Doug Wolfe EdTech 503, Spring, 2012 Types of Learning Reflection Chapter 8 Strategies for Declarative Knowledge The

strategies for declarative knowledge learning address the learning of three types of declarative knowledge: labels and names, facts and lists, and organized discourse. There are several major theories about now declarative knowledge is stored. One is propositional networks, a second is schematic theory, and a third is constructivism. Though some of the details may differ, there is general agreement that learning declarative knowledge requires learners to link new declarative knowledge with existing knowledge, actively organize the new knowledge, and elaborate on the new knowledge. As I read the material, I found that scheme theory strongly resonated with me. Though I did not know the term or the theory at the time, I learned a valuable lesson about the importance of schemata when I took a course on partial differential equations as an undergraduate. I struggled for 7 weeks (out of a 10-week term) as the professor went through material that seemed completely disconnected and opaque to me. I finally turned to a grad student friend, who in two minutes explained the organization of the course and the material that suddenly made it all make sense. What the professor had completely failed to do, and what the grad student did in our brief tutoring session, was to help me build a scheme for the information. Since then, any time I encounter new material, I am actively looking for the structure and the connections. I was also struck by the idea that the task of learning declarative knowledge can be analyzed in a way that goes well beyond rote memorization. I am encouraged that there are specific and systematic strategies that can be employed to help students learn declarative knowledge. Chapter 9 Strategies for Concept Learning Concept learning is an intellectual skill. Where declarative knowledge is an association between two or more things, concept learning is the ability to apply knowledge to things that have not previously been encountered. An example would be the ability to identify an okapi as a mammal, even though you have never before seen an okapi. There are two different types of concepts: concrete concepts, which can be distinguished by physical characteristics using the five senses, and abstract concepts, which simply fit a certain definition.

Doug Wolfe EdTech 503, Spring, 2012

I found the discussion of generalizing and discriminating to be interesting. In particular, I liked the insight that sometimes learners first generalize, then later discriminate, while at other times it works the other way around, with learners first discriminating, then later generalizing. This makes intuitive sense to me. The book gives the example of a child generalizing the concept of a cow, something that anyone with children has observed. But I have also been in situations where I had to spend a good deal of time and effort helping a learner discriminate first before they could generalize. Why is this one part of the group and that one isnt? I thought you said that anything with this characteristic was part of the group. Chapter 10 Strategies for Learning Procedures Procedures are a set of steps to complete some task. When all steps are included and each step is unambiguous, the procedure is called an algorithm. Procedures that are linear and reasonably short are called simple procedures, and procedures that are long or that involve many decision points are called complex procedures. Procedures that cannot be clearly described are better taught as problem-solving tasks. I found it interesting that in teaching procedures, learners must first possess the underlying concepts as prerequisite knowledge, but the same is not necessarily true for the declarative knowledge. I had never thought about this before, but it makes a certain amount of sense. If you're adjusting the timing of an automobile engine, you need to know something about the underlying concepts, but the exact steps and the proper settings to adjust the timing to are things that can be looked up in a repair manual, or learned as part of the process of learning the procedure. Chapter 11 Strategies for Learning Principles Principles are relational rules that specify the relationship between two or more concepts. They can often be stated in the form of a causal relationship or if-then statement. In math and science, principles are often called by names like law, axiom, or theorem. Simply being able to state a principle does not signify that it has actually been learned. Learners must be able to apply the principle to previously unencountered situations. This implies that instruction must give significant opportunity to apply the learning in new situations.

Doug Wolfe EdTech 503, Spring, 2012 I found the discussion in the book interesting when it talked about how in math you can often learn something as either a procedure or a principle. I saw a vivid example of this when I tutored calculus through the Learning Center as an undergraduate. Tutoring requests always picked up when students were learning to find the volume of solids formed by rotating a curve about a line or axis. Many students tried to approach this from a procedure standpoint, but would struggle to remember and correctly apply the procedures, which varied depending on the situation. I had great success with students by telling them to throw out the procedures they were trying to memorize and apply, and to instead understand the underlying principles. (If you rotate a small dx or dy slice, you'll get some sort of cylinder, perhaps tall or short, perhaps with a hole or not. You then figure out the volume of your cylinder, which you can do with some simple analysis, subtracting any hole it may have. Then add the volumes of all the little cylinders you'll have. No formula memorization needed...you build the equation as you need it.) Far too many students are taught that math is nothing but procedures. Students would find math more interesting and easier if they were taught more of the underlying principles. Chapter 12 Strategies for Problem Solving Problem solving requires learners to create a solution to a novel problem using the principles, procedures, declarative knowledge, and cognitive strategies they have previously learned. (Smith & Ragan, 2005) Smith and Ragan take pains to differentiate domain-specific problem solving, which they address, from other types/conceptions of problem solving. They note that the type of problem solving they are addressing is often thought of as expertise. They also note that in order to qualify as problem solving under their definition, a learning goal must involve simultaneous consideration of multiple principles and procedures, selection of relevant principles, and proper sequencing so that the problem is solved. Finally, they distinguish between well-defined and ill-defined problems, and note differences in the cognitive processes for each. I found the material in this chapter to be particularly relevant to my project, as my main learning goal is essentially a problem-solving goal. However, my initial feelings of elation (Aha! This is the material I need!) were tempered somewhat as I read through the definitions of well-defined and ill-defined problems, and realized that my learning goal is an ill-defined problem. (That would explain why we've had so much trouble training people!) I was also disappointed to note that while there was a lot of great material related to well-defined

Doug Wolfe EdTech 503, Spring, 2012 problems, the material on ill-defined problems was much thinner and more philosophical than practical. Perhaps when I read the full chapter, I will find more material on ill-defined problems. Chapter 13 Strategies for Cognitive Strategy Instruction Cognitive strategies are strategies that learners use to observe and direct their own thinking processes. There are two main types of cognitive strategies: learning strategies and thinking strategies. The former are used by students to assist in the process of learning new material. The latter are essentially general problem-solving strategies that are not domain-specific. Learning strategies come in two major categories: cognitive domain strategies, which help in information processing, and affective domain strategies, which are related to learner motivation and engagement. Thinking strategies are often focused on the area of divergent thinking and creative problem solving. The part of this chapter that stood out the most for me was the discussion about the limitations of thinking strategies--specifically, the lack of attention to the need for solid knowledge in the domain in which the problem lies. This brought back to my memory the "rule of 10,000" cited by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers. The rule posits that mastery of a particular domain requires spending approximately 10,000 hours of practice in that domain. Gladwell cites many examples, but one of the more interesting ones was a study of music students at a conservatory. The instructors were asked to rate each student in one of three categories: those who were destined to become top soloists/stars in their field; those who would be solid professional musicians, but not the top in their field; and those who were likely to become music teachers, high school band leaders, etc. The researchers then did extensive interviews with the students to determine what their practice habits had been over the course of their lives, and estimated the number of hours spent practicing. Without exception, the top stars had spent over 10,000 hours practicing; the solid professionals had spent around 8,000 hours practicing; and the lowest group had spent 6,000 hours or less. Among Gladwell's other examples, he points to the large number of hours that people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates spent programming computers as teens. (Gladwell, 2011) One other insight from this chapter: I'm guessing that this very assignment was conceived as a way for us students to elaborate on the new material we're learning!

Doug Wolfe EdTech 503, Spring, 2012

Chapter 14 Strategies for Attitude Learning Attitude learning deals with the learning of objectives that are in the affective domain. In particular, these would be situations where we want to create or change an attitude. Smith and Ragan note that attitude objectives, while not often stated, are far more prevalent than we realize. As they note, "A school's broadest goals will, upon close examination, often be almost entirely affective." (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 260) Attitude learning has three components: a cognitive component, a behavioral component, and an affective component. I expected this chapter to be rather ho-hum. My project is all about difficult cognitive objectives, not affective ones. However, I was challenged by the observations that all cognitive objectives have at least some affective component to them. It got me thinking about questions I have had about the degree to which my learners may be influenced by attitudes--"Am I being paid enough to bother with doing a good job on this? Do I really care about the quality of my work if I get paid the same for average or excellent work?" I'm not sure I have time to delve into all of this for my project, but it is something I want to follow up on at some point. Chapter 15 Strategies for Psychomotor Skills Psychomotor skills are physical skills--something that requires use of the body in a coordinated and purposeful way. The psycho part is used by Smith and Ragan to indicate that motor skills have a cognitive component. The cognitive component is important when you are learning a psychomotor skill. However, after the skill has been mastered, that part becomes subconscious. Smith and Ragan point out that designers often have trouble properly identifying psychomotor skills. They stress that the key is to focus on what the new learning involves. If it is a cognitive skill that happens to require motor skills as a distant prerequisite, then it would not be a psychomotor skill. But if the new learning is focused on the physical skill, then it would be a psychomotor skill. I found the distinction just noted between psychomotor and cognitive skills to be helpful. I also found the discussion of the various schemes for classifying skills to be interesting: discrete vs. continuous, closed vs. open, and person vs. object motion. However, I don't often find

Doug Wolfe EdTech 503, Spring, 2012 myself in a situation to teach psychomotor skills, so I will most likely file this information away until I have a situation where it is relevant. Reference List Gladwell, M. (2011). Outliers : the story of success. New York: Back Bay Books. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley & Sons.