Category: Generative learning

Engagement with a task with the intent of improving understanding, retention, or application of the information to which that task is applied.

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.

Loading

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?

Loading

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:

  1. Make fleeting notes.
  2. Make literature notes.
  3. 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.

Loading

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. 

Loading

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.

Loading

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

Loading

Annotation and Layering

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Loading