Cognitive architecture talk PPT (final version)‘communicating to learn’ (e.g., TBL) –preferred...
6
20/03/2016 1 Cognitive Architecture and the Learning of Language Knowledge Alan Waters ([email protected]) ‘The aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory.’ (Kirschner et al, 2006: 77) Introduction • Teaching ‘language knowledge’ dichotomy (Waters 2012): – preferred approach of ELT ‘professional discourse’ = ‘communicating to learn’ (e.g., TBL) – preferred ELT practitioner approach = ‘learning to communicate’ (e.g., PPP) • This study: is there evidence for the effectiveness of either approach? Ø Research and theorising concerning how ‘cognitive architecture’ affects memorisation of factual information 2 Cognitivearchitecture and the memorisation of factual information • Two main aspects: 1. The importance of long- term memorisation of factual knowledge for ‘skilled performance’ 2. Facilitating the long- term memorisation of factual information 3 1. Factual knowledge and skilled performance • Short-term or ‘working’ (STM) vs. long-term memory (LTM) • STM storagecapacity very limited (Miller 1956) Ø‘[A]nything beyond the simplest cognitive activities appear to overwhelm working memory’ (Sweller et al 1998: 252-3) 4 1. Factual knowledge and skilled performance (contd.) • Use of LTM overcomes these limitations: Ø ‘In the sense that information can be brought back from long-term memory toworking memory over indefinite periods of time, the temporal limits of working memory become irrelevant.’ (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006: 77). 5 1. Factual knowledge and skilled performance (contd.) • LTM is also the key to learning additional information, since new learning depends onestablishing links with existing knowledge (Hutchinson & Waters 1987: 49-51) • In addition, this helps to achieve the ‘critical mass’ of remembered knowledge that ‘skilled performance’ is basedon: 6 Ø Research on expert vs. less expert chess players (reported in Sweller et al 1998: 253-4; cf. Kirschner et al, op. cit: 76-77) – better reasoning skills?
Transcript of Cognitive architecture talk PPT (final version)‘communicating to learn’ (e.g., TBL) –preferred...
20/03/2016
1
CognitiveArchitectureand theLearning ofLanguage KnowledgeAlanWaters ([email protected])
‘Theaimofall instruction is toalterlong-termmemory.’
(Kirschneretal,2006:77)
Introduction
• Teaching ‘languageknowledge’ dichotomy(Waters2012):– preferredapproachofELT‘professionaldiscourse’=‘communicatingtolearn’ (e.g.,TBL)
– preferredELTpractitionerapproach=‘learning tocommunicate’ (e.g.,PPP)
• Thisstudy:isthereevidencefortheeffectivenessofeitherapproach?
Ø Researchandtheorisingconcerninghow‘cognitivearchitecture’affectsmemorisationoffactualinformation 2
Cognitivearchitectureandthememorisationoffactualinformation
• Twomainaspects:1. Theimportance oflong-
termmemorisation offactual knowledgefor‘skilled performance’
2. Facilitating thelong-termmemorisation offactual information
3
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance
• Short-termor‘working’(STM)vs.long-termmemory(LTM)
• STMstoragecapacityverylimited(Miller1956)Ø ‘[A]nythingbeyondthe
simplestcognitiveactivities
appeartooverwhelm
workingmemory’(Swelleretal1998:252-3)
4
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)
• UseofLTMovercomestheselimitations:
Ø ‘Inthesensethatinformation
canbebroughtbackfrom
long-termmemorytoworking
memoryoverindefinite
periodsoftime,thetemporal
limitsofworkingmemory
becomeirrelevant.’
(Kirschner,Sweller,&Clark,2006:77).
5
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)
• LTMisalsothekeytolearningadditionalinformation,sincenewlearningdependsonestablishinglinkswithexistingknowledge(Hutchinson&Waters1987:49-51)
• Inaddition,thishelpstoachievethe‘criticalmass’ ofrememberedknowledgethat‘skilledperformance’ isbasedon:
6
Ø Researchonexpertvs.lessexpertchessplayers(reportedinSwelleretal1998:253-4;cf.Kirschneretal,op.cit:76-77)– betterreasoningskills?
20/03/2016
2
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)
ØBothgroupsshownboardconfigurationsfromrealgamesforafewseconds
ØExpertplayersmuchbetteratreproducingconfigurations– betterworkingmemory?
ØButnodifferenceinrecallfoundwhenrandomgameconfigurationsalsoused
ØResultthereforenotduetoworkingmemoryØExperts’skillsseenascausedbyhavingmemorizedthousandsofgameconfigurations
7
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)
Ø Thisenablesthemtomakeappropriatemoveswithoutusinglimitedworkingmemory: ‘Chessgrandmastersaresuccessful,not
becausetheyengageinmore
sophisticatedreasoning
proceduresthanweekend[less
expert]players, butbecausetheyhaveaccesstoknowledgeunavailabletoothers.’ (Swelleretal,ibid.,myinterpolation&emphasis).
8
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)- schematisation
• Thisoccursfirstlybecause knowledge inLTMundergoesschematisation
9
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)- schematisation
Ø ‘[C]hessgrandmastershaveschemasthatcategorize
boardpiecesintopatternsthattellthemwhichmoves
areappropriate’ (Swelleretal,op.cit:255)Ø SchematicorganisationoffactualknowledgeinLTMmeansthatacomplexnetworkofknowledge,consistingofmanyitemsofinformation,canbebroughtintoSTMasasingleentity
Ø ThisbypassesSTMstoragelimitationsandfacilitateshighly-skilledperformance
ØMaximisationofinformationretrieval10
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)- automation
• Also,byrepeatedpracticalapplication,schematisedknowledgeundergoesautomation
11
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)- automation• Suchknowledgerequireslittle/noconsciousprocessing,soitsusehasnonoticeableeffectonSTMcapacity:
Ø [A]readerwhohasautomatedtheschemasassociated
withletters,wordsandphraseshasworkingmemory
capacityavailabletodevotetothemeaningofthe
text, whereaslesssophisticatedreadersmaybeable
toreadthetextperfectlywellbutnothavesufficient
workingmemorycapacityavailabletoextract
meaningfromit.’ (Swelleretal,op.cit:257-8).ØMinimisationofeffortininformationretrieval 12
20/03/2016
3
1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)
• Recallofknowledge storedinLTM isthusthekeyto‘skilledperformance’
• Thus, ‘The aimofallinstructionistoalter
long-termmemory.’ (Kirschneretal,2006:77)
• Whatteaching approachcanbestfacilitatethelong-termmemorisation offactualknowledge?
13
2.FacilitatingLTmemorisation ofknowledge: theresearch evidence• ‘…evidencefrom controlled studies…almost
uniformly supports direct, strong instructional
guidance rather than constructivist-based
minimal guidance during theinstruction of
novice tointermediate learners. Evenfor
students withconsiderable prior knowledge,
strong guidance while learning ismostoften
foundtobeequally effective asunguided
approaches.’ (Kirschner etal,op.cit:83-4).14
2.FacilitatingLTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– Hattie2009• Majorempirical support fortheeffectiveness of ‘guided’
or‘direct’ instruction forLTmemorisation isprovided inHattie(2009: 243;cf. Peal2014: 182-4; Coe etal:2014):Ø800metaanalysesofresearcharticlesØ138educational‘interventions’ identifiedØ ‘Effectsize’ (ES)ofinterventions=averageimprovementinstudentperformance,dividedbySD
ØAverageES=0.4– the‘hingepoint’;>0.4=‘effective’,>0.6=‘highlyeffective’
ØDirectinstructionES=0.59ØProblem-basedlearningES=0.15
15
2.FacilitatingLTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– why?• ‘Inquiry-based
instruction requiresthe
learnertosearch a
problem space for
problem-relevant
information. All
problem-based
searchingmakes heavy
demands onworking
memory [STM].’
(Kirschner etal,op.cit:77). 16
(DiagramthankstoIanClifford)
2.FacilitatingLTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– why?
• Asa result, insufficient spaceinSTM isavailable tosupportstorage ofinformation inLTM
• Tocreate thespace inSTM fortransfer ofknowledge toLTM,amore ‘structured’ teachingapproach isneeded(Kirschneretal, op. cit: 83-4)
17
2.Facilitating LTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– ‘direct instruction’‘Byusingdirectinstructionanddrill,Ibrokedownthe
knowledgerequiredtobeaclearandcoherentwriter,
sequenceditlogicallyandtaughteachbitinisolation. I
thenaskedstudentstopractiseitrepeatedly. Whenever
theylearnedanewpieceofknowledge,Iwouldaskthem
topractisethatandtopractisecombiningitwithwhat
theyhadlearnedbefore. Thisapproachiseffective
becauseitmeansworkingmemoryisnotoverloaded.
Pupilsareabletolearnandpractiseeachpieceof
knowledgeinisolation….’ (Christodolou2014:40-41).
18
20/03/2016
4
2.Facilitating LTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– ‘direct instruction’‘Iwasastonishedathowsuccessful…[thedirect
instructionlessons]were.Pupilswereabletolearn
conceptswhichIhadpreviouslythoughtwerejusttoo
trickyordifficulttobotherwith… theyseemedtoquite
enjoythelessons,too. Incomparisonwiththe
independentlearningapproachIhadusedbefore,itwas
muchmoresuccessful…Thisapproach[independent
learning]…askedpupilstofulfilanaimwithoutactually
teachingthemhowtodoit.’ (Christodolou2014:40,myinterpolations).
19
Implicationsforlanguageteaching• ‘Communicatingtolearn’ (CTL)stronglyresembles‘inquiry-
based’,‘problemsolving’ approaches• Thecritiqueofsuchapproachesintheliteraturejustreviewed
thereforeappliestoCTLaswellØ UnderCTL,thereisthereforeunlikelytobesufficientspace in
STMfortransferoflanguageknowledgetoLTM(cf.Carless2007;Seedhouse1999;Constantine2010;Swan2005)
• ‘Learningtocommunicate’ (LTC)approachcloselyresembles‘directinstruction’
Ø Asliteraturereviewedalsoshows,underLTCthereisthereforemuchmorelikelytobesufficientspace inSTMfortransferoflanguageknowledgetoLTM
20
Implicationsforlanguageteaching (contd.)• Cf. Littlewood1992;Johnson1996;DeKeyser2009• However,‘directinstruction’widelycriticisedinmostofELT
professionaldiscourse,e.g.:Ø ‘TheunderlyingtheoryforaPPPapproachhasnowbeen
discredited.Thebeliefthataprecisefocusonaparticular
formleadstolearningandautomization…nolongercarries
muchcredibilityinlinguisticsorpsychology’.(Skehan1996:18).
• ButcritiquebasedonmisapplicationofSLAstudiestolanguageteaching(Spada2015)
Ø Importanttochallengeanti-LTCattitudeofmuchofELTprofessionaldiscourse
21
Implicationsforlanguageteaching (contd.)• However,mustnot‘throwoutbabywithbathwater’• CTLcanactasusefulreinforcement (vs.replacement)ofLTC(cf.
Swan2005;Littlewood2004)• Thus,NOT:
✖ CTL:PRIMARY, LTC:secondaryBUT:
✔ LTC:PRIMARY, CTL:secondaryI.e.,not‘learningby doing’,BUT‘learningthen doing’(Peal2014:
204,myemphasis)22
Implicationsforlanguageteacher education&research• Greaterfocusoni)‘goodpractice’in‘LTC’(cf.Christodoulou
lessonabove),&ii)linkingthemwithaclosely-related‘CTL’element,e.g.:– Identifyingmainlanguageknowledgeelementsneededfor‘target’communicationwork
– Puttingtheminalogicalteachingsequence– Workingoutwaysofteachingandgettinglearnerstopracticeeachofthemthoroughly,onebyone
– Thenalsoprovidingpracticeincombiningeachofthenewlylearneditemswiththepreviouslylearnedones
– Then(andonlythen)proceedingtotherelatedcommunication(learningbydoing)work (cf.Hutchinson&Waters1987:Ch.10;Swan2012:Ch.17) 23
Implicationsforlanguage teachereducation&research (contd.)• Studyofwell-designed‘learningthendoing’unitsofpublishedteachingmaterials,e.g.,Hutchinson2008:ØAbovefeatures,plus:
o InterestinginformationcontentoGamesoPuzzlesoComicstripsoProject-worko (etc.)
24
20/03/2016
5
Conclusion
• Importanttoresolveprofessionaldichotomysurroundingtheteachingoflanguageknowledge
• Researchandtheorisingconcerningcognitivearchitectureofmemorycanthrowusefullightonthematter
• ThisbodyofworkprovidesstrongevidenceforthegreatereffectivenessofLTCformsofpedagogyforthelearningoflanguageknowledge
• Theprofessionaldiscourseneedstobecomeagooddealmoresupportiveofthisfinding
• CTLcanstillplayausefulsecondaryrolein‘hybrid’,‘learningthendoing’ formsofpedagogy
25
Thank you!
• Ifyouwouldlikeacopyof thisPPTand/orofthepaper itisbased on,please e-mailmeat:
26
Bibliography- 1
• Carless, D.(2007).Thesuitability of task-based approaches forsecondaryschools: Perspectives fromHongKong.System, 35(4),595-608.
• Coe, R.,C.Aloisi, S. Higgins &L.E.Major (2014)What makesgreat teaching?
Review oftheunderpinning research. London: TheSutton Trust• Christodoulou, D.(2014).SevenMyths aboutEducation. London:Routledge.• Constantine, J. (2010).Astudy of JaneWillis's task-based learning (TBL)
model. InB.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL2009Conference Selections (pp.104-105).Canterbury, England: IATEFL.
• DeKeyser, R.(2009).Cognitive-Psychological Processes inSecond LanguageLearning. InM.H.Long&C.J. Doughty (Eds.),TheHandbook ofLanguageTeaching (pp.119-138).Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Hattie, J. (2009).Visible learning :a synthesis ofover800meta-analyses
relating toachievement. London ;NewYork:Routledge.• Hutchinson, T.&Waters, A (1987) English forSpecific Purposes Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Bibliography- 2
• Hutchinson, T.(2008).Project 1:student's book. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
• Johnson, K. (1996).Language teaching andskill learning. Oxford, UK ;Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
• Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. ,&Clark, R.E.(2006).Why Minimal GuidanceDuring Instruction Does NotWork:AnAnalysis of theFailure ofConstructivist, Discovery,Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-BasedTeaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
• Lightbown, P.M.,&Spada, N.(2006).How languages are learned (3rded.). Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
• Littlewood, W,. (2004).The task-based approach: some questions andsuggestions. ELTJournal, 58(4), 319-326.doi:10.1093/elt/58.4.319
• Littlewood, W. (1992).Teaching oral communication :amethodological
framework. Oxford:Blackwell.• Miller, G.A. (1956).Themagicalnumber seven, plus orminus two. Some
limits ofour capacity forprocessing information. Psychological Review,
101(2), 343-352.
28
Bibliography- 3
• Peal, R. (2014).Progressively Worse. Stevenage, England: Civitas.• Seedhouse, P.(1999).Task-based interaction. ELTJournal, 53(3),149-156.• Skehan, P.(1996).Second language acquisition research and task-based
instruction. InD.Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge andchange in languageteaching (pp.17-30).Oxford:Macmillan Heinemann.
• Spada, N.(2015).SLA researchand L2pedagogy:Misapplications andquestions ofrelevance. LanguageTeaching,, 48(69-81).
• Swan, M.(2005). Legislation byHypothesis: TheCase ofTask-BasedInstruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401.
• Swan, M.(2102).Thinking aboutLanguage Teaching. OxfordU.P.• Sweller, J. , vanMerrienboer, J. G.,&Paas, F. W.C. (1998).Cognitive
Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review,10(3),251-296.
• Waters, A. (2012).Trends and issues inELTmethods andmethodology. ELTJournal, 66(4),440-449.
29
Appendix 1:‘ProjectFollow-Through’
30
20/03/2016
6
Appendix 2– Coe etal(2014)
• Secondmaincomponentof‘greatteaching’foundtobe‘QualityofInstruction’,andincludeselementssuchas:Ø effective questioninganduseofassessmentbyteachersØ reviewingpreviouslearningØ providingmodelresponsesØ givingadequatetimeforpracticetoembedskillssecurelyØ progressivelyintroducingnewlearning(scaffolding)(pp.2-3)
• Also,‘Enthusiasmfor“discoverylearning” isnotsupportedbyresearchevidence,whichbroadlyfavoursdirectinstruction.…
Althoughlearnersdoneedtobuildnewunderstandingonwhat
theyalreadyknow,ifteacherswantthemtolearnnewideas,
knowledgeormethods,theyneedtoteachthemdirectly’
(p.23).
31
