how people learn mary pat wenderoth university of washington
TRANSCRIPT
How People LearnJ. Bransford, National Research Council 1999
1. Address students’ alternative conceptions
Three major findings:
2. Build BOTH a deep foundation of factual knowledge AND strong conceptual framework.3. Enhance students’ ability to monitor learning
(metacognition)
1. Address students’ alternative conceptions.What causes the seasons?
summer
spring
winter
autumn
Summer in North America
Winter in South America!
http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html
2. Build BOTH factual knowledge AND conceptual framework.Pages published in PNAS 1950-2012
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20200
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Year
Pa
ge
s p
ub
lish
ed
in P
NA
S
1 2 3 4 5 6 70
5
10
15
20
25
Master
Class A
Trial number
# p
ieces c
or-
rectl
y r
ecalled
Chess masters – Class A players – Beginners
3. Enhance students’ metacognition.KNOWLEDGE about cognition
What to studyHow to studyWhen and why to study
How to help your students learn to monitor their
understanding?
REGULATION of cognitionPlan studyingMonitor studyingEvaluate effectiveness of
study strategies
Schraw 1998 Instructional Science 26:113
Learning Paragraphs
Results:
• 85% noted a positive influence on learning
• Got them to stop for a moment in their busy worlds.
Final Question:
How has reflecting on your learning each week influenced your learning in Biol 350?
Learning Paragraphs
“Some weeks no matter how much I thought I was paying attention in class it would be Thursday night and I’d be thinking ‘Huh? What did I learn this week? Oh yeah….’ which got me to examine what was going on in class and the learning process before the weekend completely wiped everything away.”
Student comment:
How People LearnNational Research Council 1999
1. Address alternative conceptions2. Build conceptual framework
3. Monitor learning------metacognition
How to implement in classroom?
Three major findings:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Science of Learning
Avg
. R
ete
nti
on
Rate
•Audio-visual•Demonstration•Discussion•Lecture•Practice•Reading•Teaching
Science of Learning
NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science 300 N. Lee Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314
http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/polovina/learnpyramid/about.htm
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Science of Learning
Avg
. R
ete
nti
on
Rate
•Audio-visual•Demonstration•Discussion•Lecture•Practice•Reading•Teaching
Science of Learning
NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science 300 N. Lee Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314
http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/polovina/learnpyramid/about.htm
•Audio-visual•Demonstration•Discussion•Lecture•Practice•Reading•Teaching
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Avg
. R
ete
nti
on
Rate
lecturereading
teaching
practice
discussion
demonstration
audio-visual
Science of Learning
The National Training Laboratories of Alexandria VA
The New Science of Teaching and Learning by Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa 2010
Students talking
Faculty talking
Smith, M. et al. Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science, 2009 January, 2. Vol. 323
Does active engagement of students during discussion with peers, some of whom know the correct answer, lead to increased conceptual understanding?
OR
Do students not in fact learn from the discussion, but simply choose the answer most strongly supported by neighbors they perceive to be knowledgeable?
Students answer a clicker question individually (Q1).
Students talk to neighbors and answer Q1 again (Q1AD for Q1 “After Discussion”).
Students answer a different question individually (Q2). Q2 is asking about the same concept as Q1 (isomorphic).
Testing the value of peer discussion:
Smith et al., Science. 2009, 323(5910):122.
Q2Individual
Q1AD
After Discussion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q1 Q1a Q2
Per
cen
t
Q1
Q1a
Q2
Q1Individual
102030405060708090
100
0
avg
% c
orr
ect
n= 350 students(Genetics)16 sets of questions
Easy(5 questions)
Medium(7 questions)
Difficult(4 questions)
Per
cen
t co
rrec
t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Easy Medium Hard
Per
cent
Even when questions are initially difficult, students can answer correctly after discussion
Q1
Q1after discussion
Q2
Very few students knew correct answer to Q1, but after discussion, many more answer correctly: students are constructing their own knowledge
Smith et al., Science. 2009, 323(5910):122.
Smith, MK et al. (2011) Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 10: 54-63.
Peer discussion followed by instructor explanation is more effective than either alone
This study provides support for peer discussion, but more importantly it provides guidance for how faculty should deliver clicker questions!
Smith et al., Science. 2009, 323(5910):122.
Knight, J. and B. Couch presentation at SABER 2013
Senior level- Developmental Biology course
•Small group (4-5 students) work in class of 50•Two sections of same class•Use of clicker questions•Record, transcribe, analyze conversations for reasoning
0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40
50
60
% of transcripts
0 - no reasoning noted1 student gave explanation2 or more students exchanged ideas3-two or more students exchanged ideas and gave warrants
Answer-Centered class
Reasoning-Centered Class
prompt
“Discuss your answers with your table and re-vote. Then I’ll explain the correct answer.”
“Discuss your answer with your table and focus on the reasons for your answer. Then I will ask you to share your reasons.”
Quality of
reasoning
Knight, J. and B. Couch presentation at SABER 2013
Senior level- Developmental Biology course
significantly higher quality of reasoning
Avoid “Clicker Abuse” 1. Pose a challenging higher order
question (< 60% correct)
2. First, let students answer alone3. Do not show results4. Encourage peer discussion5. Revote6. Instructor led debrief
- asking for LOGIC behind answer
Smith et al. Science 2009Smith et al. CBE- Life Science Education 2011Mazur Peer- Instruction
What you say to students is key.
Increased Course Structure Improves Performance in Introductory
Biology
Freeman, Hake, & Wenderoth (2011)CBE—LSE 10, 175–186
Bloom ALL exam questions from Fall 2002 - 2009
Bloom level increased from 2.7 to 3.1
Fall 2002
--lecturing
--Socratic method
LOW
Spring 2005
--lecturing --clicker Q--reading Q
MEDIUM
Fall 2009
--No lecturing (at all) --6+ clicker Q-- weekly practice exam-- daily reading Q--15 random calls
HIGH
Spr ‘02
Spr ‘03
Spr ‘05
Fall ‘05
Fall ‘07
Fall ‘09
< 1.5 18.2% 15.8% 10.9% 11.7% 7.4% 6.3%
Increased Course Structure Improves Performance in Introductory
Biology
Faculty talking
Student learning
Freeman, Hake, & Wenderoth (2011) CBE—LSE 10, 175–186
…
TigerTiger TigerTiger
Blocked OR Interleaved
How to teach and study?
Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, & Bjork (2009)
16 different types of butterflies
Copper Streak NymphMark
Please identify the image. Which of the following is it?
AdmiralAmericanBaltimoreCooperEastern TigerHairstreakHarvesterMarkPainted LadyPine Elfin PipevineSpright TipperTree SatyrViceroy Wood Nymph.
Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, & Bjork (2009)
Which students are most
confident?Actual results
Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, & Bjork (2009)
38
19
“Desirable Difficulty”
Learners are poor judges of effective study
techniques
Bjork, Roediger, Karpicke
“Desirable Difficulties”• Interleave vs block
Cognitive Science of Learning
Group 1 S S S STest ------------ Test
Group 2 S S S TTest ------------ Test
Group 3 S S T TTest ------------ Test
Group 4 S T T T Test ------------ Test
“Testing Effect”-- Retrieval
1st 2nd
12 word pairs Swahili-- English
5 min
-week
1. Challenge alternative conceptions2. Build frameworks
3. Enhance metacognition
How People Learn
Fixed vs Fluid mind set
“Desirable Difficulties”(interleaving)
“Testing Effect”