… tell<\/strong> them (“checkmate is defined as…”).<\/p>\n Both strategies sound plausible. Both probably help, at least a little bit.<\/p>\n Is one better than the other?<\/p>\n I recently came across a fascinating study<\/a> that explores this question.<\/p>\n In this research, two strangers met over an online puzzle — sort of a maze with prizes at the end of various paths.<\/p>\n Sometimes, one stranger could EXPLAIN to the other the best strategy to get the most points. (“Get the pink triangles, then the hollow squares, then the green circles.”)<\/p>\n Other times, one stranger could SHOW the other the winning path. (“Watch me go this way, now this way, now this way.”)<\/p>\n Which method worked better, show or tell?<\/p>\n PLOT TWIST.<\/p>\n In this case, the answer depended<\/em>\u00a0on the complexity of the puzzle<\/em>.<\/p>\n For simple puzzles, both methods worked equally well<\/em>.<\/p>\n For complex puzzles,\u00a0telling<\/strong> helped more than showing<\/strong><\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n I would have been surprised if there were a straightforward answer to the question; I am, therefore, more inclined to believe this “it depends” answer.<\/p>\n This result — explaining complexity > showing complexity — prompted the researchers to test a second hypothesis.<\/p>\n In this case, the research details get very tricky, so I won’t go into them. But the basic idea was:<\/p>\n Perhas both words and actions can explain concrete<\/strong> things, but<\/p>\n Perhas words do better than actions at explaining abstract<\/strong> things.<\/p>\n Sure enough, the second experiment supported that hypothesis.<\/p>\n As the researchers say in their first paragraph:<\/p>\n Our findings suggest that language communicates complex concepts by directly transmitting abstract rules. In contrast, demonstrations transmit examples, requiring the learner to infer the rules.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In brief, the more abstract and complex the concept, the more important the words.<\/p>\n Before we rush to reform our teaching, we should notice several key points about this study:<\/p>\n It involved adults working with other adults, and\u00a0strangers working with strangers.<\/p>\n The participants were not — as far as I know — teachers. That is: they have neither expertise nor training in helping others understand.<\/p>\n The task involved (sort of) solving mazes. I’m an English teacher; my teaching — and perhaps your teaching — doesn’t focus on maze-solving like mental activity.<\/p>\n In other words, because this research differs A LOT from typical classroom work, its findings might not apply precisely to classroom work.<\/p>\n That said, this study reminds me of an important lesson:<\/p>\n Practice. My. Words.<\/p>\n That is: when I’m explaining a concept to my students for the first time, I should script and rehearse my explanation carefully<\/em>.<\/p>\n Now, because I’ve been teaching for a few centuries, I’m occasionally tempted to wing.<\/p>\n Yes, “indirect object” is a tricky concept … but I understand it well, and I’ve explained it frequently over the years, and I’m sure I’ll do just fine…<\/p>\n No, wait, stop it. This research reminds me: words\u00a0really matter<\/em> for helping students understand abstractions.<\/p>\n I need to get those words just right, and doing so will take time, thought, and concentraction. (Ollie Lovell emphasizes a similar idea when he writes about the importance of “bullet-proof definitions”; for instance, in\u00a0this book<\/a>.)<\/p>\n A second point jumps out at me as well.<\/p>\nToday’s Research<\/h2>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/AdobeStock_133870752-300x208.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTake Two<\/h2>\n
Teaching Implications?<\/h2>\n
Teaching Implications!!<\/h2>\n