Reading Notes - June 30, 2010

The following relate findings from the first paper that I found relevant and interesting:

• "When nonsense series of 16 syllables each were impressed in memory to greater and greater degrees by means of attentive repetitions, the inner depth of impression in part resulting from the number of the repetitions increased, within certain limits, approximately proportionally to that number. This increase in depth was measured by the greater readiness with which these series were brought to the point of reproduction after 24 hours."
It seems intuitive that repitition of something can be analogous to the depth of impressing something. The more I scratch at a tree, the deeper I am going to get, and every stroke is about equal in its indent.

• "In other words: for each three additional repetitions which I spent on a given day on the study of a series, I saved, in learning that series 24 hours later, on the average, approximately one repetition; and, within the limits stated, it did not matter how many repetitions altogether were spent on the memorisation of a series."
This is interesting that there is a 3-1 ration of retention over the 24 hour period. I wonder how replicable these studies are. Would they hold with larger sample size?

• "If this relation were approximately to continue to hold with very numerous repetitions, it would be reasonable to expect that, after 24 hours, series on whose impression four times as many repetitions had been expended as were necessary for their first reproduction could be recited without any further expenditure of energy. Instead of this, in the cases examined, the relearning required about 35 per cent of the work required for the first recital."
Interesting that this statistic confirms the 3-1 ratio, which could be written as 1 - .33.

• "The effect of increasing the number of repetitions of series of syllables on their inner fixedness in the above defined sense grew at first approximately in proportion to the number of repetitions, then that effect decreased gradually, and finally became very slight when the series were so deeply impressed that they could be repeated after 24 hours, almost spontaneously."
So what this is saying is that if we repeat something enough, after 24 hours, we can recall that information without hardly any effort? Interesting.

"forgetting would be very rapid at the beginning of the process and very slow at the end"

"the quotients of the amounts retained and the amounts forgotten were inversely as the logarithms of the times."

These statements, along with the 3rd paper we read, seem to show an interesting phenomenon about forgetting. Forgetting happens quick immediately, and the gradually slows. I wonder if this has anything to do with the capacities mentioned in the 2nd paper. Could it be that information that is learned through more dimensions is retained longer than information that is learned through fewer dimensions? I think that this would be a very interesting study.

"If series of nonsense syllables or verses of a poem are on several successive days each time learned by heart to the point of the first possible reproduction, the successive differences in the repetitions necessary for this form approximately a decreasing geometrical progression (about half)."

Magical Number 7
○ Tone = 2.5 bits
○ Loudness = 2.3 bits
○ Taste = 1.9 bits
○ Visual position = 3.25 bits

"the mean is 2.6 bits and the standard deviation is only 0.6 bit. In terms of distinguishable alternatives, this mean corresponds to about 6.5 categories, one standard deviation includes from 4 to 10 categories, and the total range is from 3 to 15 categories."

We are limited to about 7 channel capacity decisions in judgment.

What about faces, words etc.? They differ in many ways, but the sensory things differ only in one way

Wouldn't it be interesting to see if we could find an average for 2 differences?

"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. "

We can hear a lot of different sounds because phonemically language has about 8 dimensions. Again, I wonder how retention plays into these findings. I have always believed that the more connections that we have to something when we learn it, the better we are able to retain it. For example, a new and effective way that teachers are starting to study multiplication facts is to combine the numbers to rhythms and beats. This allows students to create more connections and aids in retention.

The three most important of these devices are
(a) to make relative rather than absolute judgments.; or, if that is not possible,
(b) to increase the number of dimensions along which the stimuli can differ; or
(c) to arrange the task in such a way that we make a sequence of several absolute judgments in a row.


From these 3 papers, I am again turned to my previous question from last week of whether content has anything to do with the processes of memorization and forgetting. Are the principles that we learned universal for all learning, or are they contingent on the content. The second paper went to great lengths to show that our capacity for one-dimensional absolute judgments are true regardless of information. This included all the different senses.

Class Notes - June 29

Internet - Packets
• Send receiving packets follows the same communication model that we discussed with probes and feedback.
Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted
• Common sense? Then why is there research? Be weary when researchers make appeals to "common sense"
• Claims that environment didn't significantly affect the learning/performance
• Correct answers were unaffected by feedback
• Incorrect answers need immediate correct-response feedback
• Difference between omissions and comissions
• Computers can be programmed to provide this type of feedback very efficiently

Ted Talk - Elizabeth Gilbert on Nurturing Creativity
• We accept the notion that creativity and suffering are linked. Why? We shouldn’t!
• Tips - Keep the writing self and the anxious self distant from each other
○ Rome ad Greece - attributed creativity to outside, distant sources. Keeps you from Narcissism and anxiety
○ Renaissance - Shift from outside sources to being from the self. This pressure is what kills off artists.

Monday - June 28. Response to Feedback Reading

According to the model that was presented in class, feedback plays an essential role in the learning process. As learners send out probes, they are met with some type of feedback. This communication is essential to learning. Brooks and Schraw alluded to the research done on traditional classroom instruction versus tutoring which showed 2 standard deviations improvement over traditional instruction. The research correlated this to the amount of questions asked by a learner in a given hour (happening 10+ x's more often in a tutoring session). All of the papers agreed that feedback is essential to learning.

In Brooks and Schraw's study, I found it very interesting that they claimed that computer learning can model human development. They claimed that a computer can learn something with 22,000 exposures that a 2 year old child can learn with 5-6, but that the computer can have these many exposures in seconds.
This made me wonder to what extent can a computer learn? How is learning connected to recognizing patterns? Is learning more than recognizing patterns?

In Pashler, Cepeda, & Wixted's study, I was impressed with the similarity between learning words and learning facts. This study pointed out that correct response feedback was 3-5x's more effective than no feedback at all. The study mentioned this, but these results made me wonder about the levels of knowledge and how they relate to the effectiveness of feedback. In both of these studies, subjects had virtually no knowledge of anything connected to the things that they were learning. To me, this means that the conclusion that correct-response feedback is more effective than no feedback, or even delayed feedback is only relevant when the subject has had no exposure at all to the information. If the subjects were proficient in Luganda, and they were to learn new words that they didn't already know, I would bet that the delayed response/no feedback option would be more helpful than in the first study.

From all of these papers, I am still left with the belief (which is admittedly only founded on some experience and lots of opinion) that the type of feedback given is highly dependent on the content/subject matter, the individual learner, and timing. Observing and training teachers at the MTC, I have learned that feedback can take many forms, and that giving the right type of feedback is among the things that teachers struggle with most. The teachers that give the best feedback seem to be those that are most aware of the learners personality, proficiency level, and environment.

Response to Research on CBI

Providing Feedback in Computer-based Instruction:

What the Research Tells Us

• "First of all, once the requisite programming is in place, computers can tirelessly provide feedback in response to student work. Unlike feedback from an instructor or tutor, this feedback can

remain unbiased, accurate, and nonjudgmental, irrespective of student characteristics or the nature of the student response."

• How in the world is it an advantage to take out the factor of students' characteristics and nature of the response when providing feedback? In a perfect world, learners accept feedback humbly in a desire to learn. In the world we live in, learners accept feedback very different ways. While there are students who do accept feedback readily, there are also learners who are very defensive and prideful. This seems to be an important factor in deciding how to give feedback… a factor that computers can't compute.

• "This paper does not address the growing body of literature surrounding the use of motivational, process-oriented, and goal-directed feedback (feedback that provides learners information about their progress toward a desired goal as opposed to feedback on discrete responses)."
• This seems to be a shame. Goal-directed feedback seems to point users to acquiring information/skills as a medium to accomplish something, rather than acquire information/skills for the sake of doing it.

• "From this perspective, errors are not viewed so much as mistakes as they are a source of information about students’ cognitive processes (see Bruning, Schraw & Ronning, 1999). Thus,

errors not only are an expected part of learning, but are an important resource for learning and teaching."

• If this is true, then knowledge of charateristics and the nature of the response seem invaluable.

• "Verification is the simple judgment of whether an answer is correct or incorrect, while elaboration is the informational component providing relevant cues to guide the learner toward a correct answer. Most researchers now share the view that successful feedback (feedback that facilitates the greatest gains in learning) must include both verification and elaboration."
• Doesn't this depend heavily on the content/subject matter?

• "Topic-specific elaboration leads the learner through the correct answer, but it does not address incorrect responses. The most specific and direct form of feedback is response-specific. Response-specific elaboration addresses both the correct answer and incorrect response choices; if a learner selects an incorrect response, response-specific feedback explains why the selected response is incorrect and provides information about what the correct answer should be."

• Types of Feedback
• No Feedback - number of correct responses
• Knowledge-of-response - whether question is correct or incorrect
• Answer-until-correct
• Knowledge-of-correct-response - tells students the correct answers
• Topic-contigent - takes students to where the correct info can be located
• Response-contigent - why the incorrect answer is wrong and the correct answer is right
• Attribute-isolation - focuses learners on the key components of the concept

• Key aspects of effective CBI feedback
• Elaboration
• Findings contradictory - Could this be because the content plays a large role in type of feedback?
• Are there different subjects where elaboration just isn't helpful?

• student achievement levels
• Low-level need immediate feedback, higher-level need delayed feedback
• Does confidence play into this phenomenon?
• Low-level need knowledge of correct response, not answer until correct
• Again, does confidence influence this?

• depth of understanding
• attitude toward feedback
• Most want more than just no response or even knowledge-or-response
• What about attitude towards subject/topic?

• learner control
• 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.

• response certitude
• Levels of certitude (comprehension to guess can account for a correct answer)
• High-level use quick feedback, low certitude spend more time with feedback
• How do we know the certitude level? Student response?

• timing.
• Concept acquisition - immediate feedback
• Long-term retention - delayed feedback

"The challenge therefore is to identify the type of feedback that is most effective in specific educational settings." (There is no silver bullet)

Conclusion

• Timing of feedback depends on learner's level, nature of the learning task, and the goal of the learning task
• Prior knowledge dictates verification or verification+ elaboration (though the latter is generally preferred)

http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/IDTf_Bic.pdf

Being very new to the field of IDT, (or IP&T, if it is the same field) I enjoyed taken by the conclusion of this article. In order for the field to be independent, unique, and to add value, we need to actually study what instructional designers do. If the ADDIE "model" or "framework" isn't a model, and doesn't have a direct origin, how can it be the central uniting element of a field? Bichelmeyer effectively pointed out that it can't. The interesting thins to me about instructional design is its universality. Instruction happens in every field. Does learning happen the same in every field? Should learning/instruction be approached the same way in ever field? If so, then a solid field of instructional design is incredibly important. If not, then instructional design seems to be an appendage to every other field.

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

It is key that the discussion of the ADDIE model on the web page eventually included a discussion of whether training is an appropriate solution to a perceived problem. It seems to be the inclination of most supervisors to automatically assume that training itself is the full-proof method for resolving problems in performance.
I am a supervisor at the MTC over Russian/Ukrainian teachers (and currently over a small development language team) and I have realized that training is only sometimes the appropriate solution. The model mentioned 4 options, dealing with an employees job knowledge and motivation.

• Quadrant A (Motivation): If the employee has sufficient job knowledge but has an improper attitude, this may be classed as motivational problem. The consequences (rewards) of the person's behavior will have to be adjusted. This is not always bad as the employee just might not realize the consequence of his or her actions.
• Quadrant B (Resource/Process/Environment): If the employee has both job knowledge and a favorable attitude, but performance is unsatisfactory, then the problem may be out of control of the employee. i.e. lack of resources or time, task needs process improvement, the work station is not ergonomically designed, etc.
• Quadrant C (Selection): If the employee lacks both job knowledge and a favorable attitude, that person may be improperly placed in the position. This may imply a problem with employee selection or promotion, and suggest that a transfer or discharge be considered.
• Quadrant D (Training and or Coaching): If the employee desires to perform, but lacks the requisite job knowledge or skills, then some type of learning solution is required, such as training or coaching.

It is a little hard for me to believe that the solutions are so simple and 2-dimensional. It seems that this relies on the assumption that job knowledge corresponds to ability, which may not always be the case (and could also depend on the job itself). For example, a teacher can understand the MTC language training model (have a knowledge of it) and still do the steps poorly, resulting in poor performance, even though the teacher is knowledgeable and motivated.

Wiki Website

opencontent.org/wiki/index.php?title=564-2010-Overview