The concept of generative cognition proposes that cognition is an active process of interpreting inputs, purposeful storage, and drawing inferences. The learner must apply the various cognitive processes that accomplish a generative function, but external tasks and circumstances can influence the likelihood these processes are applied.
I understand these ideas are abstract so I will offer an example. My favorite involves the use of questions. One important cognitive outcome is that learners generate applications of concepts they have acquired. It would be ideal that individuals attempt to generate these connections on their own. However, if after presenting a principle, I ask the learner “what would be an example of xxx?” the question may prompt relevant cognitive activity. Questions are an external activity that can prompt multiple cognitive behaviors. It may seem obvious, but it was important to consider the goal when such questions are asked. Yes, it might be a way to evaluate understanding, but it is also a way to encourage a specific important type of thought that may or may not have been attempted by the learner.
So, the idea of considering how specific external tasks might change the probability of important cognitive behaviors is an important perspective for educators and instructional designers. In this case, I am proposing that writing tasks can encourage important cognitive behaviors.
External tasks and the constructivist model
A focus on generative processes is consistent with what is called the constructivist model of learning. This model argues that each individual must do the mental work to create personal understanding and application and this is done through mental activities that are applied to both existing knowledge and new inputs. Existing knowledge is used as a base for interpreting new inputs. This can be both good and bad with biases being an example of how what we already think can result in the faulty interpretation of new inputs.
To understand the constructivist perspective, it is necessary to get past a pure storage interpretation of learning. We do store the memories of experiences which are described as episodic memories, but understanding requires doing something more with both these stored episodes and new inputs.
To explain what this “something” is, I tend to describe the process as building a model. Others might suggest we generate rules or abstractions (depending on the learning that has occurred). These personally created models, rules, or abstractions are used to interpret new experiences. Sometimes the interpretation works out and sometimes it falls short. Piaget described these two outcomes as assimilation and accommodation (you might remember from Intro Psychology). When a new experience can be successfully understood as an example of an existing model, the result is assimilation. When the match reveals a problem and the existing model is changed as a consequence, Piaget called this accommodation. Hence, our models become more sophisticated to handle a greater variety of examples.
Internal accomplishments and external tasks.
Different theorists propose internal accomplishments consisting of specific components. Two similar models start with the activities of selection, organization, and integration (SOI) or selection, organization, association, and regulation (SOAR). These components explain how a thinker gets beyond simple storage.
Activation of relevant content (Structures) and associated content (semantic network
What we already know that may be relevant to new information may or may not be activated. Activation is necessary for using existing knowledge to understand new experiences and to possibly build on what is already known. Activation is necessary for organization, association, and regulation.
The process of activation has some interesting characteristics which result in the simultaneous activation of additional content that is already linked or connected with the selected or targeted information. This body of activated information (brought into working memory) encourages elaboration (going beyond just the core idea that was targeted) because of these connections. If you are aware of the testing effect, you are aware that these connections occur because of a property of the way information is stored in memory. The effort to recall activates stored content even when it is not successful in locating the specific answer to the question prompting the retrieval effort. The information recalled that is not the answer is likely to be related and bringing this related information back into awareness (working memory) is beneficial to learning and understanding.
Writing tasks of all types are built from and prompted by internal actions. This is the case even when taking notes. The writer makes selections from the stimulus material (the book or the lecture) for recording and judgments of importance guide these selections. What is selected may depend partially on what is already known (see activating of existing knowledge). Attempting to connect with what is known produces knowledge activation similar to the testing effect. If the writer attempts to record content in other than the strict form of the external stimuli, these summaries would likely involve organization. Struggles to produce a written summary that makes sense could trigger metacognitive insights.
Other forms of writing likely have goals that require the writer place even more emphasis on organization and elaboration. Examples might include requests that a writer compare and contrast issues raised as external stimuli, persuasive arguments that contest the rationale proposed in an external stimulus, or tasks that require the writer combine information from multiple stimuli (e.g., several external sources which cover different issues on a topic or even offer conflicting information).
Relevant Research
Those interested in understanding the cognitive impact of how the typical writer is influenced by writing tasks take one of two general approaches. The first approach compares a type of writing activity with a control treatment – often rereading the source is used to control for any additional time required of the writing task. When a concurrent form of writing is involved (i.e., note-taking while listening), all that is necessary is to allow the writing and the control group the amount of time required for the presentation.
The second approach compares multiple ways of acting on a written input (reading) that compares different tasks. e.g., highlighting, taking notes, written recall, and essay. (Arnold) The intent with this approach is to determine if different external tasks have different advantages and perhaps to evaluate which cognitive activities produce which benefits (greater retention, understanding, application).
Summaries of these two research approaches produce conclusions that are inconclusive which seems fairly typical for applied educational research.
Writing of different types has been found to be beneficial when compared with a control. For example, Graham and Hebert (2011) conclude that taking notes, writing summaries, and extended writing tasks provide significant learning advantages. Hebert, et al. (2014) reach a similar conclusion.
Comparing the effectiveness of different writing tasks
Arnold and colleagues (2017) propose that different dependent measures would be useful to understanding the impact of different writing tasks. For example, several different writing tasks may improve recall (writing what you remember, compare and contrast), but task differences (e.g., recall vs. compare and contrast) may result in a different outcome should a dependent variable other than memory be used. Hebert, Simpson & Graham (2013) found no difference in what was recalled from tasks requiring taking notes, answering questions, or summarization.
Klein and colleagues (2016) conclude that the differences within a genre (because of learner skills or application efforts) are more important than the differences between writing tasks. Learner responses to writing tasks are often not as task specific as researchers would prefer and as been suggested previously external tasks do not automatically result in individuals responding in an expected way or possible at all.
Why?
Writing has established benefits impacting learning and application. Educators have important opportunities finding ways to add writing tasks to the assignments they give. I became interested in the importance of different writing tasks when writing about the benefits of taking notes in a digital format. While studies on the generative benefits of note-taking are mixed, it is important to recognize that note-takers tend to have a goal beyond the accumulation of notes. Notes are intended to be reviewed in preparation for a known task such as an examination or generated with the belief that the stored information will be useful at a later time. Note-taking does not have to be justified as a generative activity although ways of taking notes that have a generative function or that are more useful for an anticipated use would be useful to develop.
——————————
Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understanding the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115-127.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard educational review, 81(4), 710-744.
Hebert, M., Graham, S., Rigby-Wills, H., & Ganson, K. (2014). Effects of Note-Taking and Extended Writing on Expository Text Comprehension: Who Benefits?. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 43-68.
Hebert, M., Simpson, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 111-138.
Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of writing research, 7(3), 311-350.
You must be logged in to post a comment.