This post is intended to be the final contribution in my series of posts describing generative activities and classroom applications. My previous contributions identified two hierarchical systems, SOI (selective, organizing, integrative) and ICAP (interactive, constructive, active, passive), proposing more and less powerful activities for influencing learning effectiveness. Both systems propose collaborative activities to be potentially most effective. Several of my posts have concerned how taking notes can improve achievement so I decided to conclude this series with a focus on collaborative notetaking.
Before I address the topic of collaboration, it may be helpful to provide a more general background on how educational psychologists and researchers such as me describe the process of taking notes. First, we differentiate the overall process into a storage and a retrieval phase. I assume this is obvious. A learner takes notes at one time to improve performance of some type at a later time. Second, we identify what might be accomplished during each stage. What is recorded during the storage phase determines what is available during the retrieval (study) phase. Learners may differ in how completely and how effectively they record key ideas so both completeness and quality of what is recorded could be important. The idea of a generative activity also proposes that the process of taking notes (whether available for review or not) might be helpful because of the cognitive activities that are involved. By extension, an instructor could prepare a quality set of notes and give them to students so they don’t have to take notes themselves. It matters if having personally taken notes is key to effectiveness. So attempts to determine if taking notes yourself has some unique value are useful.
Again, the importance of a retrieval and a study phase probably seems obvious. But again, there are important wrinkles that could be important. Does it matter if you review your own notes in comparison to expert notes? When in the time period between taking notes and the attempt to use knowledge should notes be reviewed? How many times and in what ways should this external record be used for review?
How might collaboration impact these processes? Some of the ways in which collaboration might modify notetaking are generative and some not. Collaboration could mean that others record notes you miss or record some things more accurately than you and access to their notes would allow you to achieve a more complete and a more accurate representation of the content. Maybe you just miss some things or misunderstand some things. When you have help, maybe you can record less and think more during the reception phase reducing the working memory demands of taking notes. These factors could be important if you don’t “slack off” knowing that you have some way to augment your own optimal efforts. These advantages are not generative. Collaboration could also involve actual interaction. Learners could discuss their understanding in reviewing their composite notes adding additional processing to what individuals might do on their own. This is what generative notetaking really proposes.
There are lots of other variations in notetaking that might be important and could be beneficial or harmful. There are postprocessing variations other than talking through notes with other students. Some systems (e.g., Cornell notes) propose a system of postprocessing?—?a secondary process of commenting on notes. Other ways of working with notes taken (Smart notes) also can be applied as part of the retrieval/study stage.
Another interesting proposal challenges the way we tend to think about taking in information during a live lecture. With asynchronous presentations that were increasingly common during the pandemic and also a way to think about the advantages of a flipped classroom, content is experienced in a recorded format. A learner or a small group of learners can control the pace of the presentation by simply stopping the playback of a video or even repeating segments of a recording reducing the working memory and note creation challenges of keeping up. With recorded content, a small group of students can even discuss as they record notes making the process more generative.
I have several motives in presenting notetaking in this way. First, I wanted those who think the processes are simple and fixed to think again. Second, I wanted to set you up for arguing that while determining if collaboration helps or not is pretty straightforward, understanding why what is observed in a dependent variable is not obvious. For example, if collaboration improves achievement, does this happen because the combination of notes is more complete and accurate or because the process of students working together led to some unique processing that would not have occurred without the interaction. Some have even observed that collaboration led to better quiz performance, but poorer implementation of the skills being taught (Fanguy, et al. 2021). These authors argued that the processing required of individual learners varied as a function of whether they had to depend entirely on their own notes. Deep understanding required for application might suffer when responsibility was shared.
I have concluded based on a review of most of the studies on collaborative notetaking that teasing apart the potential benefits does not presently allow clear conclusions. The core problem is that it is difficult to document how much actual interaction occurs and what are the characteristics of such interactions. Fanguy, et al. (2023) offer some interesting suggestions for how interaction might be operationalized, but few studies have included such data. So while studies do demonstrate the positive impact of collaborative notes (e.g. Baldwin, et al. 2019), the mechanisms responsible are unclear.
One additional factor is likely quite significant. Group comparisons between individual and collaborative notetaking ignore the individual nature of contributions within the collaborative groups (Fanguy, et al., 2023). No matter the nature of the inputs, we all learn as individuals and without a mechanism for identifying the type and extent of individual involvement, group comparisons will always be somewhat deficient. Even if group differences can be demonstrated, some within a group may benefit and some may not. The typical ending for many research articles?—?more research is needed?—?clearly applies to this topic.
One final point, I can and will suggest several digital collaborative tools for those of you who are interested, but I also caution that it is important to understand the purpose and hence perhaps the the strategies of notetaking that are to be recommended. As an academic, I studied student notetaking as would be applied to improve performance on future examinations. In my own work as an academic, I was and continue to be interested in the way I can take notes myself. There are several important differences in these circumstances. A student needs to understand the priorities of the course and instructor as would be relevant to an upcoming examination or writing project to take the most useful notes. Complete notes when requirements are unknown would seem a reasonable goal. My own goals are more self-imposed, but also are to record information that would potentially be useful over a much longer span of time. Capturing what seem to be important ideas in a form that will make sense to me several years in the future seems a different task.
Recommendations:
Google docs?—?collaborative notetaking may work with tools already familiar to educators. Multiple studies I have reviewed were conducted by assigning small groups of students (say 4–5) to a common Google doc file.
Hypothes.is?—?Hypothesis is a free tool that has been around for a while and is increasingly integrated into many LMSs used in higher ed. The tool is flexible allowing annotations and highlights to be publicly shared or shared with a designated group.
Glasp?—?Glasp is a recent entry to this category and is the tool I use for my own work. I like the tool because it is flexible in ways similar to Hypothesis and allows me to export the content I generate for long-term use in other Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) systems.
References:
Baldwin Matthew, P., Mik, F., & Costley Jamie, H. (2019). The effects of collaborative note-taking in flipped learning contexts. Journal of Language and Education, (4), 20.
Fanguy, M., Baldwin, M., Shmeleva, E., Lee, K., & Costley, J. (2021). How collaboration influences the effect of note-taking on writing performance and recall of contents. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15.
Fanguy, M., Costley, J., Courtney, M., & Lee, K. (2023). Analyzing collaborative note-taking behaviors and their relationship with student learning through the collaborative encoding-storage paradigm. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15.
Yes, I have a Threads account. I also have a Twitter account and Mastodon accounts on several different instances. When I am in an idealistic mood, I would describe this assortment of social services as an effort to diversify my attention and support multiple platforms. I think it is valuable to have alternatives both for myself and others. If I were forced to pick one, my choice would probably be Mastodon. Mastodon is a federated service without commercial priorities that allow me to interact without requiring me to view ads that require the collection of my data.
When I think about my priorities in a more utilitarian way, I recognize I must also make use of Twitter and now Threads. One use I have for these social platforms is to attract attention to my blog posts. Twitter has a large population base and Threads will likely soon have the same. Many internet users no longer follow blogs using RSS and identify posts that might want to view from the content they encounter on social sites. A federated service allows users to identify an ideal instance that tends to fit their personal interests and values and find content on other instances by identifying specific individuals they happen to encounter. The process is cumbersome requiring some skill and time. My approach ends up being a compromise allowing both my personal values and the utility of the more undifferentiated sites.
I was listening to a recent podcast episode (This week in tech) that featured an interview with Reddit app Apollo developer Christian Selig (this is the first portion of the podcast should you want to listen) and he described his decision to abandon his popular app for using Reddit because of soon to be imposed cost increases to developers whose software makes use of the Reddit API. The rebellion of multiple Reddit subreddits has been in the news and this interview helped me understand what is going on. The interview also made me think about the issue of revenue generation and those who are users and also content generators in the social media environment. Selig offers a realistic and appreciative interpretation of the rate increase imposed by Reddit, but in describing his decision to shut down his own participation he offers insights into a system that is failing. The “free to use” mentality appears to be breaking potentially with a decline in ad revenue. It is a complicated situation – companies provide the tools which costs for personnel, hardware, and bandwidth. Some have responsibilities to stockholders to generate profits and offer a return to investors. Most depend on content creators who receive little or nothing for their contributions.
The value I found in the podcast interview was the specific descriptions of some of the financial variables associated with a service such as Reddit and importantly in this case the smaller supporting companies that depend on the infrastructure, members, and content creators provided by Reddit.
Content creators can make money on platforms such as Reddit, YouTube, and Medium. However, services such as these tend to have minimums that must be met before a content creator makes anything. For example, to receive a cut of ad revenue from YouTube a partner must accumulate 1000 subscribers and 4000 public watch hours in the last 12 months. So, if you can meet such levels YouTube will split the revenue generated with you.
Personal note – I was once eligible when YouTube had a lower hour total and no user requirement. I don’t generate many videos anymore and am nowhere close to what would be required.
I began cross-posting some of my blog posts to Medium which has a 100 user follower requirement. Again, have not qualified for the follower minimum. My posts receive attention at about the same level as the original blog posts, but these views do not translate into followers. I admit I use Medium in kind of the same way. I read a few things that are relevant to me and come to my attention, but I don’t follow many individuals. I subscribed to the service for a bit, but eventually decided to invest my subscription money in other services.
To be fair, if you are interested in your content being viewed and read, you can make free use of these platforms. You just have no hope of generating income if that is your main motivation.
The system I continue to support is that provided by Brave. Brave is a chromium browser (very similar to Chrome) that will show consenting users ads without relying on personal information and that allows those browsing to share some of the revenue generated through these ads with content creators who register with Brave. I have been a Brave user for 6 years now and as a content creator and micropayment supporter of other content creators, I pretty much break even on my costs and income. I originally invested $50 in the cryptocurrency used to anonymously connect producers and consumers and the value of this initial contribution was inflated by the whims of the crypto market. I am slowly depleting this investment as the inflated value of crypto has come down and my micropayments for viewing narrowly exceed what I take in as a content creator. This system seems fair to me. A piece of the pie for the service provider (Brave), content consumers, and content creators.
I am reluctant to abandon the blogs which I post through a paid provider (BlueHost). I have maintained a blog for more than 20 years and the accumulation of thousands of posts has value to me if for no other reason than it is such an integrated history of my thinking on so many issues. There are ads on my blog posts (you are reading such a post at this point) and I pay approximately $150-200 a year for the services I use. My income is probably $15-25. It is a hobby, but I do value the content I have created. Aside from the value of reading to write in order to generate posts, participation in the online world as a creator has always allowed me to gain insights into the workings of this environment.
My prediction is that the present model is going to change and I think the Reddit situation is a harbinger. As services move from ad-supported models to subscriptions, I anticipate content creators will respond by seeking situations in which their content has value as well.
Capitalism is not a perfect system. No method of encouraging productivity and fair compensation is. Rather than making the effort to sort through the complexities involved in the creation and manufacturing of a product or the delivery of a service, it is too easy to seize on a single issue and feel justified in some conclusion you have reached. I want to argue that this is the case in the public perception of the cost of textbooks.
Why am I writing about this topic? My motive comes from comments made in the reaction to the legal decision made against the Internet Archives and by advocates for Open Educational Resources. My intent to broaden the discussion a bit to address parts of the complexity that are often ignored.
I am the author of a couple of college textbooks and I was a college faculty member. This combination places me in a position of being able to observe both the actions of publishers, but also students, bookstores, and those who comment on various aspects of the book business and the use of commercial instructional materials. A little about me as a textbook author. While I wrote for a small, specific market, I would argue I was successful. The textbook my wife and I wrote had a run of five editions with major textbook publishers. Our book was imagined as a book that undergraduates in education programs would use in a course with a title something like “Technology for teachers”, but was also used in graduate courses and by individuals interested in the topic. We now have the rights to our book because we were unable to work out an arrangement that would offer a $29 Primer in combination with related web content. The idea was that we would update the web contentment continuously editions and organize this content to expand the Primer. In fairness and full disclosure, we wanted to be paid for the continual process of writing rather than a furious revision effort when a new edition was authorized. We now sell the Primer as a $9 Kindle trying to offer a version of our vision.
The issue of textbook cost and what the cost provides:
I have written about aspects of the textbook issue for years. One of my favorite posts was headlined “The beer money ploy”. While the title may seem unrelated, the post explored an aspect of the perceived cost of textbooks that is often ignored. I see parents and politicians talking about the cost of textbooks all of the time. Kids are paying $600+ a semester for textbooks in some fields of study. This seems possible. Our textbook was once sold for between $100 and $140 depending on the supplemental materials that were bundled and books of this type cost nothing compared to books in math and the sciences. Here is the thing about this cost as explained in the “Beer Money Ploy”. This is not the actual cost to the student. Nearly all book stores and many online outlets purchase used textbooks for 50% of the sales price. So a $600 bill at the beginning of the semester allows a resale of $300 to the campus bookstore or online outlet at the end of the semester. If you don’t explain this to your parents, you have $300 to spend as you wish. It is true that bookstores keep an eye on what books have been ordered for next semester and use this when purchasing used books, but the proliferating online services don’t worry about this for a given institution. Used book may be resold several times allowing bookstores and online services easy money for putting books back on the shelf or on the online market.
So, an author or the company paying the author a percentage of the wholesale price to the bookstores have to make their money on the original sale only. This means the company must jack up the price compared to what they would charge for a consumable item. Textbook companies have begin participating in the used market and now may lease textbooks. This solves their problem to some extent.
Textbook companies are not without blame. Textbook companies spend some of the money from sales on selling. Unlike a bookstore, textbook companies pay sales reps that visit campuses and individual instructors. Of course, this contributes to the cost of textbooks but seems necessary to get instructors to take a look at the books they consider. The effort instructors devote to the exploration of the multiple options they have for assignment is a related issue. Bookstores want instructors to continue with existing assigned books. Textbook reps promote their most recent offerings in a given space (large courses almost always encourage multiple books from a single publisher because of the amount of money involved) arguing for the value of current information. While this is true and there be other good reasons for considering a different book, new book adoptions are also how the company, author, and sales reps make their money. See above description of used book market. See previous comment on capitalism.
Publishers
What you pay for with a typical commercial in comparison to a roll your own approach:
A commercial publisher spends money on people who perform functions that may be diminished or absent in self publishing or the absent in the online material an educator might identify and patch together as an information source. When you develop a commercial textbook you work with an editor who comments on everything from writing style, the importance of content included or maybe not included, to embellishments such as when an example, feature box, or chart might be helpful. Sometimes they work with you to cut down the amount of material to meet some cost to page number target. They liked that I put content on the web to support my book because that became an option they could recommend for material I had spent hours to create and they wanted to drop.
Commercial publishers have specialists who check every reference to see that references you include are actually accurately cited at the end of the book and people who specialize in creating an index. They pay photographers to provide images appropriate to the content and people who transform charts and graphs from sketches authors might provide. Pages are carefully laid out translating the page after page of generic text into something that has a professional appearance. Is this worth it? I have different feelings about different things. I am constantly annoyed when I cannot find a reference that an author in a self-published book forgets to add. An appendix of key terms is helpful. The layout I like, but I read a lot of stuff in ebooks that lacks this feature. I read theses and dissertations that are hundreds of pages long and I clearly would rather read something in a more pleasing format. However, I can still read this material and I would not want students to spend time creating content that has a more diverse appearance.
I have already mentioned sales reps who bring free copies of textbooks (another expense) to the office of instructors maybe after they look up what you teach and quickly reading the promotional materials about books they have available on that topic. Necessary? Not in an ideal world, but I also know that few instructors spend time looking through even a few books to select the one they will assign. Some do, many just make a selection based on what they found acceptable in a previous edition, the scholarly reputation of the author(s), or a quick examination of a few topics of personal interest. I admit I tended to switch back and forth between a couple of books I liked so I kind of fall in the middle of this laziness continuum. Being forced to read the book I used at least every other year was my motivation.
One caveat to what I have said. My opinions probably best apply to lower division service courses and less to upper division courses for majors or graduate students. This has to do with the background of the instructor (see following comments), the uniqueness and depth of the content, and what type of literature best suits the purpose of a course. For example, advanced courses are more likely to require exposure to multiple authors who have specific expertise and primary rather than secondary source material.
Authors
Expertise
I would argue that writing a quality lower level, survey textbook in many ways requires more preparation than a specialized upper division textbook. I have found that the survey course requires that I address topics I know should be included that I am not prepared to address. I may be able to write on topics generically because I should know more about most topics than students because of previous teaching experiences, but quality instruction and more so writing instructional content requires a depth of knowledge beyond what ends up conveyed in what is actually written. When you write in an actual area of expertise, the range of topics is much more restricted and you are likely an active researcher/scholar in that area. When I try to explain this to people, I use the example of copyright specifically when it comes to fair use and what classroom teachers can do to present content themselves or that their students have created online. I started reading about this topic and encountered something called the TEACH act (Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization). I learned that the purpose of this legislation was to place online and in person instruction on an equal footing when it came to fair use for instruction. Sounds important for K12 teachers to me. To qualify for this equal footing, there were certain expectations – protected access for students in actual classes. By my understanding of what this means, unrestricted access as would be allowed when using popular tools such as web environments (Google Sites) should not be used to share content allowed for classroom instruction because access is not limited, whether intended or not, to students with access. I started asking lawyers with educational responsibility (my university attorney) and experts talking about educational fair use at conferences and they all were baffled by the question and even the existence of the TEACH Act. I have not found reference to this act in other technology textbooks in the discussion of fair use.
This is just an example, but I offer it to make the point that there is some unique work required when creating the background for writing about topics beyond what I would describe as the typical expertise of most authors writing in a broad academic area. There may be far more work required than you realize if you have not written a textbook yourself. Part of what authors are paid for is to do this work. Again, I have a specific kind of product in mind and I assume that support for the statements made and the actions recommended have a basis not in personal opinion but a careful review of expert opinions and research.
Summary
Understanding what is a fair price for work and the cost of a product depends on a realistic understanding of what it takes to generate that product. These comments were intended to communicate some of the factors consumers may not recognize.
Like so many other educators, I am trying to decide what I think of AI tools. Granted, the tools produce some reasonable prose. However, how accurate is the content generated? Here is an example.
I recently generated a post focused on the addition of an AI article summarization capability added to MEMEX Garden. The summarization I offered as my example was based on this article describing the new AI capabilities being added to Kahn Academy resources. I understand there are several references here to AI, but the focus should be on the summary of the article. The summary appears below.
Khan Academy has launched a limited pilot of a new learning guide called Khanmigo for educators, powered by GPT-4, the next generation of OpenAI’s large language model technology. GPT-4 is the successor to OpenAI’s GPT-3.5, which ChatGPT is built upon. It can accept images as input, handle up to 25,000 words of text at once, and is designed with more safety and alignment features, among other changes.
Khanmigo is designed to help teachers create personalized learning plans for their students. It uses GPT-4 to analyze student data and provide recommendations for activities and resources that will help them learn more effectively. The tool also includes features like progress tracking and assessment tools to help teachers monitor student progress.
The pilot program is currently limited to a small group of educators, but Khan Academy plans to expand it in the future. The company believes that Khanmigo has the potential to revolutionize education by providing teachers with powerful tools to help them personalize learning for each student.
The summary sounds great, but after reading the article I realized I had a very different interpretation of the focus of the article. By my interpretation, the key capability of the new AI capability of Kahn’s Khanmigo was to engage interactively with students as tutor. Asking about their understanding and then attempting to guide their thinking by asking questions that would encourage them to think in a different way about what they were trying to understand. My interpretation would have suggested that the most important capability was to serve as a tutor to the students more than providing guidance to the teachers.
So, compare my interpretation with the second paragraph I have bolded in the summary provided by the AI. I would encourage your attention to the original article to see if you agree with my assessment.
I copied a few of the statements from the original article to show where I got my interpretation.
“In a blog post, Khan Academy Founder Sal Khan wrote: “When GPT-4 is carefully adapted to a learning environment like Khan Academy, it has enormous potential. It can guide students as they progress through courses and ask them questions like a tutor would. AI can assist teachers with administrative tasks, which saves them valuable time so they can focus on what’s most important — their students.”
I think there is a big difference between arguing that a product helps the student versus helps the teacher simply because these positions mean very different things to me as someone interested in the history of mastery learning and the role of tutors in this instructional approach. Is this quibbling? If my interpretation is correct, I don’t think this is a difference of no consequence.
I have been having a discussion on a Mastodon instance about the knowledge base supporting AI apps. It was initiated by someone who proposed that if AI is based on the content of too many content creators developing content using AI wouldn’t the improvement of the knowledge base bog down rather than become more helpful. This made some sense to me.
Imagine the following comparison. I am a retired academic and in retirement, I have transitioned from doing research to writing based on my reading of research. This is where the John Henry reference came from. Instead of John Henry the “steel driving man” against the steam engine, it is Mark the blog-writing man against ChatGPT. I read stuff and then write stuff. ChatGPT scans stuff and then with prompts writes stuff. We both can now only build from the knowledge base that exists and then contribute back to that knowledge base. Neither ChatGPT nor I can contribute insights back to that knowledge base. We both can summarize and interpret, but not hypothesize and test.
Granted ChatGPT has the potential to access more content than I can possibly read. I think I can speculate and propose in ways that ChatGPT can not, but I admit I cannot test my speculation.
Without new inputs, we may get to a point similar to that of those Republicans who suggest that Fauci lies. I would argue that a scientist being wrong as viewed in hindsight is probably not proof that a scientist has lied. It is that a scientist may have been relying on the existing data and made an adjustment when new information revealed that an old idea was wrong. Likewise, Chat GPT needs new and independent inputs to the knowledge base to advance.
I have been exploring a related idea by using ChatGPT to comment on topics I know to be based on research reaching conflicting decisions. An issue within my own domain of study that fits this scenario is the question of whether college students should take class notes using laptops or paper and pencil. Perhaps this is not an issue many see as earth shattering, but the point is here is an issue that is unresolved yet practitioners are relying on positions taken to make decisions. I land on the laptop side because of the long-term benefits I see in collecting notes in a way that allows the learner to make use of these notes in more powerful ways over time and in the future.
The more common position at present is that taking notes by hand is more productive. Some studies do indicate this is the case, but I keep asking for a rationale that would explain the advantage. The best existing explanation I know of goes something like this. Most students can enter text on a keyboard at a significantly faster rate than they can write by hand. On the surface, this might seem to be an advantage for laptops. However, the argument speculates that because of limitations pen and paper users think more carefully about what they will record and benefit from this more active cognitive behavior. Transcription or close to it involves less thinking. Ok, perhaps, but this position ignores that keyboarding is under the control of the laptop user and that they could use the more efficient input to think more and record the same amount as the paper users. Does this seem reasonable?
So, I presented this “issue” to ChatGPT to see what it would say. Here is what I got.
Is it better to take notes on a laptop of by hand on paper?
Both taking notes on a laptop and by hand on paper have their advantages and disadvantages, and the better option depends on personal preferences and the situation at hand. Here are some factors to consider:
– Faster typing speed: If you are a fast typist, you may be able to take notes more quickly on a laptop than by hand, which can be helpful if the speaker is speaking quickly or if you need to take a lot of notes in a short amount of time.
– Searchable notes: With digital notes, you can use the search function to find specific information quickly.
– Easy editing: You can easily revise, reorganize, and format your notes without having to cross out or erase anything.
– Convenience: You can have all your notes in one place and access them from anywhere if you save them to the cloud or a digital note-taking app.
Advantages of taking notes by hand:
– Better retention: Some research suggests that taking notes by hand may lead to better retention and understanding of the material compared to typing. This is because handwriting engages different parts of the brain and can help with processing and remembering information
– Less distracting: When you take notes by hand, you are less likely to get distracted by notifications or other apps on your device.
– More flexibility: You can draw diagrams, arrows, or other symbols easily by hand, which can be helpful for visual learners or when taking notes in math or science classes.
Ultimately, the better option for you depends on your personal preferences and the situation at hand. If you are more comfortable with a laptop and need to take a lot of notes quickly, then typing may be the better choice. If you prefer handwriting and want to retain the information better, then taking notes by hand may be the way to go.
Can you provide citations I should read on this topic?
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581
Kiewra, K. J., Benton, S. L., Kim, S., Risch, N., & Christensen, M. (2019). Investigating the Benefits and Drawbacks of Digital Versus Traditional Lecture Capture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 725–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000315
Kontra, C., Lyons, M. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical Experience Enhances Science Learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572659
I hope you find these resources helpful!
Mark the blog-writing man cannot compete with this. I have read several, but not all of these references. ChatGPT hedges, because students either use one system or the other. The specific comment about retention claims it is best with hand written notes. The “Pen is mightier than the keyboard” study is frequently cited to support requiring students to use pen and notebook instead of a laptop. I described this study in a previous post. I believe I have an advantage in being able to add analysis to this issue.
The issue is whether the knowledge base ChatGPT or me uses will improve as new evidence is translated into content. This is a complex challenge that depends on continued incentives for researchers and those who work to translate and share what these researchers contribute. Any change in the incentives supporting these individuals could reduce the improvement of the knowledge base that guides human behavior. ChatGPT and other AI systems ultimately rely on a knowledge base humans built. Making summarization and communication easier or less costly does not change the need for the constant upgrading of this knowledge base.
I am a participant in a book study group that covers a variety of topics. The group has an interest in writing and the writing process that is sometimes the focus of what we read and discuss. The subtopic of the preparation of content for college classes comes up frequently and sometimes the role of Open Educational Resources (OER) as classroom resources. The discussion of OER and ChatGPT (another issue that keeps coming up) got me thinking about whether ChatGPT could be wielded to produce college textbooks.
I have written a couple of college textbooks and I still dabble (see left-hand column) so I understand the process. I would not use ChatGPT for the type of course I have focused on.
I have probably taught the Introduction to Psychology course 40-50 times in my career and used maybe 10 different textbooks. Some who write for this course may disagree with my assessment that the treatment of the topics in this type of course is generic and predictable, but this would be my description. I think most efforts for this audience take a predictable approach so that the instructors making book selections are comfortable with the book they assign. I would find it easy to predict chapter themes, chapter topics, and the classic experiments that are described and related implications. I wanted to see how much I could copy and paste from the content I asked ChatGPT to generate based on my prompts and if a reasonable body of content could be produced in this fashion.
I think the best way to go about this type of writing project is to approach it as developing and then expanding an outline. You ask ChatGPT to identify topics and subtopics and then ask it to describe or explain the individual elements of the outline created in this manner. You could then ask for classic experiments, examples of supporting research, and examples of the concepts described. ChatGPT should do most of the work with this approach.
I found because I knew pretty much what I was looking for based on my existing knowledge of this type of course I could create an expanding document in which I embedded this material within the outline I created in a second tool. So think of copying and pasting material from ChatGPT to Google Docs, Word, or Scrivener. First the outline of topics and subtopics and then the explanations and descriptions, the studies, examples, and applications, and perhaps an occasional story of a famous psychologist. I don’t see creating a final product purely by copying and pasting, but I would probably write certain elements myself (e.g., chapter introductions and conclusions) and generate transitions between the chunks of the content generated by ChatGPT so the work does not seem so choppy when read. Just having the lists ChatGPT generates would save me a great amount of time in putting together such a product. I would describe the process as spending far less time thinking and more time writing and the combination of my experience and the generative capabilities of ChatGPT should allow the generation of content much more quickly and with minimal effort.
Again, this approach works because of my familiarity with the topic and the type of course I am writing to support. I could not create a credible product if writing a similar introduction to a different field of study.
What follows are some examples of the process I have just described. The idea is to offer something concrete as generated by ChatGPT. It would be far too lengthy to include all of the pieces of content for an entire chapter so I have tried to generate examples of the stages of development I propose and some of the elements to be embedded within the expandable outline I have just described.
I have selected a chapter on behaviorism as my example simply because the structure of the chapter is easy for me to conceptualize. I can begin by asking about the three main subtopics (operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and modeling) and let ChatGPT create the structure of the chapter from this initial prompt. I found it to be more difficult to approach other chapters I have experimented with, but this should be enough for a demonstration.
I will interject my own comments in the material that follows to explain what I am having ChatGPT do. The ChatGPT material appears as quotes and my prompts as bolded text.
The first set of materials provides an example of what I mean by an outline of topics and subtopics. You can see how I attempted to prompt the AI service to generate the output of the type l wanted.
Prompt:I want to have my students read about behavioral models of learning – operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and modeling. What topics are important for each model?
Sure, here are some important topics for each of the three behavioral models of learning you mentioned:
Social cognitive theory: self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, personal goals
Mirror neurons and brain regions involved in imitation and observation
The following prompt was used to expand a portion of the higher level outline in this case focused on operating conditioning.
Prompt:What should students in an introductory class know about the topics you have listed for operant conditioning?
Great question! Here are some key concepts that students in an introductory class should know about operant conditioning:
Reinforcement:
Positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior is followed by the presentation of a pleasant stimulus, which increases the likelihood of that behavior occurring again.
Negative reinforcement occurs when a behavior is followed by the removal of an unpleasant stimulus, which also increases the likelihood of that behavior occurring again.
Punishment:
Positive punishment occurs when a behavior is followed by the presentation of an unpleasant stimulus, which decreases the likelihood of that behavior occurring again.
Negative punishment occurs when a behavior is followed by the removal of a pleasant stimulus, which also decreases the likelihood of that behavior occurring again.
Shaping:
Shaping involves reinforcing successive approximations of a desired behavior until the desired behavior is achieved.
Shaping schedules can be continuous (every instance of the desired behavior is reinforced) or intermittent (only some instances of the desired behavior are reinforced).
Extinction:
Extinction occurs when a behavior that was previously reinforced is no longer reinforced, which leads to a decrease in the frequency of that behavior.
Extinction can be accompanied by an extinction burst, which is a temporary increase in the frequency of the behavior before it decreases.
It’s important for students to understand these concepts and how they apply to real-life situations, as operant conditioning plays a role in many aspects of our behavior, including education, parenting, and workplace management.
The following is a prompt intended to identify examples of reinforcement students might connect to their own lives. There would be no need to include the entire list, but I could efficiently select several from this list and expand a bit.
Prompt: What are some examples of positive and negative reinforcement might students recognize from their own experiences?
Great question! Here are some examples of positive and negative reinforcement that students might recognize from their own experiences:
Positive reinforcement
A child receives a candy for completing their homework, which increases the likelihood of them completing their homework in the future.
A student gets praise from their teacher for answering a question correctly, which increases the likelihood of them participating in class in the future.
An employee receives a bonus for meeting their sales quota, which increases the likelihood of them meeting their sales quota in the future.
Negative reinforcement:
A driver puts on their seatbelt to stop the beeping sound, which increases the likelihood of them putting on their seatbelt in the future.
A student finishes their work early to avoid having to do it during recess, which increases the likelihood of them finishing their work early in the future.
An employee works overtime to avoid getting a reprimand from their boss, which increases the likelihood of them working overtime in the future.
It’s important to note that reinforcement can be either positive or negative depending on whether a desirable consequence is presented or an undesirable consequence is removed. Additionally, it’s important to recognize that reinforcement doesn’t always have to involve tangible rewards or punishment; sometimes, social praise or criticism can also serve as a form of reinforcement.
The following prompts illustrates how I would identify prominent individuals associated with this topic. I would probably not include an entire list for all chapters, but it would be common to include all from this list in a chapter on this topic.
Prompt: There are several important scientists who developed our understanding of operant conditioning. Who are a few of them and some of the classic studies associated with their work
B.F. Skinner: Skinner is perhaps the most well-known and influential scientist associated with operant conditioning. He developed the “Skinner box,” a laboratory apparatus used to study operant conditioning in animals. Some of his classic studies include “The Behavior of Organisms” (1938) and “Science and Human Behavior” (1953), both of which outlined the principles of operant conditioning and their application to human behavior.
Edward Thorndike: Thorndike was one of the first scientists to study the principles of operant conditioning. He developed the “law of effect,” which states that behaviors followed by positive consequences are more likely to be repeated, while behaviors followed by negative consequences are less likely to be repeated. Some of his classic studies include “Animal Intelligence” (1911) and “The Fundamentals of Learning” (1932).
Ivan Pavlov: Pavlov is perhaps best known for his work on classical conditioning, but he also made important contributions to the study of operant conditioning. He studied the effects of rewards and punishments on dogs’ behaviors, and his work provided insights into the role of conditioning in the formation of habits. Some of his classic studies include “The Work of the Digestive Glands” (1897) and “Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes” (1928).
John Watson: Watson was a psychologist who made important contributions to the study of behaviorism, which emphasizes the role of environmental factors in shaping behavior. He studied the principles of operant conditioning and their application to human behavior, and he is perhaps best known for his controversial “Little Albert” study, in which he conditioned a young child to fear a white rat.
These scientists and their classic studies have contributed significantly to our understanding of operant conditioning and its application to human and animal behavior. By studying their work, students can gain a deeper appreciation for the principles of operant conditioning and how they shape the behaviors we exhibit in our daily lives.
Prompt:What principles of learning did Skinner discover and how did he make these discoveries?
B.F. Skinner was a psychologist who made significant contributions to the field of behaviorism and our understanding of operant conditioning. He discovered several principles of learning, which he outlined in his influential work “The Behavior of Organisms” (1938) and later in “Science and Human Behavior” (1953). Here are some of the principles of learning that Skinner discovered:
Reinforcement: Skinner discovered that behaviors that are followed by positive consequences, such as rewards or praise, are more likely to be repeated, while behaviors that are followed by negative consequences, such as punishment or criticism, are less likely to be repeated. He called this principle reinforcement and believed it was a fundamental principle of learning.
Shaping: Skinner also discovered that behaviors can be shaped through reinforcement of successive approximations. This means that a behavior can be broken down into smaller components, and each component can be reinforced until the desired behavior is achieved. This principle is known as shaping, and it is often used in animal training and education.
Extinction: Skinner also discovered that behaviors that are no longer reinforced will eventually become extinct. This means that if a behavior is no longer followed by a positive consequence, the behavior will gradually decrease in frequency until it ceases altogether.
Schedules of reinforcement: Skinner discovered that the frequency and timing of reinforcement can have a significant impact on behavior. He studied different schedules of reinforcement, such as fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and variable-interval, and found that each schedule had unique effects on behavior.
Skinner made these discoveries through a combination of laboratory experiments, observations of animal and human behavior, and theoretical analysis. He developed the “Skinner box,” a laboratory apparatus used to study operant conditioning in animals, and he used this device to study the effects of reinforcement and punishment on behavior. He also conducted experiments with humans, such as studying the effects of different reinforcement schedules on study habits. Overall, Skinner’s work had a profound impact on our understanding of learning and behavior, and his discoveries continue to be influential in psychology and related fields.
This is an example of a prompt I used to see how close ChatGPT would get to generating a final segment of text on shaping.
Prompt:Provide an example of how shaping works
Shaping is a process of reinforcing successive approximations of a desired behavior until the final behavior is achieved. This process is often used in animal training, education, and therapy.
Here’s an example of how shaping works in animal training:
Let’s say you want to train a dog to spin in a circle on command. However, the dog has no prior experience with this behavior, so you need to shape the behavior from scratch.
Start by reinforcing any behavior that is even remotely close to spinning in a circle. For example, if the dog turns its head to the side, give it a treat or praise. This will help the dog understand that it is being rewarded for moving in the right direction
Once the dog starts turning its head to the side consistently, raise the criteria by only rewarding the dog when it turns its head a little further. For example, if the dog turns its head 45 degrees to the side, reward it. If it only turns its head 30 degrees, do not reward it.
Keep raising the criteria gradually until the dog is turning in a full circle. This might take several training sessions, as the dog needs to understand what is expected of it at each step of the process.
Finally, add a verbal or visual cue to the behavior, such as saying “spin” or using a hand signal. Once the dog associates this cue with the behavior, it should be able to spin on command.
Through the process of shaping, the dog has learned to perform a complex behavior that it had no prior experience with. This process can be used to teach a wide variety of behaviors, from simple tricks to complex tasks. By breaking down a behavior into small, achievable steps and reinforcing each step along the way, shaping can help animals (and humans) learn and master new skills.
The group of prompts are examples of what I would use to generate material on modeling.
Prompt: What is important for introductory students to know about observational learning
Observational learning, also known as social learning or modeling, is the process of acquiring new behaviors or modifying existing behaviors by observing others. Here are some important points to consider when introducing students to this topic:
The basic principles:
Observational learning involves several key principles, including attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. These principles suggest that people learn by paying attention to the behaviors of others, retaining information about these behaviors in memory, reproducing the observed behaviors, and being motivated to imitate the behaviors based on their outcomes.
Examples of observational learning:
There are many examples of observational learning, such as learning to cook a new recipe by watching a cooking show, learning to drive a car by observing others, or learning to solve a math problem by watching a teacher demonstrate the steps. These examples illustrate how observational learning can occur in a variety of contexts and for a range of behaviors.
Observational learning and modeling:
Observational learning is sometimes referred to as modeling because it involves the observation of models, or individuals who demonstrate the behavior being learned. Models can be live or symbolic (such as characters on TV or in books), and they can influence behavior through both positive and negative reinforcement.
Observational learning and cognitive processes:
Observational learning involves more than just watching others; it also involves cognitive processes such as attention, memory, and motivation. Observational learning can be influenced by factors such as the salience of the behavior being observed, the similarity between the observer and the model, and the perceived outcome of the behavior.
Applications of observational learning:
Observational learning has many practical applications, such as in education, parenting, and advertising. By understanding the principles of observational learning, individuals can use modeling to promote positive behaviors and discourage negative ones.
Overall, observational learning is a complex process that involves cognitive and behavioral factors. By understanding the principles of observational learning, students can gain insights into how they learn and how they can use modeling to promote their own growth and development.
The following prompts expand the basic material on modeling to include a classic study (Bandura’s bobo doll experiment) and then extend this classic experiment to consider how aggressive behavior might be encouraged by playing certain types of video games.
Prompt:Describe the bobo doll experiment
The Bobo doll experiment was a study conducted by psychologist Albert Bandura in 1961 to examine how social learning occurs in children. The experiment involved exposing children to a video of an adult aggressively hitting and verbally abusing an inflatable doll called “Bobo.”
In the experiment, Bandura divided children into three groups. The first group was exposed to the video of the adult hitting and yelling at the doll. The second group was shown a video of an adult playing with the doll in a non-aggressive manner. The third group was not shown any videos.
After watching the videos, the children were brought into a room filled with toys, including the Bobo doll. The researchers observed how the children behaved towards the doll. The results of the study showed that children who were exposed to the aggressive video were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior towards the doll compared to the other two groups. They imitated the behavior they had witnessed in the video by hitting, kicking, and verbally abusing the Bobo doll.
The Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children learn through observation and imitation. It also highlighted the importance of modeling appropriate behavior for children and being mindful of the types of behaviors that children are exposed to in their environments. The study had a significant impact on the field of psychology and our understanding of social learning theory.
Prompt: What are the implications of this experiment? What real world behaviors might it explain?
The Bobo doll experiment has important implications for our understanding of how children learn and develop behavior. Some of the key implications of the experiment are:
Children learn through observation and imitation: The experiment showed that children can learn new behaviors by watching others. They may imitate positive or negative behaviors, depending on what they observe.
Aggressive behavior can be learned: The experiment demonstrated that exposure to aggressive behavior can lead to children imitating that behavior. This suggests that violent behavior in the media, such as in video games and movies, may contribute to aggressive behavior in children.
Modeling appropriate behavior is important: The study highlighted the importance of modeling appropriate behavior for children. Adults need to be mindful of the behaviors they exhibit in front of children and ensure they model positive behaviors.
Social learning theory has important implications: The study provided support for social learning theory, which suggests that people learn from observing others in their environment.
In terms of real-world behaviors, the Bobo doll experiment may explain why some children are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior, especially if they have been exposed to violence in their environment. It also highlights the potential negative impact of violent media on children. Additionally, the experiment suggests that positive role models, such as parents and teachers, can have a significant impact on a child’s behavior by modeling appropriate behaviors
Prompt:Cite research that shows some video games increase aggression
There is a significant body of research that suggests that some video games can increase
There is a significant body of research that suggests that some video games can increase aggression in children and adolescents. Here are a few examples:
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790. This study found that playing violent video games led to increased aggression in participants, both in the laboratory and in real-life situations.
Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 578-589. This meta-analysis of multiple studies found that playing violent video games was associated with increased aggression and decreased prosocial behavior
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Pediatrics, 154(5), 759-763. This meta-analysis found that exposure to violent video games was associated with increased aggression, as well as other negative outcomes such as decreased empathy and increased desensitization to violence.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 5-22. This study found that playing violent video games was associated with increased aggression and decreased academic performance in adolescents.
These are just a few examples of the research suggesting that some video games can increase aggression. While the relationship between video games and aggression is complex and not fully understood, these studies provide evidence that parents and caregivers should be mindful of the types of games their children are playing and limit exposure to violent content if necessary.
Prompt: Describe the Anderson and Dill study
The Anderson and Dill study (2000) investigated the relationship between playing violent video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The study was conducted in two parts: a laboratory experiment and a field study.
For the laboratory experiment, the researchers randomly assigned 210 college students to play either a violent or non-violent video game for 20 minutes. The violent game was the first-person shooter game “Mortal Kombat,” while the non-violent game was the sports game “Tetris.” After playing the game, the participants completed a series of tasks designed to measure aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
The results showed that participants who played the violent game had more aggressive thoughts and feelings compared to those who played the non-violent game. They also had higher levels of physiological arousal, as measured by heart rate and skin conductance. Additionally, when given the opportunity to aggress against another person in a separate task, those who played the violent game were more likely to administer louder and longer-lasting noise blasts to their opponent.
For the field study, the researchers surveyed 227 high school students about their video game habits and levels of aggression. They found that students who played more violent video games were more likely to engage in physical fights, verbal arguments, and other forms of aggressive behavior.
Overall, the Anderson and Dill study provided evidence that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. While the study was conducted with college and high school students, the findings suggest that parents and caregivers should be mindful of the types of games their children are playing and limit exposure to violent content if necessary.
Summary:
This post was intended as a proof of concept explaining how I could make use of ChatGPT and the knowledge already in my head from multiple years of teaching the Course Introduction to Psychology to produce a reasonable textbook for this course.
The approach I have outlined here made use of ChatGPT to generate an outline of topics and subtopics appropriate to one chapter of this textbook. ChatGPT was then asked to produce explanations of items from the outline, produce examples and descriptions of research appropriate to these concepts, and possible applications of the core ideas from these concepts.
My proposal is that an experienced individual in combination with ChatGPT could rapidly generate the content for a survey course. I am not proposing that this product would be a great product, but it would be the reasonable equivalent of commercial products generated at no cost beyond my time. I had those interested in OER content in mind in exploring this option.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
You must be logged in to post a comment.