Surface and Deep Processing: Cognitive Behaviors of Aha! Moments (Part II)

Surface and Deep Processing: Cognitive Behaviors of Aha! Moments (Part II)

This article is a continuation of a research entry from the May 24, 2021 edition:

The spectrum of early research on insight ranges from observing changes in behavior and understanding psychological patterns that influence learning (Bühler, 1907; Duncker & Lee, 1945; Wallas, 1926), to the present and how insight is a unique form of learning. There are a number of theories on insight; at present, no one theory dominates interpretation (Kounios & Beeman, 2015; Sternberg 1996). In spite of differences between theories, they share two principles: (a) sudden, conscious change in a person’s representation of a stimulus, situation, event, or problem (Davidson, 1995; Kaplan & Simon, 1990), and (b) the change occurs unexpectedly (Jung-Beeman, et al., 2004; Kounios & Beeman, 2014; Metcalfe, 1986). Further, a strong correlation has been demonstrated between moments of insight and increased engagement in learning, positive boost in mood, and greater likelihood of more moments of insight (Kizilirmak, Da Silva, Imamoglu, & Richardson-Klavehn, 2016; Kounios & Beeman, 2014). Aha! moments have been shown to increase and enhance memory performance (Ash, Jee, & Wiley, 2012; Auble, Franks, & Soraci, 1979; Danek, Fraps, von Müller, Grothe, & Öllinger, 2013; Dominowski & Buyer, 2000; Kizilirmak, Da Silva, Imamoglu, & Richardson- Klavehn, 2016), reliably grounded on insight’s proven ability to, “comprise associative novelty, schema, congruency, and intrinsic reward” (Kizilirmak et al., 2016, p. 1).

The observation and categorization of these moments can also be a source of valuable information for theorists and educators. Crocker and Algina (1986) demonstrate this operationalization in order to, “establish some rule of correspondence between the theoretical construct and observable behaviors that are legitimate indicators” (p. 4). The suddenness of Aha! moments makes observing behavioral changes (and subsequent changes in understanding) more dramatic and pronounced, as opposed to more gradual and deductively reasoned outcomes. Baker, Goldstein, and Heffernan (2010) have observed this distinction by studying the precise moment when understanding changes – graphing the precise moment of learning in humans. Baker et al. (2010) diagram the shift in surface to deep processing by showing the, “differences between gradual learning (such as strengthening of a memory association) and learning given to ‘eureka’ moments, where a knowledge component is understood suddenly” (p. 13).

Figure 5. A Single Student’s Performance on a Specific Knowledge Concept (Baker et al., 2010, p. 13)

Baker et al. explain that, “entering a common multiple” (left, Figure 5) results in a “spiky” graph, indicating eureka learning, while “identifying the converted value in the problem statement of a scaling problem” (right, Figure 5) results in a relatively smooth graph, indicating more gradual learning (p. 14).

Another important implication to consider is that deep processing seems to create greater investment in learning, along with more positive outcomes for students. Dolmans, Loyens, Marcq, and Gijbels (2016) have reviewed 21 different studies that reported on surface and deep processing strategies in relation to problem-based learning, and concluded that students using deep processing strategies use, “the freedom to select their own resources to answer the learning issues, which gives them ownership over their learning” (p. 1097). This ownership suggests a strong link between intrinsic and autonomous motivation, resulting in stronger and longer-lasting outcomes. Dolmans et al. also report that surface learning strategies with problem-based learning had a similar negative effect, stating:

a high perceived workload will more likely result in surface approaches to studying and might be detrimental for deep learning. Students who perceive the workload as high in their learning environment are more likely to display a lack of interest in their studies as well as exhaustion. This is particularly true for beginning [problem-based learning] students. (p. 1097)

““If we get the deep processing, we almost always get the surface, but with much richer and rewarding outcomes!””

— J. Littlejohn, Elementary School Math Instructor

The meta-analysis concluded by affirming these positive deep processing outcomes do not come at the cost of the various surface processing benefits (p. 1097). Deep processing strategies employed by learners have also been shown to boost long-term recall of information and wider conceptual understanding. Jensen, McDaniel, Woodard, and Kummer (2014) report that learners who utilized deep processing learning strategies while preparing for high-level assessments (i.e., problem solving, analysis, and evaluation) performed better than students that did not, and these students retained a, “deep conceptual understanding of the material and better memory for the course information” (p. 307). Jensen et al. (2014) have found that this higher level of cognitive processing and understanding also made transfer-appropriate processing more likely. This conclusion is supported by similar research conducted on learners using deep processing strategies and motivated by deeper conceptual understanding (Carpenter, 2012; Fisher & Craik, 1977; McDaniel, Friedman, & Bourne, 1978; McDaniel, Thomas, Agarwal, McDermott, & Roediger, 2013). Students using transfer-appropriate processing outcomes showed improved mastery and conceptual development greater than surface strategies and beyond the at-hand assessment; the gains were greater in current work and also in future assessments utilizing deep processing strategies. This developed processing strategy offers learners the greatest advantage in future outcomes. Studying Aha! moments in learning makes understanding surface processing and shifts into deep processing more probable, and the transfer-appropriate advantages more common, offering teachers a tremendous perspective into how to best develop pedagogy.

Surface and Deep Processing: Cognitive Behaviors of Aha! Moments (Part I)

Surface and Deep Processing: Cognitive Behaviors of Aha! Moments

Marton and Säljö (1976) have produced a hierarchy for different levels of learning in order to determine, “processes and strategies for learning to be examined” (p. 1). Marton and Säljö were motivated to understand more than what a student may have learned, they were interested in understanding how much was learned. Marton and Säljö are the first to have produced surface-level and deep-level processing definitions and formulated research outcomes.

Hattie and Purdie (1998) sum up varying studies on both styles of processing and showed that surface approaches in learning, “involves minimum engagement with the task and typically focuses on memorization” (p. 4), with a key indicator being that learners reflect little or not at all on concepts, while a deep-level thinking approach “involves an intention to understand and impose meaning” (p. 4). A consistent aspect reported with deep-level thinking is the relationship students seek between concepts, creating more of, “an intrinsic interest in learning and understanding” (p. 4). Dinsmore and Alexander (2012) have reported on prevailing assumptions surrounding the notions of deep and surface processing. It is commonly believed that deep processing, “promotes better learning outcomes, while surface processing promotes weaker learning outcomes” (p. 500). The most easily traced outcomes include limited recall and reproduction of content information, new concepts described anecdotally, and memorization or non- prioritized listings of facts. This style of processing places greater emphasis on learning for the sake of information regurgitation. Deep processing strategies are defined largely by a learner’s comprehension of materials, “together with the process of relating and structuring ideas, looking for underlying principles, weighing relevant evidence, and critically evaluating knowledge” (Dolmans, et al., 2016, p. 1089).

Contrary to the judgments typically attached to the comparisons of surface-level vs. deep-level processing, a number of theorists have convincingly argued against a value-laden dichotomy, and that both forms of processing are equally important and necessary for learning, each offering unique advantages. An example of the favoring of deep-level over surface-level processing is found in Jay, Caldwell-Harris, and King (2008), who state that, “a shallow level of processing is one in which only superficial or physical aspects are encoded. A deeper level of processing takes more time and effort to activate the semantic meaning of stimulus” (p. 85). Jay et al. (2008) report also that surface learning often, “results in poor recall,” and that concepts that receive deeper levels of processing, “persist longer” (p. 85). However, it is important to recognize that by better understanding the relationship of surface and deep processing, teaching practice can be more positively informed and learning outcomes may be improved. This can be accomplished by studying how surface or deep processing assists or inhibits learning in a variety of contexts.

As Dinsmore and Alexander (2016) report, “the most advantageous level of processing for two individuals may not be or perhaps should not be the same but should depend on their stage of development [of concepts] and their performance goals” (p. 214). This challenges the assumptions that deep processing is always a stronger approach for outcomes and that the development of surface processing is invariably weaker. Alexander and Judy (1988, p. 391) have demonstrated that, “knowledge and strategic processing were inextricably intertwined [and that]... processing cannot be addressed in isolation” (Dinsmore & Alexander, 2016, p. 214). The elected processing approach, whether surface-level or deep-level, is utilized based upon a learner’s goals and nature of the learning activity (Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001; Entwistle & McCune 2004; Lonka & Lindblom-Ylånne 1996; Loyens, Gijbels, Coertjens, & Côté, 2013). However, evidence is inconsistent, and definitions and methods of studying the processes are sometimes ambiguous, and attempts to codify processes for reporting are, to date, incongruent (Block, 2009; Dinsmore, Alexander & Loughlin, 2008; Heijne-Penninga, Kuks, Hofman & Cohen-Schotanus, 2008; Murphy & Alexander, 2002).

Aha! moments, which can also be understood as moments of insight, could arguably indicate the point at which surface processing begins to transform into deep processing. A number of studies have identified insight as its own unique form of learning, and have argued that insight-learning has an effect on the higher executive functioning of the mind (Kounios & Beeman, 2015). It has been shown that when students are engaged in insight learning experiences and also succeed in solving problems in this way that there is a noticeable increase in long term memory (Cranford & Moss, 2012), and the production of a positive emotional state (Ekman, 2006; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Further, it has also been shown that strong, positive learning habits are reinforced when students experience Aha! moments (Kounios & Beeman, 2014; Mednick, 1962).

Modern research on insight and how sudden changes in cognition influences learning dates back to the early twentieth century (Wallas, 1926). Dr. Karl Bühler (1907) coined the phrase “Aha- Erlebnis,” or translated: Aha-Experience. Bühler used this phrase to describe a moment in learning when “suddenly, the lights come on!” (p. 341). Bühler was extremely curious about the cognitive connections that were made, and how learning changed, as the result of Aha-Erlebnis. Bühler states,

it is clear that our AHA-experience leads us always to the deeper sense/meaning; you could say that this deeper understanding/comprehension may always be preceded by a “shallow” or superficial comprehension – just understanding the meaning of the words – and that constitutes the preliminary whole... but we would [now] have the whole thing... where we can prove it, at the deeper understanding, made comprehensible. (p. 16)

The spectrum of early research on insight ranges from observing changes in behavior and understanding psychological patterns that influence learning (Bühler, 1907; Duncker & Lee, 1945; Wallas, 1926), to the present and how insight is a unique form of learning. There are a number of theories on insight; at present, no one theory dominates interpretation (Kounios & Beeman, 2015; Sternberg 1996). In spite of differences between theories, they share two principles: (a) sudden, conscious change in a person’s representation of a stimulus, situation, event, or problem (Davidson, 1995; Kaplan & Simon, 1990), and (b) the change occurs unexpectedly (Jung-Beeman, et al., 2004; Kounios & Beeman, 2014; Metcalfe, 1986). Further, a strong correlation has been demonstrated between moments of insight and increased engagement in learning, positive boost in mood, and greater likelihood of more moments of insight (Kizilirmak, Da Silva, Imamoglu, & Richardson-Klavehn, 2016; Kounios & Beeman, 2014). Aha! moments have been shown to increase and enhance memory performance (Ash, Jee, & Wiley, 2012; Auble, Franks, & Soraci, 1979; Danek, Fraps, von Müller, Grothe, & Öllinger, 2013; Dominowski & Buyer, 2000; Kizilirmak, Da Silva, Imamoglu, & Richardson- Klavehn, 2016), reliably grounded on insight’s proven ability to, “comprise associative novelty, schema, congruency, and intrinsic reward” (Kizilirmak et al., 2016, p. 1).

Check back soon for Part 2!

“The information given ”...were alone, completely insufficient to answer the question.””

— M. Franklin, Secondary School Science Teacher

Aha! in Action: Ms. Marks (#3)

Aha! in Action!

Ms. Marks has seven years professional teaching experience in private and charter schools, in New York City, and in Houston, Texas. Ms. Marks wrote about her Aha! experience with a sophomore writer. Marks states, “I observed an Aha! moment that changed the way I view introverts and challenged my beliefs about the speed with which students can progress academically and behaviorally.” The student she refers to transferred into this high school after the beginning of the school year, and the student came with a reputation for being, “a stereotypical jock and a weak, ‘lazy’ student.” The student performed quite poorly in class and was improperly developing his writing style, “dump[ing] quotations into his paragraphs without any context, his analysis was superficial, and his syntax simple and repetitive.” Ms. Marks offered much written feedback, but despite her efforts, nothing appeared to be working. Like many teachers, Ms. Marks admitted that, “it didn't seem like I could reach him.”

When working with this student a bit later into the term, Ms. Marks witnessed something remarkable. She writes,

I focused on one morsel of analysis and praised him for his unique insight into the text; then, I pressed him to go a little deeper. His face lit up – he “took the bait” and was now willing to partake in the Socratic process. His responses to my questioning absolutely blew me away. This kid was sharp and capable! He paused for a second, and said-- this thesis is not very good. And then he paused for a few more seconds and had his second light bulb moment-- he knew what his new thesis should be.

This Aha! moment was the beginning of a series of improvements this student made, each taking fundamental principals a bit further. Ms. Marks was eager to share that, “by the end of the year, he was performing at an A level and was one of my strongest writers!” The experiences of both student and teacher speak to important preconditions in this transformative experience. It is likely that as a new student to a school, beginning later in the year and not at an entry grade level, many insecurities prohibited this student from fully expressing their need and desire for assistance. Ms. Marks mentions stereotypes which suggest other teachers may have been dismissive of this student’s potential. What is interesting here is that Ms. Marks refused to see the situation in this manner, not allowing stereotypes or a student’s limited belief of themselves, to create the final outcome.

Ms. Marks continued to search for leverage, looking to find the special bait that might convert this student’s thinking and beliefs into something more. A morsel of success was met with praise, which allowed for inquiry to go deeper, an Aha! moment to be experienced, and the foundation for heartier Socratic questioning to develop into new patterns of behavior and success to emerge. Note here the teacher’s belief throughout that this student was fully capable to meet the challenge of the class, and yet something more was necessary to truly spark the inner genius of this student.

What’s your Aha!?! Share below and maybe your remarkable story will be featured in a future post.

Now You See Me, Now You Don't: The Hidden Truth In Our Faces!

Facial Expression and Emotion (and the hidden truth of our faces)

Paul Ekman (1993) examines cross-cultural research on facial expression, seeking to elucidate further understanding about four key questions: (1) “What information does an expression typically convey? (2) Can there be emotion without facial expression? (3) Can there be a facial expression of emotion without emotion? (4) How do individuals differ in their facial expressions of emotion?” (p. 384) Ekman reaffirms the cross-cultural agreement on six primary areas of universal categorization of facial expression: fear, anger, disgust, sadness, and enjoyment. Ekman also makes clear that further research is necessary to explain, “the question of what the face can signal, not what information it typically does signal” (p. 387). Important to this research is Ekman’s assertion that, “facial expressions are more likely to occur when someone sees or hears a dynamic (moving) event and the beginning of the event is marked rather than very slow and gradual” (p. 388). Ekman claims that sometimes the only expression of emotion a person may exhibit might come from an area of the body other than the face, such as, “the voice, posture, or other bodily action” (p. 388). Ekman goes further by claiming that there is a possibility for an emotion to transpire without a facial or observable change in expression (p. 389). It may be that in situations where someone shows little or no observable change in expression that the emotional connection is weak, not present at all, or not entirely transferable to the person being observed. It is important to note that change may indeed be occurring, but these changes may be sub-visible, taking place at the micro-muscular level, indicating autonomic nervous system activity that is only detectable through sophisticated measurements with electromyography (EMG) sensors. Tomkins (1963) reports that facial activity is always part of an emotion, even when its appearance is inhibited. This could be based on cultural differences or any variety of other factors. The intensity of the emotional reception is somewhat correlated with the fidelity of the expression.

Ekman (1985/2009, 1992, 1993) reports that individuals can experience emotion without observable changes in facial expression. Sometimes a person will respond to a stimulus with a head nod, a clenched fist, change in posture, or by walking toward or away from a situation. Even more intriguing is the change in expression that can be communicated through spoken words and audible vocalizations (i.e., moans, screams, or sighs), without necessarily expressing a visible change in the face. Ekman (1993) shows that it is equally true that a person can fabricate an expression of emotion without actually feeling an emotion (p. 390). Ekman states that, “although false expressions are intended to mislead another person into thinking an emotion is felt when it is not, referential expressions are not intended to deceive” (p. 390). It is most common to use referential expressions when referring to previous emotional experiences, specifically not experiences being felt currently. Examples of false emotional expressions aside from referential expressions are generally understood to be examples of deception. Efforts to deceive can be harmful or beneficial. A lie can conceal an important truth that harms a person in some manner. However, a lie can also allow a comedian to deliver a punchline at the appropriate time to maximize the intended comical effect, or give someone the courage to push past their fears when facing the insurmountable task of asking someone else to be their Valentine. The key is to fabricate expressions without specific emotional impetus.

Facial Action Coding System

Ekman and Friesen (1978/2002) published the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) manual, with a robust revision in 2002. This publication is a comprehensive guide for measuring facial expressions and behaviors. The manual includes the complete 527-page guide to various facial expressions, a 197-page investigator’s guide, a score checker protocol (included for the FACS test, published and sold separately), and a variety of example photos and videos are also included. The manual is a comprehensive system for describing all observable facial movements; it breaks down facial expressions into individual components of muscle movements that represent changes in behavior and emotional response to a given stimulus. Subsequent publications have featured subtle and microexpressions. Whether you can see them or not, there are a great many truths hidden in the expressions of our faces. Are you looking closely enough to find them?!

Historical Instances of Measurement and Intervention in U.S. Schools (Part II)

Historical Instances of Measurement and Intervention in U.S. Schools (Part II)

this article is a continuation of a research entry from the July 30, 2019 edition:

The last two decades of the twentieth century brought greater influence from the federal government, along with greater potential for teachers to become more involved in decisions that might positively affect student outcomes. The Coleman Report, A Nation at Risk, as well as subsequent federal interventions in schools have led to further reform and legislation, but not until Public Law 107 – 110, commonly referred to as No Child Left Behind, did the federal government establish such a dominant presence and focused concern with measurable outcomes. In 2001, the law was introduced to Congress as, “an act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2002, p. 1). The legislation was in effect until a bipartisan congress stripped away the federal requirements in 2015. This law focused on standards- based reforms in education, based on the belief that by setting high standards, making outcomes for students ambitious and clear, creating and monitoring measurable goals, schools and the students within them would experience greater, more consistent achievement (NCLB, 2002). All of these improvements are based on an understanding that the role of teachers would be a primary driver for positive change. In fact, the bill requires schools to attract, retain, and develop, “highly qualified” teachers. This phrase is used more than 60 times throughout the document (NCLB, 2002).

What was most promising about this legislation was the intent to open pathways for creative, innovative, and inspired teacher practices to promote learning outcomes. Thoughtful critics of the law such as Darling-Hammond (2007) acknowledge the potential in NCLB:

While recent studies have found that teacher quality is a critical influence on student achievement, teachers are the most inequitably distributed school resource. This first-time-ever recognition of students’ right to qualified teachers is historically significant. (p. 2)

Highly qualified teachers were the intended change-agents of the hoped-for successes in NCLB, with districts being charged with,

teacher mentoring from exemplary teachers, [...] induction and support for teachers, [...] incentives, including financial incentives, [...] innovative professional development programs, [...] tenure reform, merit-based pay programs, and testing of elementary school and secondary school teachers in the academic subjects that the teachers teach. (p. 1632)

However, where federal measures aimed to reverse negative trends and improve student outcomes, the emphasis on quality teachers and teaching quality still did not receive the attention necessary to dramatically increase student achievement and narrow the achievement gap in American schools. Generally speaking, critics have pointed out that the implementation of the law was in many respects counterproductive because it (a) did not adequately account for accumulated effects of mismanaged or underfunded schools, (b) narrowed the curriculum, precisely the opposite of what sensitive and nimble teaching practices ought to do when adjusting to students in their particular situations, and (c) brought too much focus upon testing and other measurement mechanisms. The most explicit feature of the law were the unpopular standardized tests, along with tactics like “drill and kill” for test preparation, which displaced creative attempts to nurture student learning and cognitive potential (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Dee & Jacob, 201; Hanushek & Raymond, 2005; Ladd & Lauen, 2010; Rustique-Forrester, 2005; Sunderman, Tracey, Kim & Orfield 2004).

Instead of placing teachers at the center of processes for better informing learning outcomes, and placing greater emphasis on surface, deep, and transfer-appropriate thinking strategies, schools and the teachers within them succumbed to the symptoms of surface processing, short-term memorization prioritization, and the hostile environment of overtaxing students with tests (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Rather than removing barriers that continue to obstruct learning potential in schools and open more opportunities for creative thinking, more frequent Aha! experiences, as well as more holistic means of supporting the development of a child’s full potential, the American education system remained unchanged from its former industrial model of generalized goals accompanied by generalized processes.

Aha! in Action: Ms. Holmes (#2)

Ms. Holmes has 25 years of professional teaching experience, working as an adjunct professor in a university, a private and public elementary, middle, and high school teacher in southern Maine, rural northern Maine, New Hampshire, Boston, Massachusetts, and now in Houston, Texas. Ms. Holmes was emphatic in her narrative about a particular story during her first year of teaching in Houston, Texas, which occurred 9 years ago. Ms. Holmes had a beginning photography class, “full of senior boys who were taking their last arts credit in order to graduate.” Holmes recalls her transformative Aha! with her students:

The “moment” came when a student, who was considered to be problematic and barely passing his academic classes, looked at the first roll of film he had just processed. The film was perfectly exposed, rolled and processed, he the only kid in class who had not made one mistake. He was so amazed that he had earned the title “Best in Class,” something he hadn't experienced in [high school], it changed everything. He took film home every night to take photos just for fun, not for an assignment, and would come to tutorials (after school support) once a week to work in the darkroom. None of his other teachers believed me when I told them he was my favorite student and the hardest working kid in all of my classes. It changed the way I looked at each kid!

Ms. Holmes was clearly impacted by this moment, and the positive effect has transformed her current practice. She writes,

I now take each kid at face value and ignore any negative feedback from other teachers (even though the teachers mean well and are giving me “insider information” so that I'm [supposedly] prepared). I take every chance I can to celebrate the small successes along the way for each student, and to help them realize that practice makes you better when they are disappointed in a failure.

Ms. Holmes’ innocent faith in her student provided the necessary preconditions for the project to develop, for without this grace, the student clearly would have followed similar habits formed with other teachers. Further, her continued insistence with colleagues provided a metaphorical wall and created a secure environment for exploration and development of the student’s work. More than informing their different independent approaches, in this case the student and the teacher became codependent authors of their mutual successes. One needed the other, and neither would have experienced an Aha! moment without the belief that arose from the other. Way to go, Ms. Holmes. Your inspired story is another amazing Aha! in Action!

“...it changed the way I looked at each kid!”

— Ms. Holmes

Engagement: A Cognitive Catalyst! (Part I)

Engagement: A Cognitive Catalyst

Engagement is the most important noncognitive factor correlated with academic success, and has been defined broadly in the literature as willingness to participate in the processes introduced by the teacher. As such, “engagement” is seen by a number of theorists as a goal in planning, teaching, and evaluation protocols (Bundick, Quaglia, Corso, & Haywood, 2014; Gallup, 2013). Experiential and active learning increase engagement and are both positively associated with learning. In addition to stronger academic performance, student engagement increases critical thinking and learners develop better attitudes toward learning (Wang & Degol, 2014). Strong, Silver, and Robinson (1995) have found that increased engagement encourages learners to be more creative, causes them to be more curious, promotes positive relationships with others, and fosters enthusiasm learning – all ideal preconditions for insight and Aha! experiences (Dolmans, Loyens, Marcq, & Gijbels, 2016). Likewise, students have low tolerance for activities that are overly repetitive and forced upon them with no active choice or that require little active thought (Jay, Caldwell-Harris, & King, 2008). Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning theory claims that teaching focused on engaging students serves as an ideal vehicle for learning mastery, claiming that, “learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes” (p. 26). Kolb’s theory combines nicely with active learner research established by Dewey (1924), as well as Vygotsky’s (1978) research on social constructs built from learners while fully engaged, and outcomes displayed in Piaget’s (1950) theory of cognitive development (Piaget, 1950; Piaget & Cook, 1952). Engagement is a powerful catalyst in learning, opening cognitive pathways for students to better engage in the conceptual processes necessary to move from surface to deep thinking and display strongest outcomes (Jonassen, 1992).

Historical Instances of Measurement and Intervention in U.S. Schools (Part I)

Historical Instances of Measurement and Intervention in U.S. Schools

Federal interventions and measurements of schools’ success, teacher efficacy, and student achievement are a relatively recent development. Moreover, much needed attempts to address structural ills have brought up complex issues of pedagogy and student outcomes. We are still presented with widely variable local practice and degrees of support, which have made outcomes difficult to measure and success for future programs hard to predict (Easley 2005; Hirschland & Steinmo, 2003). In this post I will trace some of the more significant interventions and how they have shifted the debate in the past few decades.

According to Wong and Nicotera (2004), Brown v. Board of Education (1954), “set a precedent for the use of social science research in defining and examining... education” (p. 122). This landmark case and the Supreme Court’s ruling to desegregate schools created an environment in education that allowed for more equitable conversations about educational opportunities, the observation of national norms for schools, and how to connect measurements with practice (Wong & Nicotera, 2004). One of the most significant of these interventions is a co-authored document published in 1966 by Coleman et al., provisioned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under the title of Equality of Educational Opportunity. Under the direction of James Coleman, this was the first major study to evaluate metrics affecting student achievement nationwide, but it also introduced the complex problem of which structural elements in the student experience are most important to address. According to Hanushek, Coleman et al.’s report redirected focus from the organization of individual schools to student outcomes, including employment opportunities (2016, pp. 19-20). This entailed a shift in the definition of education, placing it within a broader social context. Coleman et al. (1966) argue that, “schools bring little influence to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context” (p. 325). American schools spent the next several decades focusing greater attention on a myriad of environmental and structural needs of students, with particular focus on improving outcomes of minority students by integrating schools. Many of these changes and differences in school effects made positive impact on students (Hanushek & Kain, 1972; Sewell, 1976), especially those in urban environments where socioeconomic differences are more evident (Hanushek, 2016).

Changes in federal and state policy made desegregating schools possible, and these changes improved learning conditions for students. However, these new, federally enforced measures did not go far enough to improve student achievement, nor did these policies recognize the positive effects of teachers. The Coleman Report brought about improvements in schools, but the new policies missed a great opportunity by failing to robustly support what teachers need in order to attain learning objectives, particularly the observation of how teacher effects increase students’ processing (Hanushek, 2016). Many scholars and commentators presented a counterargument to the Coleman Report, arguing that schools have a greater relative weight in positively influencing student outcomes than their communities and other external factors (DuFour & DuFour, 2010). Robert Marzano (2003) concludes not only that schools have a significant impact on student achievement, but also that, “schools that are highly effective produce results that almost entirely overcome the effects of student backgrounds” (p. 7). Schools, and the teachers within them, are the critical component for meaningful, positive reform in education.

U.S. Secretary of Education T. H. Bell formed the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1981, instructing the commission to examine the quality of education in the United States and to produce a report within 18 months. The report, published as A Nation at Risk (1983), was, like the Coleman Report, dramatic in its impact. Again, the emphasis was on student outcomes, and the overall assessment it presented was of an educational system in crisis. An interesting point that the authors make in A Nation at Risk that still resonates with many Americans now is the claim that the lack of progress in schools causes, “a dimming of personal expectations and the fear of losing a shared vision for America” (p. 324). The report aimed its efforts towards maximizing, “the best effort and performance from all students” (p. 324), making claims that schools are underserving our citizens and that without significant reform Americans will continue to become less competitive in our global economy and less able to succeed in the job markets domestically due to their lack of preparation. Critics of this influential book identified the most pressing issue, that is, the relative roles of federal and local authorities in shaping the educational experience. Guthrie and Springer (2004) state that, “a centuries-long American tradition of state plenary authority and local operating discretion is now giving way to a pressing national uniformity of federally imposed accountability requirements” (p. 7-8).

Check back soon for Part II of this series!

Aha! Moments: A Quantum Leap!

Aha! Moments: A Quantum Leap!

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits.

– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

Revolutions happen fast but dawn slowly.

– Elena Douglas, The Australian, 2017

Archimedes’ discovery of water displacement as a method for measuring the volume of an object was among the first recorded instances of the Aha! moment (Kounios & Beeman, 2015). The account of Archimedes’ transcendent moment can be summed up briefly: King Heiro II challenged Archimedes to determine whether a votive crown that had been made for him was made of pure gold, as represented to him, or if the goldsmith had adulterated it with some other metal. Archimedes grappled for some time with the problem of how to authenticate the crown without damaging it until one day, as he was lowering himself into his bath, he observed the correlative rise of the water level and had a flash of inspiration. He is said to have shouted Eureka! (“I’ve found it!”). His observation of displacement led to a profound insight – his Aha! moment, which was the breakthrough that allowed him to solve this problem. His Aha! moment enabled his thinking to move from surface to deep, thereby producing a theory for the measurement of the volume of an object without damaging it. More important than what Archimedes was attempting to accomplish, was how his mind now managed the exact same set of observations that most humans have when wrestling with a problem. His thinking exhibited the capacity to take seemingly disconnected ideas (i.e., the water rising in the bath, the volume of gold, and finding a way to determine legitimacy without damaging the artifact) and combine specific factual knowledge in order to provoke an Aha!, a breakthrough that created a sudden and unanticipated solution. This indicates an ability to compare and manipulate concepts, which is further up the taxonomy on the SOLO scale (see Chapter 2), not to mention the Piagetian scale of conceptual facility (1950). From the point of view of an observer, the expressive exuberance of Archimedes’ eureka made it possible to actually see him exhibiting a new level of facility with the concepts available to him. If that observational mechanism can be brought into the classroom, along with a rich understanding of how and when human beings achieve milestones along the path to greater conceptual facility, then our teaching practice will be that much more powerful and effective.

An insight is a quantum leap in thinking. There is a distinct before and after, and history is filled with similar stories of men and women, young and old, and their Aha! moments. Whether these moments are connected to monumental or to less consequential but still important moments of insight, they are part of the fabric of the human journey because they are a universal form of human learning. Galileo looked to the heavens and observed the orbit of the Earth (Kounios & Beeman, 2015), suddenly forming theories about orbital eccentricity; Sir Isaac Newton had an Aha! moment when he saw the apple fall from the tree (Gleick & Alexanderson, 2005), later going on to describe universal gravitation; Einstein worked through a thought experiment when a sudden breakthrough allowed him to conceive what became his theory of relativity (Einstein, 1922/2003); and Sir Paul McCartney woke up one morning, after a long series of shows, and in his Aha! moment he crafted (“Yesterday”), a song that has since gone on to become the most- recorded song in history (McCartney, 2009). In each of these examples, the sudden realization could not have been predicted. The significance of these moments generally causes the learner to refer back to the moment in a sort of before-and-after manner – a life moment.

The practice of seeking these moments of insight, their subsequent outcomes, and the transformation in learning that takes place as a result can be of great value in pedagogy. This dissertation collected, documented, and analyzed the observable instances of these Aha! moments, and used the term “correlates” to signify both a possible pattern to observation and a taxonomy of insight that occurs for individual students in complex ways. The goal is not only to identify these moments, but also to produce a template for techniques, methods, and practices that educators may adopt or implement in their curricula in the hope of creating the fertile preconditions that facilitate production of these moments.

Aha! in Action: Mr. McLaughlin (#1)

Mr. McLaughlin has 25 years of professional teaching experience in public and private high schools, beginning in a rural northern city in Texas, and now in Houston, Texas. Mr. McLaughlin describes Aha! moments as, “an exclamation point” that happens when teaching, coaching, and directing reach their fullest potential. Mr. McLaughlin recalled having many throughout his career, but offered a remarkable story of a particular student that changed the course of her life (and Mr. McLaughlin’s), based on an intense Aha! experience:

Virginia, who came [with] a reputation of being an average student, with marginal athletic ability, and quite reserved. As the years progressed, she became known as a plodder in the classroom, a good teammate in softball, and her personality began to blossom. In the spring of her senior year, however, one event seemed to have an everlasting impact on who she was and the timing was perfect. In the conference championship game, we were behind by one run in the top of the seventh inning with two outs and runners on first and second. Virginia, who always batted ninth in the batting order, looked overmatched facing a pitcher who would eventually play for the University of Arkansas. Another strike and the count was now 3 and 2. From the third base coaching box, I started moving toward Virginia and started to motion for her to meet me halfway up the baseline, but before I got my hand up to my waist, she put her hand up, palm out and mouthed the words, “I got this, coach.” She confidently repositioned herself into the batter's box . . . windup and the pitch, and the ball left her bat with a crack, a line drive perfectly over the second base bag. The first run scored and the throw to home plate dribbled away from the catcher, and before the pitcher could retrieve the ball, the second run scored. We held on in the bottom of the inning and won the championship!

Mr. McLaughlin noted that this seminal moment in his career formed the basis of a belief (his own Aha!) that, “sometimes it is the most unlikely member of a team who makes the most important contribution.” This noticeable change in Virginia’s behavior is a testimony to the extreme effect of her Aha! experience. McLaughlin describes Virginia at first as someone who was reserved, marginal athletic ability, and most notably, “a plodder in the classroom.” Over the course of their career, every teacher has this student. In fact, teachers might often dismiss a student who is both average in ability and does not seem to express a great disposition for future achievement, but that is exactly where McLaughlin’s relationship with this student, understanding how to push and pull with her abilities, became the necessary ingredient for igniting her potential, and for Mr. McLaughlin to revise his assessments. In this way, Virginia’s Aha! moment became a turning point for the teacher as well.

The Aha! moment allowed Mr. McLaughlin to understand that Virginia’s thinking had changed. But more than this, the shared Aha! experiences of Mr. McLaughlin and Virginia combine to create a life-changing moment that set a new foundation for them both to flourish now at new, previously unanticipated levels. In fact, McLaughlin changed his entire belief about what is possible with students from this experience, subsequently benefiting thousands of students over his nearly 25 years of teaching. In this situation, the winning moment can be seen as a manifestation of the Aha!, but it is also in understanding the subtle nuance between the coach and the athlete where one can fully see how the learning transcended the game. “I got this,” was perhaps an even greater breakthrough because it signified a shift in relationship, not just forms of the thinking and understanding within an individual. Virginia now connected with Mr. McLaughlin in a way previously unattainable and in a way that could not have been deduced from previous experience. This Aha! is one of enlightened human interconnectivity. Congratulations, coach!

What’s your Aha!?!