cognitive architecture talk ppt (final version) · 2016-03-23 · Øwhat teaching approach can best...

23/03/2016

1

CognitiveArchitectureand theLearning ofLanguage Knowledge

AlanWaters

‘Fearful symmetry’(TheTiger,Blake)

‘Full fathomf ivethyfatherlies...Nothingof himthatdothfade,Butdothsufferasea-change,Intosomethingrichandstrange’

(TheTempest,Shakespeare)

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]nythingbeyondthesimplestcognitiveactivitiesappeartooverwhelmworkingmemory’(Swelleretal1998:252-3)

4

1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)

• UseofLTMovercomestheselimitations:

Ø ‘Inthesensethatinformationcanbebroughtbackfromlong-termmemorytoworkingmemoryoverindefiniteperiodsoftime,thetemporallimitsofworkingmemorybecomeirrelevant.’(Kirschner,Sweller,&Clark,2006:77).

5


• 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?

23/03/2016

2


ØBothgroupsshownboardconfigurationsfromrealgamesforafewseconds

ØExpertplayersmuchbetteratreproducingconfigurations– betterworkingmemory?

ØButnodifferenceinrecallfoundwhenrandomgameconfigurationsalsoused

ØResultthereforenotduetoworkingmemoryØExperts’skillsseenascausedbyhavingmemorizedthousandsofgameconfigurations

7


Ø Thisenablesthemtomakeappropriatemoveswithoutusinglimitedworkingmemory: ‘Chessgrandmastersaresuccessful,notbecausetheyengageinmoresophisticatedreasoningproceduresthanweekend[lessexpert]players, butbecausetheyhaveaccesstoknowledgeunavailabletoothers.’ (Swelleretal,ibid.,myinterpolation&emphasis).

8

1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)- schematisation

• Thisoccursfirstlybecause knowledge inLTMundergoesschematisation

9

1.Factualknowledge andskilledperformance (contd.)- schematisation

Ø ‘[C]hessgrandmastershaveschemasthatcategorizeboardpiecesintopatternsthattellthemwhichmovesareappropriate’ (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]readerwhohasautomatedtheschemasassociatedwithletters,wordsandphraseshasworkingmemorycapacityavailabletodevotetothemeaningofthetext, whereaslesssophisticatedreadersmaybeabletoreadthetextperfectlywellbutnothavesufficientworkingmemorycapacityavailabletoextractmeaningfromit.’ (Swelleretal,op.cit:257-8).

ØMinimisationofeffortininformationretrieval 12

23/03/2016

3


• Knowledge storedinLTM isthekeyto‘skilledperformance’

• ‘The aimofallinstructionistoalterlong-termmemory.’ (Kirschneretal,2006:77)

ØWhatteaching approachcanbestfacilitatethelong-termmemorisation offactualknowledge?

13

2.FacilitatingLTmemorisation ofknowledge: theresearch evidence• ‘…evidencefrom controlled studies…almostuniformly supports direct, strong instructionalguidance rather than constructivist-basedminimal guidance during theinstruction ofnovice tointermediate learners. Evenforstudents withconsiderable prior knowledge,strong guidance while learning ismostoftenfoundtobeequally effective asunguidedapproaches.’ (Kirschner etal,op.cit:83-4).

14

2.FacilitatingLTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– Hattie2009• Majorempirical support fortheeffectiveness of ‘direct’

instruction for LTmemorisation isprovided inHattie(2009: 243; cf. Peal2014: 182-4; Coeetal: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 requiresthelearnertosearch aproblem space forproblem-relevantinformation. Allproblem-basedsearchingmakes heavydemands onworkingmemory [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 ‘direct’ teachingapproach isneeded(Kirschneretal, op. cit: 83-4)

17

2.Facilitating LTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– ‘direct instruction’‘Byusingdirectinstructionanddrill,Ibrokedowntheknowledgerequiredtobeaclearandcoherentwriter,sequenceditlogicallyandtaughteachbitinisolation. Ithenaskedstudentstopractiseitrepeatedly. Whenevertheylearnedanewpieceofknowledge,Iwouldaskthemtopractisethatandtopractisecombiningitwithwhattheyhadlearnedbefore. Thisapproachiseffectivebecauseitmeansworkingmemoryisnotoverloaded.Pupilsareabletolearnandpractiseeachpieceofknowledgeinisolation….’ (Christodolou2014:40-41).

18

23/03/2016

4

2.Facilitating LTmemorisation ofknowledge (contd.)– ‘direct instruction’‘Iwasastonishedathowsuccessful…[thedirectinstructionlessons]were.PupilswereabletolearnconceptswhichIhadpreviouslythoughtwerejusttootrickyordifficulttobotherwith… theyseemedtoquiteenjoythelessons,too. IncomparisonwiththeindependentlearningapproachIhadusedbefore,itwasmuchmoresuccessful…Thisapproach[independentlearning]…askedpupilstofulfilanaimwithoutactuallyteachingthemhowtodoit.’ (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 ‘TheunderlyingtheoryforaPPPapproachhasnowbeendiscredited.Thebeliefthataprecisefocusonaparticularformleadstolearningandautomization…nolongercarriesmuchcredibilityinlinguisticsorpsychology’.(Skehan1996:18).

• ButcritiquebasedonmisapplicationofSLAstudiestolanguageteaching(Spada2015)

Ø Importanttochallengeanti-LTCattitudeofmuchofELTprofessionaldiscourse

21

Implicationsforlanguageteaching (contd.)• However,shouldalsoavoid‘throwingbabyoutwithbathwater’Ø CTLcanactasusefulreinforcement (vs.replacement)ofLTC(cf.

Swan2005;Littlewood2004)Ø Thus,NOT:

✖ CTL:PRIMARY, LTC:secondaryBUT:

✔ LTC:PRIMARY, CTL:secondaryØ 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

23/03/2016

5

Conclusion

• Importanttoresolveprofessionaldichotomysurroundingtheteachingoflanguageknowledge

• Researchandtheorisingconcerningcognitivearchitectureofmemorycanthrowusefullightonthematter

• ThisbodyofworkprovidesstrongevidenceforthegreatereffectivenessofLTCformsofpedagogyforthelearningoflanguageknowledge

• Theprofessionaldiscourseneedstobecomeagooddealmoresupportiveofthisfinding

• CTLcanstillplayausefulsecondaryrolein‘hybrid’,‘learningthendoing’ formsofpedagogy

25

Thank you!

• Ifyouwouldlikeacopyof thisPPTand/orofthepaper itisbased on,please e-mail:

[email protected]

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-analysesrelating 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 :amethodologicalframework. Oxford:Blackwell.

• Miller, G.A. (1956).Themagicalnumber seven, plus orminus two. Somelimits 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

23/03/2016

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.…Althoughlearnersdoneedtobuildnewunderstandingonwhattheyalreadyknow,ifteacherswantthemtolearnnewideas,knowledgeormethods,theyneedtoteachthemdirectly’(p.23).

31

cognitive architecture talk ppt (final version) · 2016-03-23 · Øwhat teaching approach can best...

Documents