tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/learning-techniques-9687/articleslearning techniques – The Conversation2017-01-23T18:02:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/717272017-01-23T18:02:27Z2017-01-23T18:02:27ZMobile phones offer a new way for Africa’s students to learn programming<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153854/original/image-20170123-8067-im6k7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Students could learn how to program with the right applications on their mobile phones.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s not easy for Computer Science students at most universities in Africa to practice and develop their programming skills. They have the ability to program, but access to desktop or laptop computers might be a problem. I experienced this first-hand while teaching programming at a Kenyan university.</p>
<p>Most African universities have public computer laboratories, but these tend to be used to teach various classes, hence limiting students’ access. Many institutions may also have very few computers for a large number of students. This means that students might need to access computers outside the classroom in order to practise programming. Yet, most people in developing countries <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/19/internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-but-negative-influence-on-morality-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/technology-report-15/">do not</a> own computers at home.</p>
<p>Limited access to PCs aggravates the learning difficulties faced by programming students. This is especially true because programming is best learnt through practice. However, most students own mobile phones. Cell phones are the most <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/04/15/cell-phones-in-africa-communication-lifeline/">widely used</a> devices among students in developing countries – and, indeed, among Africans more generally. </p>
<p>I therefore set out to develop a solution that would enable students to learn programming using mobile phones. The biggest challenge was turning mobile phones into functional programming environments. After all, they aren’t designed with programming in mind. They have small screens and small keypads that impede their use as programming platforms.</p>
<p>So I designed what I called scaffolding – or supporting – techniques that allow for the effective construction of programs on mobile phones using the Java language. These techniques can also address new learners’ needs. <a href="https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/16609">The results</a>, taken from my work with 182 students at four universities in South Africa and Kenya, are encouraging.</p>
<h2>Techniques for mobile phones</h2>
<p>The scaffolding techniques I designed can be used on Android platforms. They are specifically aimed at students learning <a href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/concepts/">Object Oriented Programming</a> using Java.</p>
<p>The technology works by offering three types of scaffolding techniques:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Automatic scaffolding, which are supporting techniques automatically presented on the interface. These include instructions on which buttons to press, error prompts and suggestions to view an example while working on a program. These scaffolding techniques fade away as the student gets more familiar with the application.</p></li>
<li><p>Static scaffolding, which involves supporting techniques that never fade away. I included two such techniques. One presents the layout of a Java program on the main interface, so the student always has a visual representation before interacting with the program. This technique is said particularly to <a href="http://web.media.mit.edu/%7Eedith/publications/1996-persp.taking.pdf">support</a> a new student’s learning. The second static scaffolding technique involves creating the program one part at a time, breaking it into smaller parts. This is an effective way to support the creation of a program on small screen devices like mobile phones.</p></li>
<li><p>User-initiated scaffolding, which are supporting techniques that a student can activate. Examples include hints, examples and tutorials.</p></li>
</ol>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=708&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=708&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=708&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=890&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=890&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153853/original/image-20170123-8082-1wzg9c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=890&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A student puts the scaffolding for mobile phones to the test.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dr Chao Mbogo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I tested these techniques on the students while they constructed Java programs on mobile phones. Their feedback was largely positive and suggested that scaffolding techniques specifically designed for mobile phones and based on students’ needs could support the learning of programming using a mobile phone. </p>
<h2>Findings and challenges</h2>
<p>Desktop programming environments are complex interfaces. Large screens make it possible for students to be exposed to large amounts of information in one sitting. Large screens also mean that students can be given support, in one place, without having to leave the interface. Providing all this functionality and support in one interface doesn’t work well on small screens.</p>
<p>But my research suggests that small screens have some advantages. Students told me that the more simple interface on a small screen helped them to focus on the task at hand. When they had to create a program one step at a time, they didn’t have to grasp a huge amount of information all at once. This may assist their learning in the long run. </p>
<p>Certainly, the study wasn’t perfect. The scaffolding I developed was only for Android platforms, which excludes users from other platforms such as Windows and iOS. And while mobile phones are far more common among students than private desktop or laptop computers, there are some students who do not have and cannot afford even these devices. </p>
<p>My research is not over yet. My next steps will take these problems into account. For example, the techniques I designed will be tested on other programming languages – such as C++ – and on other mobile platforms. I am also keen to investigate the design of such scaffolding for tablets which are becoming more common among African university students.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>The study I’ve described here relates to my PhD, which I was awarded at the University of Cape Town in December 2015. Since then a number of my peers have suggested other areas to explore and improve. From 2017 my programming students at Kenya Methodist University will use the prototype I tested in a longitudinal study. None of them have ever used a mobile phone to program, so this will be a new experience.</p>
<p>For the foreseeable future, African universities and other institutions offering programming subjects will continue to struggle with resources. As long as this situation persists and students’ access to mobile phones and tablets grows, the techniques I’m developing could offer a smart solution that allows the continent to keep producing young programmers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chao Charity Mbogo received funding for her Ph.D. research, related fieldwork and related conference grants from Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI), Department of Computer Science at the University of Cape Town, Google, The International Network for Postgraduate Students in the area of ICT4D (IPID), ACM-W, and Schlumberger’s Faculty for the Future fellowship. </span></em></p>Computer programming is best learned through practice, but students in developing economies don’t always have access to desktop or laptop computers. Mobile phones may be the solution.Dr. Chao Mbogho, Researcher and Lecturer of Computer Science, Mentor, Kenya Methodist UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/415402015-06-03T04:34:39Z2015-06-03T04:34:39ZHelping learners become fluent in the language of science classrooms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83691/original/image-20150602-19232-c80lhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The language that's spoken in science classrooms is very different to every day English – even mother tongue English speakers may struggle because of this.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">From www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science at school level is largely viewed as a practical subject – one that is taught using <a href="http://sciencebob.com/category/experiments/">experiments</a>, for instance. But effective teaching and learning requires language, whether it’s written in textbooks or shared orally during classroom discussions. Language is necessary even while doing practical work: teachers must explain what they are doing and students need to ask questions.</p>
<p><a href="http://ascd.com/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196112_flanders.pdf">Research</a> involving a wide range of educators in a number of countries has consistently found that teachers do most of the talking in classrooms. Language plays a <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/danilavsky/vygotsky-and-language-development">crucial role</a> in the formation and development of concepts. This suggests that a teacher’s language is vital in teaching science and creating the condition for meaningful learning.</p>
<h2>The language of teaching and learning</h2>
<p>In South Africa and other countries where many pupils do not learn in their home language, curriculum designers have judged the appropriateness of the language in which science is taught by considering whether it is the learners’ mother tongue or not. </p>
<p>Students learning in their mother tongue are generally thought to have an advantage over their counterparts who are being taught in a second or third language.</p>
<p>The general assumption among teachers is that all learning follows through smoothly once learners have attained some proficiency in the language of learning and teaching. But not everyone who is proficient in the language of teaching and learning – for instance, English – excels in science.</p>
<h2>The anatomy of words in the classroom</h2>
<p>The words that comprise the science classroom language fall into two broad components: the technical and non-technical. The former comprises technical words which are specific to a science subject or discipline: photosynthesis, respiration and genes in biology; momentum, capacitance and voltage in physics; atoms, elements and cations in chemistry. When used as science terms, every day words attain new meanings. They become science words.</p>
<p>The non-technical component is made up of non-technical words and defines or gives identity to the particular language of learning and teaching in a classroom or the language of a science text. Some of these non-technical words give identity to certain science subjects where they are used to embody a particular concept important to a process of learning in the specific science subjects: “reaction” in chemistry, “diversity” in biology and “disintegrate” in physics. </p>
<p>Some non-technical words like “if” and “therefore” serve as links between sentences or between a concept and a proposition. Some words like “define” and “explain” are used in place of “say”, while non-technical words like “calculate” and “predict” are used in place of “think”. </p>
<h2>The difficulty of the science classroom’s language</h2>
<p>Science is considered a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4100936.stm">difficult school subject</a>. This is partly because pupils find science words tough or unfamiliar. They are also confused when a word that means one thing in everyday language means something different in science. “Resistance”, for instance, means something totally different in everyday language and in physics. </p>
<p>They will also be puzzled when a non-technical word seems to have acquired a meaning specific to the context of a particular science subject. “Disintegrate” when used in physics does not refer to something “breaking into lots of very small pieces”. Even children who speak English as their first language and are learning science in English struggle because of these differences.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://ejlts.ucdavis.edu/sites/ejlts.ucdavis.edu/files/articles/EJLTSOyoo.pdf">review</a> of relevant research shows that students struggle with the language of the science classroom because of these differences whether they are learning in their home language or not. Boys and girls struggle equally. Pupils battle irrespective of their individual cultural backgrounds. </p>
<p>This transformation of everyday words’ meanings when used in the science context is one reason that even learners who speak the language of learning and teaching fluently sometimes struggle to tell the meanings of everyday words when used in science.</p>
<h2>The appropriate approach</h2>
<p>It’s clear that a new measure is needed to judge whether the language used in science classrooms is appropriate. Curriculum developers and teachers must consider how easily accessible the meanings of all categories of words are to science students.</p>
<p>Pupils will still have to be proficient in the language of learning and teaching. But teachers will have to become more conscious of how words change their meaning in the context of a science classroom. Then they will need to carefully explain these words and their varied meanings. </p>
<p>Once again, “teacher talk” will take centre stage in classrooms – but it will result in pupils who can understand and apply scientific concepts that might otherwise elude them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samuel Ouma Oyoo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We view school science as largely a practical subject, but pupils must understand the language of science – which is often very different from every day language – if they are to excel.Samuel Ouma Oyoo, Senior Lecturer in Science Education, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/363782015-02-10T16:10:54Z2015-02-10T16:10:54ZReady to win: what police, companies and the rest of us can learn from the Patriots<p>More than a week after becoming football legend, the Super Bowl’s last-minute interception continues to prompt <a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/02/borges_an_epic_bad_call_by_seahawks_aided_patriots">second guessing</a>: did Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll make a bad call when he ordered Russell Wilson throw the ball? Did the quarterback pass poorly? </p>
<p>Or are we focusing on the wrong things altogether? </p>
<p>First, let’s look at the now (in)famous play. </p>
<p>Running the ball, like many Monday-morning quarterbacks have advocated, would have resulted in a massive pileup at the line, and the receiver Wilson spotted in the end zone didn’t appear well covered. </p>
<p>That is until Patriots defender Malcolm Butler emerged as if out of nowhere for the game-saving and Super Bowl-winning interception. </p>
<p>Butler didn’t just get lucky. From a position nearly 20 yards from where he caught the ball, Butler got to the right spot, in about two seconds, at precisely the right moment. It was as if he knew in advance exactly what was going to happen and bolted there like a bullet. Where did he get such clairvoyance and what can we learn from that? </p>
<h2>Turning near-catastrophe into triumph</h2>
<p>Clearly, the Pats were ready. <a href="http://www.patriots.com/news/article-1/Belichick-literally-stresses-preparation/e59610dd-f3a9-4390-95ff-0da9d9d24b17">They prepped</a> by watching countless Seahawks’ game-videos and dissecting plays, using those insights to develop and practice the right counter-moves. With that level of analysis and preparation ahead of the game, Butler didn’t have to merely <em>react</em> in a high-stakes situation. He was able to <em>preempt</em> a touchdown when the stakes were high and convert potential catastrophe into victory.</p>
<p>This is not just about football. The high-speed learning techniques that helped the Pats are being used elsewhere by companies, government agencies and hospitals to not only succeed but improve and save lives as well. </p>
<p>I call this high-velocity learning, and <a href="http://executive.mit.edu/faculty/profile/183-steve-spear">my two decades of research</a> has shown it’s this skill that separates the winners – the most effective and efficient in any field and those able to deliver way more value, way more quickly, with much lower cost and effort – from the rest of the pack. </p>
<h2>Fixing bones and avoiding IEDs</h2>
<p>Several examples illustrate my point. Dr John Maera <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/science/off-the-3-d-printer-practice-parts-for-the-surgeon.html?_r=5">leads a team</a> at Boston’s Children’s Hospital that is renovating the face of toddler Violet Pietrok. She was born with a severe deformity: the bones in her face did not grow together properly. The problem can be corrected but requires a series of complicated procedures to work. </p>
<p>To make sure it has the highest chance of success and the lowest risk of complication during and after surgery, the team prints and practices on a 3D model of Violet’s bones, to work out the kinks before the stakes are high. Like with the Patriots, low-pressure practice let’s them be preemptive, not reactive, to surprises in the moment. </p>
<p>Another example is the US Army. On the battlefield, soldiers must make split-second decisions constantly, with no margin for error. The <a href="http://usacac.army.mil/organizations/mccoe/call">Center for Army Lessons Learned</a> repeatedly rehearses various scenarios in simulations and drills based on actual experiences so that mistakes can be remedied and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199724)36:4%3C385::AID-HRM3%3E3.0.CO;2-R/abstract;jsessionid=84A515648102C3A9722C66477C974EC2.f04t02">aren’t made in the field</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Alcoa drove its workplace injury rate to a mere fraction of the norm by making all close calls the trigger for examination and improvement of technological processes and people’s behaviors. In doing so, the aluminum maker avoided countless disabilities and deaths that would be “normal” elsewhere. </p>
<h2>Improving police-public relations</h2>
<p>Putting body cams on police officers offers a similar opportunity to catch small problems early to prevent bigger ones from flaring up. </p>
<p>With so much tension between police and some of the communities they serve, officials have been scrambling for solutions. Some have proposed a seemingly easy one: equip police with body cameras to record interactions with the public. </p>
<p>Two assumptions seem to be behind this idea. First is that simply wearing cameras will make officers more cautious. Second is that when <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/nyregion/body-cameras-worn-by-police-officers-are-no-safeguard-of-truth-experts-say.html">something goes wrong</a>, the video will give the public and officials alike tools to assign potential blame.</p>
<p>The problem is that both of these are based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameras-on-cops-the-jurys-still-out-35644">preventing or punishing officers from doing wrong</a>, not on preparing police (or the public for that matter) to do things right. </p>
<p>However, if employed like the Patriots used game film, the surgeons studied 3D bone models, or the Army learned from soldiers’ experiences, body cams on police can solve problems before they spill out of control. Used with related processes, they can improve both police behavior and community faith in law enforcement. The most valuable use of this technology is not reactive. It is for preemptive high-speed learning. </p>
<h2>Learning from near misses and close calls</h2>
<p>What this means is that rather than looking at body cam videos only after something terribly wrong has happened, police supervisors could regularly review footage of day-to-day events with officers. </p>
<p>It would be particularly useful after close calls, near misses and lower-level slip-ups to detect vulnerabilities in approach, suggest improvements and practice in advance of the next patrol. The best use for body cameras is to inform such collective learning.</p>
<p>Switching from retributive to preventative use won’t “just happen,” for police or anyone else for that matter. It requires breaking through all sorts of organizational inertia, evoked by mantras such as: “don’t mess with what isn’t broken” and “we’ve always done it this way.” </p>
<h2>It starts at the top</h2>
<p>And it often starts at the top of the management structure. In the case of the Patriots, Head Coach Bill Belichick provided the motivating force for the team’s constant learning dynamic. Even before the Pats hit the practice field, Belichick is constantly <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-belichick-the-nfls-scary-alex-trebek-1421173085">quizzing veterans and rookies alike</a> about which plays an opponent might run in what circumstances and what the Patriots should do in each situation. </p>
<p>In each of these examples, the fundamental difference between good and great is not technological; it is behavioral. And the distinctive behavior is a state of continual learning, in which problems are constantly seen and even sought, solutions are regularly tried and tested, and the dynamic never lets up. </p>
<p>Admittedly, this relentlessness is neither easy to initiate nor sustain. That’s why it has to be the constant obsession of senior leaders and cannot be a responsibility that is delegated away. The rewards are worth it though, be it measured by Lombardi Trophies, perfect care, outstanding products that win exceptional market share or perfect patrols.</p>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36378/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Spear is principal of The High Velocity Edge, LLC, an advisory, consulting, and business process software firm that helps client organizations accelerate their capability for high speed problem solving, learning, and innovation.</span></em></p>More than a week after becoming football legend, the Super Bowl’s last-minute interception continues to prompt second guessing: did Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll make a bad call when he ordered Russell…Steven Spear, Senior Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of ManagementLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/334372014-10-27T15:17:12Z2014-10-27T15:17:12ZHow tests and wrong answers help us remember what we learn<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62878/original/y7mwmpy5-1414417131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What will you remember?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=OB6lcvbcgITzb6l63u0Cmw&searchterm=test&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=162855896">Test via Syda Productions/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Teachers give tests to find out what their students know. But tests do a lot more than that and can have a <a href="http://people.duke.edu/%7Eab259/pubs/Roediger&Butler%282010%29.pdf">powerful effect on what</a> a student remembers. In a typical research study looking at the links between tests and memory, one group of participants might be told “Batman’s butler’s name is Alfred”. Another group would be asked “What is the name of Batman’s butler?” and then told it’s Alfred. If you ask again weeks later, the group that was tested remembers that the answer is Alfred better than the group that was just told the information.</p>
<p>But what happens if you get the answer wrong? For example, what if you say Jeffrey (a common error, in <a href="http://sites.williams.edu/nk2/files/2011/08/Kornell.Metcalfe.2006b.pdf">my research</a> back when The Fresh Prince of Bel Air was on TV), and I say no, it’s Alfred. Would you have been better off not being tested? </p>
<p>Common sense says if you practice making errors you learn to make errors. From this has grown a long tradition in psychology aimed at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404283/pdf/jeabehav00187-0085.pdf">promoting “errorless learning”.</a> On the other hand, common sense also says we learn most from making mistakes. So which is it?</p>
<h2>Does age matter?</h2>
<p>Existing research in this area has shown that it depends on age. If you’re young and healthy, <a href="http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1399515/1/RPottsLastRevision.pdf">mistakes enhance learning</a>. But people with memory impairments, including the mild impairment that comes with normal ageing, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09602011.2011.639619">benefit most from errorless learning</a>. In short: nimble mind, errors are fine; for granddad, errors are bad.</p>
<p>New <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-10/bcfg-ibf102214.php">research</a> challenges all that. Psychologists Andrée-Ann Cyr and Nicole D. Anderson noticed that in <a href="http://sites.williams.edu/nk2/files/2011/08/Kornell.Hays_.Bjork_.2009.pdf">prior studies with younger adults</a>, the tests typically involved asking people about concepts, such as to name a kind of fruit. But in <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09602011.2011.639626#.VE5KlJPF8e0">studies with older adults</a> the tests typically involved filling in lexical cues, such as “st-____”. </p>
<p>Even though both groups are then told the answer is strawberry, the learning is different, with those <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-014-0408-z">younger people who made errors</a> when asked to name a word based on a concept, remembering the answer weeks later. But it was unclear what mattered most: being young or old or if the cues in the test were conceptual or lexical. </p>
<h2>Getting it wrong helps</h2>
<p>In their study with groups of both old and young people, Cyr and Anderson have now found that the types of clue makes all the difference. In their conceptual test, both groups remembered more from a test that they didn’t get right – such as being asked to name a pastry, followed by feedback that “it was a tart” – than they did if they had just been told the answer straight away without being tested on it. </p>
<p>In their lexical test, both groups learned more from errorless learning. They remembered more words in a later test if they were simply shown “st and strawberry”, than if they’d been shown “st____” completely out of context, made a wrong guess about the word, and were then shown the answer “strawberry”. The same pattern held for both age groups. </p>
<p>Most of what we learn is conceptual, in the sense that it involves relating new learning to information we’ve learned before. For example, if you were to take a quiz about this article, it wouldn’t have questions on it like “er____?”, it would have questions like “when does errorless learning help and when does it hurt?” </p>
<p>So the practical lesson of this new study is that making errors (and then getting feedback) is a good way to learn and retain conceptual information. If you want to learn non-conceptual information, such as linking words to meaningless non-words, making errors will not help. In rhyme, it goes like this: to really understand, errors are grand; for meaningless stuff, being right is enough.</p>
<h2>The test’s the thing</h2>
<p>Yet these studies are, understandably, not completely realistic. The participants were basically just guessing at the answers. Also, in real-life tests it’s common to write down a wrong answer and not find out the correct answer for a while, for example when you take a test and then it is returned a week later.</p>
<p><a href="http://sites.williams.edu/nk2/files/2011/08/Kornell.2014.pdf">Another recent study</a> might allay these concerns. Participants were asked questions such as: “What is the world’s tallest grass” that they could really think about, instead of blindly guessing. After making errors on an initial test, they had to wait 24 hours to find out the correct answer. Even so, trying to answer the question on the first day and getting it wrong led them to remember more in a later memory test than not being tested on the information at all.</p>
<h2>Kids need to be challenged</h2>
<p>We all want kids to do well in school. But these results raise a difficult question: what does it mean to do well? We often assume it means doing well in the classroom, when answering questions or taking tests. But if the ultimate goal is to do well after graduation, then doing too well in school might be a problem. Perhaps we should actually be concerned when kids aren’t making errors in school because they could be learning more if they faced bigger challenges.</p>
<p>There is no evidence that it’s good to make errors on purpose. But teachers do need to make sure that the set of problems a child faces is challenging enough so that he or she is engaged in productive struggle. If you’re not making mistakes, you might not be learning.</p>
<hr>
<p>Next read: <a href="https://theconversation.com/failure-can-be-productive-for-teaching-children-maths-22418">Failure can be productive for teaching children maths </a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33437/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nate Kornell receives funding from the James S. McDonnell Foundation.</span></em></p>Teachers give tests to find out what their students know. But tests do a lot more than that and can have a powerful effect on what a student remembers. In a typical research study looking at the links…Nate Kornell, Assistant professor of cognitive psychology, Williams CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/310372014-09-04T05:23:52Z2014-09-04T05:23:52ZDon’t dismiss MOOCs – we are just starting to understand their true value<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58148/original/t93jp4vy-1409743004.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ready to learn. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-214179223/stock-photo--closeup-of-hand-holding-smartphone-and-a-cup-of-coffee-while-studying.html?src=UBgQaPXm554-vv4iDsTMhw-2-63">Creativa via Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past couple of years, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have taken the academic world by storm. Despite <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/20/laptop-u">much debate</a> about whether the idea of running free online courses for everyone is both a good and cost-effective idea in the long-run, MOOCs are teaching universities valuable lessons about how students want to learn.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/five-myths-about-moocs/2010480.article">a recent article</a> for Times Higher Education that shocked many academics, Diane Laurillard claimed “free online courses that require no prior qualifications or fee are a wonderful idea but are not viable”. </p>
<p>I sincerely hope we are not already dismissing MOOCs as an expensive and unsuccessful experiment. As someone who leads and manages the <a href="https://www.futurelearn.com/partners/university-of-leeds">MOOC project</a> at the University of Leeds. I know that freely available online courses have enriched many people’s lives – both students and academics. They are also provoking real transformations in the way we think about learning and teaching on our campuses.</p>
<h2>Costly, but long-lasting</h2>
<p>Initial investment in designing, creating and delivering online courses is considerable – between £20,000 to £30,000 per course at Leeds. Filming academics giving a five minute introduction to their subject from a script using autocue, green screen, multiple cameras, professional microphones and lots of retakes is costly in time and resources.</p>
<p>But the learning materials live on. The end product, overlaid with animation and available as video in multiple formats, an audio podcast or a written transcript, can be repurposed, published and re-used in multiple contexts after the online course has finished. </p>
<p>While a proportion of academics are <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Professors-at-San-Jose-State/138941/">dismissive</a> of MOOCs, there is evidence that others are taking some of the underpinnings of digital learning into their own academic practice. They are increasingly recognising the potential for digital approaches to support learning, increase flexibility and access to a range of multimedia and interactive materials and encourage active student engagement. </p>
<p>In many learning situations, “blended” learning – a mix between face-to-face and digital – may be best. In <a href="http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/people/academic/morris">a recent survey</a> of academic staff at Leeds, 70% said they would recommend a MOOC to their students to supplement their on-campus learning. </p>
<p>These courses offer students the opportunity to interact with and question world-leading authorities in their subject, at the same time as learning with their course leaders and peers in on-campus lectures, seminars, tutorials and workshops. </p>
<p>In secondary schools, students are already taking MOOCs as part of, and alongside, their <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315591/DfE_RR355_-_Opportunities_for_MOOCs_in_schools_FINAL.pdf">classroom curriculum</a> to extend their learning. This is motivating individuals to engage with higher education, supports the transition to university and increases their knowledge. </p>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum, a growth in <a href="https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/innovation-the-key-to-business-success">collaborative ventures</a> between universities, employers and professional organisations to co-produce online courses and embed them within degrees and professional training will increase employability, graduate skills and support the knowledge economy. </p>
<h2>Personalised learning</h2>
<p>One of the criticisms of MOOCs is the poor student-to-staff ratio, alongside questions on how learning purely online can be effective. First, most MOOCs <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/aug/19/moocs-man-leading-uk-foray-simon-nelson-futurelearn">attract highly qualified individuals</a>. They are a ready-made pool of mentors, learning supporters and in some cases “teachers”. </p>
<p>We have seen a number of examples on our courses of school-level students being offered advice and mentorship from experienced practitioners in discussion forums. These interactions have emerged spontaneously and may dissolve quickly, but in some cases endure throughout the course. Harnessing this knowledge can enrich online courses considerably. </p>
<p>All MOOC designers know that there is so much more we could do to enrich the online learning experience for participants, particularly given the wide range of skills, knowledge, learning goals and expectations that learners bring to online courses. </p>
<p>For example, we already know that more than 50% of our online learners have never studied an online course before. We will soon use this knowledge about participants to offer them more choices. These could be choices about the way the content is delivered to them, the interaction with other participants and educators and the style and extent of assessment. </p>
<p>In the future, algorithms based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/snooping-professor-or-friendly-don-the-ethics-of-university-learning-analytics-23636">learner analytics</a> will offer participants a dynamic and personalised experience, based on sound educational research evidence, learner preferences and cohort analysis. </p>
<p>Our collective experiences of MOOCs and the data coming out of them has the unique opportunity to offer insight into online learning which can also be used on our campuses to enrich either the blended or face-to-face experience. We should not be too quick to dismiss them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31037/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Neil Morris, Director of Digital Learning, and Professor of Educational Technology, Innovation and Change, is the University of Leeds Partner Representative for FutureLearn, the online learning course provider. </span></em></p>Over the past couple of years, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have taken the academic world by storm. Despite much debate about whether the idea of running free online courses for everyone is both…Neil Morris, Professor of Educational Technology, Innovation and Change in the School of Education and Director of Digital Learning, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/273532014-06-02T04:55:44Z2014-06-02T04:55:44ZHow to be a whizz at spelling<p>Children who compete in spelling bees often dazzle with their ability to spell complex words. In this year’s televised Scripps National Spelling Bee, two American teenagers were so good they were <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/30/us-usa-spellingbee-winners-idUKKBN0EA06H20140530">crowned joint champions</a>, correctly spelling the words “stichomythia” and “feuilleton” to clinch the title. </p>
<p>Contestants in a spelling bee are allowed to ask about the pronunciation, the meaning, and the language of origin of a word. All these are key to a good grasp of spelling.</p>
<p>English is a chaotic and highly irregular writing system, according to some observers. In this view, we can’t do much more than memorise the spellings of words.</p>
<p>But studies of the English writing system itself and of spellers paint a more encouraging picture. English isn’t totally chaotic. There are things that spellers can do to increase their chances of spelling a word correctly.</p>
<h2>Break it down</h2>
<p>Breaking a word up into individual phonemes (units of sound) and selecting a letter or letter group for each unit is a good strategy for spelling many words. In some languages, such as Finnish, almost all phonemes have just one possible spelling and this strategy works very well. In English, however, many phonemes have more than one possible spelling. </p>
<p>What children are taught at school are usually context-free rules that link phonemes and letters. For example, children are taught that the “f” sound is spelled with <em>f</em>, as in <em>fish</em>, or that the “short o” sound is spelled with <em>o</em>, as in <em>pond</em>. </p>
<h2>Put it into context</h2>
<p>If spellers relied only on such context-free links between phonemes and letters, they would misspell many sounds, including the “f” of <em>staff</em> and the “o” of <em>wand</em>. Taking the neighbouring sounds and letters into account can often improve performance in such cases.</p>
<p>In English, there is a general rule that the “f” sound has a special two-letter spelling, <em>ff</em>, when it comes after a single-letter vowel. Similarly, “l” has the <em>ll</em> spelling in such cases and “k” has the <em>ck</em> spelling. Even when this rule is not explicitly taught, my <a href="http://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/readingandlanguagelab/Hayes%20et%20al.%20%282006%29%20-%20Children%20use%20vowels%20to%20help%20them%20spell%20consonants.pdf">research has shown</a> that people pick it up through their exposure to written words. They use the context in which a sound like “f” occurs when deciding how to spell it, favouring <em>f</em> in some environments and <em>ff</em> in others. </p>
<p>As another example, people become sensitive to the fact that “o” tends to be spelled differently when it comes after the “w” sound, as in <em>wand</em>, than when it comes after other sounds, as in <em>pond</em>. Children with higher levels of spelling skill <a href="http://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/readingandlanguagelab/treiman_kessler_2006_-_spelling_as_statistical_learning.pdf">take better advantage</a> of the context of consonants than children with lower levels of spelling skill.</p>
<h2>Meaning matters</h2>
<p>Spelling in English is not just a matter of attending to sounds. It also requires attention to meaning. For example, the “t” as the end of words is usually spelled as <em>ed</em> when it is a word ending that conveys the past tense. In other cases, it is usually spelled as <em>t</em>. There can be added confusion due to the differences between American and British spelling. </p>
<p>A six-year-old who writes <em>Jak jumpt</em> for <em>Jack jumped</em> doesn’t yet know this. Within a year or two, however, children have begun to learn about the meaning units within words and how these sometimes influence spelling. That knowledge can help them to spell a word like <em>health</em> correctly, with the <em>ea</em> that is found in <em>heal</em> rather than the <em>e</em> that would be expected purely on the basis of sound. </p>
<p>English has borrowed words from many languages, and knowing the origin of a word can sometimes help in choosing among possible spellings of its sounds. The “k” at the end of words is normally spelled as <em>ck</em> when it is preceded by a single vowel, as in <em>chick</em>. When the word is French in origin, however, this sound is more likely to be spelled as <em>c</em>, as in <em>chic</em>. </p>
<p>Not everyone can be a spelling bee champion, but these techniques can help everyone to become a better speller. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27353/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Treiman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Children who compete in spelling bees often dazzle with their ability to spell complex words. In this year’s televised Scripps National Spelling Bee, two American teenagers were so good they were crowned…Rebecca Treiman, Burke and Elizabeth High Baker Professor of Child Developmental Psychology, Washington University in St. LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/249442014-04-02T19:46:49Z2014-04-02T19:46:49ZHow we learn grammar<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45213/original/s6m787n5-1396310614.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do humans learn grammar based on what they hear? Or is it already in our brain somewhere?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/downloading_tips.mhtml?code=&id=138502898&size=medium&image_format=jpg&method=download&super_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTM5NjMzOTM4MCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTM4NTAyODk4IiwicCI6InYxfDEwMTI3NTg4fDEzODUwMjg5OCIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xMzg1MDI4OTgvbWVkaXVtLmpwZyIsIm0iOiIxIiwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCJsT0xpUkZlRWdDVUw0eHpybVFPbWtnamJpa0kiXQ%2Fshutterstock_138502898.jpg&racksite_id=ny&chosen_subscription=1&license=standard&src=c8kzz8rGM8QzN5cY4sMYkQ-1-8">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How do we humans end up using language in a way that conforms to grammatical rules? <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/25/1320525111.full.pdf">Recent research</a>, using artificially designed languages, has disproved what many scientists used to think, that grammar and sentence order was learnt purely from habit: by listening to the way others speak. </p>
<p>The research shows the different grammatical patterns found in languages across the world are not just a result of centuries of linguistic and cultural interaction between peoples. They also involve deep principles in the human mind that drive how our brains represent language. Underneath all the linguistic differences, we are fundamentally alike.</p>
<p>Take a very simple example: what is it about English speakers that makes them say “Those three green balls”, while speakers of Thai end up saying the equivalent of “Balls green three those”? There’s a very simple and commonsense answer to this: when we learn our language, we learn that words like “those” are very often pronounced before words like “three”, not after them; that words like “three” are usually pronounced before words like “green”, and so on.</p>
<p>We learn this because we hear other people using language in this way, and we conform to the habits of the people around us. In this picture, grammar really is just a set of habits, or rules of behaviour.</p>
<p>In the recent study, Jennifer Culbertson and David Adger have shown this “commonsense” view cannot be the whole story. Instead, language learners assume there is an invisible structure to what they hear that is far more important than just the habitual ordering of words. This structure exists in the brain independently of what people learn and hear throughout life.</p>
<h2>How was language learning tested?</h2>
<p>The researchers’ experiments exposed English speakers to an artificially designed language, which uses English words, but which is like Thai in its word order. While in the English phrase “Those balls” the noun “balls” comes last, in the artificial language the noun “balls” instead comes first and is followed by words like “green”, “three” and “those”.</p>
<p>The people taking part in the experiments were asked, having heard many examples of this artificial language, to translate new examples from English into the made-up language. However, although the people learning the artificial language could tell from examples they heard that the noun comes first, they had no evidence about the order of the other words. That is, they just heard examples like “balls three”, or “cups green”. But that’s not enough to get the rule for what the order of “three” and “green” is: it could be like English (three green) or like Thai (green three).</p>
<p>The learners had to guess what the rules for these other cases were. Researchers then tested them to see how they had guessed.</p>
<p>This way of setting things up allowed the researchers to test whether the learners were applying their usual habits to the new language. The commonsense picture would predict that the learners, having been presented with examples that show the noun comes first, should just continue with their usual habits learned from English: words like “those” come before words like “three” which come before words like “green”. So that view predicts that the learners’ translations of more complex examples should follow the English order, but with the noun first (for example “balls those three green”).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45216/original/bhvf4qjx-1396311782.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">English and Thai have opposite sentence structures, yet the basic rules for grammar in our brains are the same.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/downloading_tips.mhtml?code=&id=150008717&size=medium&image_format=jpg&method=download&super_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTM5NjM0MDU1NiwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTUwMDA4NzE3IiwicCI6InYxfDEwMTI3NTg4fDE1MDAwODcxNyIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xNTAwMDg3MTcvbWVkaXVtLmpwZyIsIm0iOiIxIiwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCJTNmVRWFBLZmkrTEt4RjVMVWZzWDkybWdtWGMiXQ%2Fshutterstock_150008717.jpg&racksite_id=ny&chosen_subscription=1&license=standard&src=G8KAcR3T2996np61BGhwPA-1-7">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What did researchers find?</h2>
<p>This was exactly the opposite of what the researchers found. Instead, the learners translated the more complex examples along the pattern of Thai (“Balls green three those”), showing that the idea that a grammar of a language is just habits about ordering the words can’t be right. Instead, the researchers concluded that there are unconscious principles that organise the words of language. According to these principles, English and Thai are actually very similar, even though on the surface they seem directly opposite.</p>
<p>The researchers proposed an unconscious bias in our minds that leads to words like “green” coming closer to the noun than words like “three”, which come closer to the noun than words like “those”. Of course this principle is true of both the English and the Thai orders. It is not, however, true of the pattern that the “commonsense” story predicts (“balls those three green”), since “green” is very far away from the noun “balls”.</p>
<p>What’s yet more interesting about this idea is that linguists have found, looking at hundreds of different kinds of languages, that the Thai and English patterns are very common. The pattern that looks just like the order of English, but with the noun coming first, is much rarer, found mainly in some African languages like Kikuyu. So the English speakers in the experiment were behaving in a way that mimics how common the different patterns are across hundreds of languages.</p>
<p>This shows the different grammatical structures found in languages of the world are more a reflection of the deep properties of human minds than of social and cultural factors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24944/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How do we humans end up using language in a way that conforms to grammatical rules? Recent research, using artificially designed languages, has disproved what many scientists used to think, that grammar…David Adger, Professor of Linguistics, Queen Mary University of LondonJennifer Culbertson, Assistant Professor, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.