The HG2S Training Blog

Fossil fish bridges the evolutionary gap between animals of land and sea. Credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation

I’m glad that someone has gathered the courage to say this out loud: Instructional design in the 21st Century is not about events, it’s about experiences. No doubt from the looks of things, instructional design (ID) is in the natural throes of shaking off the learning events metaphor imposed on it by the educational psychologists of the Industrial Revolution, but learning and development thinkers like Charles Jennings hope that we can hasten it along for the sakes of our students and ourselves. For Jennings the shift from working with the hands to working with the head is a key indicator that promotes the need to move from events toward processes:

“Undoubtedly instructional design is crucial if the mindset is learning events – modules, courses, programmes and curricula. However, if the mindset has stretched beyond event-based learning to where most learning occurs for workers, which is in the workplace at the point-of-need, where process-based learning serves best – and where learning through doing and learning as part of the work process happens, then ID takes on a whole new dimension.”

Jennings posits the notion of “learning” held by inhabitants of the 21st Century as moving from a habitat of “knowledge” to a new one of “behavior.” The medium is the message. It’s not about content anymore.

“For years we’ve been led to believe that ‘learning’ meant acquiring knowledge. If knowledge acquisition is the end-game, then the logical conclusion was to provide information that could be turned, whatever the magic employed, into knowledge in the recipient’s head. Believe me, the old idea that data becomes information which in turn becomes knowledge and finally transmogrifies into wisdom has been debunked years ago. We use our knowledge and experience to interpret data and information. Wisdom comes to a few only after years of experience.”

Jennings reminds us that Ebbinghaus and the Forgetting Curve aside, we need to observe learning in action to make intelligent assessments about its effectiveness. Experience and practice are the keys and, as such, instructional designers need to become interactivity designers.

“Good ID will result in the design of experiences that can build capability and learning far more quickly and effectively than by filling heads with information and ‘knowledge’ and then hoping that will lead to behavioural change.

We need designers who understand that learning comes from experience, practice, conversations and reflection, and are prepared to move away from massaging content into what they see as good instructional design. Designers need to get off the content bus and start thinking about, using, designing and exploiting learning environments full of experiences and interactivity.”

Further information about Charles Jennings and his work can be found here.

The Bandwagon

If you are thinking of using social media in a class to help build useful collaborative connections, retire the fears of shy students and introduce the same engagement you see in sites like Facebook, think again.  A recent study by the Lab for Social Computing at Rochester Institute of Technology suggests that the use of social media in classrooms might yield little effect in improved communications and enhanced connections between students. The study into the effects of social media was conducted as part of a course on the use of social media and tools. It included contributions from online learning and course management systems and discussion groups that were proposed to enhance instruction, improve communication and facilitate connections between the students and course content. The results indicate that poor social acumen in the face-to-face interactions might be mirrored in the (more) virtual social medium. What’s more, echoing teacher and educational social media researcher Michael Wesch, the RIT study suggests that the educational use of social media may have to be learned:

“…the educational use of social media may not counteract poor social connections that are seen in face-to-face communication or elicit the same impacts seen in the use of social media sites such as MySpace and FaceBook.”

Researcher and team leader Susan Barnes comments on the hopes and goals of social media in the educational environment relative to her team’s findings:

“Many social media advocates have argued that the use of these tools in classroom settings could greatly enhance interaction and learning and assist shyer, more reserved students in becoming more involved, as has been seen in other online environments. However, our findings show that the incorporation of social media had no measurable impact on social connections, to the point that students did not consider other members of the class to be part of their social network.”

The RIT research team plans to expand the study to consider different educational formats and additional social media applications in an effort to determine the effects and differences of social media from traditional classrooms. The intent is to help educational planners and instructional designers better use social media in course development and delivery.

“The issues surrounding poor social network construction within online educational environments points to greater opportunities to examine how technology and mediated software can be better designed to suit the types of communication and interactions desired by our students.”  – Christopher Egert, co-author

References.
Jacobs, Stephen, Egert, Christopher A., Barnes, Susan B., “Social Media Theory and Practice: Lessons Learned for a Pioneering Course,” 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, T4J-1, October 18 – 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX.

Study Examines Use of Social Media in the Classroom

What’s the best way to teach math? It’s a big question, but research at Ohio State University’s Center for Cognitive Science challenges a commonly held (though perhaps informal) notion in instructional design that concrete examples aid the learning and application of mathematics more than abstract proofs and representations. The idea that mastery of abstract quantities and concepts actually provides the learner with a better, i.e., more practical, set of tools for problem solving seems counter-intuitive, but researcher Jennifer Kaminski and her team believe they have proof. Kaminski et al. looked at whether students who received instruction using concrete examples performed differently from those who were encouraged to master the concepts abstractly. What they found was that the group who were instructed in more concrete terms and examples were less able to apply the knowledge to new situations.

“These findings cast doubt on a long-standing belief in education…. The belief in using concrete examples is very deeply ingrained, and hasn’t been questioned or tested.” – Vladimir Sloutsky, co-author

Ohio State’s Research Communications quotes Kaminski as saying:

“Teachers often use real-world examples in math class, the researchers said.  In some classrooms, for example, teachers may explain probability by pulling a marble out of a bag of red and blue marbles and determining how likely it will be one color or the other.

But students may learn better if teachers explain the concept as the probability of choosing one of n things from a larger set of m things.”

This research might help explain why so many people find word problems (and the semantic or linguistic use of mathematics) so daunting in mathematics and physics. In Kaminski’s words:

“The issue can also be seen in the story problems that math students are often given. For example, there is the classic problem of two trains that leave different cities heading toward each other at different speeds.  Students are asked to figure out when the two trains will meet.

The danger with teaching using this example is that many students only learn how to solve the problem with the trains.

If students are later given a problem using the same mathematical principles, but about rising water levels instead of trains, that knowledge just doesn’t seem to transfer.”

Sloutsky sees a role for word problems, however, just not as an instructional aid:

“It is very difficult to extract mathematical principles from story problems. Story problems could be an incredible instrument for testing what was learned.  But they are bad instruments for teaching.”

Kaminski’s and Sloutsky’s study should provide useful insight for those looking at ways to better teach subjects like mathematics, physics, signal analysis, algorithm design, dynamics, logic or economics. It should be noted that Kaminski and Sloutsky worked with Andrew Heckler of Ohio State’s Physics Department on parts of the study.

References.
Concrete Examples Don’t Help Students Learn Math, Study Finds
Students Learn Better When the Numbers Don’t Talk and Dance
Kaminski et al., LEARNING THEORY: The Advantage of Abstract Examples in Learning Math, Science 25 April 2008: 454-455, DOI: 10.1126/science.1154659.

Chip and Dan Heath, authors of the popular book Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, have applied key principles of their stickiness theory to teaching. The resultant 13 page e-book is available in PDF format at their web site or on scribd.com as a free download.

Borrowed from their research, the brothers Heath apply six traits that make ideas (and teaching) stickier. Sticky ideas are:

SIMPLE.

“This process of prioritization is the heart of simplicity. It’s what we call ‘finding the core.’ Simplicity doesn’t mean dumbing down, it means choosing. Some concepts are more critical than others. And as the teacher, you’re the only one who can make that determination.”

UNEXPECTED.

“Piquing curiosity is the holy grail of teaching.” Cialdini said, “You’ve heard of the famous Ah ha! experience, right? Well, the Ah ha! experience is much more satisfying when it’s preceded by the Huh? experience.

So how do you create the ‘Huh?’ experience with your students? George Loewenstein, a behavioral economist, says that curiosity arises when we feel a gap in our knowledge. Loewenstein argues that gaps cause pain. When we want to know something but don’t, it’s like having an itch we need to scratch. To take away the pain, we need to fill the knowledge gap. We sit patiently through bad movies, even though they may be painful to watch, because it’s too painful not to know how they end.

Movies cause us to ask, What will happen? Mystery novels cause us to ask, Who did it? Sports contests cause us to ask, Who will win? Crossword puzzles cause us to ask, What is a 6-letter word for psychiatrist? Pokemon cards cause kids to wonder, Which characters am I missing?

One important implication of the ‘gap theory’ is that we need to open gaps before we close them. Our tendency is to tell students the facts. First, though, they must realize they need them.”

CONCRETE.

“Concreteness etches ideas into our brain—think of how much easier it is to remember a song than a credit card number—even though a song contains much more data!”

CREDIBLE.

“For an idea to stick, it needs to be credible. YouTube-era students don’t find it credible that hanging out outside, for a long period of time, alone, could be conducive to great thinking. So how do you combat their skepticism? You let them see for themselves. It’s like a taste test for ideas.”

EMOTION.

“That’s what Emotion does for an idea—it makes people care. It makes people feel something. In some science departments, during the lesson on ‘lab safety,’ the instructor will do something shocking: They’ll take some of the acid that the students will be handling and use it to dissolve a cow eyeball. A lot of students shudder when they see the demonstration. They feel something. Lab safety ‘dos and don’ts’ don’t grab you in the gut, but a dissolving eyeball sure does.”

STORY.

“The second surprise about stories is why stories, even boring stories, are so sticky. The answer starts with some fascinating research done on ‘mental simulation.’ Brain scans show that when people imagine a flashing light they activate the visual area of the brain; when they imagine someone tapping on their skin they activate tactile areas of the brain. The activity of mental simulation is not limited to the insides of our heads. People who imagine words that start with “b” or “p” can’t resist subtle lip movements, and people who imagine looking at the Eiffel Tower can’t resist moving their eyes upward. Mental simulation can even alter visceral physical responses: When people drink water but imagine it is lemon juice, they salivate more. Even more surprisingly, when people drink lemon juice but imagine it is water, they salivate less. … The takeaway is simple: Mental simulation is not as good as actually doing something—but it’s the next best thing. And, to circle back to the world of sticky ideas, what we’re suggesting is that the right kind of story is, effectively, a simulation. Stories are like flight simulators for the brain.“

The free booklet gives practical suggestions and examples of how to use “stickiness” to improve lessons and teaching. The authors are quick to remind readers that the principles are pragmatic design guidelines for better teaching not just theories for the way instructional design works. “Teaching that Sticks” is an entertaining and informative read for anyone who designs, writes or presents classes or educational material. A companion booklet “Making Presentations that Stick” is also available.

References.

http://www.madetostick.com/teachers/

Although I find that teaching the history of a subject is often a big help in understanding its present state, recent reseach from Amsterdam suggests that using illustrations (drawings and diagrams) in the teaching of history might have no positive effect on learning. Dr Maaike Prangsma and associates looked at the effectiveness of using various illustrations in the teaching of history and found that no discernible differences could be found in test results between illustrated and plain text presentations immediately after the instruction was delivered or six weeks later. Interestingly, the students did say that on the whole the graphics made the learning easier, leading investigators to conclude that the illustrations might enhance the efficiency of the training. The British Psychological Society’s report on the study claims that:

“The key finding was that the nature of the learning task made no difference to learning outcomes. The plain text version appeared to be just as effective as the versions involving a diagram, drawings, or combination of the two. The researchers were surprised by this result and offered a number of possible explanations. For example, perhaps the initial text on the fall of the Roman Empire was so effective it undermined any possible differential effects from the learning tasks. Or perhaps graphics aid science learning because there are clear rules about what different signs and symbols mean, whereas history lacks these conventions and the students therefore didn’t know how to use the visual aids.”

In agreement with a basic philosophical tenet underlining this blog, the authors of the study concur that garnering a positive appreciation of the subject matter presented is not to be ignored:

“The goal of educational motivation is not only to make learning more efficient … or effective … but also to make learning more pleasant such that the affective learning experience is more satisfying and learners will want to learn more.”

Further information concerning this study can be found in rewiew here.

Prangsma, M., van Boxtel, C., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Concrete and abstract visualizations in history learning tasks. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (2), 371-387 DOI: 10.1348/000709908X379341