciences

New online tool developed by ������������ researchers helps schools spot struggling readers in a fraction of the usual time

��-led study links school environment to brain development

��-led center honored for innovation in educational neuroscience

�� Education Professor Roy Pea honored for achievements in learning sciences

New online tool developed by �� researchers helps schools spot struggling readers in a fraction of the usual time