Month: June 2022

Scrible

I have a personal interest in promoting to teachers the educational potential of what I have decided to describe as layering services. Perhaps layering is not the best choice of descriptors, but I think it makes sense once I explain what I mean. By layering, I mean the opportunity certain online services provide students to highlight, annotate, and add questions to online content (web pages and videos) in a way that does not violate the copyright of the content creators. For educators, layering involves these same components plus some others (e.g., discussion prompts) allowing teachers to share documents with these embellishments with students. These capabilities are of value when assigning online content or when teachers create their own content to implement instructional strategies such as flipping the classroom. Typically, different services must be used to layer websites and videos.

Scrible is a tool for layering web pages. I have described this service some time ago, but the service offers some new features and it is worth a review. If you want to explore Scrible use this link which takes you to the version for educators and students. Scrible is free with extra storage and a few extra features for a price.

You will note the similarity between my recent posts on tools for taking Smart Notes. Certainly, Scrible shares many of these same capabilities (highlighting and annotation, collection of layered resources into a library, sharing layered resources with others) and perhaps Scrible might be described as a Smart Note or Second Brain tool designed for students. I see some differences in this perspective and more traditional thinking about how learners can most effectively study digital texts, but many tools can be used for either purpose. The difference is mostly the time frame in question (e.g., the next test vs. the next decade), but I see the more common educational emphasis on note-taking and note studying – what types of external activities can help a learner develop understanding and improve retention and application. I think a description of how Scrible works will allow educators to see benefits of the tool in meeting either goal.

Scrible Tutorial

Scrible is an extension for Chrome. You use the browser to get to a page you want to study and then activate Scribe from the toolbar of the browser. The toolbar icon activates the tool tools that now appear at the bottom of the browser window and also a toolbar along the right-hand side of the browser. Here you can see I have already used the highlight tool and the note tool to create a note that appears in the Comments column.

The tools on the right allow the right-hand sidebar to be used in different ways.

Storage of information about the source.

The addition of tags to the stored representation of the page.

The contributors who have worked on the annotation of the page.

The stored comments (annotations).

A link can be generated to share an annotation page with another user (Permalink). This link can be used to invite others users to contribute to the annotation or just to view what has been added.

See the link to the layered annotations on the original page and the addition of a second user when this link is used by another Scrible user.

The icon next to the share icon in the bottom toolbar (the building) is used to store annotated content and access the body of stored content.

Loading

Taking Notes to Learn

I have read the following books which all focus on the processes of using notes to collect, organize, and apply information. From this collection, I would recommend Cohn for educators and Ahrens for the tech aware wanting to use technology to improve their learning and reading to application.

Cohn, J. (2021). Skim, dive, surface: Teaching digital reading. West Virginia University Press.

Forte, T. (2022). Building a second brain: A proven method to organize your digital life and unlock your creative potential. Atria Books.

Kadavy, D. ( 2020). Digital zettelkasten: Principles, methods, and examples. Amazon ebook.

Ahrens, S. (2017). How to take smart notes: one simple technique to boost writing, learning and thinking-for students, academics and nonfiction book writers. Amazon books.

Over maybe 35 years, I have used technology and whatever digital tools were available at the time to keep track of the content I was exposed to and thought I might find valuable at some future time. So, I have tried many different times tools and tactics. This more recent set of resources has identified two new tactics I thought were helpful. I described multiple tools in a series of posts I did a few months ago. In the left column of this blog, you should see a drop down menu identified as Categories. One of these categories is labeled Digital Notes and this link will identify the past posts.

New to me strategies:

Write earlier (Ahrens) – rather than read and highlight journal articles and books and then searching these same sources at a point in time that could be ten years later, I discovered the value of taking stand alone notes shortly after or while reading. The idea is to generate a note that can stand alone to explain something to me or others. Saving and linking these notes to the original source and to other notes allows a much more efficient approach for using the residue of previous reading at a later point in time.

Progressive summarization (Forte) – Forte describes a process by which the highlights and annotations created in an initial reading are digitally exported. This collection is reread and important ideas are initially bolded to identify and differentiate them. This bolded content is then reviewed and the most essential ideas are highlighted. Finally, a summary is generated from these highlights for this document. He proposes a summary consisting of bullet points. My preference would be for the smart note format I have attributed to Ahrens.

The advantage of this system is that context is maintained. If certain types of technology tools are used, you can trace a summary note back to the highlighted material, the bolded material, and then the content from the original source. Keeping these transitions connected seems a good idea.

I have not found a collection of tools that allow me to do this for the different original formats I explore (digital books, PDFs, web pages, videos), but I have patched together some combination of tools that work. I admit that I have not explored some tools that involve a subscription fee and might reduce the number of steps I presently employ. I will follow this post with at least one related post taking you through my processes.

One more thing. Notes for long term personal learning and notes for academic learning are likely different. The same digital tools apply, but there is a significant difference understanding your are taking notes in preparation for an exam and recognizing what you and your professor thinks are important may be different and notes you take to support your own self-directed learning. Yes, I understand that what I may find valuable a year from now is not necessarily what interests me today. We have all had that experience of knowing you have read something relevant to a present need and not being able to recall the details or the source. Notes, highlights, and another components that can be added to digital content by educators and learners have long been an interest of mine and I would direct you to a Kindle book I have written on the topic for greater detail.

Loading

Mastery methods in applied settings – reality

Great ideas don’t always meet their argued potential when implemented. Reality has a way of adding complexity that reduces potential. Here are some examples of this effect I am aware of that apply to mastery learning.

Variability in time to learn

Individual learners vary in their speed of learning. Any teacher knows this. The issue in any classroom, whether implementing a mastery strategy or not, is how this variability is handled.

Some have studied variability and what happens when student variability meets a mastery approach. Arlin (1984, 1984b) conducted several experiments and referenced other work to indicate that a group-based mastery approach does not eliminate differences in time to learn. Time to learn appears to remain constant unit after unit. 

Arlin (1984, 1984b) challenges what he claims is Bloom’s group-based mastery promise that over time the Bloom approach will eliminate individual differences in the rate of learning. Arlin offers multiple studies that indicate with group-based mastery variability between individuals remains relatively constant. I must admit I was surprised that Bloom argued individual differences would be eliminated, but references to Bloom’s writings appear to indicate I was wrong. Bloom appears to shy away from the existing knowledge and aptitude distinction I make. Arlin does find that given extra time most students will learn what is taught. 

Arlin references other scholars with notions of a “wait around” or “Robin Hood” effect for more capable students. This concern argues it is possible more capable students can be held back by certain implementations of a group-based approach. However, I would suggest a) group-based approaches could provide supplemental learning activities not focused on the learning goals of a given unit and I would think most educators would understand this, and b) the Arlin position fails to acknowledge that traditional instruction must teach to a point at which the rate of learning is not optimized for more capable learners. 

Conclusion: Most students can learn what is taught if given sufficient time and appropriate instruction and b) student differences in what is sufficient time will not be eliminated. How much time is required – I remember (no reference I can point to) that a 2:1 ratio will be sufficient for 80% of students to reach goals. Recognize that this means twice as much time to learn the same thing.

Procrastination

Studies of college students engaged in Keller-type individualized mastery learning demonstrate a high drop-out rate. What appears to happen when students are given a great amount of independence is that other requirements are prioritized (usually implied to be other courses, but I am guessing other personal priorities should be included here), and study within the mastery course and evaluation test completion lag. Students get significantly behind an acceptable pace and when they try to re-engage find that catching up is not as easy as they had hoped. They drop the course unable to see themselves finishing.

A remedy sometimes described as “the doomsday” contingency (early Keller advocates tended to be behaviorists) set a standard for completing the first several units (e.g., finish two units in the first two weeks) or students faced being dropped. This approach improved completion rates giving students a taste of the effort required. Purists might argue this type of approach was inappropriate.

Hoping for minimal effort

I conducted several studies of what I came to call effort errors (Grabe, 1982, 1994). Several of these studies involved a one-retake option for all course exams. This is not a pure mastery system, but it turned out to be a way to demonstrate the extent to which students bought into a mastery approach.

For example, if a control group and a retake available group are provided, a mastery advocate would predict that groups would be similar on the original exam and the retake group would improve the performance on the second opportunity if students chose to take it. Not so. The one-take group (traditional instruction) performed significantly better on the same initial exam. Clearly, the students who knew they had a second opportunity were not giving their best effort.

I took to identifying different types of what I would call “effort errors” – skipping the initial exam; taking a second exam, but scoring below the score on the first exam (I used a several point differences before this type of decline counted as an error); and skipping the second exam opportunity with a score of C or lower on the initial exam. More effort errors predicted lower course grades and were more common among students most in need of additional opportunities. Lower final cumulative exam scores related to more effort errors likely indicated a general lack of motivation.

Conclusion – motivation to spend additional effort cannot be assumed. 

References

Arlin, M. (1984). Time variability in mastery learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 103-120.

Arlin, M. (1984b). Time, equality, and mastery learning. Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 65-86.

Grabe, M. (1982). Effort strategies in a mastery instructional system: The quantification of effort and the impact of effort on achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7(4), 327-333.

Grabe, M. (1994). Motivational deficiencies when multiple examinations are allowed. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(1), 45-52.

Loading

Mastery approaches

I became familiar with the idea of learning personalization for mastery in the 1970s. Even though there are recent applications of mastery concepts making use of technology, I continue to point to the early mastery work because of the research base associated with that time period. The examples of more recent mastery approaches I will link to these early efforts do not come with a rich collection of peer reviewed studies I look for when advocating for what amounts to a serious departure from day to day classroom practice.

To me there were two very different approaches labelled as mastery methods – Fred Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) and Bloom’s Learning for mastery.

The Keller Plan

Keller (1968) advocated a truly individualized approach to instruction based primarily on written material (not be confused with the programmed instruction of that time which was often paper-based as well). Keller did make use of teacher presentations, but these were not used for the core approach. Keller liked written materials because individual students could work on written content on their own and could read at whatever rate was productive for them. Instructional text was associated with study guides for guidance. When students felt prepared, they would ask a tutor for an examination over that material. The tutor presented the assessments, evaluated the assessments, and helped learners with challenges they seemed to have encountered. Movement to the next unit depended on a satisfactory score on the unit exams and failure to meet this standard directed the learner to restudy the same material.

Bloom’s Learning for Mastery

Bloom’s (1968) approach to mastery learning was group based. A group of learners would focused on content (e.g., chapter) to be learned for approximately a week and would then be administered a formative evaluation. Those who passed this evaluation would continue to supplemental learning activities and those who did not pass would receive remediation appropriate to their needs. At the end of this second period of time (at about the two-week mark), students would receive the summative examination to determine their grade.

There are many variations and details of these approaches not explained here. My intent was to establish the more individualized and the more group-based approaches. I see the Kahn Academy as similar to the Keller Plan and Modern Classroom Project as similar to Bloom’s approach. My guess is more educators are aware of the Kahn Academy and understand that students can work on this technology-delivered content demonstrating mastery of specific skills at different rates. Many use this content for supplemental learning, but it can also be used as the basis for comprehensive approach. The Modern Classroom does not individualize progress to the same degree and is not necessarily as dependent on technology administered mastery checks. I encourage exploration of the links provided here for those unfamiliar and interested in the present, more technologically based mastery approaches receiving a lot of attention at present.

The idea of mastery and what teaching for mastery means in practice varies to some degree to how essential it is to master specific skills or concepts. I would think that all knowledge/skill deficits are not equally damaging. It might be useful to differentiate general and prerequisite deficits. A prerequisite deficit would describe a skill or concept necessary in the short term to understand/master a more advanced skill/unit of understanding that builds on the deficit skill. A general deficit would identify a skill or a unit of understanding that is missing, but not necessary for the mastery of other units soon to be taught. Original approaches to mastery (Bloom, Keller) focused on an acceptable level of general skill. Kahn approach is more focused on the identification and remediation of specific deficits. I would think technology would offer a much more practical approach to the linking skills and for tracking individual student mastery of prerequisite.

Note that both Keller and Bloom are not absolutists. Technology allows a much more specific approach with Kahn’s complex identification of prerequisites and specific mastery checks in the Modern Classroom approach. Being specific about the identification of unmastered skills does not stop progress as learners can continue to work on other skills with technology allowing the more careful identification of problem areas in contrast to the mastery approaches of the 1960s.

References

Benjamin, S., Dhew, E., & Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Eval. Comment, 1, 1-12.

Keller, F. S. (1968). “Good-bye teacher”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89

Loading

Online and producing power

I have been interested in solar energy for some time. I explored solar energy production first with a single panel and a battery as a way to collect some data. We then made the commitment to install solar panels on our roof. This ended up being a multiple-year process as we first had to replace old shingles and then wait for the allocation of rebates to be renewed so we could save a bit on the cost. The process takes some time. First, there is the installation, multiple inspections, and finally the connection of your panels to the grid (if you are not using the panels to charge a giant battery). Different organizations are involved at each stage of the process.

Today was the big day. The power company came out and installed a new bi-direction meter (which tracks energy fed to the grid and from the grid) and a meter specific to our panels.

The system is connected to the Internet allowing the company who did the install to monitor whether everything is working. The same data are available to us. A couple of screens as examples follow. There is a feature that even explains how many hours the amount of energy you have produced could illuminate a 100 watt light bulb. For data geeks, this is just too much fun.

Loading