Think Differently and Deeply, Volume 5

THE CENTER for TRANSFORMATIVE TEACHING & LEARNING

THE CENTER for TRANSFORMATIVE TEACHING & LEARNING

TM

TM

AT ST. ANDREW’S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL

AT ST. ANDREW’S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL

VOLUME 5

VOLUME 5

Foreword

DR. NICOLE FURLONGE

Professor of Practice and Executive Director Klingenstein Center, Teachers College

Columbia University

WhenI was an early career teacher, the thing I most wanted to do besides teach was to observe other people teaching. This might sound strange, but just about anytime I had a free block on my schedule, I would ask a colleague if I could visit their class. Most requests were met with “sure,” and I would pop in, notebook in hand, ready to soak in all that was happening during what was then a 45-minute block of time. Although I taught high school English classes and certainly visited my department colleagues’ classes, I was most eager to observe classes in other departments. Whenever I visited another English class, I found myself too easily slipping into redesigning what was happening before me. Or, I would decide to try to replicate something exactly as it had played out in my colleague’s class without concern for what I brought to the classroom, for my particular students, or for my own classroom context. That rarely went well. But when observing math or language or art classes, I found myself deeply listening not for what to do, but for the how and the why behind the design unfolding before me. I found myself noticing the students and listening more for evidence of their learning and engagement. What were they asked to do in their chemistry lab that was different from how they were asked to work in their history class? How did disciplines direct learning in different and similar ways? How did the questions that were asked differ from subject to subject? I wondered about the world beyond the 45 minutes. What were the connections between what was unfolding in the classroom and the assessments and feedback students engaged in and received? I began to wonder how we might know what students were learning – not only about the subject, but also about themselves and each other – and what of all of it would stick.

Those moments of observing others engaged in the art and science of teaching and learning are some of the most memorable of my career. I learned to listen differently to students in my classroom – for questions, pauses, appropriate struggle, tone, pace, cognitive overload, and volume and frequency of voices. I asked different questions of my own teaching and of my students’ learning. The conversations these visits generated with colleagues led me to understand early on that, while I gathered with students in English class, I was not an English teacher. Instead, I was a designer for student engagement and learning. I was facilitating learning experiences for young people whose minds could change, whose mindsets were shifting and shaping, and who I could intentionally support as they grew comfortable reflecting on their successes and their mistakes. Literature was our particular and unique meeting ground for this work.

We were not fully aware of this at the time (I don’t think), but my early career colleagues and I were fortunate. We were part of a professional learning community that encouraged our being innetwork with each other around our teaching. Because of that, we understood early that a core value of teaching is the willingness to learn. More than visiting classes to figure out what to do in our own, we realized that the best teachers seek learning and reflect on practice so that they can create the conditions for meaningful and enduring student learning.

This is a value and practice that the Klingenstein Center cultivates. At the Center – whether in our Klingenstein Summer Institute for Early Career Teachers, our graduate programs for school leadership, our Heads of Schools Fellows program, or FORGE – learning is an essential core value. By learning, I mean a braiding together of: the science of learning; diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging; and, social emotional well-being. At LEARNS Collaborative, too, research-informed teaching and learning is core to building the capacities of people, schools, and other organizations to create the equitable and inclusive conditions for belonging and flourishing. For change-making is all about learning.

I am honored to introduce Volume 5 of The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning’s “Think Differently and Deeply.” I have been an eager reader of this publication from its first volume. It is one that provides educators at St. Andrew’s and beyond a chance to listen in print to the art and science of teaching and learning – one classroom at a time. What a gift to be made aware of a colleague’s – or student’s or parent’s! – thinking about pedagogy, assessment design, their mindset as a learner, their approach to creating the conditions for joyful, robust learning. What a gift to be audience to these research-informed classrooms and the mind-changing teaching and learning occurring within and beyond them.

Dr. Nicole Brittingham Furlonge is professor of practice and executive director of the Klingenstein Center, Teachers College Columbia University. Prior to joining the Center, she spent 22 years teaching English and leading in various roles in independent day and boarding schools. She is the author of “Race Sounds: The Art of Listening in African American Literature” (IowaUP 2018) and co-founder of LEARNS Collaborative. For the past three years, she proudly served on the CTTL’s Advisory Board.

Getting on the MBE Pathway

GLENN WHITMAN

Whatmakes a teacher adjust or transform their instructional design and work with students when introduced to the most promising research and strategies in the science of how the brain learns?

Since our founding in 2011, The Center for Transformative Teaching & Learning has been pondering this question with 100% of our Preschool through 12th-grade colleagues at St. Andrew’s, as well as teachers and school leaders from around the world. From my own experience as a history teacher, I can point to many teaching and learning strategies that I am using today that I was not using in 1991 when I began my career in Spokane, Washington.

Back then, I used to think that I teach… and the students learn. That was my educational philosophy. I certainly did not understand the complexity of the organ of learning – the brain – that each student undoubtedly has with them each day. Nor did I understand the connection between emotion and cognition or how identity –mine and theirs – impacts teaching and learning.

What changed for me was learning about how the brain learns, which began when St. Andrew’s decided to train every one of its teachers in Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) science, starting in 2007. Along our journey we have been helped by many great friends from academia. The late, great Kurt Fischer, and others, including Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, David Daniel, Mariale Hardiman, Rob Coe, Pooja Agarwal, Dan Willingham, Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Mark McDaniel, Pedro De Bruyckere, Pamela Cantor, Dylan Wiliam, and Christina Hinton, and many more, have helped us understand this transdisciplinary field that includes neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, and education research. Our work to make research principles come to life in classrooms and schools has been supported by giants, and we are forever grateful for their friendship and support.

In the ten-year history of The CTTL we have had the privilege to work with individual teachers, schools, and districts who also recognized the research in the science of teaching and learning as one of the most important solutions to elevate student achievement, close student learning gaps, and support student well-being.

The mission of St. Andrew’s is “To know and inspire each student in an inclusive community dedicated to exceptional teaching, learning, and service.” From our school’s founding in 1978, we have held fast to the research-supported idea that great teachers really matter. In the words of David Steiner, head of the Institute of Education Policy at Johns Hopkins University, “The strongest education research finding in the last twenty years is that the quality of a teacher is the single greatest in-school determinate of student outcomes.”1 The CTTL is a driver for great teaching.

We have invested a lot of time collectively growing our teacher’s knowledge and research-to-classroom translation skills. We have developed many tools to support their MBE journey, like the MBE Placemats and Roadmap, Neuroteach Global, and our Science of Teaching and School Leadership Academy. We help teachers build a broad MBE knowledge and skillset, but also give them autonomy to choose their own adventure – deepening their practice with those MBE principles that may have the greatest impact with the classes they teach, the departments they are in, and the students they work with in classrooms, clubs, studios, and on the stages and sports fields.

But where does the MBE journey start?

As the CTTL team presents around the world, we often use this graph from Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child.2 It tells a story of what might be the most important concept from neuroscience that we can use to transform teaching and learning: neuroplasticity. Schools and their teachers have the unique privilege to be working with students when their brains are experiencing some of the greatest change. The good news about neuroplasticity is that it also means the teacher-brain can change. The idea that the brain is “set” at roughly eighteen years of age is a neuromyth.3

I am 54 years old as I write this, and the vertical line provides some indication of the effort I will need to change my brain. It is more effort than for my students – but I can change my brain. This is one reason why most one-and-done professional

learning experiences lead to little change in how teachers teach and how their students learn. What ultimately got teachers like me to change our practice was finding promising insights from research that could:

(1) enhance our effectiveness with all the learners we work with; (2) enhance student academic, social, and emotional outcomes; and (3) enhance our efficiency. It also helps that we use research on how to change teachers’ practice, like Thomas Guskey’s model for teacher change,4 and the work of David Weston’s at the Teacher Development Trust.5 The CTTL’s work with educators around the world uses the science of teaching and learning to teach the science of teaching and learning.

The role of The CTTL for 100% of our St. Andrew’s preschool through 12th-grade teachers and school leaders, our colleagues, is to get them to see MBE. To see how it can touch every aspect of what they do at school, and to help make it so “everydayuseful” that they never think to unsee it. Whether they are early in their career or elevating their already excellent practice, the CTTL provides our colleagues a pathway of sustained professional growth – all focused on making our classrooms, hallways, stages, and sports fields an even better experience

for our students. The importance of having the whole community of teachers and leaders in a school understand the science of how the brain (both student and adult) learns, works, changes, and thrives cannot be emphasized enough. The brain is the organ of learning and will remain so, whatever future technologies, including AI and those we have yet to imagine, bring.

My pathway to becoming MBE researchinformed will not be yours; my school’s journey will not be yours. But many threads of this journey will be the same. The translation of research into everyday practice, and the extent to which it works or doesn’t, is very context-dependent. This is the joy and the challenge of the work – committed educators playing with the art and science of educating, making it work for them, with their students, in their community. What will be your first step, or next step, on your MBE pathway?

Glenn Whitman (gwhitman@saes.org; @gwhitmancttl) is the Dreyfuss Family Director of The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning at St. Andrew’s (www.thecttl.org) where he also teaches Upper School History. He is co-author of “Neuroteach: Brain Science and the Future of Education.”

A Student Intern’s Academy Experience

ROSE CURRIE ‘24

Teachers have the ability to change their students’ lives through the way that they teach. When I first heard about the opportunity to present my “Student Voice” during The Center for Transformative Teaching & Learning’s Science of Teaching and School Leadership Academy in 2022, I was instantly intrigued. By witnessing the outcomes of teachers engaging with the science of learning, I became a more passionate learner myself.

I experienced the Academy the summer between my sophomore and junior years of high school at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School. Before enrolling at St. Andrew’s, I attended a school where the teachers were not trained in the way the brain learns and the best ways to teach. I have found that my current teachers’ dedication to research-informed teaching has made me a dramatically better student and person.

As a student who prefers when things

are presented visually, who can get distracted easily, and does not like to procrastinate, many things make me similar to, and at the same time different from, other students in my school and around the country. For these reasons, I find it blissful to know that my teachers are working hard to integrate the science of learning into their lesson plans. It makes me feel heard to know that my needs as a student are considered when my teachers are thinking about their lesson plans and how they will present their content.

Throughout my experience as an intern during the CTTL’s Academy, I have seen some of my St. Andrew’s teachers, along with teachers from across the country and around the world, learn methods of teaching, question how they can improve their classroom environment, and then discuss the ways they will apply their new knowledge to help their students meet their full potential in the classroom. I was drawn

Before enrolling at St. Andrew’s, I attended a school where the teachers were not trained in the way the brain learns and the best ways to teach. I have found that my current teachers’ dedication to research-informed teaching has made me a dramatically better student and person.

to Adele Diamond’s presentation on what teachers do with research around executive functioning1 as well as Steven Chew’s talk on how to teach both content and learning strategies at the same time.2

In my translation group – a small cohort led by my Honors English 10 teacher Mr. Andrew Seidman in which teachers at the Academy discussed how to apply what they learned that day in their own schools – my student voice mattered. I was also inspired to create my own student “Needs and Goals” assessment alongside a similar activity the teachers attending the Academy were doing.

Filling out this assessment allowed me to reflect and develop my metacognition skills. It also got me thinking about how much effort so many teachers put into improving their teaching methods to support students like me who might learn a little differently. While I thought about ways I can manage homework overload and rigorous courses, teachers mentioned the idea of shortening homework assignments to crucial components or considering formative assessments as opposed to graded quizzes to lower stress levels and build a sense of confidence for students to

take more risks.

Whenever a teacher mentioned something they would change (for the better) in their teaching practice, a smile would instantly form on my face. The research and science that was shared during the Academy Deep Dives, whether it was reading strategies, study strategies, or stress management during school, opened the realm of possibilities for a healthier, more dynamic, and enriching environment for me and my peers at St. Andrew’s and other schools.

As a student, it excites me to know that teachers around the world are spending time pondering how they can best educate their students using research in the science of how the brain learns. I have surely benefited from my teachers’ better understanding of research around memory, stress, engagement, and connection. I feel responsible to use these strategies to be the best learner that I can be.

Rose Currie is a member of St. Andrew’s Class of 2024 and was a CTTL Science of Teaching and School Leadership Academy Student Intern in 2022.

As a student, it excites me to know that teachers around the world are spending time pondering how they can best educate their students using research in the science of how the brain learns. I have surely benefitted from my teachers better understanding of research around memory, stress, engagement, and connection. I feel responsible to use these strategies to be the best learner I can be.

Photo courtesy of Freed Photography

A Professional Growth Pathway: Using the Science of Learning to Build Collective Teacher Efficacy

DR. IAN KELLEHER

Picture a gaggle of 18th-century doctors, sitting in the tea room at their hospital, talking about their day, and sharing stories of the marvelous virtues of leech therapy and trepanation – drilling holes in a patient’s head to let out the bad vapors. The collective efficacy of this group? Probably very high. They truly share a belief that they have, in their hands, the best tools possible to help others. But the next time you have a sudden pain in your chest, would you go to them just because they have a high collective self efficacy? Or would you prefer to go to a doctor whose practices are based on evidence generated from a large number of research studies?

Teacher collective self efficacy is powerful, but unless it is based on practices informed by a solid research base we have the educational equivalent of leeches and trepanation. A research base to inform everyday practices in classrooms and schools exists, and has for decades, but it rarely makes its way into schools. I would like to argue that we need a multi-pronged approach that builds teacher collective efficacy by providing educators and school leaders with a common language and framework of strategies based on how the brain learns best. Collective efficacy alone is not the answer. Collective efficacy based on the Science of Teaching and Learning is. This is a core principle of how we now conduct professional development at

St. Andrew’s: our Professional Growth Pathways for teaching and learning.

So what should be in this research-informed toolkit? Here are some suggestions to get you started.

Help students form robust long term memory

Spaced practice and retrieval practice are more effective than study methods students typically choose like rereading notes and highlighting. But students, who are still novice learners, often find it really hard to figure out how to do these in your class on their own. So build spaced practice and retrieval practice regularly into in-class and homework assignments.1 It is okay to let students get a bit rusty – so allow gaps of time, then bring key knowledge and skills back by forcing students to think hard and pull what they can from their memory, then check their notes to see the right answers, then adjust what they wrote. This can be done in all kinds of ways, but should be no-stakes or worth just a few points based on trying, since the whole point is that it is normal to struggle – students will get things wrong. By making mistakes now, you will know it later for the test or final project.

Acknowledge limited working memory and cognitive load

Our working memory holds fewer items for less time than you think. This

means that if the cognitive load we place on students is too high, learning can be hard or impossible.2 To help with this, reduce clutter and distractions in your classroom, simplify and number instructions, minimize classroom threats, break longer assignments into smaller chunks, and provide temporary scaffolds that can be peeled away from a student as their proficiency increases.

Teach and assess in multiple modalities

Learning is improved for all students if material is presented in multiple modalities. Visual is like bacon – it often makes things better, but not always. Choose modalities based on what works best for the topic/content you want to teach. DO NOT try to match perceived “learning styles” of your students – this is a myth that has been thoroughly debunked, but which still, sadly, pops up massively in schools.3

Embed formative assessment

Some days I would walk out of my classroom thinking, “I was awesome today – how could anyone not learn that?” But now that I know Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) Science, I know that just because I feel good about the lesson, it doesn’t necessarily mean that any learning took place. It is really hard to accurately know what students already know and what they are still grappling with, so make diagnostic formative assessments a regular part of your teaching.4 These should be low- or no-stakes, and should occur very regularly, almost daily. Anything can be used formatively – just use the work students do with a diagnostic lens on, not a judging or grading lens. Use what you find to adjust your daily lesson plans and the practice assignments you set for your students. Try this challenge: make sure that there is nothing on your end of unit summative assessments that you haven’t previously done formative assessment on.

Understand the link between emotion and cognition

Research from cognitive science tells us that emotion and cognition are related in the brain.5 Work to eliminate sources of negative emotion, such as stereotype threat and not feeling like you belong, as they create barriers to learning. Remember that social belonging and academic belonging are related but distinct, and teachers need to work intentionally at growing both for each student – so things like how you give feedback, teaching study strategies alongside content, and using formative assessment can help build belonging, as well as aiding identity validation and reducing identity threat. In addition, deliberately use positive emotion, like humor, empathy and joy, to build engagement, motivation, and learning.

Be intentional about building richly connected networks of knowledge

As novice learners in the subject, students, left to their own devices, tend to build isolated knowledge islands as they learn the material in a unit. They may know it well enough for the test, but after that, much melts away. This is because the new memories are poorly connected to what’s already in students’ long term memory. Instead, be intentional about making a richly connected network of connections to prior knowledge of skills6 – from your class and others, from this year and prior years, from inside and outside school. Find two other things in the unit that this is connected to. How is this new idea similar to that one from October? How is it different? What in your world does this remind you of?

Give feedback that works

Unless students get a chance to act on the feedback you give them, all that effort you put in is likely wasted. So when you return work with feedback on it, build ten minutes into class for you to manage the

emotional climate when students receive the feedback, and for students to understand and begin doing something with the feedback they get.7

This list is not exhaustive, but gives you a good place to start your Science of Teaching and Learning journey. These are promising principles that are robustly supported by research; are quite straightforward to translate into everyday practices in your class or school; and are likely to have an impact that is worth the investment of effort.

There is also a third prong. Research journals do not provide next-day solutions for teachers. Rather, they give us what David Daniel calls promising principles.8 For example, spaced practice, retrieval practice, formative assessment, and belonging interventions are promising principles. But what exactly do these look like at 10:30 a.m. this coming Tuesday in your English class? There is an important step that only a teacher can do – translation. Taking the promising principle and making it work in your context: your subject, your school, your community, your children, and your personal voice as a teacher. I know I need to do a formative assessment tomorrow, but what will it look like? There is a test coming up next week, so I will embed some retrieval practice, both for homework and in class – but how do I do it for this topic in a way that will engage students to think hard?

This is where collective efficacy is built: teachers working with the same high-quality research-informed toolkit to address needs and strategic opportunities that are unique to their class, but which share common features. Imagine a ninth-grade history teacher and a ninth-grade biology teacher working together on how to embed memorizing strategies into their classes, or sixth through 12th-grade math teachers talking about how to use formative assessment in a progression of age appropriate ways in their classes. We build efficacious collective efficacy over time with moments like this. We build a Professional Growth Pathway for teaching and learning so that we, as a community of educators growing together, can do the best for our students.

Dr. Ian Kelleher (ikelleher@saes.org, @ ijkelleher) teaches Upper School Science at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, is The Dreyfuss Family Chair of Research for The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning, and co-author of Neuroteach. He spends his days teaching physics and robotics while working on projects that help teachers translate the science of learning into everyday practices in their own classrooms.

How I Teach AP European History Now

KELLY ANDERSON

Ibegan teaching AP European History in the fall of 2019: and I knew that this, my first AP class, was going to be one of my greatest challenges as a teacher so far. AP Euro (as it is popularly known) asks students to learn nearly 600 years of history of an entire continent – a time period I often shorthand with students as “The Black Death to Brexit.” It’s easy to understand why most instructors initially believe that going 100 miles per hour at all times is the only choice to accomplish all this learning, lest we “fail” or students. The urge to “protect” them with the “shield” of as much knowledge as possible was strong that first year, and I could not resist it.

But then something interesting happened. I succeeded. They were “protected” – every single student passed the exam. Yet, I still didn’t feel as accomplished as I thought I would. Something nagged at me. And I realized what it was; I hadn’t succeeded at all. I had protected my students, but is that what teaching is really about? That’s certainly not what I got into it for. I LOVE the content of the AP Euro course and I got into teaching to bring others to that same level of love. Running as fast as I could through 600 years meant we never got to stop and smell the roses – even the Wars of! – or marvel at how cool some of the causes, continuities, and changes that we must learn to understand Europe’s past actually were. (I MEAN… Michelangelo! Women finally get the right to vote after 500 years of our study! Did you know

Henry III had like 200 Bichon dogs?)

Therefore, the next year – despite COVID –I was determined to not let the pressure of the course load get to me or my students. Our goal was not going to be protection or safety but joy and challenge. And that wasn’t just because of my own instincts, but because of the best that research and brain science principles have to offer.

The first and most prominent element to tackle was the high memory requirements of the material. Research on cognitive load tells us that if cognitive load is too high, students may be able to do the work now, but not actually learn it.1 Therefore, the challenge for me was how to reduce the demand on active working memory by increasing students’ long-term storage of material. One way I accomplished this was by teaching generally applicable analytical skills rather than teaching the facts to assess a particular situation in isolation. With my students, we develop a set of analytical ways to think about common AP questions that we can transfer from situation to situation to see how they apply. As a result, whenever we evaluate the relative importance of something to history, students have several different perspectives to think through to decide on a historically supported opinion. My students feel empowered to look at a new set of facts with a set of tools that they know they can apply, whether they are familiar with the facts or not—and that is the true work of a historian, after all.

Making thematic connections across time as we study one particular aspect of history in different eras has allowed me to “interleave” the most important content again and again. After all, understanding historical context and background is necessary for us to understand the next piece of the “timeline” of that element. Looking at these thematic changes over time in various areas (rather than focusing on what Braudel termed “walled gardens” of national histories) are the new focus of the AP exams and, increasingly, of the historical field itself. This also helps students to solidify the importance of these major building blocks as they return again and again in new contexts and with new interpretations. This approach also helps students build richly connected networks of knowledge in their brain – which we know from research is what we need to do to build strong long term memory2 – rather than just isolated knowledge islands.

In order to ensure that students have enough exposure to truly shift items from working memory into long-term memory, I have also utilized the principle that teaches us that students must do something with their knowledge. I have changed “study for your test” assignments to specific tasks that require students to do something active with their knowledge rather than their first instinct – which is to simply passively re-read notes or the textbook.3 Instead we emphasize making a hand-made study tool to work with, interacting with others, playing memory games and playing them again a few days later to allow for some

forgetting and spaced retrieval.4 Students also try a novel study idea that they will remember because novelty can make ideas “stick.” By the end of the year, students leave with a list of strategies that are far more effective for their memory than the passive traditional strategies they have often been taught.

But the other half of my goal was to produce joy. This is a concept that many AP teachers feel that they do not have “time” for. For example, I introduced a “mock funeral” for Napoleon. I also allow my own particular joys to shape the course. For example, students know when they reach “art day” for each unit, Ms. Anderson is going to come in wearing an art joke t-shirt and my Starry Night sweater and have some activity that is out of the norm.5

This class carries the responsibility of being my students’ first AP class. Thus, it is an emotional challenge as much as an academic one. Many students who have built their identity around their academic success are experiencing the “identity threat” of not achieving the top scores they are used to for the first time. We know from MBE research that any classroom where students feel there is an “identity threat” is not a place that they feel safe taking risks6 – and so this threat must be removed in order for them to grow. One way that we accomplish this is by establishing a “team” atmosphere from the very beginning –where I am their “coach” more than their teacher – their “guide” through this material and through “beating” this exam

Another way this “threat” is removed in my classroom is that St. Andrew’s allows me to “loop” with most of these students through 9th and 10th grade, giving me two years to get to know my students and their passions, interests and strengths in and out of the classroom – and most importantly for them to see and trust that this is the case. This allows my students to then also trust that any feedback I provide comes from a place of knowledge of them and care for their success, rather than judgment or reproof. As we know, feedback does not matter if students do not hear it and use it – and due to this safe and trusting environment, they are able to do both of those things regularly.

At the time of this writing, I do not know how my students fared on the 2023 AP Exam. But I DO know that when I asked for course feedback from the students that all of them could name those changes I had made – they stuck out to them. They also remembered what they had learned in these disruptive strategies better than in other lessons – and, more importantly, they could metacognitively tell me why that was the case. If my students take away something about how studying and learning works for them, then as far as I’m concerned they’ve passed the most important exam, one that will lead them to true success in the future.8

Kelly Anderson (kanderson@saes.org) teaches Upper School History at St. Andrew’s.

Taking Care of the Whole StudentAthlete

SEAN HURNEY, L/ATC

Igrew up as a multi-sport athlete where seasons provided clear breaks between each of my sports. In the fall it was soccer and in the spring baseball. Over time I added cross country and track, which became sports I excelled in as a high school and college student-athlete. I can recall many times when my teammates got hurt, their mindset was to play through their injuries. At that time, athletic trainers were not required at sporting events as they are today for school, club, and collegiate sports, and most students avoided athletic trainers out of fear of missing practice, a game, or a meet.

At Pennsylvania’s Lock Haven University, I was running the 5000 meters, and steeplechase for our track team and achieved a personal record (PR) in the 8k cross-country distance during my junior year. The injuries I endured during that time ranged from preseason muscle soreness and tendinitis in the knees to ankle sprains from uneven surfaces and even a stress reaction. My treatment often was Advil, ice, or an occasional visit to the athletic trainer whose space was inside an old gymnasium on the bottom floor.

Lock Haven was a transformative experience for me. As I considered what degree to pursue and what my future career could be, I knew I did not want a nine-to-five office job. I thought about landscape architecture, being a veterinarian, and how I might take care of athletes. I knew very little about the latter career path until I saw a sign for a onehour evening class that was an introduction to a degree in Sports Medicine and Athletic

Training. I found my calling.

As part of the degree, I interned during the summers of 2001 and 2002 with the Carolina Panthers, supporting senior trainers keeping athletes like Mushin Muhammad, Steve Smith, Deshan Foster Julius Peppers, and John Kasey on the field during their grueling pre-season that took place before significant changes by the NFL in preseason training and concussion awareness. In the fall of 2002, I found myself at St. Andrew’s as a part-time certified athletic trainer which led to a full-time opportunity shortly thereafter.

Research, which is generated by studies external to St. Andrew’s and my own observations, has informed my work with our Middle and Upper School student-athletes. Some of what our teachers are learning about the science of how the brain learns, works, and thrives is very adaptable to the sports training environment. Building relational trust with athletes, coaches, and parents has been a critical element of my job.1 Making all athletes, regardless of skill level or contributions to their team, feel like they belong in the training room, and that they will receive the same support, whether they are the most or least experienced players, is also important. Athletes bring their whole selves to my training room. Taking care of their current physical injuries takes place side-by-side their social, emotional, and identity development and well-being. Among the benefits of being at St. Andrew’s for as long as I have are the relationships and connections I have built. In fact, I am now working

with athletes whose parents I treated more than a decade ago. Relationships are an important factor that help students do well in school.2

The variability in each athlete’s commitment to their sport is broad at St. Andrew’s. Some, like me, pursue multiple sports, which the research suggests is a far healthier approach with long-term benefits.3 Others begin specialization in sports, which often leads to higher occurrences of repetitive use injuries as students, for example, train with our high school teams before heading off to another practice in the evening. Others might be mostly participating in sports in order to earn physical education credits to meet state-mandated requirements, which could mean they do little pre-season training to ready their bodies (and minds) for junior varsity or varsity sport participation.

Two areas of research have been particularly important to my work with athletes. St. Andrew’s was one of the first schools in the Washington, D.C., region to bring IMPACT concussion testing into its athlete support program. Dr. Gerard Goia, who is currently the director of the Safe Concussion Outcome, Recovery & Education (SCORE) Program at Children’s National Hospital (Washington, D.C.) was particularly valuable to me. Caring well for each athlete’s brain was critically important not only for their recovery and long-term health and safety, but also for their ability to meet the cogni-

Athletes bring their whole selves to my training room. Taking care of their current physcial injuries taks place side-by-side their social, emotional, and identity development and well-being.

tive demands of the classrooms they’re in and the courses they take. The conclusion of the 2007 paper “Concussions Among United States High School and Collegiate Athletes” provided a pathway for rethinking our school’s protocols that continue to evolve as the research evolves. As the paper pointed out, “Sport-related injury surveillance systems can provide scientific data to drive targeted injury-prevention projects. Developing effective sport-related concussion preventive measures depends upon increasing our knowledge of concussion rates, patterns, and risk factors.”4

The second area of observational research is the impact a lack of sleep, stress, and anxiety are having on our studentathletes. By law, I collect data on each athlete that visits the training room each day. If you look at the pattern of my year-long logging of this information there is some correlation between the number of athletes I see in a week and the more stressful academic and social periods of a school year. In fact, in mid-September of 2022, when students were facing some of their first assessments and were getting behind on their sleep, I saw an increase from roughly five athletes coming in for treatment per day (the week of August 22) to 16 athletes coming in for treatment each day (the week of September 19). Obviously, there is much more research to be done, which I am intrigued to conduct. This limited data has led me to have conversations with coaches to build in strategic rest days during the season, which many are reluctant to give up. However, I have

been amazed to see what a single snow day during the winter season can do to reset an athlete’s body and brain.

One challenge I have as a research-informed trainer is when the research conflicts with what I am seeing in my context with our school’s athletes. For example, there has been a growing debate over the use of ice to heal acute injuries. Studies such as “Is it time to put traditional cold therapy in rehabilitation of soft-tissue injuries out to pasture?”5 run counter to what I, along with the doctors I consult with, see. From my everyday vantage point, there is a big difference in the recovery of athletes who use ice as a primary response to an injury compared to those that don’t.

Sports have been a transformative experience for me. I still have visions of playing in the NHL despite taking ice hockey up later in my life. The long-term health, wellness, and longevity benefits of sports are well-documented. While a growing number of St. Andrew’s athletes are playing at the collegiate level, few will ever be professional athletes. However, if students can have a positive and healthy school sports experience, the benefits can pay off throughout their lifetimes. That is what I hope for each of them as they pass through my training room, or as I watch them healthily compete on the field, court, pool, and track.

Sean Hurney (shurney@saes.org) is the Athletic Trainer at St. Andrew’s where he also teaches Health and Physical Education.

A Structured Approach to Building Strong Readers

MEGAN ROGGE

To be completely candid, for at least a decade, I really didn’t “get” reading instruction. The pedagogy I had learned in graduate school, and that was being implemented in the schools I had worked at, never fully made sense to me.

That changed a few years ago while listening to a segment on NPR by Emily Hanford, Senior Education Correspondent for American Public Media. It was titled “Rethinking How Students With Dyslexia Are Taught To Read.”1 In her report, Hanford said “This isn’t just a special ed. problem, but a problem with how children are being taught to read.” That quote struck a chord with me and piqued my interest in finding out more about how children really learn to be good readers. In my quest for more information I began seeing the phrase “science of reading” popping up repeatedly. I began reading articles and listening to podcasts and radio segments about research supporting reading pedagogy, and they all had two words in common: Structured. Literacy.

Around this same time, St. Andrew’s was evaluating its own reading instruction for its Lower School students. As a school that uses research-informed practices to

drive its instruction, finding a pedagogical approach that is supported by current research on how students best learn how to read was paramount.

Neuroscience has determined that reading requires the human brain to activate multiple regions — there is no single reading center in our brain. The number of years that humans have been reading is tiny compared to the evolutionary history of our species — so our brains have not evolved to read. Instead, the act of reading co-opts a number of brain systems that already existed, and gets them to work together. The brain regions involved in reading are located mainly, but not solely, all over the left hemisphere. Because reading is not an innate process for the brain to perform, it is essential to tap into the plasticity of the human brain and establish the neural pathways necessary to become a proficient reader. Learning to read literally changes the synaptic pathways that exist in your brain.

Wiring the brain to read takes time and effort — but by using the right strategies, we can make this process as effective and efficient as possible. In 2000, the National Reading Panel published a report that clearly concludes that by far the best way to

The number of years the humans have been reading is tiny compared to the evolutionary history of our species - so our brains have not evolved to read. Instead, the act of reading co-opts a number of brain sstems that already existed, and gets them to work together.

get children to become proficient readers is a program that builds phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension.2 It further says that these should be developed through explicit and systematic instruction.

But how do we do this at St. Andrew’s?

At the Lower School, it was decided that adopting the Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach would be the most effective for our students because it is an explicit, systematic, and multisensory structured literacy approach that is supported by the science of reading. All homeroom teachers attended a 5-day training session on OG and its implementation as tier 1 instruction.

What Does Whole-Class OG Instruction Look Like?

While phonics instruction is intended for grade K-2, we knew that OG instruction would need to happen at all grade levels in the Lower School, at least for a few years, in order to give every student the same foundational skills. For example, even in my fourth-grade classroom, we implement various parts of Orton-Gillingham on a daily basis in order to build those neural pathways needed for proficient reading.

Phonics & Spelling

Every day, my students warm up for reading class with a multisensory review drill of the phonics patterns previously taught. This practice has a visual drill of graphemes (written symbols that represent sounds), an auditory drill of phonemes (the various sounds that graphemes make), and a phoneme blending drill (putting sound combinations together to make words). Each component of the drill is multisensory and may include writing and speaking in concert with seeing and hearing the phonemes and graphemes.

At the beginning of each week, a new phonics pattern or rule is taught to the students. As a class, we discuss the pattern, our observations about its usage, and brainstorm other words that fit. Students also receive a short decodable text that incorporates the new concept. As we read it aloud, students highlight the words that fit the pattern or rule. Throughout the week, students will practice the new concept through the dictation of words and sentences, as well as games and activities such as Trashketball. Students also practice the new concept for homework via crosswords, puzzles, word searches, or word scrambles.

In addition to learning a new phonics pattern, students learn two or three new “red words,” which are primarily nonphonetic high-frequency words. During red word lessons, students first discuss which parts of the word are challenging, then learn the etymology of the word. Next, we take a multisensory approach to learn the spelling of each word. We write the word on paper using a textured plastic screen and red crayon to create a tactile experience when tracing the letters with their finger later in the lesson. Another multisensory strategy used is to have students tap each letter on their arm as they say it outloud. The remaining pieces of the lesson involve students tracing the word with their finger, writing the word three times from memory, and creating a sentence using the word. Throughout the week, new red words and previously learned words will be reviewed (spaced practice!) so that they are stored in their long-term memory.

Fluency

Reading fluency is practiced in class several times a week in a variety of ways. We read poems with partners, we do

choral reading of decodable texts, fluency pyramids, or rapid word charts. Oftentimes, I will look for small chunks of time for students to work on their fluency, such as during our daily Morning Meeting. Students may take turns reading the morning message out loud, reading their lines for a Drama Circle, or reading jokes and riddles to their classmates. Additionally, students have nightly homework of reading their decodable outloud two or three times. Varying the types of fluency practice helps students improve their reading speed, accuracy, and prosody (the rhythm and intonation of speech).

Comprehension

While the phonics, spelling, and fluency instruction focus on learning how to read, I use Reciprocal Teaching (RT) strategies to build comprehension so that students are reading to learn. These interactive learning strategies were developed from research, and include the four foundational skills of predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. Recent research3 has also shown that a student’s background knowledge of a topic positively impacts their comprehension of future texts — which is one of the reasons we design a knowledge-rich curriculum. My goal is to develop students’ knowledge about a wide variety of topics. So, in conjunction with the RT strategies, I aim to build the schema in their long-term memory by choosing texts that connect with content they are learning in other subjects like art, science, or social studies.

As mentioned earlier, Reciprocal Teaching is interactive, and the goal is for students to have rich discussions with each other about the text. Creating these opportunities for conversation is essential in order to see benefit from the four foundational skills. We often meet as a whole class to discuss the shared text, but students also meet in small groups, like book clubs, or in partnerships. These lively conversations, combined with the RT strategies, encourage students to be an active, rather than passive, reader.

This structured and intentional approach to reading instruction has had such a positive impact on my students. Not only have they become better decoders and encoders, but they’re finding joy and excitement in reading. Reading is one of the most important skills we build in elementary school, and a science of literacy approach has helped us do this better than ever before — for all students.

Megan Rogge (mrogge@saes.org) teaches Fourth Grade at St. Andrew’s.

Mindsets for Parents

MARGARET (MEG) LEE AND MARY CAY RICCI

Aparent or guardian is a child’s first and most enduring teacher. The parent mindset can influence how children view their own learning experiences and the mindset they will develop and bring to each academic, athletic, and social challenge from primary school to college. Over the last decade, many researchers have explored the continuum of fixed and growth mindset thinking and how it impacts life experiences and outcomes. Dr. Carol Dweck’s research and subsequent book, “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success,” quickly became mainstream in the business world, but we wanted to translate the research for parents, grandparents, and caregivers. In this excerpt, we examine praise — the three types of growth mindset praise, why each is pivotal to parenting, and what praise can look like in day-to-day life with children like those we love.

Effort Praise

We want to be sure that our children understand that having to work hard is not a sign of weakness, but rather is something that should be embraced! Having to work hard — whether on a math problem, an oil painting, or a new dance routine — helps children to make stronger neural connections and “grow” their brains! Instead of shying away from circumstances that force them to give their best, we want to encourage them to seek out challenges that will require effort. Winston Churchill famously once said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” Embracing challenges with hard work and effort is a

hallmark of a growth mindset.

To develop this quality, we need to ensure that children hear praise connected to effort, rather than connected to innate ability. Effort praise provides specific feedback that recognizes the hard work that the child is engaged in. For instance:

● “I love to see the effort that you put into this project! You must be very proud of it!”

● “Even though you don’t have the hang of it quite yet, you are so much closer than when you started! I can really see how your determination is paying off!”

● “Watching you try different ways to solve that problem reminds me of what I do at work when I am facing a complex situation.”

Notice that effort praise reflects both the quality of the effort that has been put in as well as the quantity of effort.

When children are praised for effort, it is likely that they will learn a key life lesson earlier than many of us did: that most everything worth having in life is born of hard work. By viewing having to work hard at something as a positive thing rather than a negative one, children are more likely to seek out challenges, embrace struggle, and persist in the face of setbacks.

Strategy Praise

Strategy praise allows us to combine the “feel good” quality of praise with the specificity that adds value to feedback. In strategy praise, we point out to the child that using particular skills and prior knowledge go a long way toward meeting success. Let’s consider a scenario in which

strategy praise might be appropriate:

Maria’s son Thomas is home from college for a mid-semester weekend. He has adjusted well to college life, but is frustrated with his progress in a philosophy course. “The professor is confusing and doesn’t seem to like anything I turn in,” Thomas lamented over dinner. “I started off thinking that philosophy was going to be an interesting course, but this is just one frustration after another. I’ve visited the professor during office hours and I’ve joined the study group she recommended. I hope that helps.”

It would be easy for Thomas’s mom, Maria, to simply sympathize with Thomas or share that she, too, struggled with similar courses when she was in college. Instead, this is a perfect time to help reinforce a growth mindset by praising the fact that he has already employed several strategies to persevere through the difficult course:

“I’m impressed that you sought out the professor’s guidance and joined a study group already,” said Maria. “That shows a lot of interest and effort on your part. Good work.”

When we use strategy praise, we give children feedback and guidance while also reinforcing that they have made good choices.

Research suggests that strategy praise can impact years to come. For example, researchers at the University of Chicago and Stanford University undertook an interesting collaborative project in which they measured parents’ praise when their children were 2–4 years old to see whether the type of praise the children heard at home in those formative years would affect their performance at school five years later. Interestingly, children who received a lot of praise as toddlers for the strategies they used to attack a challenge (rather than just being told they were “smart” or “talented”) were far more likely, at ages 7–9, to select challenging tasks, attribute success and failure to the effort they put in, and generate strategies for improvement.1

One way to remember to use strategy praise is to shift the focus of our praise. Instead of highlighting the result of the child’s work, we can highlight the steps they took along the way. Valuable feedback, in the context of strategy praise, helps children to learn and improve while simultaneously fostering a growth mindset.

Persistence Praise

Sometimes, despite a heaping dose of hard work and the application of a variety

of strategies, we face challenges that require time to overcome. Often, these challenges center around new learning, when our brains have to make new connections and “wire themselves” to do something differently. Lack of progress, in the initial stages of learning, can be frustrating to say the least — persistence is the key to success. In order to exhibit persistence, though, the task needs to be sufficiently challenging.

Learning to type is a good example that many of us can relate to. Lots of us have jobs that require us to be able to do more than “hunt and peck” on the keyboard, but learning to type is a skill that requires more than just knowledge of the keys and their functions and a commitment to work hard. Along the way, we make many errors. When some of us learned to type, correcting errors required painted-on correction fluid and special reverse keystrokes — thank goodness, all we need to do today is use the backspace key! Typing, like learning to ride a bike, is a skill that becomes automatic, but only after a great deal of practice. Practice takes time. If we had grown frustrated and given up without putting forth a sufficient amount of time, we would not have become proficient typists.

This leads to the third type of growth mindset-oriented praise — persistence praise. When we praise children for pushing through the frustration, we help them to recognize that sometimes tasks require us to put forth effort over a long period of time. Many children become easily discouraged when they are not able to solve a puzzle, execute a front handspring, master long division, or sink a foul shot.

Many skills take time to perfect, but a child’s concept of time is very different from ours. Just ask a 4-year-old to wait 10 minutes for something, and you will see what we mean. For this reason, persistence praise reinforces the notion that it is normal for some things to take time to develop. Let’s look at how this can be used: Angela could tell that the other children had already finished the backstroke race when she was just halfway down the pool. Her parents saw her look around and wondered if she would stop swimming and give up. But Angela tucked her head down and kicked as hard as she could, zigzagging her way down the lane, until she finally reached the wall.

“Wow, Angela! Good swim!” her coach said. “I could see that you were having some trouble with the lane line, but you didn’t let it throw you off. You didn’t give up!”

The persistence praise that Angela’s

coach used both acknowledged the challenge she felt and reinforced her decision to push through it. Angela will most certainly encounter other races in which she will lose her goggles, mess up a turn, or finish last. By using persistence praise, her coach has taught her to view these challenges as surmountable.

Teachers, school leaders, and parents are often in positions where giving praise is the most natural thing in the world, and the words often roll from our tongues with some degree of automaticity, with our brains maybe only half switched on. By being more intentional about how we give praise — and how we don’t give praise — we can help all students build a growth mindset.

Meg Lee (Margaret.Lee@fcps.org) is the Director of the Department of Organizational Development, Frederick County Public Schools (MD) and Mary Cay Ricci (@MaryCayR) is an education consultant and speaker. She was previously the Coordinator of Gifted and Talented Education for Baltimore County Public Schools.

This is an excerpt from “Mindsets for Parents,” 2nd Edition, from Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

Teacher Aid, Not Teacher Replacement: Artificial Intelligence Tools’ Impact on Teaching and Learning

RYAN MARKLEWITZ

Throughout history, there have been moments of disruption in how students learn and teachers teach. The pencil, calculator, computer, and Internet, generated fears around students no longer having to think or work as hard as before. In 2023, Artificial Intelligence (AI) use in schools was the headline in many newspapers, blogs, and discussions under titles such as “AI in Education: Will Tech Destroy or Save Education?” or “Don’t Ban ChatGPT in Schools: Teach with It.”

As a Middle School Science teacher, I recognize some of the fears but more importantly, more of the opportunities this rapidly evolving tool offers to help me better design, support, and personalize learning for each individual student. Already in my class, I have used AI technologies to help students prepare for assessments, crossreference their findings in labs, and support individualized learning pathways. Students, whether they are on Google researching or using Grammarly to correct the writing of lab reports, have been knowingly and unknowingly using this technology to complete work in my class or in Math with tools such as Photo Math. Certainly, AI opens up important conversations about academic honesty,

original work, and bias. But it is not going away. So how do we better understand the research and potential teaching and learning strategies this tool now allows for?

We understand Artificial intelligence as “machine-based systems that can, given a set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions that influence real or virtual environments.”1 In many ways, we are in the early stages of research on the impact AI can have on education. I think a lot about my pedagogy using the most promising principles and strategies in the science of teaching and learning. Research is showing that AI measurably enhances student learning and sometimes more than traditional classroom instruction.2-4 Researchers determined that AI can have measurable positive effects on student creativity, collaborative inquiry, and literacy skills in game-based environments with AI-embedded toys.5,6 Computational thinking can also be enhanced and facilitated by AI constructs,6,7 as is the willingness to engage in revision and correction processes based on feedback.8 Artificial Intelligence has also been found to increase cognitive engagement,6,9-11 which increases students’ willingness to participate in difficult learn-

ing tasks such as identifying misconceptions or evaluating information for correctness based on prior knowledge.12

There are many areas that deserve particular attention for the benefits of AI to support certain Mind, Brain, and Education pedagogical strategies.13 Here are two: scaffolding and feedback.

Scaffolding

Instructional scaffolding is an educational technique in which instructors “analyze the individual learner in detail in order to be able to offer scaffolds that effectively help learners gain knowledge.”14 Once scaffolds have been applied, the key aspect of student learning takes place as the scaffolds fade as learner competence increases.15 Artificial Intelligence constructs are able to analyze student data and trends in order to supply the scaffolds typically applied by an in-person instructor. While it is clear that scaffolding is effective in the physical classroom, research on its effectiveness in online learning environments is difficult to conduct, particularly because the methods of scaffolding are all different and the contexts in which they are implemented change with each study.16-20

Additionally, multiple recent studies have demonstrated that the absence of scaffolding in intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) or online learning environments leads to poor regulation of students’ own learning, and as a result fail to fully demonstrate mastery of the skills or knowledge being taught.21-24 In a study by Azevedo et al.,25 results showed that the adaptive scaffolding group showed greater improvement in metacognitive strategies, motivation, and performance com-

Research is showing that AI measurably enhances student learning and sometimes more than traditional classroom instruction. Reasearchers determined that AI can have measurable positive effects on student creativity, collaborative inquiry, literacy skills in gamebased environments with AI-embedded toys.

pared to the non-adaptive scaffolding group. The placement of scaffolds, whether they are “conceptual, metacognitive, procedural, [or] strategic,”26 not only provide adaptive assistance to students as they learn, but will help students learn how to self-regulate their learning by experiencing these scaffolds and learning how to apply them to novel situations.

Feedback

“Regular feedback helps learners efficiently direct their attention and energies, helps them avoid major errors and dead ends, and keeps them from learning things they later will have to unlearn at great cost.”27 A component of self-regulation, metacognition is a skill in which students engage in thinking about their own learning that relies upon feedback. It is reflective in nature, and the type of metacognitive strategies (e.g. writing, journaling, formative feedback) should depend both on the content as well as the behavior of the student. ITS that adapts the types of metacognitive events for students, for example providing a progress page or a helpful tip depending on how the student is behaving within the AI system, have been shown to have a significant effect on student mastery of content.28

While that may not seem significant on its own, as human instructors can also provide practice, the immediacy and applicability of the feedback in both of these systems produced higher levels of satisfaction and positive attitudes towards both the feedback and the learning process.8, 29

Conclusions and Next Steps

As a teacher excited about the possibilities of AI, I also recognize its limitations. While there are clearly benefits to imple-

menting AI tools in educational settings there are of course some drawbacks. The realm of bias, or injecting human preference or experiences into the software, is one such area. It is unavoidable, in most cases, as the AI systems must be designed by a human, and given that a narrow AI system can’t generate a morality system of its own, bias becomes a crucial piece in the equation of whether or not an ITS will be effective in all communities or contexts that it is implemented in.30

AI will not substitute for a human teacher’s full knowledge of a student. It will not necessarily know if the student is diagnosed with ADHD, another learning difference, or the intrinsic and extrinsic motivators of the student, with the immediacy that a human teacher would. Therefore, human teachers will continue to play an important role in each student’s academic, social, emotional, and identity development alongside emerging AI tools. Let’s remember, that after some initial fears, teachers found the benefits of the pencil, math and science teachers embraced the calculator, and now teachers and students will find ways to leverage AI as a tool for students to meet their full potential as learners.

Ryan Marklewitz (rmarklewitz@saes.org) teaches Middle School Science at St. Andrew’s where he also coaches Varsity Cross Country, Swimming, and Track. This piece is taken from work written by Ryan as part of his Masters Degree, and as such citations are in a different format than other articles in this volume.

Belonging as a Foundation for Pedagogy

LORRAINE MARTINEZ HANLEY AND GLENN WHITMAN

In 2007 our school asked itself this generative question as part of a strategic planning process: “How do we take good teachers and make them great, and great teachers and make them experts?”

As part of a broad ranging data collection to help us answer this question, we asked our faculty, “How many of you have an undergraduate or graduate degree, read a book, taken a course, or attended a conference on how the brain learns best?” Roughly 20% of the responses answered “yes” to this question. We thought this to be ironic, given that the brain is the organ of learning, but also not surprising. Back in 2007 most schools were not thinking about how the brain learns best. But every day, in every school, every student will have their brain with them. It is the one unarguable educational truth. So shouldn’t every teacher understand the science of how the brain learns best in order to support each student’s academic, social, emotional, and identity development? The answer to that question is, of course, a resounding “yes,” and this has become a large part of our mission at St. Andrew’s and The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning.

Every day, every student brings their developing brain to each class, club, sport, or activity they participate in at school. They also bring their developing identity. All the experiences a student has each day at school – positive and negative – impact their developing brain and developing identity. When we make the choice to put the student at the center of the learning experience, we have to ask the question, “What must teachers do, avoid, and be aware of to best support their students on this journey?”

No single one of the professional development silos that schools traditionally focus on answer this question adequately. To best support our students we need a more integrated approach that looks at the whole student and draws from a range of disciplines. This was on our minds in 2020 as our school focused on “centering the student” through the lens of belonging.

At the time, most schools were looking at their continuing professional development work on diversity, equity, and inclusion and their work on pedagogy as separate buckets. St. Andrew’s was little different to this as recently as 2020. We would have Diversity, Equity, and Belonging (DEB) professional learning experiences independent of our Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) ones. But then we imagined everything that might be going through a students mind as they’re walking towards their second period classroom on Tuesday, all the combined forces that leave them thinking either, “This is going to be a good class – challenging, but good.”; or, conversely, “I don’t really want to be doing this…” If we considered all these factors, some of them would classically be in the field of DEI, some would classically be in the field of MBE, but the student wouldn’t make these distinctions. In their mind, the DEI and MBE factors are highly intertwined, they all contribute to their lived experience. It occurred to us that to best help our students, we needed an approach that combined the two research backed-fields of DEI and MBE – with the professional wisdom of the educators in our school mixed in.

This approach aligned with the work of Zaretta Hammond, and her amazing book Culturally Responsive Teaching and the

are Interwoven

Brain 1 It also aligns with the work of Nicole Furlounge, Executive Director of the Klingenstein Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, who wrote the Foreword to this volume of Think Differently and Deeply

But what centers this work, what makes the concept understandable to the world? Right from the start, it seemed to us that belonging was the key. It is a word that seems immediately accessible but which has many layers when you start to examine all the factors that may or may not lead to a student experiencing a sense of belonging in a particular class – and all the consequences of this. Agreeing on a common working definition of belonging helped us move forward:

[Belonging is] a universal human need that is fundamentally linked to learning and well-being. It describes an individual’s experience of feeling that they are, or are likely to be, accepted and respected as a valued contributor in a specific environment. When students experience a sense of belonging in a learning environment, there are both immediate and long-term positive consequences for their academic performance and well-being.2

To understand belonging in schools, we found it helpful to consider a student’s sense of belonging as a braid made up of two strands: social belonging and academic belonging, as shown in Figure 1. A student may experience one, both, or neither of these at different times through the school day.

The Belonging Braid gives us many paths to help students feel a sense of belonging – some of which may be more rooted in DEI principles, some of which may be more rooted in MBE principles, and all of which benefit from the addition of teachers’ wisdom. But wherever we pull strategies from, we need to make sure that we are intention-

ally creating conditions that foster both social belonging and academic belonging – we are leaving neither to chance. It also led us to boldly suggest another educational truism: every adult in a school needs to be a practitioner of belonging.

Our work since 2020 has helped validate the belief of St. Andrew’s PS-Grade 12 faculty that belonging is an important pedagogical strategy – one that should be intentionally included in the design of all learning experiences for all students. When we do so, we can aid identity validation, reduce identity threat, minimize downshifting and amygdala hijack, lessen extraneous cognitive load, and increase engagement, self-efficacy, motivation, persistence in the face of challenge, and learning.

What does it look like?

The box below contains some promising

belonging mindsets, principles, and strategies that align with MBE and DEB research that our teachers consider. This list is not exhaustive and relies on each teacher’s professional wisdom, subject knowledge, experience, and knowing each of their students.3

How do you build this across a faculty?

How do you train 100% of your employees who bring their own identities, experiences, knowledge, skills, and biases to any professional growth experience? We stayed within the research and built tools that showed the MBE and DEB connection and others that helped schools plot their own MBE+DEB professional development journey.

Prioritizing belonging has the capacity to improve learning outcomes for all students, inclusive of race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, and other identifiers. We have seen that when teachers see each student’s learning and identity-development as mutually interdependent, they have a new lens to create more equitable classroom and school experiences that raise the potential for even more students to thrive and flourish. Let’s make it happen.

Lorraine Martinez Hanely (lmartinezhanley@saes. org) is the Director of Professional Growth and Studies at St. Andrew’s where she previously was the Director of Diversity, Equity, and Belonging.

Glenn Whitman (gwhitman@saes.org; @gwhitmancttl) is the Dreyfuss Family Director of The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning at St. Andrew’s (www.thecttl.org) where he also teaches Upper School History. He is coauthor of “Neuroteach: Brain Science and the Future of Education.”

Reflection questions for a pedagogy of belonging

1. Does every student (beyond taking attendance) hear their name each class period?

2. How do your students know that you believe every student can learn?

3. Where might your biases impact the class, and what can you do to mitigate this?

4. Have you built a culture where every student feels emotionally and physically safe?

5. What do you do to build your students’ trust in you?

6. What do you do to get to know your students?

7. Do you set a high (and achievable) academic bar for all of your students?

8. How do you let each student know that you have high expectations for them and that you believe in their ability to reach these expectations over time?

9. How do you discover, through conversation or formative assessment, where each student currently is with essentialized knowledge, skills, and content?

10. How are students able to express their voice in your class?

11. How do your classroom and hallway walls create a sense of belonging (not simply decorating)?

12. Does your oral, written, and expressive feedback create a sense of belonging and potential for growth?

13. What does your homework look like (and does it account for home life and outside-of-school life)?

14. How do you prepare students with the best strategies for summative assessments?

15. Do you regularly use formative assessment (and act on it)?

16. Can students see themselves in the assignments and readings that are selected to meet the learning objectives for a class?

Figure 1: The Belonging Braid: Social and Academic Identity

Giving Feedback that Works for Students and Now for Teachers

ANDREW SEIDMAN

Dr. Ian Kelleher, coauthor of “Neuroteach: Brain Science and the Future of Education,”1 likes to employ a particular metaphor to describe the role teachers play in translating research into the way the brain learns into their own classroom practice. Kelleher invites teachers to imagine that they are a bridge, connecting the wealth of basic research on the one side of the canyon to their applied practices in their schools on the other. With the commitment of numerous schools around the country to train their faculty in Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) strategies for teaching and learning, we are seeing more bridges being built each day. With the launch of Neuroteach Global2 in 2020, educators and administrators have an even greater opportunity to close the gap and apply the best MBE practices to their classes.

Neuroteach Global’s online platform invites educators and administrators to experience the impact that research-informed strategies can have on their students’ learning through short, memorable, and experience-based lessons, known as missions. The platform was designed by those well-versed in MBE strategies and, as a result, it educates educators using these very same methods. When teachers submit their responses to a mission, a live grader, with classroom teaching experience, reviews their responses and provides feedback. Researchers have delved deeply into the role that feedback plays in memory formation, the development of a growth mindset, and overall improvement of

performance. Being a teacher of English and Psychology, as well as serving as a grader for Neuroteach Global, has given me some important insights into the way I give feedback to both my students and to my fellow educators, insights informed by the research.

Feedback Should Be Actionable

Whether it’s given to students or educators, the most important thing about giving feedback is what those who receive it do with it. If it is specific, targeted, and helps you to get more of what you want from your students over the long-term, it’s good feedback.3 Early in my teaching career, I used to write comments on students’ papers like “Good job!” or “This doesn’t seem right”. However, in retrospect, I should have realized that such feedback obviously raises more questions for the students. Moreover, such feedback doesn’t really point the student in a direction to change their long-term behavior. Strong feedback invites others to take some kind of specific action. So, for example: “I like how you used the model thesis statement to craft yours! You should keep reviewing the models for future assignments” or “This paragraph jumps from one idea to the next; for our next writing assignment, consider using the list of transition words I provided”.

The same is true with the feedback we provide on Neuroteach Global. For example, an early mission asks teachers to rewrite their teaching philosophy based on their knowledge of MBE. Some teachers will

include a teaching philosophy that’s missing the MBE connections. When they do so, we ask them to engage in some further selfquestioning about how what they know about how the brain influences their teaching and how they can teach best for how the brain learns. This kind of feedback encourages applied action.

Research has also demonstrated that students need an opportunity to act on feedback soon after getting it.3 In my own experience as a teacher, assigning no-stakes or lowstakes assessments before summative assessments, assigning drafts, giving revision opportunities, and assigning short, timed writing assignments in quick succession are all ways I’ve given students opportunities to act on the feedback after they receive it.

Similarly, when it comes to Neuroteach Global, graders give feedback that points teachers toward timely actions. For example, one mission asks educators to brainstorm three verbs that best describe the learning that happens in their classroom, to take a picture of those verbs, and to send them in. When a grader finishes looking the verbs over, I ask the submitter to hang them in the classroom as soon as possible and even encourage the students to help them do it. Doing so ensures that the feedback doesn’t just happen in a vacuum; it has an actual, timely impact on the learning environment.

Think About The Emotional Impact

Particularly when feedback comes with a score or a grade, students are often so focused on the number that they ignore the important comments that explain it. There are several ways as an educator to overcome this problem. Again, no-stakes or low-stakes assignments can help to reduce some of the emotional impact in these moments. Additionally, I will sometimes ask students to read the comments, and even meet with me, before showing them the grade they’ve received on an assignment. There have also been times in my AP Psychology course when I will allow students to resubmit an assignment as many times as they would like to receive a higher grade, provided that

they read and implement the feedback I have given them. The emotional response when you receive feedback greatly affects how meaningful it is and how much impact it has,4 so however I give feedback, being intentional about guiding the emotional response is always top of my mind.

When considering the emotional impact of feedback on submitting teachers, the designers of Neuroteach Global implemented that last strategy. Neurotreach Global participants can redo missions as many times as they need to, using the feedback provided. After all, teachers have all the same emotions and many of the same stress points that their students do, and assessment can be a nerve-wracking experience. This feedback strategy allows us to meld low emotional stakes with high long-term rewards. Additionally, I’ve found it helpful to make the feedback personal to create a positive emotional experience for the participants. Rather than just cutting and pasting words that indicate a mission has been completed successfully, I’ll try to note specifics about the submission itself and the creative work that so many of our teachers are doing each day.

Feedback Is A Scaffold and Scaffold Should Eventually Be Drawn Back

Feedback has to strike a balance between supporting a student in completing a particular task and helping develop their ability to think independently. After all, the point of feedback is to help those receiving it to get better so that simple praise designed to raise

confidence becomes unnecessary and so that learners build metacognitive skills to independently tackle future assignments and assessments.3 It can be tough to know when to pull back with feedback and, as a result, it’s important to check for understanding and engage in a cycle of formative and summative assessments over time.

When it comes to Neuroteach Global submissions, our feedback often invites teachers to think further about the purpose of each mission and why it was important. Doing so encourages teachers to keep engaging in the important work of metacognition and to remember to employ these strategies in the future, after their work with Neuroteach Global has come to an end.

Some Final Thoughts

Whether it is given to students or teachers, it is important to remember that great feedback can be an incredibly effective way to bring about lasting learning; however, it’s just as important to remember that poor feedback can have a negative impact on learning for both students and educators.5 Knowing how to give feedback, when to give feedback, and what good feedback looks like is the key difference between these two outcomes. That’s true whether you’re teaching students or teaching teachers.

Andrew Seidman (aseidman@saes.org) teaches Upper School English at St. Andrew’s where he has also been a Neuroteach Global grader and a Translation Group Leader for The CTTL’s Science of Teaching and School Leadership Academy.

Becoming the Teacher I Want to Be: My PathwayEarly-Career to Research- Informed Teaching

BRITTANY SHIELDS

As a graduate of Towson University in 2018, I eagerly embarked on my journey toward becoming a crime scene certified police officer, with the ultimate aspiration of joining the ranks of the FBI. Graduating filled me with immense pride, and whenever I was in Washington, D.C., you could spot me proudly donning my police officer uniform, darting from one radio run to another, absorbing as much field exposure and knowledge as possible. While the work was both meaningful and challenging, I yearned for a way to make a difference without compromising parts of myself or sacrificing my personal integrity. From the beginning, my passion was to guide and assist young children on their life paths, but I wanted to pursue a career that would allow me to do so without compromising my own well-being. It led me to contemplate alternative careers where I could still achieve success by utilizing my degrees in forensic chemistry and criminal justice.

Uncertain of where to begin, I turned to the widely recognized employment website, Indeed. There it was, a mid-year opening for a science teaching position at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School. I wasted no time in applying and within a mere two weeks, I stood before my first classes of high school Geoscience and Chemistry students. My teaching career commenced at an accelerated pace,

and I had to quickly determine how to become the most effective educator for all my students.

St. Andrew’s provided me with valuable resources to assist me. One resource was the book “Neuroteach” written by two of my colleagues.1 This resource shed light on the intricacies of how the brain functions and learns. While my college studies had touched upon the anatomy of the body’s most complex organ, I had yet to fully grasp the significance of educational neuroscience in shaping a child’s academic achievement and development. “Neuroteach” empowered me to delve into crucial topics such as memory, attention, motivation, and stress, unveiling strategies to optimize my teaching methods and enhance the learning process for all my students.

One particularly impactful insight from the book emphasized the importance of cultivating a positive and engaging learning environment that aligns with how the brain learns. I built a supportive classroom by emphasizing our school agreements of respect and belonging. In my classroom, we celebrate achievements with specific praise, constructive feedback, and rewards that inspire intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which I know are both important to learning.2 Seats and desks are arranged in ways that are comfortable and conducive to learning and collaboration.3 Additionally, the research of Mary Helen Immordino-Yang,

has illuminated the profound connection between emotional well-being and learning, equipping me with strategies to help my students regulate their emotions effectively.4 I set and apply these conditions for learning side-by-side with the scientific knowledge and skills I want my students to embed into their long-term memories and be able to recall, use, and transfer to new contexts throughout the year.

Mentoring by my Science Department colleagues was equally important to my development as a teacher. Their guidance proved instrumental in helping me grasp the high educational standards I should set for all my students and how to establish appropriate learning objectives.5 They also provided me guidance on how to build upon my current knowledge of the subjects I teach. I had the privilege of learning from experienced teachers who had previously taught the same classes I was now teaching, and they shared their best practices and strategies they used to be effective (and survive) their own first years.

I now have the research, strategies, and

coding methods, incorporating both verbal explanations and visual aids such as images of molecules and diagrams in my slideshow presentations, and hands-on models. This multimodal approach provides students with a comprehensive representation of the information, enhancing their understanding of the underlying concepts. Lectures are more impactful when delivered in manageable time increments, and when they include strategic checks for understanding. I have also learned to use models and worked examples before having students try it for themselves. For instance, we gather around a lab bench and utilize physical models, such as our chemical model kits (affectionately referred to as “blocks” by the high schoolers), to manipulate, explain, and learn various topics. To foster student engagement and whole-class participation, we use whiteboard paddles for question and answer sessions, ensuring a low-threat environment where everyone’s questions are addressed before progressing, a strategy Doug Lemov in Teach Like a Champion calls “No Opt Out.”6

Engaging students becomes more attain-

confidence to approach each academic year determined to make learning meaningful for my students by employing various instructional and assessment techniques using different modalities matched to each learning objective.1

For instance, in our unit on atoms, molecules, and ions, we have specific learning objectives, including distinguishing between molecular and ionic compounds based on their chemical formulas and interconverting between the names and formulas of binary compounds. To initiate this unit, I utilize a combination of lectures and dual

able when the learning experiences hold personal meaning and the students are “doing science.” I often recall my own high school days, questioning the relevance of certain subjects with thoughts like “Why do I need to know this?” or “Will I ever use this in real life?” As a teacher now, yes what I learned in highs chool is useful in my everyday work life; however, I’ve come to realize that many science concepts are far more closely connected to students’ lives than they might initially think. For instance, when we explore electromagnetic radiation, we delve into the significance of sunscreen by engaging with

UV beads. Through this hands-on activity, students gather data and draw their own conclusions, without me explicitly verbalizing the importance of protecting their skin. As we progress to discussing intermolecular forces of attraction, we make meaningful connections to everyday activities like bathing and washing clothes. By engaging in mini lab activities involving polar and nonpolar substances, students swiftly grasp the importance of handwashing in fighting off bacteria and maintaining good health.

In addition to using research to design curriculum and select pedagogical strategies, I recognize the significance of prioritizing my students’ well-being and creating a supportive learning environment. We minimize extraneous cognitive load by reducing barriers to belonging.7 I have chosen to include in my classroom posters and signs that promote inclusion in STEM fields, and I display both student work and pictures of students engaged in the process of doing STEM work on classroom walls.3 At times we start the week off with a brief sharing session where students discuss their weekend activities. This allows them to settle into the learning environment and reinforces the notion that I genuinely care about their lives beyond academics. I also share some aspects of my own life, creating a sense of mutual connection and understanding. Creating a nurturing and inclusive environment by valuing students’ individuality and addressing their physical and emotional well-being helps me to instill a love for science and foster an atmosphere of growth, collaboration, and joy in the classroom – all important aspects of building a sense of belonging.5

My journey from being a police officer in Washington, D.C., to a passionate science teacher at St. Andrew’s has been filled with valuable experiences and transformative moments. By diving into the idea of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) Science, one I was not aware of until St. Andrew’s, and embracing research-informed teaching strategies, I have grown as an educator. I feel better equipped with the tools to unlock each student’s full potential. As I continue on this path, I remain dedicated to my own learning and professional development, ensuring that I provide the best educational experience for my students and contribute to their own academic successes and social, emotional, and identity development. By merging my passion for science, my commitment to nurturing young minds, and my dedication to ongoing growth, I am confident that my ability to make a lasting impact on each student will improve each year. I love my career.

Brittany Shields (bshields@saes.org) teaches Uppper School Science at St. Andrew’s.

Teacher CoachingEmpowerment: Teachers One Step at a Time

DALE KYNOCH

We enter the teaching profession because we want to make a difference. We recognize that getting to know our students’ passions and dreams, to learn what they need to thrive and how to assist them to grow as students and individuals, helps them move closer to realizing their potential. We know that the hundreds of hours spent with them over the course of a year’s teaching enriches them, yet teachers across the country are leaving the profession in droves. Upwards of 50% of new teachers leave the profession in the first five years,1 and teacher preparatory universities are noticing a dramatic decline in enrollment.2 What can we do about it? Coaching teachers to find their voice with themselves, with their administration, and with their students, makes all the difference as we think about attracting, retaining, and developing the next generation of teachers for our students. It helps to identify how we got here.

Our school systems were developed during the Industrial Revolution, when children needed to be moved through an organized system so they could learn basic

skills to enter the workforce. Following the well-established factory model, children were grouped into age cohorts and moved from grade to grade, much like an automobile assembly line. Women were selected to teach the children as they were deemed more compliant and agreeable to the topdown management style. Not much has changed. In addition to an archaic system, teachers also face increased pressures from parents, school and district administration, society, and the students themselves – all without a commensurate increase in salary. No wonder we want to leave. Even I, a classroom teacher since 2008, have thought about leaving the teaching profession.

The term “coach” generates many immediate thoughts. Life coaches, instructional coaches, and sport coaches can all be part of schools and support teachers and students. For me, a self-identified lifelong learner, coaching meant finding a way to keep myself and my colleagues engaged and involved in improving the profession. So in 2022 I made a decision to become trained as a professional coach to help support teachers on their professional learning and growth pathways.

The term “coach” generates many immediate thoughts. Life coaches, instructional coaches, and sports coaches can all be part of schools and support teachers and students. For me, a selfidentified lifelong learner, coaching meant finding a way to keep myself and my colleagues engaged and involved in improving the profession.

When I was finishing my coaching certification program, I was required to take at least two adults through a 12-week health and wellness program. Three teachers I already knew volunteered. As I was taking them through the program, it became increasingly apparent that although my clients claimed health needs, what they really needed was support to survive as teachers. Not instructional strategy underpinning –true support to get up each morning and tackle another day as a teacher. When I was conducting a search of the literature, it surprised me that there was a plethora of data documenting teacher burnout and the droves leaving the profession, but little to no articles or research on supporting teachers themselves.3, 4

Yet, there is something about teaching that pulls us back to the classroom. Finding that glimmer of possibility that, when tapped, moves a student forward floats our boats. Assisting teachers, through coaching, to find and keep that flame of possibility alive, can lead to teacher empowerment. A look within is an important first step. We need to look within to notice our beliefs, biases, and tendencies. Once identified, it is important to reflect on what you want to keep, toss, or revise. It also helps to look at others. Who do we want to emulate? What positive traits stand out for you in your coworkers or in people you follow online?

The second step is to identify the research-based theorist that best fits your

teacher identity. When you conduct your teaching according to an understanding of a theory that has been backed by research, then your teaching naturally is more research informed, more coherent, and likely to have a greater positive impact on your students.

The third step is to claim your right to be a life-long learner yourself. Committing to curiosity and wonder leads to personal empowerment, and is also a terrific example for your students! Framing your teacher identity, identifying your researchbased theorist of choice, and committing to a life-long love of learning empowers you as you become more confident in your choices as you teach.

Teacher empowerment also benefits school and district administration. Studies found that when teachers are included in school decision-making, when they are given opportunities to collaborate with colleagues, and when they receive meaningful and constructive feedback, they have an increased perception of status.5 An increased trust by teachers in administration leads to increased teacher commitment to the institution.6 Finding opportunities to engage teachers in true decision-making opportunities can lead to teacher empowerment, less burnout, and demonstrably less turnover.

Lastly, teacher empowerment clearly benefits the students. When students learn from an empowered teacher who models life-long learning, who is clear on their

own teacher identity, and who is unafraid to model vulnerability and curiosity, the students are likely to be more engaged and enthusiastic about their own learning. When we look at the research on what really makes a difference, “Teachers matter more to student achievement than any other aspect of schooling.”7 Students need to learn how to learn, how to stay curious, and how to allow for self-compassion when they make a mistake. The sanctity of a well-run classroom in a world that is much more complex, and when so much of a student’s life and future is unpredictable and overscheduled, is a welcomed relief. And as teachers are more empowered, students’ voices are more valued.8

We have been asked to carry the tremendous responsibility of teaching students in an ever-changing world. Coaching teachers to identify their teacher identities, and help them find some positive next steps they can take, is a powerful tool that can ultimately result in happier educators, administrators, and students. After all, isn’t that the best part of our days? Entering the classroom, closing the door, turning to the students, and watching their potential unfold. That is what keeps us doing what we do best.

Dale Kynoch (dkynoch@saes.org) teaches Third Grade and is a new employee mentor at St. Andrew’s. She is a certified health and wellness coach specializing in teacher burnout prevention.

Exploring Perspective in Sixth-Grade Humanities

SYDNEY COCHRAN

Iwas approached to write a piece for “Think Differently and Deeply Volume 5” on the topic of how I get my Middle School students to think hard. The direction I took this prompt might be unexpected, but it both gives an insight into how I harness a deeply human motivational driver, and also helps explain what thinking hard looks like for us. In my sixth-grade Humanities class – a combined English and History course focused on ancient cultures and literature – students read nuanced texts from a wide range of writers, cultures, and historical moments. We focus especially on migration and intercultural contact in the ancient world. Even in the few instances when we study “Western” works, we focus on the diversity of people, perspectives, and narratives present. Perspective is central to the course: it is the hinge between empathy and critical thinking. I teach empathy and critical thinking together, since separating the two can lead to simplistic “identification” with a character rather than a real attempt on the reader’s part to grapple with a life different from one’s own.

Pedagogic research into perspective and empathy often focuses on “identification” and “transportation,” in which the reader feels happy when the main character feels happy, feels pity for the struggling characters, and reports a feeling of being immersed in the events of the story.1 My teaching adds a critical dimension by focusing on what early 20th-century playwright Bertolt Brecht calls “show the showing.” Brecht asks the reader to engage with the specificity of the historical moment represented and with the artificiality of the fiction: texts are constructed and do not mirror a singular reality.2 Brecht asks: how can a reader understand the specificity of a fictional character’s situation and choices if he or she identifies with the character, disregarding their differences? Distancing and critical thinking, far from preventing the reader from empathizing, in fact allow the reader to understand a different character and a different set of circumstances on both a deeper cognitive and affective level. As recent research has shown, when perspective is at the center of the reading experience, empathy tends to be notably

Pedagogic research into perspective and empathy often focuses on “identification” and “transportation,” in which the reader feels happy when the main character feels happy, feels pity for the struggling characters, and reports a feeling of being immersend in the story.

present.3, 4 While Brecht wrote plays that encouraged critical thinking – and thus this deeper form of empathy – I strive to guide discussions and scaffold assignments to integrate textual awareness and compassion.

In this article, I’ll explain how this research informs my pedagogy in one particular unit on adaptation. Students read Ovid’s “Daedalus and Icarus” from his Roman epic poem “Metamorphoses.” I read aloud to them this challenging text, and we go over unfamiliar vocabulary and slowly figure out the story as a full class. As we analyze the poem, we focus on the perspective of each character: what is Daedalus feeling when he sends his son into the air on the wings he has just constructed, and what is Icarus feeling in this same moment? We also examine the perspective of the poem’s speaker: how does he feel about Daedalus’ invention, based on his word choice and tone? How does he begin and end his story, and what details does he choose to linger on the most?

Next, we examine an Early Modern adaptation of this ancient poem: Pieter Bruegel’s painting, “Landscape with the Fall of Icarus.” Zooming in and out of a highresolution image of the painting, students love noticing what is included in this painting from Ovid’s poem and what is noticeably left out. Exploring this painting helps us continue our discussion of perspective: we consider where the viewer is positioned in relation to the scene, which direction each of the people in the painting is

looking, what’s included in the frame and what’s outside of it, and what the painting seems to draw our attention to most. Students notice that the plowman, hard at work, is the largest figure in the painting and highlighted in bright red, while the figure of Icarus, legs protruding from the water, is hardly noticeable. As we explore what this painting shows, and what it does, compared to Ovid’s poem, we focus on form as an essential component of perspective: a painting shows things differently than a poem. The painting is focused on a single moment of time: we don’t see the painstaking construction of the wings or Daedalus’ grief after his son has died. But it shows many people and spaces together in that one moment: we look simultaneously at Icarus in the water, a passing merchant ship, a quail pecking around on the shore, and a city in the distance.

After exploring Bruegel’s painted adaptation of Ovid’s poem, we next study a 20th-century free-verse poem by William Carlos Williams that adapts that painting.5 As we read the first line “According to Bruegel,” we consider yet another transformation of this story. I ask students to rewrite this poem three times, each time varying one element: they transform it into prose, cutting line breaks and adding punctuation; they use a thesaurus to switch out a few words in the poem with synonyms; and they reorganize the poem’s line and stanza breaks to create new types of enjambment or to change the rhythm of

the poem. Then they analyze their own creations and consider how their new versions are different from the original. How do we put a text together and how does that affect what it says?

Our interpretive work prepares students for their project: to create their own adaptation of Ovid’s poem in whatever form they choose— perhaps a short story, a newspaper article, or a series of letters or diary entries. How is a newspaper article organized differently from a short story? What sort of details might show up in a character’s diary or in an intimate letter to a loved one? Students explore how different characters feel or what is important to them, even imagining how they might speak. They consolidate their understanding of the ancient text – its plot and characters and form – as they create their own text. They see that they can bring their own perspective to how a story is told. No story is so fixed or inflexible that it cannot be remade.

In this unit, students grapple with a plurality of perspectives and beliefs, a plurality of worlds and realities (whether in the texts they read or the ideas of their peers), a plurality of interpretive approaches and ways of making meaning. Our class discussions are conversations between many perspectives; each of our perspectives adds something new to our collective understanding. Brecht’s approach allows the fictional world to be one of many possible worlds. The students live with complexity, both inside and outside of themselves, and pay close attention to it, asking questions rather than making reductionist arguments.

Bringing together critical thinking and empathy helps us create pedagogies that work toward diversity, equity, and belonging in the classroom. This approach helps students to understand that different people see and experience the world differently and that there are many ways to make and remake the world we live in. In order for a child both to see themself in their coursework and to see others as their equals, they must be introduced to an adequate range of perspectives to feel that writing is for everyone, including themself.6, 7

Sydney Cochran (scochran@saes.org) teaches Middle School Latin and Humanities at St. Andrew’s.

The Power of Plasticity, the Impacts of Stress, and the Awesome Responsibility of Educators

DR. GREG DUNN AND EVA SHULTIS

As a Biology teacher and Mind, Brain & Education research translator, discovering Dr. Greg Dunn’s neuroscience artwork felt like finding a Rosetta Stone of scientific communication. In a single blast of perception, his images convey a level of complexity that takes more than a thousand words to approximate. The opportunity to collaborate with him through The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning (CTTL) and share his art with the students and educators we work with is an honor and a delight. He actually created the first piece in this article, Myelination II, with educators in mind: we had a conversation about the foundational concept of neuroplasticity, in which I bemoaned the lack of images that do it justice. The next time we spoke, he had created one. The second image, Winding Paths to the Self, achieves his self-proclaimed goal of “hitting the viewer in the limbic system” (the emotional processing center of the brain) and is even more powerful if you understand the biological story it’s telling. This article is inspired by and in conversation with Dr. Dunn’s two images and my attempt to tell the story they evoke for me, as well as the sense of purpose and selfauthorship I draw from them as an educator and a human with a brain.

The Most Important Concept To Understand About Your Brain

The power of our brain lies in its neuroplasticity: its ability to change in response to experience. The brain is a living structure that continuously modifies itself, and any learning we do involves a physical change in its synaptic connections: the approximately 30-nanometer sized gaps between one neuron and the next, where neurotransmitter molecules such as serotonin, dopamine, or adrenaline carry the signal forward. Researchers estimate there are 86 billion neurons in the human brain, and each neuron can form a synaptic connection with 1,000 to 10,000 others, generating a level of complexity that’s hard to wrap your mind around. This network of connections holds our memories, thought processes, and patterns of behavior. A single neuron is not intelligent on its own — rather, our intelligence emerges from the concerted action of circuits of billions of neurons, just as waves emerge from the movement of countless water molecules. Similarly, our personality and sense of identity emerge from the lifelong strengthening, weakening, and reconfiguring of the connections that make up our most-traveled neural pathways. In this way, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And just as you can’t step in the same river twice, our

particular arrangement of neural pathways is different from moment to moment — they’re continuously changing, which makes two things true simultaneously:

1. The way our brain works is deeply shaped by our history

2. The way our brain works is open to our ongoing influence.

Humans evolved a high level of plasticity to adapt to changing environments. We’re born with the essential survival mechanisms baked in (recognizing our mother, gripping, eating, crying for help) and learn everything else from our environment on an as-needed basis. While this adaptable intelligence is a strength in many contexts, it also introduces vulnerabilities. In the words of anthropologist Ashley Montagu, “We are the most educable of all the creatures on this Earth... Everything we come to be, to know, and to do as human beings, we have to learn from other human beings. Indeed, educability is our species’ trait. And that is why to be human is to be in danger, for we can easily be taught many wrong and unsound things.”1

Neuroplasticity is essential to understand for parents, educators, students, policymakers — really any conscious operator of a brain trying to find out about oneself. For educators in particular, neuroplasticity matters because we are stewards of neuroplasticity — our students’ brains are continually changing as a result of everything they experience, and the time they spend with us, from infancy through adolescence, is the most neuroplastic period in the human lifespan. We all have the power to reshape our own brains and to create conditions that nurture healthy or harmful development in the people around

us. This awareness can help us embrace the awesome responsibility of being an educator and a person in relationship with others.

How Neuroplasticity Works

Early in our development, our brains create an abundance of synaptic connections. We follow much the same emergent strategy as a slime mold searching for food. (If you’ve never seen a slime mold, watching one solve a maze and design a more efficient rail system for the city of Tokyo on YouTube2 will make it clear that the comparison is a compliment.) Similarly, we begin life with a period of heightened neural interconnectivity, often referred to as synaptic proliferation or synaptic exuberance, which peaks around one or two years of age.3 Then, like Michelangelo with a chisel, we enter a period of pruning that continues through adolescence, in which the connections that prove to be less essential are cut away. The brain is metabolically expensive tissue — it uses 20% of our energy, despite being 2% of our body weight.4 So we only expend energy and resources to maintain the neural pathways that are most relevant to us. How does our brain know which pathways matter and are worth fortifying? The solution is beautifully simple: it prioritizes the ones we activate most often.5 Imagine if the roads we drive on rearranged and expanded themselves according to changes in traffic flow — our brain is a self-organizing system that does this organically. We physically strengthen or weaken the pathways of our mind according to how frequently we travel them, so the physical structure of our brain, and its functioning in turn, bears the imprint of our past — and

will continue to change with our present and future experiences.

There’s a universe of cellular activity inside each neuron and several mechanisms that contribute to neuroplasticity. For example, to strengthen a connection that’s activated often, a process called long-term potentiation occurs in the neuron on the receiving end of the synapse: its internal machinery reads genes and synthesizes proteins to create additional surface receptors for the particular neurotransmitter the other neuron has been sending it, so subsequent bursts of that neurotransmitter evoke a stronger response than before.6 My personal favorite mechanism is myelination, depicted in Greg Dunn’s image Myelination. The blue neurons, called pyramidal neurons, are sending and receiving signals. The red neurons, called oligodendrocytes, produce myelin, a fatty substance that is an extension of their own cell membrane, and wrap it around the sending arms of the pyramidal neurons like insulation on an electrical wire. Adding this layer of myelin helps the signal travel more quickly. As we practice a behavior, the repeated activation of neural pathways associated with that behavior triggers nearby oligodendrocytes to myelinate them, resulting in faster and more reliable signal transmission.7 The more we do something, the better we get at it.

As we practice, we develop automaticity: behaviors that used to occupy a lot of bandwidth in our limited working memory (the real bottleneck in the system as far as learning and performance are concerned) become consolidated in long-term memory and retrieved from there instead, which frees

Myelination II, Ink on watercolor paper, 2023, 30” X 50” - by Greg Dunn

our working memory to attend to other things.8 Remember what it felt like when you first learned to drive? Contrast that with how automatically you do it now (and the previously unthinkable number of other activities you may feel tempted to carry out at the same time)! Learning requires repetition over time and is enhanced by making connections to prior knowledge and practicing in different contexts. The more connections we’re able to form to a memory network, the more points of entry there are to activate that network, and the easier it becomes for us to access the memory.9 We develop expertise when information is stored in highly interconnected long-term memory networks, which we can access and execute with decreased conscious effort, freeing our cognitive resources to attend to higher-order aspects of what we’re doing.

Conversely, if you don’t use it, you lose it: we forget what we don’t retrieve. Neuroplasticity is a giveand-take. And whether the continuous remodeling of our internal wiring helps or hinders us depends on which pathways we strengthen and prune. On the positive side, our brain’s plasticity enables us to learn and adapt, form new habits, recover from injuries, and improve at anything we do repeatedly. The darker side of the coin is that we can develop addictions, unhelpful habits, and destructive thought patterns. Negative associations can solidify in the form of trauma or bias, and we may wear those grooves so deeply we feel unable to climb out. Cognitive inflexibility is a common theme across many forms of mental illness and can be exacerbated by stress, in the face of which we tend to double down on our entrenched patterns.10

Our Brains Function Differently Under Stress

Our brains are exquisitely sensitive to stress— we evolved the ability to rapidly detect threats and shift our nervous systems into a different gear of functioning in the face of danger (you may have heard of sympathetic nervous system activation or the “fight or flight response”). This response is not a bad thing: we owe our existence to it activating at the critical moment in every ancestor who came before us, keeping our lineage alive.

A small region in the center of our brain called the amygdala is responsible for processing emotions and detecting potential threats. The amygdala communicates bi-directionally with several other brain regions, including our prefrontal cortex, where our higher-order thinking skills such as creativity, problem-solving, metacognition, working memory, and executive functions take place. When the amygdala detects a threat, it downshifts the brain: it disengages the prefrontal cortex, dampening higher-order thinking,11 and activates the more evolutionarily ancient fight or flight response of the sympathetic nervous system. Our adrenal glands release adrenaline and cortisol, setting a cascade of physiological changes in motion, such as breathing and beating our hearts more quickly to deliver oxygen and glucose to our muscles. This amygdala hijack prioritizes essential survival functions over complex cognitive processes, routine maintenance

work, or long-term consequences—like the emergency consolidation of power in the hands of a dictator. Rational decision-making falls by the wayside, and instinctive emotional responses take the wheel. As in ancient Rome, the mechanism is intended to redistribute authority once we’re safe. The tyranny of the amygdala is effective at keeping us alive in the short term, but sympathetic nervous system activation is unhelpful for learning and academic performance, and seriously harmful to our health as a prolonged state.

In the world humans originally evolved for, stress was more often an acute incident—we’d run or fight, triggering the release of endorphins, and if we survived the threat, our brain and body would regulate stress hormone levels and return us to baseline. In modern society, our stressors are more structurally and socially persistent. We can get stuck in a stress state for extended periods of time, which is bad for our bodies and brains—and when the stressor is a system of power that we can’t physically fight or flee, we don’t complete the cycle that would regulate us. Under chronic stress, cortisol stays in circulation at high levels and causes a host of changes, including the death of neurons in the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus,12 where memory consolidation takes place. (Decreased volume of the left hippocampus is also a hallmark of depression,13 and hippocampal atrophy may be among the reasons chronic stress is a risk factor for depression). As those regions shrink, the amygdala enlarges and becomes hyper-responsive to threat.14 Parts of our brain involved in motivation and reward become damaged, which numbs us to typical rewards, and we may harm ourselves in search of more potent experiences — this is of particular concern in adolescence when risk-taking is high and the prefrontal cortex is still under construction. Over a lifetime, high levels of cortisol in persistent circulation lead to immune suppression, dysregulation of the inflammatory response, and negative health consequences in pretty much every organ system.

Our Experiences Have Generational Ripple Effects

Our brains dynamically modify themselves with experience, and so do our genes: in response to signals from the environment, each gene can be switched “on” or “off”—expressed or silenced. This activation and deactivation of genes is called epigenetics. Epigenetic changes occur throughout our lifespan, orchestrating events from embryonic development through the aging process.15 And while some changes reset from one generation to the next, others can persist. Transgenerational inheritance of epigenetic changes is not yet fully understood, but it’s clear that through one mechanism or another, an imprint of a parent’s environment can be passed down to their offspring by activating or silencing genes. Your mother’s nutrition, stress, health conditions, and chemical exposures during pregnancy influenced the environment of her womb and contributed to your epigenetic makeup. And like a Russian nesting doll, the impacts travel one layer deeper: you existed, in separate halves, inside each of your

grandmothers while they were pregnant with your mother and father. The oocyte and spermatocyte (precursor egg and sperm) that ultimately came together to create you developed inside your parents around their fourth month of gestation.16 This means whatever happened to your two grandmothers impacted your parents and you simultaneously. As a society, whatever we do to women, we do to all of us for generations.

Our early childhood experiences also influence the expression of our genes. Michael Meaney and other researchers have investigated the impacts of maternal care through cross-fostering experiments with rats, in which rat pups were switched between mothers shortly after birth. Mother rats were categorized as calm or anxious, based on

their observable maternal behaviors such as grooming, licking, and nursing; calm mothers displayed more consistent maternal care, while anxious mothers displayed less, due to the heightened activation of their own stress responses. Pups raised by anxious mothers tended to develop heightened stress responses themselves, whether they were biologically related or fostered. Conversely, the licking and nurturing of a calm mother activated epigenetic changes in both their biological and fostered pups, altering the expression of a gene that codes for a glucocortocoid receptor in the brain (the stress hormone cortisol is a glucocorticoid) and resulting in lower levels of anxious behavior and a more adaptive stress response for the baby rats.17

To date, most research on epigenetic inheritance has focused on rats and other non-human animals, and we must take care not to jump to conclusions about what is happening in humans. A few human studies exist, however. For example, Rachel Yehuda and colleagues measured the epigenetic effects of stress and trauma in Holocaust survivors and their children. Similar to the findings in rats, researchers observed changes in the expression of a gene associated with glucocorticoid signaling, leading to an altered stress response in Holocaust survivors and their adult offspring.18 Research in humans is ongoing—but if the same mechanisms are at play in all of us, the implications for other populations who experience systemic identitybased marginalization and generational trauma would be profound.

The Difference Educators Can Make

In addition to dysregulating our stress response, chronic stress — particularly when experienced at a young age — alters the expression of genes that contribute to neuroplasticity, such as Brain Derived Neurotrophic Growth factor (BDNF), a protein involved in the growth and maintenance of neurons.19 Just as we don’t channel energy into tissue repair while engaged in fight or flight, neuroplasticity is generally

down-regulated under stress — because imminent danger is not an ideal time to tinker with your neural pathways. For this and many other reasons, safety and belonging are vital nutrients for learning. The expression of BDNF is supported by physical and psychological safety, as well as sleep, exercise, and novelty. Because epigenetic changes alter the expression of genes, rather than the genes themselves, undesirable changes may be reversible to varying extents. For example, the epigenetic changes associated with smoking are gradually reversed once people quit,20 and the time this takes seems to be a function of the dose they experienced as a smoker. I’m hopeful we’ll discover that stressrelated changes work similarly. Recall that in the rat cross-fostering experiments, affection from the mother controlled the molecular switchboard – for rat pups born to anxious mothers and predisposed to have hyperactive stress responses, affection from a calm foster mother could quiet the alarm bells.

Nurturing relationships matter because oxytocin plays a significant role in regulating our stress responses. Often referred to as “the love hormone” in popular science, oxytocin is involved in social bonding processes including mother-infant bonding, intimate partner bonding, and the establishment of trust. It’s released in response to positive social interactions such as physical touch, emotional connection, and experiences of joy, laughter, and empathy. And it exerts a protective, stress-buffering effect by inhibiting the stress-induced activity of the hypothalamus, pituitary and adrenal glands, leading to decreased cortisol levels.21 As educators, we can’t control all the stressors in our students’ lives, but we can modulate the level of stress they experience in our sphere of influence, and serve as a buffer against outside stressors by developing strong positive relationships with them. We each intuitively understand that positive relationships help us through stressful experiences – research affirms this is true down to the molecular level. By offering our students a safe and connective learning environment, educators can nurture the power and plasticity of their brains and create conditions for them to flourish.

Greg Dunn (began painting brain and neuroscience art while earning his doctorate in neuroscience from the University of Pennsylvania. His work is exhibited around the world and you can see more of it at gregadunn.com.

Eva Shultis (eshultis@saes.org) teaches AP Biology at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School and is the Associate Director of Research & Product Development for The Center for Transformative Teaching & Learning.

Winding Paths to the Self

22K gold, ink, dye, and metal powder on stainless steel 2018, 48” X 96” - by Greg Dunn

You Have Something in Your Teeth: My Journey to Being a Research-Informed Teacher

SARA MCAULIFFE

The art and profession of teaching is personal. So personal, in fact, that the suggestion of changing our practice has the potential to feel as personally offensive as being told to change a central piece of your personality. Alternatively, not knowing about research-informed pedagogy as you go through your career is a bit like finding out you’ve had something in your teeth after a big presentation and realizing no one mentioned it to you beforehand. Well, for years I had something in my teeth, and no one told me, but I also didn’t know where to find a metaphorical mirror, so that I could check for myself.

It’s easier, and snappier, to say that there has been a clear distinction between my teaching before being introduced to Mind,

Brain, and Education (MBE) Science and after that introduction; however, that isn’t quite true. While tidier, I also won’t refer to my time after being introduced to MBE as “the post-MBE period,” since I hope never to enter a period of career that ceases to be defined by research-informed pedagogical practices. Instead, I’ll call the time after I was introduced to MBE my “change of practice.” This change of practice began, as many changes do, with reading a book. Specifically, “Neuroteach: Brain Science and the Future of Education.”1 While it was a few years ago now, I still recall the moments of clarity I experienced while reading. Those “aha” moments that I’d been chasing with and, if we are being honest, for my students, I could now see in the proverbial mirror.

While I felt anxious about letting go of some tasks and practices that I felt pressured to do based on precedent, what remained was and continues to be quite liberating. I finally had that metaphorical stuff out of my teeth and could focus on what worked. I invested in thoughtfulness in creating class culture, in designing homework that mattered, in interleaving retrieval practice, and in creating partnerships between my content and my strategies.

My change of practice came after selfreflection in that research-informed mirror. This inspection offered an opportunity to evaluate the true tenets of my teaching practice and to identify the parts of my day-to-day practice that were the results of antiquated ideas of teaching… or flashy Pinterest2 posts that seemed like a good idea at the time. Through this reflection, I found that my favorite aspects of teaching were actually the strategies that withstood the investigation, and a lot of what I dreaded doing could be purged. Pause for a moment and think about that again: a lot of what I dreaded doing could be purged. While I felt anxious about letting go of some tasks and practices that I felt pressured to do based on precedent, what remained was and continues to be quite liberating. I finally had that metaphorical stuff out of my teeth and could focus on what worked. I invested in thoughtfulness in creating class culture, in designing homework that mattered, in interleaving retrieval practice, and in creating partnerships between my content and my strategies.

One of my personal convictions of teaching that withstood investigation in the MBE mirror was my commitment to partnerships. According to the Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education, “Interpersonal relationships and communication are critical to both the teaching-learning process and the social-emotional development of students. 3Like any good partnership, the connections between students, teachers, families, administrators, and school communities at large must be built on trust, communication, flexibility, and belief. A belief in what? Belief

that teachers, students, and families are all on the same team and have the same goal. Belief that the teacher will partner MBEinformed instructional strategies with their subject knowledge, pedagogical wisdom, and knowledge of their students to enhance the content and the learning. Belief that some stress is good for learners, and that an MBE-informed teacher is in a better place to balance that stress level moment to moment. Belief that the work of thinking and learning matters. Finally, a shared belief that the student is capable of learning and growing… and that the teacher is too.

Trust, communication, and flexibility tend to follow from a place of belief. For all those experiencing semantic satiation, belief simply means: “something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believed.”4 This is not to say that reflection and questioning have become obsolete or lost their places in the world of education; this article would not exist if that were the case. Reflection, refinement, iterative practice, failure, and questioning are all necessary to the art of teaching and to the art of learning. The belief instead refers to the tenets previously stated and to the practices which flow from them. For example, the age-old question “Why do I have to do this?” plagues homework spaces around the globe. Desk carrols, dining room tables, dimly lit sofas, coffee shops, and bedroom floors have all heard this seemingly and frustratingly unanswerable question. When the student, or teacher, believes that the answer to this query is to kill time or worse yet “just because,” the foundation of

trust between student and teacher cracks a bit. However, research-informed homework helps students, and teachers, answer that question differently. As Pedro De Bruyckere states in his book, The Ingredients for Great Teaching, “Homework is best used when it provides a basis for further development back in the classroom”;5 if student and teacher alike can share this belief, it makes the idea that the work of learning matters a little bit easier to trust. Similarly, knowing and using MBE-informed instructional strategies to enhance the content and the learning helps students to believe and trust that their teacher will partner the best strategies for the content and teach the students how to identify, apply, and leverage those strategies on their own. Retrieval practice, as outlined in Pooja K. Agarwal & Patrice M. Bain’s Powerful Teaching: Unleash the Science of Learning, 6 is one of the many research-informed strategies for learning that students can implement across content areas.

This change of practice required a few pantry staples: energy, trust, and information. The energy required to research, adapt, develop, and iterate was not insignificant but was far better spent on these areas rather than on grading mindless homework assignments. The trust element of my change of practice was more taxing than the energy required to make that change. In order to trust that the change would be worth it, I had to know that I was trusted as a professional to investigate the “whys” and the “whats,” but that there were experts to check in with and from whom I could learn. Those experts had a wealth of information and resources; however, the world of education spans wide, and discerning what was research-informed or simply written as if it were, required a level of skepticism that I had not previously maintained. The work to make a change is sometimes slow, sometimes a bit challenging, but always rewarding. It’s definitely better than having something in your teeth.

Sara McAuliffe(smcauliffe@saes.org) teaches Middle School English at St. Andrew’s.

The BetweenRelationship Reggio Emilia and Mind, Brain, and Education Science in a Pre-K and Kindergarten Classroom

VAS POURNARAS AND DENISE KOTEK

For the past three years we have worked collaboratively in both formal and informal ways to explore the science of learning – Mind, Brain and Education (MBE) Science – for our youngest learners. Through our many conversations, recurring themes have emerged as anchors between research and practice. One of these anchors is the way key parts of the Reggio Emilia philosophy, and its practical wisdom approach to teaching and learning, align with MBE. In our most recent professional development deep dive, looking into the research around classroom environment and student agency, we couldn’t help but be reminded of some of the foundational principles of the Reggio Emilia philosophy. The social nature of learning, the power of documentation for learning, children as active protagonists in their growing processes, and the importance of the environment and spaces where children are centered in learning1 are some of the principles from Reggio Emilia that stood out to us.

The Reggio Emilia approach goes as far as to say that the environment is the “third teacher,” alongside the educator and child.2

The idea is that all incoming stimuli that children perceive from the spaces they occupy, in classrooms or outdoors, impacts their learning, behavior, and well-being. In this approach, teachers orchestrate learning provocations, use documentation to make learning visible, and bring nature

indoors for creative interactions in the learning environment.1 Teacher-staged provocations encourage thinking and learning by inviting children to interact with objects and ideas that spark interest and prime the brain for concepts to be further explored.3 Materials are selected and arranged in ways to provoke children to engage with them. In early childhood settings, this is a big part of the planning and preparation that is so important for high quality teaching. All this aligns well with MBE principles, such as the science of motivation, which tells us that capturing a child’s curiosity prolongs attention and increases engagement – both of which correlate with better learning outcomes.4

investigation to continue! The pumpkin was a surprising addition to the classroom that generated excitement, stimulated problem solving, and prolonged attention on a single investigation.

The connection between Reggio principles and the science of motivation is perhaps best illustrated with a story. In our Pre-K classroom this fall, we brought nature indoors to set up a seasonal provocation. Children were surprised to find an enormous pumpkin in our science center. The circular cut near the top invited them to pull on the stem and uncover its slimy pulp. They peered and smelled inside the pumpkin. “Can we touch in here? What are we doing with this?” children asked. Later that day, we carried the pumpkin to another table with assorted spoons, scoopers, and a blue towel. We listened, watched, and waited as the children began to touch and pull on the slippery insides. “Huh. Well, we can’t get in there too well,” one child said. After a brief conversation, the class decided to rearrange the chairs, so they could stand and reach in. As teachers, we made the choice to let the children explore their theories on how to access the pumpkin rather than giving them direct instructions at that moment. Some of the children were still having difficulty reaching the pumpkin, so several of them rolled the pumpkin on its side for a lower point of access. These young learners persevered in their thinking to find a workable solution that would allow their

To expand the learning potential of this classroom event, we used the Reggioinspired approach to documentation, which makes learning visible by featuring the process of learning alongside the outcomes. It isn’t just a record of what happened, but an interpretation of the learning that took place.5 During our pumpkin investigation, we collected the traces of students’ interactions with the pumpkin through photographs, and transcribed their dialogue throughout. We shared a slideshow that led to a lively discussion and made a wall display to document their learning. Our English language learners were very engaged, pointing out details in the pictures and using their new vocabulary, such as “stringy” and “goop.” This documentation helped our class reflect on their involvement with the investigation, uncover new information in the images, and extend their thinking, all in a deeply social context.5 The children laughed about their interactions with the pumpkin, while the pictures of seeds fueled their desire to season and cook these pumpkin remnants in a large toaster oven. They later chose to take these cooked seeds home to share with their families, extending the joy from school to home. What’s next? We have heard chatter about planting our saved seeds!

We know that making learning meaningful to the children’s lives drives their agency and intrinsic motivation.6 Furthermore, providing a platform for children to have a voice in their learning increases engagement and motivation, and, using language familiar to Reggio Emilia, makes them the protagonists of their learning. This does not mean that it is free reign for the students, but rather, curriculum and experiences are built with their interests in mind.7 It is a great example of the Reggio Emilia approach and Mind, Brain, and Education Science principles in alignment.

A simple example of making learning meaningful and creating space for students’ voices happened this past October when our kindergarteners were learning the new phonics concept “g says /g/.” To make a connection to the /g/-sound, a homemade ghost crafted with tissue paper was brought into the classroom as an object that begins with the /g/-sound. As children passed the ghost around for each to look at and engage with

(and say “ghost begins with /g/”), one of them stated that they wanted to learn how to make ghosts, so that we could decorate our classroom for Halloween. Instead of immediately saying, “Okay, let’s make ghosts,” the children were told that it was a great idea and we needed to think about when and how we could incorporate this idea into the week. As the teachers, we wanted to connect their idea of decorating the classroom with our curricular plan for the week. Making predictions and asking questions were two reading habit skills we planned to explore in the week ahead, and we chose to read a book about a haunted house that both helped us explore these reading habit skills and also generate ideas about how we could make our classroom look spooky. After the read aloud, the class had an opportunity to brainstorm their ideas, collaborate, create ghosts, and finally fill the classroom with these handmade decorations for Halloween.

Throughout these lessons, the simple act of sharing our creativity with the children inspired or motivated them to express themselves in creative ways as well.8 This joyful learning is reflected in the Hundred Languages principle of the Reggio Emilia approach – the importance of providing children with many ways to share their thinking of the world around them.1 By providing the children with a platform to express their understanding of Halloween and how to represent its symbols, we gave them a voice to showcase and anchor their own learning.9 Supporting our learners’ agency connected to our phonics lesson enabled them to truly learn the concept “g says /g/,” as evidenced by their use of this new knowledge in their reading and writing following the lessons that week. Giving the children a voice, and pausing to figure out how to incorporate their ideas into our week’s lessons, enabled us to have a deeper intent around what could be seen at a casual glance as simply a fun arts and crafts project.

For us, taking a deep dive into the science of learning has given us the confidence to boldly and selectively use aspects of the pedagogy synonymous with Reggio Emilia in ways that we know will make learning stick for our youngest learners. Who would have thought that following the science of learning would have led to so much joy!

Vas Pournaras (vpournaras@saes.org) teaches Kindergarten at St. Andrew’s.

Denise Kotek taught pre-kindergarten at St. Andrew’s.

Research-Informed Chapel at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School

THE REV. JAMES ISAACS

One of my “classrooms” each week has 517 students, and each of those Middle and Upper School students brings with them concerns, interests, or anxieties about things that have nothing to do with what I’m about to lead them through. Some of them are focused on things having to do with school – concerns about upcoming assessments, assignments, competitions, or performances, or feelings and thoughts remaining from where they have just come from. And then there is also everything going on outside of school –situations happening in their families or in relationships that we might not even know about – yet those things might dominate their focused attention.

The type of individual attention and awareness that we typically provide students in classrooms and activities at St. Andrew’s isn’t possible when hundreds of students come into the basketball court where we have chapel each week. Yet I want them to be a part of something that is significant and meaningful during that time and that makes a difference to them in the moment, as well as something positive that they can carry with them as they reenter the parts of their lives that can mentally burden them. I want them to see chapel as a space that they belong in1 and that also has purpose and relevance to their lives,2 regardless of religious upbringing or current beliefs.

Before they enter the chapel time and space, there are three ways I prepare them

for it to be a different quality of time and space than other times they enter the basketball court or other spaces on campus. As they arrive at school at the start of the day, I’m outside greeting them on the days we have a chapel service, enthusiastically saying, “Good morning; Happy Chapel Day!” Next, at the Middle School and Upper School morning meetings (when announcements about upcoming events and programs are made to the student body), I approach the microphone with students stamping their feet, building up to the announcement that I make (with my best WWE announcer impersonation): “It’s Friday, and its Chapel Day!” The students have caught on, and they burst out in applause and cheering. As I see students and employees that morning, I greet them, saying “Happy Chapel Day.” And then, as they are coming into the space, I greet them personally and say “Good morning. Welcome to Chapel.” By the time they are seated in chapel, they know that it has the potential to be special, and that they are individually welcome, no matter what experiences, perspectives, and parts of their identities (including diverse religious identities) they bring with them to this shared space.

But they likely have everything that they brought with them still occupying their thoughts and taking up space in their active working memories. With those preoccupations adding to their extraneous cognitive load,3 often magnified when there are qui-

eter times for reflection, I address the issue directly. After welcoming them to chapel, I acknowledge that they may be bringing things with them that are occupying their minds, and invite them to set those thoughts aside for the next thirty-five minutes, trusting that if they are important thoughts to pick back up, they will be waiting for them at the end of the chapel. I remind them that they are not expected to produce anything during this time, and they will not be judged on how they do. They can just be in the space and in community, receive what is being offered, and participate in ways in which they feel comfortable.

I cannot transform a gym into a chapel by myself. They are the ones who largely make the space and time into something where they (and the people around them) can benefit from what will happen. And so we all mentally transition the space around us as well as our mindsets to chapel time with about a minute of silence or a mindfulness moment. Sometimes I do some teaching about things that they can do in the silence to gently help them let go of what they might be bringing with them to the space and time. But, aware that what is helpful for one person might be further distracting for another, I encourage them to try these different options that I present throughout the year to see what is most effective for them. Astonishingly, I often hear from students that the 60 seconds or so of silence before chapel begins is the only time they have that is quiet for them in their entire week. Many of them share that it is precious.

I break the silence to check in with them to ask if they are now “in chapel.” The response is the same one that so many holy people in the Bible use to respond to hearing their name called before encountering a message from God: “Here am I.” I welcome to chapel those who responded that they are here, acknowledge what I believe, which is that God is also present with us, and invite those who are not fully present yet to still receive what is being offered with the hope that they can also join us.

Then chapel can begin.

The liturgy (the order of the parts) of chapel is consistent and so it also frees the cognitive load of students to not have to figure out what is going on. Yet the familiarity is balanced by different components following the theme of the particular chapel service within that template – signaling to their brains that there is something unexpected worth noticing and focusing upon.4 Sometimes speakers include their peers, ensuring that it is something that is relevant to their experiences. Other times, guests who bring a different and interesting presence offer a perspective not otherwise available to

the community. Faculty members who share their wisdom and insights offer students an opportunity to satisfy their intrinsic curiosity of the people they sometimes only see in the context of teaching in the classroom. All of these experiences engage their sense of empathy, which drives brain development and learning.5 And we engage other learning modalities within chapel to stimulate the students’ brains in different ways, including through singing, musical performances, and art or words projected on a screen with time to observe or read without auditory interruption.6 We conclude the themed part of the chapel with open-ended questions projected on a screen that students can reflect upon to build memories by recalling what their brains have experienced and apply what they have learned to their own lives.7

After the themed parts of the chapel that vary from week to week, we have a time for prayer. It is consistent and predictable intentionally to both reduce cognitive load and because, in that time, students are invited to return to the things that they were invited to set aside at the beginning of the service. Because they know at the beginning of chapel service that there will be time to return to their mental preoccupations, their minds are more willing to temporarily let go of those concerns. But, through the four open-ended prayer prompts, students are able, in a way that feels safe and comfortable as it relates to their faith tradition, if they have one, to reevaluate what they were carrying with them before. The prayer prompts also offer them a way to evaluate and direct those thoughts. Finally, after importantly

acknowledging and thanking everyone who made the chapel service possible and special (including all of them), the students close by receiving a blessing and saying a meaningful dismissal that is projected, but many of them memorize and refer back to throughout their week – and often take with them beyond their time at St. Andrew’s. Life is short, and we haven’t much time to gladden the hearts of those with whom we walk this Earth, So be swift to love, make haste to be kind… .

As I write this article, I am finishing my fourth year as St. Andrew’s Episcopal School’s Middle and Upper School Chaplain. Chapels have evolved as we design, try, iterate, change, and adapt different parts of it (including the changes necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions). To inform and evaluate all of those changes and the things that remain consistent, the MBE research available through The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning is valuable. I also have a diverse group of students who make up “The Chaplain’s Advisory Board” with whom I meet regularly. They are the ones administering the formative assessments for chapel – the simple “how’s it really going?” checks that inform what happens next8 – and providing the feedback that encourages it to improve and be even more student-centered. Yet this also describes some of where it is now when “It’s Chapel Day!” at St. Andrew’s.

The Reverend James Isaacs (jisaacs@saes. org) is the Chaplain to the Upper and Middle School at St. Andrew’s where he also teaches Religion.

Teacher - Student Feedback and a Virtuous Cycle of Co-Learning

LAUREN COOK

As I hustle back into my art room after a brief break between classes, I encounter a handful of early arrivals huddled in front of the critique wall discussing a student drawing. “Ms. Cook, they think I should add some more darkness here,” says one of my students, pointing to a spot on their artwork, “and I’m wondering if that works with what I’m trying to do. What do you think? What would you do?” As I feel many expectant eyes moving between me and the artwork, I briefly look past them to scan the room. Seeing other students busily pulling their work from their drawers, setting out materials and readying for class, I turn my attention back to the question at hand. I can already hear my response in my head (“Hmmm – let me think. Tell us again, what do you care about here, what are you trying to do with this piece?”) but pause to savor the exchange. I am standing beside my students as a partner in a circle of learners. Together we are providing invited feedback as this artist considers decisions about what they want to say with their art, what they want to learn and how they will learn it. How deeply satisfying. But let’s roll back what got me to this moment.

At the beginning of every introductory or advanced painting, portfolio, or drawing course, I start by getting students to check in with their point of view, their “POV.” They provide an image of a scene or object that symbolizes something of value or interest to them, and then talk about it. I am humbled

by what students share about themselves, especially in elective classes as they put their toe into the still-murky waters of trust. Such classes can have freshmen sitting next to seniors, with the majority of the class never previously having met one another. Stopping to intentionally ponder what matters to them, how they are experiencing their world that day or in general, and then revealing it publicly is hard, and can be a tall order for the best of us. All kinds of things are offered: a keen passion for soccer, obsessions with an on-line game, deep love of family or the outdoors or spiritual faith, fatigue from homework or long commutes, or the unapologetic adoration of the color pink! I’ve wondered if their frankness comes from their surprise at being asked this personal question (“What does this have to do with art, Ms. Cook?), a question with no possible “right” answer but their own, or from seeing me first step into that vulnerable space by sharing my concerns about global environmental stewardship or that my age keeps refocusing how I experience my life.

This exercise takes its share of instructional time, to be sure, but is key to everything else that goes on in the studio for the rest of the course. It helps validate the singular personhood and voice of that student as an artist and designer, giving them added authority and agency as they set their own goals as learners. Explicitly saying what is meaningful to each of us from the start of our creative journey strengthens our community of relationships certainly,

and also equips students to embed more intentionally personal meaning in what to express through their art. You like track? So does the person sitting next to you. Why not collaborate on drawing still lifes of your most beat up set of cleats? Tired of getting up so early? Make an etched print of an alarm clock on a pillow or a circular mandala design that lets your mind rest through the repetition of simple shapes. Life feeling fuzzy right now? Learn how paint opacity or transparency can be used to get that fuzzy effect in your self-portrait.

We know students are more determined to master what might otherwise feel like a boring studio skill if it is anchored to intrinsic motivation and the pursuit of a question they want answered through their art.1,2 In the art world we refer to this as “the artist’s intent.” In art and in other academic domains we know that such trust and motivation directly impact student readiness to learn, setting the stage for accepting and seeking out meaningful feedback through many forms of assessment. 3, 4, 5

A unique characteristic of most studiobased art education asks students to dial up their readiness for feedback from the very beginning. The adage “a picture says a thousand words” aptly applies in studio classes where a student’s proficiency and skill level are laid bare across our art tables. Their marks are not embedded in text or numerals for later decoding by a teacher or peer reviewer but are exposed for all to see and judge at a moment’s glance. With a full range of aesthetic preferences, skills,

Critiques help you to actually like the feedback and get used to other people’s thoughts or ideas. There were so many critiques that towards the end, it start to just feel normal at a certain point and it won’t make you feel as nervous

- Kelsey Ansary ‘23

and visual aptitudes constantly on display in every class, where everything is literally on the table all the time or on exhibit on the critique wall, I hold deep respect for our art students, whether in the visual or performing arts. I view them as bands of creative warriors with nowhere to hide and yet holding their own, ever marching onward. Talk about resiliency!

The more students experience the backand-forth flow of such learning experiences as less threatening the more they seek it out. Indeed, studies confirm that regular, timely, low-risk feedback is most effective in student learning.3 I see this in my classes and am lucky to have the added vantage point of seeing this maturity evolve in advanced art and design students because I work with them for multiple years, sometimes through their entire high school careers. Based on their research, authors Schrand and Eliason suggest that the ongoing sustained relationships design students experience with their cohorts and instructors amplifies the effectiveness of feedback and critique for these students more than feedback practices in other learning domains. They note their findings could “be used to support the concept of learning communities that cluster students across multiple sections and semesters to build a culture of camaraderie and trust” in general education.5

The famous “final crit session” is held when students present their final art or design work, a signature summative assessment in art instruction. Sometimes cast as the last step in the creative learning cycle, critique is of course not the last step at all, as insights feed forward into the next round of creative growth and competence. It is especially powerful when an advanced art student has a revelation about their own work during a final critique, such as an unseen

connection to prior work or a new thematic current in an ongoing investigation – selfinsights that have eluded them until they stand in critique sharing reflections, questions, and analyses with their classmates.

As my practice as an art educator evolves, so does my posture as the “expert” teacher to one that more deliberately and transparently exposes to students my stance as another learner in the room. I love it when a student, combining materials in ways that extend beyond my own direct experience, asks me for feedback on whether something will work. “I don’t know. Let’s try it,” I may say, and off we go together to do just that.

More often now than in past years I share my personal art and creative process, especially works in progress, with my students. I get their input about decisions I am mulling over, from questions on formal composition to the clarity of the message or visual impact I am going for in a piece. As with my classes, I start these exchanges by sharing what I care about – themes that reverberate in my own artistic practice (and yes, part of my POV) – and a brief explanation of my intent with that piece. In doing so I hope to model that what I want from them as creative learners is also what I want for myself. That, as an artist and teacher I will always value and benefit from collaborative feedback that is germane to what I seek to learn. As a teacher, I hope to always be invited into the circle –“Ms. Cook, what do you think about this?” – to be engaging with my students as a co-learner where we continually grow from one another’s perspectives, ideas, imagination, and curiosity in a virtuous cycle of creativity and learning.

Lauren Cook (lcook@saes.org) teaches Visual Arts at St. Andrew’s

The Necessary Art and Science of Classroom Conversations in Early Childhood

TIA HENTELEFF

As an early childhood educator, I have witnessed the tremendous value of daily whole-class conversations for teaching and learning. Over the years, I have been intrigued about what the research says about the muli-faceted and multi-layered educational benefits of these conversations. Whether it is whole group, small group, or one-on-one, conversations provide the give and take moments that inform our practice in myriad ways, but also develop essential skills in children. In addition to elevating the teacher’s understanding of the needs, interests, and thoughts of the students, incorporating regular conversations into one’s pedagogy and curriculum has the power to promote:

● supportive learning communities by encouraging children’s inquiry, agency, trust, and a sense of belonging,

● expressive oral language skills (communicating effectively),

● receptive oral language skills (listening and understanding),

● vocabulary and reading comprehension,

● children’s ability to organize their thinking,

● shared and sustained focus, and

● self-regulation

Conversations Promote Supportive Learning Communities and a Culture of Belonging

Classroom conversations, when done on a regular basis, promote supportive learn-

ing communities by encouraging inquiry, agency, and trust. Trust grows through these conversations as children experience that their voices are valued and teachers and peers are listening. When done well and with intention, classroom conversations provide powerful opportunities to both implicitly and explicitly teach respect for a diversity of perspective and opinion.1 It is a powerful thing when children learn from other children. Authentic collaborations are born from good conversations. Over time, regular conversations and collaborations create opportunities for individual children to build skills while simultaneously building supportive learning communities. This is the piece that I believe holds incredible power so I will word that again in a different way. While conversations help each individual child learn and gain important skills, it is simultaneously connecting each child and teacher together through an exchange of ideas, knowledge, perspectives, feelings, opinions, and wonderings. It is honoring the voice of each member while knitting together those voices into the fabric of a learning community.

Expressive and Receptive Oral Language Skills

Literacy has always been a focus in schools, and for good reason. Many people think of literacy and think of reading and writing, but there are four parts to literacy, not two. It would be a disservice to not intentionally include the development of listening and speaking, for not only are they two essential literacy skills, they are

simultaneously precursors to strong reading and writing skills.

One way to illustrate this relationship is through The Simple View of Reading,2 a foundational concept in the research on the science of reading:

WR x LC = RC Word Recognition x Language Comprehension = Reading Comprehension

Word recognition (or decoding) is the child’s ability to lift a word off of the page and involves many complicated skills, in and of itself. Decoding is experience-dependent, meaning it requires explicit instruction and a strong foundation in phonological awareness and phonics in order for children to build orthographic mapping in their brains. Literally, through repetitive practice, children build the neural networks that were not there before. Decoding with fluency and automaticity strengthens reading comprehension. However, decoding is only half of the equation for reading comprehension. The other half of the equation is language comprehension and this is why children need the frequent exposure to rich oral language in the forms of conversations, read-alouds, and eventually lessons on morphology. The ability to engage in conversation is the essential prerequisite for a child’s developing fluency in spoken language and fluent speech is an essential precursor to reading and writing fluently..3,4

Increasing Vocabulary and Other Oral Language Skills

It is not the memorization of words and definitions, it is the ability to think, communicate, and understand others through rich vocabulary – that is the art of conversation. Conversations help children build vocabulary, which not only allows for better conversation, but allows for more sophisticated thought. Through daily conversations, children are gaining exposure to effective

Authentic collaborations are born from good conversations.

Over time, regular conversations and collaborations create opportunities for individual children to build skills while simultaneously builing supportive learning communities.

syntax, grammar, and pronunciation. They are also gaining exposure to the more nuanced aspects of communication such as cadence, prosody (reading with expression), tone, facial, gestural or vocal animation, intonation, volume, and pitch. And this is a key take away – conversations promote fluency, and fluency is evidence of a brain that is listening, processing others ideas, and formulating their own.

Conversations Help Children Organize Their Thinking

Conversations prepare children to think logically as the exchange of ideas motivates children to understand and to be understood. When conversations are orchestrated by the teacher as a retelling of a shared learning experience, children are also learning how to organize their thinking and the sequence of events. When teachers intentionally use active reflection during conversations with children, they are helping to build metacognitive skills. Metacognition is one of the educational interventions most highly linked to educational gains as demonstrated by John Hattie’s metaanalyses of factors that have the greatest impact on student outcomes.5

Conversations Promote Sustained Shared Thinking

these skills over the course of a school year.

An interesting study out of the United Kingdom demonstrated that frequent episodes of sustained shared thinking between adults and children through conversations during preschool was positively correlated with enhanced intellectual and personal gains, even overriding social disadvantage. These gains persisted throughout the twelve years of the study, culminating in enhanced results on national examinations when the children were fifteen years old.6

Conversations and Self-Regulation

Over time, I have seen how the interchange of ideas grows in length and sophistication among my young students, and this is a great sign of self-regulation. Learning how to listen also means learning how to use inhibitory control (blocking out distractions, including one’s own thoughts), a key executive function skill that contributes to enhanced self-regulation.7 Responding to a peer’s comment or a teacher’s question also activates active working memory. It also involves higher-order thinking skills, and it has amazed me to watch children develop

One of the most foundational concepts in MBE is the concept of neuroplasticity. Teaching with neuroplasticity in mind involves understanding that skills develop as neural networks form – and this takes time and repetition. Another way to think of this is to recall the axiom “neurons that fire together wire together.”8 Children must converse repeatedly and regularly in order to build their ability to convey meaning with fluency, as well as listen and process the ideas shared by others. Over time, meaningful classroom conversations promote the development of supportive learning communities, a culture of belonging, expressive and receptive oral language skills, vocabulary and reading comprehension, children’s ability to organize their thinking, shared and sustained focus, and self-regulation. These skills have a multiplier effect, for when children engage in rich conversations, their ability to use and understand vocabulary across disciplines is enhanced, their knowledge of the world increases, and their own self-efficacy and sense of playing a part in a learning community is deepened.

Tia Henteleff (thenteleff@saes.org)

is The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning’s Lower School Research Lead at St. Andrew’s where she also teaches Design Science. This is based on a chapter from her book, “As We Begin: Dispositions of Mind, Learning, and The Brain in Early Childhood” from John Catt Publishers.

St. Andrew’s Online: An QualitativeExploratoryCase Study

DR. AMANDA WAUGH

“...that was wonderful to see…There’s all this material for them to interact with. They’re getting a lot out of it. They’re digging in. They’re learning. They’re growing.”

Eighteen months after the COVID-19 restrictions, St. Andrew’s teachers were offered an opportunity to take what they had learned from fully remote teaching, and were continuing to learn from hybrid teaching, and imagine a class they might want to teach in a largely online, blended learning environment. The charge was broad, what might you teach if you could propose almost anything, but it needed to be done predominantly online?

The goal of St. Andrew’s Online (SAO) was multifold. First, we wanted to see what we could offer students if we were freed from the traditional class schedule. Second, we wanted an opportunity to teach to passions even more than in our traditional teaching. Third, we wanted to see what, if anything, could be positively harnessed from all we learned in meeting the many, many challenges from Spring 2020 to Spring 2021.

Armed with this mandate, teachers proposed a variety of classes that ranged from one to three trimesters, and ranged traditional academic courses to highly technological arts classes. Courses were online and asynchronous, with the exception of a brief (approximately 30 minutes) weekly meeting. As such, the structure of SAO most closely resembles what the research literature calls blended learning. The students enrolled were largely upperclassmen (eleventh and twelfth grade) and had, largely, chosen the online course. One class,

Drawing, was run simultaneously with a traditional in-person course. From Fall 2021 through Spring 2023, St. Andrew’s offered the following online classes:

● One-trimester classes: Drawing; The History and Sociology of the Internet; Animation; Music Production and Audio Engineering

● Two-trimester classes: History Honors Capstone

● Three-trimester classes: Advanced Spanish: Language through Film; Advanced French: Language through Film

The Teacher Perspective

Teachers found the teaching experience both rewarding and challenging, offering an opportunity to stretch their pedagogical skills, and use the knowledge gained through the challenges of teaching under COVID-19 in a positive way. Through interviews with several teachers, some best practices emerged.

Intentional Community Building

It is almost a trope to say that it is critical to know your students. At St. Andrew’s, we have a mandate from the first words of our mission statement to “know and inspire.” However, when class is almost entirely online and asynchronous, getting to know your students is even more important and challenging. Gone are the little asides

that tell you so much as a teacher, the few minutes when the class is coming in to chat and learn about our students’ lives, the cues from ephemera — concert t-shirts, waterbottle stickers, etc, and, most importantly, the affect of the student on any given day.

Teachers quickly realized that the weekly in-person meeting was going to be critical to establishing a class community. While class discussions, making decisions, and reviewing assignments were all important, teachers agreed – and research supports – that developing a class culture was just as important.1 Spanish Teacher Daphne Clyburn said, “Try and create moments where you get to learn about them because the more that they feel that you’re invested in them, the more they are going to want to work….” This is often described in the academic literature as “teacher presence,” which is more than the physical presence in the classroom, but rather intentionally developing processes that facilitate learning and include peer to peer experiences.2

In addition to the weekly in-person meetings, some teachers assigned group work. For example, both language classes paired students to hold a conversation about the films they watched. This assignment served a clear pedagogical purpose in asking students to flex their interpersonal spoken language skills while also helping reinforce with the students that they were part of a class community. Likewise, the History Honors Capstone class used small groups of students to research and write chapters and made use of the Discussion Board feature of the LMS both to keep the course moving and to help students better know each other. Language classes were especially intentional in the use of journals to help students both practice their language skills, process the films they were watching, and facilitate connection. CastellanosReyes (2020) supports this strategy, finding that “Developing open communication, cohesion and interpersonal knowledge is best done in small groups.”2

Consistency and Clarity

Consistency and clarity were the watchwords for SAO. From the course design, to the wayfinding on the LMS, to the expectations for students, teachers were careful and intentional. Courses used the “modules” feature in Canvas to organize classes, and each module was consistent. Teachers developed weekly syllabi to help students understand the expectations for the week, and each week followed the same general format. History Honors Capstone Teacher Alex Haight noted, “...it was meet on Wednesday and assign work for whatever day…so it really kind of lived Wednesday

to Wednesday.” Attard & Holms, (2022) echo the importance of clarity and consistency in online blended environments.3

In addition to designing the course space in the LMS and the rhythm of the class, teachers found that they needed to be even more explicit about course expectations and requirements. Some students found it challenging to remember the requirements of their online class, despite the use of the LMS which put all assigned work on the student’s calendar. Teachers found that, without increased communication, students might be tempted to put the online class last on their mental to-do list, as evidenced by the timing of assignment submissions and the engagement on shared Google Docs. Art Teacher Lauren Cook describes the experience as “for these online classes, you really need to get pretty granular about what you’re stacking in terms of the concepts and skills... I really had to do a lot more planning of the materials as well as the concepts, and break down the concepts.” Garrison (2009) notes the critical role of design in planning for blended learning.1 Cleveland-Innes et al., (2013) reminds us that clarity is key in all formats of teaching, but may take different forms in online and blended learning, including by acknowledging that, “students may experience significant role adjustment when learning online”, and leveraging the affordances of the LMS to allow students to ask questions, post resources, etc.4

Student Qualities

The teachers interviewed were asked for their reflections on the qualities that made students successful in their online class. Perhaps unsurprisingly, self direction and maturity were common themes. As Cook found, “They liked being in control of when they were doing the work, knowing enough in advance… what the load was going to be, and then… getting the feedback on it.” Haight observed the need for “a work ethic and a sense of responsibility to the group.” As Cleveland-Innes et al., (2013) note, “effort and persistence and time on task” are often

considered hallmarks of cognitive engagement, but those outcomes may appear different in blended learning environments where time in seats is not measurable.4

Using feedback effectively was another hallmark of a successful student. Clyburn put it thus, “The students who I see… who have been successful… are the ones who take initiative to get feedback, embrace it, and follow up on it.” The Community of Inquiry model of blended learning suggests that this metacognitive approach to teaching – facilitating reflection and iteration – is critical.1

The Student Perspective

During a focus group of seven students drawn from both the Spanish Film class and the History Capstone class, students reflected on their learning.

Flexibility and Freedom

Students across the board appreciated the freedom that came with an online class. They could set their own hours for work, and had an additional study hall during the day. “I think because it’s an online class and we’re meant to have, like, a builtin free block throughout the day, like the workload is really manageable.” Another student noted, “I like having my things organized and it was easy for me to plan out when I do what assignment.”

Student Interests

Students also appreciated the opportunity to try something new. “I wanted to continue Spanish, but I didn’t want to take AP [Advanced Placement]….” Says another student, “I was also very interested in the film class as well to keep up my Spanish work.” Cleveland-Innes, et al., (2013) note that “interest” can be expressed in a variety of ways that will impact cognitive and emotional engagement.4

Importance of Community

In agreement with the teachers, students felt that knowing their teachers and

developing relationships with their peers was both important and harder than with traditional in-person classes. Some students suggested that having a single dedicated block to the otherwise online class would help provide consistency and community. Others appreciated the once a week time outside the block schedule noting that it felt more casual, but also important, “once we get here we’re also always asked like, how are you? How is your day? And we all go around and share that before we do anything, which is really nice….” Some noted that the online class, conversely, made for a more personal relationship because the classes were generally smaller and the teacher made a point of communicating extensively and one to one.

Challenges

High Workload for Teachers

As with any new class, the workload was high. It took teachers some time to find their rhythm of assignments and discussions. Additionally, teachers noted that feedback took a lot longer. Because teachers were not able to simply correct a student or ask them to expand on their thinking in a class setting, everything took longer and needed to be explicit. Some teachers took advantage of the audio or video recording components of the LMS, but were not confident that students took as much away from those mediums as they did with written feedback. As Dr. Gilcher described it, “I had a really hard Fall, but now that it’s got better, as I got more into a better routine, and… a big part of it was just conceptualizing.”

The Weekly Meeting

Maintaining the weekly meeting was more challenging than expected. As noted earlier, all classes attempted to meet once per week outside of the normal class schedule. Furthermore, both teachers and students felt that this meeting was very important to the success of the class; it helped set norms, build community, and clarify questions. Nonetheless, this meeting was often challenging to maintain. Most classes met during an after-school block set aside for office hours on Wednesday. However, as the schedule shifted due to holidays, school activities, and other conflicts, it became difficult to keep this date. In addition, a small group of students were taking more than one online class, creating a conflict for meeting times. Most teachers felt that, for the good of the program, the afterschool meeting time needed to be sacrosanct. Indeed, as Cleveland-Innes, et al., (2013) remarked regarding the critical role of consistent and cohesive community building, “The more

developmental and meaningful the engagement and interaction, the stronger the links, the greater the cohesion, and, once community is established, the more likely deep and meaningful learning will occur.”4

Task Burnout

One of the challenges of teaching online can be scaffolding assignments for students, while not overwhelming them with the number of tasks required in a week. Indeed, as Halverson & Graham, (2019), note, it is important to recognize the difference between time on task and deep absorption, or interest and curiosity.5 The expectation was that the work of the online class would be roughly equivalent to the hours typically spent in class (three hours a week) plus the hours spent on homework (roughly another two hours). To do this, teachers broke these hours into learning tasks within the modules in Canvas. However, if teachers weren’t careful, it would be easy for the total number of tasks students were expected to manage on Canvas to become overwhelming—a challenge for all students, but one that may be amplified for those who find executive functioning tasks hard or those with ADD/ADHD. Dr. Gilcher described it as “everything becomes an assignment,” and noted “the big thing is that because all the workload is outside of class…so this feels like more work, although it’s probably less time than you are actually spending in class.”

Conclusion

All the teachers were asked if they would want to teach for SAO again, and all answered yes, noting that they learned a great deal about how to run an online class and were confident they would do even better in the future. Students were generally positive about the experience, but noted that future students should know what they are getting into, especially with regard to the time commitment.

Recommendations for the future would include scaffolding student expectations around workload and meeting times, building intentional community experiences, creating a sacrosanct weekly meeting time for the short in-person class that seems essential, and placing even more emphasis on clarity of course design and expectations.

Online teaching, even in this hybrid design, offers new challenges but also new opportunities to schools, teachers, and students — but it is an opportunity that needs to be taken with careful intention.

Dr. Amanda Waugh (awaugh@saes.org) is the Middle and Upper School Instructional Librarian and a Seventh-Grade Advisor at St. Andrew’s.

Student Choice and the Admission Application Process

LISA SHAMBAUGH

As the world shut down in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the St. Andrew’s admission team had just begun planning for the following year. While we initially thought we were looking at a twoweek pause, it soon became evident that we were going to need to entirely rethink our admission process for the coming year, especially as the admission testing we had previously required became unavailable. This presented us with a challenge but also an opportunity. Generally speaking, admission requirements should help us to do two things: gain an understanding of who the student is at this moment in time, and

help us to predict their future success at our school. We also want our admission process, including the required components of the application, to reflect the values and culture of our school and our philosophies around teaching and learning.

Before 2020, St. Andrew’s required the same testing and general requirements for admissions as most other independent schools in the Washington, D.C., region: an application form, parent and student interview, transcript of grades, teacher recommendations, and required admission testing (WPPSI or WISC for younger students, SSAT or ISEE for older students). For families, this alignment of admission

requirements was helpful. The admission process can feel daunting, and we wanted families to focus on whether a school would be a good match for their child rather than feeling overwhelmed by a differing array of requirements at every school.

Even before the pandemic, the requirement for admission testing was under discussion at St. Andrew’s, especially in the Middle and Upper School admission process and with regards to the SSAT and ISEE. As a school that values diversity in every form, we were deeply interested in the equity concerns around test-optional policies. Testoptional policies began to appear in higher education in the mid-1980s, and were first introduced as a means of increasing access and diversity in higher education (most famously at Bates College in 1984). However, critics of test-optional policies have pointed to the persistent correlation of socioeconomic status and higher test results, and to the potential for unconscious bias and preference in the admission process by committee members for students who submit testing over those who do not. While St. Andrew’s did not have a formal test-optional policy, we did waive the testing requirement with some regularity. Students who applied for the school late (spring or summer) or from outside of the country often had difficulty obtaining the testing, so in those cases we would waive the requirement. This impacted a small but significant number of the newly enrolled students each year. We wanted to enact admission requirement policies that would be able to be applied consistently and equally across the applicant pool, even for students applying later in the school year or from outside of our region.

Exploring Options

Other independent schools in our region, and nationally, decided on one of three approaches to testing during the early days of the pandemic with regards to testing: testoptional policies, in-house assessments, or notesting policies (citing equity concerns, some schools stated that they would not review any admission testing even if it was submitted).

To decide on our approach, the St. Andrew’s admission team first engaged

in an exercise in which we reflected on why we required testing as a part of our admission process at all, and what we most valued from the test results. We also discussed at length the relative importance of testing in our holistic review of all of the required components of the application. We also consulted other members of the admission review committees to gather their points of view (division heads and learning specialists).

There were a few truths we unearthed through these discussions and assessment of our process:

1. The admission review committees particularly valued the writing sample that accompanied the SSAT and ISEE, as much (or sometimes more) than the actual scores themselves.

2. The committee members felt that the testing results provided a more objective piece of information about students, and a better understanding of their profile in comparison to other students of the same age/grade.

3. Committee members acknowledged that they felt like they tended to give preference to students who submitted testing. However, interestingly, acceptance rates did not back that up (acceptance rates of students who did not submit testing were equivalent to those who did not).

4. If an applicant had average to lower test results on the SSAT or ISEE, but high grades, the committee tended to prioritize the grades/classroom performance over the results of the standardized test.

Assessing the effectiveness of testing as an indicator of future student performance at St. Andrew’s (or at any school) is complicated. Looking at research conducted by the testing companies and at other schools,1 the SSAT and ISEE appear to be of limited predictive value, and are most effective at predicting grades in the student’s first year only. Our takeaway from our discussions was that we most valued the testing as the way to see the student’s strengths in a different light, either via their writing sample, or through the reader’s perception of the scores as an objective representation of the student’s academic strengths. After honing in on what and why we valued testing, we began to explore alternate ways to gather similar information and insights.

In our conversations, we also thought about those students who bring great strengths to our school as artists, computer programmers, entrepreneurs–those who have some area of talent, passion, or strength that wasn’t being highlighted in our previous admission requirements. Sometimes students would ask to share with us an art portfolio, video production, or another creative project, and we had allowed them to send in supplemental materials if they requested to do so. However, those projects were not a component that was formally considered in the application review. What if we

intentionally gave students an option to share those areas of creative passion and talent with us?

New Requirements and Giving Students Choice

We were intrigued by an area of research that has been cited by The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning to our faculty, related to intrinsic motivation and the power of giving students choice 2 in demonstrating their learning. The idea of giving students a choice and agency in how they would like to present themselves in the admission process resonated deeply with all of us, and felt consistent with how we teach and learn at St. Andrew’s.

Ultimately, we decided to create three options for students applying to the MS and US. Each of the three options (testing, essay, or project) would provide us with a writing sample from the student, along with some insight into an area of strength, passion, or interest for them. We created a new rubric to assess each of the three options, and we settled on the following descriptions for the application form:

(2020-2021 Application Form)

Middle/Upper School Applicants Additional Information (Required of all Applicants)

We require that all applicants submit ONE of the following choices. All options will be considered equivalently and we encourage you to choose the option which best represents your interests/strengths:

1. Essay: Please write an essay (about 5 paragraphs or one page, with an opening thesis statement, 2-3 paragraphs in support, and a closing statement) on the following topic. The mission of St. Andrew’s is “To know and inspire each child in an inclusive community dedicated to exceptional teaching, learning, and service.” What does this mean to you? You may wish to include details about what you would like for us to know about you, and what inspires you.

2. Project: Please send us a brief video or photos of a project that you completed, and of which you are particularly proud. This could include an art portfolio (please send photos only, no original artwork), a science project, a design project, a video of a concert or musical in which you performed--anything that represents your original work. Please include a written description of the project (no more than one page).

3. SSAT or ISEE results: If you have taken the SSAT or ISEE, you can submit the official results, which must include the writing sample. Both assessments will be offered in 2020-21 with in-home and testing center options available. Register at www.ssat.org or at www.iseetest.org and ask for the scores to be sent to St. Andrew’s Episcopal School (SAES). The SSAT school code for SAES is 6266. The ISEE school code for SAES is 211222.

Lessons Learned: First Year

In the first year with the new requirements, we spent a lot of time explaining what they were. Despite our best efforts, families were sometimes confused: did their child need to submit all three requirements? What did we mean specifically by the project? Could they submit a graded essay from school? We had to work through a number of technical issues on the project submissions, including how and where to store videos, gently redirecting parents who submitted a video of a school play or concert without the student’s involvement or written description, and concern on the part of families that we would give priority to students who submitted testing, despite our assurances to the contrary. We also found that the projects tended to take a lot longer for the admission readers to review, since some were accompanied by videos of up to 20 minutes or more. We implemented changes to address each of those concerns the following year.

However, we also received a lot of positive feedback from families, educational consultants, and from colleagues at the students’ current schools. Parents and educators were intrigued by the idea that we were giving students a choice of which item to submit, rather than just going with a test-optional or no testing policy. They liked hearing that we based our decision on research (both around equity, and around the power of student choice), and they liked the idea that students could spotlight their creativity by submitting a project. They felt that the requirements and our explanation gave them some insight into our approach toward teaching and learning at St. Andrew’s, and they appreciated that students felt included and known in the application process. Especially in the first year, when we weren’t able to even meet students in person during the admission process (and often their written recommendations came from teachers who hadn’t met them in person either), the projects gave us a much-needed glimpse into the students’ personalities and areas of interest, which breathed life into the application review process.

Evaluating the Change in Requirements

To ensure that we were living up to the promise we made to families that any of the three Additional Requirements would be considered equivalently, we also analyzed the admission decisions for Middle and Upper School applicants based on the requirement submitted. At the end of the first year, very few students submitted the SSAT or ISEE, as the tests continued to be unavailable for most of the summer and fall. Students who were rated more highly on the essay, project, or testing were more likely to be accepted, but the overall ratings and acceptance rates were similar for each of the three requirements. In subsequent years, the essay has continued to be the most popular option (55% of applicants), SSAT/ISEE submission remains lower (17%), and a steady 28% of applicants submit the project. Acceptance

rates continue to track at a similar level for each of the three options.

Connecting Admission Requirements to School Mission

Overall, the change in admission requirements has been successful. Offering three separate options (rather than adopting a test-optional policy) was an unexpected marketing win, with families and educators from other schools observing that our decision to take this approach reflects our interest in getting to know students in different ways. Two families commented on this in our annual admission survey:

During the admissions process, it felt like merit and potential were both given consideration through the option to submit a project rather than a standardized test score.

Our applying student particularly loved the ability to submit an art project as part of the admissions process.

Since acceptance rates have remained consistent for each of the three options, that would indicate that offering the choices has still worked well within our holistic admission process. The requirements connect well to the mission of St. Andrew’s “to know and inspire each child in an inclusive community dedicated to exceptional teaching, learning, and service,” and signal that we value students’ voices and participation.

Lisa Shambaugh is Director of Enrollment Management and Strategic Projects at St. Andrew’s. Beginning in 20242025, she will be Head of School at The Storm King School in Cornwall-on-Hudson in New York.

Empathy Interviews: Making Space for Student Voices

DAPHNE CLYBURN

What links our courses together year after year across grade levels? In language, it is often a textbook series or, if a department is small, maybe having just a few teachers per language helps. In the 2019-2020 school year at St. Andrew’s, we shifted away from using a single textbook series in French, Mandarin, and Spanish. This change provided new opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, eliminating textbooks allowed us to broaden the resources we used and explore teaching strategies that spoke to the complex, abstract, and implicit nature of language acquisition.1 On the other hand, it removed the tool that connected each successive level of a course. Research tells us that curriculum coherence is a “key feature in many countries/regions with higher learner attainment.” Curriculum coherence refers to “aligning and logically organizing parts of a curriculum.”2 Without a textbook, achieving curriculum coherence would be more challenging, but as we planned this change it seemed doable if we consistently employed intentional communication and collaboration strategies. Fast forward to March 2020, though, and we began a journey through online and hybrid teaching during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching became more isolating, which led to less collaboration. The curricular link between levels waned along with our connection to each other.

As Chair of the Language Department, I recognized that we needed to rebuild the community within the department, and also strengthen our curriculum coherence to achieve greater collective efficacy in our teaching and learning. With this in mind, I

reached out to a long-time mentor, Michael Soguero, who introduced me to the concept of empathy interviews and suggested conducting them with students. Empathy interviews are “one-on-one conversations using open-ended questions to elicit stories about specific experiences that help uncover unacknowledged needs.”3 I loved this idea because our mission at St. Andrew’s is “To know and inspire each child in an inclusive community dedicated to exceptional teaching, learning, and service.” Students have a perspective that we as teachers do not. In order to cultivate collective efficacy as a department, I first needed to better understand the student perspective. I wanted to know where students encounter bumps in their language learning journey at St. Andrew’s and hear about a broad representation of student experiences.

To prepare for the interviews, I identified students of French, Latin, Mandarin, and Spanish in the Upper School (grades 9-12) in each of the following categories:

● Doubled up on languages

● Switched languages while at St. Andrew’s

● Stopped taking a language their senior year

● Completed the two-year language requirement and stopped

● Went beyond the language requirement

● Had not yet completed their language requirement

In a typical emathy interview, I sat across from the student (either in person or via Zoom) and took notes. I started with a broad question: “Tell me about your language learning journey at St. Andrew’s,” and let the conversation evolve from there.

In the end, I interviewed fifteen students for thirty-plus minutes, and organized the collected data using these three questions to guide my inquiry:

● What helps students learn?

● What barriers exist?

● What are the gems? (i.e. pearls of wisdom that don’t fit into the first two categories)

Through this method, I was able to search for common words and phrases, which allowed me to make some immediate connections to Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) Science. For example, I noticed that seven of the fifteen students mentioned choice as important to their learning, which we know “enhances engagement and intrinsic motivation.”4 Making learning meaningful, incorporating play, and helping to grow study skills and habits (which also includes building metacognitive skills and executive functioning skills) were also mentioned and are central elements of The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning’s “MBE Placemat,” the MBE Strategies for Teaching and Learning that guide our teaching at St. Andrew’s.5

I knew two things after finishing the first round of empathy interviews: (1) I wanted to share my findings with the Language Department, and (2) I wanted to interview more students. Keeping in mind my goal of cultivating collective efficacy, I created fifteen anonymous artifacts from the original interviews and facilitated an activity in which department members were given time to read the documents and identify affirmations, new learnings, and gems using sticky notes. Teachers shared observations and had the opportunity to create goals for themselves.

In addition to this activity, I conducted a second round of empathy interviews, this time focusing on students who dropped or switched out of a language for the start of the 2021-2022 school year. In these interviews, I conducted them similarly, but recorded and transcribed each one. I also asked probing questions to better understand why they had dropped or switched languages. The results of these interviews suggested a link between curriculum coherence and students studying a language beyond the minimum school requirement. One student commented, “If the system is a little more coherent and the classes are more purposeful in building off each other, I think it would stick with me better.” They went on to say, “At times it felt just [like] throwing pasta at the wall and just seeing what sticks a little bit.” Looking at this comment through an MBE lens, I wonder if, in the same way that interleaving material in a given school year aids in long-term

memory consolidation,6 more intentional interleaving across levels could promote curriculum coherence and, thus, yield higher learner attainment. The second round of interviews also shed light on the importance of communication and collaboration amongst teachers. One student described the challenge of moving between language levels by stating, “It was just definitely a struggle hearing that you should have learned this last year, but we didn’t.” In a study out of Switzerland, researchers investigated the transition of learning English more implicitly in primary school to a more formal and explicit system in secondary school. One finding suggested that students might undervalue their previous learning experiences in the language classroom, especially if that learning had a more implicit focus, which is often the case in primary school.7 While my focus is on the transition between levels in Middle and Upper School, this student’s comment speaks directly to this challenge. If expectations between classes vary too greatly, the cognitive load is too great to support durable learning – students do not have sufficient knowledge already stored in their long-term memory, which means they are trying to hold too many new things in their active working memory at once as they try to learn. In turn, this means there is insufficient cognitive capacity to write new schema in their long-term memory, which means learning is hard, incomplete, or impossible.8 New learning always happens in the context of what students already know and can do, so if the foundations are not robustly in place it is hard to build the next level of

the house. The same student summarized this cognitive process well when they said, “I wasn’t really prepared for that class and it smacked me in the face.” In order to cultivate collective efficacy as a department, we must establish unified goals that we all understand, and we must support each other in that process. We must also address the issue that students seem to often undervalue their previous learning, which feeds into them having less motivation for their next class.

The empathy interviews did a poignant job shedding light on our strengths and weaknesses as a Language Department. While this can be a humbling and vulnerable experience, it is also one of the reasons why I know I am a life-long educator. Being a teacher challenges me every day to grow and learn, and I’m grateful for that. We in the Language Department continue working to address the questions raised in this study, and my next steps are to complete another set of empathy interviews with a variety of students. We’ll use these data as a tool, along with research on MBE and language acquisition, to evaluate progress, and establish a set of goals with the Language Department for how we want to see our students progress linguistically while studying a language at St. Andrew’s. To meet St. Andrew’s mission – to know and inspire each child – we must continue to center their voices, and learn and grow from them and with them.

Daphne Clyburn (dclyburn@saes.org) is the Chair of the Language Department at St. Andrew’s.

“Lock In:” The Art of Memorizing My Lines

JOEL CRUMP ’26

Memorizing lines is an essential skill that every actor must cultivate to excel in their profession. As I write this article in 2023, at the age of 15, I reflect on my lifelong dream of becoming an actor. Little did I know that this path would demand not only immense determination but also a lot of hard work, particularly when it comes to “locking in” those lines. But what does “locking in” entail? It’s a state of complete focus and readiness for the task at hand, a skill that goes hand in hand with memorization.

For me, the key to memorization is repetition. Although this technique wasn’t formally taught to me, I discovered it worked best for me through trial and error. I repeat a line over and over until it becomes firmly “locked in” my memory, and then I proceed to the next one. For instance, while preparing for the production of “The Lightning Thief” at St. Andrew’s, I found myself tirelessly reciting a particular line until it became second nature. Eventually, I had the entire script or set of lines committed to memory. Another memorization strategy that may not be my favorite but is effective is writing the lines down repeatedly. I spend dedicated time writing, especially when preparing for auditions, as it helps me memorize quickly and efficiently. I often do

this before going to sleep, as studies suggest that memorization is more effective when done before bedtime, ensuring that the lines are firmly “locked in” the brain.

Additionally, I utilize recording myself speaking the lines and listening to them repeatedly. This method allows me to gauge my ability to recall the lines I’m trying to embed in my long-term memory. It’s akin to having a catchy song stuck in my head, and I aim to have my performance lines similarly entrenched.

In the early stages of my career, I’ve encountered performances and scripts that varied in difficulty when it came to memorizing lines. For instance, my first show, “Into The Woods,” presented more challenges in this regard compared to a recent production called “Someway, Somehow.” Performing itself can be stressful, but embedding lines into my long-term memory and ensuring they can be recalled during a stressful performance, which may involve speaking or singing lines while dancing, is a fundamental aspect of my job as an actor. The repetition and diverse memory strategies I employ reduce my stress and boost my confidence that my lines will be readily available when needed.

These are the three primary methods I typically use to learn lines, and the

Performing itself can be stressful, but embedding lines into my long-term memory and ensuring they can be recalled during a stressful performance, which may involve speaking or singing lines while dancing, is a fundamental aspect of my job as an actor.

circumstances in which memorization occurs can vary. As an actor, I have around 7-8 self-tapes and auditions per month for various movies, television shows, and theater projects. Each audition necessitates learning a new set of sides (the scenes to be memorized), which can range from 1-3 scenes. When memorizing sides, I may spend less time on memorization since it’s only required for a limited period, demanding a different level of “locking in.” The presence of a “due date” for sides can also influence my approach. Some instances af-

ford me ample time to memorize, resulting in a better performance on self-tapes, while others, with tight deadlines, require me to truly “lock-in.”

Another crucial time for memorization is when I have a job or a live show. The ease or difficulty of memorization can vary in such scenarios. For example, in the December production of “Someway, Somehow,” learning my lines was one of the easiest experiences I’ve had. Extensive rehearsals and a smooth flow contributed to this ease. I found myself “locked in” early in the project,

and the exceptional guidance from mentors and directors played a pivotal role in my success. Having directors like Mr. Porter and Mr. Coco, whom I looked up to, was instrumental in our collective achievement.

On the other hand, the production of “The Lightning Thief” at St. Andrews presented unique challenges. The process differed from my previous projects, and I had to juggle school, dealing with COVID-19, and managing my journalism career all at once. This overload of responsibilities was a learning experience for me. I recall finalizing my line memorization only a week before the performance, which caused anxiety and stress for both me and the cast. Fortunately, with the guidance of our fantastic directors, Mr. Porter and Mr. Coco, I managed to “lock-in.”

Learning lines is an integral aspect of an actor’s journey, and opinions on it vary from person to person. Personally, I see myself continuing to do so for the rest of my life. It’s a skill that will serve me not only in my acting career but also as a student, ensuring that I am always “locked in” and fully prepared for each performance.

Joel Crump ‘26 is President of the Class of 2026 at St. Andrew’s and is the creator and host of Broadway Time.

Words That Matter: The Effect of Verbal Priming on Creativity

CHARLES JAMES

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” That childhood mantra was supposed to be a useful defense against someone’s verbal attacks. This saying seems to diminish what words can do, but research is beginning to reveal something quite remarkable about the power of words – especially those spoken by teachers. For example, how powerful are the affirmations that teachers speak to their students? Can a teacher’s words prime students to be creative thinkers? It turns out that while sticks and stones may well break our bones, words have the power to help us.

Words help us because they prime our brain. What is priming? Priming refers to the unconscious activation of ideas and actions by an external stimulus, like words. People are generally unaware of the influence of the words priming their behavior or actions. Daniel Kahneman (a Nobel laureate in the neuroscience behind our behavior) says that “effective prime needs to be strong enough to impact behavior, but not strong enough to enter the conscious thought—the effect must remain subconscious.”1

The Question

My interest in priming was at the core of my work as an Omidyar Fellow at The

Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning during the 2021-2022 and 20222023 school years. I decided to test whether verbal priming for a particular behavior like creativity could be demonstrated in a freshmen level design project. I set out to research the question, “Does verbal priming that encourages creative confidence and honors the value of creativity given prior to a new figural development experience induce changed levels of creativity as measured by the scoring guidelines of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking ( TTCT)?”

There is some interesting research around verbal priming. In a study by R. Baumeister, subjects were given a descriptive story about a heated kernel of corn becoming a fluffy puff of popcorn. One group was asked to write a title to the story and another group was asked to write a creative title to the story. Just adding the word creative seemed to activate the conscious mind to do just that. The creative-title groups did indeed produce more creative titles. “The conscious intention to be creative results in increased creativity.”2 Supported by other related research, Baumeister concludes that through priming the conscious mind (what we are told) and unconscious mind (how and what we think), we enable creativity. This idea of being intentional about priming students’ minds to help

enable their creativity is an important one for educators to take on board.

Research in 2017 by Sassenberg, Moskowitz and Fetterman showed that priming creativity (using two different procedures) leads to more original ideas in a generative task.3 Across the studies, the activation of a creative mindset through priming seemed to undermine the sources of inflexible and uncreative responses.

The Process

In the 2021-22 school year I had two grade 9/10 Geoscience classes, and each class contained approximately the same number of students, all of whom exhibited similar academic profiles and range of abilities. I selected a two-week design project for this investigation. The students were asked to research and then design an ocean research buoy that would be “placed” somewhere in the world in order to conduct fundamental research about at least one life form and conditions that are potentially impacted by human activities or climate change.

Initially, out of 29 students, only one student expressed experience with Computer Aided Design (CAD) generally or the Rhino CAD software we use specifically. Because my verbal priming was associated with Rhino instruction it was important to know that everyone was at a similar starting point.

Prior to each CAD task, two priming Creativity Affirmations (Figure 1) about creative ability, confidence, and encouragement were given to one of the classes prior to completing each practice assignment. The Control Class was provided the same level of Rhino instruction by the same individuals with no priming affirmations provided prior to practice assignments.

To measure the potential impact of verbal priming by the teacher, I turned to Paul Torrance’s widely used and validated Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). In the summer of 2021, I received training in how to administer and evaluate student products in a consistent and reliable manner using TTCT. To specifically measure the impact of verbal priming, I used the Torrance Measures of Figural Creativity. While the TTCT test analysis is not standardized or normed for CAD figural analysis, the scoring guidelines provided useful and, I believe, valid and reliable benchmarks for measuring how a teacher’s priming affirmations could potentially impact student work. The TTCT Figural provides five separate assessments of figural creativity: fluency, originality, abstractness of titles, elaboration, and resistance to premature closure. I used my TTCT analyses to compare the class who received creativity affirmations to my Control Class which did not.

The Findings

There was a statistically significant difference between the results of the two classes. Whether measuring elements of Whimsy, Shape Deformation, or Breaking Boundaries (all the TTCT Measures), students in the priming group scored significantly higher than the control group. This was true not only on the practice assignments, but also on the final buoy that the students produced. The products were measurably more creative. There is clear evidence that pairing priming with problem-based opportunities of figural expression produces benefits in the level of creativity in the resulting product. And remember, the priming affirmations in this experiment were very simple, something any teacher could do.

In every element of creativity that was measured by the TTCT, even the name of the buoy, higher levels of creativity were observed. The names they assigned their buoys, “May Coral Thrive – (MCT) Great Barrier Reef Buoy Project”, “Definitely Not a Terribly Executed Seamount Buoy”, “COMPASS Ocean Magnetism Polar Alteration Survey” were rated higher in creativity when compared to names like “Oil Buoy.”

Despite the limited sample size, the findings do suggest that the changes observed are not due to chance alone, and that priming plays a role in improving creative outcomes among students.

This investigation achieved a p-value ≤ 0.05 in a t-test, which is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the results being random. With a calculated .05 p-value there is more than a 95% probability that the priming observed in this investigation impacted student creativity as measured by the scoring guidelines of the Torrance Test of Creativity.

The Implications

The results of this study suggest some really interesting

and potentially transformative questions. If verbal priming provided during the course of a problem-based response to a design project provides significant impact in areas of creativity, might priming also prepare students for new and challenging content? Might positive priming reduce anxiety and build creative confidence? Malcom Gladwell writes that “[Research] suggests that what we think of as free will is largely an illusion: much of the time, we are simply operating on automatic pilot, and the way we think and act—and how well we think and act on the spur of the moment—are a lot more susceptible to outside influences than we realize.”4 What teachers say prior to problem-based design thinking seems to make a significant difference. What behaviors and actions have all my words primed over the years? Makes me wonder.

Charles James (cjames@saes.org) is the Director of the D!Lab at St. Andrew’s. He also serves as Director of Service Learning, and teaches Science.

Figure 2. shows a representative sample of how two responses to the same activity were evaluated. The simple shape-within-a-shape (below – Control Class) earned one point for originality and visual elaboration, whereas the top example (Class with priming) earned five points for elements like non-standard shape, twisting, piping, tapering, and the construction of a non-obvious shape.

Figure 2. Findings, including examples of designs by students who had received priming with the creativity affirmations.

Let Them Play: Part II

MARGY HEMMIG

As I glance around my preschool classroom on one particular morning, I notice that our group of three- and four-year-old students is buzzing with activity. One small group of students is exploring the magnets from our science center, moving around the room and placing them against various objects, making predictions, and noting whether or not they stick. Another group is at the art table, observing and painting with colorful, fresh flowers, dipping them into paint and pressing them onto pieces of construction paper. I happily notice that one of the children has abandoned her paper and has chosen to paint her hands instead, delighting in the sensory experience of the cool, wet paint on her skin. In the housekeeping area, one group of students is taking care of the doll babies with our doctor’s kit, while another group is busy fortifying the space with string and masking tape, pilfered from our design center, to protect the house from the Big Bad Wolf, a favorite character from one of the nursery rhyme books we recently acted out in class.

This is a snapshot of our morning freeplay, a sacred time in our busy classroom schedule where students are given the freedom to explore and engage in activities of their choice without specific learning objectives or teacher-directed goals. To the untrained eye, these may seem like typical play activities, but I am amazed by the rich and meaningful learning opportunities that are happening all around me during this time, and I am confident that my students are acquiring life-long skills that will benefit them for years to come.

The understanding that play is very important is not groundbreaking news. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who did pioneering work on education in the early twentieth century, once wrote “Play is the answer

to the question: how does anything new come about?” Much of Piaget’s work has been superseded by more recent research, but it is interesting to note that it led him to the theory – revolutionary for the time but which still rings true – that children are unique individuals who learn best when they are actively involved in their learning and are given the freedom to explore and discover new information on their own. Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky theorized that children’s play, particularly make-believe play, provides opportunities to strengthen critical thinking skills, acquire new language, and develop problem-solving skills. Recent studies have only further supported the theory that children learn best through play, and that playful learning in the early years readies the brain for future

growth and development.

Despite the evidence supporting the benefits of play and its positive effects on school readiness and future academic success, many preschools and early childhood centers in this country continue to move away from play-based learning and embrace a curriculum modeled on elementary-level activities and expectations. School administrators, teachers, and parents mistakenly believe that a curriculum that focuses on structured, teacher-directed instruction of academic concepts rather than playful, child-initiated learning experiences will better prepare preschool students for academic success in the later years. In fact, studies have shown that preschool programs that focus too heavily on academics and do not provide their students enough time for self-directed play and exploration may have an adverse effect on children’s learning and development later in life. A Vanderbilt University study on the effectiveness of a Tennessee pre-k program found that the children who attended the state-funded program “were doing worse than their peers by the end of sixth grade in academic achievement, discipline issues, and special education referrals.” The multi-year study followed 2,990 low-income children, comparing those who attended the voluntary program to those who did not participate. While there are several factors, such as lack of funding and quality teacher training that may have contributed to the negative results, Research Director Dale Farran believes the program’s strong focus on academics and whole group instruction without allowing “children enough time to

play, share their thoughts and observations, and engage in meaningful, responsive interactions with caregivers” had an adverse effect on future academic and social success.

Although the brain continues to grow and adapt throughout one’s life, the most crucial time for brain development is from birth to five years. During these formative years, millions of neural connections, or synapses, are made, strengthening the brain’s architecture and preparing it for future learning and growth. Since early brain development has a lasting effect on a child’s ability to learn and succeed later in life, it is vitally important that these early years be filled with meaningful play experiences that encourage healthy brain development. Play stimulates the brain’s prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for the development of essential executive functioning skills such as problem-solving, emotional regulation, perseverance, attention, and working memory that provide a strong foundation for an individual’s success later in life. Through play, children improve intellectual growth and acquire important life skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and emotional intelligence. If children are not given enough time to play, move, and freely explore the world around them during these optimal years of brain development, they will be at a disadvantage when they begin their academic careers in elementary school and will more likely have difficulty with self-regulation, motor skills, problemsolving, and positive social interactions. Furthermore, it is also believed that the absence of child-directed free play can lead to the development of social and sensory issues and contribute to higher levels of anxiety and depression in young children. A recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics concluded that the decline in free and independent play over the years has led to a record-level increase in mental health problems in children and young adults.

during free play, much thought and effort is put into creating spaces that inspire wonder, creativity, and a love of learning in our students. A variety of tabletop toys, games, and puzzles are displayed during free play to support the development of mathematical concepts, spatial relationships, finemotor skills, and critical thinking. In the reading corner, a basket of props related to books we are reading during circle time are made available to encourage storytelling activities that build language skills, working memory, cooperation, and imagination. Our science center is filled with interesting materials and items that inspire hands-on exploration and observation and encourage the development of critical thinking, problem solving, and scientific inquiry. The art center is a carefully curated space where students can freely explore a variety of materials that inspire creativity and self expression, and help strengthen their finemotor skills and reinforce color, shape, and spatial concepts. In the dramatic play corner, students can use a multitude of props, costumes, and real life materials to engage in imaganative and make-believe scenarios that help them explore different roles, develop language, practice social skills, and learn about the world around them. As my students explore these carefully crafted classroom provocations designed to generate curiosity and a deeper love of learning, my responsibility as teacher is to observe my students’ interactions with the classroom environment and with each other, while taking note of my students’ individual interests, strengths, and abilities so that I may plan activities and projects that align with curriculum goals and support their learning and development.

As an early childhood educator who understands the science behind children’s play, I have an important role in supporting my students’ playtime by designing a classroom environment that encourages curiosity and exploration, and promotes learning across a variety of domains, including social and emotional, cognitive, and physical. While our students are given the freedom to follow their interests and choose their own activities

Despite the evidence that young children learn best when unstructured – childdirected free play is a fundamental part of their day – preschools continue to move away from play-based learning to promote a curriculum that may on the surface seem “more academic in nature” but which does not align with how preschool-age students learn best. Preschools that embrace a play-based curriculum help build a strong foundation for future academic and social success, foster curiosity and a love of learning, and cultivate a positive mindset for learning in their students. There will be plenty of time in the future for more workbooks, seatwork, and teacher-directed, academic instruction. Right now it’s time to let them play.

Margy Hemmig (mhemmig@saes.org) teaches Preschool at St. Andrew’s. Let Them Play: Part I can be found in “Think Differently and Deeply, Volume 1.”

Between Skepticism: Critical Thinking

TROY DAHLKE

Acrisis becomes a disaster,” wrote Hannah Arendt in 1954, “only when we respond to it with preformed judgments.” Arendt is mostly known for her analysis of the rise of Totalitarianism and shocking descriptions of how highly educated, technologically advanced, and culturally sophisticated societies became places where the “banality of evil,” as she famously put it, was, well, banal. Yet when Arendt wrote about a crisis becoming a disaster, she was not writing about the rise of, say, a mid-20th-century anti-bourgeois party in Europe, but of the crisis of education in America.

Of course, to speak of a crisis in education is hardly novel; education frequently seems like it is in a crisis. But it is her diagnosis that is most curious: “and nowhere else have the most modern theories in the realm of pedagogy been so uncritically and slavishly accepted.” If Arendt is right, the reason why there is crisis in education is that those who teach, and even more so, those who teach teachers how to teach, are themselves exercising poor critical thinking; they are guilty, she says, of reducing education to “preformed judgements” attributable to “modern theories” of learning, resulting in the “bankruptcy of progressive education.” Strong words.

Arendt’s assessment is intriguing when we think about the desire to teach critical thinking, which educators maintain is a good thing. But one of the surprising things about critical thinking, despite its frequent invocation and apparent desirability, is that what it actually is is surprisingly difficult to pin down. We all seem to use it, and talk about it, and claim to teach our students how to do it, and yet precisely defining it remains elusive.

Take, for example, the “common sensical” definition recently offered by cognitive psychologist, Daniel Willingham. Critical thinking, he says, is “novel,” “self-directed,” and “effective,” and employs conventions like “looking at both sides” and “offer evidence for your claims.” So far, so good. Until you wonder if novelty, self-directedness, and effectiveness are traits that would have also made one useful in some of the regimes Arendt is most famous for describing. That’s a big question, maybe too big for an article like this, but if critical thinking is merely thought of in these common sensical ways, or in more conventional terms, like the ability to analyze, problem solve, or think in multiple perspectives –with the catchall being “skills” – then there is an obvious deficiency in our understanding. Critical thinking has to go beyond these, or better, has to point beyond mere skills to something that is, to use old, out-of-style terms, “good” and “true.” Put another way, whatever constitutes “preformed judgments,” one thing that must be included in any good definition of critical thinking, lest a crisis becomes a disaster, is that it points towards Goodness itself (hereafter, the Good or truth); that is, something that is intrinsically good and resides beyond mere social construction.

One of the intellectual habits of our time, the fruits of which are clear in our educational outcomes (anecdotally, I see it almost every day in the classroom), is that an idea like the Good, which can curb, inspire, and instruct thinking and action, has been reduced merely to the personal. It is a truism, among students, that good is subjective and its meaning is a matter of preference, reducible to something like choice. Another way to put this is that students are

taught to be skeptical of the truth per se.

Discussing this trend, based on certain contemporary preformed judgments, Marilynne Robinson highlights current models of thinking that “radically undercut the old assumption that a human mind has a faculty oriented toward truth.” These judgments are, she says, “ready to offer testimony against the mind itself when it’s erring, misguided, or corrupted. . .which [seemingly] makes truth meaningless, since our own perception and acculturation are obstacles to our determining the truth.” Maybe skepticism of the truth is exactly what we need! But then she wryly notes, “All this can sound very sophisticated, except when it comes from… an undergraduate who declares a staunch preference for his own truth.” For Robinson, too much skepticism of the truth is, well, too much skepticism.

Robinson’s point is well taken. While there is good reason to examine truth claims vigorously, it is an entirely different thing to assert that truth does not exist or that it is unknowable. It is precisely this habit, the abandonment of the pursuit of higher truths in favor of something like the mere social conventionality of truths, that was a hallmark of regimes that occupied most of Arendt’s attention. Obviously, asserting that there is the truth is something completely different from claims of total apprehension of it, or of an identification of it that happens to align with the self. But this does not mean that serious, earnest pursuit of the Good or truth should be abandoned or replaced with stark, if not sophomoric, skepticism.

There is more to be said here than time and space allow, but it is important to note that a persistent and necessary attribute of thinkers who pursue the truth is humility. Precisely because they think that it exists, that they cannot grasp it all, and certainly cannot equate themselves with it, and yet that it is worthy and necessary to pursue, lest a crisis become a disaster, intellectual humility – that idea that we don’t know, but want to know – is a fundamental necessity. In this light, critical thinking is not an end in itself, and needs to be chastened by the pursuit of the truth, lest it become something that could function well in any regime.

If critical thinking errs by producing excessive skepticism, it is also true that, in other ways, it is insufficiently skeptical. Simply put, too much skepticism toward the Good results in a potent and often unyielding subjectivism. When thinking gives way to the allure of subjectivism, knowledge is seemingly limited to the merely perspectival, whether personal or culturally

conditioned. This is precisely what Arendt warns her readers about, and if her warnings have merit for education, then more skepticism is needed toward subjectivism, its preformed judgments, and its worrisome production of “my truth.”

Subjectivism is manifest in many ways. One example, that is now more or less taken for granted, as if it is simply obvious, is “narrative.” As an interpretative device, “narrative” reduces the understanding of people, events, and actions (hereafter “stuff”) to how they are “framed” or “spun,” linguistically or otherwise. It is flexible, sure, as in this “narrative” of stuff produces this understanding and that narrative of the same stuff produces a different understanding. But precisely because it is flexible, because it is often detached from the stuff, is it also given to control. We need not look hard for examples where those with, say, localized clout ‘control the narrative.’ At times it almost seems like thinking, critical or otherwise, has no access to the stuff. It often seems, as Friedrich Nietzsche once bluntly put it, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Repeat this enough into the ears of Robinson’s typical undergraduate, and all you’ll get is prepositioned truth – “his truth” – which is just another preformed judgment that may one day turn a crisis into disaster.

Whatever critical thinking is and however teachers teach it, a vital element is the critique of subjectivist approaches to understanding. In other words, teachers teach critical thinking when they guide their students to return, again and again, to critique their own thinking, especially when favored categories threaten to “control the

narrative” and distance thinking from the actual stuff. Again, intellectual humility is key here. Preformed judgments, favored categories, narrativism, what have you – all control the stuff. Intellectual humility qua appropriately skeptical critical thinking allows the stuff to generate understanding – stuff that, like the Good, might surprise, curb, guide, and/or challenge the learner.

To be honest, I don’t know if any of the “critical thinking” discussed above actually happens where I teach – even in my classes – but I hope so. I say this not to fault anyone who teaches or learns here, but because my description might be completely insufficient and in need of a thorough hashing by critical thinkers. But where I teach, St. Andrew’s, is the kind of place where thinking about “critical thinking” is a natural part of the life of the school. Whether it is through formal development or informal conversations with colleagues, good schools foster conditions where skepticism to the Good is discussed and sometimes challenged, and where the habits of subjectivism can be addressed with appropriate skepticism. At its best, critical thinking is perched between skepticisms, where goodness and the stuff of life guide teachers and students alike through the crises of time.

Troy Dahlke (tdahlke@saes.org) teaches Philosophy & Religion at St. Andrew’s. [Editor’s note: While many different disciplines contribute to the science of teaching and learning, philosophers are rarely at the table. We argue that they should be as they bring an important understanding of the history of human thought.]

From Rereading to Retrieval: How Psychology Changed My View of Studying

KATIE CAPLAN

As a starry-eyed sixteen-year-old who was ecstatic to finally have a say in some of the courses I registered for, I immediately signed up for Honors Psychology. What I quickly realized is that, contrary to how psychology is portrayed in the media, it has little to do with dream analysis and the unconscious mind (unless the topic was Sigmund Freud). While I completed my studies of psychology in high school without having obtained a magical cheat code that allowed me to dissect the minds of others, I wound up with something much more valuable, which eventually inspired me to foster change in my community.

If someone had asked me before taking Honors Psychology if I knew the most effective study and learning habits for myself, I likely would have said yes, of course! However, this assertion wound up being far from the truth. In the years preceding

my foray into psychology, my study habits consisted of rereading notes and textbooks, flipping over flashcards without actively focusing on the words or definitions, and limiting myself to blocked studying.1 I was, in fact, doing everything that is not helpful for studying.2 It was in Honors Psychology that I discovered for the first time that the habits I had been practicing for years were neither the most helpful nor productive.

Fascinated, but perhaps not fully convinced, I concluded my school year and entered the summer before my senior year. My fascination lingered, however, and, with a desire to learn more before entering AP Psychology, I reached out to my teacher for any possible opportunities to deepen my learning. My teacher then introduced me to the world of The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning (CTTL) and a new program they created that was being tested, Neuroteach Global Student

In the year preceding my foray into psychology, my study habits consisted of rereading notes and textbooks, flipping over flashcards without actively focusing on the words or definitions, and limiting myself to blocked studying. I was, in fact, doing everything that is not helpful for studying.

(NTGS). Neutoteach Global Student was aimed toward educating students on more effective studying and test-taking habits, but in a way unlike simply reading about it in a textbook. Instead, the NTGS program offered students the ability to see the direct impact of these strategies by conducting experiments on themselves and comparing the effectiveness of old habits versus new ones. Rather than simply being told that retrieval practice was more effective, I sat in front of my computer and saw a side-by-side comparison of how my performance on a test was improved by using a retrieval practice brain dump instead of rereading content.3 Engaging with evidence directly solidified for me the idea that these strategies are in fact more effective than others. This is in fact one of the key ingredients of the KBCP Model from psychology professor Mark McDaniel et al.4 – the latest research on how to train students to use better learning strategies –that NTGS is based on.

In truth, I felt like I had been let in on a profound secret. If all these methods are so helpful and supported by science, then why were they not being used by everyone? Did people not know how easy it is to track how much one genuinely knows when they use retrieval practice?5 Why did just about no one interleave their studying to become more familiar with identifying a problem instead of simply solving it?6 What could I do to share this knowledge with other students, and how would I de-

liver my message in a meaningful way? Of course, I was once convinced that I knew my study habits best and had even perfected them, and I now realized that others probably felt the same way. Finding a way to convince students instead of simply informing them would be the biggest hurdle of all. If people chose to believe that they were an exception, then no one would ever benefit from it.

A graduation requirement for seniors at my high school is to produce a cumulative capstone, which is a community-oriented deliverable that relates to their most meaningful experience at the school. I immediately knew that I wanted to do something related to psychology, the NTGS program, and study habits, especially since I was in the midst of a revelation about the latter. Working alongside my psychology teacher, Ms. Eva Shultis from The CTTL, and my school’s academic coordinator, I devised a plan to create a website that compiled information about studying and test-taking strategies. I also created a mini-experiment that would allow students to independently practice new study strategies that I introduced. This website, upon its completion, would eventually become a resource in my school’s academic coaching center, a place that focuses on improving students’ executive functioning skills and study habits. It would be the perfect spot to put this resource that could help students, hopefully for years to come.

With the website in full swing, I

granted access to my school’s academic coordinator so it could be integrated into the academic coaching center. In watching all of this unfold and creating a resource in which students can access tools hopefully sooner than I had, I hope to empower students to better understand studying and the science behind it. As I venture into my next chapter as a psychology major in college, I am excited about the possibilities of undergraduate research that may relate more to the nature of studying and learning. I am proud that this outcome has not simply benefited me, but will also bring helpful tools for students in my school community.

Katie Caplan is a graduate of Cannon School, a CTTL Academy Partner School, in Concord, North Carolina, and a member of the Class of 2027 at Elon University. Follow the QR code below to visit her website.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels

How the Science of Reading is Transforming Our Approach to Reading Instruction

CHRISTINE LEWIS

In the middle of a pandemic with no visible ending, the leadership in our elementary and early childhood divisions made the bold decision to more fully align our instructional approach and curriculum with the growing body of research referred to as the science of reading. I’ve always felt that being a teacher at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School is not for the faint of heart, but it could never be more true than the during this period in history.

When you know better, do better

Within the St. Andrew’s faculty, there a collective culture of striving to continuously grow in professional capacity as teachers. For them, this means taking action to become ever more aligned with the findings of emerging research. Over eighteen months in 2019 and 2020, several lower school faculty members and division leaders took a deep dive into what is currently known about reading acquisition, as part of the literature review process in the creation of the Elementary Roadmap1 and Early Childhood Placemat for The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning (CTTL) at St. Andrew’s. These are resources we created for our own teachers, preschool through fifth grade, to curate important findings in mind, brain, and education (MBE) studies, which speak directly to the early childhood and

elementary learning environments. What we found was compelling data on specific skills and instructional practices found to be essential for the ultimate goal of high level reading comprehension for all. We had to act.

To start us off, the Simple View of Reading2 was very helpful because it takes a whole ecosystem of reading processes and collects them under two overarching domains: word recognition and concepts of language. These include acquiring knowledge of the alphabetic system, learning to decode new words, building a vocabulary of words that can be read from memory by sight, and becoming agile at constructing, integrating, and remembering meanings represented in text.3 The other body of research that guided our decisions showed strong evidence for the importance of a comprehensive, structured, explicit, and cumulative approach to teaching the concepts and skills of reading.4

Measuring impact from the start

The very first thing to do was comprehensively assess a wide range of foundational reading skills in order to gain a better understanding of exactly what each student brought with them into the classroom. This required a paradigm shift in how we understood our students as readers. We had to move away from the

idea that a reader’s skill could be accurately represented by any one assessment, to utilizing a suite of assessments that provide a snapshot of how a student functions across the many skills shown to be essential for the development of reading comprehension.5 Taking this approach allowed us to create a profile of each reader and from that, build clear pathways forward to target specific areas of weakness and strength identified in the process. We also had to let go of thinking that advanced reading comprehension was an appropriate measure for a young elementary student, and trust that the skills we now focus on in the early years, including phonemic awareness, phonics, orthographic mapping, and fluency are the building blocks of reading comprehension and deserve to be assessed in their own right as we introduce and practice new concepts. This does not mean we stop actively cultivating the strategies and perspectives of comprehension, but rather understand that we are cultivating these at this early age with no expectation of mastery while the student continues to build fluency and develops as a human being with growing life experience, executive function, and concept processing capacity.

Collecting this data as a division allows us to map impact over time and use our own evidence to validate choices, tweak implementation, and re-address areas showing low impact to sustain this transformation and iterate our responses to the “science of reading” research with constant, gentle improvement as the goal.

Shared teacher vocabulary for reading instruction

Identifying the important pieces of the reading puzzle along with the pedagogy proven to positively impact outcomes was only the first step. We quickly realized that

our historical understanding of the vocabulary and concepts of reading were hindering our ability to fully implement our vision. As an example, we had to ask the questions: what exactly is syntax? What impacts the development of syntax awareness? How can I recognize issues with syntax? What are some strategies I can use with my students to improve comprehension through improved use of syntax? Engaging in healthy debate and with the use of reliable source materials,6 we are continually unpacking long-held myths and building a common understanding within our faculty of the nuances of each foundational concept important to our decision-making process.

To offer a concrete example of our process; this is what we learned about teaching syntax in our building

Syntax is the structure, organization, and rhythm of words to create sentences and phrases. This is unique for every language and holds some markers of dialectic difference within a language. Example: “The big blue ball rolled quickly down the hill,” is an example of generally accepted syntax for American English. “ Ball the blue big rolled the hill down quickly.” uses all the same words but follows unconventional syntax, essentially creating ambiguity of meaning. Knowing the relationship between the subject and the predicate, or rules of adjective order, is essential for the clarification of meaningful sentences in a text. When reading, we apply our knowledge of these rules to support comprehension.

Syntax becomes increasingly complex as a student makes their way through school. At each level, teachers have a responsibility to explicitly teach the rules of syntax that govern the texts a student will encounter in that class. This is especially important in content areas with specific

jargon and norms of information sharing. Students with reading comprehension challenges often read passively, having not yet built the saliency needed to recognize all the clues of meaning. Teaching our students to actively seek syntactic information as they read has a strong impact on reading outcomes by highlighting the important information in a passage and how ideas are connected.

Limitations in awareness of syntax can be evident when a reader knows all the words in a text, but falters or rereads often to get the correct phrasing intended by the author. This can sound as if the student is ignoring punctuation cues and running parts of sentences together. It can also be evident in writing when older students continue to construct simple sentences without the complexity you would expect for their age and stage. Note: Children who get cochlear implants often need explicit instruction in the rules of syntax as an intervention for the reading challenges caused by hearing limitations while young.

Direct instruction, fun activities constructing and combining sentences using manipulatives or visuals cues, and sentence frames are just a few strategies shown to improve syntax use and awareness while reading and writing. In fact, writing can be a direct pathway to improved syntactic awareness during reading, when combined with explicit instruction, modeled examples, and a feedback loop targeting progress with the use of syntax in student writing.

What is on the horizon

The faculty at St. Andrew’s will continue to adjust their approach to robustly implement a research and evidence informed reading curriculum and instructional approach, invigorated by the stories of newfound success reported by families, observed by teachers, and felt among students. Deepening our understanding of the link between high quality writing instruction and reading outcomes is our next frontier of study in literacy, but for now, empowering children to become self-directed analysts of the reading code and explicitly linking their knowledge of spoken (or signed) language to their knowledge of written language3 is laying the foundation for a slow revolution toward a school culture bathed in literacy. Skillful effort unfurls joyfully.

Christine Lewis was CTTL Lower School Head of Research when she wrote this article. Prior to that she spent more than a decade teaching across all elementary school grades. She is currently Assistant Head of School at Sandy Spring Friends School.

“Who Are We Doing This For?”

ROBERT KOSASKY

Almost 40 years ago, our former Assistant Head of School John Holden first asked the question “Who Are We Doing This For?” at a St. Andrew’s faculty meeting. Like John himself, the question is powerful and its answer is clear: “Our students.” That’s who we’re here for, and why we choose to teach and serve in our schools. That student-centered spirit permeates each article in our Think Differently and Deeply series, because the authors believe in their students’ potential for growth.

For faculty and staff to “be there” for their students, school leaders must first “be there” for the adults who shape our community culture. That begins with hiring hopeful, open-minded educators who love working with students. Student belonging—a child’s trust and affirmation that they are known, welcome, and valued in their schools—flows from faculty and staff belonging. Learning and well-being are rooted in teacher-student relationships, and those relationships flourish when teachers feel relational trust in their leaders and their schools.

In an age of increasing staffing shortages and turnover, a culture of belonging is also essential to retaining a strong faculty and staff. St. Andrew’s was founded in 1978 with 40 students, and in 2023 we enroll 720 students. During that time, the broad diversity of our student body and employees has increased dramatically. Over our eventful 45-year history, we have rented or owned five different campuses, and our Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning has created an additional virtual campus for our global partner

schools and educators. Despite this pace and scale of institutional change and many societal stressors on teachers and schools, our annual employee retention rate has risen to 95%. A supportive school culture and positive relationships are primary reasons for this professional loyalty.

However, warmth and trust are not enough to attract and retain highly dedicated and talented educators, particularly in a post-pandemic world. Schools that are really “there” for their faculty and staff are committed to career-long professional mentorship and growth. Contrary to negative stereotypes, true educators don’t want to “do the same thing” year after year. Like their students, they enjoy continual learning through study, collaboration, and new professional opportunities. Too many schools don’t ask their employees how they want to improve annually and over their careers, and almost no schools provide the time, guidance, and financial

For faculty and staff to “be there” for their students, school leaders must first “be there” for the adults who shape our community culture. That begins with hiring hopeful, open-minded educators who love working with students.

resources to make shared professional growth a cultural norm. Too many promising educators change schools and leave the classroom for administrative positions because they simply don’t see an alternative to a traditional growth-by-promotion pathway. Too many others lose their sense of joy and leave the profession mid-career because they are not encouraged and supported to grow with their colleagues. And far too many young adults don’t seriously consider careers in education because they can’t imagine “doing the same thing in the same place” for decades.

When St. Andrew’s founded The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning in 2011, we invested in the concept that great teachers thrive and stay in researchbased, growth-minded cultures. As Glenn Whitman noted in his introduction, the quality of a child’s teachers is the single largest determinant of their success and well-being in school. Students and learning are too valuable for schools to leave faculty and staff growth and satisfaction to chance, or to resign themselves to high levels of turnover.

As the next step in investing in our current and future faculty, St. Andrew’s is currently building out career-long, evidence-informed, cohorted Professional Growth Pathways for our faculty and staff to choose and experience together. Our five planned pathways align closely with the school’s values and institutional needs and are responsive to the interests of our colleagues: Teaching and Research; Diversity, Equity, and Belonging; Program Design and Innovation; Coaching and Mentoring; and School Leadership. Each pathway

will have cohorted seminars, apprenticeships, or projects through which interested faculty and staff can grow individually and collectively without leaving the school community and colleagues that they love. The pathways will also give opportunities for colleagues to teach one another, and for the school to develop our future leaders and succession plan in a systematic, dependable way. Each article you have read in this journal is a step in that author’s growth pathway.

Unlocking students’ potential and accelerating their growth as learners requires doing the same for the adults who teach and guide them—every year throughout their careers. In that spirit, I close Volume 5 of “Think Differently and Deeply” with a question for everyone who leads and supports educators and schools: “Who are we doing this for?”

Robert Kosasky (rkosasky@saes.org) is Head of School at St. Andrew’s.

Endnotes

Introduction

1 Steiner, D. (2018) Cognitive ability and teacher efficacy. Policy brief, Institute for Education Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Education.

2 Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2016). From Best Practices to Breakthrough Impacts: A Science-Based Approach to Building a More Promising Future for Young Children and Families.

3 Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions Among Educators. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.

4 Guskey, T. R. (2021). Professional Learning with Staying Power. Educational Leadership, 78(5), 54-59.

5 Cordingley, P. et al. (2015). Developing Great Teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust.

I. A Student Intern’s Academy Experience

1 Diamond A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.

2 Chew, S. How to study. https://www.samford.edu/ departments/academic-success-center/how-to-study

2 See Carol Dweck. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (New York: Ballantine Books, 2007) and The Mindset Scholars Network (www. mindsetscholarsnetwork.org).

II. A Professional Growth Pathway for Great Teaching: Using the Science of Learning to Build Collective Teacher Efficacy

1 Dunlosky J. et al. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 14(1):4-58.

2 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292.

3 National Council on Teacher Quality (2020). What we’re reading: The stubborn myth of “learning styles.”

4 Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Solution Tree.

5 Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10.

6 Efrat Furst. Teaching with learning in mind. http:// sites.google.com/view/efratfurst

7 Collin, J. & Quigley, A. (2021). Teacher Feedback to Improve Pupil Learning: Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation.

8 Daniel, D. B. (2012). Promising principles: Translating the science of learning to educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 251–253.

III. How I Teach AP European History Now

1 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292.

2 Efrat Furst. Teaching with learning in mind. http:// sites.google.com/view/efratfurst

3 Brown, P.C., Roediger, H.L., & McDaniel, M.A. (2014). Make it stick. Belknap Press.

4 Dunlosky J. et al. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 14(1):4-58.

5 Hicklin, T. (2016). How novelty boosts memory retention. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

6 Steele, C.M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. W. W. Norton & Company.

7 Collin, J. & Quigley, A. (2021). Teacher Feedback to Improve Pupil Learning: Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation.

8 Quigley, A., Muijs, D. & Stringer, E. (2021). Metacognition And Self-Regulated Learning: Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation.

IV. Taking Care of the Whole Student-Athlete

1 Darling-Hammond, L. et al. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development, Applied Developmental Science, 24:2, 97-140.

2 Allen, K. (2022). The Power of Relationships in Schools. Psychology Today.

3 Jayanthi N. et al. (2020). Risk of Injuries Associated With Sport Specialization and Intense Training

4 Gessel L.M., et al. (2007). Concussions among United States high school and collegiate athletes. J. Athl Train. 42(4):495-503.

5 Wang Z.R. & Ni G.X. (2021). Is it time to put traditional cold therapy in rehabilitation of softtissue injuries out to pasture? World J Clin Cases. 16;9(17):4116-4122.

V. A Structured Approach to Building Strong Readers

1 Hanford, E. (2018, March 11). Rethinking how students with dyslexia are taught to read. NPR. Retrieved May 7, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/ sections/ed/2018/03/11/591504959

2 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups.

3 Wexler, N. (2023, April 10). Dramatic new evidence that building knowledge can boost comprehension and close gaps. Forbes. Retrieved May 7, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ nataliewexler/2023/04/09/dramatic-new-evidence-thatbuilding-knowledge-can-boost-comprehension-andclose-gaps/?sh=3700ceb27725

VI. Mindsets for Parents

1 Gunderson, E., Griphover, S., Romero, C., Dweck, C., Goldin-Meadow, S. & Levine, S. (2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3- year olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84, 1526-1541.

VII. Teacher Aid, Not Teacher Replacement: Artificial Intelligence Tools’ Impact on Teaching and Learning

1 OECD (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Legal Instruments.

2 Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A metaanalysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 331-347.

3 Vanlehn, K. (2011). The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems, Educational Psychologist, 46:4, 197-221

4 Ma, W., Adesope, O.O., Nesbit, J.C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901-918.

5 Kewalramani, S., Kidman, G. & Palaiologou, I. (2021). Using Artificial Intelligence (AI)-interfaced robotic toys in early childhood settings: a case for children’s inquiry literacy, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29:5, 652-668

6 Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). Unlocking the Power of ChatGPT: A Framework for Applying Generative AI in Education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355-366.

7 Vartiainen, H. & Tedre, M. (2023). Using artificial intelligence in craft education: crafting with text-toimage generative models, Digital Creativity, 34:1, 1-21

8 Wilson, M., Paschen, J., & Pitt, L. (2021). The circular economy meets artificial intelligence (AI): understanding the opportunities of AI for reverse logistics. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal

9 Cohen, P. A., & Dacanay, L. S. (1992). Computerbased instruction and health professions education: A meta-analysis of outcomes. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 15(3), 259–281.

10 Nan, J. (2020), Research of application of artificial intelligence in preschool education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing, 1607 (1), 1-5

11 Tseng et al. (2021). PlushPal: Storytelling with interactive plush toys and machine learning Interaction design and children. IDC ‘21: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference, 236-245

12 Myneni, L., Narayanan, N.H., Rebello, S., Rouinfar, A., & Pumtambekar, S. (2013). An Interactive and Intelligent Learning System for Physics Education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6, 228239.

13 Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to Implement Effective Teaching Strategies in Classrooms: Five Strategies, Including Prompts. SSRN Electronic Journal.

14 Winkler, R. et al. (2020). Sara, the Lecturer: Improving Learning in Online Education with a Scaffolding-Based Conversational Agents. Computer Human Interaction Conference (CHI).

15 Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology, Psychiatry, & Applied Disciplines, 17, 89–100

16 Luckin, R., du Boulay, B. (1999). Capability, Potential and Collaborative Assistance. In: Kay, J. (eds) UM99 User Modeling. CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, vol 407. Springer, Vienna.

17 Conati C. & Vanlehn, K. (2000) Toward ComputerBased Support of Meta-Cognitive Skills: a Computational Framework to Coach Self-Explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11,(4)

18 Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179.

19 Baylor, A. L. (2002). Agent-Based Learning Environments as a Research Tool for Investigating Teaching and Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 227-248.

20 Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does Training on Self-Regulated Learning Facilitate Students’ Learning With Hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.

21 Hill, J.R., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the world wide web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 37-64.

22 Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–179.

23 Land S. M. and Greene B. A., Project-Based Learning with the World Wide Web: A Qualitative Study of Resource Integration, Educational Technology Research and Development, 48: 1, pp. 45–66, 2000.

24 Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523-535.

25 Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 381–412.

Endnotes (continued)

26 Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005). Scaffolding SelfRegulated Learning and Metacognition— Implications for the Design of Computer-Based Scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367-379.

27 Angelo, T. A (1993). “Teacher’s Dozen”: Fourteen General, Research-Based Principles Learning in our Classrooms. AAHE Bulletin, 3-13.

28 Arroyo, I., Woolf, B.P., Burelson, W. et al. (2014). A Multimedia Adaptive Tutoring System for Mathematics that Addresses Cognition, Metacognition and Affect. Int J Artif Intell Educ, 24, 387–426.

29 Martin, A., Marsh, H., McInerney, D., Green, J., & Dowson, M. (2007). Getting Along with Teachers and Parents: The Yields of Good Relationships for Students’ Achievement Motivation and Self-Esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 17(2), 109-125.

30 Akgun, S., Greenhow, C. Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI Ethics 2, 431–440 (2022).

VIII. Belonging as a Foundation for Pedagogy

1 Hammond, Z. L. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin Press.

2 Healey, K., & Stroman, C. (2021). Belonging: A Synthesis of Research on Belonging-Supportive Learning Environments Executive Summary.

3 The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning’s Research base is available and everevolving at: https://www.thecttl.org/research-base/.

4 We say ‘most students’ in recognition that for some students, for a variety of reasons, the reverse may be true - but all students need to work at finding the strategy that works best for them.

Students’ Learning With Hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.

IX. Giving Feedback That Works for Students and Now for Teacher

1 Whitman, G. & Kelleher, I. (2016). Neuroteach: Brain Science and the Future of Education. Rowman Littlefield.

2 Neuroteach Global (www.neuroteach.us) is a 12-micro-course online professional learning and growth platform that can be personalized to one or a cohort of educators as they begin, elevate, and space their practice with the most promising principles, research, and strategies in Mind, Brain, and Education science.

3 Collin, J. & Quigley, A. (2021). Teacher Feedback To Improve Pupil Learning: Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation.

4 William, D. (2016). The Secret of Effective Feedback, ASCD 73(7).

5 Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

X.Becoming the Teacher I want to Be: My Early-Career Pathway to Research-Informed Teaching

1 Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2016). Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of Education. Rowman & Littlefield.

2 Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

3 Yarborough, C. B., & Fedesco, H. N. (2020). Motivating students. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching.

4 Immordino-Yang, M.H. (2015) Emotions, Learning, and the Brain: Exploring the Educational Implications of Affective Neuroscience. W. W. Norton & Company.

5 Healey, K. & Stroman, C. (2021). Structures for Belonging: A Synthesis of Research on BelongingSupportive Learning Environments. Student Experience Research Network.

6 Lemov, D. (2010) Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. Jossey-Bass. 28.

7 Martinez Hanley, L., Kelleher, I. & Shultis, E. (2022). A Powerful Combo: Diversity, Equity, and Belonging and Mind, Brain, and Education. Independent School Magazine.

XI. Teacher Empowerment: Coaching Teachers One Step at a Time

1 Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: What the data tells us. Phi Delta Dappan, 93(8), 47-51.

2 Partello, L. (2019). What to make of declining enrollment in teacher preparation programs. Center for American Progress.

3 Bryant, J., Ram, S., Scott, D., & Williams, C. (2023) K–12 teachers are quitting. What would make them stay? McKinsey & Company.

4 Jennings, P.A. (2021). Teacher Burnout Turnaround: Strategies for Empowered Educators. W. W. Norton & Company

5 Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, Dl, Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 115-132.

6 D evos, G., Tuytens, M., & Hulpia, H. (2014). Teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the mediating effects of distributed leadership. American Journal of Education, 120, 205-231.

7 Opper, I. M. (2019) Teachers Matter: Understanding Teachers’ Impact on Student Achievement. RAND Corporation.

8 Hargraves, A., & O’Connor, M.T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin.

XII. Exploring Perspective in Sixth-Grade Humanities

1 Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How Does Fiction Reading Influence Empathy? An Experimental Investigation on the Role of Emotional Transportation. PLOS ONE, 8(1), e55341.

2 Brecht, B. (1964). Brecht on Theater (J. Willet, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Schriften zum Theater 1957)

3 Bruun, E. F. (2018). Teaching Empathy with Brecht as Prompter. American International Journal of Social Science, 7(2).

4 Vinci, E. (2019). Empathy in Modern Drama: Bertolt Brecht’s Threepenny Opera. Gestalt Theory, 41(2), 159–171.

5 Williams, W.C. (1962). Collected Poems: 1939-1962, Volume II. New Directions Publishing Corp.

6 Kirkland, D.E. (2004). View of Rewriting School: Critical Pedagogy in the Writing Classroom. Journal of Teaching Writing, 21(1&2).

7 Vaidik, A., & Kelly, G. O. (2019). Rewriting World History in the Classroom: Pedagogical Dispatches from India. The Asian Review of World Histories.

XIII. The Power of Plasticity, the Impacts of Stress, and the Awesome Responsibility of Educators

1 Montagu A. (1968). The natural superiority of women (Rev.). Macmillan.

2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyzT5b0tNtk

3 Huttenlocher P.R. (1979). Synaptic density in human frontal cortex: Developmental changes and effects of aging. Brain Research, 163, 195–205.

4 Herculano-Houzel S. (2012). The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a scaled-up primate brain and its associated cost. PNAS, 109, 10661-10668.

5 Chaudhury S., et al. (2016). Activity-dependent synaptic plasticity modulates the critical phase of brain development. Brain and Development, 38(4) 355-363.

6 Malenka, R. & Nicoll, R. (1999). Long-Term Potentiation--A Decade of Progress?. Science, 285,1870-1874.

7 de Faria, O., et. al. (2019). Activity-dependent central nervous system myelination throughout life. Journal of neurochemistry, 148(4), 447–461.

8 Servant, M., et al. (2018). Neural bases of automaticity. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 44(3), 440–46

9 Anderson, J.R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261-295.

10 Marko, M., & Riečanský, I. (2018). Sympathetic arousal, but not disturbed executive functioning, mediates the impairment of cognitive flexibility under stress. Cognition, 174, 94-102.

11 Arnsten, A. (2009). Stress signaling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 410–422.

12 Belleau, E.L, Treadway, M.T., & Pizzagalli, D.A. (2019), The Impact of Stress and Major Depressive Disorder on Hippocampal and Medial Prefrontal Cortex Morphology. Biological Psychiatry, 85(6), 443-453.

13 Bremner, J.D., et. al. (2000). Hippocampal volume reduction in major depression. Am. J. Psychiatry, 157(1), 115-8.

14 Evans, G.W., et. al. (2016). Childhood Cumulative Risk Exposure and Adult Amygdala Volume and Function. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 94, 535-543.

15 Kanherkar, R.R., Bhatia-Dey, N., & Csoka, A.B.(2014). Epigenetics across the human lifespan. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2.

16 Maamar, M. B., Nilsson, E.E., Skinner, M.K. (2021). Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance, gametogenesis and germline development, Biology of Reproduction, 105(3), 570–592.

17 Meaney, M.J., & Szyf, M. (2005). Environmental programming of stress responses through DNA methylation: life at the interface between a dynamic environment and a fixed genome. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 7(2), 103-123

18 Bierer, L. M., et al. (2020). Intergenerational Effects of Maternal Holocaust Exposure on FKBP5 Methylation. The American journal of psychiatry, 177(8), 744–753.

19 Roth, T.L. & Sweatt, J.D. (2011). Epigenetic marking of the BDNF gene by early-life adverse experiences. Hormones and Behavior, 59(3), 315-320.

20 McCartney, D. L., et al. (2018). Epigenetic signatures of starting and stopping smoking. EBioMedicine, 37, 214–220.

21 Li, Y., Hassett, A. L., & Seng, J. S. (2019). Exploring the mutual regulation between oxytocin and cortisol as a marker of resilience. Archives of psychiatric nursing, 33(2), 164–173.

XIV. You Have Something In Your Teeth: My Journey to Being a Research-Informed Teacher

1 Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2016). Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of Education. Rowman & Littlefield.

2 ResearchED (2020). Researched events for researchers, Teachers & Policy Makers. That’s not to say that teachers and researchers can’t find or post MBE content on social platforms; X, for example, can connect educators around the globe with access to research-informed pedagogy and the researchers themselves! This is just one of the many takeaways during my MBE awakening.

Endnotes (continued)

3 American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education (2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK–12 teaching and learning.

4 Merriam-Webster, retrieved 2023.

5 De Bruyckere, P. (2018). The Ingredients for Great Teaching. SAGE.

6 Agarwal, P. K., & Bain, P. M. (2019). Powerful Teaching: Unleash the Science of Learning. JosseyBass.

XV. The Relationship Between Reggio Emilia and Mind, Brain, and Education in a Pre-K and Kindergarten Classroom

1 Reggio Children. Reggio Emilia Approach. https:// www.reggiochildren.it/en/reggio-emilia-approach

2 Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and Place: Reggio Emilia’s Environment as Third Teacher, 46(1), 40-47.

3 Wexler, B., et al. (2016). Cognitive Priming and Cognitive Training: Immediate and Far Transfer to Academic Skills in Children. Scientific reports, 6, 32859.

4 National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2018). Understanding Motivation: Building the Brain Architecture That Supports Learning, Health, and Community Participation: Working Paper No. 14.

5 Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education (2006). Documentation and Display: What’s the Difference?

6 Merrill, S. (2018). Learning and the social brain. Edutopia.

7 Darling-Hammond, L. & Barron, B. (2008). Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding. Jossey-Bass.

8 Romero, C. (2015). What We Know About Purpose & Relevance from Scientific Research. Student Experience Research Network.

9 Ryan, R,.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 55(1):68-78.

XVI. Research-Informed Chapel at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School

1 Healey, K., & Stroman, C. (2020). Structures for Belonging: A Synthesis of Research on BelongingSupportive Learning Environments. Student Experience Research Network

2 Romero, C. (2019). What we know about purpose & relevance from scientific research. Student Experience Research Network

3 Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 37–76). Elsevier Academic Press.

4 Wang, T., & Mitchell, C. J. (2011). Attention and relative novelty in human perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37(4), 436–445.

5 Immordino-Yang, M.H. (2022, March). Purpose, feelings, deep thinking, and relationships drive brain development. Kappan, 51(1)

6 Clark, J. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual Coding Theory and Education. Educational Psychology Review 3(3):149-210

7 Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 710–756.

8 Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Solution Tree.

XVII. Teacher-Student Feedback and a Virtuous Cycle of Co-Learning

1 Lepper, M.R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 289-309

2 Henley, D. (2004). The Meaningful Critique: Responding to Art from Preschool to Postmodernism. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 21(2), 79-87

3 William, D. (2016). The Secret of Effective Feedback. Educational Leadership, 73(7), 10-15.

4 Stanko-Kaczmarek, M. (2012). The Effect of Intrinsic Motivation on the Affect and Evaluation of the Creative Process Among Fine Arts Students. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 304-310.

5 Schrand, T., & Eliason, J. (2021). Feedback practices and signature pedagogies: What can the liberal arts learn from the design critique? Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 51-62.

XVIII. The Necessary Art and Science of Classroom Converations in Early Childhood

1 Whitebread, D. & Sitabkhan, Y. (2022). Pedagogy and Currcicula Content: Building Foundational Skills and Knowledge. in: Quality Early Learning: Nurturing Children’s Potential, ed. Bendini, M. & Devercelli, A.E.. World Bank Group. pp. 83-115.

2 Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

3 Wexler, N. (2022). OPINION: Why problems with literacy instruction go beyond phonics. The Hechinger Report.

4 Christakis, E. (2017). The Importance of Being Little: What Preschoolers Really Need From Grownups. Penguin Books.

5 Hattie, J. (2023). Visible Learning: The Sequel. Routledge.

6 Sylva, K. et al. (2004). The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project technical paper

12: The final report-effective pre-school education. in: Institute of Education, University of London/ Department for Education and Skills.

7 Diamond A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.

8 Often misattributed to Donald Hebb, but based on his significantly more complex observations. Hebb, D.O. (1949). The organization of behavior; a neuropsychological theory. Wiley.

XIX. St. Andrew’s Online: An Exploratory Qualitative Case Study

1 Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, Second Edition, 352-355.

2 Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 years of the community of inquiry framework. TechTrends, 64(4), 557-560.

3 A ttard, C., & Holmes, K. (2022). An exploration of teacher and student perceptions of blended learning in four secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 34(4), 719-740.

4 Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry. Athabasca University Press.

5 Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2).

XX. Student Choice and the Admission Application Process

1 Enrollment Management Association (2023). EMA Interpretive Guide 2022-23.

2 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.

XXI. Empathy Interviews: Making Space for Student Voices

1 VanPatten, B., & Simonsen, R. (2022). Language acquisition in a Nutshell: A Primer for Teachers. ACTFL Language, 14.

2 Constantinou, F. et al. (2021). Is curriculum coherence a fundamental characteristic of highperforming education systems? Cambridge.

3 Nelsestuen, K., & Smith, J. (2020). Empathy interviews - learning forward. Learning Forward.

4 Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2016). Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of Education. Rowman & Littlefield, 27.

5 Contact the Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning (CTTL) for information on the MBE Placemat.

6 Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2021). Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of Education. Rowman & Littlefield. Pg. 83-84.

7 Pfenninger, S. E., & Lendl, J. (2017). Transitional woes: On the impact of L2 input continuity from primary to secondary school. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 443–469.

8 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261292.

XXIII. Words That Matter: The Effect of Verbal Priming on Creativity

1 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.5

2 Baumeister, R.F. et al. (2007). Is the conscious self a help, a hindrance, or an irrelevance to the creative process? Advances in Psychology Research, 53, 137152.

3 Sassenberg, K. et al. (2017). Priming creativity as a strategy to increase creative performance by facilitating the activation and use of remote associations, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 128-138.

4 Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown and Company.

5 Note: In 2012, Daniel Kahneman published an open letter cautioning that one aspect of priming called “social priming” needed greater levels of research. Yong, E. (2012) Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act. Nature.

XXIV. Let Them Play: Part II

1 Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence.

2 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

3 Bredekamp, S. (2004). Play and school readiness. In E. F. Zigler et al. (Eds.), Children’s Play: The Roots of Reading. DC: ZERO TO THREE.

4 Durkin, K., Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Wiesen, S. E. (2022). Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children’s achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology, 58(3), 470–484.

5 Mader, J. (2022, February ). Behind the findings of the Tennessee pre-K study that found negative effects for graduates. The Hechinger Report.

6 Center on the Developing Child (2007). The Science of Early Childhood Development.

7 Gray, P., et al. (2023) Decline in Independent Activity as a Cause of Decline in Children’s Mental Well-being: Summary of the Evidence. The Journal of Pediatrics, 260:113352.

XXV. Between Skepticisms: Critical Thinking

1 Arendt, H. (1954). The Crisis of Education. Open Source.

2 Ask the Cognitive Scientist: How Can Educators Teach Critical Thinking, https://www.aft.org/ae/fall2020/ willingham

3 Robinson, M. (2018). “Mind, Consciousness, and Souls,” in What Are we Doing Here? (203). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Robinson also discusses this in The Absence of Mind, based on her Terry Lecture delivered at Yale in 2009.

4 Cf., Paul MacDonald, Jr. (2009), who neatly unpacks the relationship of skepticism and subjectivism in Knowledge & the Transcendent (30). The Catholic University of America Press.

5 Current subjectivist thinking shows the influence of Immanuel Kant, who argued that the mind only has access to phenomenon, or the appearance, of a thing, not the Ding an sich – the thing itself. (Cf, The Critique of Pure Reason).

6 Nietzsche, F. (1901) The Will to Power. Open source.

XXVI. From Rereading to Retrieval: How Psychology Changed My View of Studying

1 Pashler et al. (2007) Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning. IES Practice Guide, U.S. Department of Education.

2 Blasiman, R.N., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K.A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: Comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. Memory, 25(6), 784–792.

3 McDaniel, M.A. et al. (2021) Training College Students to Use Learning Strategies: A Framework and Pilot Course. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 20(3), 364-382.

4 Tullis, J.G., Finley, J.R., & Benjamin, A.S. (2012). Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 429-442.

5 The Center for Transformative Teaching & Learning. (2023). Neuroteach Global Student. https://neuroteach. us/neuroteach-global-student/

6 Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R.F., & Burgess, K. (2014). The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1323-1330.

XXVII. How the Science of Reading is Transforming Our Approach to Reading Instruction

1 https://www.thecttl.org/the-mbe-placemat-and-theelementary-roadmap/

2 Gough, P. Tumner, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 7 Issue 1 January/February p.6-10.

3 Hua, Anh & Keenan, Janice. (2017). Interpreting Reading Comprehension Test Results: Quantile Regression Shows that Explanatory Factors Can Vary with Performance Level. Scientific Studies of Reading. 21. 1-14. 10.1080/10888438.2017.1280675.

4 Ehri,L. Nunes, S. Stahl, A. Willows, D (2002). Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence From the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Journal of Direct Instruction Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 121–166.Review of Educational Research, Fall 2001, Vol. 71(3), 393–447.

5 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

6 https://lvp.digitalpromiseglobal.org/content-area/ literacy-pk-3/factors

THE CENTER for TRANSFORMATIVE TEACHING & LEARNING

TM

AT ST. ANDREW’S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL

Head of School: Robert Kosasky

Dreyfuss Family Director of The CTTL: Glenn Whitman

Dreyfuss Family Chair of Research: Dr. Ian Kelleher

Editors: Richard Coco, Dr. Ian Kelleher, Eva Shultis, Glenn Whitman

Graphic Design: Richard Coco and Nancy Schwartz

Original Cover Design: Hillary Reilly

Photography: Andrea Joseph Photography, Freed

Photography, James Kegley Photography, Kirsten Petersen, Nancy Schwartz, Matt Sugam

Published March 2024

The CTTL’s mission is to elevate teacher effectiveness, student acheivement, and the whole child’s school experience using the most promising research and strategies in Mind, Brain, and Education Science.

@thecttl