tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59464561699208530792024-03-05T13:33:19.911+00:00Learning in ContextInspired by many other fine learning blogs I cheekily decided there was room for another one. The emphasis is on the importance of putting all learning, whether it be instructor led or not, academic or industry, in its overall context.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-39287636222480178032008-08-02T10:40:00.001+00:002008-08-02T10:40:12.501+00:00Does new technology reduce the need to memorise facts?<span xmlns=''><p>I have been participating in an interesting discussion on Tony Karrer's blog on <a href='http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2008/07/brain-20.html'>Brain 2.0</a>. The subject under debate was "<em>the importance of learning a bunch of facts that someone can look up at a later time</em>", especially now that modern technology allows us to look up facts so easily, and the body of knowledge keeps changing so fast. Apparently Tony feels that the need to learn facts is reducing while his wife Margaret writes: <em>memorization is a skill that needs to be developed and sometimes information needed is not readily accessed</em>. This is a theme that has been discussed on the Internet quite a lot recently. Tony links to <a href='http://umanitoba.ca/ist/production/streaming/podcast_wesch.html'>this</a> video lecture by Michael Wesch which is about moving away from being <strong>knowledgeable</strong> to being <strong>knowledge-able</strong>. i.e. what matters is not what you know but your ability to access all the knowledge that is out there.<br /></p><p>It is an important but confusing subject and it is quite difficult to pin down exactly what the issue is.<br /></p><p>1) Tony's and Margaret's views as written are consistent with each other. Tony accepts the need to memorise some facts, and Margaret accepts that there is need to be able use modern technology to obtain facts. It is a matter of degree.<br /></p><p>2) There are couple of red herrings lying in wait:<br /></p><p>a) Tony is concerned about learning <em>unnecessary facts</em> such as the names of state capitals. No one in their right mind is going to demand that students learn unnecessary facts, except perhaps as some bizarre exercise in memory training. There is long-standing debate as to what facts are necessary (e.g. how much history should children know?) but that has little to do with new technology and is largely a matter of values.<br /></p><p>b) There is also a long-standing objection to courses and education which are "<em>just memorising a lot of facts</em>". Most educators accept that education which simply requires rote learning of facts without moving any higher up the Bloom cognitive scale is very limited and unlikely to be of much value. Learning a lot of facts does not entail learning them by rote. You can acquire and retain facts much better if you learn them as part of activities which are cognitively deeper. Again I see no special link to new technology here. Criticism of rote learning has been around for decades if not centuries.<br /></p><p>3) The real issue is summarised by Tony's comment:<br /></p><p><em>What's becoming clear to me is that we can be spending time teaching students how to become "filled with facts" and they can become expert at that process in order to pass the test or we can reduce that in order to help them focus on other things.<br /></em></p><p>The idea presumably is that nowadays we don't need to retain so much knowledge in our brain as facts are so quickly and easily accessed. What we need is the broad concepts and the skills to access and interpret all those facts as the need arises. And this is precisely where I am not convinced by Tony (or by Michael Wesch). I think it is false dichotomy. Tony uses the example of a history teacher who tested him on the size of the population of England in 1800. He rightly dismisses that as a <em>test question</em> because it involves only low level cognitive skills. But anyone who wants to be an expert on English history of that period would benefit greatly from knowing that fact (without having to look it up). For example, if confronted with documentation about the size of the population of London or the percentage of working men fighting in the Napoleonic wars they would immediately be better placed to assess the plausibility and of the documentation and interpret its significance. They would be far more likely to retain any new information they learned about the English population because they would be in a position to link new data to their existing knowledge. As John Medina says in <a href='https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22055982&postID=2604264643938916761'>brain rules</a> – we remember things better if we elaborate on them – and there is much more scope for elaboration if you already know a lot.<br /></p><p>The point is that knowing facts is one of the best tools for accessing and using other facts. Being knowledgeable is key to being knowledge-able. So the model that says knowledgable and knowledge-able are mutually exclusive is far too simple. To use the new technology effectively we should know even more and the technology will allow us to gain that extra knowledge more easily. <br /></p></span>Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-62896438297854015582008-07-21T05:56:00.001+00:002008-07-21T05:56:06.596+00:00Researching at the right level <span xmlns=''><p><a href='http://clive-shepherd.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-brain-hurts.html'><span style='font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:11pt'>Clive Shepherd's post on brain based learning</span></a> led me indirectly to Professor Daniel Willingham's <a target='_blank' href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJ7JW0LgVs'><span style='color:#334477; text-decoration:underline'>Brain-based learning: fad or breakthrough?</span></a> I thought this was a brilliant little video which neatly articulated something I have been thinking about for a couple of years. His point is that the results of brain science are at a different level to actual practice in the classroom and that it is very hard to link results at one level to practice at another. I may know how the hippocampus works in incredible detail, but it is very hard to relate that to a lesson plan, not impossible but extremely hard. I absolutely buy that for brain science but I would extend to a lot of cognitive psychology.<br /></p><p>Take, for example, the research on giving feedback as summarised in <a href='http://www.willatworklearning.com/2008/05/free-research-r.html'>this excellent report</a> from Will Thalheimer. It refers to several studies which purport to illustrate that negative feedback for learners (correcting errors) is more important than positive feedback (pointing out successes). This is typically proven by providing learners with a limited, constrained, task such as reading a passage and then being presented with multiple choice questions about the content. The learners are split into groups and given types of feedback and then retested. My response to research of this nature is "so what?". It is not just that the task is not realistic – that is the inevitable result of trying to produce quantitative repeatable results in psychology. But it is at the wrong level. In a real learning situation there are so many other things going on that this kind of result is irrelevant. Learners need both negative and positive feedback. Learners have to know if they have made and error, and what that error is, or they will continue to make the error. But they also need the confidence and motivation that comes from recognising their success. In a real context it is daft to ask if one is more important than the other. It depends so much on the situation. Is it a difficult but motivating subject matter or trivial and potentially boring? How is the feedback being given? It can take so many forms: a teacher marking a piece of work, a "well done" to an answer in class, a solution to a problem in a piece of e-learning, an experiment that succeeds or fails. <br /></p><p><br /> </p><p><br /> </p><p><br /> </p></span>Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-16058948834650063662008-04-22T05:41:00.004+00:002008-04-22T06:59:22.771+00:00Lessons from the Brain Gym - the Science of LearningThe Brian Gym is a glaring example of a completely unproven theory about learning and development. Learning is full of theories that range from the complete nonsense of the Brain Gym through interesting, but unsubstantiated, ideas such as the hundreds of different learning styles (Kolb etc) to rock solid cognitive psychology (Ebbinghaus forgetting curves). Sitting to one side are a myriad of common-sense rules of thumb and folklore based on experience rather than science - don't lecture for more than 45 minutes, when asking open questions have a closed question to back it up, etc.<br /><br />The problem I find is that there is a kind of inverse correlation between veracity and utility. There are a few facts from cognitive psychology that are true, interesting and useful - the limits on short term memory for example - but precious few . On the other hand, VAK is scientifically highly dubious - but you can actually use it as an inspiration to make your courses more varied in their use of media and remind you that people do learn in different ways - even if it is not a fixed characteristic of a particular person. It is a productive way of thinking about courses and teaching.<br /><br />What would be great would be a body of useful, interesting and incontrovertible knowledge. But can anyone give 10 facts about learning that are:<br /><br />Scientifically indisputable<br />Interesting - not something that is obviously true<br />Make a practical difference to how we design or deliver training<br /><br />If not, then we have to go beyond the scientifically established to say anything interesting about training - a melange of home grown wisdom, interesting concepts and the occasional fact - hopefully held together with some straightforward logic.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-48293986151568646232008-04-20T09:34:00.002+00:002008-04-20T10:37:11.483+00:00Thoughts on the Brain Gym Fiasco and ScepticismThe Brain Gym has been very much in the news recently. Mostly because any pretensions to science behind it have been demolished - most publically by <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7320000/newsid_7327600/7327684.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1">Jeremy Paxman</a>.<br /><br />This <a href="http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/2008/04/paxman-and-charlie-brooker-humiliate.html">critical piece</a> is typical of the tone of the critics. It includes some short interviews from teachers, headteachers, and childern who have bought into the Brain Gym message. The comments are on the lines of:<br /><br /><em>This headmistress must be feeling quite embarrassed right about now.</em><br /><br />With reference to the Paxman interview:<br /><br /><em>Ooooh this is a good, good day.</em><br /><em>You must watch the glory below. It is radiant.</em><br /><br />Ben Goldacre <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=613">writes</a> in his blog and the Guardian:<br /><br /><em>Beyond the </em><a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=227"><em>stupidity</em></a><em> of some headteachers, how has Brain Gym survived?</em><br /><em></em><br />There is a definite tone of exultation in the humiliation of not only the inventor of Brian Gym but all the teachers and headteachers who have bought into it (the children who have bought into it are of course portrayed as innocent victims).<br /><br />I don't want to defend Brain Gym. Scientifically it is a fraud. But let's not be juvenile in our response. I doubt it it was a total waste of public money and time. Even the fiercest critics acknowledge as an aside that there is a merit in having children do refresher exercises during school. And there is immense scope for a placebo effect. If a child believes something is making them cleverer their confidence and enthusiasm will grow and the child is very likely to try harder and do better. There is a long tradition of teachers using metaphors and images that are not true but very helpful. My wife's singing teacher tells her pupils that the voice should come out of the top of the head. I don't know whether she literally believes this, and I don't care. She is a brilliant teacher and the image works.<br /><br />That poor headteacher has a real problem. Now that Brian Gym has been exposed, she has to either tell the children not to believe what they hear (i.e. lie to them) or somehow explain that it was an error without letting down all that confidence and energy. I don't want anyone to pretend that Brain Gym is science when it isn't. But sceptics should be wary of gloating over their superior knowledge. By and large they are not the ones on the spot. Many teachers found something they could use. Now it is going to be a lot harder to use it. The greatest blame should lie with Paul Dennison (the founder) but might the sceptics consider the positive side as well as well as the negative. Why not say "this may be useful in practice, but you should know that the underlying science is wrong" rather than accusing teachers of being stupid and gloating over their discomfort? Of course, that wouldn't be nearly so interesting a thing to write.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-6049202698972041612008-04-17T18:28:00.005+00:002008-04-18T10:05:25.971+00:00Can Learning and Development Contribute to Academia?<u>Rewritten 18th April for greater clarity</u><br /><br />I have been <a href="http://dcscience.net/?p=226">exchanging comments</a> with a number of academic lecturers, particularly Philip Moriarty, about the possibility of Learning and Development professionals contributing to the effectiveness of higher education, especially scientific higher education. I seem to have totally failed to explain my position and also offended Philip . This is a real shame and a testament as to how e-mail and blogging can mislead. I hope to correct this below.<br /><br />The gist of the comments from Philip (and others) is that only specialists in their area can contribute to their skill as educators e.g. “L & D do not have the subject-specific knowledge required to contribute effectively to the teaching of physics.” If true, this is remarkable. All other sectors - government, finance, manufacturing, military etc - get value from cross-fertilisation of ideas about learning, training and teaching. This includes intense technical subjects such such as specialist IT skills.<br /><br />I suspect that there is an underlying misunderstanding and the reason for the confusion is that Philip thinks that an L&D specialist is going to tell him how to do his job. This is also the implication of some of the other comments. Dr J for example appears to have strong ideas about what kind of lecture I am recommending – even though I have no idea! Nothing could be further from the case. I hope I can illustrate this by giving a fleshed out example. L&D assistance can vary from the very broad (what is your corporate learning strategy?) to the very specific (what is your question protocol when you teach?). I will take an example from the latter end.<br /><br />From time to time I run a workshop/course for instructors from a number of different areas, although the majority are IT related. Most attendees say this workshop has been productive and worthwhile although I frequently know little about their subject matter expertise (which can be extremely technical). I could imagine a similar workshop might have value for an academic department (I emphasise “might” – I don’t know nearly enough about the situation). The format is for each member to give a mini-teach session based on their own teaching experience and then for all workshop attendees (including the one who has just done the session) to make suggestions as to how that session might be even better. The attendees then have opportunities to develop and repeat their session throughout the workshop (it is usually 3 days). There are also short sessions dealing with certain points about the theory of learning and teaching, and discussion as to how these points might apply to the attendee’s own situation. Finally attendees are asked to write down what they have gained that is useful and make a plan for implementing what they have learned. With luck, the atmosphere is one of mutual respect and learning from each other. I would be surprised if I can’t add something having spent 30 years in learning and development across a wide variety of subject matters and industries, but there is no way in which I would be telling the attendees how to do their job. They learn. I don’t teach. Incidentally it is also generally good fun. It is of course vital that the attendees come with the right attitude!<br /><br />What kind of things might lecturers learn on a workshop such as this? It is very, very variable. It depends what is useful for them. Some things are fundamental truths of the psychology of learning (the longer you can leave it before recall, provided the recall is successful, then the longer the item will remain in memory afterwards). Other things are as trivial as tricks of the trade – putting post-its on flip charts you want to refer to frequently. Examples include questioning protocols (how to ask questions that sustain interaction and concentration without being discouraging or banal), handling tricky students, helping students with disabilities, when to use different types of visual aid, using different types of classroom technology, activities you can ask students to do, and so it goes on. However, none of these things are specific to the subject matter. The attendee will need to work out for themselves if/when to use them. But most do.<br /><br />This sounds a bit passive and innocuous. So I should make it clear that I ask instructors to try things they have not tried before and encourage them to think differently about the task of getting students to learn. One common trend is that attendees arrive with a view of education that is based round presentation and questions. The criterion for success is what the students think of the instructor. By the end of the workshop they are thinking in terms of what the students are doing and the criterion for success is what the students have learned and how their attitudes to the subject matter have developed. Anyone who is been in learning and development for a while will find nothing exceptional about this - but it is frequently a significant change for a professional who happens to be an instructor. But I must stress again that this is not prescribed as the "right way to teach". It is something that attendees come to adopt themselves (or not).<br /><br />It is clear from the comments that many academics have had unfortunate experiences with L&D sessions. And I have learned that FE takes education much more seriously than it did when I was an undergraduate. But there does seem to be an attitude of "no one can tell us anything to help us do our jobs". It is sad if this causes academics to ignore all the experience of learning that has been accumulated over the decades in industry and elsewhere.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-24135401092362668912007-12-19T09:15:00.000+00:002007-12-19T09:37:26.807+00:0010 Reasons for using LecturesDonald Clark has written a post <a href="http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2007/12/10-reasons-to-dump-lectures.html">10 reasons to dump lectures</a>. I agree that we use lectures too often and they often done badly. But I also think <strong>good</strong> lectures are irreplaceable. (Good lectures are broken into 15-20 minute sections, have a limited number of learning obectives, plan for interaction and participation, include opportunities for recall etc.) So here's 10 reasons for using (good) lectures.<br /><br />1. The lecturer can control the learning environment. Temperature, lighting, seating.<br />2. The learner is taken away from the distractions of the workplace. It makes it clear that their main task at this time is to learn.<br />3. The learner knows what to expect. They are in familiar territory and are not distracted by coming to grips with a new way of learning.<br />4. Learners have an opportunity to network and learn from each other.<br />5. Fixing a time for learning provides a focal point for getting it done and avoids prevarication.<br />6. Development costs can be low compared to most other methods.<br />7. Development time can be low compared to most other methods.<br />8. Delivery costs are small for small numbers of learners located close to the lecture.<br />9. Can combine flexibility with directed instruction. Directed instruction is good for novices (Kirschner, Sweller and Clark, 2006*). A good knowledgeable lecturer can adjust that direction to the needs of the learners.<br />10. It is possible to measure progress against affective objectives (albeit through subjective assessment by lecturer). A good lecturer can judge whether the learners are enthusiastic, convinced, sceptical etc in a way that is very difficult to do at reasonable cost with other media.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />*Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006). "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching". Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75-86Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-62997279150114501312007-12-05T13:15:00.000+00:002007-12-05T13:16:35.306+00:00The Learning Circuits Blog: December Big Question - What did you learn about learning?<a href="http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/2007/11/december-big-question-what-did-you.html#links">The Learning Circuits Blog: December Big Question - What did you learn about learning?</a><br /><br /><a href="http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/">Learning Circuits </a>have revived their Big Question of the Month. And this month it is "<a href="http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/2007/11/december-big-question-what-did-you.html">What did you learn about learning in 2007?</a>". I am afraid my biggest lessons were negative and were lessons about the degree to which bad things happen rather than totally new ideas:<br /><br />Even more than I realised, management are almost always content with the box ticked which shows that a "course" with an appropriate title was placed in front of the learner and the learner didn't complain. This then clears them of responsibility for training.<br /><br />Professional educators are even more obsessed than I thought with the design and content of formal learning events - whether they be e-learning, classroom or whatever. Perhaps because that is the bit they can most easily influence. They ignore the context in which this event falls. However, a mediocre course in a great context where the learner is motivated, given time and space, and will be able to relate the learning to their life will succeed. A terrific learning event in a lousy context will fail every time.<br /><br />Certification tests are even more meaninglesss than I realised. E.g. I was given an opportunity to take the ECDL tests free of charge. I comfortably passed the database test on the basis of skimming the chapter in a book. I have only opened Access once in my entire life. However, the Certiport tests for Microsoft products appear a bit better.<br /><br />On a more positive note I am more and more impressed by the resourcefulness of individuals in learning what they need to learn despite the obstacles we place in their path.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-45618433323066201572007-06-18T05:35:00.000+00:002007-06-18T07:48:28.209+00:00Left Brain - Right Brain follows VAKThere is some fascinating discussion <a href="http://clive-shepherd.blogspot.com/2007/06/neuromyths.html">here</a>, <a href="http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2007/06/left-brain-right-brain-myth.html">here</a> and <a href="http://internettime.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=656824:BlogPost:3525">here</a> about this <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9261727">article in the Economist </a> and <a href="http://www.oecd.org/documentprint/0,2744,en_2649_14935397_35002026_1_1_1_1,00.html">this article</a> by the excellent Frank Coffield on the relationship between neuroscience and education. Apparently the idea that the left side of the brain is associated with boring serial thinkers and the right side with fascinating lateral thinkers is out, and it is all proving much more complicated than that.<br /><br />Many teachers must have the same feelings about theories of learning that slimmers have about diets:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">every year we are told that everything we have been doing up until now is wrong and here is the <span style="font-weight: bold;">real </span>truth<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span>It is true that a lot of what has passed for the theory of learning has proved to be far less useful to teaching and learning than the hype at the time suggested. From operant conditioning through to learning styles, the study of learning has passed through fashions with little more lasting value than clothes fashion. Coffield's paper is warning that this may be just as true for neuroscience. The mistake is to assume that all science is like physics - pretty much a dead cert on which you can build trips to Mars. Theories of learning are tentative and their acceptance is as much down to the prestige and communications skills of its proponents as it is to evidence.<br /><br />But Coffield also points out that with proper attention to context and the reality of teaching there may be some useful nuggets arising from neuroscience. The same applies to some other theories that have fallen out of fashion. Even operant conditioning has been shown to be useful in the classroom in maintaining discipline among children with learning difficulties. <br /><br />I have never really taken much notice of the left brain/right brain meme. I always assumed it was an enormous over simplification and I never really cared <span style="font-style: italic;">where </span>things were happening in my brain anyhow. But it is quite useful to bear in mind the difference between analytical, logical approaches to a subject and creative, spontaneous approaches. As long as you don't take it too seriously, then left brain /right brain might be quite a useful image for reminding us that both are needed. In fact I may start to take it more seriously now.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-83342530148556996312007-06-05T13:30:00.000+00:002007-06-07T09:24:50.472+00:00Two examples of e-learningThe <a href="http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/">learning circuits big question</a> this month is: <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Where are the Examples of eLearning?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I have a couple of offerings that interest me. Neither of them would normally count as elearning - but then I imagine that will be true of most of the responses to this question.<br /><br /></span></span><br /><img src="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mark/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg" alt="" />My first example is the podcast of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml">BBC radio 4 programme In Our Time.</a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/media/iot_banner_new.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/media/iot_banner_new.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>This splendid series, which has been running for years, is full of solid and knowledgeable discussion about a very wide range of intellectual issues - science, arts and humanities. It demonstrates a few points about e-learning:<br /><ul><li>As a straightforward radio broadcast I don't think you could call it elearning. As a podcast replayed in my car - then I think you could. Which just shows that <span style="font-weight: bold;">the elearning label is pretty meaningless.</span></li><li>I find it is hopeless listening to it at home. There are too many distractions and a feeling I ought to be getting on with something useful. Listening to it in the car is brilliant. Nothing much else to do! <span style="font-weight: bold;">Context is all</span>.<br /></li><li>It is even better listening to it in the car when travelling with my wife. We share our enthusiasm for the programme and its content. We know we are likely to talk about it when the programme is finished. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Social context is even more important</span>.</li></ul><br />My second example is <a href="http://www.realclimate.org">www.realclimate.org.</a> For those that don't know it - this is a blog run by a group of climate scientists on the issue of climate change. Last year it was recognised by Nature as one of the top 5 science blogs. I doubt that any of its contributors would regard it as e-learning but it is packed full of content, comment and debate. If you are interested in learning about climate change it is a brilliant resource. You get explanations from leading experts, you see others expanding or disagreeing with what they have written, and get the opportunity to put forward your own opinion. Like most public blogs there is an awful lot of dross to be ignored - but that is quite easy to do.<br /><br />This demonstrates:<br /><ul><li>Effective elearning does not require great expertise in instructional design and presentation. The contributors are mostly good writers and know their stuff - but they are not professional educators. Subscribers will live with that because they are so interested. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Motivation is more important than presentation.</span></li><li>For some a blog such as realclimate can become an obsession, with multiple, often irate, postings at all hours of the night. This demonstrates the very high motivation of engaging in debate. It is a powerful learning force - causing people to do their own research and justify their positions with references - but the disagreements also rapidly become sterile and repetitive. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Debate is powerful learning tool but needs controlling.<br /></span></li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-89375470513993994622007-06-01T06:50:00.000+00:002007-06-01T07:08:38.012+00:00Update on Tony Buzan's forgetting curveThis business of the Tony Buzan forgetting curve <a href="http://learncontext.blogspot.com/2007/05/forgetting-curve-and-tony-buzan.html">(see previous post)</a> is starting to get under my skin. I tried contacting <a href="http://www.buzanworld.com/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Buzan World </span></a>and on separate occasions spoke to two very pleasant consultants who were quite sure there was underlying research and would get back to me. Neither did. I found this quite disappointing. Bear in mind that this is an organisation that makes a big deal of being based on sound psychological research.<br /><br />I first went on a Buzan course in the 1970s and it has given me some useful techniques which have stuck throughout my working life, especially mind mapping. Because they worked I have not questioned the underlying research - but now I may just be a bit more sceptical.<br /><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://learncontext.blogspot.com/2007/05/forgetting-curve-and-tony-buzan.html"><br /></a>Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-32689673998743958442007-05-16T09:47:00.000+00:002007-05-16T10:37:44.980+00:00The "forgetting curve" and Tony BuzanAnyone who has been on a course about learning will probably have seen a graph similar this.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.mtsu.edu/%7Esschmidt/Cognitive/forgetting/logfunc.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.mtsu.edu/%7Esschmidt/Cognitive/forgetting/logfunc.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />It is called a forgetting curve and shows how quickly we forget something we have learned. Just enter "forgetting curve" into Google Images for many examples. The curve was first established by<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Ebbinghaus"> Herman Ebbinghaus</a> experimenting on himself using nonsense syllables. However, it seems like the general shape of the curve is true for a large range of different subject matter and conditions - and that fits in with our everyday experience. The key points are:<br /><ul><li>you forget most soon after learning<br /></li><li>the curve flattens out so that the stuff you do retain you forget more slowly</li><li>you can change the shape of the curve with revision and recall</li></ul>All that is not controversial and I think anyone who has had to learn or teach would have taken the forgetting curve for granted.<br /><br />There is a slighty different shaped forgetting curve in use:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZQOtGolC3THUAsvm8c-oFyzNCDclRmEDM_n3r_3F6WfuddD-BvOGs5-TnXRscZ3t7zJUVgUxrdIHGo50EjJ58jbq9-eVOdMMgUhzDmNXNQw6oUuT8tXdTkyPu4w2JT2EYt6T0xjEknxo/s1600-h/Picture1.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZQOtGolC3THUAsvm8c-oFyzNCDclRmEDM_n3r_3F6WfuddD-BvOGs5-TnXRscZ3t7zJUVgUxrdIHGo50EjJ58jbq9-eVOdMMgUhzDmNXNQw6oUuT8tXdTkyPu4w2JT2EYt6T0xjEknxo/s320/Picture1.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5065099645083895442" border="0" /></a><br />which suggests that we can actually remember more a short period (e.g. 10 minutes) after learning something than we can remember immediately afterwards. I got this from Tony Buzan books such as "Use your head" and "Speed Memory" and I have faithfully reproduced it in my courses. It has some interested consequences for an instructor. For example, it might be more effective to finish a presentation, take a short break, and then summarise - rather than the traditional order of summarise and then take a break.<br /><br />Yesterday I noticed that this "Tony Buzan" shape is not mentioned in any of my more academic books on memory. So I thought I would track down the original research on which it is based. Several frustrated hours later I gave up. The Buzan books do not give academic references - they just use phrases such as "studies show". Google threw up several places where this shape of curve was used - some <a href="http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Emleyton/GenPsyc.htm">quite respectable</a> but they all seemed to come back to Buzan. I tried using various academic databases to search the voluminous literature on memory and forgetting - but they all came back to the Ebbinghaus shape not the Buzan shape.<br /><br />I don't know that it makes a lot of difference for teaching or learning in practice. You still need to review regularly to avoid forgetting. But it frustrates me - especially as I have believed and repeated the Buzan line for nearly 30 years now.<br /><br />So, if anyone reads this and knows of evidence for the Buzan curve or knows there is no such evidence - I would really like to hear from them.<br /><br />Meanwhile I will treat is slightly differently when it comes up on my course.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-51876043586654775302007-05-12T06:25:00.000+00:002007-05-12T07:06:11.427+00:00What use is Kolb?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/images/msp/kolb.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/images/msp/kolb.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br />The <a href="http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/2007/05/big-question-powerpoint.html">Big Question</a> at Learning Circuits on the use of PowerPoint included a reference to "some <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/powerpoint-presentations-a-disaster/2007/04/03/1175366240499.html">new research</a> " which was actually a newspaper article about some research. I tracked down the original papers which were interesting about PowerPoint, but included <a href="http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf">this paper</a><br />"Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching"<br /><br />It slaughters a range of sacred cows including David Kolb's learning cycle and learning styles inventory. Here is a quote from the paper:<br /><i><br />"Attempts to validate experiential learning and learning styles (Kolb, 1971, 1984, 1999) appear not to have been completely successful. Iliff (1994), for example, reported in “a<br />meta-analysis of 101 quantitative LSI studies culled from 275 dissertations and 624 articles that were qualitative, theoretical, and quantitative studies of ELT and the Kolb<br />Learning Style Inventory” (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001, p. 20) correlations classified as low (< .5) and effect sizes that were weak (.2) to medium (.5). He concluded that the magnitude of these statistics is not sufficient to meet standards of predictive validity to support the use of the measures or the experiential methods for training at work. Similarly, Ruble and Stout (1993), citing a number of studies from 1980 through 1991, concluded that the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI-1976; Kolb, 1976) has low test–retest reliability, that there is little or no correlation between factors that should correlate with the classification of learning styles, and that it does not enjoy a general acceptance of its usefulness, particularly for research purposes." </i><br /><br />I sometimes include the Kolb learning cycle in my courses. Does this mean I should throw it out? I don't think so. It is a matter of asking the right question.<br /><br />If you ask - <span style="font-style: italic;">does Kolb describe how people learn?</span><br /><br />Then the answer has to be "no". There isn't the evidence.<br /><br />But if you ask - <span style="font-style: italic;">does Kolb describe <span style="font-weight: bold;">a </span>way people learn?</span><br /><br />Then the answer is almost trivially "yes"<br /><br />And the really important question becomes "<span style="font-style: italic;">is it useful?</span>". It is the difference between a psychological law and a pragmatic tool for thinking about training. I find Kolb really useful, provided I treat it as a tool and not as a prescription. I generally interpret the <span style="font-weight: bold;">experience </span>stage very broadly e.g. it might include the presentation of information or experience the delegates have had before they come on a class. Then it reminds me to allow for <span style="font-weight: bold;">reflection</span>, which might be drawing out common factors from the experience in discussion, <span style="font-weight: bold;">conceptualisation</span>, bringing it together into some general lessons, and <span style="font-weight: bold;">experimentation </span>- OK try it yourselves.<br /><br />It is not the only way of structuring a class - but it is often a good one.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5946456169920853079.post-47403063890720993852007-05-09T10:58:00.000+00:002007-05-10T08:15:04.452+00:00Using PowerPoint creates a context<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/linthicum/archives/Linthicum%20SOA%20Presentation%201.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/linthicum/archives/Linthicum%20SOA%20Presentation%201.JPG" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />My first post is inspired by this month's <a href="http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/2007/05/big-question-powerpoint.html">Big Question</a> at Learning Circuits on the use of PowerPoint. This seems to come up regularly and many people have already made excellent points about it being only a tool and what matters is how you use it. There is also loads of stuff on what makes for good PowerPoint. I particularly liked <a href="http://breeze.bloomu.edu/powerpointtips/">Karl Kapp's examples</a>.<br /><br /><strong>What strikes me is that using PowerPoint creates a context.</strong><br /><br />Look at the picture above. The room is darkened. I am willing to bet there is no view of the outside - either its a room with no windows ore all curtains or blinds have been drawn. Everyone faces in the same direction. There is probably a background hum from the projector. The short sighted put on glasses and (unless they have variable focus) they can no longer easily see their notes. It also sets a social context. Most audiences will have listened to countless PowerPoint management, finance, sales, etc presentations. They expect to be passive , somewhat bored, and not to have to work hard.<br /><br />All of this applies <i>whatever is on the slides</i>. So if you want your audience to be active, excited and hard working then you are going to have to work that bit harder to make it happen.Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0