In the loop (twice)

This is the second in my series of short blog posts on important theories of learning. My plan is to work through the alphabet of psychologists and provide a brief overview of their theories, and how each can be applied to education. In the first post we looked at John Anderson's cognitive architecture model ACT-R.

Today, I'm going to discuss the work of Chris Argyris and his theory of double loop learning. This is a simplified explanation of the theory, so those who wish to read more deeply should read to the volume in the reference section.

The theory

Argyris bases his theory on the premise that each of us has a cognitive map inside our heads - in other words, a mental script to deal with problems and challenges based on previous experience. Working with others including Donald Schon, Argyris developed this idea into a theory of learning. We live and work in a mode of 'detection and correction of error'. When we meet a problem, we fall back on our experience (including the rules and what we are allowed to do within them) and attempt to address the problem from this mental array of skills and knowledge - known as our 'espoused theory of action'. We learn to develop a theory for everything, and this becomes our way of coping with change, decision making and challenges that come our way. Argyris calls this process Single Loop learning, and sees it as the most common response. He likens this to a thermostat in your house. When it becomes too warm, the thermostat turns down the heating.

Alternatively, in Double Loop learning, we learn to think outside of the box. We learn to examine the problem from a different angle, perhaps questioning the rules (what Argyris calls the 'governing variables'), and attempting to make changes that are more holistic and wide ranging than merely solving the problem itself. As Argyris and Schon wrote in 1978, 'Double loop learning occurs when the error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of an organization's underlying norms, policies and objectives' (p 2-3).

How it can be applied in education

It's clear that Argyris's work is aimed at organisational learning, so his work is of great relevance for learning and development professionals. Those who manage change in large organisations would also have an interest in how double loop learning (and the thinking behind it) might be encouraged. Essentially, Argyris is calling for creative approaches to problem solving, where the problems themselves become opportunities for workers to improve their organisation, reflect on their practice and implement change that is sustainable and effective. The theory also has applications in education where teachers can encourage their students to think more widely than the problem itself, examining the entire context in which the problem is presented. Creative and critical thinking of this kind can often lead the learner to a global appreciation of the topic they are studying.

Reference

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1978) Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Photo by Albert Debruijn
Graphic by xjent03 on Wikimedia Commons


In the loop (twice) by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Making memories

This is the first in a series of posts on important theories of learning and memory. Over the next few weeks I plan to work through the alphabet of psychologists to explain over 30 major theories that relate to teaching and learning. In each post I'm going to try to simplify some complex ideas and present the models and theories in brief, bite sized posts. Each will also have a brief section on how the theory might apply to everyday teaching and learning. Here's the first: John Anderson's ACT-R model of memory.

A considerable amount of research into learning has focused on human memory. A number of theories about how memory and recall function has been published, but one that stands out is a model derived from the work of Canadian psychologist John Robert Anderson. Adaptive Control of Thought - Rational - abbreviated to ACT-R (previously known as ACT*) - is a cognitive theory of learning that is concerned with the way memory is structured. The so called cognitive architecture of ACT-R is made up of three main components. These are represented in the model below (adapted from the earlier ACT* model)..

The theory

The working memory (WM) is the conscious part of the memory. Previously referred to as Short Term Memory (or STM), working memory itself is thought to be constructed of several kinds of memory, including visual and auditory stores (See the work of Baddeley and Hitch and my earlier blog post memories are made of this for more on this idea). Working memory is the active buffer between the sensory register (the senses) and Long Term Memory (LTM).  In LTM there are at least two forms of memory storage, concerned with Declarative (what something is - facts) and Procedural (how to do something). According to Anderson, procedural memory consists of sequences of actions based on pattern matching that is similar to computing instructions such as if-then - if this happens, then do that. Declarative memory on the other hand, holds factual knowledge, and any relevant association and context.

How it can be applied in education

The ACT-R model of memory could be applied in education in a number of ways. Teachers should be aware that there are different kinds of memory, and that these associate with each other through the limited Working Memory. Overloading WM with too much information at once will not be conducive to good knowledge making (see my previous post Memory Full for more on this problem). At the same time, encouraging students to combine their knowledge with actions can have the effect of reinforcing learning in both procedural and declarative memory. A combination of thinking and doing can be a powerful mix of activity to deepen learning in just about any subject area.

NB: This is a simplified version of a complex theory. If you want to know more, you are advised to seek out the published literature in this field including:

Anderson, J. R. (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Graphic by Steve Wheeler


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

The world's greatest underachiever?

The actor Henry Winkler (famous for his role as 'The Fonz' in the 1970s American TV series Happy Days) says he felt like a failure at school because of his dyslexia. He is quite critical of the traditional school system. 'It's easier to herd children than to treat them as individuals' he says, and recalled that he himself had felt as though he was a failure when he was told he 'would never achieve'. Labelling is an awful thing, but he is positive, saying that 'school does not define who you are.'

In his busy schedule, Winkler can still find time to work supporting children with dyslexia. Together with his partner Lin Oliver, he has even written a book series about his own alter-ego - a school boy with dyslexia called Hank Zipzer. 12 year-old Henry 'Hank' Zipzer is 'the world's greatest underachiever' and has many hilarious experiences at school. The series is funny, fantastic and fast moving and captures what it's like to live inside the head of a student with dyslexia. It also portrays exactly what is wrong - and right - about schooling. Hank is easily distracted but has a vivid imagination. He just experiences a blockages between his mind and the page. As he says - 'I have a lot of ideas, it's just difficult getting them down onto the page.' The irony is clear to see in the books and the TV series that now shows on BBC's children's channel CBeebies.

The school system is biased toward assessment that relies on students writing. Hank's dyslexia makes it difficult for him to complete his essay on what he did on his summer holidays, and he becomes very anxious even thinking about writing and reading. In the summer, he and his family visited Niagara Falls, so he creates a scale working model of his holiday instead, including a fully functioning waterfall. Needless to say, it all goes disastrously wrong, and as a punishment he has to read his essay out in front of the entire school. He triumphed when he gains his confidence, showing that he really can communicate - just not in the conventional way the school is expecting. The story is funny, but the message is clear -  learning can be expressed in many forms, so why can't school systems be more flexible and allow a variety of different methods of assessment?

Here's the first episode, introducing Henry and his school chums.  I bet you'll really enjoy it.

Photo by BBC Television


The world's greatest underachiever? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Doing and knowing

This is a follow up to my recent Knowing and Doing blog post. Those who read it will recall that I discussed the tensions between traditional and progressive teaching philosophies. Traditionalists put great stress on the need to memorise facts so that they can apply them later in authentic contexts. Progressives on the other hand, place more emphasis on the need to learn skills, that are transferable in the real world. This is an oversimplification of the two positions, but hopefully the distinction is clear.

For the traditionalists, tools such as Google and other digital media are not to be completely trusted or relied upon, and some even consider them a distraction from the real business of learning, or question the veracity of their content. Tara Brabazon, for example, has written entire volumes (see for example Digital Hemlock, or the University of Google) on what she perceives as the dangers of digital technology and its role in 'dumbing down' learning; toxic educational practices; and that the ease of use of Google for example, causes superficial learning. Nicholas Carr, in his thought provoking book The Shallows, offers much the same critique.

The progressives see the use of technology as an inextricable part of modern education, regarding the use of search, aggregation, curation and creation tools as an essential component in the preparation of young people in a world of work that is dominated by technology. They pay less attention to memorisation (although this is an inevitable and essential byproduct of everyday learning) and eschew drill and practice in favour of more collaborative and student centred approaches to learning. John Moravec's book Knowmad Society outlines some of the key factors of learning in a technology dominated workplace, including an emphasis on learning through social connections rather than simply through direct exposure to knowledge.

Today, I was doing some personal research related to a book I have been reading. I wanted to find the island of Saipan, and all I knew was that it is located somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. I have a map of the world on my wall. It is quite a detailed map, supplied by National Geographic Magazine. I searched for some time but without success (the typeface was too small), before resorting to Google Maps. I found Saipan in seconds, releasing me to do other research on the island, using the links Google supplied.

Thanks to Wikipedia, I now know that Saipan is an island in the Marianas, south of Japan, and that it is a part of the Commonwealth of the US, with a population of close to 50,000 people. It takes only a few seconds to cross reference these facts with another website. This is information that the map on my office wall could not provide me, and information that I probably won't remember for long. Perhaps I won't need to remember it, because political allegiances and populations fluctuate. Some facts go out of date quickly.

My point is this: We all need a certain amount of facts inside our heads. But ultimately, when the chips are down, and time is of the essence, sometimes, gaps in our knowledge (possibly due to never having learnt those facts in the first place, or failure of memory) necessitate resorting to the use of technology. Wouldn't it be tragic if we were raising an entire generation of young people who knew how to find facts, but didn't have the skills to negotiate meaning, discern good from bad content, or practice safely online, because schools were focusing more on the teaching of facts.

Skills and knowledge go hand in hand. We need an equal balance of the two in our school curricula if we want to prepare young people to fully participate in the digital society.

References
Brabazon, T. (2002) Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Brabazon, T. (2007) The University of Google: Education in a (Post) Information Age. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. London: W W Norton.
Moravec, J. (Ed: 2013) Knowmad Society. Charleston, SC: Education Futures.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


Doing and knowing by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Knowing and doing

Right now there is plenty of debate about the way schools are conducting education. Delivery of the curriculum - and specifically the knowledge versus skills debate - is constantly at the centre of this discourse.

The argument is not about whether facts or skills are more important. Children need to learn a certain amount of facts and they also need to develop their skills. The real battle is actually an ideological dialectic on how learning is changing in the digital age.

The traditionalists are represented by Daisy Christodoulou who believes that committing facts to memory through instruction is the best approach for education. She says: "we can't just rely on the Internet to look things up" and argues that too much information overloads working memory. She gives the example of learning the times table, which she argues will allow children to perform better in mathematical calculation than if they rely solely on technology. She believes that teaching facts is the best way to establish this kind of skill.

The progressive side including Howard Rheingold, disagree. Rheingold argues that direct teaching is not the best way, but that in his experience, students learn better when they inquire among themselves (he calls this peeragogy) while they independently search for meaning. His peeragogy approach demands that he steps away from his students, and embraces social media as a route to learning, because this is where they tend to spend much of their time.

Who is right? Is it more important to be taught facts, and to memorise them; or is self directed peer learning, and reliance on technology the best way forward? Actually, both positions hold some merit, but both only tell a part of the story. We need knowledge and we also need skills to progress. However, ignoring technology is not the answer. Ignoring memory, and relying solely on technology is also a mistake. Working the two in powerful combination - that is using technology as a mind tool to extend cognitive abilities - is a better approach. It is an emerging phenomenon that few understand, and is easily dismissed. Today's society is increasingly engaged with learning through as well as with technology. Keeping up to date through this medium will become a part of the new social capital we will all value in the future.

The problem lies in relying on one or the other while ignoring the most important aspect of education - how children actually learn and how they become engaged in that learning. No amount of good instruction will be enough if students are disengaged with learning. By the same token, facilitating an environment where students are able to acquire new skills is worthless if they don't know how to apply them in the real world.

Several factors are important, including the relationship and interaction that exists between student and teacher, the relevance and meaningfulness of the content the student is learning, and the pedagogical skills and knowledge of the teacher. These are represented in the Venn diagram. The plain truth is this: facts remain facts unless they are transformed by learners into knowledge that they can actually use.

For me, the final word on this topic comes from Richard Gerver, and can be found in his excellent book Creating Tomorrow's Schools Today. He says:

'Information can only be power if you have the skills to use it to develop your journey and turn facts into knowledge. Knowledge is only powerful if it is important to you and your context.'

Photo and graphics by Steve Wheeler
Venn diagram adapted from original (source unknown)


Knowing and doing by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Taking risks

Students, when asked, are usually quite honest. What engages them in learning the most is taking risks and having fun. This was mentioned recently by a headteacher of a school in England, who argued that schools are too risk averse today, and we need to inject some excitement back into lessons. Those who can remember their school days will often remember the fun they used to have with their friends. Ask them when the fun times happened, and most of them will recollect them occurring outside of formal lesson time. Rigid standards and curricula, and a growing culture of strict health and safety in schools has militated against a lot of risk taking. 'You can't do that' has become the commonly heard phrase when someone tries to innovate.

So how can we build fun and risk taking back into the school day?

Firstly, we need to look at learning in a new light. Students make their own meaning. They are not taught. They learn - and only if they are motivated and inspired to do so. Giving students some latitude to make their own meaning by solving problems and meeting challenges is more effective than giving them the answers. Too often in the past teachers have presented answers, when they should be asking questions. Better still, get the students to ask their own questions. Kate Friedwald, a teacher in Christchurch, New Zealand believes in this, suggesting an approach that answers questions with more questions, finding out for themselves, and exploring. This is the start of enquiry based learning, and for some will develop into a lifelong interest in personal research.

Secondly, make lessons fun. Teachers can only provide so many resources, but the best fun and engagement comes when students create their own resources. This is learning by stealth. As they conceive and construct their resources and then present them, students are actually going through a process where they solve problems, investigate and learn more deeply around the topic. Varying the pace and offer of a lesson also works, as Sonia Guilana, a teacher in Spain notes. She introduces surprise elements, polling and games.

Thirdly, risk taking in a controlled environment such as school need never be hazardous. Experimenting under supervision with chemicals, light sources, language, videos, music, computers, historical events, writing styles, mathematical formulae, in fact just about anything that is in the curriculum, will offer new perspectives for students. The most important point to consider here is to ensure that the lessons are not only physically safe, but also psychologically safe. That means that students are allowed to make mistakes, and are not penalised for doing so. Some of the best learning comes from reflection on failure rather than on success. Kate Galloway, a lecturer at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia, argues that there is no real learning without some form of risk.

Finally, a word of advice from former deputy head teacher and now independent education consultant Dave Mitchell, who suggests that all teachers should imagine themselves being a student in the class. Wise words.

'The secret of change is to focus your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new.' - Socrates

Image by Zenos Frudakis


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

All our tomorrows

It's impossible to predict the future. If I could do so, I would have been a millionaire many times over when I visited Las Vegas. Fortunately I don't gamble, so I simply sat and watched other people trying to predict what would happen next.

Most of them lost their money.

No, I'm not a prophet or a clairvoyant. And yet people keep inviting me to speak about the future of learning. Some physicists argue that the present, the past and the future are much the same thing, but they tend to obfuscate their arguments with strange words such as string theory and quantum foam. Anyway, for most of us common folk, our experience is that the past is a memory and the future is imaginary. All we have and all we experience is the present, time flows in a straight line, and it flows in only one direction.

We can look at the trends though, and we can look at the past to see what lies there. Many technologies are a lot older than we realise, and many are already on the drawing board, or in production before we see them even appearing in science fiction movies. Gesture based computing was already being developed before it featured in the movie Minority Report. The fax machine is nearly 150 years old (in 1846 it was called the telecopier). Newer technologies such as the tablet computer and mobile telephone were first conceived in the 1960s.

Sometimes these emerging ideas and technologies help us to anticipate what is coming next. Often all we need to do is look around us to see what is on the horizon. We could tell in the late 1980s that multi-media was going to be very big. And so it was. In the late 1990s, with the new millennium approaching, we could see that everything was beginning to converge on the Web.  Several years ago, I stuck my head above the parapet at a major conference and predicted that the future of learning would be focused on smart mobile technology. I was lucky to be fairly accurate with that prediction.

Today, at the Reform Symposium #RSCON5 Online Miniconference I presented a keynote entitled 'Digital Learning Futures: 3 things you should know about future learning'. I mentioned several times that our predictions of the future are often seen as ludicrous in hindsight. Where are all the flying cars and moon colonies? Predictions about the future are often so wide of the mark because we talk about the future from our limited present-time horizons.

I overheard two young school boys talking on the train a few months ago. One was saying how much he liked the new Sherlock TV series, starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. The other agreed, but sagely pointed out that the 'classic Sherlock Holmes' films were far superior - the ones starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law! The only way we can ever begin to think about our possible futures is to take a leap of imagination outside and beyond our current experiences. And that is a very difficult thing to do.

My talk went quite well with plenty of great questions from the audience. Soon, I am reliably informed, the full presentation will be online for people to download and watch at their leisure. In the meantime, the slides are made available below for anyone who missed my talk and would like to catch up. Ultimately, my parting comments at #RSCON5 showed that we can invent our own futures. But to do so, we need to stop thinking of the future from the perspective of our current thinking, and take some leaps of imagination into the seemingly impossible.

Digital Learning Futures: 3 things about future learning from Steve Wheeler

Photo by McKay Savage on Wikimedia Commons


All our tomorrows by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.