Supporting Instructors in MOOCs: Using cognitive science research to guide pedagogy & instructional design May, EdX/MIT Joseph Jay Williams [email protected]www.josephjaywilliams.com/education lytics.stanford.edu Lytics Lab, Graduate School of Education & Office of the Vice Provost for Online Learning Stanford University (Formerly) Graduate School of Education, UC Berkeley
22
Embed
Supporting Instructors in MOOCs: Using cognitive science research to guide pedagogy & instructional design. MIT/EdX
Abstract: How can online learning platforms provide useful information about pedagogy to instructors teaching online, while ensuring that course teams are not constrained in leveraging their teaching expertise to personalize their MOOC? The scientific literature on learning and education provides hundreds of detailed studies, which can be synthesized to identify effective instructional strategies, and mined for examples of how an instructional strategy can be implemented in a specific environment, set of educational materials, or student population. This talk illustrates this approach, by presenting a worksheet guide that supports MOOC designers in using two instructional strategies: increasing student motivation to think through challenges by designing exercises which encourage students to see their intelligence as malleable, and enhancing deep understanding with questions and prompts for students to explain. The talk explains how these two instructional strategies are motivated by both existing literature and recently conducted experimental studies. It also presents the specific details of how the guide is targeted at MOOC instructors and provides them with multiple actionable strategies they can use in their courses.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Supporting Instructors in MOOCs:Using cognitive science research to guide pedagogy &
• How can online learning platforms provide useful information about pedagogy to instructors teaching online, while ensuring that course teams are not constrained in leveraging their teaching expertise to personalize their MOOC? The scientific literature on learning and education provides hundreds of detailed studies, which can be synthesized to identify effective instructional strategies, and mined for examples of how an instructional strategy can be implemented in a specific environment, set of educational materials, or student population. This talk illustrates this approach, by presenting a worksheet guide that supports MOOC designers in using two instructional strategies: increasing student motivation to think through challenges by designing exercises which encourage students to see their intelligence as malleable, and enhancing deep understanding with questions and prompts for students to explain. The talk explains how these two instructional strategies are motivated by both existing literature and recently conducted experimental studies. It also presents the specific details of how the guide is targeted at MOOC instructors and provides them with multiple actionable strategies they can use in their courses.
• I. Incorporating cognitive & learning sciences research
• II. Increasing motivation by changing beliefs about intelligence
• III. Enhancing understanding by engaging students in generating explanations
III. Cognitive & Learning Sciences Research
• Synthesizing & Applying Broad Principles & Recent Findings• Williams, J.J. (2013). Improving Learning in MOOCs by Applying Cognitive Science.
Paper presented at the MOOCshop Workshop, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Memphis, TN.
• Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., Metcalfe, J.: Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (2007)
• Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K.: How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass (2010)
• Willingham, D. T.: Why Don't Students Like School. Jossey-Bass (2010)• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E.: E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Pfeiffer (2004)
• Mathematics, Statistics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology• Many age groups• Multiple formats
16
Explanation and Learning
• General boost to Learning Engagement• The Subsumptive Constraints Account:
Interpret target of why-explanation in terms of a broader generalization (Williams & Lombrozo, 2010)
• Discovery & transfer (Williams & Lombrozo, 2010, Cognitive Science)
• Use of prior knowledge (Williams & Lombrozo, 2013, Cog. Psych.)
• Erroneously overgeneralize at expense of anomalies (Williams et al, 2013, JEP: General)
17
Anomalies in Mathematics
• Anomalies – contradict existing beliefs
• Often ignored by students (Chinn & Brewer, 1993 )
• Effects of explaining anomalies? (Williams, et al 2012; 2013)
Williams, Walker & Lombrozo, 2012
18
Using concept of statistical deviation for ranking
• Statistical concepts:• Introductory & central to many disciplines• Difficult but important in everyday reasoning
• Learn to rank using z-scores/standard deviation(Schwartz & Martin, 2004, Belenky & Nokes, 2011)
Sarah got 85% in a Sociology class, where the average score was 79%, the average deviation was 3%, the minimum score was 67%, and the maximum score was 90%.
Tom got 69% in a Art History class, where the average score was 65%, the average deviation was 8%, the minimum score was 42%, and the maximum score was 87%.
Who was ranked higher? XXXX was ranked higher.
19
Statistical rules for ranking
•
•
Type of Information
Sarah Tom
Personal Score 85% 69%
Class Average 79% 65%
Class Maximum 90% 87%
Class Deviation 8% 3%
Sarah was ranked higher.
Anomalous observation
Ranking Rule Use of rule Higher ranked
Higher score 85 > 69 Sarah
Greater distance from average
(85 – 79) > (69 – 65)
Sarah
Closer to maximum
(90 – 85) < (87 – 69)
Sarah
More deviations above the average
(85-79)/8 < (69-65)/3
Tom8% 3%Tom
Tom
20
Design
Pre-Test Study Items Post-Test
5 ranked student pairs.Make 5 verbal responses
Explain: Why was this person ranked higher?
Write Thoughts: Write your thoughts about this
ranking.
? ?
Improvement in Accuracy
• Unpublished data has been removed from this slide
Review
• I. Incorporating cognitive & learning sciences research
• II. Increasing motivation by changing beliefs about intelligence
• III. Enhancing understanding by engaging students in generating explanations