By:

I just finished reading a book called “Choke: What the Secrets of the Brain Reveal About Getting it Right When You Have To” by Dr. Sian Beilock, a Ph.D. research psychologist at the University of Chicago. (Simon and Shuster, 2010.)

The book presents a number of psychological and brain science studies that shed light on the phenomenon educators have come to know as “Stereotype Threat” – as well as amazingly simple and affordable interventions that can help minimize its impact. I highly recommend it to all of you. For your convenience, I am highlighting what I see as some of the major findings, but I encourage you all to read the book yourselves, in particular, the middle section – pages 63-177. First, Beilock describes what she calls “working memory,” which I think is analogous to computer “RAM,” and is what enables people to keep multiple things in mind when solving problems. While this kind of intelligence/memory has been thought to be largely genetic, and it may be largely so, the author shows that certain exercises – and even computer games! – can quantifiably increase it, leading to better task and test performance. Interestingly, ADHD has been correlated with a deficit of this kind of memory, and some studies have shown a decrease in physical ADHD symptoms through “treatment” with memory-enhancing programs. Thus, the book and its findings might be relevant not only to helping our own students overcome test anxiety, but potentially for some of our special education clinic clients – not to mention ourselves and our own children and family members. Interestingly, Beilock describes research that shows that it is those very individuals with high “working memory’ capacity, and especially including very capable students, who are most vulnerable to “stereotype threat.” Apparently, the fear that one will confirm a negative stereotype have the effect of reducing “working memory.” I think of it as similar to a computer virus working in the background, slowing down one’s mental processing. It turns out that the weaker students show little response to stereotype threat. The most important finding, from my point of view, is the discovery of the efficacy of some simple interventions. One involved a double blind test of suburban public middle schoolers in California. They were divided into educationally matched groups and then randomly handed different packets. The test group packet asked them to write about their own values, while the placebo group was asked to write about OTHER peoples values. 70 percent of the African American kids in the test group appeared to benefit at a statistically significant level, with an average overall GPA increase of .25 – approximately a 40% reduction in the racial achievement gap – over the course of that year. Most amazingly, this difference persisted for years. And yes, the study was successfully replicated. In other tests, students who confronted the stereotype threat consciously showed improved scores. In still other tests, students who wrote about their test-related worries showed scores that improved by 15%. Conversely, subtly reminding female students that they were female before an exam quantifiably undermined them. According to the author, merely moving the standard background questions, which include gender, to the END of the AP calculus test, has been extrapolated to predict that an additional 4,700 female students would receive college credit-worthy grades! One point the author makes is that even excellent test takers experience elevated heart rates, blood pressure, sweaty palms, etc. – but they tend to interpret those responses as indications that they are “up for” the test, rather than that they will bomb it. The book also discussed the “Obama Effect,” which had, at least in one study, virtually eliminated the test-differential between blacks and whites. Similarly, in another other study, female Air Force Academy cadets performed demonstrably better on standardized math and science tests when they had women professors. I wonder whether having a gender-balanced faculty and five women deans has any impact here at UDC-DCSL []? : ) Beilock also takes great pains to debunk what she sees as the myth that more men are found in the upper echelons of math and science because, somehow, they are genetically superior to women when it comes to those subjects. One fact debunks this myth well: when SATs were first used in the ‘70s, males outnumbered females in the 95th percentile of the math SAT by 13 to 1. Later – and, she points out, since the advent of Title IX, which required schools to equalize male and female curricular and extracurricular offerings, the ratio dropped to 2.8 to 1. Of course, if genetics were involved, females couldn’t possibly have “evolved” that fast! Beilock cites many other studies as well. I urge our feminist men and women to read these chapters as well. One two key pages, the author lists ten specific research based approaches including: Reaffirmation of Self-Worth Maping Out One’s Complexities Write about your worries Meditate away the worries Think Differently (you’re more than your stereotype!) Reinterpret your reactions Pause your choke Educate the worries The Obama Effect Practice Under Pressure While the book goes on to discuss athletic and arts performance “choking” I think those section, while interesting, are less relevant to our School. However, if you want to know about your putting “yips” or your Chuck Knobloch block (Yankees haters and fans will know what I mean,) this would also be valuable.