why we learn

Benjamin S. Bloom has two works from which to draw when interpreting the results of a new study by Carnegie Mellon. The key finding, related to the efficiency of this design, is summarized in the following quotation.

By combining the open-learning software with two weekly 50-minute class sessions in an intro-level statistics course, they found that they could get students to learn the same amount of material in half the time.

Essentially, the inclusion of this intelligent tutoring system allows the professor to discuss more nuanced and/or complex aspects of the content, and do so in one less class period. Bloom might infer that the observed improvements were due to an increase in the amount of time spent analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating, i.e., at the higher levels of “his” taxonomy, while in class. Alternatively, he could point to his work on tutoring, and its corresponding “2 Sigma Problem”, which suggests that one can expect to observe a difference of +2 standard deviations when students work with a teacher in a one-to-one setting.

I’m inclined to agree with both of these hypothetical conclusions. I’m also reminded of Ewan McIntosh’s recent response to Will Richardson’s post commenting on an image of a lecture hall filled with (mostly Apple) computers. McIntosh’s critique, in he differentiates between curriculum and pedagogy, noting that teachers can control pedagogy but not curriculum, culminates with the following assertion.

The reason the picture presents a dubious message is that neither curriculum nor pedagogy have changed an iota in this learning space: it’s about the same layout – with as many apples on laps – as a Victorian classroom would have appeared.

I wonder how instructional design fits, as Carnegie Mellon’s design offloads the mundane, didactic portions of instruction to technological entities, thus freeing up space and time for the instructor/professor to do the sorts of things that are much harder for computers, even “intelligent” systems, to replicate. This is a good start, but can we go further?

The program’s efforts to maximize the contributions of technology are impressive. They’ve applied adaptive algorithms similar to those that are used in the GRE, which monitor and subsequently respond to students understanding. This is one of the first times this technology has been used outside of the assessment arena. (The article refers to its use as “novel”.) What needs to be considered, however, is a design that manufactures or generates time for face-to-face. That is to say that although the tutoring aspect of Bloom’s research is (partially) present in the form of the intelligent tutoring system, the potential of human tutoring is greater.

This is not the first time that I’ve considered using technology to offload the sort of lower level tasks of instruction. My presentation, entitled “A Shift in Focus: Designing for Face-to-Face” can be found here. Comments/critiques are welcome.

Photographers have a plethora of options when it comes to managing their digital assets. Off the top of my head I can name four rather conspicuous members of the group, Aperture, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, and Portfolio. Each of these, in their own way, allows the photographer to quickly add metadata, resulting in quicker and more focused queries after storage. There are an entire libraries of books instructing photographers on the nuanced manner in which they should store, back-up, and generally manage their RAW files.

Software programmers are required to manage vast quantities of cryptic text. Additionally, they most often work on projects in groups, sharing code and a common vision for the way in which code is used, reused, and the way in which annotations (comments) are added to the code to ensure readability and consistency. The number of programming environments is also large. Apple’s XCode and the Eclipse platform are two very powerful solutions that are also free.

Read more

If you’ve ever done any type of research, you are probably familiar with “keywords” or “subject terms” used by databases that index journal articles related to your field of interest. My understanding is that most journals allow authors to tag their articles with keywords of their own choosing. Let’s look at some examples from the submission guidelines for several of my favorite journals.

Educational Research

Articles should begin with a structured abstract and up to six keywords, and should not normally exceed 5,000 words.

Journal of Educational Psychology

All manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 180 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases. In fact, every journal listed on this page has the same requirements.

Educational Psychology Review

Directly below the abstract, provide 3–5 key words that express the manuscript’s precise content.

and, Teachers College Record does not reference, or I assume require, keywords.

I could go on and on. Zero specificity or guidance. Lists of suggested keywords are not mentioned. Now I know why I’ve so often seen the phrase “author supplied keywords”.

Read more

I’m not quite sure whether I should be enthusiastic or despondent as I write that a superb implementation of what I’ve envisioned in terms of a research tool already exists. Launched in January of this year, A.nnotate serves precisely the role that I hoped to create independently. I knew that the creation of this sort of interface would be difficult, if not impossible to do on my own. So, in that way I’m excited to know that any development work that might have served as an impediment is no longer a worry. The creators do a nice job explaining the premise behind the idea of their sight.

An Overview

I’ve just briefly looked over the interface, actually using an article as a test case. It’s brilliant. Basically, it allows a users to upload PDF files (Word files and HTML pages are also allowed), then read and annotate these uploaded documents using highlights and user created notes. Each annotation can be “tagged”. Annotations can then be,

• searched
• sorted, by date, subject, tag, or document
• and, shared.

This service works on a “credit system” under which the first 30 or so pages are free. Subscriptions range from $19.99 – $199.95 per month. A complete description of the fee structure can be viewed here:

Additionally, it is possible to run a dedicated server per organization or institution. Discounts for universities are available (server not required). If a group membership is purchased, than members of the group can all comment/highlight (annotate) the same papers. Individuals can only delete their own annotations, but the superuser (for lack of a better term) has the ability to delete any annotation that they wish.

Furthermore, the company, textensor has a second product called PublicationsList, an online bibliographic manager that possesses the ability to export citations in commonly used formats (including RIS and BibTex), as well as store the actual files. I emailed them to inquire about how tightly these two products are integrated. In their response they indicated that, as of right now, it is only possible to like via the notes within the A.nnotate interface. Their are investigating the possibility of integrating more tightly these two web apps next year.

This is powerful stuff.

Read more

I very much enjoyed reading Glaser and Strauss (1967). I found the text very liberating. It seems as the authors have turned the world on it’s head a bit, pushing back against the positivist sense of validity and the traditionally understood notion of systematic inquiry. The push against positivism was not as significant (for me) as the alternative form of systematic investigation provided. My history has been in the sciences, so I understand quite well the characteristics of the scientific method. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the application of the scientific method to the interactions of organisms as complex as human beings is practical. My sense is that there is a consensus that is starting to build, as more and more people are coalesce around this idea that researchers “use the method that fits”.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) go further. One of the best points the authors make is related to the phenomena of researchers coming upon data within the course of the study that the chose to ignore because it runs contrary to their predetermined experimental design, or provides insight, that while interesting, fall outside the bounds of the study’s charter. This is just silly, they say. And, I tend to agree. What is the benefit of sticking with a tree that is bearing no fruit? The way in which the authors describe inquiry is exciting, as if you are on a quest, all sorts of possibilities exist and all forms of data are available for consumption. I’ve compiled a list of quotations from the text, which is nice in that it allows me to quickly scan and/or search what I considered noteworthy as I read.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. AldineTransaction.