If brain specialization precludes generic instructional design…

Last week, I was talking about abstract implications of brain specialization for online instruction. Some on my specialized brain parts demanded concretization. Concretization takes longer than abstraction, but here it is:

Abstract speculation number 1. The specialization of brains precludes any form of generic instructional design.

Concrete example: Learning any computer language after the first. This probably applies to other forms of adult learning. Any kind of learning specializes the brain for certain kinds of transfer to new learning tasks. Different backgrounds produce different specialization.

If the specialization precludes generic instructional design, what do you do? I think Second Life provides an excellent example. A number of people are members of SL because they want to learn how to program in a virtual environment. (That is probably a subgoal learning to something like earning money, but the supergoal is not relevant to this discussion.) Instead of any specific instructional design, SL provides opportunities for self-directed learning. Cafeteria-style instruction:

Sims illustrating the procedures to produce results of common interest.
Objects containing scripts open to step by step modification.
A wiki with details of how to use the elements of the language.
An environment (WYSIWYG) in which the learner can easily see the object as it is created or the effect of the script as it is changed.
Topic-related classes that people can attend at their choosing if they believe (or find) that they can benefit from live demonstration and answers to questions.
Videos showing procedures of common interest.
Forums where people can post requests for help and get voluntary responses from people who have more experience on the relevant topic.

Second Life: http://secondlife.com/

In this environment, the learner can chose objectives and instructional methods that best fit the learner’s previous experience. The learner gets prompt feedback as to whether the choices are working. If not, other choices are available. There is no penalty for a “wrong” choice. Indeed, there is no definition for “wrong choice.”

To quote the Thinkerer: http://www.thinkerer.org/HeadView/HeadBounce.htm
“Whatever doesn’t work is a trial run.”
“The difference between a trial run and a failure lies in what you get out of it.”

So if specialization precludes generic instructional design, the situation is not a disaster. Except, perhaps, to instructional designers. A reasonable response is self-directed learning. Of course that is a kind of instructional design. Maybe even generic. But of a different genus.

When is self-directed learning indicated? My speculations: Adult and quasi-adult education. (A quasi-adult is an adolescent who will act like an adult under some circumstances.) There are two reasons for this:

Experience increases specialization.

Learning experience develops the skills needed for self-directed learning. Or at least it may do so. That might depend on the characteristics and objectives of the previous learning experiences.

There is a second criterion: Self-directed learning requires prompt and objective measures of performance. That’s why it works well in learning computer languages. But if this requirement is presently not met for some instructional objective, perhaps there is a role for instructional design. Especially in the context of online learning.

These considerations suggest two implications for online instruction:
1. Design to guide toward self-directed learning.
2. Design for cafeteria-style instruction.

Brains are specialized. And other Discoveries

In the last episode, I was trying to understand these statements:
Following are some of the findings from brain research (Stevens and Goldberg, 2001)
1. Brains are specialized and are not equally good at everything.
7. Each brain is unique.

I did figure it out, but was left wondering what guidance it might offer for:
Brain-Based Learning:
Possible Implications for Online Instruction
Stephanie A. Clemons
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm

Another study spark:
Engineer: How will you be using this stuff?
http://www.thinkerer.org/HeadView/HeadStudySP.htm

Possible implications for online instruction:
1. The specialization of brains precludes any form of generic instructional design.

2. It is possible to identify classes of specialization such that instructional design can be useful for appropriately identified types.

3. It is possible for people to become aware of their specializations and to use that information in selecting both the content and the instructional design methods.

4. The best way to improve the effectiveness of instructional design is aim the instruction at improved learning skills rather than at specific content.

Perhaps all of these statements apply to some combinations of online instruction and the people who will use it. But enough abstractions! Some specialized parts of my brain get bored with abstractions. Those parts insist on concretization.

Don’t memorize! Concretize!

That’s what those specialized parts tell me to do. And since I am aware of that specialization, I can design my learning methods to fit me. And here is another learning methods that fits me:

Break a job into joblets. http://www.thinkerer.org/HeadView/HeadStartButton.htm

So here is the end of the current joblet.

Brains and the people who use them

In our last episode, we started with:
Brain-Based Learning:
Possible Implications for Online Instruction
Stephanie A. Clemons
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm

And moved on to:
Following are some of the findings from brain research (Stevens and Goldberg, 2001)
1. Brains are specialized and are not equally good at everything. (Nine more statements follow.)

So I said to myself:
It is a collection of highly abstract statements, possibly section headings in a chapter. Just the kind of thing a person might run into while studying. Suppose I play the role of a person who is studying this material and meets this list at the beginning of a chapter.

I decided to start with the study sparks page from the Thinkerer:
http://www.thinkerer.org/HeadView/HeadStudySP.htm

My first pick from the study sparks was: Un: Do you believe this stuff? Why?

Not a random choice. The voice of the Un. The perennial adolescent. One of my favorites. No doubt reflecting some specialized feature of my brain. Now on to my answer.

Believe it? I don’t even understand it. I assume that the reference is to human brains. But this could generic statement: “Human brains are specialized for doing human things and would not be equally good at running a dog’s life.” Or it could be an individualistic statement: “Each human brain is uniquely specialized and not equally good at doing everything [that humans in the aggregate can do].”

I suspect the latter is the intent, especially since item 7. (“Each brain is unique.”) seems to say the same thing. (That conveniently implies a 10% reduction in what I will have to learn here.) But there is a problem. The top level claim is that this is a finding from brain research. I know that brain research has established the existence of anatomical and functional difference between brains. But the evidence for specialization seems to come primarily from behavioral research and common observation.

On further examination of the list, I find several other statements that seem to come from behavioral rather than brain research. Thus I conclude that I was working in the wrong frame of reference. As a psychologist, I distinguish between behavioral and brain research. These authors seem to assume that evidence from behavioral research is about the brain. I would not dispute that. So I assume that these statements are about brains and the people who use them.

Now that I understand the statement better, I do believe it. I am not sure what guidance it offers for brain-based learning. But that is another episode. To quote another line from the Thinkrer:

Never take on a big job. Take on a set of little jobs that will add up to a big job.

Brain-Based Learning:

While checking out the site for the ASTD (American Society for Training & Development. http://www.astd.org/astd), I found to blogs with content relevant to homework and the Thinkerer.

One is the T+D (Training and Development) blog at
http://tdblog.typepad.com/

The other is the Learning Circuits blog at
http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/

I’ll follow these, but for now, I want to go on to something the T+D blog pointed to:
Brain-Based Learning:
Possible Implications for Online Instruction
Stephanie A. Clemons
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm

Naturally, I was interested in brain-based learning. I would be much more interested in learning that is not brain based. But I don’t think I will find anything on that. As I skimmed through the above article, I quickly found the following list.

Following are some of the findings from brain research (Stevens and Goldberg, 2001)
§ Brains are specialized and are not equally good at everything.
§ Brains are designed for fluctuations rather than constant attention
§ Emotions are critical to successful learning.
§ Brains are poorly designed for rote learning.
§ Multi-sensory input is desired by our brains.
§ Learning involves the whole body.
§ Each brain is unique.
§ Threat, high anxiety, and a sense of helplessness impairs learning.
§ Brains process both parts and wholes simultaneously
§ Brains are considered “plastic” and continue to develop throughout our lives.

So I said to myself: Here is an example of what the Thinkerer calls badlands (http://www.thinkerer.org/Tools/ToolsExploreChapterClipit.htm).

It is a collection of highly abstract statements, possibly section headings in a chapter. Just the kind of thing a person might run into while studying.

Suppose I play the role of a person who is studying this material and meets this list at the beginning of a chapter. How would I deal with it and how would my responses compare with the suggestions in the Thinkerer?

The suggestions are in http://www.thinkerer.org/Studying/StudySkillsRatem.htm.

Of course, I won’t do any of this today. I believe in quest questions and the Zeigarnik effect. Besides, I haven’t figured out what to say. But I suspect that I will need a separate page to react to each item. And perhaps I will find some ways to improve the above Ratem page.

The Brain Borers That Ate Your Memory (2)

As promised, a new episode. Speculation. Feeling bored, I suggest, is just your brain’s way of telling you that what you are doing is not important. And therefore, not worth remembering.

Remarkably, there are people who study material they find boring. Ask someone about studying such material and they (or at least the verbal system) will probably tell you that this material is important, even though it is boring. They will cite long-term consequences to show the importance.

Commendable self-discipline. But maybe not good strategy if the rest of the brain has not bought into that story. Most of the brain is probably built to work in the present. So “Be here now” comes in ahead of “Be there then.”

My speculation is that when your brain says it is bored, it means something like this:
Established ROUTINE maintenance state.
Processing priorities: LOW
Main memory systems: OFFLINE
Alert systems: MINIMIZED

Can the Head Nazis upgrade that state? Maybe. But then you wouldn’t feel bored. So people who try the Head Nazis and still feel bored may want to look for a strategy to get better service out of their brains.

One strategy I cited before was the use of acupressure points. If it is really effective, of course, it should sweep the educational world. Since a number of students learned to use this method, the obvious next study is to follow up on these people a year later and see if:

they are still using it,
no longer need it, or
did not find continuing benefits.

Meanwhile, back at the Thinkerer, we have several pages that suggest alternative strategies;

Quest Questions
http://www.thinkerer.org/Studying/StudyQuestQuest.htm

The Study Skills Ratem page
Energizers
Mechanizers
http://www.thinkerer.org/Studying/StudySkillsRatem.htm
.
Focus form
http://www.thinkerer.org/Tools/ToolsFocusForm.htm

The general strategy here is to make connections between those future goals of the Vulcan and the brain’s need to process in the present. Come to think of it, I don’t think we have done all we can do on that. So we will need to connect that future goal to our present mental processes. If we have a strategy to do that.