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.

I haven’t written in a while and so I feel the need to write something. I’ve spent a fair amount of time over the course of the past couple of weeks working on family items. I’ve migrated from using LightRoom to Aperture now that I have a new computer that is able to provide the processing power that Aperture requires. Classes start again rather soon, in a week or two.

I’m a little unsettled now as to what direction I’ll head in terms of my dissertation. Some other students, Dr. Ingram, and myself had a real nice and interesting conversation related to the potential use of a “studio model” in an online classroom setting. I dedicated a significant amount of time prior to that meeting looking at how researchers go about organizing their data, and subsequently sifting through that information as they progress through their own idiosyncratic writing process. And long ago (it seems) I began by focusing on cognitive load, motivation, and ways of manufacturing time for teachers and students to meet one-on-one for brief periods of time.

Read more

I just finished reading a wonderful article¹ on expertise. Ericsson et. al present a convincing case as to why “deliberate practice” is the primary indicator of whether or not an individual achieves a high level of expertise. They note two exceptions, height and body mass, which they relate to athletics (one assumes basketball and football). There rationale, considering the research they use to support their argument is persuasive, and in a fate versus free will type of way, uplifting.

After reading the words “deliberate practice” several times, I was struck by the similarity between the descriptions of these actions, and Sweller et. al² discussion of germane cognitive load. There is, I think, a connection here, in that in both cases the learner is committed and pushed. That is to say that they’re applying themselves fully, and that the task at hand is challenging.

1. Ericsson, K. Anders, and Roring, Roy W., and Nandagopal, Kiruthiga. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: an account based on the expert performance framework. High Ability Studies 18(1), 3—56.

2. Sweller, John, and van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G., and Paas, Fred G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3), 251—296.

I downloaded the audiobook of Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell from iTunes last night. I’ve listened to about a third of it today, and it’s wonderful. One of the byproducts of the information contained within is a softening in my position on behaviorism. Some of the illustrations that the author uses to explain unconscious thought scream classical conditioning. Or at least some form of conditioning. For anyone interested, the IAT (Implicit Association Test) is a good example of how, unconsciously most people pair concepts that may be the converse of their chosen or stated beliefs. I was particularly upset to find out that my height is such a demonstrative indicator of upward mobility as it relates to managerial positions. That is to say that out of the millions of CEO’s in the country, less than 10 are 5’5” or shorter (I’m 5’6”, on a good day).

An example of the IAT can be found (taken) here.