generative – Learning Aloud

Writing to Learn Research – Messy

Writing to learn is one of those topics that keeps drawing my attention. I have an interest in what can be done to encourage learning and approach this interest by focusing on external tasks that have the potential to manipulate the internal cognitive (thinking) behavior of learners. My background in taking this perspective is that of an educational psychologist with a cognitive perspective. I have a specific interest in areas such as study behavior trying to understand what an educator or instructional designer can do to promote experiences that will help learners be more successful. The challenge seems obvious – you cannot learn for someone else, but you may be able to create tasks that when added to exposure to sources of information encourage productive “processing” of those experiences. We can ask questions to encourage thinking. We can engage students in discussions that generate thinking through interaction. We can assign tasks that require the use of information. Writing would be an example of such an assigned task.

Writing to Learn

Writing to learn fits with this position of an external task that would seem to encourage certain internal behaviors. To be clear, external tasks cannot control internal behavior. Only the individual learner can control what they think about and how they think about something, but for learners willing to engage with an external activity that activity may change the likelihood productive mental behaviors are activated.

I found the summary of the cognitive benefits of writing to learn useful and consistent with many of my own way of thinking about other learning strategies – external tasks that encourage productive internal behaviors. Writing based on content to be learned requires that the writer generate a personalized concrete representation at the “point of utterance”. I like this expression. To me, it is a clever way of saying that when you stare at the screen or the empty sheet of paper and must fill the void you can no longer fool yourself – you either generate something or you don’t. You must use what you know and how you interpret the experiences that supposedly have changed what you know to produce an external representation.

To produce an external product, you must think about what you already know in a way that brings existing ideas into consciousness (working memory) by following the connections activated by the writing task and newly acquired information. This forces processing that may not have occurred without the external task. Connections between existing knowledge and new information are not necessarily made just because both exist in storage. Using knowledge to write or to perform other acts of application encourages making connections.

Such attempts at integration may or may not be successful. Having something external to consider offers the secondary benefit of forced metacognition. Does what I wrote really make sense? Do the ideas hang together or do I need to rethink what I have said? Does what I have proposed fit with the life experiences (episodic memory) I have had?

Writing ends up as a generative process that potentially creates understanding and feeds the product of this understanding back into storage.

Graham, Kiuhara & MacKay, M. (2020)

In carefully evaluating and combining the results of many studies of writing to learn, these researchers intended not only to determine if the impact of writing to learn had the intended general benefit but to use the variability of writing tasks and outcomes from studies to deepen our understanding of how writing to learn encouraged learning. Surely, some activities would be more beneficial than others because of the skills and existing knowledge of learners or the specifics of the assigned writing tasks. So, the meta-analysis is asking if there is a general effect (Is writing to learn effective), and secondarily are there significant moderator variables that may help potential practitioners decide when, with whom, and how to structure writing to learn activities?

The Graham and colleagues’ research focused only on K12 learners. Potential moderator variables included grade level, content area (science, social studies, mathematics), type of writing task (argumentation, informational writing, narrative), and some others. I have a specific interest in argumentation () which is relevant here as a variable differentiating the studies because it requires a deeper level of analysis than say a more basic summary of what has been learned.

Overall, the meta-analysis demonstrated a general benefit for writing to learn (Effect size = .30). This level of impact is considered on the low end of a moderate effect. Graham and colleagues point out that the various individual studies included in the study generated great variability. A number of the studies demonstrated negative outcomes meaning in those studies the control condition performed better than the group spending time on writing to learn. The authors propose that this variability is informative as it cannot be assumed that any approach with this label will be productive. The variability also suggests that the moderator variables may reveal important insights.

Unfortunately, the moderator variables did not achieve the level of impact necessary to argue for useful insights as to how writing to learn works or who is most likely to be a priority group for this type of activity. Grade level was not significant. The topic area was not significant. The type of writing task was not significant.

Part of the challenge here is having enough studies focused on a given approach with enough consistency of outcomes to allow statistical certainty in arguing for a clear conclusion. Studies that involved taking a position and supporting that position (e.g., argumentation) produced a much larger effect size, but the statistical method of meta-analysis did not reach the level at which a certain outcome could be claimed.

One interesting observation from the study caught my attention. While writing to learn is used more frequently in social studies classrooms, the number of research studies associated with each content areas was the smallest for social studies. Think about this. Why? I wonder if the preoccupation of researchers and funding organizations with STEM is responsible.

More research is needed. I know practitioners and the general public get tired of being told this, but what else can you recommend when confronted with the messiness of much educational research? When you take ideas out of carefully controlled laboratories and try to test them in applied settings the results here are fairly typical. Humans left to their own devices as implementers of procedures and reactors to interventions are all over the place. Certainly, the basic carefully controlled research and the general outcome of meta-analysis focused on writing to learn implementation are encouraging, but as the authors suggest the variability in effectiveness means something, and further exploration is warranted.

Reference

Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179-226.

Design learning experiences using generative activities – Layering

I have written multiple posts explaining generative activities and how such external activities encourage productive cognitive behaviors. Some of these posts describe specific classroom applications of individual generative tasks. In this post, I intend to describe how educators can apply some of these generative activities when they assign web content (pages or videos).

In many cases, online content assigned in K12 classrooms was not prepared as instructional content. For example, an article from Scientific American might offer information relevant to a specific standard addressed in sophomore biology. What activities might an instructor add to help learners understand, remember, and possibly apply concepts within this article. For example, a textbook would likely have activities inserted at the end of a chapter, added as boxes within content, or recommended in a teacher’s manual. Instructors often make additions as class assignments. What I am supporting here is similar to what educational researchers have described as adjunct questions. These were originally questions added within instructional texts or attached at the end of such texts. Embedded activities play different roles than even the same activities might play when delayed and isolated from the informative content. At the time of initial exposure, my argument is that there is a difference between information and instructional content and the connection of generative learning activities is a way to make this transition.

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. Layering seemed a reasonable description because these services could not actually modify the content originally shared by content creators for ethical and legal reasons. What a layering service could do was take the feed from the creator’s service and add elements on top of that content. Elements were additions that could encourage important cognitive behaviors in a learner.

With a layering service, the content a learner encounters is a combination of the content from the content creator and additions layered on this content. Two sources and servers are involved. From the perspective of a designer, a layering service works by accepting the URL for a web page or video from the designer and then allows the designer to add elements that appear within or on top of the content from the designated source. The layering service sends this combination to the learner and this does not change the original document and still downloads the original from the server each time the combination of original and layered content is requested by a user. Ads still appear and the content server still records the download to give the creator credit. The layering service generates a link provided to learners and recreates the composite of content and designer additions each time a learner uses that link.

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. I offer an extended description of generative activity in a previous post.

Depending on the specific service, the elements that layering services I am aware of include 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.

My personal interest in promoting layering services is intended to encourage the use of services that allow educators, educational content designers, and learners to work with this content to provide more effective learning resources and more generative learning experiences. In addition, content creators have a right to assume the server used by the content creator will be contacted each time content is requested and inclusions such as ads are included. The expectations of the content creator are not ignored when using a layering service.

I have identified several services that meet my definition of a layering service. Here, I will describe one service focused on web pages and one that focused on video. Other examples can be explored from the page linked above and I assume others exist that I have not identified. Services are constantly being updated, but I have just worked with the two examples I describe here and this information should be current as of the uploading of this post.

Insert Learning

Insert Learning is my best example of the services promoted here. I say this because it offers the most generative options and the generative options are part of an environment allowing an educator to both create multiple lessons, assign these lessons to members of multiple classes, and record data on student completion of some of the types of activity involved in individual lessons.

The following image should give you some idea how this works. Down the left border of the image, you see a menu of icons allowing the designer to select highlight, note, question, and discussion. Highlight and note work as one probably expects. When the icon is selected text can be highlighted by the designer or learner. The note icon adds what appear as Postit notes allowing the inclusion of text, links, images, video, and whatever else works as an embed. The question icon adds questions either multiple choice as appears in the image or open-ended. The discussion icon appears very much like an open-ended question but accumulates and displays responses from multiple learners to a prompt.

As I said, Insert Learning differentiates itself from many of the other services because the layering component is part of a system that allows the assignment of lessons to individual students organized as classes and also collects responses to questions by lesson and student. The following image shows a couple of responses to an open-ended question. I used Insert Learning in a graduate course I taught in Instructional Design. I made use of several of the tools I presented to students even when the most common use would be in K-12. This image shows how responses to questions would appear in the Grade Book. I could assign a score to a response and this score would then be visible to the student submitting a given response.

It has been a few years since I used Insert Learning. When I did, I paid $8 a month. I see the price has now increased to $20 a month or $100 for the year.

EdPuzzle

EdPuzzle is a service for adding questions and notes to videos. It includes a system for adding these elements, assigning these videos to students, and saving student responses to questions. The following images are small to allow them to be inserted in this post. In the following image, the red box on the right allows the selection of the element to be added – MC question, open-ended question, and note. The timeline underneath the video (middle) is also enclosed in a red box. As the designer watches the video, clicking one of these buttons stops the video and allows the selected addition to be included. A dot appears below the timeline to indicate where an element has been added. A learner can either play the video which will stop for a response when one of these inclusions is reached or select one of the dots to respond. The second image shows the dialog box used to add an open-ended question.

In the video I used in this example, I created a demonstration using Python to run LOGO commands and saved the video to YouTube. Again, this was a demonstration used in a graduate edtech course. Early in the video, I showed and explained the LOGO code. The video then showed the result of running this program.

When using EdPuzzle with this video, I inserted a note asking students to take a pencil and sheet of paper to draw what the LOGO program would create. Near the end of the video, I inserted an open-ended question asking that students explain how Papert’s notion of computational understanding would provide a different way of thinking about the traditional definition of circle (i.e., a plane closed figure with points equidistant from a point).

I used the free version of EdPuzzle because I only assigned students to a few examples to experience what the service provided. You can do a lot with this service at no cost. The pro-level price is $13.50 per month. EdPuzzle Pricing

Summary – these two examples demonstrate the use of layering services to add generative activities to a web page and a web video. There are similar services available from other companies that generate similar student experiences. The value in such services is the opportunity to design learning experiences containing activities likely to improve understanding and retention.

The Power of Collaboration: Enhancing Your Note-Taking Experience

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.

Note-taking as a generative activity

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.

What is generative learning?

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.

Wittrock, M.C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376.

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.

Stories are the weak form

I will warn you up front that you may interpret this post as an attack on digital story telling and those who have popularized this concept and related classroom activities. If you come to this conclusion – 1) my communication skills need to be improved, 2) you need to carefully reread this post. My concern is more accurately captured in my version of the expression – “if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything else begins to look like a nail”. My concern is that many important educational purposes for student generated multimedia may not be apparent when teachers interpret the phrase “digital storytelling”.

I am assuming that digital storytelling is proposed as a generative activity. By this I mean an external task (writing the story, creating the video) that encourages understanding and retention of some topic. If you assume storytelling is a unique form of communication and the primary function of such activities is to develop communication skills, your perspective is perfectly acceptable. However, I am thinking others see a broader potential in such activities.

I think my concern is that we confuse “description” with “explanation” (and if you are the individual doing the explaining – personal understanding). I happen to think of this perspective today while presenting to my undergrad class. The topic happened to be the different goals of science and perhaps the confusion of consumers as to what each role has accomplished. So, one role might be description. Those in the field of developmental psychology might collect data in order to inform parents of developmental milestones just because parents might be curious as to when they might expect their child to do this or that. The issue was really whether the data the researcher had collected really allowed for more and whether as consumers we would notice should other claims be made.

It occurred to me that those interested in generative processes have a history of noting a similar distinction in student tasks. The distinction between “knowledge telling” and “knowledge transforming” comes to mind. I understand that story telling can be quite transformational. For example, the documentary filmmaker sometimes generates a product to make a point. This is different from a documentary that chronicles an event and assumes that the viewer will bring meaning to the description.

What is it the teacher assumes when setting out to engage his/her students in generating a story? Here is what happened when we visited the zoo could be a description of events or it could be reflection on the nutritional needs of various animals and what we might want to consider in regard to our own nutritional needs. Nothing wrong with either “story”, but I would suggest the two stories accomplish very different things.

Are there better ways to explain the generative potential of student productions? I don’t know. How about “Teach what you know” or “Teach what you have learned”? I suppose any tactic could lapse into description, but we need at least some activities that are likely to encourage reflection and the construction of a personal understanding.