The purpose of a knowledge dig is to encourage students to dig beneath the surface of the readings and audiobook (and any other relevant learning materials for a specific session). Towards this end digs are formatted like a discussion.
For this knowledge dig you'll have 2 distinct deadlines.
Dig 4a Deadline
Monday March 2nd by midnight. Post at least one comment or question about the learning materials provided about self-explanation research.
Dig 4b Deadline
Wednesday March 4th by midnight. Post at least one reply to a previously posted comment/question about the graphic organizer learning materials.
This knowledge dig is worth 3 points. Points are assigned based solely on meeting the deadlines stated above (i.e. points are not based on the "sophistication" or "correctness" of your comments). It is critical that for people to reply and participate in a discussion that they know at the latest when the full range of initial comments/questions will be posted—thus I'm breaking this up in to a two part assignment.
To make a comment you do not need to log in to your Blogger account (though there is nothing wrong with this). Alternatively you can always use the Name/URL option to specify your name. If you need help, or a refresher, on how to create a comment then please download the handy publish a comment pdf.
In general I'll only be reading your ongoing discussion, but not making comments myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
I had questions from the Atkinson/Renkl/Merrill article which I read with the aid of the research aloud handout. BTW the research aloud audio book started to lose me in the section on stats since it was a lengthy explanation.
On page 775 in the 2nd full paragraph of the right column, the authors use a term about "mediating the effectiveness"- what does this mean. Here is the whole quote "the number of problem solving errors generated during the learning phase played a role in mediating the effectiveness of the facing procedure."
on page 781, 1st paragraph"there was no significant effect on anticipation" where did they test anticipation and what does that refer to?
I found it interesting that the combined graphic and self explanation resulted in greatest learning in the Ainsworth article. I am interested in the layering of the ideas with which we have been presented in class, and have further questions as to some of the results not discussed in the article.
I wonder, based on Table 4, whether the text group was summarizing and the graphic group processing more deeply. While the graphic group used more explanations, they actually used fewer words, which the authors did not discuss. I would wonder how much of the self explanation of the text group was a restatement of the text, rather than taking the concepts to deeper levels of processing.
Also, the Atkinson article led me to a (possibly “stupid”) question: How do “think-alouds” and “self-explanations” differ? How did they construct trainings around each of these ideas? I have a few ideas but would really love to hear how my colleagues might differentiate between these two processes.
Here’s my soapbox from the reading…. Renkl’s 1997 article is mentioned in the Atkinson article several times as far as stating that “most learners are passive or superficial.” Is it just me, or did this statement really infuriate anyone else? Why are these learners so passive? What have we done to the natural desire to learn and develop that most children have, and what can we do about it?
I also think that Berthold’s article reinforces some of the final thoughts in Atkinson’s around supporting self-explanation. Timely, shaping feedback added to the processes of self-explanation and fading seem to be fairly successful techniques. How can we do these things with classes of 35-40?
I'm just getting into this reading, but one of my questions with the reading has to do with schema building and second language development. Has anyone come up with a "practical, everyday" explanation on how we can deep the anxiety level low for a second language learner in order for them to get through the silent period, and yet still keep the "anxiety" up so that schema development takes place and we are not just promoting scripts.
Sorry, this was one of those questions that isn't directly related to the reading, but has come up while I was initially looking at this reading.
More later.
Lara
I don’t think your first question was stupid at all. I, too, was wondering about the difference between “think-alouds” and “self-explanations.” I think there is overlap between the two ideas. In the audio book, Mathew made the distinction between presenting and self-explanation. Presenting (one possisble aspect of think-alouds?) tends to convey what one understands to someone else while self-explanations tend to make sense of new information by filling in the gaps in one’s schema. I understand “think-alouds” to be a loose term: making purposeful observations, engaging in a brain-storming session, etc. Self-explanations seem to be more focused. I think the Atkinson article cites Chi (2000) as saying that self-explanations serve a dual purpose: one, to generate inferences (which is the overlap with think-louds?); and two, to repair the one’s own schema. Maybe this is a sidetrack, I’m not sure, but I do confess to wondering the same thing that you did.
My second observation is similar to your question. Is there a difference between the dialogue that takes place while working collaboratively and self-explanation? My experience tells me that high-performing students who engage in studying a new concept collaboratively tend to self-explain AS dialogue. During the self-explanation, the other members of the group integrate the explanation and then self-explain themselves as a form of conversation. Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept of self-explanation? Any ideas?
By the way, is anyone else thinking that reading Ausubel’s study on assimilation and meaningful learning might be a good thing to do?
The term 'meaningful learning' as presented by David Ausubel (1960) piqued my interest. The idea of students relating and integrating new knowledge into what they already know (existing schema) makes a lot of sense. Prior knowledge plays a role, of course, but what if the existing schema is 'wrong'? The audiobook discussion mentions that self-explanation can reorient and 'correct' mistaken schema.
The Atkinson, Renkl & Merrill article (2003) has the caveat that self-explanation as they tested for it may work in only very structured domains such as mathematics and physics. It is interesting to think how often these principles don't work in unstructured domains.
Everyone has their own set of filters and blinders to the outside world, and new knowledge may be ignored or 'twisted' to fit an existing schema. The audiobook mentions that Ausebel is interested in how learning is integrated. It is implied that new knowledge, as it is integrated, changes the learner's schema. But in many areas (politics and religion, for example) I am pretty sure the changing of schema often does not happen.
Perhaps before meaningful learning can take place you need to break down old schemas and build new ones. Constructivism is the concept of confronting the learner with a reality that is contrary to their existing schema and then have the learner build a new one. However, Ausubel's definition of meaningful learning does not seem to take into account how different people interpret the same information. A prime example is the "debate" between evolution and creationism (aka intelligent design). New knowledge does not sway one side or the other to see the error of their ways and say "you are right." Instead, each side interprets the data to fit into their existing schema. I fail to see how integrating new knowledge into an incorrect schema might be meaningful learning. Of course, what may be important is that the information is integrated and used, not that it is used or interpreted correctly...
Lara and Vito-
I agree that there are questions raised about think-alouds and self-explanation (perhaps self-explanation is not self-explanatory?) I think learning can occur with self-explanation and you can teach students to self-explain. I have my students do the 'jig saws' which is a form of self-explanation and I think is a powerful way of learning and understanding new material.
What struck me about this unit was how the researchers in all 3 articles were able to break down, into measurable components, this whole theory of Self Explanation (SE). The process of SE was one of the suggested best practices to use with learning disabled (LD) students. We called it sub-vocalization strategy to increase their awareness and comprehension of the reading material. From this experience, I see how SE strategy is helpful to increased learning for my students. To have researchers actually identify, name, isolate the variables and design a study to prove its effectiveness is amazing.
Berthold et al (2008) examined the effects of SE prompts with open probe questions and fill-in-the blank questions and no prompting conditions. Having their hypotheses enumerated in the overview section was very helpful in reviewing the results of their study. Personally, if I had to be one of the participants reviewing Fig. 1, I would have needed several fill in the blank prompting and open probe questions to elicit my SE. It was heavily laden with distracting details it was difficult to see the schema (this coming from a dyscalculiac person). In terms of increasing procedural and conceptual knowledge, the use of SE as a focusing of attention technique to the relevant information should be considered as standard best practice in the classroom.
Reading the Atkinson et al (2003) article was difficult for me. I struggled with their concept of SE prompts in combination with their backward fading (BF) example. I couldn’t easily picture their sequence of events, and had to slow down and follow the written cues. Regardless of my struggles, an important contribution to learning is the implication of their findings in the use of SE prompts for near transfer and far transfer type problems which can be used easily in the classroom, without the expense of time. As I think about the different packaged programs out there for language arts and reading, I recall seeing prompts provided in the margins for teachers, however, without the prompting of a skilled trainer pointing out that these questions and without the benefit of knowing how to use these questions, they go undetected and unused. A note about the Renkl (1997) citation re: successful vs. unsuccessful learners – I realize that Dr. Mitchell qualified the unsuccessful learners as not the typical students we see in our classrooms, I think they are the undiagnosed LDs who happen to get by (perhaps because they were resilient learners); however, I wonder if the status of these students would have changed if they receive direct instruction of SE strategies. Perhaps these students are undiagnosed LD students who never received these types of instructions.
These “unsuccessful” learners (my little LD learners of today) perhaps lacked that self-regulation piece that tells them to self-monitor to recognize that they didn’t understand and should ask questions. One strategy I use with my students is to state, “Let me check for understanding…I am suppose to…(state the directions)” while pointing to the written words on the white board. These seem to work with lots of repetition, time permitting. One question: how did Renkl actually qualify “unsuccessful learners”? In contrast, he named the successful learners as - Principle-based explainers good but low prior knowledge; and Anticipative-reasoners with high level prior knowledge. Couldn’t all learners fall into these two categories?
Ainsworth & Loizou (2003) focused on diagrams and format of presented materials and the influences on SE. They related SE with the working memory (WM) model; that SE impacts the phonological loop and visual sketch pad leading to efficient learning. Using diagrams reduces the impact on WM load which eases cognitive effort makes learning easier. The nature of carefully designed diagrams, concept maps, visual aids, will call for SE since the links will have to be verbally explained to make the connection. A technique I have used and experienced is pair sharing of newly acquired information. Many presenters use this technique, maybe to give rest to their vocal cords, but also as a way to use SE to affirm comprehension and integration of new information.
As an advocate for my LD learners, I wonder if there are any studies examining the effects of SE on LD learners? Could SE also be used in other domains such as study skill instruction or self-awareness / self-advocacy instruction of LDs?
Vito, a resounding yes to the assimilation and meaningful learning application in the classroom and for that matter in life...
Since meaningful learning is the conscious awareness of tying new knowledge within prior schema, it would make sense to use strategies, develop them and apply them to help our learning process. The use of self-explanation is one strategy that can help our learning as teachers. Now a days with wireless ear pieces, we can actually pretend we are on the phone while self-explaining instead of looking like we are ready for the nut house.
Because the focus of SE, is purposeful learning (a first- person type goal vs. concern about someone else' learning ie: explaining to someone else for their learning) SE seems like a great strategy to increase self-awareness of ones own learning.
It would be good to practice these as teachers and see how it actually works and feels like in our learning. That way we don't fall into the trap of "Practice what I say, not as what I do..."
Sharon-
I was also curious about the phrase “mediating the effectiveness” in the Atkinson, Renkl and Merrill (2003) article.
In the Berthold, Eysink and Renkl (2008) article on Assisting Self-Explanation Prompts, similar phrasing is used. On page 13, the authors describe two “mediation analyses”. In the first of these analyses, the variable principle-based self-explanations was identified as a potential mediating variable for for prompts, and this was tested through a series of three regression equations and then a z-test. Basically, the researchers wanted to find out if prompts (x-variable or independent variable) could describe or predict procedural knowledge (y-variable or dependent variable). My very-loose interpretation of what they found was that prompts triggered principle-based explanations which in turn (or in conjunction) triggered procedural knowledge.
In the Atkinson, Renkl and Merrill article (2003) on self-explanation prompts and backward fading, on page 775 the quote " the number of problem solving errors generated during the learning phase played a role in mediating the effectiveness of the fading procedure" refers to an earlier study of problem solving and fading conducted by Renkl, Atkinson, Maier and Staley in 2002. ( Full Citation: Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., Maier, U., & Staley, R. (2002). From Example Study to Problem Solving: Smooth Transitions Help Learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 293-315.) I skimmed through this earlier research, which also describes a “mediation analysis”. In this study, the authors tested whether the proportion of correct solution steps as well as level of prior knowledge had an effect on near transfer performance. The authors used an ANCOVA, to conclude that the proportion of correct steps (used as a covariate with prior knowledge) does have a statistically significant effect on near transfer performance. The same results did not hold true for far transfer. (Renkl et al, 2002, page 310).
To respond to your second question, " where did they test anticipation and what does that refer to?”, I think that anticipation refers to Renkl’s definition of two types of successful problem-solvers /self-explainers (Atkinson, Renkl & Merrill, 2003, pp. 774-775). I think he is testing for the successful self-explanation strategy he terms “anticipative reasoning” by measuring and scoring accuracy of anticipations (see scoring section of article, page 777). The learners received points if they could anticipate correct answers (problem-solving steps) for the steps of the examples that were blank.
I have a few questions about the article by Berthold, Eysink and Renkl (2008) on “assisting prompts” versus “open prompts”. The authors’ conclusions that “assisting prompts” foster rationale-based self-explanations and conceptual knowledge are intuitively appealing and believable, but I have been thinking about some of the minor details of the study and wonder if anyone else has similar reactions.
First of all, on page 15, the authors claim (without citation) that “conceptual understanding…is more demanding than gaining procedural knowledge – in particular because such a type of conceptual understanding is seldom addressed in mathematics lessons in school or at university.” Did anyone else take offense to this statement? Al, Vito, Shannon – don’t you routinely try to teach conceptual understanding in your math classes? I would have liked to see some references and statistics to back up the authors’ claim that “conceptual understanding is seldom addressed” especially at a university-level.
Secondly, I wondered about the mean age of the “university students” in this study. The mean age of 25 years seems older than a typical university student. If these were graduate students, can the results of the study be generalized?
My third question was about the validity of the tree diagram question. The fill-in-the-blank “assisting” prompt is a logical, practical cue for the “conceptual” knowledge that the authors test, but maybe it is too much scaffolding? Do the learners really have to construct conceptual knowledge, or can they just regurgitate the fill-in-the-blank answers when they take the posttest?
I guess I have a couple of general questions about spontaneous self explanation (SE). The Berthold article says that Chi found spontaneous SE was not as “effective” as SE that was “enhanced” by prompting. One question that remained with me through all of the readings was where or when does prompting become instruction. Berthold references Hilbert et al. about “the transition from instructional explanation to self explanation prompts”. In the Atkinson article, Renkel et al. (2000) the description of using models and examples as scaffolding actually sounded like good instruction to me, and maybe all good instruction leads to some SE. This differentiation is a bit blurred for me.
Also related to instruction, the idea of posing a “rich” pre-question to students prior to instruction is an excellent way to not only generate SE, but also to provide an anchor to which students can attach newly acquired knowledge to give it more meaning. With little prior knowledge, it will seem superficial at first, but as they relate new information to the pre-question, it will help them to understand the big learning goal and will actually motivate them as they start to make these learning connections which tells them they are getting it and can be successful in learning the material.
In the classroom, I also see how SE could be used as an assessment tool, not so much to measure student learning, but more to guide teacher instruction. The teacher might use a blank or partially filled in graphic organizer and ask students to complete it. This could be done individually or students could do it in small groups. As each group reported out, this could reinforce the students’ learning and guide the instruction by informing the teacher where students are making incorrect inferences or have misinformation. This could also be done prior to instruction to find out what students know and don’t know. As an aside, multiple choice questions as a prompt for SE is a significant part of the strategies taught for performing well on a standardized test like the SAT. The whole strategy of limiting the options when you are not sure of an answer seems to be an exercise in SE, which leads to another debate about standardized tests and whether they are testing knowledge or test taking skills. That leads to my next rambling point……
I would also be interested in people’s reactions to the good students vs. poor students use of SE. Is this a study skills issue? Were good students instructed in or at least encouraged to use self explanation? Is it an intelligence issue? Do smart people just naturally employ SE? Ainsworth et al. report that “students that spontaneously generated a large number of self explanations scored higher”. Could these students be smarter or better trained students? If that is the case then obviously, it is important to use prompting to get all students to SE. That may lead to a conclusion that maybe the important question is not whether to prompt or not, but whether fading out will generate spontaneous SE.
Lara-I too have been pondering “think-aloud” vs. “self-explanation”. I consider “think-aloud” as just orally producing what is going on in one’s mind. While teaching reading strategies to my struggling readers, I “think-aloud” so they hear me making predictions, connections, inferring, etc… Berthold at el (2006) refers to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and the use of self-explanation prompting to assist students to achieve the next level of their learning that they normally wouldn’t be able to obtain on their own. “Think-aloud” may be more general, while “self-explanation” may be more specific depending on students’ needs.
I also see the “layering” Dr. Mitchell has provided us in the order of our weekly topics. While reading the Ainsworth and Loizou (2003) article I was able to access prior knowledge of dual-modality, cognitive load, and graphic organizers. It is a great feeling as a learner when you are able to experience this on topics that just a few short months ago would have caused extraneous cognitive load!
I would like to read studies in which teachers use self-explanation in classrooms without computers. The computer studies allow students to get immediate feedback and work at their individual pace, but I would like to see how self-explanation assisting could be used without computers.
The statements that stand out for me from Dr. Mitchell’s audio book on self-explanation are “good students realize they don’t understand while poor students don’t!” and “The biggest distinguishing factor between students is not their knowledge level, but their ability to recognize when they don’t understand and to do something about it!” I believe many of the students in my transitional 6th grade classroom have not been successful in the past due to exactly this! I would like to know how I can assist these students to become better self-explainers and self-regulators without the use of a computer.
Jude.. I thank Dr. Mitchell. for the research aloud. It helped me tremendously understand the whole fading business and all. The 2x2 chart was what helped the most.
also Stephen-- I am also intrigued by meaningful learning idea. I have discussed the difficulty in measuring this with other folks in our cohort. For example, BethAnn and I had a talk about how does the teacher know when you are paying attention? Do you need to be sitting up straight in your seat with your eyes on the teacher or the material that is being presented. Apparently not! I have a student who is just about doing cart wheels when the rest of my students are in whole group instruction, and he appears to comprehend and follow better than many of my other students!!!
Is following along with the story and meaningful learning synonymous though?
How many of you folks are thinking of implementing the Self-Explanation
strategies suggested in these articles? With or without illustrations? Is Dr. Mitchell hinting that this process might be useful for some of us older folk who are slowly losing their minds and need a little neural stretching exercises(or for all of us)? Well, I'm reading the articles and starting to make blabbering sounds. I don't know if they are cohesive thoughts, but it may lead to some needed filling in the holes in my gaping chasms of understanding.
Also, I was wondering about how self explanation would work with younger students who don't have much prior knowledge to build on. That's where I think graphic organizers and linking activities may be more useful, so as to establish the initial schema/categories/nodes.
Stephen,
I'm not quite I'm sure that I would agree with your definition of constructivism in terms of learning theory. Constructivism tends to view learning as a process in which the learner actively constructs or builds new ideas or concepts based upon current and past knowledge. I'm not sure that we ever totally break down and build a new schema (at least as adult learners or experienced learners). I agree with your statement about how In other words, "learning involves constructing one's own knowledge from one's own experiences." Constructivist learning, therefore, is a very personal endeavor, whereby internalized concepts, rules, and general principles may consequently be applied in a practical real-world context. I do concur with your observation that
"Ausubel's definition of meaningful learning does not seem to take into account how different people interpret the same information." Looking at ethnographic types of narratives in education, looking at different characteristics, ways of learning, etc. has to be read very much in the light of the "lens" in which we place on it. Meaningful learning in Ausubel's definition doesn't appear to take that into account.
Do any of y'all use Socratic Method in your teaching? At the middle school level, I have an interval of questioning at least once per class period, and less frequently at the elementary level. I find it extremely effective for engaging students with the material. They have to dig a bit deeper into their understanding to answer questions when they have to concoct answers based only on their existing knowledge structures and their ability to make inferences.
I bring this up because it seems to me that Renkl's successful forms of self explanation are awfully similar to Socratic Method, only self-mediated.
Struggling against passivity is our daily challenge, nicht wahr? If Renkl discovered that most learners are passive or superficial self-explainers (and that at the university level) then I think the bulk of my students are way back at the self-regulatory vacuum described in the audiobook.
Also intriguing, though I don't know exactly what to do - if anything- with it yet, is the idea that self-explanation is self-correcting. Incorrect explanations are not problematic. Right now, that's just a groovy tidbit swimming around my brain... Being wrong is ok...
Please comment if I'm off base here. I'm still a novice at reviewing research and completely without confidence. Nonetheless, the Ainsworth article troubled me.
Is anyone else screaming "DUH!!!" when it turns out the graphic group did better than the text group? This is the circulatory system they're studying. How do you even begin to figure that out from text alone? If I, as a student, was presented with a textual description of the circulatory system, I would have to draw a diagram or I would be absolutely lost. No amount of self-explanation could help me navigate the course of blood through my body - only visual imagery. Does it lessen the importance of results when the test is stupid, i.e. the lack of correlation between self explanation and learning the the text group?
Table 3: correlation is strongest between post-test score and time. Of course. Right?
Van Lehn and Jones: analogies encourage learners to bypass gaps in their knowledge...
And here, I thought linking to prior knowledge was a good thing. This doesn't make sense to me at all.
Please correct me or agree. I'm worried that I've misunderstood.
Please comment if I'm off base here. I'm still a novice at reviewing research and completely without confidence. Nonetheless, the Ainsworth article troubled me.
Is anyone else screaming "DUH!!!" when it turns out the graphic group did better than the text group? This is the circulatory system they're studying. How do you even begin to figure that out from text alone? If I, as a student, was presented with a textual description of the circulatory system, I would have to draw a diagram or I would be absolutely lost. No amount of self-explanation could help me navigate the course of blood through my body - only visual imagery. Does it lessen the importance of results when the test is stupid, i.e. the lack of correlation between self explanation and learning the the text group?
Table 3: correlation is strongest between post-test score and time. Of course. Right?
Van Lehn and Jones: analogies encourage learners to bypass gaps in their knowledge...
And here, I thought linking to prior knowledge was a good thing. This doesn't make sense to me at all.
Please correct me or agree. I'm worried that I've misunderstood.
Sorry the last one went up twice - I gave the comp. a good 30 seconds to think about it... hm.
@Monica: re: English learners: Csikszentmihalyi describes the psychological states associated with challenge vs. skill. In his model,
low skill + high challenge = anxiety
Well, we want high challenge, so how do we raise the skills of English learners? I try to use more aural examples or graphic models with all of my students, not just the ELLs. But then again, I teach music and "talking about music is like dancing about architecture" (quote spuriously? attributed to Steve Martin)
Raylene (and later on, Michael)
I, too, took a bit of umbrage at the Berthold, Eysink and Renkle (2008) comment that
”conceptual understanding is seldom addressed in mathematics lessons in school or at university.” Their comment certainly does not reflect my experience as an instructor or as an observer of other instructors in a math setting. Math necessarily calls for a healthy dose of conceptual instruction as well as procedural instruction, more so, perhaps, than other disciplines. Having taught philosophy, theology, art, as well as math, I find that math is less forgiving than these other disciplines if the learner is not proficient in expected and accepted procedures.
I don’t want to be accused of “attacking the attracker” but, in fact, I find that Berthold, Eysink and Renkl make a number of loose statements and assumptions throughout their study. Notice, for example, when addressing the generalizability of their study, they simply state: “As self-explanation in general. . . has proven to be fruitful in many domains (e.g., Roy and Chi 2005), we conjecture that it is appropriate to generalize the present findings across different learning contents.” Really? Why? Intuitively, as you mentioned Raylene, the notion is appealing but it does need more support than a simple declarative statement by the authors. As I mentioned above, mathematics, physics, chemistry and a handful of other disciplines, require a more exacting procedural instruction than most other content domains. I would even go so far as to claim that the distinction between conceptual instruction and procedural instruction is somewhat artificial: procedural instruction in itself sheds insight into one’s conceptual understanding. Understanding identity properties and how they are employed in transforming equations requires both procedural instruction AND conceptual understanding. I wonder if Berthold, Eysink and Renkl ever taught in a math classroom??
Ok, let me get down off my soapbox. I guess the rain made me feisty.
By the way, aren’t assisting self-explanation prompts just another name for the Socratic method? Michael, you mention this very same notion when you asked when does prompting become instruction? I think that is an excellent question and underscores the idea that there is no clear line between many of these concepts we’re examining. Good instruction does prompt, both guided and open-ended. Good instruction does lecture but also calls for collaborative learner-centered discovery work. Good instruction does use text, diagrams, worked out examples but also does these things all within the same lesson. I would be surprised if any teacher employs one methodology only.
Boy, let’s talk about a make-to-fit research write up in the case of Berthold et al. paper. Although it had a very promising abstract, this research had several problems, most of which has been identified by many of you.
Therefore, I would like to focus on an issue relating to consistency.
On page four, in the second paragraph, the author’s cite the Roy and Chi, (2005) and Renkl, (2002) study to argue that for some learners high-quality self-explanations can be a difficulty to engage in. Moreover, as a result of such less then optimal engagement, learners will provide only partially correct or even incorrect self-explanations. According to the authors, these deficits can lead to incomplete/incorrect knowledge that can severely impede further learning.
This line of argument is in sharp contrast with the information is provided by Dr.Mitchell in the audio book, stating that observing discrepancy between correct answers and one’s own will not only foster learning but will also elicit repairs.
However on page 17, in the discussion section an almost identical statement based on Roy and Chi, (2005) and Chi (2000) research is used to support the author’s argument about the importance of learners self-explaining the expert’s answer.
Could this “it has to work” approach be the result of having a total of twelve researcher working in this bi-national study.
Beth, Vito.
I think that the line’s between the Socratic method and assisted-self-explaining has been blurred quite a bit. In our case I don’t think it matters much, however, it is important to note that the main reason to conduct a Socratic dialogue is to achieve moral reformation. As Socrates believed that such elenctic philosophizing makes people happier and more virtuous in their life. Also, I think the internal conflict that should arise from a Socratic dialogue is also much stronger and disturbing than those coming from assisted-self-explaining.
BRAIN CANDY.
This link is to an article on the University of Singapore site where a professor used Socratic method to teach control systems design for the guided weapons to Master of Defense Technology and Systems Program students. http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/V6n10/default.htm
After reviewing my notes from the readings regarding self-explanation that I completed several days ago I pondered the meaning of a note to myself in the margin emphatically supporting theories of Vygotsky. Upon further review of the readings I now understand what I meant.
Looking at the article by Berthold, Eysink and Renkl (2008) and the three conditions where they learned probability theory, I cannot say that it was shocking that the authors found that integration of the multiple representations was fostered through assisted self-explanation. Tacking onto my comment from last week, learning how to learn is not an innate skill but fostered through repeated, natural modeling through (Vygotsky) a more knowledgeable other, which in this case was a self-explanation prompt. The authors discuss this through their statement that “it is expedient to support learners by assisting on knowledge construction that would be out of reach for the learners without assistance” (zone of proximal development) with the intention of fostering “subsequent own activity of the learner” Berthold et al (2008). In the study they provide open self explanation prompts and assisting self-explanation prompts, both of which were found to assist learner construction of concepts. Yet, applying this careful balance of utilizing assisting prompts yet fostering learner activity to actual teaching practices is, for me, a continual challenge. If I were to state this as a question…. How can teachers facilitate learning how to learn and independent self explanation in their students?
I intend this question to be somewhat rhetorical and understand that clear responses include scaffolding, modeling, tutors, teacher guided self-explanation and, like the study, self explanation prompts. But I think the answer involves the delicate collaboration of teacher and student interaction and differs between learners. So then, how do we apply this to a class of 25-30 individuals?
Hello Co-Bloggers,
This week I write from the icy cold and unfriendly climate of NYC. It’s treacherous here.
When I first listened to the two podcasts, I was picturing self-explanation devices to be somewhat similar in structure to graphic organizers. I thought the difference was that beyond the links and nodes, there was an element of principle and focus. I also thought that the research might contradict the Stull and Mayer (2007) finding that self generated graphic organizers were not particularly effective. Once I read Atkinson, Renkle and Merrill (2003), I felt that I had done the opposite of misunderestimating (Bush, 2003) the devices. These prompts are anything but self-generated devices. The self-explanation prompt that was shared on p. 779 was not hardly a graphic organizer. It was more like what I would call a purpose setting question, a gentle reminder. Nonetheless, I was amazed at the results and intrigued with their analysis.
The Ainsworth and Th Loizou (2003) study used a self generated self-explanation in a manner that seemed to parallel my thoughts after listening to the podcasts. The results of their experiment showed that when studying the circulatory system, participants who used diagrams scored significantly better on the posttest than participants who only studied text. Additionally, the diagram group provided more self explanations, but the text group used more words in their explanation. In contrast to the Atkinson et al (2003) study, the prompts for self generation were not used to guide the learner as they engaged in the learning material. While Atkinson et al would present a principle for the learner to ponder and apply, Aisworth and Th Loizu asked for clarification and asked the students to continue if they (the students) became silent. Their work did not provide the prompt. The Ainsworth and Th Loizu study required a far more active subject. It also is worth noting that most of the self-explanations were goal-driven while very few were principle based.
The Berthold, Eysink and Renkl (2008) study was closely related in several ways to the Atkinson et al (2003) experiment in some important ways. Both used computer assisted learning environments, and both were testing on the subject of probability. In addition, both were looking at the effects of using self-explanation prompts on learning. One notable difference was the latter studies look at the conceptual aspects of the content. I was a little miffed that the knowledge tested in the Atkinson et al (2003) study was primarily procedural so that I welcomed the change in Berthold et al (2008) study. Another big difference concerned the refinement of the self-explanation prompts. The more recent study dissected the prompts into two categories: assisting self-explanation prompts and open self- explanation prompts. The assisting prompts required the subject to fill in the blanks, and thus required a more active engagement with the computer environment. The results were interesting. The authors found that both types of self-explanation prompts favorably affected the procedural outcomes but that the assisting self-explanation prompts fostered better performance on the conceptual items.
And yes, I have a few questions/concerns. In fact, I have too many. Some are trivial and some do bug me.
I wonder if self-explanation is too broad of a category. These articles treated self-explanation as two different entities. Prompts that assist the learner are one branch and learner generated explanations are another. Just because both produced some positive effects does not mean they are the same thing.
All three experiments were one shot simulations. Clever as they were, does that really apply to learning over a longer period of time? Can we really extrapolate from a ninety minute experiment to the quarter, semester and year-long schedules that teachers and students actually use? I certainly can see the need for more longitudinal work in this area.
It’s also interesting to note that Berthold et al (2008) and Atkinson et al (2003) came to two different conclusions about time. Berthold et. al state that “The learning time … was significantly higher in the groups with the self-explanation prompts, …” (2003, p. 8) while Atkinson et al state, “The timing effect had no ‘time cost’, in other words it fosters the quality not the quantity… .” I suspect the difference could be attributed to the difference in the prompts, that is, the learners were required to do more in that 2008 article, and that active accounted for the change. Nonetheless, the 180° turn did make me wonder.
In the self-explanation podcast, Mathew mentioned that there is something about using speech that relates to effective self-explanation. Where’s the speech in these experiments? Yes, Ainsworth and Th Loizu researchers asked questions, but the questions were not meant to guide the learner.
And, in the most trivial of all matters, I sometimes peek at the references while I am reading the article. When I found the Atkinson et al (2003) on the third page of the Berthold et al (2008), I did just that. I found a citation for the article we read this week because the journal, the issue numbers and the pages were identical. So why does the same article have two different titles? Isn’t that a silly thing to ponder?
I also originally wrote a response that highlighted my own practices. I decided enough was said, and eliminated those. Let’s just leave that question open for future discussion. I am intrigued with how these studies dovetail with my own, intuitive classroom experiences.
Having had multimedia learning with Mathew before, I have a couple thoughts that may be getting us ahead of ourselves, but I'm still curious...
The Aignsworth & Loizou article made me wonder if anyone has studied whether or not multimedia learning materials results in more or less self-explaining. Do students listening to audiobooks or videos stop them to check for accuracy and understanding? Do they automatically stop when something doesn't make sense?
The Berthold, Eysink, and Renkl article made me wonder if graphic organizers (or multimedia presentations) can serve to connect multiple representations and to accelerate integration? Or would adding a graphic organizer (or video) to multiple representations just result in cognitive overload?
Several comments have been made about teaching math/science conceptual understanding versus procedural understanding. While I like to think that most math/science teachers focus on concepts as well as procedures, I have no misunderstanding that many students focus on procedure more than concepts.
I think that there is a strong connection between the two, especially in disciplines like chemistry where math and experiment meet, but it's easy to just plug numbers into formulae without understanding what's going on. One way that I have been trying to avoid this lately has been by using graphic organizers to make concepts and conceptual relationships more explicit--and then to avoid equations until students can walk themselves through using the organizers to solve problems. If Mathew thinks this is useful, I'm happy to show what this looks like in 5 minutes on Saturday. (Or someone with a mini-DV can record me and we can post it on the course website. Or I can find an extra few hours to actually make a video presentation on my computer--ha ha.)
Hi all, so many great comments. Kelly,when you were talking about your experience talking aloud with students to expose your thinking process and whether that would be considered an expert self-explanation I was reminded of the Metacognitive Study Strategies approach of Palinscar. The prompts are taught and practiced so the students can begin to internalize the self explanation when presented with a similar task. Since the articles we read for this section appear to be one shot experiences I wonder how representative they are of how people really learn to use self-explanation as a tool for learning. If the real purpose is tease out what you know and don't know and be willing to take a risk in front of others as you are learning do the articles we read get to that issue?
So many options to think of as we go forward with our exploration of the concepts of Cognition.
Throughout this weeks knowledge dig I found myself excited to be able to finally assign a defined learning tool to what some of my students are putting into practice on a regular basis. For example, I have a second grader that is a student on the spectrum and often is in and out of his regular ed classroom due to, what is referred to as “blurting out”. So he comes over to me and we work through what he needs to complete in the way that best helps his learning. He talks or engages in self-explanation as a way of problem solving and it simply is just part of him. At one point he came into my class, first words out of his mouth were “Mrs. Cahill are you smarter than a fifth grader?” “Well only some times. “ I answered and continued with “The bigger question is are you smarter than a fifth grader?” So I gave him a multiplication problem 5x6 and he began his self-explanation with a visual model to help him. That is, he started by saying, “O.k., 5x6 that means I need 5 groups of 6.” Much easier to have 5 groups than six due to 2nd graders know how to skip count by 5’s, part of his prior knowledge and schema) He began drawing on the white board five groups of six, continued talking through how he then would need to add them together and he came up with the answer of 30. No use of fingers needed.
My other comment is about Dr. Mitchell’s comment from the read aloud about Learning styles begone: It may be more important to understand SE styles! Although it is acceptable practice with my population of students (SLD) for them to engage in whatever tools they need to use to help their own learning, is it possible for the idea of giving students self-explanation time in regular education classroom to deeper their understanding and add to their schemas? Or, would all that noise in a class of 40 become a distraction and interrupt learning. So in what type of environment is SE best practiced?
Shannon,
Your cautionary note about most teachers teaching concepts and procedures and students many times simply focusing in on procedures is a good one. I think my comments come from teaching advanced algebra sections where most of the students have a decent conceptual understanding of the material already (good schema and scripts) and become uncomfortable if taught a procedure that doesnt fit into their pre-existing script without an explanation. In fact, I wonder if there is a difference between high-prior knowledge learners needing/demanding a more conceptual instruction versus low-to-medium prior knowledge learners not really caring as much as long as they know a procedure into which they can plug in numbers? I think that might be the case.
Comment: In Berthold, et al.there is a comment (a nod to Ainsworth's work) that I viewed as a nod to multiple intelligences, so I find it interesting that there has been discussion about them. "By combining different representations with different properties, learners are not limited by the strengths and weaknesses of one particular representation." Multiple representations or multiple intelligences are not necessarily an either or proposition in learning. Just because a student with learning disabilities tends to be a "visual learner" doesn't mean that the auditory learner ignores all cues. As was pointed out in the mention of Spiro and Jehng's (1990) cognitive flexibility theory, they argue the ability to construct and switch is a fundamental part of successful learning. The conditions of successful learning are what though? Is it when we can be successful in "far transfer" of concepts, is it a when the concepts are learned and we can put those concepts to use through sucessful problem solving?
Atkinson, et al pointed out in their theoretical implications discussed reflection as part of the cognitive apprenticeship model. How is reflection different from self-explanation or is it the "other side of the coin?
Yo Bloggers. I was able to move again. NYC Dep't.of Sanitation clears the snow very efficiently.
I am on the wagon. I apologize for writing so much, especially the summary types of remarks that did not fit the assignment. Sometimes I talk too much, and I think this time I wrote too much. No 12-step program is needed.
Sharon and Raylene: I totally enjoyed your questions and responses regarding anticipation. Between the two of you, I think you had the idea pretty well described. I did have an additional thought. In the podcast, Mathew mentioned “gap filling” as a powerful feature of integrative self-explanation. Perhaps, anticipation is closely connected to gap-filling.
Vito and Raylene: you both mentioned the Berthold et al comments on teaching for understanding. I too was miffed. While I most definitely see a “Yours is not to question why, just invert and multiply” approach in some educational sectors, I see one heck of a lot of differences too. I do think that such a sweeping generalization should not simply be made without some type of substantiation.
Beth Ann, Jozsef and Vito: enjoyed the chatter about the Socratic technique. My late-mentor, Evelyn Silvia used to promote what she called the Large Group Socratic Technique (LGST), and she was magical in her questioning strategies. My long ago reading of the Socratic dialogues resulted in a mind boggling admiration for Socrates. In many dialogues, he asked some very good questions that served to clarify and strengthen other people’s knowledge. I mention all that because I don’t think the computer prompts in Berthold et al parallel the profound questions that Socrates or Professor Sylvia would pose. C’mon people, those Berthold et al questions, while good, are more like filling in the blanks.
Finally Beth Ann, you wrote, “Is anyone else screaming "DUH!!!" when it turns out the graphic group did better than the text group?” I like that comment. I also wonder if this is material specific. Might it be that some material is more appealing to many learners in a textual form. I doubt if I could learn Socratic questioning from a diagram enhanced by text. I need to read the original.
Wow! Again, everyone has such incredible things to say! Let me preface my comments with the statement that I am much more "forest" than "trees" and I keep getting visually disrupted by the lack of threading. (Sorry!!)
I love the idea (BethAnn) of the Socratic Seminar as a group self-explanation. Also the comment made earlier about GATE students engaging in a explanitory dialogue seems to ring true.
Some of the problems we seem to see in many of these studies are the attribution of success to variables that may be questionable (i.e. BethAnn's "Duh!" comment). The lesson I think we need to walk away with is the idea that true, "meaningful" learning is a complex activity that blends many of the variables we examine. Graphic organizers, self-explanation (and self-correction), dialogue alone or with a partner, utilizing multiple modalities, all of these were represented within the studies we examined. I really like the discussions we have, but caution that we not attribute too much to any one variable, especially when many of these studies seem to not control for the other layers of complex learning.
Can't wait to see you all on Saturday! This has been QUITE a week!
Al – I really enjoy the personal anecdotes about your years of teaching math and your latest career of teaching/working with teachers. You have a wealth of experience – I learn a lot every time you talk or write!
Jude- One of the comments you made earlier in the week has stayed with me. I have often thought that many of the college students placed in my remedial math classes have undiagnosed learning disabilities. I refer students to campus disability resources for testing, but it is up to students to follow through and most don’t.
There are also many college students who have been diagnosed with learning disabilities who refuse to identify themselves to campus disability resources. In one class of 40 students this semester, I know I have 10 students with diagnosed learning disabilities. This is information that students have shared with me, but only one student has identified himself to campus resources and receives accommodations / academic support.
It is very true that my remedial students simply can’t identify the gaps in their knowledge (or even discern that gaps exist). Successful learners sometimes view the gaps as chasms. The students who show up for my office hours are generally independent learners doing extremely well in university-level courses, but are stumbling/obsessing over minor computational or conceptual detail. They often answer their own questions – out loud – immediately after asking me for help. My job seems to be to nod and listen while they self-explain to better understanding.
Thank you Lara for reminding us that learning is complex and multi-faceted. That it takes many strategies both mediated by the teacher and the learner to build cognitive understanding. The researchers try to identify if a strategy can be teased out find power for specific types of learning. This then adds to our knowledge and hopefully will inform our instructional planning decisions. I keep trying to hold on to a map that will help me to integrate all of the concepts we are working with in this course. Making the decision of what to use when appears to be the critical decision. Looking forward as Lara says, to the continued conversations this Saturday.
We have a very active AVID Program at or school, and the Socratic method is an integral part of the instruction. I was interested in the discussion because it is common to see people who think they are conducting a Socratic seminar when in reality it’s merely a free flowing class discussion. To conduct a real Socratic seminar, the teacher must be trained, and although the teacher appears to be a bystander it takes a fair amount of planning on the teacher’s part. However, it does bring results and allows students to expose their own thought process as well as see where others are going with a concept. Somewhat similar to what we are doing on this blog.
There have been a few comments related to using self-explanation in a special ed classroom. Wendy’s student seems to naturally SE; a trait of good students. Good students also realize when they don’t understand something or struggling with learning which prompts SE. Maybe, as Jude comments, SE should be encouraged in more special ed classes. I was thinking about the Cloze process which is used quite a bit for teaching reading comprehension. It is an approach where words are deleted and the reader needs to make connections and inferences to determine what the missing word is. Sounds like a self explanation prompt.
I just posted my 4b think aloud vs. self-explanation post in the wrong spot...still not a techie after a month in this class. Sorry about that folks!
In my response to Lara's 2/27 think aloud vs. self-explanation question posed, I would think the think aloud is much more informal, like an idea in the formation process. Whereas a self-explanation seems to me to be a rather tightly formed idea that is reiterated to help with recollection of what was taught. That is my short answer (longer answer is posted in the other spot above Mathew's 4a/4b assignment).
This is Sharon's original post:
I'm responding to Lara's post from 2/27 about my interpretation of think alouds vs. self-explanations. I sense the self-explanations are more formal -- a reiteration of what you remember from formal information conveyed during instruction (i.e., text/maps, etc.). Thus it would involve remembering the schema that was in place during the instruction, but perhaps made more formal by the person studying it in a self-explained fashion. I often relate things metaphorically to add more depth to what I know. For example I like using Mazlow's hierarchy type pyramid to explain the fundamental details of a concept on the bottom and I then I self-explain the additive layers which I visually "see" above them when I recall it to myself using self-explanation.This way I visually remember the 'shape' something took on that I assigned it, and I can recall how many 'layers' an idea has that I have to study. I suppose a mnemonic is like that too "EGBDF" or "every good boy does fine" to remember music notes.
And when I identify a 'think aloud', it seems to me to be more of the creation of the schema--something that is more of a work-in-progress. To use my handy metaphors, I liken it to a kind of loose house structure in the making -- such as one made of toothpicks -- not very strong, lots of holes, but room for structural growth to a high level. So an idea can start as a "shack" and through think alouds turn into a multi-level mansion. As I personally mentally build my ideas and lace them together, my mental think aloud construct turns into a more formal idea which I can later self-explain with more certainty than I would have been able to during my think-aloud progression.
Another place where self-explanation can be (and for me is) implemented can be in well-designed workbooks (aka student guide in the Living By Chemistry curriculum).
I don't know how much research has been done on programs like Living By Chemistry, but I adopted it five years ago because it involves lots of labs, but better yet--each lab comes with questions in series that guide students from superficial observations of lab events to deeper understandings of molecular processes behind the macroscopic changes. Kind of like Socratic questioning, but maybe more directed and more science-oriented.
More info at the publisher's website:
http://www.keypress.com/x5166.xml
and at the author's website:
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/amsgrp/ed_pages/eduindex.html
By the way, the "author" is a chemical education research group directed by Prof. Angie Stacy at UC Berkeley. I was a grad student down the hall from her back in the mid 1990's. She's great!
Raylene,
I loved that you highlighted the problem that instructors face in their remedial classes with students that could possibly have learning disabilities. I have a friend that teaches at the junior college level and deals with this issue in her remedial English classes. She is constantly asking me what she can do to help support her students when the only avenue is to suggest they go to the resource center for accommodation support and as you mentioned it is something that the student has to do. Much different than what a student with disabilities is use to throughout their entire educational journey, That is, a case manager overseeing that accommodations are implemented in all their classes and extension of helping the teacher with those accommodations.
At the elementary level we are constantly discussing how our students will make it through elementary, intermediate, high school and we hope and pray on to college. We know we have to teach independence and self-advocacy skills so they can continue to receive help. So what does any of this have to do with Self-explanation? I love it when I hear of any teacher outside of k-12 find a way to support our students, even if it is simply letting them talk out loud or SE as you listen and encourage. Reality for all college courses, maybe not, but thank you for what you are doing for our students. I will continue to have the discussion with other special educators about the importance of teaching skills to help our students experience success in college.
I would like to piggy back on Ninon’s question…I too ponder how we can apply self-explanation prompting/assisting to a class of 25-30 (35 next year!) students. We recognize that a good number of our students are at different levels of understanding/learning of the material being taught. To meet each student’s zone of proximal development we would have to provide a wide range of prompts. What would that do to the learning environment? It seems like it would create an artificial learning situation. Would the best way to accomplish this be forming small groups and working with students at similar levels to provide appropriate self-explanation prompts? I see the advantage of these studies conducting their experiments on computers because students were able to work at their own pace and receive individual feedback. As a classroom teacher with two classroom computers that work only some of the time, I would like to know how I can teach my students self-explanation skills and meet the needs of ALL of my students!
Shannon brought up a good point about multi-media and its relevance in self-explanation. Audio books give each of us the opportunity to stop when we want to clarify or make certain we understand what was said. Especially combining an audio book with a graphic organizer to further our understanding of a new concept is extremely beneficial. During a live lecture you can not pause the teacher and go back to what was said, so many students may become confused if they are not skilled in using self-explanation strategies on their own. The question is, how many students would actually take advantage of the opportunity to stop and go back to listen to an audio lecture if they don’t already have self-explanation skills in place? I keep going back to what Dr. Mitchell said in his audio book on self-explanation, “The biggest distinguishing factor between students is not their knowledge level but their ability to recognize when they don’t understand and to do something about it!” (I used the same quote in my last blog but I see this in so many of my students and it actually gives me hope that I CAN do something to help them!)
One of the big AHA items in the audio book is that SE does not live in isolation. Self-regulation must be present to engage self-monitoring skills to prompt for SE. Unless we strive to integrate Self-regulation principles in our teaching, we will continue to give our students the fish, rather than teaching them to fish for themselves.
Teaching SE in a classroom of 30-40 students is a challenge. I agree with Kelly, that a combination of small groups, collaborative learning projects, where one of the requirements is to SE the concepts back to oneself may be a good "head fake" strategy. The kids do them enough, the strategy hopefully becomes intuitive. Repetition, repetition, repetition...
The other point I must remember is that SE is but one strategy to increase student learning. I get so caught up with reading many promising research, thinking that they will make an impact on student learning, but fail to remember a slew of uncontrolled variables not present in the controlled experiments, that make the theory not so successful in practice, well at least in my practice. Cognition is so complex. I appreciated how Dr. Mitchell tied the audio book on SE back to the first one on Cognition. I wondered about that myself how they all tie together and was pleased to hear the connection.
In times like this, K.I.S.S. method works.
So many great comments!!
Michael, I think your question regarding when prompting becomes instruction is very interesting. I agree with you Vito, it the lines between some of the concepts we discuss can become very fuzzy. If prompting and instruction are on a spectrum, then where is facilitation? (is this how we slowly become crazy, asking ourselves these questions?)
Next, to add to the ideas of Wendy, Kelly and something briefly mentioned in the pod cast, self Explanation potentially can put the value back in error. In the pod cast Dr. Mitchell discusses that SE takes the emphasis out of correctness and more about the process of learning because the concept will eventually become corrected. I find that so often, as students and as teachers, we focus on getting the right answer (Stephan, Vito and Shannon mentioned this too), yet there is value in the error because of the potential for process-learning, self explanation and correction. How possible would it be in this standardized test score society to find merit in a mistake?
How do we do think-alouds or self-explanation in a class of 25-35???
Not sure if y'all will agree with me, but here is a link to an interesting teaching methodology... please note that the students are repeating/explaining/think-alouding en masse...
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=27cd1529e4a94605bf1a
Is the power of "Self-explanation" in someone hearing what you are saying, or do you think it is happening here when students are explaining at the same time and not really discussing... Let me know what you think!
WARNING: Teachertube is TOTALLY addictive. There are more power teaching examples, from different ages and content. :D
Post a Comment