TQ#6 A Quixotic Search for Elegant Learning Solutions

In the readings and during the web-conferencing research this week I became increasingly angry regarding the notion that collaboration was some sort of magic bullet and that virtual classrooms somehow facilitate the sociocognitive process better than live classrooms.

Jonassen referring to Sardamalia suggests that the best way to deal with divergent or opposing ideas is to rise above their incompatibilities. This statement is not just nonsensical, but dangerous. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. The immersion of students in collaborative environments in which there are no ideas that win or lose, or even “compromise” ideas is simply setting them up for failure. In the real, more competitive global economy the better most “right” idea wins.

Jonassen also suggests that virtual collaboration somehow creates “communities” of intrinsically motivated learners in which individual students are no longer “disconnected” or competing with each other in live classroom settings. The author’s view that online collaboration somehow removes the social communities and cliques that include some and exclude others in live classroom environments is misguided. In fact, the implied anonymity of virtual environments, without the social filters of live classrooms, might create an even “meaner” environment for more passive, disenfranchised students.

That being said, given our investigation of Illuminate and my experience with Wedex (http://www.webex.com) at B. Braun Medical, there is absolutely nothing that online web-conferencing tools offer that can’t be accomplished better in a live classroom setting. Illuminate is not at all intuitive and I needed to invest about 2-3 hours to just figure out how to navigate the application. As can be seen in the screen shot that precedes this entry, we did discover how to load and share a PowerPoint presentation and a video. As we struggled through this discovery process we used the chat box to communicate because we had challenges using the audio feature. When we finally learned how to share the audio component we used both instant messaging and audio to communicate, but the limitations of the technology were barely tolerable. The lag time between a comment made by one person, who then needed to relinquish audio control over to another, stifled the collaborative process. Beyond the inability to talk normally, the need to constantly “enable” or “disable” the application’s features to “share” content was a creativity killer.

Illuminate, like Webex, is a less expensive alternative to push out information by a very skilled moderator to a geographically dispersed audience. For example, if we need just two hours to teach sales reps in all 50 states about a new product feature, it is more timely, faster and cheaper using Webex than the travel and expense required getting everyone who needs the information into a live classroom setting. However, the tool is used as a controlled virtual classroom where information is presented, during which questions can be asked and addressed. The benefit of Webex is that it combines web-conferencing with teleconferencing applications so that the audio component more clearly mirrors a live authentic conversation. If we feel a more collaborative, interpersonal, interactive environment is required for knowledge transfer we move field sales personnel into live classroom environments. I have not yet seen a virtual tool that can improve upon the sociocognitive learning process of a great live classroom environment.

In 1871 Edward Jarvis studied 1,741 cases of insanity and concluded that too much cognitive effort was responsible for 205 of them. This study led to shortening school days and lengthening summer vacations “to reduce time spent studying, because long periods of respite could save the mind from injury” (Kenneth Gold, School’s In: The History of Summer Education in American Public Schools, 2002). I believe that this American legacy of less time in the classroom, aligned with a distant western agricultural mindset, has much do with the performance of our students when compared with global peers. We spend an inordinate amount of time focused on solutions that include technology integration, reducing class size, rewriting curricula, etc., but avoid discussing one of the overarching issues related to student performance, which is the length of the time American students spend in the classroom – an average of 180 days per year. Given that South Korean Students spend 220 days a year in the classroom and Japanese students spend 243 days a year in the classroom one has to wonder why we spend so much time on ancillary, nice-to-have, academically interesting topics like the value of web-conferencing.

American students need to spend more time in classroom and work harder than they do now. They need to learn how to collaborate with others, but more emphasis needs to be focused on developing compelling arguments and leading others to action. They need to learn how to compete effectively, learning how to win gracefully and how to continuously learn through losing, or a common Chinese proverb directed at the United States will become a reality – fu bu guo san dai (wealth doesn’t make if past three generations).

TQ#5 I Read About Concept Mapping and Created One – Certainly Not a “Game Changer” For Me

After reading Jonassen (Chapter 5), Modeling With Technologies and after completing the Cmap exercise pictured above, I’m surprised we focused that much energy on this topic. To me, his discussions related to modeling with systems dynamics tools, modeling problems with spreadsheets, modeling thinking with expert systems, and modeling experiences with expert systems was much more compelling.

Perhaps I’m not impressed because beyond learning how to navigate the application, working with the tool did not require much effort around a content area that was personally relevant or meaningful to me. That being said, I think that Jonassen’s recommendation that concept mapping tools be used for reflection during an entire course of study makes sense, which is probably why I didn’t benefit much from the Cmap exercise. A concept map used as a metacognitive, think-about-thinking, facilitator to help make sense of sequentially, increasingly comprehensive and complex domain knowledge could be a wonderful way of identifying knowledge gaps or unanswered questions. I will consider using concept mapping as I work through an upcoming 18-month venipuncture simulator pilot study at B. Braun. I believe that this will result in a fairer assessment of concept mapping.

What I’m particularly excited about is systems dynamic tools. I was unaware of these kinds of programs. The potential educational value of these kinds of applications at B. Braun is significant. For example, if my sales representatives, or their anesthesia customers, could work through the variable orthopedic post surgical outcomes of nausea, vomiting and pain, by comparing and contrasting the use of a variety of preoperative and intraoperative anesthetic techniques, authentic knowledge would be constructed in a way that isn’t possible by discussing peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic. I will be researching Stella, VenSim, and PowerSim to assess their capabilities to create this kind of a dynamic cause and effect teaching tool.

I might be a SupPapertarian! We use whatever works - didactic or constructivist methodologies to achieve desired learning outcomes

From a business perspective it is always interesting to me to observe the level of academic effort that is focused on arguing whether technology is a good thing or a bad thing, or whether a didactic approach is better or worse than a constructivist approach, or whether…or whether…

As an instructional leader in a business environment in which I am paid based on how well training accelerates improved performance, my approach to the design and delivery of products to improve knowledge, skills, behaviors and/or attitudes is fluid, based upon desired learning outcomes, which should be aligned with very, very specific organizational objectives. If I am a vocal advocate of any cognitive belief system, I would be considered a disciple of both Anders Ericsson’s work related to deliberate practice and Howard Gardner’s work related to multiple intelligences. Based on the overarching themes behind Wenglinsky’s opinions in “Using Technology Wisely” I believe we are more aligned than not regarding the appropriate integration of technological tools (broadly defined) to achieved optimal learner outcomes.

My view of how learners learn is illustrated in the organizational chart that precedes this narrative. The first step of the cognitive information processing sequence is sensory input, which includes the cumulative internal and external, or environmental stimulus, experienced by a person at any given moment in time. What this means is that the content we are trying to share is competing with their hunger pangs and the attractive student sitting three seats away…among a host of other distractions.

All of this stimuli hits a sensory register, which has limited capacity. It can only accept and hold a limited amount of sensory input. The sensory input is stored for about a half a second at which point it is either processed, because the student pays attention to the stimuli, or the sensory input is lost to accommodate new stimuli. Attention is the only way that sensory inputs reach conscious thought. Due to limited capacity our sales represntatives selectively choose to attend to certain incoming information while simultaneously choosing to ignore other information. Selective attention is a process by which students allocate resources to manage limited capacity.

Sensory input that is attended to and is selected for further processing moves to the temporary (or working) memory. At this stage, files on the hard drive or concepts and information stored in the long term memory are accessed for use in making sense of the incoming information. The storage duration of sensory input in working memory is longer than the sensory register, but still a very brief 15 to 30 seconds. Working memory, like the sensory register, has limited capacity. Information is stored in working memory in small chunks of data. These chunks of data will be lost, or pushed out, every 15-30 seconds to make room for new data unless the existing data is rehearsed (practiced) or encoded into long term memory for later recall. Rehearsal is the simple act of consciously looping or repeating the sensory input for recall later, like repeating a phone number until one has the chance to write it down. Encoding, on the other hand, happens when new information in the temporary memory matches or is aligned in some way to a sales representative’s existing concepts or anchoring ideas – their past experiences and prior learning. If a sale rep’s existing long term cognitive files are connected in some way to the information in short term memory these new ideas will be relevant to the rep and provide entry points for the new information to be filed.

What is remembered from our training is largely a function of what our sales representatives understand to begin with. The amount of prior knowledge possessed by reps and their interests will affect both their attention and recall of our training.

Like Gardner, my view is that the brain is modular and retains long-term memories in multiple systems. For example one theory is that the brain is split between two memory systems; verbal and non-verbal. The verbal memory module contains verbal and auditory memory files. The non-verbal memory module contains visual memory files, tactile memory files, and olfactory memory files. What this means, to those of us who wish to teach others, is that training sessions should seek to capture a sales rep’s attention utilizing a variety of techniques in an effort to make connections to these multiple long term files. The more long term memory files we open the better chance we have of our representatives encoding our presentations into a variety of these files for later recall.

So, how do we maximize learner retention and rapid recall to increase sales representative performance in the field in face to face customer engagements based on this view of coginitive information processing? We are neither the “sage on the stage” or the “guide on the side” – we are both. Whether we are conducting the didactic (showing) component of the training program or the constructavist (doing) component of the training program we purposefully design the program to capture a sales representative’s curiosity and interest (arousal) so that they will selectively choose pay attention to instruction. We also purposefully design our programs to make meaningful connections to what sales representatives already know (or what they know they will need to know to be successful) so training content is encoded into long term memory for retrieval when needed. Our blended training curriculums also help students to encode new knowledge more efficiently for easier storage and more rapid retrieval. All of our programs have components that are geared to verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, body/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and visual spatial learners. Finally, our programs are built to require significant cognitive effort. It’s impossible to selectively choose to ignore instruction when brains are actively engaging by doing. Most of our sales representatives think that we take this notion of “effort” to extremes because all are made to work. This is where we differ from the constructivist-purists who seem to believe that all students will be intrinsically motivated to take responsibility for their own learning when given the “right” tools to do so. This utopian view is simply not based in reality, which is why a more fluid, highly customized, didactic/constructivist, blended curriculum seems to be effective in facilitating continuous improvement across our diverse learner populate – those who choose to just get by, those who choose to be average, and those who choose to excel. In fact, we are rabid proponents of Ericsson’s theory that deliberate, increasingly difficult, repetitive practice over a long period of time, with meaningful feedback that allows learners for correction of errors, compels sales representatives of varying motivation to acquire extended domain-specific long-term working memory skills for more rapid (automatic) retrieval when needed during customer engagements (Ericcson and Kintsch, Psychological Review, 1995. Vol. 102, No 2. p211-245).

This all said, I see much similarity in the way that Wenglinsky’s describes student achievement using technological tools with how we leverage a multiple intellenge strategy for increased performance at B. Braun Medical. For example, during his observation of ecology of Antarctica project work at the ALL School in Worcester, MA, he found chat rooms with oceanographers (interpersonal learning), spreadsheets of data (logical mathematical learning), and slideshows (visual/special learning). At the Roots and Wings School, the 10-day 25-mile rafting “expedition” down the San Juan River is aligned with our notion of experiential learning that uses both effort and multiple intelligence theories to transfer, or construct, knowledge. Students were made to do real work (effort) during their expedition in which they kept journals (intrapersonal learning), constructed star chars (visual/spatial learning), examined petroglyphs (body/kinesthetic learning), and wrote scientific reports (verbal/linguistic learners).

According to Wenglinsky, the right “Technology” or “medium” facilitates student understanding by turning a concept into a concrete problem to solve. Presentation skills training at B. Braun does just this. The training program is a high pressure, high exposure live training program that is reinforced by just-in-time, self-paced print and mobile video reinforcement pieces. The live sessions support the intrapersonal learner by creating the environment of self-reflection and higher order reasoning required to develop creative sales presentation openings and closes. Learners are taught to develop presentations by writing in a graphic organizer, which supports the verbal/linguistic learner. Classroom presentation practice is a body/kinesthetic experience focused on voice intonation, tone, tempo and body language. There is also an interpersonal component in that the class participants conduct a keep, toss and add critique with each presenter. The reinforcement pieces are designed to share best practice presentation scripts in our FastFacts training newsletter and actual best practice video presentations can be downloaded from our Intranet and viewed on our sales rep’s laptops, video iPods, or Blackberry 8800 wireless handhelds. These reinforcement materials support verbal/linguistic and visual/spatial learners. Informal peer-to-peer real world best practice presentation videos have created a viral training program focused on continuous improvement.

Like Wenglinsky, we believe that technology is “neither inherently good, or bad,” but if integrated wisely can accelerate deeper levels of student understanding for application in the real world.

TQ3 I'm Sold on Neuroscience-Based Education, But Not From Prensky's Perspective

After reading article titled, Do They Really Think Differently (Prensky, 2001), I couldn’t help but to reflect back on TIME magazine’s cover story (March 27,2006) that focused on children and technology, which asked the question, “are kids too wired for their own good?” Given the discussion of the relative importance of the investment of time and effort (persistence) in learning I thought it was interesting when Dr. Jordan Grafman was quoted saying, “that the quality of one’s output and depth of thought deteriorate as one attends to ever more tasks” when speaking about the dangers of multitasking with technology. Obviously this opinion is diametrically opposed to Prensky’s notion that the “digital native brains” of today’s youth have somehow been reorganized for parallel processing, which doesn’t correlate to the reality of the cognitive capacity of the sensory register, short term and long term memory systems. Given the focused time and effort required for mastery learning, achieving it today may be harder now than ever. The student composing an essay for an English class on his or her computer may also have iTunes opened listening to AC/DC while IMing several friends and checking email between writing sentences. Professor Claudia Koonz, professor of history at Duke University, encourages her students to “disconnect” from technology. She thinks students today have an aversion for complexity that is directly related to multitasking with technology. “It’s as if they have too many windows open on their hard drive,” she says. “In order to have a taste for sifting through different layers of truth, you have to stay with a topic and pursue it deeply, rather than go across the surface with your toolbar.”

I find it interesting that Presnsky relies on a quote from Elizabeth Lorch (Amherst) who is quoting Malcolm Gladwell (The Tipping Point, 2000) as his proof that the “digital native brains” of children watch TV in bursts (strategic selective attention) and that distractions don’t negatively impact retention and recall. I would suggest that Prensky should read Barbara Flagg’s original research, Formative Evaluation of Sesame Street Using Eye Movement Photography (1977), before relying on the interpretation of others to make a claim that the attention spans of children doesn’t matter. Flagg’s research was designed to help early TV producers identify how to manipulate instructional design variables to optimize attention. Using a whisper-down-the-lane claim that Flagg’s formative analysis of a small study population of 21 four and five year olds in 1977 somehow proves Prensky’s point severely impacts his credibility.

Like Prensky, I identify myself as a neuroscience based educator, but unlike Prensky, I am a bit more pragmatic about the relative value of technology based upon the desired learning outcome. In fact, like all tools, technology can be used for good or evil. Unfortunately, Prensky’s over the top bias for technology undermines his credibility when he advocates that “linear thought processes that dominate educational systems now can actually retard learning for brains developed through game and web-surfing processes on the computer.” This is idiotic. I believe exactly the opposite - hypertexted minds that leap from one superficial data point to the next can retard brains that never learn that the way to mastery at anything is narrowly focused, deliberate, increasingly difficult, repetitive practice, undertaken over a long period of time, with informative feedback that leads to incremental correction of errors and continuous improvement (Ericsson et al, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, and many other sources). I believe that technology should be used wisely and in a very, very targeted way to accelerate knowledge transfer or improvement in skills performance.

The SimCity4 game I played, while mildly entertaining, might teach students that a thriving city requires the appropriate interdependent mix of industry, retail and residential areas supported by the appropriate infrastructure of roads and power, but not much else. This game would probably be satisfying to Prensky, who believes that the “digital native brains” of children require “multitasking, graphics-first, active, connected, and fun” educational content, but to what purpose. Students might gain a conceptual understanding that cities require a complex interdependent balance to stay viable, but the content just isn’t here to provide any real depth of understanding. For example, as mayor my approval rating of 57% is pretty good, and I grew the city population from zero to over 10,000 with an estimated city value of over 12 million dollars, but could now grow the treasury funding from a zero balance once I achieved this level. When I raised taxes to 12% I lost industry, commercial activity and residents, but didn’t add a single dollar to the treasury. When I lowered taxes to 6%, industry, commercial businesses and residents came back, but I didn’t add a single dollar to the treasury even though the graphic image indicates a thriving community. This left me personally frustrated> I imagine this would leave a child both frustrated and convinced that a city’s growth is limited.

Class 2 Assignment 2 (WISE)

Less is more – I’ve been here before – it’s good stuff. The Educational Accelerator: Technology-Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS) program is an effort that supports this notion that the central purpose of education is to cultivate a student’s ability to think. The Mitosis and Cell Process lesson at http://wise.berkeley.edu/teacher/projects/projectInfo.php?id=16276 is an excellent example of how the targeted use of technology can accelerate a student’s understanding of the stages of mitosis and associated cell structures within the context of learning about cancer. The Concord interactive animation (image above) allows students to start, stop, pause and run the animation of cell division forwards and backwards. As they make their predictions they thoughtfully select the beginning and end of the animation sequence for each phase, name the phase, and narratively describe what is happening within the cell that has lead to their decisions. The lesson is laser focused around 38 seconds of content that the learner can view over and over again as they try to accurately predict the stages of cell division. The activity requires significant effort and effort enhances attention and retention of information. The content is not only designed for our target audience, but novice biology learners of any level – Less is more.

Class 2 Assignment 1 (Webquest)

Glass Slippers Won’t Do at http://www.sitesbysheridan.com/webquest/index.html
is a digital guided research project in which students (9th grade to adult) play virtual roles of historian, sociologist, fashion designer or media mogul to study how the attitudes of women have evolved between 1800 and the present. Students use the Internet to conduct their research, use web-based tools to compile relevant information, which is guided by focusing on stated “big” ideas/questions, and then construct their presentation with multimedia tools. The Webquest contains an imbedded rubric (above) so students know how they will be measured, but I don’t think that the rubric is as aligned as well as it could be with the Florida Sunshine State Standards for which this Webquest was designed. To me the rubric mostly measures playing nice and being accountable during a collaborative learning process and lacks focus on content knowledge, critical thinking, writing to communicate ideas, and analysis of various types of media, past and present.

Class 2 Assignment 3 (Survey Monkey)

I created a 4-question survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MVrIfbC87zNDWaUrDk0U5A_3d_3d titled Use of Low Fidelity Simulation in Skill Development, which is an area of interest for me, but as yet have not gotten any responses to my survey – my fault entirely as the assignment was posted late due to my teaching trip to the west coast. The survey was easy to construct and to administer. We use a similar tool at B. Braun to easily collect data that can be found at http://www.zoomerang.com/

Class 2 Assignment 4 (Jonassen, Chapter 3)

I’m very interested in exploring the simulation builder that Jonassen references on page 52. I’m hoping that the tool, developed at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, at http://www.simquest.nl/ can help us to better transfer knowledge about interstitial valve space and the potential for bacterial ingress at B. Braun Medical. This is an important concept to teach, but critical for understanding all the issues related to infection control in healthcare settings.

Class 2 Assignment 5 (NetLogo)

Note: I can not download NetLogo at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ on my laptop since my hard drive is maxed out and this program requires 58MD of disk space. I’m hoping that this program is available on the MACs at Lehigh so I can evaluate this software.