The other day, Jessica asked:

“Do you agree that there are different ways of learning?”

My answer:

No. I believe the mechanism of learning is pretty well established by biology and psychology.

I want to follow up on that because I think we’ve got a fundamental disconnect on the meaning of the term “learning.” Learning is the process of assimilating knowledge domains for later use. The actual process is not well defined as yet. Brain research, cognitive research, and all the other research can’t really say what happens so that learning occurs. I subscribe to a philosophy that learning is a lot like seeing. There’s a process where light enters the eye, activates some receptors, transmits some messages into the brain, and the brain interprets the messages. The process of “seeing” is the same for everybody, but some of the more interesting questions revolve around how two people can use the identical process on identical scenes and interpret the outcomes differently.

Learning isn’t quite so straightforward, but I believe that the underlying mechanisms for learning must be as consistent as the mechanisms for seeing are. The questions we address as educators are not - strictly speaking - how we learn, but rather what can we do as teachers to stimulate the process in our students that results in learning. I might give you a book to read, or a movie to watch. I might give you a recorded interview to listen to, or show you a chart. There are lots of different kinds of sensory channels I can use to try to stimulate the learning process, but I’m ultimately working toward having my communications reach some level of process wherein the learner actually learns something. The next set of questions have to do with trying to figure out what the student may have learned and with trying to reconcile what the teacher intended to teach against what the student learned. It’s why assessment is so problematic.

Using the seeing analogy, I can give you something to look at, but what you see is dependent on a lot of things over which I have little or no control.

Going back to the initial question, however, I think that what Jessica is pointing out is that different people use different communications channels to activate their learning. This is not a trivial semantic issue. What the “learning styles” supporters contend is that an individual uses the same channel for every lesson and that any message not on that channel has a greater chance of being lost or discarded. I maintain that learners rely on a variety of channels and the use of restatement, repetition, and multiple channels is critical to triggering the learning process. Further, the efficacy of any given channel depends on the learner, the content, and the context depending on the quality of the message being transmitted.

This is not to say that any individual can subscribe to any theoretical foundation they like. Please, believe in “Learning Styles” if that helps you organize your thinking, but also be aware that what you’re doing is not supported by any credible evidence and - as such - could be (and probably should be) challenged under the Federal Guidelines for Research Based Practice under NCLB.

Posted in Education | 6 Comments »

Following up on the connectivist idea from yesterday comes this snipped:

If an individual has realized all potential connections, that would define the condition of “known.” If an individual has realized none of the potential connections, that would represent “unknown.” Someplace in between would represent the zone of proximal development, that is, a place where new knowledge could be linked in. For the purposes of the network representation, that would be “the edge.”
Distributed Representation.

One problem with my visualization is that it might be too literal, but I think it gives ZPD a kind of operational definition.

Posted in Education | No Comments »

This story and article are a couple of years old now but in a lot of ways, I think it’s representative of the roots of what has now become one of the most visible of the open courses running:

The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the thinking behind new e-learning technology, including e-portfolios and personal learning environments. Part of this thinking is centered around the theory of connectivism, which asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community. And another part of this thinking is centered around the new, and the newly empowered, learner, the member of the net generation, who is thinking and interacting in new ways. These trends combine to form what is sometimes called 'e-learning 2.0' - an approach to learning that is based on conversation and interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activities such as games or workflows.

Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge ~ Stephen’s Web ~ by Stephen Downes.

As we’re talking about theory, here’s a good introduction to some of the (still) most current thinking.

Posted in Education | 1 Comment »

As I was reviewing some closed discussions on the 688 discussion board, the Learning Styles construct keeps coming up. I’ve written about this in length here, and the link to the most comprehensive refutation is listed in this article:

Several of you have referred to “learning styles” in some of your posts and comments. I know it’s fashionable, but it’s also not supported by any credible scientific evidence. It’s intuitively appealing but it appears to be superstition. For a critique of the extant literature on this see:

Learning Styles.

The question often comes up, given my proviso regarding scientific evidence, “What would you consider credible evidence?”

Answer: Pretty much anything that actually establishes the hypothesis and goes about testing it. Key elements there involve showing that an individual student consistently learns “better” — presumably using some specified outcome assessment — using one mode over another. In order to justify the “Learning Style” theory, that individual student MUST show sigificant improvements across a wide variety of content areas delivered in a variety of modes and therein lies the rub. Whatever design this research takes, it must somehow tease out that causal relationship between the delivery mode and the outcome that’s independent from the repetition.

So? How do you prove that little Mary learns best by hearing? You can’t give her the same lesson in multiple ways, because then any measured improvement is confounded by repetition - which we know has an effect. Further, you can’t be sure that the recoding to cross media from - say - audio to visual is actually the same message so there’s the additional problem in interpreting the messages as to whether or not it’s the repetition, the encoding, or the “learning style” that made the difference.

And it gets more complicated when we factor in a variety of content domains. Teaching “visual learner” Tommy how to read visually is one thing. Teaching him volley ball is another. Credible research would have to account for that.

Yes, I know that learning style theory says that an individual cannot learn using another style, only that they learn best in one, consistent mode, regardless of content or context, and frankly, I’m not buying it. On its surface, there is an intuitive appeal, but when you get into the nuts and bolts of how this thing must have to work if individuals had “learning styles” it seems implausible.

Posted in 688, Education | 4 Comments »

Let’s talk theoretical here. Take a look at this article:

From there, we can establish a baseline for differentiating predictive, explanatory theory — ’scientific theory’ — from common usage of the term as speculative conjecture. This is important because Education theories are expected to fall in the former (scientific) category and not in the latter (conjecture) category. The way a theory works is that somebody gets an idea — the hypothesis — and proceeds to test it using various tools and techniques.

What’s a Theory?.

Please note that we’re talking theoretical, not hypothetical. There’s a lot of attention in the public sphere about what, exactly, a theory is. The distinction is important because we need to be clear about the basic construct of theory before we get sucked into the morass of Educational Theory. A theory, in the sense we’ll be using it here, is as “explanatory construct being examined in a systematic way.” The key tools in that examination are logic, observation, hypothesis, and conclusion. It’s extremely important to recognize that you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist — only that you haven’t found it yet. The reason that’s so important is to make sure we’re asking good questions.

Learning Styles is my favorite non-theory. There are a lot of people who are willing to say that learning styles do not exist — like this guy. Sometimes, in moments of weakness, I’m one of them. I’m perfectly willing to have people continue to search for evidence in support of the theory. That’s what scientists do. My problem with it is that it seems so nonsensical that the likelihood of it actually being true is too remote for me to waste spend time with it. Logically, it just lacks a level of coherence that I need in order to take it seriously.

On the other hand, Connectivist (and even Constructivist) theory — which are “learning theories” and not “educational theories” — make a certain amount of logical sense. They’re even complementary in that subscribing to one doesn’t preclude accepting the perspective of the other. Connections have to be Constructed. Both theories are supported by what we observe in instructional settings - namely, students seem to learn better if we create experiences where they are able to build (construct/connect) on their previous knowledge using their own internal and external feedback and analysis loops.

But this whole thing goes back to an older question — one that’s more foundational. What do we know and how do we know it? Are we required to have some positivist experience of reality in order to prove knowledge? Does some kind of objectivist reality exist independent of observer? Or is it all just Vishnu’s dream?

Posted in Education, culture | No Comments »

I wrote this piece about the relative roles of teacher and learner a couple years ago and I think it still holds true:

If the role of the teacher is to provide the bridge, the the role of the learner must be to identify those bridges which are useful in some way and use them. On the face of it, this seems like a no-brainer. But trying to dig into the idea becomes a frustrating exercise in teasing out the skills from the roles. This is particularly true when we start talking about oxymorons like “online learning.”


phaedrus » Blog Archive » The Learner.

Posted in Education | 4 Comments »

Dean Shareski is one of my heroes. His “Ideas and Thoughts From and EdTech” has been in my ‘gator for years now. This post from yesterday has been haunting me as I think about the role of the teacher. It starts like this:

According to many definitions of good teaching, I don’t qualify:

• I don’t clearly state objectives
• If I do state them, they are as fuzzy as all get out
• I have a hard time measuring student progress
• My course syllabus changes almost daily
• I never use tests<
• I constantly stray off topic

There are likely a multitude of sins I have not listed.

I’m sure I’m doing it wrong.

I relate to this list. Sorta.

I’ve been accused by past classes of not stating objectives clearly. Actually, I think that’s probably true, up to a point. As you’ve probably learned by now, the class itself is an exemplar of what I believe about online instruction. That first week when I tell you what I want you to do seems to me like a very clear set of objectives in terms of activities. I ask you to set up your blog, aggregator, instant messenger, and TappedIn office. I further assign you a series of specific activities with each of those tools. I don’t tell you what you’re supposed to learn from that activity nor do I tell you how to do it, beyond some very general pointing to resources you might find useful. The reasons for that should be obvious by now. What I wanted you to learn was:

1. You could do it largely on your own
2. Environments that violate your expectation are highly instructional
3. There is great personal satisfaction in accomplishing these kinds of tasks

The paradox here is that you wouldn’t have learned these lessons if I’d told you about it in advance. It’s more akin to getting to the top of the mountain and looking down the other side. Whatever I tell you about what you’re going to see from there is meaningless until you get there to see for yourself. More, if I condition you to see only certain things, your perception of that view will be colored in a way that’s counter productive. The best I can do is keep saying “You’ve gotta see this! It’s amazing!”

As a teacher, I have to differentiate my instruction to accommodate your individual ZPD in order to give each of you the opportunity to make as much progress as you can. It’s not my intent that each of you should make the same progress. Unlike typical classes where the goal is to cover some prescribed set of content, this course is intended to give you as much new knowledge in this area as possible because I recognize that it would take years, not weeks, to instill in each of you the depth and level of knowledge represented by a course entitled “Principles of Distance Education.” As a result, I need to prioritize, organize, and introduce that domain to you in a way that maximizes your learning, builds a foundation for future exploration of this cognate, and perhaps inspires you to continue learning about and growing into this space after the course is over.

You may or may not realize that what each of you is doing in this course is building what’s known a a “personal learning environment” — more specifically, a “personal learning network” — which you will be able to use after the course is over for any content domain you desire, not just those prescribed by your course of study. Sadly, I recognize that most of you will drop your engagement like a hot potato as soon as the course is over, but at some point in the future, you may recognize the need you have for ongoing study and you’ll have the foundation you need in order to become effective learners in thi information dense environment represented by the general moniker of “21st Century Learner.”

In short, unlike the typical course where the instructor expects you to all end at the same place, I expect that every person will leave the course in a different place, but a place which represents the highest possible level of advancement you can achieve given your individual circumstances, skill levels, and knowledge base.

But I didn’t tell you that and as an “objective” it’s - as Dean puts it - “fuzzy as all get out.”

Posted in Education | 7 Comments »

Darrell Cannell is a member in good standing of the Canadian Content Contingent. His Teaching and Developing Online blog is one of my “Must Read” feeds.

I like the tone of this, why does it always feel like we are fighting to be accepted.

Teaching and Developing Online.: Alec Courosa Open Doctrine …made me laugh..

I didn’t track back to the source of this video because I’m short on time, but it made me laugh, too.

Posted in Education, Technology | 2 Comments »

There’s a great conversation swirling around this interactive timeline of video gaming over on the GAMESNETWORK list: The Video Game Revolution: The History of Games | PBS.

The conversation has to do with “why this game instead of another?”

As in any field, there are opinions on both sides.

Posted in 688, Education, Technology | No Comments »

I did a quick post yesterday on SuperStruct. I spent some time yesterday exploring the site in some detail and looking over the various features and facilities. There’s a lot there - video, text - organized in a variety of ways. I’m looking at this site from two perspectives — one as a game, and the other as an educational setting. There’s a LOT of stuff that’s available to the public (that is, non-members) and even more that registered players can see.

As a game, the scoring is perhaps a bit arbitrary. As an educational environment, it’s probably best described as “problem based learning.” It’s particularly intriguing from that perspective because the problems are hypothetical but based on dystopian extrapolations of the present. Finally, the “game play” is probably best described as “interactive fiction” because discussions, stories, and user contributions are intended to visualize what our real lives might be in 10 years’ time. It’s a sort of “imagine what you’ll be then based on what you are now and what you’d like to do between now and then” scenario. It’s a kind of ‘predict the future’ game based around the six threats.

While the threats are speculative, they aren’t that far out. Based on food, climate, energy, politics, and health, the roots of these challenges are already with us. The game, while speculative, may well provide some interesting ideas for charting a future where these catastrophes might not happen.

So, for the gamers (688? You know who you are), what do you think of this as a “game”? Does it work? Is there a place here for educational application? Either in this game, or as a derivational idea?

For the distance ed people, what do you think of this environment as as an educational environment? A learning environment?

Posted in 688, Education, Resources, Technology | 5 Comments »