In two minds

This is number 32 in my series on learning theories. Psychologists and cognitive scientists have offered a number of useful theories that aid our understanding of learning. In this series I'm providing a brief overview of each theory, and how each can be applied in education. Previous posts in this series are all linked below. My last post explored  the work of Seymour Papert and his theory of learning by making, also known as constructionism. In this post we return to the cognitive domain, with an examination of Allan Paivio's theory of dual coding. As usual, this is a brief and concise explanation of the theory, and if you wish to delve deeper, you are advised to read the associated literature.

The Theory

Paivio's dual coding theory considers the way we process verbal and non-verbal information. In 1986 he stated: 'Human cognition is unique in that it has become specialized for dealing simultaneously with language and with nonverbal objects and events. Moreover, the language system is peculiar in that it deals directly with linguistic input and output (in the form of speech or writing) while at the same time serving a symbolic function with respect to nonverbal objects, events, and behaviors. Any representational theory must accommodate this dual functionality.' (p 53). Paivio's model of cognition featured two modes of processing, known as imagens (images) and logogens (words), which are illustrated below.

Visual and verbal information are processed in different ways along discrete pathways in the brain, and these are thought to create different mental representations. In a variety of experiments, it was found that people can generally process images faster than text, and can make quicker and smarter decisions when presented with pictures than they can with verbal instructions.

How it can be applied in education

Teachers should be aware that all students can process information in several different ways. Looking at images can evoke a different response to listening to the spoken word, or reading text. Giving children pictures and words in combination can provide them with the best chances to learn concepts. If Paivio's theory is correct, and verbal and image storage of information occur in separate areas of the human brain, then retention (and retrieval) of that information should be stronger (and faster) if both memory traces have been established. The teaching of literacy for example, can be greatly enhanced when children receive verbal, text and imagery based information simultaneously. Thus literacy learning can encompass reading, writing, speaking and listening. Dual Coding theory also explains why multi-media forms of education have been so successful in the past, although alternative cognitive processing theories that feature later in this series challenge this view.

Reference

Paivio, A. (1986) Mental Representations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning
22. Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle
23. Knowles Andragogy
24. Lave Situated Learning
25. Lave and Wenger Communities of Practice
26. Maslow Hierarchy of Human Needs
27. Merizow Transformative Learning
28. Milgram Six Degrees of Separation
29. Milgram Obedience to Authority
30. Norman The design of everyday things
31. Papert Constructionism

Photo by Steve Wheeler 
Graphic by Instructional Design



In two minds by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Learning, making and powerful ideas

This is number 31 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education.

Previous posts in this series are all linked below. My last post explored Donald Norman's ideas around perception and the design of every day objects. In this post, the work of Seymour Papert will feature, especially his work on learning through making, also known as constructionism.

The Theory

Not to be confused with constructivism, constructionism is a cognitive theory that relates to learning by making things. Based on the work of the computer scientist Seymour Papert, contructionism tries to bridge the gap identified between children's and adults' thinking. With his colleagues, Papert was famous for developing one of the first educational programming languages, known as LOGO. It was used to great effect as early as the 1960s so that children could learn how to programme floor robots known as Turtles. The connection between thinking and doing is exploited, and interacting with one's environment to effect change can have a profound impact on young minds. Papert sees learning by making as a means to 'shift the boundary between concrete and formal operations' (Papert, 1980, p 21). As Papert argued: 'Even the best of educational television is limited to offering quantitative improvements in the kinds of learning that existed without it. By contrast, when a child learns to program, the process of learning is transformed. It becomes more active and self-directed.' (ibid, pp 20-21). If we want children to be more engaged in their learning, we therefore need to make them more active in constructing their learning. Learning to code is more than simply 'making a computer do something'. Algorithms are much more than sets of instructions. They represent the essence of rational thinking, developing cognitive skills that will prepare the child to deal with a multitude of challenges and problems they may encounter later in life.

How it can be applied in education

The theory of contructionism is experiencing something of a revival in recent years with the emergence of maker spaces, robotics, 3D printing and other tools that can promote the making of objects. Furthermore, the new school curriculum in England now includes computer programming and algorithms for primary age children. Many schools such as Plymouth School of the Creative Arts in South West England, and Taupaki School in New Zealand have made learning through making their primary strategy. The connections between thinking and making are important, and curricula based upon this principle draws out creativity and encourages children to experiment, take risks and ask more 'what if'? questions. Talk to head teacher Dave Strudwick at PSCA or principal Stephen Lethbridge at Taupaki and they will tell you the results are astounding, with children in both schools often exceeding expectations for their phases of development.

From the simple playing in sand of reception children, right through to designing robots and helicopters in the final year of primary school, such activities can cover all curriculum subjects, and enliven lessons through problem based and project centred learning. The more children are involved in constructing their own learning through doing and making, the more connected they become with the process of learning. If children blog, or create digital maps of their school, or create imagery and manipulate it in a multitude of ways, they are experiencing their own influence on changing contexts, and can see the implications of their actions. If they are encouraged to discover and explore for themselves, they develop independent skills and learn how to apply these later when they are met with challenges.

Learning through making is a very powerful form of learning, and one of which teachers worldwide should sit up and take notice. The challenge for educators now is - how can we incorporate more learning through making, and less teaching from the front, into our lessons?

Reference

Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Brighton: Harvester Press.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning
22. Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle
23. Knowles Andragogy
24. Lave Situated Learning
25. Lave and Wenger Communities of Practice
26. Maslow Hierarchy of Human Needs
27. Merizow Transformative Learning
28. Milgram Six Degrees of Separation
29. Milgram Obedience to Authority
30. Norman The design of everyday things

Photo by Steve Wheeler 



Learning, making and powerful ideas by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Design for life

This is number 30 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. Previous posts in this series are all linked below. My most recent post examined Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority and their application in education.

In this post, I explore Donald Norman's ideas around the design of every day objects. This should not so much be considered as a theory, but is a useful perspective on design and human perception. As usual, this is a simplified and concise interpretation, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The Theory

An examination of the work of JJ Gibson, as previously documented on this blog, shows that people perceive affordances in any object. He argued that what we see is directly perceived, and that we extract meaning from the shape and design of the object we are looking at. Its design suggests to us how we might use the object, based on its appearance, and previous experience with similar objects or contexts. Norman took this idea and argued that knowledge not only resides in our heads, but also in the world around us. That is, not all knowledge for skilled actions needs to be inside your head. It can also be present in the design of the objects you use to perform the skill. Skilled typists if tested, are often unable to correctly label unlabeled keys on a keyboard, but can type very fast without looking at the keyboard.

How it can be applied in education

As Norman suggests, when information to perform a task is present within the design of an object, the need to learn it is reduced. How many readers could say (without looking) whether the Queen's head on a £10 note faces left or right?* It takes several hours to learn a systems such as typing on a keyboard, and several more months to become competent to the point of expertise. The payoff for all the practice, says Norman, is not only increased typing speed and accuracy, but also a reduction in mental effort, freeing up the mind to process other things.

Teachers can harness this principle in the design of just about anything from the layout of the classroom to the design of a learning resource. If a design is expected, students will spend little time figuring out how to use the object. The user interface on most VLE/LMS technologies is often too complex for students, who spend much more time trying to navigate and discover content than they do actually learning that content. An example of transparent design is where the technology interface is so familiar or simple that students need to expend no mental effort using it. Conversely, presenting a problem to students places them in an unfamiliar context where they are compelled to expend mental energy to solve it. This can be a desirable effect if the student is required to learn something deeply and reason about its significance. In such a case, using a great deal of mental effort can result in learning the structure and space of the problem. In the future when students encounter similar problem spaces, they are then able to use analogical reasoning to solve those problems more quickly.

Clearly, presenting problems is a more effective pedagogical approach than giving answers, especially if the aim is to encourage independent learning. The manner in which a problem is presented can be various, from well structured, to ill-defined. Ill-defined problems offer less parameters/information and have less information in their design. This often provokes the learner to work harder to discover the solution to the problem and to delve deeper into the problem space. Sudoku puzzles with fewer spaces completed are harder to solve that those with more spaces completed.

* The answer is neither left nor right - the Queen faces forward on the note.

Further Reading

Norman, D. A. (1990) The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning
22. Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle
23. Knowles Andragogy
24. Lave Situated Learning
25. Lave and Wenger Communities of Practice
26. Maslow Hierarchy of Human Needs
27. Merizow Transformative Learning
28. Milgram Six Degrees of Separation
29. Milgram Obedience to Authority

Photo by Cyrano82 on Deviant Art



Design for Life by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Shocking behaviour!

This is number 29 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. Previous posts in this series are all linked below. My most recent post examined Stanley Milgram's concept of Six Degrees of Separation. Another of Milgram's experiments led to a theory of compliance, more generally referred to as obedience to authority. As usual, this is a simplified and concise interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The Theory

Stanley Milgram was active in social psychology research during the sixties and was influenced by the events of the Second World War. He, like many others, was appalled by the Nazi Holocaust and other war atrocities and took a keen interest in the 1961 trial of the Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. Many of the accused war criminals during the Nuremberg War Crime trials had explained that they were 'just following orders'. Milgram wanted to discover whether people really would follow orders from an authority figure, even if they knew they could harm or even kill another person. In his experiments, one of Milgram's confederates posed as a volunteer and was strapped into a chair with electrodes attached to his body. Another (real) volunteer sitting in an adjacent room was then asked to 'administer shocks' to the first 'volunteer' when he answered questions wrongly. The voltage started low but was increased for each wrong answer given. Participants believed they were giving electric shocks, but in fact the confederate of the experimenter was merely acting, shouting in pain, banging on the table, and pleading for the experiment to stop.

At this point, many participants also asked for the experiment to be stopped when they thought they were causing pain and distress. The experimenter would then insist that they carry on, so the experiment would not be 'spoiled'. It was noted that many volunteers carried on delivering electric shocks even though they believed that the participant was being harmed. Milgram concluded that ordinary people, when faced with strong authority figures often did not have the moral resources to resist, and complied even though their actions were incompatible with their personal ethics. Clearly, such experiments would be forbidden today on ethical grounds, as they would inflict psychological distress upon participants.

How it can be applied in education

Teachers should be aware that they may be perceived as authority figures in formal education settings. Their behaviour is not only a model toward which young people pay particular attention, teachers also need to take some care about the manner in which they ask and expect their students to comply. Thus teachers have a great deal of power which they should use wisely to encourage children to behave appropriately and conduct themselves responsibly.

Teachers should also understand that children's behaviour can be shaped by the behaviour of others around them, especially those peers who they see as leaders or who are perceived to be more authoritative. Thos involved in behaviour management in schools should take into account the influence of other, older or 'stronger' children. Children who misbehave may not be doing so willingly, but may be simply overwhelmed by the force of character of others in their peer group, or they may be simply drawn along by the crowd.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning
22. Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle
23. Knowles Andragogy
24. Lave Situated Learning
25. Lave and Wenger Communities of Practice
26. Maslow Hierarchy of Human Needs
27. Merizow Transformative Learning
28. Milgram Six Degrees of Separation

Photo by Deviant Art



Shocking behaviour by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Our mutual friends

This is number 28 in my series on learning theories. I'm gradually working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. Previous posts in this series are all linked below. My most recent post explored Jack Merizow's Transformative Learning theory. In this post, I will examine Stanley Milgram's concept of Six Degrees of Separation. As usual, this is a simplified and concise interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The Theory

You are at a party, and begin conversing with another guest. You've never met them before, but as you talk you begin to realise you have a mutual acquaintance. 'What a small world we live in' you remark. This is a phenomenon that we all seem to have experienced at some point in our lives. It fascinated social psychologist Stanley Milgram. He was interested not so much in mutual acquaintances, but wanted to show that 'even when I don't know someone who knows you, I still know someone, who knows someone, who knows someone who does know you. Milgram's question was, how many someones are in the chain?' (Watts, 2003, p38.)

So Milgram's notion of six degrees is not so much a theory of learning, more a social contact theory, but it has significant implications for learning in the social media age. Milgram theorised that it could be established that no-one is separated from anyone else in the world by more than six social contacts. Who we know and who they know, he believed, define our social structure. In his Small World experiments, Milgram set out to establish evidence that this was indeed the case. The basic data gathering methods and procedures for the Small World experiment can be found at this link. The results confirmed his hypothesis, suggesting that on average in the USA, people were indeed separated by no more than 6 social connections.

How it can be applied in education

Social ties are crucially important in the digital age, for as Henry Jenkins argues, it's the dynamic and participatory elements of reaffirming a group's social ties that helps us to acquire our collective knowledge (Jenkins, 2006, p. 54). Where groups collaborate, social ties are critical in ensuring that their aims are achieved. The notion of wisdom of crowds put forward by James Surowiecki (2004) relies on people working together, even when they don't know each other directly. For teachers, seen in the context of social media, this is a key concept, because it opens up new possibilities for their students to connect with other students, or indeed world class experts anywhere in the world. Learning within a highly connected community of practice provides learners with new vistas, greater scope for exploration, and access to dialogue at the highest level in their field of study.

It is highly likely that in highly connected societies, where social media and mobile phones are commonplace and regularly used, the six degrees of separation proposed by Milgram may in fact be a conservative estimate. Social media can reduce the degrees of separation. It's much more likely that we are now able to connect directly or within one or two social connections to just about anyone who uses social media. Anyone who uses Twitter regularly will tell you that they meet many people online who have a mutual interest, and often find their connections through other people they mutually follow. When they finally meet in person, they feel they already know each other, even though their relationship has been mediated through text based messaging technology. But that is the subject matter for another blog post...

References
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
Surowiecki, J. (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few. London: Abacus.
Watts, D. (2003) Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. London: William Heinemann.

Previous posts in this series:

1.  Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
2.  Argyris Double Loop Learning
3.  Bandura Social Learning Theory
4.  Bruner Scaffolding Theory
5.  Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
6.  Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
7.  Dewey Experiential Learning
8.  Engeström Activity Theory
9.  Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
10. Festinger Social Comparison Theory
11. Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
12. Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
13. Gibson Affordances Theory
14. Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
15. Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
16. Hull Drive Reduction Theory
17. Inhelder and Piaget Formal Operations Stage
18. Jung Archetypes and Synchronicity
19. Jahoda Ideal Mental Health
20. Koffka Gestalt theory
21. Köhler Insight learning
22. Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle
23. Knowles Andragogy
24. Lave Situated Learning
25. Lave and Wenger Communities of Practice
26. Maslow Hierarchy of Human Needs
27. Merizow Transformative Learning

Photo by Stefano Bertolo on Flickr



Our mutual friends by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.