First and second brain are terms used by those proposing strategies for learning, remembering, and applying that take advantage of external storage tools and techniques. In this descriptive system, your first brain consists of the biological organ in your body and the cognitive activities you can apply within this biological system. This combination of organ and cognitive activity accomplishes what we typically describe as remembering, thinking, and creativity. The concept of a second brain is a way of referencing external devices and activities generating some type of external representations that are intended to augment first brain functions. I purposively have made the generation of an external record a component in my description of a second brain recognizing that external activities that many might describe as study techniques exist that do not involve the generation of an external record. For example, responding to questions is proven as a way to improve retrieval and if done verbally does not involve the creation of anything permanent. Advocates of the second brain concept do emphasize the generation of a record of experiences.
I tend to equate references to the second brain with some system for taking notes. This is a simplification, but a way to quickly provide a reference for those not steeped in this topic. As I have tried to argue when referring to first brain topics, it is more than just the record that is important. It is also the variety of tactics in storage and retrieval and deciding when a given tactic should be applied that can be important.
Finally, first and second-brain proposals can and should include consideration of the interaction between these two systems. As potential users of both brains, we have some control of each system and access to a second brain implementation could change the way we make optimal use of our first brain in comparison to what might be optimal use if we had to rely on the first brain system only.
We all or at least most of us took notes in our high school and college classes. Taking this background as a starting point, you should have a context within which to think about this topic. Now add some additional expectations. What if the goal was not to use a second brain application to prepare for next week’s exam or the paper you had to write in a couple of weeks? What if the goal was to augment your first brain function over several years in order to address life tasks you might not be even able to describe at this time? Even this later question might be applied to formal education because very few were thinking in this way when studying for that next exam or preparing for that next paper. Most of us probably cannot even find or did not keep the second brain artifacts we created while engaged in our formal education.
Now this was a long introduction I hope was valuable in and of itself to some. Many of my previous posts concerned second-brain topics such as note-taking and second-brain technology tools. Please take a look if my introductory comments piqued your interest. I spent the time to generate this overview in order to provide a context for the content that now follows.
The application of tags in first and second brains
One of the interesting characteristics of the work of cognitive scientists and second-brain developers is how there seems to be a reciprocal impact of ideas that originate in one field on the other. While I am at it, I can see a similar reciprocity in the ideas of cognitive and AI researchers. To be clear, cognitive researchers rely on hypothetical concepts to represent yet-to-be-discovered biological functions. This is my way of thinking about the challenges of neuroscientists and cognitive researchers. Obviously, mental activity must be a function of biology, but our mastery of this field is far from being useful in addressing most human learning challenges. A hypothetical construct is a proposed mechanism for how something works that has yet to be explainable via a physical equivalent. So cognitive constructs such as short-term memory, metacognition, associative networks, links, etc. seem to be useful in understanding and even proposing effective learning strategies and this is possible without having to reference or consider the underlying biological mechanisms that must be involved. For example, we can measure short-term memory and we can propose ways to improve the effectiveness of short term without reference to actual biological structure or process. My focus in this post is on the role played by tags in both first and second brains.
Shank and his focus on stories
I have been rereading Roger Shank’s Tell Me a Story. I first read the book probably 30 years ago. How I now relate to this book on human cognition and AI has changed a great deal because of my recent exposure to personal knowledge management (PKM). As the full book title indicates, Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence is about stories serving a far different role than entertainment. Shank presents stories as playing a central role in how we think, learn, and communicate. Shank goes as far as suggesting that telling a useful story at the right time is a great sign of intelligence. He proposes that an expert is an individual who has a great number of stories relevant to a given area and has these stories indexed so that he/she can tell a useful story at the right time. He recommends that we recognize that our conversations with others often focus on stories with one individual telling a story and then the other person telling a related story to indicate he or she understands and to offer some additional element of information.
This proposal fits with my own way of thinking about human memory. In cognitive psychology, one way to describe the contents of long-term memory is to propose that meaning is retained in units of information connected by links. This web is different in each individual as differences exist in what units are stored and in how these units are linked. Explaining in detail what cognitive researchers mean by units of information can get pretty dense, but for the present purpose perhaps concepts and facts is close enough. This web is called semantic memory. In addition to the elements of meaning are episodic memories. These episodes are often described as the way we remember events and I always thought we could think of these events as stories. What I heard in class today is an episode with a progression of information. It might also be described as a story.
Some key ideas from Shank’s book:
Intelligence is an abstraction; different experts explain it and sometimes propose how it can be assessed differently. Shank argued that an individual’s use of stories could reveal a lot about how intelligent that person is. Two aspects were informative. The first is having stories worth telling and the second is being aware of which story would be effective when conveyed to a specific individual in a specific situation.
Reminding is using an input in a way that involves the prediction and generalization allowing the retrieval of relevant stored stories. Intelligence is reflected in that capacity to translate new experiences, perhaps stories told by someone else, into effective retrieval cues.
In the process of understanding, we compare experiences with what we have already experienced. This process of reminding is the basis for gaining new insights from differences between similar stories.
Thinking involves indexing. Shank proposed that a useful memory combines specific experiences and indices or labels. The more indices the better. Shank spent a great deal of effort identifying what indices people used proposing that locations, attitudes, challenges, decisions, conclusions, and other labels are used as indices.
We are not necessarily aware of the process of labeling. The application of labels can be assumed based on what individuals recall in response to an input (story/experience). A story that is recalled in response to a story told must share at least one common index.
Understanding is equivalent to the extraction of indices from an input that match the indices associated with stored stories. We learn when the identification of a match between new and old allows further analysis of differences in the stories.
Tags, links, and indices
Careful attention to Shank’s explanation of the value and role of stories is recognition that it is not the stories alone that are important, but the combination of indices and stories. The combination is important, but in addition, it is personalized through the imposition of an indexing approach that creates this productive system. Perhaps thinking about experiences searching for understanding translated as indexing.
So Shank’s importance relies on the combination of indices and stories. Cognitive researchers describe long-term memory in terms of units of information (semantic memory) and episodeslinked to facilitate retrieval and understanding.
Those developing and implementing second-brain systems offer tools (e.g., Obsidian, Mem.ai, LoqSeq) offer a digital system for storing notes, for attaching tags to notes, and for linking notes to each other. Notes are not stored as extended documents as might be the case for the handwritten notes taken during a lecture, but as individual ideas or concepts and labeled with multiple tags and one or many connections to other notes. Users are encouraged to review their notes and their system of connections periodically and to add more connections that occur to them. The goal is value over the long term.
Idea for practice
Aside from reflecting on the commonalities across these systems and how the functioning of one system might encourage how another system might be understood, here is one observation that occurred to me while completing this analysis. I don’t think the second brain advocates take advantage of the power Shank sees in how our use of the first brain relies on stories. Perhaps there is some attention to identifying and connecting examples, but I see little attention paid to the storage, tagging, and linking of stories. I told stories as examples when I lectured. In the time I have spent developing my second brain, I don’t remember ever adding and linking one of the stories I tell and I have not documented in my notes the stories I have read as examples in the sources I might translate into notes. If Shank’s argument for the value of stories is valid, not including stories in a second brain would be an opportunity missed.
Reference
Shank, R. C. (1990). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. _Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Process_.
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.
When explaining it helps to have examples both for personal understanding and for communication. My more recent interest in long-term notes has provided a useful example that relates well to my long/term interest in generative activities. This specific collection of note collection activities is convenient because the activities are similar yet illustrate important differences. Notetaking is also an activity most have applied and comments on variations in how the activity can be applied are relatable contributing to my efforts to communicate. My more general goal is to help educators understand the purpose behind the assignments or study suggestions they make.
Generative activities are external tasks learners engage in that encourage productive cognitive behaviors. External tasks to influence thinking activities. Several researchers have identified hierarchies that attempt to explain the benefits of the external tasks and differentiate the less and more powerful activities.
Two examples of hierarchies include the proposals of Chi (2009) and Fiorella and Mayer (2016)
Chi (2009) proposed the SOI framework – selective, organizing, and interactive.
Fiorella and Mayer (2016) proposed a similar ICAP framework (reversed here to show the parallels with Chi) – passive, active, constructive, interactive.
Some further clarification may be necessary. Selective seems self-explanatory. When reading selective is the active process of identifying important material. Constructive, when applied to taking notes, has a specific meaning. It implies the integration of new information with what one already knows. For example, thinking of an example (something you already know) associated with a concept or principle just learned creates a new representation. The learner is putting things together or finding applications. Interactive as defined here is a social process. It could relate to processes such as might be involved in cooperative learning. Both parties or even a larger group combine their individual understandings to create a superior composite.
I am relating these hierarchies to note-taking activities as might be explained by Aherns (2022). This author described notetaking in a little different way than might be assumed to apply in a school or college setting. I like to think of it as taking notes for the long term. This might describe the purpose I have for taking notes. I am not taking notes for an exam in a couple of weeks or at the end of the semester. I am not taking notes to write a paper for my instructor. I am engaging in reading for purposes that might be realized in a few years. I want my notes to be useful when in the future I have a need for the information I understood when the note was created, but may not be remembered when that information would be valuable.
I am extending Aherns a bit here, but a sequence based on his writing might include the following:
Reading
Highlighting/ fleeting notes
Smart note
Collaborative note
Here are some clarifications of these terms. Reading (or listening) is the lowest stage and involves the exposure to information. Fleeting notes involve the recording of information with little elaboration. Students tend to take this type of notes while listening to a lecture possibly because they must get the information down while the lecturer continues to speak. Highlighting is similar in that it involves selection with little additional processing. Smart notes is Ahern’s term for notes that I remember him describing as providing sufficient context that a note would make sense to me in the future. In other words, this type of note must stand alone as a useful resource. Such notes would also be understandable by others with reasonable background knowledge.
It is important to recognize that learner engagement in generative activities involves potential rather than guaranteed benefits. Roscoe and Chi offer an interesting way of describing potential. They were writing about peer teaching as a generative activity, but the distinction they identify makes sense when applied to other activities. Their distinction is between knowledge telling and knowledge building. If learners are asked to explain a concept to a peer or summarize a concept as a note, they can repeat what they heard or read or they can interpret what they have heard or read in generating an output. Similarly, learners can merge their notes with a peer or they can compare and contrast their notes resulting in deeper processing of the content.
Because most generative activities involve the production of a product, educators can review these products from time to time to evaluate how active learners are being in thinking about what they are learning.
Insights
A few additional comments to consider as a summary. These ideas are interesting and quite concrete. In addition, the analyses are realistic in recognizing that positive results are not automatic.
First, what may seem to be a similar activity may have different consequences as a function of the kind of thinking applied
Second, it is what the student does in completing a generative task that results in learning not just the task assigned.
References
Ahrens, S. (2022). How to take smart notes: One simple technique to boost writing, learning and thinking.
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active?constructive?interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1), 73-105.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007b). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.
Many of the recommendations I make for classroom and even nonschool-affiliated learning strategies are based in my understanding of generative learning. I have described a specific activity as generative in previous things I have written, but I don’t think I have ever made the effort to provide what I mean by generative. I decided I would give this background now both to explain what the term implies to me and to have something I can refer to in the future.
My applied work in educational psychology is based in cognitive psychology. Cognition is just a way of understanding thinking. Unless someone is really interested in digging into the field, I think it helps if I make an effort to translate some of the core ideas. There is always a danger making the complex simple is a bad idea and my efforts at simplification are off target, but I do it anyway. Think of thinking in terms of mental actions. Assume that learners have at their disposal mental actions they can use to accomplish the thinking and learning tasks they encounter. Learners may differ in which actions are selected to tackle a given task, how skillfully the tools are applied, and how effectively they evaluate the outcome of tool application to determine whether or not more needs to be done.
Here are four actions with a description of the task to which each would typically be applied:
Attend – maintain certain ideas in consciousness (also called working memory)
Find and retrieve – locate what is already stored (also known as long-term memory) and attend to this content
Link – establish connections between information units stored in long-term memory or that content active in working memory
Elaborate – create or discover new knowledge from the logical and purposeful combination of active and stored memory components
Evaluate – determine whether a cognitive task has been completed successfully
We can often take control and apply these activities without assistance, but motivation or lack of awareness of what activities might be useful can result in important activities not happening. Generative activities (Wittrock, 1974, 1990) are external to the internal mental activities of the learner but can make predictable internal activities more likely to occur. Questions about something a student is trying to learn make a good example. A question is external to the thinking of a learner. However, if I ask a question and you cannot answer, attempting to answer this question should have required you to evaluate your understanding. In attempting to answer my question, you have also probably made the effort to find and retrieve information. One related thing to consider – generative activities may encourage activities that are redundant with activities a learner have initiated on her own. This probably does no harm, but it also might be described as busy work. Cognitive activity is always the mental work of the learner with others only able to manipulate such behaviors indirectly and with less precision than a competent and motivated learner could do for themself.
What are some examples of generative activities? Fiorella and Mayer (2016) have identified a list of eight general categories most educators can probably turn into specific tasks. These categories include:
Summarizing
Mapping
Drawing
Imagining
Self-Testing
Self-Explaining
Teaching
Enacting
Summarizing – To summarize, students think about what they have just learned and then rephrase the most important information in their own words.
Mapping – Mapping is the process of converting words into a visual representation. Mind maps, tables, diagrams, and graphs are all common examples.
Drawing – Drawing is a great way to help your students learn more deeply about the material you are teaching. When students draw, they have to think about what information to include, what to leave out, and how to best represent it visually.
Imagining – Forming a mental representation of new information is surprisingly beneficial for learning. An example is tasking your students to imagine the process of digestion by creating mental pictures of each step.
Self-testing – Self-testing is a highly effective learning method. Educators likely recognize that retrieval practice (self-testing) is presently receiving a lot of attention. Some examples of self-testing include using flashcards and quizzes.
Self-explaining – Self-explaining requires students to recall new information and explain it in their own words. This helps students to understand the material better and to avoid simply repeating back what they have read or heard.
Teaching – Peer teaching is another active strategy requiring the recall and translation of what has been learned to present to others. Teaching involves preparation, delivery, and interaction related to the content to be learned. Most educators intuitively appreciate the unique requirements of teaching and recognize that learning for the self and to inform others involve different activities.
Enacting – I think demonstrating is an acceptable way to explain what the researchers meant by enacting.
Generative learning is a powerful approach to education that encourages learners to actively engage with the material, creating new knowledge and connections. This method, grounded in the work of Fiorella and Mayer (2016), and Brod (2021), among others, is centered around the idea that learning is not a passive process, but an active one that involves the learner in the creation of their own understanding.
The strategies I have listed require learners to select and organize relevant information, elaborate on the material based on personal knowledge, and integrate new information with existing knowledge.
Summarization, for instance, involves concisely stating the main ideas from a lesson in one’s own words. This goes beyond copying words or phrases verbatim from the lesson; rather, it involves selecting the most relevant information from the lesson, organizing it into a coherent structure such as an outline, and integrating it with students’ prior knowledge.
Teaching involves selecting the most relevant information to include in one’s explanation, organizing the material into a coherent structure that can be understood by others, and elaborating on the material by incorporating one’s existing knowledge.
Generative learning is not just about the creation of new content. Brod (2021) emphasizes that generative learning requires the production of a meaningful product that goes beyond the information that is an input. This means that activities like highlighting, which do not result in new content, are not considered generative.
Generative learning strategies are not just for students. They can be used by anyone looking to deepen their understanding of a topic. For example, if you’re reading a book or article, try summarizing the main points in your own words, or explaining the concepts to someone else. You might be surprised at how much more you understand the material!
Fiorella and Mayer (2016) offer one additional observation related to these eight types of activity. Four strategies (summarizing, mapping, drawing, and imagining) involve changing the input into a different form of representation.
The other four strategies (self-testing, self-explaining, teaching, and answering practice questions) require additional elaboration. This distinction contrasts ”knowledge-building” and ” knowledge-telling” (e.g., Roscoe and Chi, 2007). Knowledge telling is regarded as the weak form involving a restatement of what is known with limited activation of other existing knowledge (e.g., attempts to generate examples from personal experience) and less extensive monitoring of understanding. In knowledge-building, the strong form, the learner adds to core ideas from existing personal knowledge and in doing to reflects on the core ideas in greater depth resulting in more effective comprehension monitoring.
One additional comment about the eight categories is that the categories were explained by the scholars identifying this category system in terms what the learner could do. While learners could certainly decide to do these things without guidance, it is probably more likely that these external tasks are recommended or assigned by an educator.
What I have described to this point is how I would likely cover this topic in an educational setting. This approach would be designed to be true to what I believe to be the origins of the ideas and learners can then apply what they find useful. Given this background, my own research and practice have both focused on a subset of this list of activities and have taken the general idea of using external tasks to encourage desirable mental activities to recommend activities that share characteristics with the tasks mentioned. I have focused on questions, summarization, teaching, and self-explaining and proposed applications that have included peer tutoring and collaborative notetaking, writing across the curriculum, computer-enabled study environments that involve testing associated with accuracy prediction and data collection that feeds the identification of specific areas needed more work back to students, and the technology-based collection and exploration of notes over extended periods of time to improve personal productivity (smart notes and personal knowledge management). Thinking of external activities that efficiently encourage important cognitive activities has proven a productive way to both think about learning and what tasks may be helpful in helping students learn.
References:
Brod, G. (2021). Generative learning: Which strategies for what age? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1295-1318.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741.
Roscoe, R. D. & Chi, M.T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534-574.
Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.
Have you ever had what you thought was a great idea and after getting started working on it you were distracted by an even bigger and probably more important project? Did you ever go back to the original idea?
In the early 1990s, my wife and I were involved in introducing computers to students in ways we hoped would allow students to learn through engagement in multimedia projects. One of our first projects which became known as the butterfly project involved an elementary teacher (Pam Carlson) who annually involved her students in studying butterflies. The students learned the life cycle of a butterfly (egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult) and both read about butterflies and raised Painted Lady butterflies. We worked with Pam to extend her existing activities to include multimedia authoring using Macintosh computers, Kid Pix, and Hypercard.
We found a thematic coloring book about butterflies and digitized images. Students selected a butterfly and used Kid Pix to color the image appropriately. They also investigated their butterfly to find interesting facts including where is the country the butterfly could be found. They indicated the range on a map and added facts as audio.
Kid Pix saved content in a unique type of file. Sound and images were saved in the file as resources. I was able to use a program called ResEdit to extract images and sound from these files and paste this content into Hypercard cards. It may seem strange now, but early tech involved some hacking. I was able to create a HyperCard stack consisting of the cards created by all of the students that would play as a slideshow. This required I generate a script for each card that started playing the audio when the card opened and wait long enough for the audio to play before advancing to the next card. I created a front card for the stack that showed an insect collection box with miniatures of each butterfly that served as buttons to link to the card providing the information about that butterfly. When displayed on a large television monitor it was pretty impressive for the time.
Some months later my wife and I were attending a conference in Chicago and were exploring a large bookstore. We discovered a section containing a large number of thematic coloring books. This became the starting point for our adventure. In the front matter of a coloring book, I found that the collection of coloring books was published by Houghton-Mifflin and an address was included for the publisher. When I returned home, I used the address to propose an idea. Houghton-Mifflin should digitize the coloring books and I would write a short manual explaining how the collection of images could be used in learner multimedia projects. I explained several different types of projects.
Some time went by and we were eventually informed that HMCO did not really have a way to implement what they thought was an interesting idea. Another month or so went by and we received another contact from Houghton-Mifflin explaining that our idea had somehow been passed around the company and the editor for the higher education division wanted to visit us and see some of our projects in schools. I know quite a few book reps and textbook authors and I have never heard of this type of response. Again, at the time what we said grade school kids were creating sounded very strange.
We had a great visit setting up meetings with a couple of teachers we worked with and showing the projects. We were eventually offered a book deal with the expectation that we include our ideas about technology-enabled project-based learning within a general book for what I came to describe as the teacher training “learning to integrate technology” course. This was the big adventure that took over our work leaving behind the specific proposal for multimedia authoring to learn projects. We eventually wrote this book (Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning) and two years later with the dawning of the Internet age Integrating the Internet for Meaningful Learning. These two textbooks were eventually merged and we published 5 editions of the resulting book over the next 15+ years.
HMCO sold its higher ed collection and eventually, we ended up publishing through Cengage. As our perspective on the ideal resource for the type of course that would best serve practicing and in-service teachers changed and as our familiarity with textbook companies increased, we proposed changing the resources offered to learners. The three-year or so revision process in a rapidly changing field like educational technology made it impossible to address current thinking and resources. The revision cycle also required that we wait and then frantically revise when a new edition was authorized.
As an alternative, we proposed a less expensive ($29) Primer focused on core ideas and a website that would be continually updated with current content. The Primer would incorporate some portions of this web content when the next edition was created and this revision process could be quicker and more effective given this approach. We could never get to an agreement on a way to do this and as we approached retirement we agreed that we would receive our copyright on our content and we ended up creating a version of our proposal as a Kindle book. Even book companies offering leasing/rental plans do not deal with all of the challenges of the textbook industry. The revision cycle combined with the reality that companies only make income on the original sale encourages companies to continually push new releases. I still think less expensive (and smaller) textbooks combined with online resources offer a good compromise solution.
Back to the original idea
The clipart idea and multimedia projects were not actually wholly forgotten. I have always been an advocate of writing across the curriculum. My take has been to improve a text-only approach by emphasizing multimedia authoring. Writing and teaching others offer many advantages as generative activities requiring the use of knowledge and evaluation of understanding (metacognition). Authoring activities are relatively easy to implement in most curriculum areas and products can be shared as a means of encouragement. The productivity allowed by writing to learn is a reason I have mixed feelings about some AI applications. AI offers significant benefits for improving writing skills, but reliance on AI when writing to learn ruins the generative benefits that are involved. I think self-driven learners understand the difference, but those willing to satisfy assignments in the most convenient way possible will lose out when relying heavily on AI.
OWLs
Back to multimedia authoring. I had a unique opportunity to continue my interest in learner multimedia authoring. This opportunity emerged in an unusual way. My undergraduate training was in biology. I originally intended to be a high school biology teacher, but became interested in research on science teaching and was drafted for military service eventually resulting in a commitment to grad school.
When I finished and began working at the University of North Dakota, I connected with North Dakota Game and Fish promoting a program they called OWLS (Outdoor Wildlife Learning Sites). Game and Fish provided small grants to schools for the development of prairie gardens. These were small sites planted to native vegetation potentially attracting helpful insects and watchable wildlife (the organization’s term for wildlife they did not manage for hunting). I worked with the state agency to host a web server focused on providing project information and sharing among sites. I also visited and taught workshops to promote the concept and teaching related tech skills that would apply (e.g., multimedia authoring, digital photography). I did convince the organization to pay for a collection of wildlife clipart that was originally sold for $4 and sold as a hypercard stack. Eventually, we just placed the collection online allowing anyone to cut and paste what they might find helpful.
I happened to think of this experience and remembered that I still have this clipart on my server. It is saved as bitmaps so lacks the versatility now expected.
Useful clipart alternatives are available. I pay a small fee ($20 a year) to use images from the Noun Project and you will see these images in some of my posts. Educators interested in clipart for projects may find this source of value. The following were selected as alternatives to the images I selected from the ND CllipArt Collection
I have become a fan of digital photography and imagery as an alternative to the use of line art. With so many learners carrying smartphones, they have a high-quality camera always available. Images are also available online, but it is important to be sensible to copyright issues and look for images offered under a Creative Commons license. I make an effort to offer images I think may be helpful to others and propose that learning about Creative Commons and sharing images is a great learning opportunity.
One more addition. Since I mentioned AI, I asked Google’s Duet to comment on the educational benefits of student use of clipart. The following is the product of that request.
———————————
Created using Google Duet AI
Help me write an article about students using clipart to develop writing projects.
Help me write an article about students using clipart to develop writing projects. Students can use clipart to develop writing projects in a variety of ways. For example, they can use clipart to illustrate their writing, to create visual aids, or to brainstorm ideas.
Clipart can be a helpful tool for students who are struggling to get started on a writing project. By browsing through a collection of clipart, students can be inspired by the images and come up with ideas for their own writing. Clipart can also be used to create visual aids that can help students to explain their ideas more clearly. For example, a student could use clipart to create a timeline of events or to illustrate a concept.
Clipart can also be used to brainstorm ideas. By cutting and pasting images together, students can create collages that represent their thoughts and ideas. This can be a helpful way for students to generate ideas and to get their creative juices flowing.
Overall, clipart can be a valuable tool for students who are working on writing projects. It can help students to illustrate their writing, to create visual aids, and to brainstorm ideas.
Here are some additional tips for using clipart in writing projects:
Choose clipart that is relevant to the topic of the writing project.
Use clipart sparingly so that it does not distract from the text.
Label all clipart so that readers know what it represents.
Credit the source of the clipart if it is not your own original work.
You can make cognition as simple or complex as you want, but for me, learning boils down to thinking about experiences and being an effective educator boils down to encouraging and perhaps directing this thinking in students.
Research conducted by educational and cognitive psychologists provides some ideas about how this directing and encouraging might be accomplished. I always emphasize the “might” in my writing. Simply put, learning must be accomplished by the learner and another person or an external task can only work when a learner engages with that person or that task.
I find the research cognitive psychologists conduct incredibly useful in understanding what it takes to accomplish learning and based on this understanding how educators and learners might then proceed to be more successful. Just as every gardener does not have to study botany and chemistry to achieve a great harvest of tomatoes, not every researcher must immerse herself or himself in the details and depth of research to be a successful educational practitioner. Some practitioners may be fascinated with how understanding and retention are accomplished and others just may want to know what tasks to assign that are usually productive. As an academic retiree, I spend some time as a translator between these two types of individuals. I would also propose that the interaction of these two groups is important because ideas flow in both directions. For science-based approaches to change and improve both groups should be willing to share their perspectives and be thoughtful in interpreting the ideas presented to them.
A couple of years ago I became interested in a group of online services that were developed to improve the educational value of online content (web pages and videos). I developed my own way of describing what these services were developed to accomplish. It seemed that these services were designed to transform informational content into learning experiences and this was accomplished by layering different elements or tasks on the original content. Layering seemed the correct description because these services could not actually modify the content originally shared by content creators for ethical and legal reasons, but what the service could do was take the feed from the creator’s service and add elements on top. Elements were additions that could encourage important cognitive behaviors in a learner. I typically describe these elements as external tasks that encourage cognitive or mental behaviors. This description is similar to what others call generative activities (to be accurate generative activities are sometimes described as requiring the creation of a product, but the idea of an external task to influence cognitive behavior is the same). Questions are my favorite example of an external activity that can be added to encourage a variety of important thinking (internal) behaviors. For example, if you want a learner to link a new concept to everyday experiences the concept is useful in understanding, you might ask the learner to provide examples that show the application of the concept. Many learners may do this without the question, but the question increases the likelihood more learners will work to identify such connections with their existing experiences. Those who think about instruction in this way may describe what they are doing as designing instruction. What are the cognitive tasks that are important in learning a certain thing and what external activities might be added to the exposure to the input of demonstrations and other inputs to increase the probability these cognitive behaviors occur?
For example, what external tasks would increase the likelihood of:
Knowledge activation – what do I already know that is relevant
Elaboration – how does this input fit with what I know and what might it imply
Comprehension monitoring – do I understand, does this apply as I think it does
Retrieval practice – what makes this easier to retrieve when it is appropriate
Depending on the specific service, the elements that layering services provided included annotations, highlighting, questions, and discussion prompts. Annotations could include additional material such as examples, translations, or instructions. Questions could be open-ended or multiple-choice. A few of these elements could also be added by the learner (highlights and annotations) so elements provided to the designer could be used to encourage specific use of the elements available to students.
The application of this approach to AI-assisted study behavior
My interests seem to occur in waves. There was the layering wave and I, like so many others, have launched into an AI in education wave. AI has rapidly taken over most of the online discussions I follow. AI can be applied in many ways, but I think at this time one of the most productive is study behavior. One of my core interests has always been study behavior. I define study behavior broadly as everything that follows the initial exposure to new experiences. Note-taking in class occurs after the initial exposure. The questions a teacher asks or the discussions that are encouraged with peers during class occur after the initial exposure. Then, there are all of the activities, required and voluntary, students engage in on their own. For those of us outside of a formal educational setting, we may engage in such activities as taking notes or highlighting what we read to enhance the benefit of pure exposure to new material.
My new interest is in how AI tools can be applied as a tutor or skilled peer to improve the study experience. There is a good deal of overlap between the approach I have been taking with promoting layering services and now with AI tutoring. Tutoring is possibly the best way to assist a learner, but tutoring is expensive and access is not always available. If we consider what a tutor does for a learner and also take the approach I describe as identify productive external tasks that promote learning, we may find similar opportunities when treating some AI services as a tutor.
What I am proposing here is not that novel and efforts to create smart tutors have generated commercial and research interest for years and presently by organizations with connections to education (Google, Khan Academy). What I think I can add are some ideas about using an available AI tool (ChatPDF) right now to explore this capacity.
ChatPDF as the name implies allows an AI-assisted interaction with a PDF that you upload. Focusing AI on a specifically designated resource has both advantages and disadvantages. With studying, you are often studying something specific – a specific resource. The information you are encountering might be available from many other sources, but if you are a student, your responsibility can be defined in terms of specific sources. The advantage I have found with using a specific resource rather than “general knowledge” with present AI applications is that my interaction seems more accurate with a target source. I have less challenges with an AI chat service wandering off and offering content that is identifiably erroneous. This will likely change as improvements continue, but for now there are problems. The disadvantage of targeting a specific source is that aspects of studying involve going beyond the information provided to speculate about examples and applications not presented in the target material. When you constrain the interaction to a source, I have found AI struggles with this type of expectation. AI tools now available can do many impressive things, but you do need to have a sense of what is reasonable to expect and what problems might occur.
I recognize that many resources a student encounters are not provided as pdfs (e.g., a textbook). I have no immediate workaround for this challenge so I offer this post as a recommendation for exploration. I predict this is what is coming and that there are opportunities available now in specific situations. For my own exploration, I have been using the content I wrote. I want to make certain I understand the content I am applying AI to investigate at a deep level so I can evaluate what the AI offers me as a learner. I have authored a couple of textbooks and I was able to take the word processing file of a chapter, save it as a pdf, and then upload it to ChatPDF (here is the chapter if you want to submit it yourself and mimic my prompts).
As I explored ChatPDF and thinking about arguing the service could act as a tutor, I decided that that comparison to a professional tutor might be a bit much. Perhaps, more accurately, the AI service could be described as acting like a capable peer. A talented peer would be helpful and accurate most of the time, but you might also expect that sometimes you would find things your peer did not quite get as well as you did and still find it helpful to continue to study with this individual.
What follows are some of my interactions with the chapter I uploaded using ChatPDF. I label the material in the following may – Comment, Prompt, and AI – so you can interpret the various examples I provide. Remember that if the AI presents a question and the learner responds, the question is the AI presenting and the answer is the learner returning a Prompt. Prompts are what the learner submits and AI is always what the service replies in the material that follows. The idea with these examples is to offer some insights into how this tool could be used by a learner to assist them in improving their understanding and retention of content. Unlike a human tutor, a learner must prompt the AI system to create the interaction. However, the system is quite versatile and it is worth the time to just explore and see what it will do. As you will see, the system allows a conversation to continue through several interactions so there may be multiple prompts and responses that continue on the same initial theme. This would be the way a student and tutor interact.
ChatPDF Examples
[Comment] Gagne’s 9 events, a very popular model of instructional design, suggests a learning experience begin with an event intended to capture learner attention. To me, using ChatPDF after reading assigned content is a study experience that would not typically include this element, but just to offer an example of how an AI service might generate such an event see the following.
[Prompt] Identifying something from this chapter that will likely surprise me.
[AI] Something surprising and interesting idea from this chapter is the concept of “personal theories,” which are individual beliefs or mental models that people develop based on their experiences and observations. These personal theories can sometimes be flawed or inaccurate, and may lead to inert knowledge if they are not challenged or corrected by more formal, accurate theories learned in an educational setting. This highlights the importance of not just teaching information, but also helping students to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate their own beliefs and assumptions.
[Comment] Activate existing knowledge. Events two and three in Gagne’s model are to identify goals and activate relevant existing knowledge. Again, I am focusing here on how a tutor might guide study, but again I will show a use of the AI tutor that accomplish such goals and with this example I will show how a learner could followup as one might with a human tutor.
[Prompt] What are the most important ideas I should learn from this chapter?
[AI] This chapter covers several key ideas related to the nature of learning and the thinking processes necessary to produce learning. Some of the most important ideas include understanding how students learn, what skills and knowledge they should acquire, and how to design effective learning tasks that promote meaningful learning. Additionally, we discuss the cognitive system at both a detailed and conceptual level, identifying core functions that contribute to student learning. Finally, we emphasize the importance of considering the limitations of the cognitive system when designing instruction.
[Prompt] What are questions I should be able to answer to show I have learned these important ideas?
[AI] To demonstrate your understanding of the important ideas covered in this chapter, you might be able to answer questions such as:
What are some key factors that influence how students learn?
How can you design learning tasks that promote meaningful learning?
What are some core functions of the cognitive system that contribute to student learning?
Why is it important to consider the limitations of the cognitive system when designing instruction?
How can you use your understanding of how students learn and what skills and knowledge they should acquire to inform your teaching practice?
[Prompt] Let me pick one of these questions to see if I understand.
[AI] Sure, feel free to pick any of the questions I provided earlier and I’ll do my best to help you answer it!
[Prompt] What are some limitations of the cognitive system that educators should consider when designing instruction?
Learners can easily become overloaded when learning something new. Their existing knowledge may also not provide necessary background knowledge and they need time to process new ideas. If more and more information is added before students have time to think, they will miss things when they become overloaded.
[AI] You did a good job summarizing the idea that learners can become overloaded when presented with too much information at once. It is important for educators to consider the limitations of the cognitive system when designing instruction, such as the limited capacity of working memory and the importance of providing sufficient time for learners to process new information. By taking these limitations into account, educators can design instruction that is more effective and helps learners avoid becoming overloaded.
[Comments] One of the easiest uses of AI is to use it to ask and respond to questions. You can test your understanding of a claim you make or ask the service to present you with questions. The wording of the prompts is important in getting the service to interact with you in the way you want. Read the way I ask the service to present me with a series of multiple-choice questions carefully.
[Prompt] Is the limit of short term memory what I can remember the next day
[AI] According to page 3 of this PDF, there is a limit to how long information will be maintained in working memory without continued attention. This means that the limit of short-term memory is not necessarily what you can remember the next day, but rather how much information you can hold in your mind at any one time without actively rehearsing or attending to it.
[Prompt] If I am a teacher, how can I provide a form of metacognition for a student when that student cannot provide it for himself?
[AI] As a teacher, you can provide metacognitive support to students who may not be able to provide it for themselves. One way to do this is by modeling metacognitive strategies and explicitly teaching students how to use them. For example, you might demonstrate how to monitor comprehension while reading by thinking aloud and sharing your thought process with the class. You could also provide prompts or questions that encourage students to reflect on their own learning, such as “What did you learn from this activity?” or “What strategies did you use to solve this problem?” Additionally, you could encourage peer-to-peer discussions where students can share their own insights and perspectives on the learning process. By providing these types of supports, you can help students develop their metacognitive skills and become more effective learners.
[Prompt] Ask me a short essay question based on the content of this chapter.
[AI] How can teachers help students to develop critical thinking skills and avoid the phenomenon of “inert knowledge”? Provide specific examples of instructional strategies that can be used in the classroom to promote active learning and meaningful application of new information.
[Prompt] Remind students they learned information relevant to a novel problem in class as part of challenging them with a new problem to solve.
[AI] This statement aligns with the concept of “transfer” discussed in the chapter on “Inert Knowledge.” Transfer refers to the ability to apply knowledge and skills learned in one context to new situations or problems. One way that teachers can promote transfer is by explicitly connecting new problems or tasks to previously learned information or skills. By reminding students of what they have already learned and how it relates to the current problem, teachers can help students make connections and apply their knowledge in a more meaningful way. This can also help to avoid the phenomenon of inert knowledge, where students may have acquired information but are unable to use it effectively in new situations.
[Comment] A limitation is revealed in the following interaction. The tutor asks a question requesting an example and the example given is not something the tutor understands to be a part of the chapter.
[Prompt] Ask me a short essay question based on this chapter
[AI]] How can the concept of “inert knowledge” impact student learning, and what strategies can teachers use to help students avoid this phenomenon? Provide specific examples to support your answer.
[Prompt] A parent knows that young children may commit some bad behaviors to get his parents attention, but typically parents respond to such misbehaviors anyway.
[AI] I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how this statement relates to the chapter on “Inert Knowledge” and learning strategies. Is there a specific question or topic you would like me to address?
[Prompt] Generate 10 multiple choice questions for this document. Number the questions and allow me to provide an answer for each number. Do not provide answers I can see.
[AI] Sure, here are 10 multiple choice questions based on the document:
What is metacognition?
a) The capacity to direct and control our own cognitive behavior
b) The ability to memorize information quickly
c) The process of learning through repetition
d) The use of external tasks to support weak cognition
What is the common challenge when working with a group of learners?
a) Meeting individual needs when working with a group
b) Encouraging students to work independently
c) Providing enough resources for all students
d) Ensuring that all students have the same level of knowledge
What is an example of metacognitive control?
a) Monitoring your own understanding of the material
b) Memorizing information without understanding it
c) Repeating information until it is learned
d) Using external tasks to support cognition
What is metacognitive knowledge?
a) Personal insights regarding the self and tasks and potential strategy options
b) Memorized information about a subject area
c) The ability to repeat information quickly and accurately
d) The use of external tasks to support cognition
How can teachers provide metacognitive support to students?
a) By modeling metacognitive strategies and explicitly teaching students how to use them
b) By providing lectures without any interaction from students
c) By assigning homework without any guidance or feedback
d) By providing multiple-choice tests only
What is an example of an external task that may support weak metacognition?
a) Study questions
b) Group discussions
c) Peer-to-peer feedback
d) Individual reflection
What does effective tool use require?
a) Recognizing task demands, personal strengths and weaknesses, and insight necessary to recognize and respond when a plan does not achieve expected results.
b) Memorizing information quickly without understanding it.
c ) Repeating information until it is learned.
d) Using external tasks to support cognition.
What is the capacity to direct and control our own cognitive behavior?
a) Metacognition
b) External tasks
c) Cognitive processing
d) Learning strategies
What is the importance of understanding how students learn?
a) It helps teachers design effective learning experiences for students
b) It helps teachers memorize information quickly
c) It helps teachers assign homework without any guidance or feedback
d) It helps teachers provide multiple-choice tests only
[Prompt] 1 a
[AI] Correct! Metacognition is the capacity to direct and control our own cognitive behavior.
[Prompt] 2 a
[AI] Correct! The common challenge when working with a group of learners is meeting individual needs when working with a group.
etc.
[Comment] Here is a sequence generated when I asked for help understanding, but was unclear about whether the AI bot “understands” a concept in the same way I use the concept. For example, I understand that inert has to do with what context triggers the use of knowledge. Hence, a student who understands the meaning of a word on a test or when asked in class would not necessarily access the same knowledge when in a different context (at home reading a book) that does not trigger “school content”. This seems how I used the term when writing the cognitive chapter. I ended up trying to negotiate an interpretation by interacting with AI as tutor which while not generating a simple clarification I might have wanted was fairly sophisticated. I found myself arguing with the AI service about the meaning of something I had written, but this interaction was interesting.
[Prompt] Help me understand inert learning. What does the term mean and provide an example.
[AI] Inert learning refers to the phenomenon where students may learn information but are unable to apply it in new or unfamiliar contexts. In other words, they may be able to repeat information but are not able to use it in a meaningful way. An example of inert learning might be a student who memorizes a list of vocabulary words for a test but is unable to use those words in conversation or writing outside of the test context. This can happen when students are taught information in isolation, without opportunities to practice applying it in different contexts or with different types of problems. To avoid inert learning, it is important for teachers to provide opportunities for students to practice using new information in different ways and contexts.
[Prompt] What do you mean by test context? What do you mean by a meaningful way?
[AI] By “test context,” I mean the specific situation in which the student is asked to demonstrate their knowledge, such as on a quiz or exam. In this context, the student may be able to recall information that they have memorized, but they may not be able to apply it in a more complex or unfamiliar situation.
By “meaningful way,” I mean using the information in a way that is relevant and useful to the student’s life or goals. For example, if a student is learning about fractions, being able to use that knowledge to solve real-world problems involving measurements or cooking would be a meaningful application of that knowledge.
[Prompt] Would the concept of inert knowledge predict a student might be able to provide a correct meaning for a word from the test if a teacher asked for a definition, but not when the student encountered the word while reading at home?
[AI] Yes, that is a possible example of inert knowledge. If a student is able to provide a correct definition of a word on a test or quiz, but is unable to recognize or use the word in context when reading at home, it suggests that the student has not fully internalized the meaning of the word and is not able to apply it in new or unfamiliar situations. This could be due to a lack of practice using the word in different contexts or because the student has only learned the definition in isolation without connecting it to other knowledge or experiences.
[Comment] The AI tutor is versatile and you can get it to interact with you in different ways. In the content that follows, I ask the service to generate question prompts and then an outline of ideas from the chapter as might be included in a PowerPoint presentation. I then interact with the tutor based on these prompts and parts of the PowerPoint outline.
[Prompt] Write three discussion prompts based on this chapter.
[AI] Sure, here are three discussion prompts based on the chapter:
1. What are some examples of boundaries that exist in your own experiences, and how have you crossed them?
2. How might crossing boundaries between different grade levels or schools impact your learning and personal growth?
3. In what ways can using primary sources enhance your understanding of a topic compared to using a textbook?
[Prompt] Write a response to each of these discussion prompts.
[AI] 1. Personally, I found the ideas presented in this chapter to be very relatable to my own experiences with learning. I think that the concept of crossing boundaries between different experiences is particularly relevant, as it highlights the importance of being open to new perspectives and ideas. In my own learning, have found that being willing to explore new topics and engage with different viewpoints has been key to my growth and development.
2. In terms of encouraging students to engage in meaningful learning, I think that it is important for teachers to create a supportive and inclusive classroom environment. This can involve providing opportunities for students to collaborate and share their ideas, as well as offering personalized feedback and guidance. Additionally, I think that it is important for teachers to be flexible and adaptable in their teaching methods, in order to meet the diverse needs and interests of their students.
3. One example of how the thinking processes discussed in this chapter have helped me in my own learning is through my experiences with critical thinking. By learning to question assumptions and evaluate evidence, I have been able to develop a more nuanced and informed perspective on a variety of topics. Additionally, I have found that being able to think critically has helped me to communicate my ideas more effectively, both in writing and in conversation.
[Prompt] What is wrong with reading a textbook from a tablet or computer
[AI] Research has shown that reading from a screen can result in overconfidence and poorer comprehension compared to reading from a paper source. While there are multiple hypotheses as to why this difference exists, some evidence points to metacognition. It is presently unclear why this happens, but external performance and more practice reading long form content from a screen may help compensate for the lack of insight into comprehension. However, it is important to note that this research is not suggesting that reading from a tablet or computer is inherently bad, but rather that it may require more effort and attention to ensure comprehension and avoid overconfidence.
[Prompt] I know that I should try to read from my phone while I am driving. Is this an example of working memory overload that may result in an accident?
[AI] Reading from a device while driving is not recommended as it can lead to distractions and accidents. Research has shown that reading from a screen can result in overconfidence and poorer comprehension compared to reading from a paper source. It is presently unclear why this happens, but external performance and more practice reading long form content from a screen may help compensate for the lack of insight into comprehension. Metacognition, or thinking about thinking, is important for effective tool use and the skilled learner can plan to avoid difficulties or compensate for problems. However, it is important to prioritize safety while driving and avoid any distractions, including reading from a device.
[Prompt] Create the text that would appear on PowerPoint slides used to explain the memory stores and processes and cognitive process that make up the model of cognition used in this chapter.
[AI] Slide 1: Introduction to the Cognitive Perspective
– Describes learning and thinking activities in terms of multiple memory stores
– Processes or mental actions used in thinking and learning
– Executive mechanisms used to evaluate and control processes
Slide 2: Memory Stores
– Three memory stores: sensory memory, working memory, and long-term memory
– Sensory memory holds information briefly
– Working memory maintains information for a short period of time
-Long-term memory stores information for a longer period of time
Slide 3: Mental Tools
– Learners have mental tools to accomplish thinking and learning tasks
– Four mental tools: Attend, Link, Elaborate, and Retrieve
– Attend maintains ideas in working memory
– Link establishes connections between information units – Elaborate adds meaning to information
– Retrieve accesses information from long-term memory
Slide 4: Evaluation and Control
– Learners use executive mechanisms to evaluate and control processes
– Determine whether processes have accomplished intended goals
– Prioritize certain learning activities based on cognitive constructs
[Prompt] When the slide says the mental tool of attend keeps information in short term memory, I think this means that when we think about something we keep what we are thinking about in our consciousness longer. Is this correct?
[AI] Yes, that’s correct. The mental tool of attend is used to maintain certain ideas in consciousness, which is also known as working memory. This helps to keep the information in our consciousness for a longer period of time, allowing us to think about it more deeply and process it more effectively.
[Prompt] When the slide says sensory memory holds information briefly, just how much time is that? I think it a couple of seconds at most. Is that correct?
[AI] Yes, that’s correct. Sensory memory holds information for a very brief period of time, usually just a few seconds at most. After that, the information either fades away or is transferred to short-term memory.
Summary comment: I hope these examples offer insight into the flexibility of ChatPDF as tutor. Learning how the AI services work takes some experimentation and most services offer the opportunity to experiment without cost. One issue I must acknowledge is that much of what I write about assumes a motivated learner. Thinking is work and work requires interest, resolve, and incentives. None of us is probably motivated to learn some of what others expect us to know. Accepting this reality, I tend to like what Sal Kahn said in defending mastery approaches to learning. Approaches that improve the success of learning address at least an important aspect of the motivational component of education. We are more interested in learning when our efforts result in success than when these efforts are frustrating and often unsuccessful. [my interpretation]
I happened on this Medium post describing what the author called the Explanation Effect. The article itself was about strategies we can apply to learn and understand and the explanation effect sounded very similar to what I have previously described as Teaching to Learn. Teaching and even preparing to teach are great generative learning activities as most teachers will tell you. You must understand something to teach it well. The explanation effect implies more than the one-way act of teaching others and might be more accurately described as an educated discussion in which the parties involved share and perhaps even argue about something. Hence there is an exchange of information, accurate or not, about something. The Medium post argued this type of experience is one of the best ways to learn.
Generative learning activities have always been a personal fascination and the explanation effect would be an example. It is an example of an activity in which engagement in an external activity provides a likely way to manipulate important cognitive behaviors involved in retention and understanding. Many of the behaviors learners engage in as study activities are intended as generative activities.
To understand why engaging in tutoring (as a learner) or peer teaching (both parties are really learners) is proposed as a superior generative activity, it might be helpful to consider a hierarchical framework of generative activities proposed by Chi (citation included at end of this post). In this hierarchical framework, higher-level activities integrate lower-level activities and as one advances through the hierarchy it is proposed that activities at that level are more productive. In the following image, I have identified the stages of this framework and added an example of each level I assume would be familiar to most educators.
Smart notes require that a learner summarize and extend an input with personal insights or examples. So, a student might highlight a concept in a textbook (active) and then construct a note that summarizes what was highlighted as the learner understands it based on existing knowledge and perhaps include an example. Hence, additional cognitive activities would be included in the construction of a note. It is important to recognize that an activity (e.g., creating a note) may or may not involve productive cognitive behaviors (e.g., copying the text into a notebook) or may involve other cognitive activities leading to even more enhanced understanding and application. As an educational device, external activities are assigned with the expectation that the use of the activity will be productive, but the cognitive connections are always under the control of the learner.
I like to describe interactive activities as involving secondary inputs. If students discuss or argue about concepts from a book, the information in the book is the original input, but the comments from a peer or a tutor are a second input. The second input may add something new for the learner to add to an existing understanding or challenge the understanding the student has originally generated and now force a reconsideration and possible modification.
Chi and others have engaged in research to justify the proposed advantages I have described here. When researchers offer insights that hopefully will influence practice, the impact tends to depend on how practitioners translate general recommendations and how practical it seems it would be to come up with activities matched to these insights. I think educators understand practices such as guided discussion or issue debates and I hope the way in which I have explained the benefits of seeking activities at the constructive and interactive levels of Chi’s framework is persuasive
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active?constructive?interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1), 73-105.
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist, 49(4), 219-243.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.