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.
No comments:
Post a Comment