Once in a while, you encounter an idea that explains some things you have found puzzling. This is the case with the concept of “Desirable Difficulty“. This concept would be one way to understand my previous post on the advantages of taking notes by hand over taking notes on a laptop. Taking notes by hand is more demanding for most and learners compensate by summarizing content before recording. There are long term benefits to generating summary content over recording more verbatim information.
Bjork explains how a tendency to be misled into engaging in activities that seem to offer an immediate advantage may have less productive long term consequences. He differentiated retrieval strength and storage strength. Learning that is too easy (e.g., cramming) can result in an immediate advantage in retrieval strength, but may limit the development of storage strength. Long-term benefits depends on the development of storage strength.
This distinction can be applied to the immediate advantage of taking more complete verbatim notes over notes that require personal understanding (i.e., a summary).
As I hope is apparent, personal decisions are at the core of the problem. You tell students to space their study and not cram or work with their notes to create interpretations and not just verbatim copies of what was presented, but what easiest and falsely perceived to be more useful often win out.
One more comment – the suggestion of purposefully making things a bit more difficult must be carefully interpreted. The point is about engaging in cognitive processes that are more productive and perhaps more demanding and not to create needless struggles.
Bjork, R.A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Question stems offer guidance educators and learners can use to guide thinking about content. Becoming aware of prepared question stems can diversify the types of questions teachers ask of students and guide students in asking questions of themselves. Questions offer an external mechanism to encourage productive thinking.
I have generated multiple posts explaining and offering examples of the online services I describe as allowing educators to design educational resources by layering elements on top of existing online web pages and online videos. This interest also generated a short book on the same topic. A book (Annotation) by Remi Kalir and Antero Garcia has recently been made available and offers a related, but more general perspective and may be of interest to those who have read my content on layering. Both make useful contributions (my opinion) for anyone interested in this topic with my book better suited to K12 educators and Annotations for researchers and anyone wanted a more comprehensive view of the history and potential application of annotation.
As someone who writes about this relatively novel topic, I find it interesting how different individuals came to explore and write about this topic. One immediate commonality is obvious – we both explored the same tool for annotating and sharing comments on online text – Hypothes.is. My own perspective stems from a career long interest in highlighting, notetaking, and adjunct (inserted) questions in assisting students of all ages in learning from text. A second, but indirect, perspective emerged from my reaction to how research on learning from text read from the screen and a traditional book was being presented to educators. I have relied almost exclusively on digital content for many years now and was troubled by the argument that comprehension was superior from traditional books. As I considered the research, I decided both sides may have a valid perspective. I would describe my interest as studying rather than reading (any extended use of text content after the initial reading) and reading on a device offered obvious advantages (storage, search, efficient review, etc.) for anything beyond the initial exposure to content.
I have been thinking about annotation and my perspective of layering and how best to explain these differences. While it seems possible to reach the same end from either perspective, here are some thoughts on efficiency.
The authors of Annotation do mention the potential uses of what they describe as “multimodality”, but seem strongly influenced by hypothes.is and the focus of this tool on text. What can be done with a text-first tool limits perspective – text first heavily focused on the annotation of text with text. Tools that allow layering on video or audio may end up being more important with increasing interest in presenting in this fashion saving class time for other activities.
Layering emphasizes the clarity of a physical separation between content creator and secondary contributors and also the control of visibility of multiple sources. The opportunity of an end user to turn on and off the added elements can be important in satisfying individual differences and in allowing strategic roles that may differ over time.
A focus on hypothes.is limits the clarity in understanding that multiple tools that can be applied by the one adding elements and the intended person targeted for these additions. Depending on service, multiple tools may be available – e.g., text, highlighting, questions, discussion, audio/video. My own writing is focused on the use of such elements to encourage productive processing of the information (text or video) to which the elements have attached. A perspective I like is that existing online content has not necessarily been created as what an educator might describe as a learning resource.
Attempting to explain how learning and thinking work is not easy. After doing this for a living, I am still uncertain what is the best approach. We all know we know things and we all know we learn, but just how we did and do this is often not obvious. To help understand, I would suggest we make use of abstractions that simplify, but still have utility. To have value, a model or abstraction must be consistent with data (observations of how a process works) and be useful in suggesting testable practices.
I could use the jargon of my profession and theoretical perspective on this profession, but I propose that the concepts of thinking and model both meet the conditions I have identified. Thinking implies learning requires mental work (at least most kinds of academic learning). Easy to understand attributes of thinking are helpful. The learner is the one who thinks (or not) so learning ultimately depends on the activity of the learner no matter the circumstances external to the learner. However, others people and experiences outside of ourselves can encourage us to think. We think about things with which we are already more familiar more easily hence what we already know is important in how easily and how successfully we can think. The thinking we do that uses existing knowledge and skills can result in the modification and improvement of what we already know and this is what most mean by learning. These are the basics.
What we accomplish by learning means several different things. We know things after learning that we did not know before. We can do things after learning that we did not do before. We acquire understanding and capabilities. We also acquire information which may or may not be part of understanding.
The idea of a model is helpful in thinking about both understanding and capabilities. The construction of models of understanding and models as actions is a natural process. By natural I mean we as individuals construct models continuously whether to deal with mysteries of daily life or because of formal education. To help students understand and think about the commitment we continuously make to models, I like to ask students what they mean by the concept of a theory. A theory is one type of model. Students often use the word theory in a condescending way perhaps dismissing the information (models) acquired in a course as theoretical implying that theories are not useful. To the contrary, I claim, theories are how we think and if we do not acquire theories we apply from formal instruction, we make them up based on personal experience. A theory, personal or formal, is the abstraction we use to understand, to predict, and decide on action when we encounter a unique life experience – pretty much any new input from the world. What is kind of cool (interesting) is that individuals are quite capable of storing contradictory or at least inconsistent personal and formal theories about the same phenomena. In other words, we may develop one interpretation of a certain kind of situation based on our life experiences that is different than an interpretation we are taught. How can this happen and what can be done about it? This can happen because an external experience activates one internal model or the other. This is one of the frustrations of education. We can help learners acquire a model of the way something works in the world. They can understand this model and use it effectively within the classroom setting, but they can still revert to their own primitive model of how something works when encountering circumstances in their daily life to which the more formal theory should have been applied.
This was a very long introduction to get to the core issue. What are the models educators use to guide their work in helping students learn? This could be a question of whether or not educators activate formal models or personal models to guide their practice. Given what I have said about formal models and naive models (this is the term applied and the intent is to describe models built from field experience without the use of formal guidance), this could be a great topic to consider. I will have to save a discussion of this distinction for another time. Here, I want to share my personal bias when it comes to the utility of several formal theories.
Models of learning
Somewhere in the preparation of educators, most are exposed to multiple models of learning. At the least, they have probably been told about behaviorism, cognition, and constructivism. Recently, some preparation experiences may include some biology – brain structure and function. Certainly, biology and biochemistry have the potential to describe learning most accurately. I think an important issue is whether a more accurate description advances education or not. My personal opinion at this point in time is that our understanding of how the brain functions in learning is rather crude and I am aware of very little that improves on what other models describe and explain. I have an undergraduate major in biology but that was a long time ago and what I know now I describe as the content included about brain biology in your average Introduction to Psychology textbook. The one exception I can think of to my claim that there is nothing unique about a biological perspective is neural plasticity – the finding that long term experiences of a type can restructure the brain to predispose individuals to different patterns of mental behavior. I believe this idea is helpful. However, the interpretation of this phenomenon within education has also been generalized in ways that I think are inaccurate and certainly not a basis for significant changes in practice.
Here is my short list of models (actually categories of models) of learning and a very brief comment on what I see as the core mechanism of each.
Behaviorism – emphasis on external events and consequences that increase and decrease the frequency of behaviors.
Cognitive – constructivist (macro) and information processing (micro) – mental activity under the control of the learner. Thinking develops internal models.
Biological – chemical and biological action and storage (internal). Learning results in changes in the brain (vague) and must be accomplished by a combination of chemical and electrochemical actions taking place in physical structure some of which are specialized to accomplish certain things.
I find the concept of fidelity useful in understanding learning. Fidelity could be defined as the exactness of fit between a model and the actual thing/process. One might think that the more exact the fit, the better. We have learned from research on the use of simulations in learning that this is not the case. With simulations, in the early stages of learning, too much realism (match) can overload, confuse, and in some cases produce unproductive emotions. For example, the training of pilots does not begin by putting a novice in the pilots seat and letting him/her explore. The experience would be overwhelming and certainly terrifying. Typically, training makes use of experiences in simulators that simplify the experience to a limited number of actions and possible reactions. Using various techniques and equipment, more and more realism and experiences are added until the more experienced individual can deal with the emotions and complexity of full application.
I see a similarity in the usefulness of models of learning. Behaviorism offers little insight into mental behavior (I think supporters leave that to the biological researchers) and is really more a model of instruction (manipulation of external events). I regard behavioral models as useful for understanding and investigating incentives. I see biological models as eventually having the potential for high fidelity, but I see these models at present as mostly descriptive. At best the future might provide a level of understanding that encourages practices through a process of find out how to produce a given combination of chemical and anatomical conditions. I see the cognitive models as most useful, but differing in level of fidelity with information processing models offering a more detailed level of process clarity. Constructivism offers a broad perspective, but may or may not be sufficient to propose useful interventions. Especially when what seems like a productive process is not, analysis based on information processing models is often usefuL
Models of learning, models of instruction
Comparisons of approaches generated from models of how learning happens are important. Approaches may differ in the external events created, but any event allows “thinking” by learners. The relative effectiveness of different approaches is important. Putting down books, lectures, worksheets, life experiences, or task of one format or another all offer some type of input that learners will attempt to process. The capacity to point to idiosyncratic cases of students who learned from this or that experience is not really justification for much of anything. It is the relative productivity of one approach in contrast to another within defined requirements for a common set of learning circumstances (group size, time allowed, variations in past experiences, etc.) that provide the basis for application.
Arguing that one model of instruction based on this model of learning is superior seems pointless without data allowing those who must evaluate these claims. Models offer different ways to think about learning. These can be helpful in the design of learning experiences, but ultimately, it is the response of learners exposed to these experiences that matter.
[Image included purchased through the Noun Project]
I have become a fan of the power of what I have decided to call “understanding through ownership”. I believe embracing this concept provides anyone both a sense of autonomy and a better understanding of how digital technologies works within our lives. I am not a supporter of the universal value of “coding for all” as I regard programming as a vocational skill unique to specific professions. I do believe that digital literacy is a far more important life skill and coding alone does not provide the necessary skills and understanding to deal with the changes technology is bringing to all of our lives.
I have written previously about what might be described as the benefit those of us who participated in the emergence of personal computing have enjoyed. Those who have entered this revolution at some point along the way lack the understanding that comes from having experienced more primitive versions of things and having to do more for yourself. I miss the days I enjoyed being able to quickly convert any Mac I was working on into a working server. It is true that I enjoyed the advantage of working at a university which allowed me the advantage of a dedicated IP, but even a computer that assigns the IP as you connect would work as a server until you disconnected again. I understand the security issues in those with limited technical knowledge operating a server, but this understanding also illustrates the point. I understand security concerns because I personally had to deal with them. I am not advocating going back to this level of control, but having had such experiences has strongly influenced my thinking.
What I think makes sense for the educational setting is the purchase of shared server space. This is relatively inexpensive – I would budget the cost at about $10 a month. When you own a server, you can take risks and exercise control at multiple levels. Most hosting plans allow me to install tools by running host provided scripts. Anyone can do this. Push a button and follow instructions and you can set up a wiki, a WordPress blog, or a Weebly web site. You own the service and the content and the headaches. One of the realities of services is that flaws continually emerge and some flaws allow vulnerabilities. If you want, most services have mechanisms that will automatically update your installs. Middle school on, I think some students could manage such a site for their peers.
Just to be clear. You do this type of thing not because it provides you access to the most powerful version of services, but because it offers you greater control of versions of a particular service. I suggest that you use open source software when possible. Unless you install the open source software from a source external to the hosting site, you have some satisfaction in knowing that most groups providing this software are receiving some support through the stipend you pay to the hosting site. Dealing with how online experiences are funded is an important lesson for all to learn and learners are more likely to think about such issues when they are putting a little money into their experiences.
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.