Sunday, October 18, 2015

[ED 257A] Week 3: Cognitive Theories and Multimedia



Learning how to learn

Source: http://www.digitalistmag.com/files/2015/10/Prospect-Mortgage.jpg


This post is based off of the following readings:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller, 2014, Ch. 7 "Incorporating multimedia effectively"

Ocepek, et al. 2013. "Exploring the relation between learning style models and preferred multimedia."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This week was quite enlightening for myself as a student and instructor. We learned this past class of the different learning styles that have been proposed (I'm experimenting with media type 3 from Ocepek. Please let me know it's going :) ): 

  • Kolb's learning style: 4 modes of learning, most commonly applied in e-learning, which can be combined into dominant modes
    • 4 modes: abstract conceptualization (AC), concrete experience (CE), active experimentation (AE), and reflective observation (RO)
    • combinations of dominant modes: assimilator (dominant modes AC and RO), converger (dominant modes AC and AE), accommodator (dominant modes CE and AE), and diverger (dominant modes CE and RO)
  •  Rancourt’s learning styles model (RLS): 
    • “a characteristic mode of way of manifesting cognitive and/or affective phenomena”
    • rational (R), empirical (E), and noetic (N) style (subjective insights)
  • Hemispheric dominance and learning styles (HLS)
    • right-hemispheric (simulations, experiments, intuitive reasoning, creative thinking), left-hemispheric (facts, logical reasoning, working with numbers), and integrated learning style
    • this is the left-brain, right-brain model
  •  VAK learning style model (VLS) (reduced VARK, with reading)
    • visual, audio, kinesthetic learning modes
I was most familiar with the VAK learning style model, and used to identify as a primarily kinesthetic learner. Because of this, I always wrote things down and did loads of practice problems in order to make up for the PowerPoint presentation heavy lectures (even for derivations!) in school. Perhaps this ended up being the self-fulfilling prophecy we discussed, in which if you believe you cannot do something, you won't. As the reader, have you ever found yourself in a similar position? Last week's class was a great clarification of what it means to learn, i.e., learning how to learn.

There were particular insights from our small group and class discussions that I think are worth mentioning. The first is the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of media in the classroom. Not only are there huge numbers of variable to control (e.g., time of measurement, demographic, finding a representative form of multimedia, discipline-specific challengest), but also confounding variables to account for (i.e., correlation, not causation). This is a common trait among all fields of research, but is a good reminder that just because the results say something, it does not necessarily reflect reality. That is, even if there is research that says one particular form of media is good or bad, this does not mean it is the panacea or poison of education. We always need to be vigilant of our results.

A second insight is to focus less on learning styles and more on learning preferences. I would like to add, perhaps it also makes sense to focus more on understanding the learning preferences each form of media enables. In other words, it is not necessary for a specific form of media (e.g., simulations) to fit in a specific learning style (e.g., right-hemispheric thinking). Of course, this complicates the picture, but it also opens some opportunities to think of forms of media in a new light (e.g., using simulations to go through a thought experiment, which requires logical thinking). Along the same vein is how to measure the successful implementation of media in the classroom. The biggest realization is the lack of congruence between teaching with media and testing without media. The example given in class I think illustrated this point well: for a foreign language class, changing the test to include more contextual and picture-based questions as practiced led to better retention. 

This led me to rethink the class on Materials in Energy Technologies course I'm helping to teach this quarter. Our goal in this course was to make materials science accessible to the non-materials scientist and to make connections of energy-related technologies with concepts of materials scientist. In order to do so, we've included many interactive activities (e.g., think-pair-share) to encourage our students to think about how materials science impact their everyday lives (e.g., how does understanding materials in extreme environments impact our ability to provide the electricity you use everyday? ans: it lets the turbines work at the extreme temperatures and pressures needed to transform the mechanical rotating energy from pushing steam into electrical energy). We've also included many guest lectures to show that all the theory we talk about in class has real-life applications and are still open-research questions. However, we still have a final at the end of the course planned. I feel we could very easily fall into same trap of testing in a different mode than our teaching.  Do you have recommendations/suggestions? Have you had a similar experience where the test and teaching methods didn't match up? I'd love to hear about your experiences!





1 comment:

  1. I think that's cool that you're trying to integrate different teaching methods into your materials class. As a student I have found it really frustrating when the exam doesn't resemble other things we experienced in the class. I don't think the exam would be too different from these activities if it incorporates writing out their thoughts on a topic, or has them relate the topic to a concept (similar to their discussions). If the have more problem-solving based homework too that could be practice for the exam questions maybe?

    ReplyDelete