A More Nuanced and Adaptable Approach to Teaching and Learning

I can't say it better than ChatGPT. In having a debate with ChatGPT, the service happened upon a wording I can agree with. Here is the full conversation:  

Prompt: Define "constructivism" in education with some nuance. 

Response: Constructivism is an educational theory that emphasizes the active role of learners in the process of knowledge construction. It suggests that individuals build their understanding of the world through experiences, interactions, and reflection rather than simply receiving information passively. Here are some nuanced aspects of constructivism in education: 

Active Engagement: Constructivism posits that learners actively engage with new information by connecting it to their existing knowledge and experiences. This involvement in the learning process is considered crucial for meaningful understanding. 

Social Interaction: Social interaction plays a significant role in constructivist learning. Collaborative activities, discussions, and group work are believed to enhance learning by providing learners with diverse perspectives and encouraging the exchange of ideas.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): This concept, introduced by Lev Vygotsky, is often associated with constructivism. It refers to the range of tasks that a learner can perform with the help of a more knowledgeable person. In a constructivist framework, educators aim to guide learners within their ZPD to facilitate optimal learning.

Scaffolding: Educators provide scaffolding, or temporary support, to learners as they engage in challenging tasks. This support is gradually reduced as learners gain proficiency and independence in their learning.

Reflection: Constructivism places a strong emphasis on reflection as a means of deepening understanding. Learners are encouraged to think about their thought processes, question assumptions, and consider alternative perspectives.

Contextual Learning: Learning is seen as a contextualized process, where the context in which knowledge is acquired is integral to understanding. Real-world applications and problem-solving scenarios are often incorporated to make learning more relevant and meaningful.

Multiple Perspectives: Constructivism recognizes that individuals may construct knowledge in diverse ways. Different learners may interpret and apply information differently based on their unique backgrounds, experiences, and cognitive processes.

Individual Differences: While constructivism emphasizes the importance of social interaction, it also acknowledges that individuals have unique ways of learning. Teachers may need to adapt their instructional strategies to cater to the diverse learning styles and preferences of students.

Assessment Challenges: Traditional forms of assessment may not fully capture the depth of understanding in a constructivist approach. Authentic assessments, such as projects, portfolios, and presentations, are often preferred as they allow learners to demonstrate their understanding in a more holistic manner. In summary, constructivism in education is a multi-faceted theory that recognizes the dynamic and interactive nature of the learning process. It places learners at the center of their own learning and emphasizes the importance of social interaction, reflection, and contextualized experiences in the construction of knowledge. 

 Prompt: This is nonsense. Contrast the above with "Cognitive Load Theory"  

Response: Certainly, let's contrast Constructivism with Cognitive Load Theory: 

Focus on Learning Process vs. Cognitive Capacity: 

Constructivism: Emphasizes the learning process, viewing knowledge construction as an active, social, and contextualized endeavor. Learners are encouraged to explore, interact, and reflect to build their understanding. 

Cognitive Load Theory: Focuses on the cognitive capacity of learners and how the design of instructional materials can influence the efficiency of learning. It suggests that the cognitive load (mental effort) imposed on learners should be managed to optimize learning outcomes. 

Role of Instruction: 

Constructivism: Values a more student-centered and facilitative role for educators. Teachers serve as guides, providing scaffolding and support as learners actively engage with the content. 

Cognitive Load Theory: Advocates for carefully designed instructional materials that manage the cognitive load. It suggests that unnecessary cognitive load, such as extraneous information, should be minimized, and essential cognitive load should be appropriately managed.

Social Interaction vs. Individual Processing: 

Constructivism: Highlights the importance of social interaction, collaboration, and discussions in the learning process. Learners benefit from sharing ideas, perspectives, and working together to construct knowledge. 

Cognitive Load Theory: Focuses more on individual cognitive processing. It suggests that learners have limited cognitive resources and, therefore, instructional materials should be designed to avoid overloading these limited capacities. 

Assessment Emphasis: 

Constructivism: Favors authentic assessments that reflect real-world applications and understanding. Assessment methods may include projects, portfolios, and presentations to capture the depth of learning. 

Cognitive Load Theory: Is often associated with more traditional forms of assessment, as it is concerned with optimizing the efficiency of learning. Assessments may focus on the retention of essential information and problem-solving abilities with reduced cognitive load. 

Learning Styles vs. Cognitive Load Management: 

Constructivism: Acknowledges and accommodates diverse learning styles and preferences. Different learners may construct knowledge in various ways based on their unique backgrounds and experiences.

Cognitive Load Theory: Focuses on managing cognitive load universally. It doesn't necessarily tailor instructional methods to individual learning styles but rather aims to optimize learning for a broad range of learners.

Epistemological Assumptions:

Constructivism: Assumes that knowledge is actively constructed by learners through their experiences and interactions. Reality is subjective, and individuals create their understanding of it.

Cognitive Load Theory: Takes a more objective stance, focusing on the cognitive processes involved in learning and how they can be optimized for efficient knowledge acquisition.

In summary, while Constructivism emphasizes the active role of learners in knowledge construction through social interaction and contextualized experiences, Cognitive Load Theory focuses on managing the cognitive demands placed on learners to optimize the efficiency of learning, often through well-designed instructional materials. These theories represent different perspectives on how learning occurs and how it can be facilitated.

Prompt: Justify "learning styles." There is no such thing.

Response: The concept of "learning styles" has been a topic of debate in educational psychology, and there is criticism regarding the scientific validity and practical implications of the idea. Critics argue that the evidence supporting the existence of distinct learning styles, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic preferences, is limited. However, it's essential to acknowledge some justifications and considerations associated with the concept: Individual Differences: People do have individual differences in how they prefer to process information and engage in learning activities. While the specific categorization of learning styles may lack empirical support, recognizing and accommodating diverse learning preferences can still be valuable. Varied Instructional Approaches: The idea of learning styles has led to the exploration and development of varied instructional approaches in education. Teachers often strive to use a mix of visual aids, auditory explanations, hands-on activities, and group discussions to cater to different preferences within a diverse classroom. Metacognition and Self-Reflection: Encouraging students to reflect on their learning preferences can foster metacognition—the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes. While the concept of fixed learning styles has limitations, helping students understand how they learn best can promote effective study habits and self-directed learning. Motivation and Engagement: Tailoring instruction to different modalities may enhance student motivation and engagement. While the evidence for fixed learning styles is debated, there is support for the idea that presenting information in diverse ways can make learning more interesting and accessible to a wider range of students. Learning Preferences vs. Fixed Styles: It's important to distinguish between the idea of fixed, rigid learning styles and the recognition that individuals may have preferences for certain learning modalities in specific contexts. People might prefer visual aids for understanding complex diagrams but auditory explanations for memorizing information. Practical Pedagogical Adaptations: Teachers often adapt their teaching methods to suit the diverse needs of students, whether or not these preferences align with a specific learning styles theory. This adaptability is a fundamental aspect of effective teaching. In summary, while the concept of fixed and distinct learning styles has faced criticism, recognizing and accommodating diverse learning preferences is still relevant in education. The key lies in promoting a flexible and evidence-based approach to instruction that considers individual differences, encourages metacognition, and enhances engagement. The focus should be on creating a rich learning environment that allows for varied modalities rather than adhering strictly to a predefined set of learning styles.

Prompt: So, instead of "learning styles," we should use "creative repetition of content"?

Response:The term "creative repetition of content" may capture the essence of a more nuanced and adaptable approach to teaching and learning that doesn't rely on rigid learning style categories. Instead of categorizing learners into specific styles, educators can focus on creating diverse and engaging learning experiences that involve repetition, reinforcement, and creativity.

Here are some key considerations: 

Diverse Instructional Methods: Encourage teachers to use a variety of instructional methods to present content. This may include visual aids, hands-on activities, discussions, multimedia resources, and other creative approaches. The goal is to cater to different preferences and strengths without confining learners to a fixed style. 

Adaptive Teaching Strategies: Emphasize the importance of adaptive teaching strategies. Teachers can observe how students respond to different approaches and be flexible in adjusting their methods to meet the needs of individual learners or the class as a whole.

Repetition for Reinforcement: Recognize the value of repetition in the learning process. Repetition, when done creatively, can reinforce concepts, enhance retention, and provide opportunities for varied experiences. It's not about presenting the same information in the same way repeatedly but finding creative ways to revisit and reinforce key concepts.

Incorporate Creativity: Infuse creativity into the learning process. This can involve projects, collaborative activities, problem-solving tasks, and other activities that stimulate students' creativity while reinforcing the content. Creative approaches can enhance engagement and make learning more enjoyable.

Personalized Learning Experiences: Acknowledge the importance of personalized learning experiences. Students may have preferences for how they engage with content, and providing options allows them to choose approaches that align with their individual strengths and interests.

Metacognition and Reflection: Encourage metacognition and reflection. Students benefit from understanding their own learning processes, including how they best retain and apply information. Reflection prompts can help them identify effective strategies for future learning.

Balanced Approach: Advocate for a balanced approach that considers both the diversity of learners and the evidence-based practices that support effective teaching and learning. It's about finding a middle ground between recognizing individual differences and promoting a common foundation of knowledge and skills.

In essence, the focus should be on a dynamic and adaptable teaching approach that combines repetition, creativity, and flexibility. This approach recognizes the uniqueness of learners without subscribing to fixed learning styles, fostering an environment that promotes engagement, understanding, and retention.

Just seeing if Blogger works with H5P Iframe Embed

Test Iframe:

Skills and Knowledge for Online/Blended Teaching

Here's a follow-up post to something I wrote five years ago on a taxonomy for an eLearning professional. I put together a rubric that matches that post on a Google Doc on the Skills and Knowledge for Online/Blended Teaching. Like the previous post, it is meant to think about paths for professional development regardless at what level one is working at in eLearning.

Questioning the Dual Channel Theory

I was investigating the dual channel theory used in Mayer and Moreno (1999). After a review of the literature, it appears that the theory is currently unreliable.

Long-term and Working Memory

Cognitive psychology identifies two types of memory: a very limited working memory and a theoretically unlimited long-term memory. Memories stored in long-term memory are stored in “hierarchically organized schemas which permit us to treat multiple sub-elements of information as a single element” (Kalyuga et al., 1999, p. 351). Working memory, on the other hand, is very limited and can be overloaded easily unless attached to an existing schema. Thus, Kalyuga et al. (1999) posit a split-attention effect where some working memory resources must be devoted to processing the connection between two separate pieces of information (a diagram and text explanation, for instance). Kalyuga et al. (1999) indicate the audio presentation of information improves learning by overcoming the split-attention effect since the diagram and audio explanation can be presented simultaneously. Mayer and Moreno (1999) confirm the main premise of Kalyuga et al. through their modality effect. They propose a “dual-processing model of working memory with separate channels for visual and auditory processing” (Mayer & Moreno, 1999, p. 359). Both Kayuga et al. (1999) and Mayer and Moreno (1999) relate their research to previous cognitive psychological theorists who observed some form of splitting in the working memory.

Cognitive Psychology Support for Separate Audio/Visual Channels

Several cognitive psychologists have presented evidence of divisions in working memory. Paivio (1991) has researched the “dual coding theory (DCT) of memory and cognition” (p. 255) for decades. Paivio (1991) posits a split in working memory between verbal, including printed or spoken words, and non-verbal elements, including visual objects or environmental sounds and other sensorimotor impressions. Likewise, Penney (1989) observed a difference in short-term retention of information either seen or heard. Her separate-streams hypothesis, however, only identifies a difference between the modalities that lasts only seconds in a sensory store. As Reinwein (2012) identifies, another theorist, Alan Baddeley, posits a split in working memory between a visuo-spatial sketchpad that processes symbolic information and a phonological loop that processes verbal information. Printed information that is read is also processed through this phonological loop indirectly through an internal articulation. There is evidence of divisions in working memory. However, as Reinwein (2012) argues, while there may be analogous connections between the splits identified in the split-attention effect and the modality effect and the divisions found by Paivio  (1991), Penney (1989), and Baddeley, none of cognitive psychological models presented directly supports separate channels for visual and auditory processing.

Questioning the Research Supporting Separate Audio/Visual Channels

Apart from the lack of support from cognitive psychology for the theories of Kayuga et al. (1999) and Mayer and Moreno (1999), questions have been raised about the reliability and validity of their research. Reinwein (2012) questions several aspects of the research of Kayuga et al. (1999) and Mayer and Moreno (1999). First, he identifies the lack of direct support from the aforementioned cognitive psychologists who Kayuga et al. (1999) and Mayer and Moreno (1999) cite. In fact, Reinwein (2012) indicates that both Kayuga et al. (1999) and Mayer and Moreno (1999) have “experimentally crossed the variables Modality (visual, auditory) with Memory (short term, long term)” (p. 27). Second, Reinwein (2012) performs meta-analysis on the same published research of that another researcher had previously studied in a meta-analysis. Having corrected for certain methodological problems, Reinwein (2012) found half the effect size previously identified by the other meta-analysis. Third, Reinwein (2012) further halves the effect size when correcting for publication bias, where studies showing high effect sizes are more likely to be published than studies showing low effect sizes. Lindow et al. (2011) hypothesize about how the same publication bias may explain how robust the research underlying the modality effect appears, at first. They note that almost half of the published studies supporting the modality effect appear in a single journal, the Journal of Educational Psychology. Lindow et al. (2011) attempt to replicate the findings of Mayer and Moreno (1999) by repeating their experiment and fail to find a modality effect. They hypothesize that, rather than a modality effect, an “auditory recency hypothesis” (Lindow et al., 2011, p. 232) may explain the effect seen in the findings of Mayer and Moreno (1999). The auditory recency hypothesis posits that the final sentence heard is retained significantly longer than when read. Thus, the length of text used in Mayer and Moreno (1999) may have contributed to the appearance of a modality effect. According to Lindow et al. (2011), the questions that have been raised about Mayer and Moreno (1999) and the lack of replication of their work casts doubt on the validity of their work, and more confirmation or disconfirmation in future studies is needed.

Conclusion

Serious questions have been raised about the reliability of the research that indicates a split between an audio and a visual channel in working memory. If these separate channels do not exist, the Modality Principle is brought under question, and if it turns out the Modality Principle does not exist, then the Reverse Modality Effect would need to be renamed.

References

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing Split-attention and Redundancy in Multimedia Instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.

Lindow, S., Fuchs, H. M., Fürstenberg, A., Kleber, J., Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2011). On the robustness of the modality effect: Attempting to replicate a basic finding. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25(4), 231-243.

Moreno, R. & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368. 

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual Coding Theory: Retrospect and Current Status. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 45(3), 255-287.

Penney, C.G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17 (4), 398-422.

Reinwein, J. (2012). Does the Modality Effect Exist? and if So, Which Modality Effect? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(1), 1-32.

Leadership and Technology 2

As mentioned in my last post, the ed tech field is relatively new and has few well-recognized success criteria. This lack leaves the field open in particular to suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, where relatively ignorant newcomers can have delusions of grandeur about their own skill level. A relatively trivial or shallow understanding of ed tech can lead some to believe that they are more skilled than they actually are. This attitude can negatively impact student learning and faculty prioritization of professional development. Faculty suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect can also easily spread misinformation and poor practices to other faculty. Additionally, they may have only a rudimentary understanding of a leader’s communicated vision but believe they have a full understanding of the vision and are implementing it successfully.

Thomas and Patricia Reeves, in their article, “Educational Technology Research in a VUCA World,” produced the following table distinguishing between ed tech research that focuses on the technology rather than on the pedagogy:

Research focused on things is what we do	Research focused on problems is what we should do
Learning Analytics Mobile Learning Online Learning 3D Printing Games and Simulations Wearable Technology Clickers and SmartBoards Machine Learning Virtual Assistants Immersive Learning	Ineffective teaching Inadequate higher order learning Poor learner motivation Failure to engage Little preparation for real world Lack of intellectual curiosity Undeveloped creativity Weak communication skills Insufficient time-on-task Declining value of degrees

The list on the left, on things that research tends to focus on, is driven more from an IT perspective while the list on the right, on things that the Reeve’s feel research should focus on, is driven more from a teaching perspective. This is an interesting and potentially fruitful discussion for ed tech leaders to be having with faculty. However, by shifting the focus too much to pedagogical concerns, there runs the risk of simplistic 1:1 “solutions” such as statements like “I use Pinterest to engage students,” especially among those who are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Rather than seeing one research area as less important for research than another area, these two areas should be seen as two sides of the same coin. Thus, specific technologies should not be separated from the problems they are attempting to solve. This view has the further advantage of potentially comparing a variety of technologies and their effects on a single pedagogical problem. This strategy combats the simplistic 1:1 relationship of technology and “solution.” 

Ed tech leadership has an important role to play in promoting this linking of technology with pedagogical problem-solving. By looking at technology interventions as pedagogical problem-solving, leaders can decide on the best approaches to promote based on the available research. York University struck an educational technology advisory group (an example of distributed leadership) which researched the university’s potential direction and settled on a strategy of primarily offering blended learning with some increases in fully online courses. Other schools have implemented a “flipped classroom” strategy, providing the technological architecture to allow faculty to have low barriers of entry to implementing the strategy and robust supports. Promoting a single vision for technology adoption allows the organization to specialize in a particular strategy. That strategy can then be properly resourced with adequate support staff. As well, the pedagogical problems that are addressed by that technology strategy can be properly understood by faculty through professional development.

Leadership and Technology 1

I am quite new to the concept of leadership and the various styles of leadership, so my blog posts will be quite focused on the basics and me thinking through leadership and technology. I have been a leader in the past and still consider myself a leader to a certain extent, even though my position is not a formal leadership position. Currently, I try to lead the faculty that I work with as well as leading by example; for instance, I try to demonstrate the proper use of educational technology when presenting to large groups.

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/leadership/leadership-ideas/leadership-styles/main

There are four primary leadership styles that are often combined in a number of ways as well as a fifth leadership style that also appeals to me:

1.     Autocratic: Autocratic leaders retain all power for themselves. This speeds decision-making but can lead to an organizational culture that is primarily concerned with issues of power and status.

2.     Managerial: The managerial leader is primarily concerned with running the organization smoothly and may not promote a clear and inspiring vision for the organization.

3.     Democratic: A democratic leader takes into account the opinions of his or her followers but feels that the final decision-making authority resides with them. Although consulted, the followers can lack buy-in to the leader’s decision.

4.     Collaborative: A collaborative leaders not only consults with his or her followers but also makes decisions through discussion and democratic decision-making, which hopefully arrives at a consensus. While this style of leadership increases the likelihood of buy-in, it can be inefficient.

5.     Servant: A “leader among equals.” The servant leader seeks to serve his or her “constituents” and views them as peers and not followers.

I believe I naturally gravitate toward being a servant leader. Perhaps it’s growing up in a hockey culture where one is expected to defer to team success and not take individual credit for successes that makes me attracted to that concept. There may be a team captain and some on the team may get paid more, but everyone has a role to play that is equally important to team success. If a fellow team member is a competent professional, there should be no reason to not see them as equals.

In addition to the above styles, James MacGregor Burns contrasted two different styles: transactional and transformational. Transactional leaders see leadership as a series of transactions and may be most closely related to the managerial leader above. Examples of transactions are rewards, punishments, reciprocity, and monetary. A transformational leader, on the other hand, creates a vision and encourages followers to pursue that vision by aligning that vision to the motivations of the followers. The transformational leader empowers the followers to pursue fulfillment of the vision. The transactional and the transformational cannot be completely separated. Without any vision, the transactional leader is a tedious bureaucrat. Without any management, the transformational leader is an ungrounded dreamer. I see myself more of a transactional leader. Any larger “vision” that I may have is too abstract to communicate clearly and not particularly interesting to me anyway because I am not a fan of abstraction; the “vision” that I communicate is through example: learn more and be able to do more, so that you can perform your job function better.

I see leadership overall as a Venn diagram:

While we associate the transformational leader with having a vision and the transactional leader with managing resources, I think it is important to separate out the concept of “charisma” from those two other functions. Charisma here means the ability to influence others to follow one’s direction. Since the leader and manager cannot be discretely separated, I think there is an overlap between the leader and manager. The ideal transformational leader, I think, is able to combine all three traits. The ideal leader can present a vision, manage resources, and persuade others to follow the leader’s direction. I think it is important to separate out charisma because with any one of the three traits, a person can perform or appear to perform a useful role in an organization. I have known managers who are able to get by while having no vision and being poor resource managers, especially in a field as new as ed tech; however, a charismatic person can succeed by the sheer force of their personality, persuading their bosses that they are doing well both as leaders and managers. This person in the diagram has been labelled the “charlatan,” a person who is both an ineffective manager and leader and only appears to be doing a successful job based on their ability to “talk a good game.” In a field such as ed tech, which has few, clear, well-known success metrics, a charlatan can easily dazzle his or her superiors by making the most banal achievement seem extraordinary and the time taken by employees to reach the banal achievement to be an efficient use of resources. Charisma is also important to managers or leaders who lack the other trait that an ideal leader has: a manager who lacks vision and a visionary who lacks management. By being able to influence others charismatically, a leader can get others to embrace his or her vision. Conversely, one may have an excellent vision for an organization but be unable to persuade anyone else to adopt that vision. A charismatic manager, on the other hand, can positively impact the morale of his or her employees while managing them as resources by persuading them that the constraints he or she is placing on the employee are more agreeable than they might otherwise be coming from a less persuasive manager.