Short and Long term memory and other links to design, learning and teaching.

I had looked at this website a few weeks ago when researching on Long and Short term memory (LTM and STM). The link directs to the actual section on LTM and STM (with some reference to their limitations). However on the navigation bar there are many other useful links to other issues related to instructional design,teaching and learning.

I have found that the topics on instructional design can be helpful in making me "think twice" about what it is that I am actually doing with technology in the classroom.

In addition, for general interest, some of the other learning theories are explored and ideas / links to activities are provided throughout the website.

La Gestalt Book

A link to an old but useful book that covers the basic Principles of La Gestalt theory.

Reflections on using a learning object in class

“Cognitive load theory is concerned with techniques for reducing working memory load in order to facilitate the changes in long term memory associated with schema acquisition”. (Howard, n.d.)

“Cognitive load theory has many implications in the design of learning materials which must, if they are to be effective, keep cognitive load of learners at a minimum during the learning process”. (Howard, n.d.)

As a Physics teacher I decided to apply one of the many learning tools found on web 2.0 into one of my lessons. The learning tool I chose was a Physics simulation provided by Colorado University. I would then reflect on the usefulness of this learning tool after my lesson and discuss the implications of this simulation regarding cognitive load theory.

This simulation helps students understand the concepts of Newton’s laws related to various objects sliding down a ramp. The simulation is interactive allowing students to change the angle of the ramp, the weight and coefficient of friction of the object, the opposing force to the movement of the object and they can also change the friction qualities of the ramp. The simulation provides real time force measurements and students can also observe what is happening to the work and energy of the object at the same time.

I also created an instruction guide to go with this simulation that gives students a step by step process to follow. Links to both the simulation and instruction guide are given at the bottom of this post which I have placed on Risal, the HKU repository.

Artino (2008) states that when “intrinsic cognitive load refers to the number of elements that must be processed simultaneously in working memory for schema construction”. He calls this “elementary interactivity” and goes onto say that “elementary interactivity is dependent on the complexity of the to-be-learned material and the learners’ experience. My class has students of varying capabilities and different experiences and the object of this exercise was to get all students engaged in their own learning from the word go. The simulation allows students to bring previous knowledge to the activity and apply this knowledge in a fun and interactive manner. It also allows them to test their knowledge if they were already familiar with the concepts under discussion. For students unfamiliar with the concepts it allows them to play and interact and become more comfortable with these ideas without having to perform calculation.

Sweller’s work on Extraneous cognitive load (Sweller, 1994 as cited in Artino, 2008) states that “Extraneous cognitive load which is also known as ineffective cognitive load- is the result of instructional techniques that require learners to engage in working memory activities that are not directly related to schema construction or automation”. I believe that this simulation requires too much extraneous cognitive load and that students spent most of their time wondering which buttons to press and where they could retrieve the relevant information so they could follow the task at hand. A good learning tool must be self explanatory to use or must have a simple tutorial in order to get the user engaged. This application had neither and this hindered the progress of most of my students especially those who were already unfamiliar with concept of Newton’s laws and coefficients of friction.

Artino (2008) states that “when intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load leave sufficient working memory resources, learners may invest extra effort in processes that are directly relevant to learning.” He calls this germane cognitive load, “effective cognitive load”. In my opinion I do not believe that this is an effective learning tool in understanding the concepts of Newton’s laws related to inclined planes. I do not feel that this simulation produces positive schema construction when used on its own. However if it were to be used as a tool to introduce the concept, learners could then further develop these ideas to bolster their understanding.

My scaffolding approach to this simulation was wrong and counterproductive. In my attempt to try and apply order to the simulation the creative and fun part of the simulation was lost. These simulations are useful as introductions to new ideas or as simulations to further enhance understanding at the end of a unit. I intend to use a simulation in my personal assessment at the end of unit 6024 and these are points that I must consider when using this type of learning tool.

Bibliography
Artino, A. J. (2008). Cognitve load theory and the role of the learner experience: An Abbreviated review for eductaional practitioners. AACE Journal , 425-439.
Howard, S. (n.d., n.d. n.d.). Cognitive load theory (J Sweller). Retrieved 10 11, 2010, from http://tip.psychology.org/sweller.html

Science Teachers Mind Map on Learning Theories

After reviewing a series of Learning Theories, we have "Completed" a Mind Map of them on Meindmeister which can be accessed from the link below.

http://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/61822538

The map -a glimpse of which can seen above but not posted as an image because of its extension- could continue to grow indefinitely with further ideas and comments.

Some of these ideas and comments are annotated below.

Using Web 2.0 Tools to Help Our Own Blog

Posted by Malcolm Drew

I threw together a summary of our learning theories posts in a prezi. Hopefully it embeds well. Enjoy! It was too time consuming of course, but does add a certain flare.

Posted by Malcolm Drew

With the wide array of learning theories in existence, it often seems there is something to suit any teacher’s pet learning style. However, rather than finding a philosophy to match personal learning ideals, I believe a teacher needs to start with an in-depth analysis of his desired learning outcomes. The analysis should then lead naturally into the selection of an appropriate learning style as a model for classroom activities.

I certainly agree with Gavin and Ingrid on their description of over-using the behaviourist theory in some cultures despite its unpopularity in others. It should neither be embraced as a predominant method of teaching nor ostracized for its lack of cognitive or constructivist principles. I’ll add a bit of my own views and experiences on behavioural theory, then continue into a brief discourse on constructivism (hard to avoid it in any learning theory discussion) and the use of analogy, followed by motivational theory, and connectivism theory.

Mathematics is a subject that has suffered from each of the extremes on behaiourism. For example, with learning multiplication tables there was a shift from extreme overuse of the behaviourist approach to its effectual abandonment in primary schools in my home country of Canada. Many teachers of middle and secondary schools could be heard in teacher staff rooms grumbling about students’ lack of mental multiplication skills as a result.

A more rounded approach is now used where students learn the 1 to 10 multiplication table through a behaviourist model, then learn higher multiplications through a more cognitive approach. For the higher multiplications, students are expected to understand the nature of the number operations (multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction) to use the 1 to 10 table to mentally work out the answer (13 x 9 = 10 x 9 + 3 x 9, for example). In a topic such as introductory algebra, a teacher would likely use a constructivist approach by handing out algebra tiles and allowing the students to learn basic skills through their knowledge of shape areas. The important aspect is that the learning theory is now chosen to match the desired learning outcomes in these cases.

In my own teaching, I try to be wary of using behaviourist strategies since I believe them to be the ‘easy’ way out for an educator since they can so readily give the illusion of learning. Despite the nice feeling of having the students give me back all the ‘right’ answers, I remind myself that such training leads to unstable knowledge. The students will lack a fundamental understanding to power them through stressful times in their future.

Constructivism has also become an ‘easy’ choice for educators with its wide acceptance. For a subject such as science, it has the added benefit of fitting with an accepted scientific view of how humans view reality called model-dependent realism: “(model-dependent realism) is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world.”(Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010). Learners would then modify and/or affirm their model(s) based on new experiences that either agree or disagree with their expectations.

Personally, I’ve found that many educators rely on analogies in constructivist activities when trying to combine present concept learning with a student’s pre-existing knowledge. Analogies are a double-edged sword, however, and must be used with great care since all analogies eventually break down. For example, a student who is taught to see the universe’s expansion in terms of an everyday explosion may understand that celestial objects are forever moving apart, but may also have difficulty conceptualizing curved space-time.

The trouble of analogies even happens in understanding educational theories themselves, such as the often-disputed Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Many arguments are based on the analogy of the mind conceptualized as distinct compartments instead of on the developmental theory itself. Gardner’s theory, whether an officially valid theory or not, is valuable for classroom teachers in diversifying and differentiating their practices.

Motivational Theory suggests that students need personalized reasons to open themselves to learning. A person can easily make the argument that it is human nature to want to learn, for natural selection reasons at the very least. However, motivational theory claims that even though people naturally want to learn they still need to believe that school-learning is personally valuable. I imagine that few experienced educators would disagree. In his book, “The Motivation Breakthrough: 6 secrets to Turning on the Tuned Out Child,” Richard Lavoie outlines 8 primary motivators, given that basic human needs are met in the classroom. They are: Gregariousness, Autonomy, Status, Inquisitiveness, Aggression, Power, Recognition, and Affiliation. The majority of students, he claims, can be motivated through at least one of these areas, once identified. Motivational theory is invaluable to educators, whether using Lavoie’s specific notions or another theorist’s ideas, in encouraging students to confront new experiences and develop their learning. In working to motivate the students, educators may also realize why (or why not) their teaching is truly valuable to each student.

Connectivism, dubbed a theory for the digital age (Starkey, 2010), has been developed in response to perceived changes in the nature of knowledge itself in the current world of technology. Whereas constructivism focuses on an individual learner constructing her own meaning, connectivism focuses on a learner building links between specialized sets of information; properties in one set of information link to (and thus become) properties of another set of information. The act of forming the connections, and using them in different contexts, is said to build additional knowledge and understanding as well.

One notable difference with connectivism is with how subject content may be made accessible to the students. Traditionally, a teacher would transform subject content into teachable bits for student digestion, in order for the student to find his own meaning. In connectivism, it would be equally valid to select resources and teaching methods that enabled students to find their own connections, without repackaging the content in any way for students to more easily understand. This would completely remove the teacher from the role of a transmitter of information.

The differences seem subtle at best between this new theory of connectivism for the digital age, however most new theories are mainly combinations of different existing theories. It’s the way that the ideas are integrated and placed into the modern day context and needs for learning that makes connectivism valuable. Personally, I’ve only learned of connectivism from working on this learning theory - mindmap exercise. I find it interesting, and look forward to learning more about it and how it may help focus my pedagogical ideas in my classes.

I love having this mind map of learning theories laid out. I’m sure we’d all benefit from gradually adding to it throughout the term for our own interest and to use on our individual assignments. It’d be wonderful to have countless technology uses linked to each of these learning theories to guide us in our teaching as well.

Hawking, S. W., & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Mystery of Being. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam. Print.

Lavoie, Richard D. (2007). The Motivation Breakthrough: 6 Secrets to Turning on the Tuned- out Child. New York: Touchstone. Print

Starkey, Louise (2010) 'Teachers' pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age', Teachers and Teaching, 16: 2, 233 — 244

Siemens, George (2010, June 1). Connectivist Learning Theory. Retrieved from: http://p2pfoundation.net/Connectivist_Learning_Theory_-_Siemens

Posted by: Christopher Fulton

This last task was by far the most interesting. First of all, the term “technology affordance” was a bit perplexing. This concept appears to have originated in 1979 (Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Perception) and means, very loosely, the usefulness with which we perceive an object. An examination of the concept is given further consideration by Hutchby (“Technologies, Texts and Affordances”, Sociology 2001 35: 441).

I was impressed with how different members of the group saw the collaborative mind mapping tool. Some members felt it wasn’t conducive to getting learners to discover more about learning theories as the technology got in the way of the learning. Others found the mind map to be a fine tool for note-taking and reflection. Might ones’ perception of the technology have any relationship to ones’ inclination towards a particular learning strategy?

First , I would add a few words on how I might use this tool. The mind map took a bit of getting used to. I think I would certainly introduce it with a demo or a video. Such a visual introduction might make it much more appealing to a large class. Again, is this in part because of my preference for one learning style? Or, could I be hardwired to learn primarily from visual stimuli?

I would also provide my learners with a clearly defined task. A task might focus on searching and listing links for each theory using 5 different sources, i.e. Google, Wikipedia, books, peer-refereed journals, and media sources. The mind map could be used for a variety of purposes: one group member suggested that we find and document criticisms of each theory. In any case, a couple of us thought the mind map would provide a very collaborative tool that could be used for a range of learners, although any activity conducted with this tool would require additional support, whether such support came from a video a teacher.

Did the mind map technology play a role in developing my understanding of learning theories? I do believe it provided an excellent platform that allowed me to take notes, research, document and share ideas. In my research I thought up several ideas on how I could use this tool in teaching, shared my notes with others, and even read about what my peers have expressed on this topic. I did not only focus on texts, but my research took me to audio sources. Indeed, one of the most thoughtful discussions on learning styles I heard last week on BBC4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rm072). I would highly recommend it. For those who are pressed for time, I have transcribed a few key passages.
Extract from “Inside the Brain of a Five-Year-Old”
“Learning styles... Well this is the idea that some children are visual learners, other children are kinesthetic learners, so that they learn best through manipulating things, and I'm some children are auditory learners, so they best they learn best through language-based instruction Whereas in fact all of those systems in the brain will be active all the time.
Well because the brain is a multiple interacting system you can ever isolate one component. That's the kind of neuro-myth. We can say that a neuro process goes on in the back of the brain. It doesn't mean that those are the only systems that are active when you're looking. This is because then you need to interpret what you're looking at or listening to, so other systems will be in play.

Then there's the scientific question, is it a preference something dictated by of the brain.”
What has not been shown by many studies, is that there is any educational advantage to having your learning advantage learning preference identified. There are various reasons why not. The brain is very interconnected. The second thing is that if you're are better at processing in one modality that there might be something said for getting practice in the other modalities. And when something becomes something more difficult we remember it better.

In fact a psychological study showed that some learners had done better in the learning style that they had not been identified as possessing. And yet it's very very popular.
There's so much in the popular media that teachers, like anybody else, are caught up in the media.”

What I found so fascinating was that this discussion on the radio ended with a conclusion that was very similar to a conclusion that my peers reached.

“When designing a teaching or learning activity it is also important to bear in mind that the teacher may play several parts (simultaneously or not): The teacher may be a facilitator, a leader, a role model or an active learner after all, in order to understand which activity best suits a group of students the teacher must learn something about them.” Hopwood & KopkeDonado

This activity has given me the chance to learn about my peers, and various views on learning theories. I also have a few hints about my professors’ research on related topics. I only hope they have somehow learnt a bit about me in the process.

Christopher
Shenzhen, 2010

Posted by: Gavin Hopwood & Ingrid Kopke Donado

Mindmeister on its own has proven to us to be an example of the differences in learning styles. For some of us, it has shown to be a simple tool to use, to others, it has been time-consuming and little advantage and great frustration.

In a similar way following one learning theory to design teaching activities may benefit one group of students but prove inadequate or even detrimental for others.

When designing a teaching or learning activity it is vital to clarify who the learner(s) is/are and what are the learning objectives. When this is taken into account, a single learning theory may not prove enough and elements of different theories may have to be placed together to design a more productive learning experience. The learning objectives must match with the strategies used, and in turn this strategies must be flexible enough to fit the learning objectives.

When designing a teaching or learning activity it is also important to bear in mind that the teacher may play several parts (simultaneously or not): The teacher may be a facilitator, a leader, a role model or an active learner after all, in order to understand which activity best suits a group of students the teacher must learn something about them.

Matthews (2000) has critically indicated that “Constructivism has become education’s version of the Grand Unified Theory”. This analogy may be interpreted as a criticism to a model which attempts to root all methods of learning through a single approach. Whilst the prospect of a Grand Unified Theory of Education appears luring, the reality is that it has its pros and cons.

The Constructivist approach aims at a teaching and learning strategy in which the teacher acts as a facilitator to enable the learner to explore and reflect upon meaningful learning experiences. This approach promotes metacognitive learning in which the learner fine tunes mental models to accommodate new incidents that result in improved cognitive skills. By relying on open ended questions and extensive peer interaction (Funderstanding, 2010), the learner is bound to become more open minded, develop critical thinking abilities and become a better social learner. In this sense, Constructivism supports the Vygotskian perspective of the learner as a social being whose interactions with the culture play an important role in the learning process. Nonetheless, the Constructivist approach does not fully deflect Piaget’s theory of individual cognition, as it too heavily relies on the experiences of the individual learner as the gears for the modeling and improvement of functional mental maps.

The Constructivist model may appear as the optimal approach when not placed in a particular context. In reality there are numerous factors that influence the applicability of the model: the society, culture, religious background, nature of the curriculum, parent and student expectations and resources amongst others.

“Constructivism calls for the elimination of grades and standardized testing” (Funderstanding, 2010) but in most global educational contexts, grades are the final outcome which permeate the access to further education. Hong Kong is a classical example of this situation. Likewise, certain curricular components (eg. religious education) mandated by a higher educational authority cannot be tackled through a constructivist approach without the possibility of upsetting students (or parents) from different cultural backgrounds. For the better articulation of a Constructivist model of learning, the curriculum would have to be modified on an individual learner basis, which is unrealistic and time consuming.

This may be the reason why many teachers adopt a Cognitive approach into their teaching and learning practices. The most commonly seen educational model involves the scaffolding around content based learning for the development of a set of skills. Deubel (2003) outlines this scaffolding from a Vygostian definition of a “zone of proximal development [where there is] a gradual removal of a tutor’s support for the individual to become an independent problem solver as the individual appropriates knowledge and brings it under his/her own conscious control”. Although this model falls into the fallacy of assuming knowledge is “out there” waiting to be acquired, it is understandable that the prescription of the content of the curriculum forces time-constrained teachers into adopting this model. In many instances, student, teacher and parental expectations rely heavily on standardized external models that are heavily content based. In addition, although the Cognitive model should allow for the development of knowledge recall as well as intellectual skills (Lane, 2010), some teachers are biased towards the knowledge (content) learning and do not aim at developing other intellectual skills. “Traditional schooling tends to favour abstract perceiving and reflective processing. Other kinds of learning aren’t rewarded and reflected in curriculum, instruction and assessment as much.” (Funderstanding, 2010). Although Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Model has been criticized for deriving “more strongly from his own intuitions and reasoning than from a comprehensive and full grounding in empirical research” (Smith, 2002, 2008), its adoption can be understood from a perspective which attempts to reduce knowledge recall and highlight other learning skills and styles. Gardner’s ideas appear to have a valid application when the development of adequate ICT components is evaluated: The use of ICT in education allows for a range of these intelligences to be developed and promoted, although not necessarily in the isolated manner that Gardner proposes.

The Behaviorist model for learning which is often seen in contrast to the Constructivist model (Funderstanding, 2010) would seem to be the least popular approach in modern educational settings. This, considering the seeming popularity of the former. However, some of the Formal Hong Kong Public Education System, appears to rely almost entirely on the method of knowledge regurgitation. Although the Behaviorist model has widespread criticisms (Chomsky ) it is obvious that it is still implemented in many instances to accommodate the cultural needs of a society largely driven by the need to “score” and “rank”. While the expectations of students and parents remain linked to a position within a class or the number of “As” achieved, the method of instruction of the teacher is forced to remain linked to the passive transmission of content based knowledge. In these settings, it is predictable that the teacher would attempt a different motivational approach than that which leads the student into scoring well in an exam. A Motivational Learning approach which promotes different avenues to enhance learning and offer benefits to the learner, could support this kind of educational background to ensure that student and parents expectations are targeted and met.

Learning theories hardly contextualize the environment in which they are practically developed. It is clear that no single theory will work the same when socio-cultural aspects of the educational situation are explored. What works in one context may not work in another, and teachers must learn to be versatile –not to adhere to a single theory as if indoctrinated by it, but rather to have the ability to mold their advantages and deal with their disadvantages according to the settings in which they may be applied.

References
Deubel, P. (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,12(1), 63-90.

Funderstanding (Ideas for Improving Education) (2010). Funderstanding: Education and Training for Active Learners. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.funderstanding.com/content

Lane, C. (n.d.). Blooms Taxonomy. The Education Coalition. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.tecweb.org/eddevel/

Matthews, M.R. (2000), 'Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education'. In D.C. Phillips (ed.), National Society for the Study of Education, 99th Yearbook, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 161-192

Smith, Mark K. (2002, 2008) 'Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences', the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm. the encyclopedia of informal

Reflection on Examples of Technology in Activities (By Christopher Fulton)

While riding my bike home from work, in the shade of large trees which separate the park from the street, I was struck with the idea that the science activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation" draws heavily on ideas contained within René Descartes text, Meditations. One reading of the well-known passage found in Meditation I, "I think, therefore I am," takes sensory perception as a very certain starting point. It is sensory perception that, argues Descartes, allows sensing beings to come to know something fundamental, something fundamental about the world or a state of mind. Similarly, the activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation," begins with a visual example. It is from sensory perception of a simulation from which learners, arguably, come to learn and understand something about how the world works. By observing and seeing the simulator run, learners are able to develop a model of how the world works. In this case, the learners would develop a mental model of how things dry.Our quick look at the activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation," gave many of us the impression that the activity draws heavily on a cognitive theory of learning.As requested, I'll provide a few very brief comments on the strengths and weakness of the activity; comments which surely don't do much justice to the effort which went into creating the Flash-based object and activity. One strength of the technology employed in the activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation," is, in my eyes, is that it is a quick and possibly effective simulator. The simulator runs very quickly. A similar experiment would take quite a long time to do. This technology, the Flash-based simulator, also has the potential to involve and engage individual learners at individual machines.One critical weakness may be related to the learning outcomes. The learners are expected to learn about the relationship between area and drying rate. The simulator may not highlight the key concepts needed to solve the subsequent word problem. At first glance, it appears that the simulator only gives the drying rate in terms that are abstract. The speed or rate at which an area drive is not stated in meaningful turns in the simulator.One concern I have about the approach used in the example activity we looked at is, however efficient, it is somehow compartmentalizing knowledge by considering only evidence which is detached from real-world conditions. What strong reason do learners have to believe the model is valid? The simulation model is disconnected from the world and thus a gap between knowledge of the real world and the world of ideas is created. Put in other terms, knowledge of how to drive a car in a video game would not qualify one to drive a real car in the real world.