Effective Questioning

In 2002 Trevor Kerry estimated that teachers ask on average 43.6 questions per classroom hour. Given this frequency it is perhaps not surprising that they don’t wait very long for an answer: Kathleen Cotton (1988)  estimated that the average time allowed a pupil to begin answering was less than one second.

Some of the purposes of questioning (after Cotton 1988) include:

• To motivate learners
• To assess learners
• To revise previous learning
• To nurture insights
• To develop learning skills

"These purposes are generally pursued in the context of classroom recitation, defined as a series of teacher questions, each eliciting a student response and sometimes a teacher reaction to that response." (Cotton 1988). Students have to:

• Pay attention to the question
• Understand what the question is asking
• Think of an answer
• Articulate the answer.

Cotton's meta-analysis of research led to some general conclusions:

• Asking questions improves learning
• Frequent questions improves learning of facts but does not improve learning of complex material (some suggest it can make such learning worse)
• Oral questions are more effective than written questions
• Questions which focus attention on key features result in better comprehension

For years, before watching a video, I gave students a list of questions to be answered during the video. I assumed that this would encourage them to pay attention to the video and result in enhanced learning both for the things specifically targeted by the video but also for other information (because they are more focussed). Cotton (1988) seems to imply that this is effective for students who are older, cleverer and more motivated but that younger children and poorer readers will focus exclusively on the questions and may miss out on other material. Nevertheless, it still seems worthwhile.


Another technique I have used in class is the quick-fire quiz. This started when I was teaching a modular Science GCSE which was assessed using short fact-based questions from a question bank. Very quickly I became able to predict the questions so I started every class with a quiz using the same questions. My favourite one was 'What does background radiation come from?' to which the answer was 'the sun [1], the stars [1] and rocks [1] especially granite [1]'. I tried this with a  very low achieving class. One lad averaged 2/60 on these module tests. On the Radioactivity test he scored 6/60, the difference being the 4 marks for the background radiation question. My triumph was spiled only by the realisation that he had given the same answer (the sun, the stars and rocks especially granite) to several questions. 


Nevertheless, rote learning seemed to have a part to play. I persisted. Another class included a very able but very lazy lad (later he became a crack addict) who averaged about 15/60 on these tests because he did absolutely no revision. On the Radioactivity tests he scored 45/60 because I had forced him to do the revision. There are times when you can lead a horse to water and make him drink!


But "Should we be asking questions which require literal recall of text content and only very basic reasoning? Or ought we to be posing questions which call for speculative, inferential and evaluative thinking?" asks Cotton (1988). The research suggests that:
Lower cognitive level questions are better than high cognitive level questions at primary; at secondary it is better to use a mix of levels.
Teachers ask lower level questions to those students they perceive as less able.
If you as lower level questions you should make them easy enough to answer.
Lower level questions are better if you want to teach knowledge (ie lower level questioning for lower level cognitive aims: not a surprise!)

Teaching students to draw inferences results in higher learning gains.
For secondary students using significantly more than the 20% average of higher level questions produces greater learning.
For secondary students using 50% or more higher level questions gives:

• Better behaviour
• Longer answers with a greater number of complete sentences
• A greater number of both relevant answers and relevant questions asked by students
• A greater number of student-student interactions

Wait time



On average teachers allow students less than one second to answer. They give less time to those perceived as less able.


The best wait time for lower cognitive level questions is 3s. For higher level questions the longer the better.


If you wait longer than 3s this will give:

• Better achievement
• Better memory
• A greater number of responses especially at a high cognitive level. This increase is greater for student reluctant to participate.
• Longer responses more often backed up by better evidence
• A greater number of unsolicited responses, student-student interactions and questions posed by students.
• Teachers will listen to students more carefully and engage in discussions more often.
• Teachers will expect more of students.
• Teachers will ask more varied questions with a higher proportion at a higher cognitive level.

Given how important questions are it is worth asking how they can be made more effective. These ideas come from John Mason.

·        Use assertions rather than questions to control behaviour. This keeps questions pure for pedagogy.

·        Develop a questioning classroom by praising pupils for attempting answers and for changing their minds when necessary.

·        Don’t play ‘guess what I’m thinking’ but ask genuine questions. “Be genuinely interested  not only in what learners are thinking, but in how they are thinking, in what connections they are making and not making.”

·        Don’t ‘funnel’ down to the ‘correct’ answer by asking simpler and simpler questions. Many pupils know this game and will wait before answering until the teacher has done all the thinking work!

·        Scaffolding (using direct questions) is good at the start of learning but you need to fade the support away using increasingly indirect prompts so that pupils learn to think for themselves.

·        Learn how to wait a little longer by formulating an answer in your own mind while you are waitin-g for the pupil to respond.

·        Learn what a pupil sees as important in a problem by asking them to read it aloud and listening to the words they stress.

·        Ask meta-questions such as ‘Is this always, sometimes or never true?’ or "What is the same and what is different about …?"

·        Get pupils to classify information or problems and ask them to explain their classification system.

·        Get learners to make up their own questions. 

Unlearning through Cognitive Dissonance

"To learn requires facing and embracing differences .... between deeply held ideas and beliefs and new ideas".

(Kolb and Kolb 2005; p207) 

Builders demolish old buildings and clear the site before starting to
build something new.
It is a little more difficult with learning.

Builders demolish old buildings and clear the ground before building something new. It is a little more complicated with learning. First we have to persuade the learner that their previous understanding was inadequate. 

Watson and Kopnicek (1990) describe pupils in a primary science class believed that warm clothes create heat. Repeated experimentation was used to confront a class with evidence that this belief was wrong. The aim was to destabilise the pupils' naive beliefs so that new ideas could be taught.

Kuhn (1996; pp52-53) describes the same phenomenon in the history of science: “Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly."

The idea is to set up a cognitive dissonance which will create a mental tension and motivate the pupil to resolve the differences. But the most common way of dealing with such a tension is to either deny the new evidence, or to downplay it; or to select those features of the new evidence that confirm the previous beliefs whilst ignoring contradictory evidence. For example, some students fixate on the word "theory" used to describe  Darwinian evolution to preserve their beliefs in the biblical accounts of creation.

Furthermore, as  Atherton (1999) points out, confrontation and destabilisation have a significant cost: they entail "a drop in morale which comes from temporarily diminished competence." This transforms the implied incrementalism of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development into a roller-coaster of a learning journey.

Learning has been described as a journey from one state to another:

For example, before you start learning to drive a car you have no real understanding of the skills that will be required. The first phase of learning is to find out! You clutch the steering wheel ferociously and stare at the road immediately ahead of you as you kangaroo hop forward inch by inch. You are blindingly aware of your own incompetence. Slowly you learn new skills. Now you can drive smoothly although you are still concentrating furiously on the next few metres. This is the stage of careful and conscious competence. When you change gear the shift in your attention can cause you to swerve. Hours of practice makes your actions more fluent. Now you change gear automatically. You are tuned in to the car. You look much further ahead, anticipating potential hazards. You have reached the stage of unconscious competence. You might even pass the test!

But that first stage is hard. Moving from blissful ignorance to a stark awareness of your lack of skills and knowledge can crush confidence. You may indulge in defence mechanisms to protect your own self-esteem. This is why people deny evidence and ignore new ideas.

Confronting students with evidence that their old ideas are wrong implicitly devalues their prior knowledge (Smith et al 1993). It is also likely to change the learner's identity from competent to incompetent which is likely to damage self-esteem at the very point that extra motivation is needed.

However, the trough suggests that there must be unlearning of the old mental models before the new ones can be learnt. Lee (2002) believes unlearning is a "critical element in the learning process." "Before the new ... backhand can emerge," she suggests, "the older, less effective one must wither and die." But the history of Science suggests that before scientists must have an alternative  before they reject an existing theory: "The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another" (Kuhn, 1996; p77; my italics). The class that Watson and Kopnicek (1990) observed were clearly destabilised and confused by the experimental results that refuted their schemata but it was not until the teacher offered an alternative paradigm that (some of) the students were able to learn the new ideas.

Meyer and Land (2005) see the significant moments of learning as akin to a rites of passage ceremony in some tribes. This can be "often problematic, troubling and frequently involves the humbling of the participant .... the transformation can be protracted, over considerable periods of time, and involve oscillation between states, often with temporary regression to earlier status." (p376). Those who pass through such a learning threshold have their perspectives irreversibly transformed. It is worth it but it is a difficult and destabilising journey.

How can we help a pupil to cope with such a difficult journey? Guy Claxton (2002; p19) emphasises that powerful learners are resilient. This is more than just having good self-esteem. (For a start, it is much more specific to learning; a student who has incredible social self-confidence may still lack resilience. Self-esteem can be a double edged sword; too much becomes arrogance and that seems likely to get in the way of learning. There is a surprising lack of evidence that having a high self-esteem helps people learn but perhaps this is because it is not well defined with respect to learning.)

But resilience as a concept merely begs the question: what is the best way to encourage resilience?

Carol Dweck's work on theories of intelligence suggests that students who believe that intelligence is malleable are better motivated when challenged than those who believe that intelligence is fixed. The latter are more likely to "display mastery-oriented strategies (effort escalation or strategy change) versus helpless strategies (effort withdrawal or strategy perseveration) in the face of setbacks" (Blackwell et al 2007; p247). Presumably, those learners more likely to change strategies will also be more likely to change mental models when challenged. 

Bandura  (reported in Bruning et al (1999; pp112-2) believes that self-efficacy ("a judgement of one's ability to perform a task within a specific domain") will make a student more likely to "persevere in the face of disconfirming evidence and poor performance".

We can try improving the resilience or self-efficacy of our pupils. Alternatively (or as well as) we can create a learning environment which threatens as little as possible.

In my next post I want to consider how e-learning can facilitate the process of unlearning through cognitive dissonance.

References

 Atherton J S (2009) Learning and Teaching; Resistance to Learning [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/resistan.htm

Accessed: 5th December 2009

Blackwell L, Trzesniewski K, and Dweck C (2007) Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention in Child Development 78: 1: 246-263

Bruning, R. H., G. J. Schraw and R. R. Ronning (1999) Cognitive psychology and instruction . Upper Saddle River, N.J., Merrill.

Claxton G, (2002) Building Learning Power, TLO Limited, Bristol 978-1-901219-43-2

Kolb A and Kolb D (2005) Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education  Academy of Management Learning & Education 2005, Vol. 4, No. 2, 193–212

Kuhn T, (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 3rd edn University of Chicago Press, London

Lee, V.S. (2002). Unlearning: a critical element in the learning process. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 14(2). Fort Collins, CO: POD Network in Higher Education. avaliable at http://www.elearning.tcu.edu/onlineresources/docs/Newsletter1Unlearning.doc Accessed 5th December 2009

  

Meyer J, and Land R (2003) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines Occasional Report #4 ETL Project School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh

Meyer J and Land R (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning in Higher Education 49: 373-388

Smith JP III, diSessa A, Roschelle J (1993) Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition in Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 3;  http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/MisconceptionsReconceived.pdf   Accessed 22nd November 2009 

Watson B, and Kopnicek R (1990) Teaching for Conceptual Change: Confronting Children's Experience in Phi Delta Kappan May 1990, pp. 680-684 available at http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/workshops/teachingforconcept.html (accessed 10th November 2009)

Learning is not just adding information

Be very, very careful what you put into that head,
because you will never, ever get it out.
Cardinal Wolsey

Every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain.

Remember when I took that home wine-making course and I forgot how to drive?

Homer Simpson

You must unlearn what you have learned

Yoda

Naive constructivism has a cheerfully incremental aspect. "Students come into the classroom with prerequisite knowledge (existing schemas) and as they progress through their education these schemas are progressively (or sequentially) built upon." (Thompson & Logue 2006).

Photo of Jelly by John Trainor
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trainor/402806181/

Learning is a bit like pouring hot water (the new information) on jelly (the stuff already in your brain). The water melts and shapes the jelly. But the shape of the jelly channels and directs the water. The history of what you have learned modifies new learning.

This is true on a historical level as well as for individuals. Thomas Kuhn's study of scientific revolutions (1996) shows the way that one understanding of the world (he calls it a paradigm) replaces another. "Assimilating a new sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory.” (p53)

The sinking of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor
could be due to an inability to unlearn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USSArizona_PearlHarbor_2.jpg

This makes learning problematic. Old ideas can get in the way of new ideas. In the extreme, individuals ignore new information which runs contrary to deeply held beliefs. Sutherland (2007; pp95-97) describes how an experienced American Admiral persistently and stubbornly (and wrongly) refused to believe the evidence that Japanese forces were gathering to attack Pearl Harbour. The destruction of the American fleet could be ascribed to an inability to unlearn.



Newly presented knowledge is likely to be resisted by the prior knowledge. Even if it seems to be accepted, sometimes it is easily discarded. Lyndon (2003) calls this "accelerated forgetting". 


Multiple studies (for example Caramazza, et al 1981; Helm 1980; Osborne & Gilbert 1980; Shipstone 1988; Watts 1985; White 1983) especially in Science, have shown that most students come to class with mental models full of remarkably tenacious misconceptions. For example, Physics students maintain an erroneous belief in centrifugal force long after they are taught that it does not exist. If you whirl a ball on a string around your head and release it at the moment it is closest to the students in the audience, they will duck (Institute of Physics, 2009). 

Perhaps, the observation that little kids learn more easily than big kids is because big kids have more misconceptions to modify.


In my next post I shall explore the pros and cons of unlearning through cognitive dissonance.

References

Caramazza A, McCloskey M and Green B (1981) Naive beliefs in sophisticated subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects Cognition 9: 117-123 Helm H (1980) Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students Physics Education 15(2): 92-97 Institue of Physics (2009) http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Experiment_980.html?topic_id=3&collection_id=117 Accessed 23rd November 2009 Kolb A and Kolb D (2005) Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education  Academy of Management Learning & Education 2005, Vol. 4, No. 2, 193–212 Kuhn T, (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 3rd edn University of Chicago Press, London Lee, V.S. (2002). Unlearning: a critical element in the learning process. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 14(2). Fort Collins, CO: POD Network in Higher Education. avaliable at http://www.elearning.tcu.edu/onlineresources/docs/Newsletter1Unlearning.doc Accessed 5th December 2009 Lyndon (2003) The Conceptual mediation program workshop handbook available at http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/physics/specificsteps/Handbookplus2003_V2.doc Accessed 5th December 2009 Osborne RJ and Gilbert JK (1980) A technique for exploring students' views of the world Physics Education 15(6): 376-379 Shipstone D (1988) Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits: Some implications for instruction Physics Education 23(2): 92-96 Sutherland S, (2007) Irrationality Pinter & Martin, London 978-1-905177-07-3 Thompson F and Logue S (2006) An exploration of common student misconceptions in science International Education Journal 7(4) 553-559 ISSN 1443-1475 Watts D (1985) Student conceptions of light: A case study Physics Education 20(4): 183-187 White B (1983) Sources of difficulty in understanding Newtonian dynamics Cognitive Science 7: 41-65

Ideas in Mobile Learning

Traxler, J. 2011 Introduction  pp 4-12 in Traxler J and Wishart J (eds) 2011 Making mobile learning work: case studies of practice Higher Education Academy Escalate Education Study Centre available at http://escalate.ac.uk/8250 accessed 10th May 2011

Mobile learning is “learning with mobile devices” including “smart-phones, games consoles, media players, netbooks and handheld computers.” (p4)

The functions of mobile learning devices include “connecting and communicating via telephone network, wireless network and Bluetooth connection; capturing and storing data that might be voice, location, position, change in position, inclination, image, video, text or number; running applications comparable to computer programs; and providing output in the form of documents, movies, music and animations.” (p4)

“By now almost everyone owns one and uses one, often more than one. Not only do they own them and use them but they also invest considerable time, effort and resource choosing them, buying them, customising them and exploiting them. These [//p4//p5//] handheld devices express part or much of their owners’ values, affiliations, identity and individuality through their choice and through their use.”

However, in “comparison with desktop PC devices and technologies, what we see is diversity, transience and incoherence.” (p5) This makes it difficult to leverage learners’ own devices.

However, mobile learning offers some distinctive advantages:

• Learning can take place as and when required (this is called ‘contingent’ learning). For example, learners can feedback their understanding of a concept by texting or twittering during a presentation or they can process fieldwork data in situ rather than retreating indoors.
• Learning can take place “in surroundings that make learning meaningful” (p6), such as in a cathedral, at sea or abroad; this is ‘situated’ learning.
• Learning can be ‘authentic’, for example doing drugs calculations on hospital wards.
• Learning can be ‘context aware’. For example when a learner is in an art gallery looking at an old master the mobile device can provide background information about the painting, the artist or the culture.
• Learning can be ‘personalised’ to the learner.
  
  

Mobile learning can reach geographically distant communities and solve the problem of sparsity allowing communities of learners to become established regardless of separation. It can reach those socially excluded such as travelers and those excluded by disability such as dyslexics.

Mobile learning can provide “extra opportunities for learning“(p8) because “mobile devices can be used in dead-time, small bursts of otherwise unused time, such as waiting in lifts, cafes, buses or queues. This is also significant as an example of bite-sized learning. Although possibly educationally limited and perhaps even educationally trivial, mobile phones will always be carried by learners whereas books or laptops might not be.”  (p8)

Cornelius, S, Marston P, and Gemmell, A 2011 SMS text messaging for real-time simulations in Higher Education pp 13-17 in Traxler J and Wishart J (eds) 2011 Making mobile learning work: case studies of practice Higher Education Academy Escalate Education Study Centre available athttp://escalate.ac.uk/8250  accessed 10th May 2011

Final year undergraduates studying Applied Geomorphology took part in a flood disaster simulation. Having read a briefing pack they were then sent a text alerting them to forecasts of heavy rain. Further texts were sent at intervals; some required them to make a decision. Their responses influenced subsequent messages. “At any time during the activity learners could seek additional information to help them make their decisions. The tutor played the role of a representative from civil defence HQ and pointed them towards further information in response to specific requests.” The simulation was assessed through a reflective blog.

Mobile learning “allowed the activity to take place in real-time, at realistic times, and beyond the normal classroom environment.”

Having constructed the decision tree with the appropriate messages the texts could be sent automatically requiring little time commitment from the tutor. This means that the exercise is scalable to virtually any size.

Learners were given the option of using email to keep their costs down but all used texts. They were unconcerned about working outside normal hours and looked forward to the messages: one said “you feel more involved in the thing because you didn’t know when you were going to get the updates …that was fun.” (p15)

Issues could involve the potential for failure (mobile networks go down from time to time) and the need for some students to turn off their phones whilst at work (or in other lessons).

Beddall-Hill, N. 2011 Postgraduates, field trips and mobile devices pp18-22 in Traxler J and Wishart J (eds) 2011 Making mobile learning work: case studies of practice Higher Education Academy Escalate Education Study Centre available athttp://escalate.ac.uk/8250  accessed 10th May 2011

“There may be problems accessing personal devices in regards to sensitive data and m-safety issues.” (p20)

Woodgate, D. Stanton Fraser D and Martin S 2011 Bringing school science to life: Personalisation, contextualisation and reflection of self-collected data with mobile sensing technologies pp 23-28 in Traxler J and Wishart J (eds) 2011 Making mobile learning work: case studies of practice Higher Education Academy Escalate Education Study Centre available athttp://escalate.ac.uk/8250  accessed 10th May 2011

“Mobile sensing enables groups of learners to collect environmental data in their local area using a simplified version of the equipment used by professional scientists. For example, pupils can collect data on parameters such as light and humidity to help them understand the reasons for variations in plant species occurring in different locations, such as under trees as opposed to open grassland, or to monitor carbon monoxide levels around their school at different times of the day, to help them understand the impact of road traffic. When such data are displayed in compelling ways, children not only gain insights into aspects of the underpinning science (which can of course be built upon in class), but can be encouraged to engage in other learning activities as well, such as discussion, presentation of their findings and report writing. Since these are activities that professional scientists engage in, they can thus gain insights into aspects of the working lives of scientists.” (p24)

Data was mashed into either Google Maps or Google Earth to provide visually compelling displays.

Using a 'rip, mix, burn' metaphor for learning

This is an expansion of an earlier blog and a position paper.

This paper is divided into three parts:

• An explanation of the rip, mix, burn metaphor
• Using the metaphor as a model for learning, considering the perspectives of Sanger, Thornburg, and Gladwell
• Further questions to explore the metaphor

The rip, mix, burn model

Manovich (2005) points out that traditionally, education flows from a source to a receiver; in education the teacher transmits knowledge to the student in the hush of the classroom.  However, he believes that in education 2.0, knowledge is collaboratively constructed through multiple dialogues, as at a party. He sees this as the 'remixing' of knowledge and finds precedents in the merging of cultures as when Rome conquered Greece or the renaissance rediscovered the classics. 

Baraniuk (2006) notes that the LP has been superseded by a digital music culture which is characterised by a creative process of rip, mix and burn. 

Ripping is defined by wikipedia as a "process of copying". In some contexts such as where intellectual property rights exist this can be illegal.  In other cases it can be unethical (eg in an academic context unattributed copying is plagiarism).  But Blakley (2010) points out a "culture of copying" makes the fashion industry massively innovative.

Mixing or remixing is the creative part of the process.  An audio track can be remixed by breaking it down into its components, subtracting some and adding others. Shakespearean plays are often remixed by reinterpreting them into a new context; the extent to which this is done can lead to the new version being regarded simply as a new edit or as a work in its own right such as Verdi's Otello or Porter's Kiss Me, Kate. 

Burning is the process of recording the audio track.

Expanding the metaphor

I want to reinterpret (which is in itself a type of remixing) this process as a metaphor about learning. Specifically, I want to explore ripping as the transmissive aspect of education, mixing as the collaborative aspect and burning as the production of the end product.

Sanger (2010) explores the difference between information and knowledge. An unread text represents information but it is not until the student has learned it by reading it and understanding it in the context of the student's schema that this information becomes knowledge. The reading (the 'ripping') is not enough. The student needs to remix it by analysing (disassembling) the text, examining each component, and then synthesising the new ideas with their own previous knowledge before it can be burned into their brain. 

Although Sanger (2010; p20) attacks collaborative learning ("It is one thing to engage in a discussion .... but it is quite another to think creatively and critically for oneself"), he is not attacking the belief that dialogues and structured conversations can facilitate learning. Considering ideas from alternative points of view is an important strategy in mixing. As Cascio (2009) suggests, a "proliferation of diverse voices may actually improve our overall ability to think." I think Sanger is saying that the iconic status of collaborative learning is blinding people to the fact that mixing is not enough; that ripping and burning are essential parts of the process of learning.

I think Sanger would see parallels between his ideas and those of Thornburg (2004). Thornburg suggests that in our hunter-gatherer past there were three types of primitive pedagogy:

• The campfire around which an elder of the tribe sat and told stories which has evolved into the lecture or the presentation; transmissive education or ripping;
• The watering-hole where people gossiped which has evolved into the seminar, the campus-cafe or the academic common room; collaborative co-construction of understanding, or mixing;
• The cave where individuals sat and thought through the long, dark, lonely nights which has evolved into the study-bedroom; for Sanger this is the "essentially solitary"  moment when learning is achieved.

Sloman (2001; p116) adds a fourth pedagogy to Thornburg's triad:

• The hunting party where young hunters honed their skills under the supervision of the old has evolved into the lab.

This is useful because there are some aspects or types of learning where discussion is not enough and where practical activities take precedence so I see Sloman's hunting-party as an alternative to or an elaboration of Thornburg's watering-hole. 

So learning appears to be a three-part process:

• Ripping at the campfire where ideas are transmitted;
• Mixing at the watering -hole or on the hunting-party where ideas are pulled apart, examined from different perspectives; and reassembled in novel ways;
• Burning in the cave where learning is consolidated.

Perhaps we can understand this better if we see learning as a process of disturbing the equilibrium of a system. Gladwell (2000; p259) believes that what he calls social epidemics depend on three sorts of people: 

• ‘Connectors’, who cultivate friendships;
• ‘Mavens’, who have acknowledged in-depth expertise such that other people will take their advice;
• ‘Salesmen’, who know how to persuade.

In the twittersphere, Connectors will have lots of followers and will also follow lots of others; Mavens will follow a lot of others but not have many followers; and Salesmen will follow few but have lots of followers.

Rather than see these as three different sorts of people, let us imagine them as one person undergoing the three stages of a learning process. In the transmissive phase you are trying to learn so you greedily suck information in from wherever you can; you are a Maven, you follow many. In the mixing phase you want to discuss your ideas as widely as possible, to rip them up and cast them upon the waters and see what comes back. This is the Connecting phase. Finally you burn your ideas by Selling them to as many people as possible.

This should also be true for good e-learning:

• Information is presented to students using text, video, slide presentation or audio podcast (many authorities seem to concentrate entirely upon this transmissive, instructional process);
• The students discuss the information using chat rooms, discussion forums, wikis, or sl seminars
• The students then create their own paper, or blog, or artefact.

Exploration of concepts around the metaphor

Ripping

What exactly is the ripping process? It is more than just the passive receipt of transmitted knowledge? If we compare learning to the creation of a meal, ripping is the assembling of the ingredients. As such there is an important element of selection about it. We need to know what to rip. We choose whom to follow on twitter and google reader.

In this contest we can understand some aspects of the role of the teacher in this ‘ripping’ phase. He is the transmitter of knowledge, the storyteller, the sage on the stage. As such he needs performance and presentation skills to improve the “stickiness” of the information he is presenting (Gladwell 2000; p259). But in this role he has also selected the ingredients of the knowledge meal he is serving. Of course, more mature or more self-directed learners will expect to choose their own ingredients. Perhaps the art of teaching is guiding the learner to make the ‘right’ selection.

What should the ingredients look like? Do they need to be chopped up? If so how big should the chunks be? There seems very little objective research done on how long a lesson should last and teacher surveys seem to suggest that the ideal length is:

• Whatever the teacher has been used to;
• Dependent on the pupil age;
• Dependent on the subject.

On the other hand, the popularity of Twitter has led to speculation that mixing very small bits of knowledge might improve learning. Jarche (2010) suggests that small bits will engender more creative mixes: “Twitter strips bare our communication by limiting it to 140 character bursts which gradually meld into a stream from which patterns emerge. These patterns are not intended or designed by the originator, but sensed by the observer.” Junco et al (2010) show that using Twitter increases grades among college students although this seems to be due to increased engagement in the mixing part of the learning process. The knowledge they were seeking to transmit was normal sized although an abstract of their paper helpfully uses sections of no more than 140 characters.


Rankin (2009) considers to what extent size matters in her Twitter based Political Science class: “140 characters does limit the types of comments that they’re able to make and the types of evidence and argument that they’re able to make to back up their opinions and there are some issues that we’re discussing in class that do require a more in-depth approach towards explaining one’s position but on the other hand oftentimes there’s a lot of miscellaneous information that students think they need to throw in the kind of muddle up the idea they’re trying to portray so having to keep them limited to 140 characters does require students to get at the absolute central point.”

One of the 'Laws of Mind Mapping' is to use single words. Chambers (2009) suggests that  “a single word can come up with far more associations than a phrase or a sentence can. A sentence locks the meaning of a word into a very restrictive area whereas the word on its own can generate far more ideas.”

Mixing

In the alchemy of learning, mixing is perhaps the most obscure phase. Is it like a chemical reaction in which the selected reactant molecules encounter one another, break their interatomic bonds, rearrange and rebond to form new products? Is it like cooking in which you process the ingredients using a variety of techniques at a variety of temperatures for a variety of times? In other words: what are the conditions under which collaborative ‘watering-hole’ learning is most effective?

Does mixing have to be interpersonal? To some extent it must be, because the ideas that are being mixed will have arisen from different people. But the ideals of collaborative learning, which seems to be the paradigm of the waterhole, are that people learn if they discuss and debate. Black (2000; p409) talks about “enrichment through communal interaction” and Shirky (2008; p109) states that "Collaborative production, where people have to coordinate with one another to get anything done, is considerably harder than simple sharing, but the results can be more profound." (p109) Nevertheless it is clear to me as I write this paper that I am mixing ideas and learning whilst totally solitary. Equally the ‘hunting party’ mode of learning suggested by Sloman (2001; p116) which I suggested could be an alternative to the watering-hole could also be undertaken alone. In this case one is testing one’s ideas against something external, as a scientist tests his theories against nature.

To what extent should the ingredients be compatible? Do the pieces have to have an affinity for one another? It is clear that it is difficult to mix two cultures that are very different; it engenders misunderstanding, distrust and hostility. On the other hand, there is nothing to be gained by mixing two components that are identical. For a learning event to occur, the components have to be different but not too different. Is there an ideal degree of difference? Perhaps it is like a network. Krebs (2010) states that in a network, more than two steps is considered to be ‘over the horizon’: “After one step the message begins to grow fuzzy, after two it is becoming very noisy, and after three it is basically useless -- background hum. We might be all separated by six degrees but it is the first two steps that really matter." But how do we determine the degree of difference for two items of knowledge?

Schank (2010) believes that telling stories is what we do which links in very well with Thornburg's camfire. But Schank also says: "Comprehension means mapping your stories onto my stories and vice versa. .... You can't really communicate very well with someone whose stories are very different." (10m30s)

Presumably it is the extent to which the ideas are compatible which will reinforce or answer Sunstein’s (2007) concern that the movement towards personalisation will lead to each of us entrenching our positions within our mental ghettoes.

If we continue to think of learning as a network we might also consider the analysis of social networking conducted by Shirky (2008) in which he deduced a power law governing the amount of participation; compatible with the Long Tail as described by Anderson (2006).

Is learning like crowdsourcing in which a community of users develop ideas, for example the Global Ideas Bank (http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/home/). Is wiki or open source software development like learning?

Burning

In some ways burning seems to be the most trivial part of learning. I am presently burning my ripped and mixed ideas into this essay although I am conscious I am still mixing as I write (and I regularly follow up an idea online to rip another thought). Burning is more than just serving the cooked meal? It is a truism that you never really understand a subject until you have taught it. Burning involves the crystallisation of thought; it is the process of the learner taking ownership of the ideas he is learning.

What are the ideal conditions for burning? In my case it is quiet, solitude and a lot of walking (I wander corridors at work when I am thinking). Are the creation facilities offered by the web (blogs, writing tools, artefact creation tools) necessary or appropriate for burning?

Summary

I have tried to show that a ‘rip, mix, burn’ metaphor for learning mirrors, to some extent, the process of learning. I have explored some of the details of this model in greater detail and have posed a number of questions which I hope might stimulate further thinking and concept creation.

References

Anderson C (2006) The Long Tail Random House London

Baraniuk R 2006  Open Source learning TED talks available at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_baraniuk_on_open_source_learning.html accessed 24th October 2010

Black P, 2000 Research and the Development of Educational Assessment in Oxford Review of Education 26:3&4 pp407- 419

Blakley J 2010 Lessons from fashion's free culture TECX USC available at http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html accessed 18th October 2010

Cascio J 2009 Get Smarter Atlantic Magazine July/August 2009


Chambers P (2009) What aspects of a mind map make it creative? (YouTube video) available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_WILF5z38s&feature=channel

Gladwell M  2000 The Tipping Point Abacus London

Jarche H 2010 Making connections blog post 9^th November 2010 Life in Perpetual Beta available at http://www.jarche.com/2010/11/making-connections/ accessed 9^th November 2010

Junco R, Heiberger G & Loken E (2010) The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades Journal of Computer Assisted Learning available to download from http://blog.reyjunco.com/pdf/JuncoHeibergerLokenTwitterEngagementGrades.pdf accessed 13th November 2010

Krebs V 2010a Spread of Influence in a Network blog post 27th February 2010 TNT - The Network Thinkers http://www.thenetworkthinkers.com/ accessed 7th November 2010

Manovich, L. (2005). Remixing and Remixability. http://www.manovich.net/


Rankin M 2009 The Twitter Experiment (YouTube video) available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPVWDkF7U8&feature=related accessed 14^th November 2010

Sanger, L. (2010). Individual Knowledge in the Internet Age. Educause Review, March/April 2010. pp14-24) http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1020.pdf


Schank R (2010) Negotiation across cultures Keynote speech at DARPA 10th August 2010 part 1 on YouTube available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FISlbJKkN5U accessed 14th November 2010

Shirky C 2008 Personal motivation meets collaborative production pp109-142 from Shirky C 2008 Here comes everybody; the power of organizing without organizations  London Penguin 

Sloman M 2001 The e-learning revolution: from propositions to action Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development London 0-85292-873-4

Sunstein, C. (2007). The Daily Me, in Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Thornburg D 2004 Campfires in Cyberspace: Primordial metaphors for learning in the 21st Century International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1:10 available at http://itdl.org/journal/oct_04/invited01.htm accessed 24th October 2010

wikipedia Ripping available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping accessed 28th October 2010