Generative learning – Page 6

Teaching to learn – 1

Teaching to learn is one of the generative activities that intrigues me. This may partly be a function of personal experiences as a teacher. Being put in the position of having to stand in front of others and explain requires something different from the study of a topic. Just what is different though. I intend to offer a couple of posts based on research to answer this question.

The first explanation is based on research claiming the preparation to teach amounts is a variant of the retrieval practice effect. Retrieval practice involves attempts to recall the content to be studied. This is best done with recall that does not involve prompts such as would be the case with multiple choice questions. Something like flash cards with general requests for recall/explanation would be an example.

A study by Koh and colleagues (reference at the end of the post) was designed to test this hypothesis.

The study involved four groups – a control group that studied the assigned content; the teaching group that studied the material and taped a 5 minute presentation without notes; a group that studied and then delivered a 5 minute presentation using a prepared script; a group that studied and then completed free recall questions about the material.

Consider what is required in each treatment. The teaching group not allowed to use a script had to rely on what they knew when making their presentations. The group allowed to use a script could rely on the external source of information. The free recall group used an established method of retrieval practice.

Both the teaching group and the retrieval practice group performed better on a later test than the control condition which involved traditional study behavior. The group that taught with the use of the script did not. The authors argued this pattern supports the retrieval practice explanation.

This study was designed to test the value of retrieval practice and showed the two retrieval practice treatments were most effective. For classroom application, consider what was actually involved. Making a video is only part of what one does when teaching. It demonstrates a value in the requirement of using what you know to create a representation. This sounds like writing to learn or in this case multimedia content creation to learn.

Teaching involves other potentially important activities not testing in this research. What about interacting with students? Interaction is even more demanding than presentation as it is not totally under the control of the educator and involves more cognitive flexibility. There are other aspects of teaching that may also contribute to personal learning.

Koh, A. W. L., Lee, S. C., & Lim, S. W. H. (2018). The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 401-410.

External tasks to influence internal tasks

My way of exploring what I know of cognitive psychology to the selection of effective learning tasks is captured in the phrase – external tasks to influence internal tasks. Learners must accomplish learners themselves, but educators can provide experiences to learn from (exposure to information) and propose activities that potentially influence how learners process these experiences. The word potential is important here because the educator is assuming that the learner will apply the external task in a way that engages important cognitive tasks and the external task does not complete more effective cognitive activity learners might have applied on their own (i.e. busy work). When applied to a group which is most commonly how assignments are made, these caveats are probably both violated for certain individual students.

This analysis may sound obvious but as is usually the case the devil is in the details. There must be some understanding of what cognitive behaviors produce learning and which of these cognitive behaviors might be engaged by the assignment of an external task. Both requirements have been addressed by great numbers of research studies.

Many cognitive psychologists use the phrase generative learning to refer to the approach I have described in my own way. To move this presentation toward application it would be useful to read a 2016 paper by Fiorella and Mayer. These authors identify general categories of activities that have shown to have effective generative capabilities. The paper references multiple studies that evaluate examples of the application of each type of task.

This specific article identified eight learning strategies that promote generative learning and provides a review of research relevant to each strategy.

Summarizing
Mapping
Drawing
Imagining
Self-Testing
Self-Explaining
Teaching
Enacting

As a way of simplifying what these generative tasks ask of learners consider the following two ways of simplifying what the tasks require.

The first four strategies (summarizing, mapping, drawing, and imagining) involve changing the input into a different form of representation.

The final four strategies (self-testing, self-explaining, teaching, and answering practice questions) require additional elaboration.

Just example of how this type of consolidation of research might be applied consider how the list might be applied to note-taking another of the topics I have been addressing lately. The Cornell note template is popular with educators. The template asks that learners use two items from this list in the full application of the Cornell method. The template includes an area for summarization and encourages the use of the column that normally appears to the left of the area for taking notes for questions.

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741.

Reality of Learning Tactics

Folks like me and many I follow get all excited about the latest learning tactics and the research that investigates if and why the tactics work. Every once in a while I think back to some observations I made while lecturing to large groups of undergraduates who took Introductory and Educational Psychology.

After an introduction to the Cornell Note-Taking system, I asked if anyone recognized what I was describing from middle-school or high school. Typically, a third-or so of the students would raise their hands. I then would ask how many were using the Cornell system to take notes on my presentation. In doing this for many years, I think I may have found one or two students who were using the system. For the occasional ed psych prof who reads my posts, give these questions a try and see what you discover.

I often ask about this experience in my grad courses seeking an explanation. Nothing much ever emerges from this request, but I would often observe that more research should be focused on the barriers to the adoption of proven study tactics. The Cornell system is simple enough. It can’t be exposure since the Cornell system is introduced in K12 and college study skill programs. Maybe the younger students were required to show that they were using the system.

The one exception I can think of to my observation regarding college student application of study tactics is the use of flash cards. At least some students in fields that require the memory for lots of specifics (I tend to think of PT and OT students) I noticed breaking out their decks of cards while waiting for my classes to begin. So there is this interesting exception to investigate. Why flash cards and note Cornell notes?

Adding a stage and an activity to the notetaking model

I came across a study on notetaking behavior that I thought might be a missing link in the other notetaking ideas I have been reading lately. Kiewra is a name that comes up repeatedly in thois area of research. I am guessing one of his students (Luo), Kiewra and Samuelson published a study in 2017 proposing that storage and review may not be an adequate way to engage in product note use. Perhaps a three stage approach would be more productive. Rather than just recording and review, effective notetaking might benefit from an intermediate stage – revision.

Luo, et al. (2016) investigate revision during pauses in a presentation or for the same amount of time immediately after the presentation. They speculate about benefits mostly from the increase in content added as notes or a type of retrieval practice explanation for later achievement gains.

I admit that this seems different from what I would describe as a generative effect. A three stage model makes some sense. For example, the Cornell notetaking system was developed to encourage a revision process and this additional activity was about more than just adding content that had been missed. Aherns book on Smart Notes proposed several types of notes generated over time:

Make fleeting notes.
Make literature notes.
Make permanent notes

Perhaps the focus on preparing for an exam is different than the Smart Note notion for long-term storage and personalized understanding. Whether for more meaningful use at a later date or to improve personal understanding, revision might make the most sense if was more what Ahrens had in mind.

Ahrens, S. (2017). How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking–for Students, Academics and Nonfiction Book Writers. Sönke Ahrens.

Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., & Samuelson, L. (2016). Revising lecture notes: how revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement. Instructional Science, 44(1), 45-67.

The mysterious Zettelkasten

I have tried many methods for taking notes over the years. I probably started like many academics by reading scholarly journal articles in the journals I received through subscriptions, highlighting the articles as I read, and then maybe taking a few notes on a 3×5 card that I kept in a “recipe box” under one topic heading or another. With the arrival of technology, my approach shifted to storing a version of the note cards in one system or another and shifting from reading journal articles in journals to reading journal articles I could download from my library site as pdfs. When the Internet offered more content directly I added some bookmarking application to my approach to save the links to websites I wanted to remember.

The big idea I gleaned from reading Ahren’s (2017) book (see previous post) was that it is important to record notes in my own words as I read. Too often, I highlight while I read and then lost the context that is important in capturing big ideas. Any writing task required that I recapture the ideas by starting from the original source before integrating ideas in what was to become the final product. What Ahrens recommends might be described as starting a writing process earlier in the transition from primary sources to the final product. He described first generating fleeting or literature notes while reading and then permanent notes once the reading of a source was completed. As I rethink my “note-taking” over the years, I have decided I typically failed to make the transition from literature notes to permanent notes. Worse yet, too often my reading of a source only resulted in highlighting of the ideas that were not my own.

What Ahrens describes as a permanent note is clearly a form of writing. The idea is to create a personal summary or interpretation of a key idea that can stand alone and store such summaries in a certain way. What I mean by stand alone is that the permanent notes are not necessarily intended to end up becoming part of a final product that one already has in mind. The concept of smart notes (the title of his book) was that the ideas would be formulated and captured immediately and stored in such a way that they could be easily found and then organized with other such ideas to more efficiently create final products. I would describe this as moving part of the writing process earlier in the reading to written product workflow.

Knowledge transforming and knowledge telling

Ahrens argues that creating permanent notes as you encounter ideas you think are interesting is more than a precursor to writing. He suggests that this notion of generating a written note that reflects personal understanding and relating this note to other notes is a way to facilitate the learning process. You end up with both external and internal storage. I would suggest that cognitive psychologists call this form of writing a generative process. The permanent note versus the “literature” note reminds me of the distinction some scholars studying writing make between knowledge telling and knowledge transforming. The distinction may be relevant to what makes a good smart note. Knowledge telling is the output of part of what was the input. Your write a close approximation to what was heard or read. Highlighting would be a crude form of knowledge telling. Knowledge transforming involves interpretation on the part of the content producer. I liked to explain the difference to educators by asking them to reflect on student answers to essay questions they have asked. Some students write everything they remember about a topic whether or not it specifically answers the question. It is like they want to argue that the answer must be in there somewhere. Knowledge transforming starts with what the question asks and crafts a response that shapes what the respondent knows to address the challenge posed by the question. Knowledge transforming is a far better indication of understanding.

Luhman’s Zettelkasten

Ahren’s book and ideas are not his original creation, but based on the method of Niklas Luhman referred to as the Zettelkasten. I see various references to Luhman’s ideas lately and predict this will become “a thing” in education. As I understand the translation, a Zettelkasten is a box in which notes are stored and organized. Lehman called this a slip box. It is the form these notes take and how they are related to other notes in the box that is the key to what is described as a more productive workflow. I have included a video of Lehman working in his office using his slip box and a reference to a source describing the Zettelkasten for Beginners at the end of this post.

Where is this all going?

If you read my original post, you can anticipate that I will originally explain efforts to translate this method and the physical slip box into a workflow and applications that run on a computer. I will identify some of the tools/services I have used and some I have recently discovered that are suggested as ways to implement the Smart Note and Zettelkasten approach to writing and learning.

Sources

Ahrens, S. (2017). _How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking–for Students, Academics and Nonfiction Book Writers.

Niklas Luhman and the Zettelkasten – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRSCKSPMuDc&t=2246s

Zettelkasten for beginners – https://norberthires.blog/zettelkasten-method/

Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming – Bereiter.C. & Scardaamalia, M. (1987). Two models of composing processes (pp. 1-30). In C. Bereiter & M. Scardamalia (Eds) The psychology of written Composition. Erbalaum.

Explaining the counterintuitive

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

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.

Here are several links related to this video.

Learn more about the online service Insert Learning

Online lists of question stems – Question stems for critical thinking; Question stems organized according to the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy