Month: October 2010

There is a concept related to learning and studying that I have carried over from my grad school days. E. Rothkopf proposed a concept he called a “mathemagenic” activity. I remember mathemagenic to translate as giving birth to knowledge or something similar. It was the idea that an external activity could encourage productive cognitive behaviors in some learners and at the time I remember it being associated with adjunct or interspersed questions. In other words, attempting to answer questions can engage students in thinking behaviors they might not generate on their own. I suppose there are similar concepts, e.g., generative activity, but I continue to use the original term rather than adopt newer, but similar terms.

Anyway, I like the idea that external activities can encourage productive internal behaviors. I assume this assumption is what encourages suggested study strategies and learning tasks. As I have used the concept in my own teaching, I began to consider whether some external activities could be anti-mathemagenic. In other words, could certain activities limit learning. My original example originated from thinking about my own behavior. In my example, highlighting is the external behavior. Sometimes it seemed when I was feeling lazy I would identify important ideas while reading that I did not fully understand, but I would highlight this material assuming I would return and think more carefully later. Of course, if I failed to return to review, I would be worse off for deferring the work of understanding.

I have read Carr and other critics of Internet information processing and I have begun wondering whether certain patterns of Internet use are anti-mathemagenic. The key here would be if some less productive behavior were substituted for more productive behavior.  I sometimes find myself using Instapaper in a way that could be mathemagenic. Instead of fully reading something I identify as potentially valuable, I send things to instapaper and I assume I will read carefully later. I think moving from blogging to micro-blogging would fit. Blogging is work. It takes time and thought. Microblogging (Twitter) is easy in comparison. Twitter may be an effective way to offer links to others, but it offers little in encouraging personal thinking.

Mathemagenic and anti-mathemagenic activities are difficult to spot in someone else. You can’t see internal behaviors. However, I am guessing if what you are doing is easy or quick little cognitive activity is involved.

Cindy recently relayed to me a post from the IT forum regarding blogging (and I assume other forms of online expression) and whether such activity should count for anything among those of us who are college academics. This got me thinking. I have blogged since 2003 and authored content for pubic consumption before that. Sometimes I did the latter because of funding I had secured (I was lucky enough to be in on a Technology Challenge grant many years ago), but mostly I wrote and still write as a hobby. Perhaps I should now argue for compensation. I also serve as a department-level administrator and I deal with contracts and expectations on a daily basis. I have listened to many arguments related to what faculty members would like to receive credit for doing. My point? I can imagine myself dealing with this topic from several perspectives.

First, here are some of the links referenced on the listserv and on linked blogs:
Hastac
Virtual School Meanderings

My reaction as blogger:
If I were to attempt to make a case for my online content as part of me job, I think I would argue that it would be part of my service or perhaps part of my teaching (as professional development). I think some of the things I have read (listed above and comments to those posts) reach the same conclusion, but then note that this does not really count for much. I work (except for my administrative responsibilities) in what is pretty much a 60, 30, 10 model (teaching, research, service). Most of the evaluation for teaching relates to what I do with students and very little to my own efforts at professional development. I don’t know that I even bother to list professional development activities (what I read, time spent at conferences, etc.) when I list my annual activities. The 10% for service also gets broken down and variability from one faculty member to another is some fraction of 10% amounts to very little difference in the annual merit evaluation and certainly little toward major decisions (tenure, promotion).

I do not regard my activity as research and I have reviewed very little online that I feel should qualify. I am an educational researcher by profession and my research activity is assumed to be based on data that I collect. I publish formal papers based on these data and my analysis. Writing in reaction to what I read elsewhere is just my opinion and not research. My opinion may be worth something because of my personal experiences, but offering such opinions would be public scholarship as teaching or service and not research.

My reaction as administrator:
When we hire individuals we make a good faith effort to explain the type of program we are and the type of activities we expect of those we hire. Certainly, this is what we expect of individuals in evaluating them for tenure. If individuals decide they would like to spend time in creative ways after tenure, we encourage such behavior (I think the faculty handbook says 20% of effort) but what one does with this 20% does not guarantee anything when it comes to merit. I guess my point is that it is possible that offering “information” to the public in the form of blogs or other unmoderated content could be of value if an institution say offering such information to be part of the institutional mission. I think you ask this question before accepting a contract and not argue about expectations later.

If a blogger (or writer) can make some money I think we accept this as part of the 20% allowed for such activities.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I don’t focus on the research literature on this site, but I want to make an exception. I encourage those of you interested in educational research make the effort to read the article by Rohrer & Pahler in the June/July issue of Educational Researcher (2010, 39(5), 406-412).

The article argues that researchers have made a number of concrete suggestions that would improve student learning and that these suggestions are often ignored. The three examples offered include – learning through testing (increasing retrieving), spacing of practice, and interleaving. These examples were selected because the basis for the suggestion are quite solid AND because the suggestions are about studying differently rather than studying more.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the review was a speculative addition at the end of the presentation which asked the question “Why are inferior strategies so popular?” It is this focus I think should receive wider consideration because it may extend to many current topics in education. The authors pose the question in an interesting fashion. Since some of these suggestions could have developed as common practice simply as a function of student trial and error, why do students typically spend their time in inferior strategies? Remember these proposals are about a different way of doing things and not about the expectation that students spend more time. The authors suggest that these strategies tend to produce a higher error rate during study which may be more discouraging for students. It appears students prefer passive strategies because there is less challenge to their illusion of understanding. I wonder. Perhaps students do understand that a technique is less effective, but still persist because it is what they know and it is easier.

Powered by ScribeFire.