TriUne Research Experiment – mother document

TriUne Research THE BEGINNING Ap Dijksterhuis en Malcolm Gladwel Als 95 % onbewust, dan waarom de focus op bewust leren? Maar hoe in praktijk toe te passen? Ofwel: leren we niet al lang impliciet?

Bedien de juiste systemen op de juiste manier Leerproces: werkgeheugen Niet overbelasten Gebruik verschillende modi (Badelley 1997) opslag van kennis en vaardigheid: lt memory systems Declarative (episodic, semantic) Non-declarative (procedural, priming, conditioning)

Victor Lamme: “De FMRI inzetten voor en na een training kan precies laten zien wat er veranderd is. Dat is nog eens een evaluatie!” Bron: Leren in Organisaties, februari 2010

Impliciet en expliciet Impliciet (niet-declaratief) geheugen Procedureel Priming Klassiek conditioneren Expliciet (declaratief) geheugen Episodisch (persoonlijk) Semantisch (feiten kennis)

Learning conditions for implicit memory

What is practicable? Errorless In sports (golf) For patients with degraded memory Analogy (also similarity and metaphor) in sports (table tennis) In motor skills (process management)

Demands of the real world It must work (or at least be a promising technique) It must fit into existing processes (training or work processes)

Learning needs Master processes that comply to the following requirements: Time pressure (temporal proximity), complexity and magnitude of impact Example: Financial management processes Performance gaps: - Performance is insufficient, errrors occur, - timing is a problem (late response, late performance ) - risks are not perceived and dealt with, - knowledge is lacking

What works? Explicit instruction leaves us mostly with deficiencies described above Implicit instruction serves the non-declarative procedural memory : this is about about skills, not the technical knowledge. Implicit instruction serves the non-declarative priming memory: this is about (deep rooted) reflexes.

Analogy learning 5 levels: 1. MEANING: Bite-size lexical items (words, nouns, adjectives, etc) that exhort readers to picture the words as symbols for other meanings 2. RHETORIC: Short phrases meeting retorical needs in particular contexts. Activate familiar rhetorical-context categories. 3. HIGH LEVEL LABEL FOR PERCEPTIONS: A lexical item (‘safety net’) is effortlessly evoked lable for a situation in another context (protection against pensioen-gat) 4. LARGE SCALE REMINDINGS: the perception at hand evoces various and differing situations. 5. CREATE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS: a given scenario/perception is compared with concocted scenarios (if the situation at hand means x, could we asume that y could be conceived as well?)

For the real world – analogy learning Analogies are common and subjects are often not aware of using them It makes a difference whether subjects generate the analogy themselves or are provided with them The facility to generate analogies based on structural features does not depend on the level of expertise in the field of the problem, but on the fact whether the analogy was produced ore merely received. Ideally, both encoding and retrieval conditions must match for the successful analogical retrieval to occur. both experts and novices are capable of generating true structural analogies if the circumstances permit. If the encoding and retrieval conditions highlight structural features, than both experts and novices can generate analogies based on structural features. To generate an analogy, people do not need the training that is needed for true expertise, but must be in a context that highlights structural relationships.

Criteria for effectiveness Durability: time elapsed between training and test Resilience: response times Robustness: performance under stress

How does it fit? Analogy learning: Learning process 1: Prefabricated analogies: provide novices with expert analogies Learning process 2: Self constructed analogies / provide learners with a proces of creating analogies

Analogy learning Donnely and McDaniel 1993: Metaphors and analogies are one of the central ways of leaping the epistemological gap between old knowledge and radically new knowledge Connecting a familiar (source) concept to a new (target) concept, permits the learner to use information about the source domain to make more informed speculations about the target domain.

Analogy learning of scientific concepts Warning: learning with analogies enforces the ability to draw inferences, but it may actually be harmful to mastery (cross over effect, see below). So, at the start of the intervention, one has to determine whether the goal is ability to generate inferences or literal knowledge Secondly, one has to avoid surface relations (source and target share superficial similarity))

AnalogyLiteral text Inferential knowledge Factual knowledge Cross over effect

Example of literal text Concept of a pulsar: A pulsar is a collapsing star. As the star collapses, it rotates steadily and it also emits a stream of radiation. The stream of radiation from the pulsar flows continuously. However, by virtue of the fact that collapsing stars rotate, the pulsar's stream of radiation appears to us here on Earth as though it was [sic] flashing intermittently. In this literal presentation, the focus is placed on a single domain of knowledge: pulsars. The statement describes concrete attributes about that domain.

Example analogy text A pulsar is a rotating, collapsing star that emits a stream of radiation. The radiation from a rotating pulsar acts like the light from a rotating lighthouse beacon. The pulsar's radiation (or beacon's light) streams continuously. But for us here on Earth (or for boats far at sea) we see only intermittent, pulsing flashes of pulsar radiation (or beacon light). Here, the concept of a pulsar is taught through its connection with a domain more familiar to most students: lighthouses.

In Gentner's (1983) view, processing an analogy requires that individuals perform a cognitive mapping between the dynamic relations, the so-called relational predicates, that are shared by the two domains. Some relevant predicates in our example are ROTATING and STREAM. These predicates are common to the two domains, so an understanding of the predicates in the source domain (lighthouse) permits the individual to appreciate the relations described in the target domain (pulsar). The notion of cognitive mapping implies that with analogy, one's cognitive resources are spent primarily at an abstract level, linking two seemingly unrelated domains. Ideally, the learner maps the commonalities from the source to the target and avoids surface relations.

Learning benefit The largest benefit will be for novices in the particular domain of knowledge/skill (subjects with little background in the general topic of instruction) Therefore, analogical representations may serve an especially good introductory function to learning new concepts.

The results indicate that the most appropriate representational form for conceptual learning depends on the learner's goal. If the goal is primarily to answer questions of fact, then analogical learning may be inappropriate. Yet, it is interesting that despite their poorer performance at answering basic level questions, subjects in this analogy condition were able to recall significantly more information about the concepts than subjects in the literal condition. Thus, the appropriateness of literal teaching under our instructional conditions (text, auditory, and visual graphic presentation combined) is relegated to a relatively narrow form of conceptual mastery, one having to do with verbatim recognition of presented material. Analogies, on the other hand, appear to be most appropriate when the goal of learning is meaningful understanding, understanding at a level that allows the learner to draw inferences beyond the stated facts.

analogy design in text only in images in animated video 1. Scenario 1: mapping of familiar (source) onto new situation (target) (source is provided by external agent) 2. Scenarion 2: building a familiar source (source is generated by participants)

Analogy design (2) Take university or HBO textst explaining specific management concepts For each concept, construct a didactic text in two versions: literal and analog (Scenario 1: provide analogy, Scenario 2: have participants generate analogy) Supplement Learning adjunct (see below) Supplement the the analogy (and the literal text) with dynamic, visual presentations of the concepts (cartoon videos) Before entering the analog learning condition, describe the concept of analogy to the subjects Test with multiple choice questions Test Durability, Resilience and Robustness

Analogy design: Learning adjuncts The analogy as such may not generate inferential skill to the level that can be achieved through the help of a learning adjunct (such as elaborative interrogation). It is assumed that this may occur if analogies are provided by an external agent. Externaly provided, the analogy may not always be consistent with the learners knowledge base or, may not be rich enough to help the learner construct a better understanding (mental model) of the toe be learned

Study adjuncts: why? Analogy generates inferential thinking appropriate study adjuncts can support the inferential effect (in order to eliminate the loss of factual information about the concepts to be learned) The crux: the distinction between higher order relational processing (analogy) and the processing of specific facts allows a priori specification of what kind of adjuncts will be effectively combine with analogy.

Material-appropriate framework (MAP) Suggestes that for a learning adjunct to be effective, the type of processing evoked by the learning adjunct should complement the type of processing ancouraged by the text material itself.

Study adjuncts Key word highlighting (increases (a little) factual knowledge) Student-generated schematic Trainer/experimenter provided schematic Elaborative interrogation Note: Schematics only support inference knowledge of analogy learners ONLY provided that the schematics explicitly label the component parts and the behavior of each part.

Elaborative interrogation requires learners to explain why phenomena described in the text occur. produces superior factual learning because it activates relevant prior knowledge and fosters connections between this prior knowledge and the new facts. The activation of prior knowledge to help understand new relations might also aid inference learning

Elaborative interrogation Assumption: by going through elaborative interrogation, the learner constrcts a mental model of the situation described by the text. That mental model helps the learner to go beyond the stated facts. Therefore, the answer may be that you have to let learners generate their own analogy, guided by interrogative interrogation (applied just as 'scafolding by scientists who deal with unexpected outcomes (see above). Both (EI and Analogy) help to create mental models and both support inferential thinking.

Performance test multiple choice, immedeately after learning session durability (what remains?), resilience and (response time) robustness test (stress) after 2 weeks