Feedback
Providing Feedback in Computer Based Instruction - Mason & Bruning
Delayed feedback for low level learning - quick feedback for high level learning
In addition to determining students’ achievement levels, it is
important to tailor feedback to the nature of the learning task. If the goal
of instruction is teaching novel information or facilitate concept
acquisition, it probably is more beneficial to incorporate immediate
feedback, which will assist in correcting initial errors in understanding
and help prevent inaccurate information from being encoded. If the
instruction aims at developing higher order skills such as comprehension,
application, or abstract reasoning, however, delayed or end-of-session
feedback is likely to be most effective. (7)
Correct misconceptions - Help them understand what they are doing wrong
Roper theorized that the increased amount of feedback information provided
students with enhanced knowledge from which they could correct
misunderstandings. All of these studies provide evidence for increased
learning in response to CBI programs incorporating elaborated feedback.
The research by Whyte et al. (1995) also showed that the
greatest learning gains in response to CBI came with the highest (most
elaborate) levels of feedback. (4-5)
Expanding feedback model - Provide a lot of feedback and dynamically - based on performance - taylor the feedback provided
In contrast, since low ability learners tend to be less confident in their own
academic skills and less aware of their metacognitive processes, they
may be inclined to select feedback that provides them with the correct
answer as opposed to the type of feedback that promotes the greatest
learning. (6)
Certitude of correct response - High Low
Low certitude
Pashler, Cepeda, & Wixted: When Does Feedback Facilitate Learning of Words and Facts?
We may not always want to give them the right answer when they get it wrong
"a number of recent reviews have argued that while providing full feedback (i.e., knowledge of what the correct response would have been on the previous trial) tends to improve performance during training, it often does so at the expense of later retention (Bjork, 1994; Rosenbaum, Carlson & Gilmore, 2000; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992)." (4)
"This reflects the fact that subjects forgot more when they were given the correct answer as feedback than when given no feedback." (16)
The effect of feedback depends dramatically on whether a subject has mastered an item or not. If the subject responds correctly, whether or not feedback is provided scarcely matters. On the other hand, if the subject does not respond correctly to an item, both experiments disclose that learning appears to stall completely if the subject is provided with anything less than "complete" (Correct Answer) feedback. There is no sign in our data that omitting feedback confers any benefits either in the learning session or in a delayed test, questioning claims made in some of the reviews cited in the Introduction (18)
Limit feedback when the student knows the correct answer
Shute, Valerie (2008): Focus on Formative Feedback
Provide feedback on the learners progress toward their goal.
Motivation has been shown to be an important mediating factor in learners’ performance (Covington & Omelich, 1984), and feedback can be a powerful motivator when delivered in response to goal-driven efforts. Some researchers suggest that the learner’s goal orientation should be considered when designing instruction, particularly when feedback can encourage or discourage a learner’s effort (Dempsey et al. 1993). (11)
Memory
Miller (1956) The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information
Provide options for the learner to chunk information
Anderson & Schooler (1991). Reflections of the Environment in Memory
Incorporate the learning process into the learners living environment
Ebbinghaus (1885) Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology
More repetitions for initial learning taper repetitions for retention
Spacing Effect
Leitner System
It seems that this would be the most effective spacing principal that could be generalized across the board
Cepeda, Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis
One minute spacing between repetitions (5)
Long term retention will be better if the spacing is 1 day or longer (7)
Spacing can be determined by how long the information needs to be retained (17)
Align ISI with retention interval
Multimedia Effect - Time on task
Allow for learners to incorporate visual representations
Allow the information to be learned to overlay the visual representation so that the information and the visual representation are grouped together.
Showing posts with label Reading Reflection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading Reflection. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
0
Multimedia & Time On Task
I really enjoyed the Mayer article Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? I've embedded the PowerPoint that I created on this reading which highlights some of the things I felt were most important. My absolute favorite quote was from Kozma: "it is time to shift the focus of our research from media as conveyors of methods to media and methods as facilitators of knowledge construction and meaning-making on the part of learners." (8) I also agree feel that Mayer was spot on when stating: "it is not possible to determine whether media effects are attributable to differences between computer-based and bookbased delivery systems or to differences in the content and study conditions of the lessons." (7) This is great because it puts the focus back into the design and how we use multimedia as a tool rather than the tool itself.
I found the follow-up to Mayer's first study validating of their previous assumptions. I would like to read more about the dual-processing theory. I am interested to know if there have been any studies that address dual-processing between cognitive processes and motor skill processes.
Berliner (1990). What's All the Fuss About Instructional Time?
I found it useful the way that Berliner defined the different parts that make up instructional time. I would like to read more research on Perseverance and its effects on the educational process.
Berliner states, "Students can then be classified only as fast or slow – terms that describe an alterable variable, one that schools could accommodate to, if they wished. For a child and his or her parents, slowness can be overcome by perseverance, increased opportunities for learning, practice, and so forth. On the other hand, stupidness, dumbness, dullness, and the like appear to be forever!" (8). Is there research to back this up? This seems like it might be a little bit of an over generalization. Can anyone really learn anything if given enough time? If we were to have perfect physical bodies I think I would agree that anyone could learn anything but, considering our imperfections, this might be a little bit of a stretch.
I did like the author’s considerations of mastery learning. I wonder how effective learning would be in a school that did not have "grade levels" as we commonly think of them but instead had "mastery levels". If this were studied what we would find? How would an educational structure of this kind effect motivation?
Overall, in my mind, this article raised more questions than it answered them.
I found the follow-up to Mayer's first study validating of their previous assumptions. I would like to read more about the dual-processing theory. I am interested to know if there have been any studies that address dual-processing between cognitive processes and motor skill processes.
Berliner (1990). What's All the Fuss About Instructional Time?
I found it useful the way that Berliner defined the different parts that make up instructional time. I would like to read more research on Perseverance and its effects on the educational process.
Berliner states, "Students can then be classified only as fast or slow – terms that describe an alterable variable, one that schools could accommodate to, if they wished. For a child and his or her parents, slowness can be overcome by perseverance, increased opportunities for learning, practice, and so forth. On the other hand, stupidness, dumbness, dullness, and the like appear to be forever!" (8). Is there research to back this up? This seems like it might be a little bit of an over generalization. Can anyone really learn anything if given enough time? If we were to have perfect physical bodies I think I would agree that anyone could learn anything but, considering our imperfections, this might be a little bit of a stretch.
I did like the author’s considerations of mastery learning. I wonder how effective learning would be in a school that did not have "grade levels" as we commonly think of them but instead had "mastery levels". If this were studied what we would find? How would an educational structure of this kind effect motivation?
Overall, in my mind, this article raised more questions than it answered them.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
0
The Spacing Effect & Motivation
Cepeda, Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis
One of the major ideas that I took away from this reading was that the retention of information is better achieved when spacing strategies are implemented rather than mass presentations.
On page 5 it reads : "Spaced presentations led to markedly better final-test performance, compared with massed presentations. For retention intervals less than 1 min, spaced presentations improved final-test performance by 9%, compared with massed presentations (see Table 1). "
On page 12 it reads: "When participants learned individual items at two different points in time (spaced; lag of 1 s or more), equating total study time for each item, they recalled a greater percentage of items than when the same study time was nearly uninterrupted (massed; lag of less than 1 s)."
I find it quite amazing that final test performance can increase by almost 10% by simply spacing instruction in intervals less than 1 minute. According to this meta-analysis the overwhelming majority of studies agree that spacing improves long-term retention of material. There are, however, a few studies that showed spacing to have no effect or a negative effect.
"Only 12 of 271 comparisons of massed and spaced performance showed no effect or a negative effect from spacing, making the spacing effect quite robust. Most of these 12 comparisons used the same task type as studies that did show a spacing benefit—paired associate learning." (6)
At one point the author wrote about the different learning domains and the effects of spacing in those domains. It was clear that spacing can help in learning verbal information. However, it was not clear to me whether or not they found that spacing had a positive effect on motor skills and intellectual skills.
It seems that the jury is still out on expanded spacing. This type of spacing is formulated so that the intervals between study are just enough for you not to start forgetting. This spacing is contrasted to fixed spacing where the intervals between study are set to a constant interval. Many people believe that expanded spacing is effective but, according to this meta-analysis, the has not been enough research done to conclude that this is the case.
A little bit off topic, the author mentioned the "file drawer problem". This is problem that comes from not having research published. Because the research is not published it sits in a file drawer where the data gathered from their research is not accessible for others to reference. This got me thinking about possible solutions to this problem. I wonder if there is a database where these research projects could be submitted? Even cooler would be a database where the raw research data could be stored and accessed by anyone who was interested in that topic.
Dempster, The Spacing Effect
I really enjoyed reading this article. As far as findings supporting the spacing effect, I didn't notice anything that Cepeda did not cover. I did find Dempster's views on the application of the spacing effect to be very insightful. Dempster poses this question:
"Why is it that research findings that appear to have significant implications, such as the spacing effect, often are not utilized by teachers and curriculum makers? In general, the problem is that there is no well-developed implementation model, nor is there a standard methodology for analyzing the conditions that foster the transfer of knowledge from the laboratory to the classroom (see Hosford, 1984, for a discussion). "(1)
Finding ways to transfer laboratory findings to the classroom can be a difficult thing. For my undergraduate degree in secondary education I had to take courses that had to do with learning theory. I feel comfortable saying that the majority of the students in the class had a difficult time taking laboratory research findings and finding ways to apply them in the classroom. As far as secondary education is concerned, most teachers don't care much for the details of why specific learning strategies work. These teachers just want to know that it works and how they implement it.
Dempster states that "the relative lack of applied research in educational settings is, from an educational perspective, the most serious shortcoming of research on the spacing effect." (5) I feel that this statement could be generalized to many different educational practices. I do agree that research in the field of education is valuable. I do not agree that the research should be the end all. Rather, it should be a means to an end. Which end is the application of the findings to better the learning of individuals and therefore better society as a whole.
Dempster gives one reason why educators may chose not to implement the spacing effect in their instruction. He states:
"educators, who often give the impression of having a low regard for fact memorization,might feel that the spacing effect would interfere with the operation of "more laudable, higher mental processes," because it is exactly such memorization to which spacing applies most clearly." (5)
A claim to this effect from an educator would be faulty. If we really want our students to reach the "higher levels" of learning, wouldn't it make more sense to be more effective with the "lower level" learning such as memorization? I would argue that any "higher level" learning requires factual knowledge. Wouldn't obtaining factual knowledge that is available long-term for use in "higher level" learning situations help increase the effectiveness of those "higher level" learning activities.?
Leitner System
This was an interesting method for memorization. Is this a variation of expanding model of spacing. By moving the cards to the different bins you are in effect regulating the expansion of the spacing of your study. I'm not sure if this would be more effective or not. According to the research by Cepeda, at this point there is not a definitive determination whether an expanding model is more beneficial than a fixed model.
Keller, How to integrate learner motivation planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model approach
It should have been apparent from the title of the article that this reading was going to be focusing on a model approach to integrating motivation into instruction but I was secretly hoping that they would focus a little more on motivational theory.
The ARCS model for designing motivation into instruction is another model that is similar to many other design models. After reading about this model and the ADDIE model, I can see how they chould be a good springboard into the design process. However, I also see that one would limit themselves dramatically if they religiously followed the model. I appreciated Keller's recognition of this in the reading. Keller points out that this process is not a prescriptive design process and that not all steps need to be implemented in order to be effective.
The design process is centered on these main ideas.
Attention - Get students attention
Relevance - Motivation is lost if the content has no perceived value to the learner
Confidence - Clear goals and objectives - Proper success / failure attribution
Satisfaction - Emotional reward - recognition, privileges, opportunities ...
The ten steps in the ARCS model are as follows:Obtain course info
1. Obtain audience info
2. Analyze audience
3. Analyze existing materials
4. List objectives & assessments
5. List potential tactics - without regard to their presumed feasibility
6. Select and design
7. Integrate with instruction
8. Select & develop materials
9. Evaluate & revise
In the reading Keller writes about motivation following a curvilinear with performance.
"The second difficulty in identifying a motivational problem lies in the nature of motivation. Motivation follows a curvilinear relationship with performance (Figure 2). As motivation increases, performance increases, but only to an optimal point. Afterward, performance decreases as motivation increases to levels where excessive stress leads to performance decrements. There is always some level of tension, or stress, associated with motivation. On the rising side of the curve it is sometimes referred to as facilitative stress and on the downside as debilitating stress." (5)
I'm not so sure that I agree with this. It seems that Keller is implying that the more motivated you are the more stress you will feel. I wonder what kind of data there is to back up this claim. From my own personal experience it seems that the more motivated I am the less stress is present. However, I do agree with this statement by Keller:
"it would be possible to include a large number of motivational tactics to cover a broad range of motivational conditions, but this would most likely have a negative effect on motivation and performance. The reason is that when students are motivated to learn, they want to work on highly task-relevant activities. They do not want to be distracted with unnecessary motivational activities. For this reason, it would be nice to have computer or multi-media software that can sense a learner’s motivation level and respond adaptively."
In short, don’t try to fix something that's not broken. Simply focus on sustainability.
I appreciated that Keller touched on how the motivational component of instruction must be sustainable. To me this was Keller telling us that the motivation being addresses is not the same as simply getting people hyped up about something. Rather, it is something deeper than simply stirring up emotions.
It would be very interesting to study how motivation works with group dynamics. Is motivation contagious? If it is, it makes sense that Keller states that motivation that is sustainable is motivation that is not directed to solve a "global solution, such as a new set of curriculum materials or an entirely new approach to teaching" (5). If motivation is applied this broadly it will be short lived.
Mind map on motivation http://www.xmind.net/share/maplebones/motivation/
One of the major ideas that I took away from this reading was that the retention of information is better achieved when spacing strategies are implemented rather than mass presentations.
On page 5 it reads : "Spaced presentations led to markedly better final-test performance, compared with massed presentations. For retention intervals less than 1 min, spaced presentations improved final-test performance by 9%, compared with massed presentations (see Table 1). "
On page 12 it reads: "When participants learned individual items at two different points in time (spaced; lag of 1 s or more), equating total study time for each item, they recalled a greater percentage of items than when the same study time was nearly uninterrupted (massed; lag of less than 1 s)."
I find it quite amazing that final test performance can increase by almost 10% by simply spacing instruction in intervals less than 1 minute. According to this meta-analysis the overwhelming majority of studies agree that spacing improves long-term retention of material. There are, however, a few studies that showed spacing to have no effect or a negative effect.
"Only 12 of 271 comparisons of massed and spaced performance showed no effect or a negative effect from spacing, making the spacing effect quite robust. Most of these 12 comparisons used the same task type as studies that did show a spacing benefit—paired associate learning." (6)
At one point the author wrote about the different learning domains and the effects of spacing in those domains. It was clear that spacing can help in learning verbal information. However, it was not clear to me whether or not they found that spacing had a positive effect on motor skills and intellectual skills.
It seems that the jury is still out on expanded spacing. This type of spacing is formulated so that the intervals between study are just enough for you not to start forgetting. This spacing is contrasted to fixed spacing where the intervals between study are set to a constant interval. Many people believe that expanded spacing is effective but, according to this meta-analysis, the has not been enough research done to conclude that this is the case.
A little bit off topic, the author mentioned the "file drawer problem". This is problem that comes from not having research published. Because the research is not published it sits in a file drawer where the data gathered from their research is not accessible for others to reference. This got me thinking about possible solutions to this problem. I wonder if there is a database where these research projects could be submitted? Even cooler would be a database where the raw research data could be stored and accessed by anyone who was interested in that topic.
Dempster, The Spacing Effect
I really enjoyed reading this article. As far as findings supporting the spacing effect, I didn't notice anything that Cepeda did not cover. I did find Dempster's views on the application of the spacing effect to be very insightful. Dempster poses this question:
"Why is it that research findings that appear to have significant implications, such as the spacing effect, often are not utilized by teachers and curriculum makers? In general, the problem is that there is no well-developed implementation model, nor is there a standard methodology for analyzing the conditions that foster the transfer of knowledge from the laboratory to the classroom (see Hosford, 1984, for a discussion). "(1)
Finding ways to transfer laboratory findings to the classroom can be a difficult thing. For my undergraduate degree in secondary education I had to take courses that had to do with learning theory. I feel comfortable saying that the majority of the students in the class had a difficult time taking laboratory research findings and finding ways to apply them in the classroom. As far as secondary education is concerned, most teachers don't care much for the details of why specific learning strategies work. These teachers just want to know that it works and how they implement it.
Dempster states that "the relative lack of applied research in educational settings is, from an educational perspective, the most serious shortcoming of research on the spacing effect." (5) I feel that this statement could be generalized to many different educational practices. I do agree that research in the field of education is valuable. I do not agree that the research should be the end all. Rather, it should be a means to an end. Which end is the application of the findings to better the learning of individuals and therefore better society as a whole.
Dempster gives one reason why educators may chose not to implement the spacing effect in their instruction. He states:
"educators, who often give the impression of having a low regard for fact memorization,might feel that the spacing effect would interfere with the operation of "more laudable, higher mental processes," because it is exactly such memorization to which spacing applies most clearly." (5)
A claim to this effect from an educator would be faulty. If we really want our students to reach the "higher levels" of learning, wouldn't it make more sense to be more effective with the "lower level" learning such as memorization? I would argue that any "higher level" learning requires factual knowledge. Wouldn't obtaining factual knowledge that is available long-term for use in "higher level" learning situations help increase the effectiveness of those "higher level" learning activities.?
Leitner System
This was an interesting method for memorization. Is this a variation of expanding model of spacing. By moving the cards to the different bins you are in effect regulating the expansion of the spacing of your study. I'm not sure if this would be more effective or not. According to the research by Cepeda, at this point there is not a definitive determination whether an expanding model is more beneficial than a fixed model.
Keller, How to integrate learner motivation planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model approach
It should have been apparent from the title of the article that this reading was going to be focusing on a model approach to integrating motivation into instruction but I was secretly hoping that they would focus a little more on motivational theory.
The ARCS model for designing motivation into instruction is another model that is similar to many other design models. After reading about this model and the ADDIE model, I can see how they chould be a good springboard into the design process. However, I also see that one would limit themselves dramatically if they religiously followed the model. I appreciated Keller's recognition of this in the reading. Keller points out that this process is not a prescriptive design process and that not all steps need to be implemented in order to be effective.
The design process is centered on these main ideas.
Attention - Get students attention
Relevance - Motivation is lost if the content has no perceived value to the learner
Confidence - Clear goals and objectives - Proper success / failure attribution
Satisfaction - Emotional reward - recognition, privileges, opportunities ...
The ten steps in the ARCS model are as follows:Obtain course info
1. Obtain audience info
2. Analyze audience
3. Analyze existing materials
4. List objectives & assessments
5. List potential tactics - without regard to their presumed feasibility
6. Select and design
7. Integrate with instruction
8. Select & develop materials
9. Evaluate & revise
In the reading Keller writes about motivation following a curvilinear with performance.
"The second difficulty in identifying a motivational problem lies in the nature of motivation. Motivation follows a curvilinear relationship with performance (Figure 2). As motivation increases, performance increases, but only to an optimal point. Afterward, performance decreases as motivation increases to levels where excessive stress leads to performance decrements. There is always some level of tension, or stress, associated with motivation. On the rising side of the curve it is sometimes referred to as facilitative stress and on the downside as debilitating stress." (5)
I'm not so sure that I agree with this. It seems that Keller is implying that the more motivated you are the more stress you will feel. I wonder what kind of data there is to back up this claim. From my own personal experience it seems that the more motivated I am the less stress is present. However, I do agree with this statement by Keller:
"it would be possible to include a large number of motivational tactics to cover a broad range of motivational conditions, but this would most likely have a negative effect on motivation and performance. The reason is that when students are motivated to learn, they want to work on highly task-relevant activities. They do not want to be distracted with unnecessary motivational activities. For this reason, it would be nice to have computer or multi-media software that can sense a learner’s motivation level and respond adaptively."
In short, don’t try to fix something that's not broken. Simply focus on sustainability.
I appreciated that Keller touched on how the motivational component of instruction must be sustainable. To me this was Keller telling us that the motivation being addresses is not the same as simply getting people hyped up about something. Rather, it is something deeper than simply stirring up emotions.
It would be very interesting to study how motivation works with group dynamics. Is motivation contagious? If it is, it makes sense that Keller states that motivation that is sustainable is motivation that is not directed to solve a "global solution, such as a new set of curriculum materials or an entirely new approach to teaching" (5). If motivation is applied this broadly it will be short lived.
Mind map on motivation http://www.xmind.net/share/maplebones/motivation/
Thursday, July 1, 2010
0
Memory / Forgetting
Over the past year or so I've become very interested in how people learn. I am particularly interested in the development of instruction that helps students learn how to learn. My assumption is that students could increase their rate of learning if they were to receive explicit instruction on the learning processes and techniques. Whether or not this is true, I don't know. I look forward to finding out. It is in this light that I really have enjoyed the readings for this class, particularly this section on memory.
In the Ebbinghaus reading I found the retention findings to be insightful. When considering the total time that it took to learn information, there was an interesting correlation to the complexity of the information being learned and long-term retention. The "up front" time it took to learn less complex information was considerably shorter than the more complex information. However, it seemed to take a longer period of time relearning that information in order to obtain long-term retentions. On the other hand, the "up front" time it took to learn the more complex information was greater than the less complex information. However, it look less time relearning the more complex information in order to obtain long-term retentions. In essence, it seemed that the total amount of time it took for long-term retention was almost the same regardless of the complexity of the information. This makes me wonder if there is a "tipping point" for the total time spent learning information that, when reached, would commit the information to long-term memory. If this "tipping point" exist, would it be independent of the complexity of the information?
Miller's writings of the number 7 plus or minus 2 was also very interesting. I found his opening and closing statements on the magical number 7 to be somewhat amusing. These particular parts of the reading, for some reason, made me think of the number 7 in a religious context. I'm not much of a religious scholar but I do believe that within religion the number 7 has some significance… something to think about.
In his writing Miller argues that the number 7 is the optimum size of bits for optimal learning and retention. He says this about what happens when we start adding more bits then 7 to the equation: "The point seems to be that, as we add more variables to the display, we increase the total capacity, but we decrease the accuracy for any particular variable. In other words, we can make relatively crude judgments of several things simultaneously." He also gave a practical argument for why this might be true, based off of evolution. He said, "We might argue that in the course of evolution those organisms were most successful that were responsive to the widest range of stimulus energies in their environment. In order to survive in a constantly fluctuating world, it was better to have a little information about a lot of things than to have a lot of information about a small segment of the [p. 89] environment. If a compromise was necessary, the one we seem to have made is clearly the more adaptive." This caused me to think about the information age in which we live. Considering all the information that is now available to us as learners and the rate at which this information changes, is it better for us to be a jack of all trades and a master at none or to focus in on one thing?
Miller's discussion on "chunking" made me wonder about the development of "chunking" techniques to maximize learning. I'm sure there are some "chunking" techniques out there… I would be interested to know how effective they are.
In the Ebbinghaus reading I found the retention findings to be insightful. When considering the total time that it took to learn information, there was an interesting correlation to the complexity of the information being learned and long-term retention. The "up front" time it took to learn less complex information was considerably shorter than the more complex information. However, it seemed to take a longer period of time relearning that information in order to obtain long-term retentions. On the other hand, the "up front" time it took to learn the more complex information was greater than the less complex information. However, it look less time relearning the more complex information in order to obtain long-term retentions. In essence, it seemed that the total amount of time it took for long-term retention was almost the same regardless of the complexity of the information. This makes me wonder if there is a "tipping point" for the total time spent learning information that, when reached, would commit the information to long-term memory. If this "tipping point" exist, would it be independent of the complexity of the information?
Miller's writings of the number 7 plus or minus 2 was also very interesting. I found his opening and closing statements on the magical number 7 to be somewhat amusing. These particular parts of the reading, for some reason, made me think of the number 7 in a religious context. I'm not much of a religious scholar but I do believe that within religion the number 7 has some significance… something to think about.
In his writing Miller argues that the number 7 is the optimum size of bits for optimal learning and retention. He says this about what happens when we start adding more bits then 7 to the equation: "The point seems to be that, as we add more variables to the display, we increase the total capacity, but we decrease the accuracy for any particular variable. In other words, we can make relatively crude judgments of several things simultaneously." He also gave a practical argument for why this might be true, based off of evolution. He said, "We might argue that in the course of evolution those organisms were most successful that were responsive to the widest range of stimulus energies in their environment. In order to survive in a constantly fluctuating world, it was better to have a little information about a lot of things than to have a lot of information about a small segment of the [p. 89] environment. If a compromise was necessary, the one we seem to have made is clearly the more adaptive." This caused me to think about the information age in which we live. Considering all the information that is now available to us as learners and the rate at which this information changes, is it better for us to be a jack of all trades and a master at none or to focus in on one thing?
Miller's discussion on "chunking" made me wonder about the development of "chunking" techniques to maximize learning. I'm sure there are some "chunking" techniques out there… I would be interested to know how effective they are.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
0
Feedback - Highlights and Response to Readings
Providing Feedback in Computer Based Instruction - Mason & Bruning
Mason & Bruning hit the nail on the head in the opening paragraph of this reading. They state:
Among the most important outcomes of
feedback are helping learners identify errors and become aware of
misconceptions and to motivate further learning.
It wasn’t surprising to me that later on in the article they seemed to come to the conclusion that learning was effected positively when a combination of verification and elaboration existed. Although there can be variations in the specific types of feedback given, the more feedback that is provided the more potential the to increase the effectiveness of the learning. Mason & Bruning point to two items of research which thought this to be true:
Roper theorized that the increased amount of feedback information provided
students with enhanced knowledge from which they could correct
misunderstandings. All of these studies provide evidence for increased
learning in response to CBI programs incorporating elaborated feedback.
The research by Whyte et al. (1995) also showed that the
greatest learning gains in response to CBI came with the highest (most
elaborate) levels of feedback.
In determining how much / what type of feedback to give the user of a CBI, the learner control method seems to be a reasonable solution. This would enable the user to "opt-in" or "opt-out" of feedback. The user could then only receive they feedback they find most useful and consequently the feedback they are most likely going to use.
The research on when to give feedback was insightful. I agree with the reasoning to provide low ability learners with immediate feedback and delay feedback for higher level learners. However, I feel that more research needs to be done as to when and how to provide delayed feedback for higher level learners.
Brooks & Schraw: Performance Related Feedback - The Hallmark of Efficient Instruction
This article seemed to state the obvious. Their claims about feedback seemed to be overly generalized to the point that I'm not sure they made much of a point. At one point the authors state: " In other words, best instruction provides learners with much more feedback than does conventional instruction." Much more? What is conventional?
The authors write about feedback being necessary for our cognitive development. From what I gathered from a few seemingly disconnected statements, Brooks & Schraw seem to believe that feedback is the cognitive filter we use to make sense of the world around us.
It was interesting to see that the section on "explicit suggestions about teaching". In this section were some very common teaching practices. I've never thought of these practices being effective because of the way that they provide feedback.
Pashler, Cepeda, & Wixted: When Does Feedback Facilitate Learning of Words and Facts?
Near the fist of this writing the author states:
"a number of recent reviews have argued that while providing full feedback (i.e., knowledge of what the correct response would have been on the previous trial) tends to improve performance during training, it often does so at the expense of later retention (Bjork, 1994; Rosenbaum, Carlson & Gilmore, 2000; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992)."
I found this statement to be intriguing due to the previous papers read on the subject of feedback. In the other papers read, feedback was always (as far as I can recall) referred to as something that either had no effect on the learning process or positively affected it. I had a hard time interpreting their findings in relation to feedback negatively affecting retention. The overall conclusion of the study found that feedback was effective when the student didn't already know the correct answer. If the student could answer the question correctly they did not benefit from the feedback.
Shute, Valerie (2008): Focus on Formative Feedback
I found the authors findings on motivation and feedback to be interesting. I found their connection to the uncertainty of the students performance to a lack of motivation. It also makes sense that if the students receive more formative feedback it will reduce the cognitive load. This could also have a positive effect on the motivation of the learner due to the fact that the learning experience could now be more manageable.
Shute states:
Motivation has been shown to be an important mediating factor in learners’ performance
(Covington & Omelich, 1984), and feedback can be a powerful motivator
when delivered in response to goal-driven efforts. Some researchers suggest
that the learner’s goal orientation should be considered when designing instruction,
particularly when feedback can encourage or discourage a learner’s effort
(Dempsey et al. 1993).
I like the way that, in this context, formative feedback can be formative towards the learners goals and not solely based on whether they got the correct answer or not.
Mason & Bruning hit the nail on the head in the opening paragraph of this reading. They state:
Among the most important outcomes of
feedback are helping learners identify errors and become aware of
misconceptions and to motivate further learning.
It wasn’t surprising to me that later on in the article they seemed to come to the conclusion that learning was effected positively when a combination of verification and elaboration existed. Although there can be variations in the specific types of feedback given, the more feedback that is provided the more potential the to increase the effectiveness of the learning. Mason & Bruning point to two items of research which thought this to be true:
Roper theorized that the increased amount of feedback information provided
students with enhanced knowledge from which they could correct
misunderstandings. All of these studies provide evidence for increased
learning in response to CBI programs incorporating elaborated feedback.
The research by Whyte et al. (1995) also showed that the
greatest learning gains in response to CBI came with the highest (most
elaborate) levels of feedback.
In determining how much / what type of feedback to give the user of a CBI, the learner control method seems to be a reasonable solution. This would enable the user to "opt-in" or "opt-out" of feedback. The user could then only receive they feedback they find most useful and consequently the feedback they are most likely going to use.
The research on when to give feedback was insightful. I agree with the reasoning to provide low ability learners with immediate feedback and delay feedback for higher level learners. However, I feel that more research needs to be done as to when and how to provide delayed feedback for higher level learners.
Brooks & Schraw: Performance Related Feedback - The Hallmark of Efficient Instruction
This article seemed to state the obvious. Their claims about feedback seemed to be overly generalized to the point that I'm not sure they made much of a point. At one point the authors state: " In other words, best instruction provides learners with much more feedback than does conventional instruction." Much more? What is conventional?
The authors write about feedback being necessary for our cognitive development. From what I gathered from a few seemingly disconnected statements, Brooks & Schraw seem to believe that feedback is the cognitive filter we use to make sense of the world around us.
It was interesting to see that the section on "explicit suggestions about teaching". In this section were some very common teaching practices. I've never thought of these practices being effective because of the way that they provide feedback.
Pashler, Cepeda, & Wixted: When Does Feedback Facilitate Learning of Words and Facts?
Near the fist of this writing the author states:
"a number of recent reviews have argued that while providing full feedback (i.e., knowledge of what the correct response would have been on the previous trial) tends to improve performance during training, it often does so at the expense of later retention (Bjork, 1994; Rosenbaum, Carlson & Gilmore, 2000; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992)."
I found this statement to be intriguing due to the previous papers read on the subject of feedback. In the other papers read, feedback was always (as far as I can recall) referred to as something that either had no effect on the learning process or positively affected it. I had a hard time interpreting their findings in relation to feedback negatively affecting retention. The overall conclusion of the study found that feedback was effective when the student didn't already know the correct answer. If the student could answer the question correctly they did not benefit from the feedback.
Shute, Valerie (2008): Focus on Formative Feedback
I found the authors findings on motivation and feedback to be interesting. I found their connection to the uncertainty of the students performance to a lack of motivation. It also makes sense that if the students receive more formative feedback it will reduce the cognitive load. This could also have a positive effect on the motivation of the learner due to the fact that the learning experience could now be more manageable.
Shute states:
Motivation has been shown to be an important mediating factor in learners’ performance
(Covington & Omelich, 1984), and feedback can be a powerful motivator
when delivered in response to goal-driven efforts. Some researchers suggest
that the learner’s goal orientation should be considered when designing instruction,
particularly when feedback can encourage or discourage a learner’s effort
(Dempsey et al. 1993).
I like the way that, in this context, formative feedback can be formative towards the learners goals and not solely based on whether they got the correct answer or not.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
0
System for Memorizing Information
An effective system to memorize information would include:
• Randomization
• Graphical representations of the information
• Forced vocalization on the behalf of the learner
• Levels of difficulty
• Scaffolding of information (presentation of information that draws upon previous knowledge)
• Redefining / restating information in the users own words
• Contextual references of the information
• Audio presentation of the information
• Classification of similar information into one group
• Learning activities that only last around 20 min
• Randomization
• Graphical representations of the information
• Forced vocalization on the behalf of the learner
• Levels of difficulty
• Scaffolding of information (presentation of information that draws upon previous knowledge)
• Redefining / restating information in the users own words
• Contextual references of the information
• Audio presentation of the information
• Classification of similar information into one group
• Learning activities that only last around 20 min
0
ADDIE - What's the big deal?
Upon reading the overview of the ADDIE model given by Clark , it seems to me that ADDIE is simply a framework for a problem solving process. There exist many different problem solving processes, for example the Engineering Design Process. ADDIE seems to take the general idea from several of these processes and group them under the labels of Analysis, Design, Development, Implement, and Evaluate. Although the acronym may have originated in 1975 by the Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University (Clark), the steps in the process do not seem to be unique to the Instructional Design field. Almost all problem solving models follow the same general steps outlined in ADDIE
Through the paper In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Michael Molenda of the University of Indiana details his search for an original or authoritative definition of the ADDIE model. Despite his efforts, Molenda was not able to identify an authoritative definition of the ADDIE model. In order for the ADDIE model to hold more weight in the realm of problem solving models or as something unique to the field of Instructional Design, specific subsets of each of the steps in the process need to be identified. With these subsets in place there would be more direction in the process of the model. Without these subsets I agree with Molenda when he identifies ADDIE as more of a label than a process.
Some have used the ADDIE model as a basis for defining the domain of Instructional Design (Bichelmeyer). Although I am just becoming familiar with this domain, I believe that it would be shortsighted to say that Instructional Design can be defined by a single process used within the domain. Rather, Instructional Design should be defined by what it strives to accomplish. In short, Instructional Design strives to design instruction in such a way that effective learning occurs. Many of the problems associated with the “identity crisis” of Instructional Design could more effectively be addressed if a focus was placed on what is done within this domain rather than how it differs from other domains.
Through the paper In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Michael Molenda of the University of Indiana details his search for an original or authoritative definition of the ADDIE model. Despite his efforts, Molenda was not able to identify an authoritative definition of the ADDIE model. In order for the ADDIE model to hold more weight in the realm of problem solving models or as something unique to the field of Instructional Design, specific subsets of each of the steps in the process need to be identified. With these subsets in place there would be more direction in the process of the model. Without these subsets I agree with Molenda when he identifies ADDIE as more of a label than a process.
Some have used the ADDIE model as a basis for defining the domain of Instructional Design (Bichelmeyer). Although I am just becoming familiar with this domain, I believe that it would be shortsighted to say that Instructional Design can be defined by a single process used within the domain. Rather, Instructional Design should be defined by what it strives to accomplish. In short, Instructional Design strives to design instruction in such a way that effective learning occurs. Many of the problems associated with the “identity crisis” of Instructional Design could more effectively be addressed if a focus was placed on what is done within this domain rather than how it differs from other domains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
