Learning Teams: the Empath’s Tale

The topic formerly known as cooperative learning. And other things. We were talking about materials for parents. And we have previous research on materials for cooperative study. Now we are thinking about materials for workshops by paraprofessionals (counselors, tutors).

How different are these materials? Different in content, but they might be similar in their construction principles. The are all about interaction with other people. I can think of a few principles that apply at that level of abstraction.

Working on a shared goal.
Contributions from each are seen as necessary by all.
A group can find more ideas than most individuals.
Social approval is a form of reinforcement.
Social approval for contributions to the group will increase efforts to contribute.
Group maintenance roles are as important as task roles.
The skill in group maintenance roles is not only in execution, but in timing.
Teamwork has an advantage when the task requires breadth of skills or breadth of experience.
Team interaction can provide motivation and incentives for effort.
(more TBD)

Putting some of these ideas together, I used Team Study as one of the Energizers in the Study Skills Ratem page.
http://www.thinkerer.org/Studying/StudySkillsRatem.htm

Now I am looking for scenarios that will work with team study. Here are some preliminary examples.

Games
Charades: Pick a Recalling Card. Act out the answer, others guess the question.

Drama
One person: Lecture the team about a topic. Be as pompous as you can. Keep a straight face.

Brainstorm
List the ten most likely questions on the test
List the ten least likely answers on the test.
List the ten worst answers that might be on the test.
List the ten funniest answers that might be on the test.
Find similarities, pick the best. .
Find narratives, put them together.
Take the baddest of the badlands. Work up two plans to beat the bad out of it.

Beating the Badlands

(draft page)

Badlands are a problem. A problem is an opportunity to find out what you can do. Here is a map with some things you can do to beat the badlands.

Organizer Overlook [Node 1]There are often common paths. Look for these first. These are not limited to the badlands, of course. But in the easy fields, you see them immediately. That’s what makes the easy fields easy. Now guess what makes the badlands bad.

[Each of these 5 items gets its own page and link(s)]

Similes metaphors. (TBD) Is this like any familiar things? How is it like them. How is it different?

Narratives. Does this make a story? Most processes and procedures do. Can you tell the story.

Imagination, Visualization. Adequately covered in the Thinkerer, I believe

Familiars. Integration with familiar things. (TBD) Probably ties with pages about familiar places.

Features. Descriptors: (In progress) Identify the descriptors, Use tables to relate them to nouns

Possible addition:
Internal integration within the content. (TBD) This would lead to activities that call for you to recall or figure out the connection between two randomly chosen items in the content. Probably something like 3 degrees of separation. This may not belong under organizers, but under self-testing or review. And would work well in cooperative study.

Similes. Narrate. Imagine. Familiars. Features. SNIFF

Right: Did you find an organizer? Yes: Use it. No: Memorize this! (link).

Study: best practices

I have started a Clipit with the above title in the trial run section. There is a self-scoring option. There are concretizing links in case the reader wants to do a bit of self-improvement.

http://thinkerer.org/Tools/ToolsTrialIntro.htm

Dates, names and events

Date-hater canyon. This calls for a time line as well as a set of cards. Also some planning: Will you be dealing with other dates next month? Next year? Parents should give this some thought. The more date-hating you will have to do, the more your preparation will pay off later.

I am making an example time line. This will work better in html, so I have put it in the Thinkerer site. Presently it is in trial form. You can access it through this page.

http://thinkerer.org/Tools/ToolsTrialIntro.htm

Later it will be under Studying, Badlands.

The related text comments will suggest various ways to make a timeline. Computer, paper, wall strip, hanging cord. Physical timelines would use recalling cards, attachable and removable. Remove for handy review. Remove when you know it cold.

Columns and colors can represent key descriptors, as in the example. On physical, colored clips might be used (and fasten as well as mark).

What Makes the Badlands Bad?

Start with a bit of Vulcan thinking. You find that part of the chapter is material that looks difficult for you. Obviously, the problem is not with you. If the problem were with you, everything in the chapter would look difficult to you. So what makes the badlands bad?

If you started in friendly territory, you already have a clue. What makes the friendly territory friendly? It is familiar. It connects with things you have already worked with before. It uses words you already own. It talks about events that you can imagine as events. You have already figured out the important descriptors (we will need to help people on this). You brain has already figured out how to organize things in ways that will fit you and the way you need to use the stuff.

Now back to the Badlands. How many of these descriptions apply to the Badlands? Probably not many. Coincidence? Or something more? You be the judge.

So what do you do with the Badlands? Put off the job as long as possible? Start memorizing by saying things over and over to yourself? Complain?

Or you might try none of the above. Here we suggest a few variations on none of the above. Since you already know what makes territory friendly, you have some idea about how to tame the Badlands.

Connect them with stuff you have worked with before. (Not just in a particular course. What is this like? If you can’t think of useful similes, try silly similes.)

You see some words you don’t own, grab them. (Get to know the McGuffin by imagery, talking with other people about it, making it into a dramatic story.)

Look for events you can imagine. (Look behind those technical terms.)

Figure out the key descriptors. (These are relevant attributes or dimensions of variation. They are the things you will want to know for multiple choice test. You find them by looking for clusters or separation. Explaining this is impossible, so it will take us a while to do it.)

Look for several ways to organize the stuff. (They don’t have to be better than what the text did. Try simple ways: ranked from least difficult to incomprehensible. Ranked from most concrete detail to most abstract. Two dimensional layout on these dimensions. Common attributes in scholastic work.)

(This is draft thinking for a page).

How to learn a whatsit

This was going to be about learning a concept, but psychology tends to take a limited view of that term. This line of thinking grows out of vocabulary building, mainly of the technical kind. Students generally have to master a technical vocabulary in a course. They might treat this task as in the badlands, so I am looking for ways they could handle the job.

I see two possible problems in this context. One lies in confusion among the terms. If the terms are similar, some attention to discrimination learning may be needed. The other problem lies in an inadequate development of the mental representation that mediates the denotation of the term. Since I don’t know a simple term for what I just said, I will refer to that mental representation as the McGuffin, following Alfred Hitchcock.

I think it is clear that the McGuffin must be developed before vocabulary learning can be completed. Technical presentation may not follow that order. Some students may not have good ways to evaluate how well they have developed the McGuffin for a term. Such students may fall back on memorizing a definition, a process that would obscure the problem without solving it. Thus we probably need to look for clues to direct the student to McGuffin learning.

We would want to treat McGuffin learning itself in a separate area. There are several different kinds of McGuffins. I will list them here, along with relevant features that might later serve in organizing the presentation.

Simple concept. Behavior: Correctly assign instances and counter instances in and out of the class. Varies by relevant dimensions and precision of observation.

Taxonomic concepts. Behavior: As with simple concept, but add: Be able to name superset, sibling sets, and subsets; be able to give criteria for membership in all these sets.

Static graphic. Example: geographic map. Cue: Text presents graphic. Behavior: derive inferences from the graphic as related to context. Note: Learning may require practice in deriving inferences. Potential problems: persistence of attention, evaluation of mastery. May benefit from conversion to process. See also relational descriptors below.

Dynamic graphic. Example: Circulatory system. Cue: Text presents graphic with narrative (story of what happens) and/or arrows on graphic. Behavior: Describe the dynamic process. Derive inferences from the dynamic process.

Narrated process. Example: How to measure blood pressure. Cue: Text presents several steps. Behavior: Physically replicate the process. On paper, locate an step by citing steps before and after. Cite error checks and proper corrections.

Relational descriptors. Example: anterior-posterior (in anatomy). Cue: graphic display, lack of meaning out of relational context. Behavior: use the term appropriately in context. Distinguish appropriate from inappropriate use.

Review: Beating the Badlands

Here is a summary of our discussion Monday, 8-1. A prime reason for the designation Badlands in part of a chapter is that it contains details that do not connect easily and specifically with the other content. Examples are lists of words, ordered lists, definitions of terms, formulae, dates, and names of people.

A related situation, which may not always be recognized as Badlands, is content that will call for “distinguish between,” “compare and contrast,” or “give pro and con.” Here the problem may not be directly with the content but with implied content. These questions call for selection and recall of an appropriate set of features for the distinction or contrast.

We identified one general plan that seems to apply, with variations, to all of these cases. The general plan starts with a set of 3x5 cards. We call these study cards or review cards, not flash cards. Here are the generalized instructions:

Making
1. In reviewing the chapter, pick a few items that you think are likely to appear on the test and likely to be hard to remember.

2. Fill out a card for each item. The front of the card carries a phrase as it would appear in the question on the test. The back of the card carries one or several items that describe the answer. These may be specific names, graphic representations, memory aids, or other things that the person thinks will help. In the case of formulae, we will suggest some particular descriptors for the back, including a verbal description of what it does, the formula itself, units if applicable, and example of use. For vocabulary items, we will mention root words.

Using
3. Use these cards soon after you make them. With a formula, write out the formula as best you can. The purpose here is not to get it right on the first try. The purpose is to find the parts that you do remember. That tells you what you still need to focus on.

4. Use the cards a few hours later. If possible, put this second pass close to bedtime.

5. Use the cards the next day. The expression “know it cold” applies if you get all the answers right after leaving the cards alone for at least a day.

6. If you need further study, carry the cards around with you. When you have a free moment, take out one of the cards and make the answer in your head.

7. When you are satisfied with what you can answer, enjoy your satisfaction. One of the main benefits of the study cards is that they tell you when you have finished studying. If you now have to study a new chapter, go through it and put your review cards where you think they fit. Carry forward your review cards to new chapters, but don’t expect to use all your cards on subsequent chapters. Try for at least ten cards per chapter.

Reviewing
8. When you review for a test, bring out those review cards again. If you have review cards for several chapters, mix them together. The more cards you have, the more time you should allow for review. A simple rule of thumb: start one day earlier for every ten cards in your deck. (TBR)

9. Use the cards in preparation for the final. Not necessarily for review. You will know most of the cards cold. Put those aside on the first pass and just review the ones that need a bit more polish. (You may want to rework the backs of these cards. The problem may be in what you originally wrote.)
---
We have some further uses for the cards, such as cooperative review. There might also be cooperative preparation. We will also suggest content-specific variations, such as time lines, maps and good gestalt. In some cases, the cards might be retained for use with the next level course. If parents use these with their children, they (parents or children) could use them for review before the new school year. Particularly difficult items might be put in audio format with mp3 players.

We have good reasons to believe that this method will improve recall. I won’t write them here, but will summarize them later. We would want to use them as principles in specialization and in other contexts. I think the set of principles might be called multi-module learning.