Just back from EdMedia 2004, held in Lugano, Switzerland.
EdMedia 2004
Ideas are emerging from presentations I have given and attended, as well as discussions which emerged from those.
A colleague and co-presenter, Dr. Patricia McGee, wrote to me about a new definition of a learning object she’d heard there: “the smallest component within a course that directs a learning activity.” Back at the University of Texas, San Antonio, she then discussed this concept with her graduate students and they decided that this might mean any of these types: modeling, discussion, examples, questions, etc. Nothing to do with content, but focused on what activities the content generates. Because modeling and discussion do not occur in a vacuum. Some presentation of content began the string of activities or learning events.
Describing a presentation she saw at EdMedia Patricia quoted the presenter as identifying the top mistakes made in instructional design:
• Implementing old models
• Seeking to control the student
• Undue focus on content
This theoretical movement away from content and controlling student behavior piqued my interest. I replied with a brief discussion of self-efficacy in students. At some point a student becomes capable, effective and efficient at directing her own learning, having acquired a certain skill set, personalized, of course, that facilitates deep learning.
However, at what point a student is capable of this self-directed learning is difficult to determine. I referenced drivers ed where the instructor has an identical set of controls on his/her side of the vehicle. And not until a certain point, does he/she turn over control of the car to the student. Instruction in flying a plane involves the same setup. The instructor has full control of the plane until a certain point, when he/she turns control over to the novice pilot.
When is a student ready to solo in their directing of their own learning? I spent years as a superb regurgitator of the knowledge that was presented to me. And it was not until graduate school that I even began to experiment with accelerating my own learning by thinking metacognitively about how I learned.
Having nobly made my case of the need to guide students in the direction of self-directed learning, I then read an article in the NLII Focus Session packet, “Applying the Science of Learning to the University and Beyond: Teaching for Long-Term Retention and Transfer,” by Dianne F. Halpern and Milton D. Hakel.
NLII Summer Focus Session 2004
I am going to summarize their article, particularly their ten basic principles for deliberately teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Most of the following is composed of direct quotes from the authors of this excellent article.
Basic assumption: the first and only goal of a teacher is to teach for long-term retention and transfer. Given that conceptual framework, how can the principles/findings of cognitive science be applied to bring about more effective learning?
1. The single most important variable in promoting long-term retention and transfer is “practice at retrieval,” strengthening that memory trace. How? Practice retrieval. How? Use a rich LO repository!! Use
LON-CAPA.
2. Varying the conditions under which learning takes place makes learning harder for learners but results in better learning. This way key ideas have “multiple retrieval cues.” Use a rich LO repository!! Use LON-CAPA.
3. Learning is generally enhanced when learners are required to take information that is presented in one format and “re-present” it in an alternative format. This strategy activates the two distinct processing channels: visuospatial information and auditory-verbal information. Ex. Concept mapping
4. What and how much is learned in any situation depends heavily on prior knowledge and experience. So survey to discover this!
5. Learning is influenced by both our students’ and our own epistemologies. For example, when students complain, “I can’t do math,” what they are really operating from is an unquestioned belief that learning ought to be easy. When the learning doesn’t fit this model, they say they can’t do it. Give them strategies to think more effectively and efficiently about what is “hard” and what is “easy.” Computer games aren’t easy but a proficient gamer will spend hours learning the game and moving through the levels. So indeed what is “hard”?
6. Experience alone is a poor teacher. Most people are poor judges of how well they comprehend a complex topic.
7. Lectures work well for learning assessed with recognition tests, but work badly for understanding.
8. The act of remembering itself influences what learners will and will not remember in the future.
9. Less is more, especially when we think about long-term retention and transfer. Is extensive domain coverage the best way to approach a curriculum? If you want deep understanding of basic principles, then teaching and learning process needs to be structured accordingly
10. What learners DO determines what and how much is learned, how well it is remembered, and the conditions under which it will be recalled. What professors do in the classes matters far less than what they ask students to do.
Thought-provoking! Many thanks to the authors.
