Tag: Research

I admit that when I read contentions that tech use during reading or lecture reduces learning I get a bit defensive. I see advantages in using ebooks and having access to tech devices during class that these negative claims contradict.

I just encountered a study that makes such a negative claim and that I expect to make the online rounds encouraging those who ban computers from their classrooms. I will provide a summary of the research and researcher interpretation, but I encourage you to read the article yourself (see link above) should you doubt my take.

The study was conducted in actual classrooms using actual classroom performance data (unit exams and the final). The instructor banned computers in one section and allowed computers in the other. The instructor added one other interesting dependent measure. Some typical examination multiple-choice items were also given at the end of class. The researcher found no difference in performance on the items used in class, but significant differences in performance favoring the no computer group in the unit and final exams.

I accept the data as described. Students allowed to use computers performed at a lower level on the delayed tests. It is the explanation provided by the researcher I believe could be flawed.

The researcher proposes that the processing demands for immediate recall and long-term retention are different. Of course, we are more concerned about the long-term impact of instruction because this seems more what we engage in formal education experiences to produce. Hence, it appears access to computers during class reduces what students take from a course.

The flaw I see in how the researcher interprets the data is the assumption that the processing for long-term retention in college courses happens during class. While this may be the case for some students, most of us who taught such classes assumed that students would study after class and these additional cognitive experiences would play an important role in both understanding and retention. When I think about my own research on reading, I differentiated reading comprehension from the study of written content. I think this same distinction might also be applied to the classroom information acquisition experience. The time spent in class is the beginning of the learning process.

Consider that most of us understand this distinction intuitively and probably recognize that we do things during the lecture recognizing this distinction. Most of us take notes. We take notes because we understand we must do more than listen and understand the lecture. We need to put in more time to optimize understanding and retention.

Research on note-taking reveals some interesting insights. Taking notes represents a second task beyond the primary task of listening and comprehending. In fact, some students are better off just listening if the only thing that matters is what they know at the end of class. However, unless complete lecture notes are provided, students must try to take or borrow notes to study before exams. My point is that students typically experience dual demands – comprehending and note-taking. If you add email or some other tech-based activity, you are actually attempting to add a third task.

My “what if” alternate interpretation

What if the detrimental impact of doing unhelpful things on the computer during class was not just the reduced deep processing of what was presented, but an activity that reduced the quality of the notes taken. What if most students don’t actually process information deeply during class? This situation would produce the same detriments in long-term performance (study effectiveness would have been less successful because the record examined while studying would not contain necessary content) with potentially the same level of immediate understanding. In other words, students with access to a computer spent their free cognitive capacity playing online rather than taking notes and it was the poor quality of these notes that produced the results the research study described found.

Pragmatically, it may not matter. However, I think the difference matters. The notion that deep processing happens during presentation is flawed and sends a seriously problematic message to both instructor and learner.

I think what I propose could be evaluated in several ways. For example, the researcher might have differentiated question type used during the end of class sessions. Comprehension and application questions should interact with treatment if the author’s explanation is correct. This seems to be what the researcher is actually proposing – the difference exists at the end of class.

I have been interested in tech-supported note-taking systems that link personal notes to the audio stored from a lecture. These tools allow a practical way for learners to replay during a study session the original lecture content that is associated with any segment of notes. The user clicks within a section of notes and hears the audio starting just before the note was taken. The system is really designed for learners who cannot understand during the presentation (just enter a ? mark in your notes) or cannot understand the notes they have taken when studying. Click on the problem area to get help – a second chance to listen to that segment of the presentation. If you decide to check your email during class and recognize that you have failed to write down something that seemed important (note the data indicates you have similar comprehension), the app I have just described would allow you to compensate and would also be helpful for times you were fully engaged but struggling to understand.

I think that studying behavior in naturalistic settings is a necessary addition to lab studies. For multiple reasons, far too little of this type of work is done. The researchers conducting the study described here have made this commitment. However, studies in naturalistic settings are prone to the introduction of variables that are not considered. I think this study provides a starting point, but more work will be required to determine just what goes wrong when tech is available. An accurate understanding is necessary before we give up on what could be an opportunity. I would hate to see benefits such as the note-taking app I have described rejected because many students are distracted by other ways they could use their computer. Will this type of situation eventually be addressed by granting some students an accommodation to use technology in classes that normally deny these devices. I hope it does not come to this.

I have been concerned with an issue for some time and have been attempting to generate an analogy I might use to communicate this issue to educators. Here is a scenario I would like you to consider.

Assume you are a patient and you have wrist pain that you suspect is an indication of arthritis. You read an ad in Golf Digest for a copper bracelet ($29) that the providers claim offers relief from the pain of arthritis. Not knowing whether this claim is valid or not, you decide to call your physician for advice. You trust your physician who is about your age and you have noticed that he wears a bracelet that you think is probably copper. What would you expect the physician to use as the basis for his response to your inquiry? Would you expect him to be aware of the research literature on treatments for arthritis and arthritis pain? Would you assume that if he noted that he wore a bracelet that this was the case because the bracelet has scientifically proven value? How about a personal belief that “at least it can’t do any harm and I seem to feel better”?

As a retired educational psychologist and educational technologist, I spend considerable time writing to offer advice to practicing and future educators. I certainly write to influence their understanding of technology and instruction, but I attempt to make my ultimate goal the impact their practice has on their students. I would describe this as being an advocate for their students.

I spent most of the past 40 years engaged in a similar role both as a professor and as a researcher. I no longer consider myself a researcher, but the values that guided the initial commitment to research persist. I believe that understanding learning is best accomplished through the various methods of research. Certainly, practitioners and those who offer advice to practitioners do not have to be researchers, but they at least should rely on the best scientific thinking about practice.

I spend a great deal of time reading the popular books and online content intended to inform educator practice. I attend several conferences a year focused on the role of technology in supporting learning. I must say that I am discouraged by the disconnect between these two areas of my experience. I listen to the claims that it is time fo educational reform and new ways of doing things. I recognize that older folks are sometimes described as saying “new ideas will not work” and of being accused as rejecting change just because they are unwilling to change. I certainly do not want to be branded as being out of touch when I do not think I am – retired or not. Given my core philosophy that claims should be justified in scientific findings, I object to any research-based position I take being rejected out of hand because I argue new approaches lack demonstrated value. I would say this because I believe it to be true and I would invite any data-supported contradiction others can bring to my attention.

A couple of observations. Please do not reject without careful consideration unless you can verify that these observations are inaccurate.

1) Many concepts advanced as significant reforms and new ideas are historically not actually new. Many concepts such as student-centered learning, student choice, and projects experience are not new. Those of us who went through teacher training programs in the 1960s encountered these ideas.

Mayer has written about this issue and in frustration calls it the “three strike” problem. He asks how it is that new ideas that are actually old ideas keep resurfacing even though the ideas have been proven largely unsuccessful in a previous iteration.

It is almost as if the idea sounds good  and advocates forget or never knew the previous history of these practices.

2) I am willing to say that some practices that seem to be largely unsuccessful as commonly applied (problem-based learning, project-based learning) have been successful in some carefully researched cases. Hence, I can advocate for such practices and reference what I believe to be quality examples. At the same time, I can suggest by relying on research that the common implementations of these practices are less effective than what most of us would describe as traditional practices. It bothers me when advocates advocate without acknowledging what I would argue as the complexity of the practices they promote. I see few references to the general sub-par performance and no effort to contrast these many studies with successful examples. It is almost as if the approach seeks not to confuse practitioners with the facts. You cannot really simplify complexity if hidden in that complexity is the difference between success and failure.

If we truly care for the collective body of those we call students, what should we regard as the basis for practice? Being open minded is not a function of age, it is a willingness to consider both sides of an issue based on the best evidence available. Are you one of those interested in investing in a copper bracelet?

No one is reading you was the title of  a recent article describing scholarly publications. My brief summary would suggest the article claimed “most publications receive little attention even though some might offer useful information”.

The article reminds me of a story told by my wife’s sister who claims to have checked my dissertation out from the university library. At the time books had a little card in front that was marked with the “due date” and she said she was concerned there were no return dates on my masterpiece. I guess it makes a good story at family gatherings. I admit that I have never checked out a thesis or dissertation either. I did read many before students finished their work I thought that was enough.

A couple of quotes from the linked article will give you the flavor:

I find that future educators often glaze over when I mention research. When faced with this reaction, I often propose that researchers face a challenge many “experts” on educational topics are not required to address. Researchers must be very concrete when it comes to the topics they study. I did say concrete. The notion that academics are abstract is a representation and when true applies to explanations they offer but not the techniques they use. Unlike other experts who can offer generalizations, researchers must conduct experi ents. They are doer and not talkers. They have to define their interests in terms of specific situations and actions. I describe this as “operationalization” which may not be a familiar term. It pretty much means researchers are required to explain how an hypothesis is turned into an investigation. They cannot hide behind vague terms – motivation, engagement, creative, etc.

The skills of critical thinking and literacy make a good example. Both sound like areas in which we want to encourage achievement, but what are such skills when it comes to a specific setting? My own interest is in these skills as applied in online learning. Here is an example of a study developed by a researcher focused on these skills. I encourage educators to consider the “Methods” section.

The great thing about the specificity of research is that the methodology offers something concrete to discuss and debate.