Always Learning

Making Mastery-Based Learning Accessible

by Knewton
May 16th, 2012

Whether or not you’ve heard the term “mastery-based learning,” you’ve probably encountered it in practice, in school or on the job. Mastery-based learning is a teaching method premised on the idea that student progression through a course should be dependent on proficiency as opposed to amount of time spent on academic work. In any situation where you’re given a set of labs, problems, or activities where your progression is dependent on successful completion of various tasks rather than seat time, you’re engaging in mastery-based learning.

As every teacher knows, classroom management is a consummate juggling act. To remain attentive to the needs of all students, teachers must engage the more advanced students while helping the struggling ones catch up. Mastery-based learning aims to help teachers in this respect by allowing students to move through coursework at their own pace.

Key features of mastery-based learning (MBL):

1. Curriculum design hinges on assessments
2. Assessments may take any form as long as they determine proficiency
3. Graduation to the next grade/level/topic is contingent upon successful completion of prerequisite assessment.
4. Curriculum is committed to the success of all students; students are not “allowed” to give up.

It turns out that there are quite a few misconceptions about mastery-based learning. Given new technology that can help us reimagine mastery-based learning, it’s prime time to debunk these myths.

Myth 1: Mastery-based learning is difficult to implement.

Mastery-based learning was first introduced in the 1920s through the Winnetka Plan, an educational experiment engineered by district superintendent Carleton Washburne of Winnetka, Illinois. The experiment was inspired by John Dewey’s research in the University of Chicago Laboratory School and designed to expand the focus of education to include creativity and emotional and social development. Under early implementations of mastery-based learning, a teacher could provide students with the same labs, quizzes, and tests (through which they could move at their own pace by demonstrating proficiency and having the work checked off) but the teacher still had to evaluate assessments and coach students individually on top of delivering lectures that transmitted the knowledge in the first place.

While the plan received widespread attention, efforts to promote mastery-based learning stagnated after a few decades, given the absence of a technology to help implement it. During this period, it was difficult to conceive of how students might move forward at their own pace and still function within the existing structures of school (classrooms, grades defined by age, rigidly defined schedules) which had evolved by mid-20th century America to seem fairly incontrovertible.  

New technology allows us to re-envision mastery-based learning, so that it is far more flexible. By breaking up course materials into units of learning objectives and chunking those objectives into digestible modules, educators have developed self-paced courses of study that fit neatly in the most rigid schedules. Computerized adaptive systems bring this modularity to a new level, making the resulting courses both easier to implement and more effective for students.

Because academic concepts can now be tagged at the atomic level, it is possible to conceive of corresponding academic work and assessments in smaller and smaller components. Since a computerized system can capture performance and activity on these components, it is possible to offer courses that adapt to student needs on the most precise level. This reduces the workload for teachers who, in previous versions of mastery-based learning, had to coach students individually through their respective courses of study.

Myth 2: Mastery-based learning is expensive.

In the past, MBL has been used in some districts to justify increased funding, increased testing requirements, and a great deal of energy investment from students, parents, and teachers. This does not mean that mastery-based learning is inherently expensive, however. If implemented through online adaptive technology (as described above), mastery-based learning can be introduced at minimal cost.

Mastery-based learning can also provide a fairly inexpensive solution to a number of challenges facing administrators–including the acceptance of an increased diversity of students and the expansion of curriculum knowledge for teachers to cover. Because an adaptive system responds to the exact needs of each individual, it can be used for a wide range of students. And because such a system is computerized and involves a precise tagging system, it is easy to organize large amounts of content and track performance on that content.

Myth 3: Mastery-based learning makes grading and reporting more difficult.

Because MBL requires that students be judged on their mastery of material in an absolute sense as opposed to their performance relative to others, proper reporting requires attention to a whole series of outcomes. In traditional schooling, students typically receive an “A” or a “B” as a grade that summarizes their achievements relative to others. If MBL is strictly implemented, however, one must report that a student mastered “verbs,” “tenses,” and “parallel sentence structure” but not “idioms” instead of just issuing a “B.” This is understandably more difficult to report and reflect in a transcript.

Adaptive technology provides a ready solution. With a comprehensive dashboard served by an adaptive system, student outcomes can be aggregated and teachers can view all the concepts and skills a student has mastered in a single glance. Trends and patterns of mastery across the class (and even across a grade or district) also become apparent.

Myth 4: In mastery-based learning, too many students will fail (because standards are too high).

As described above, mastery-based learning is premised on the fact that no one is allowed to fail and that everyone (regardless of gender, race, or socioeconomic status) will succeed, given the right conditions. The emphasis on mastery or proficiency as opposed to effort and seat time, however, makes some nervous: what about those who do not pass, who repeatedly try and fail to demonstrate mastery?

Although it is true that MBL holds all students to the same high standards, the teaching method creates an environment that helps students meet those standards. Anyone who has ever struggled in a classroom knows that missing an insight everyone else experiences can be stressful. The self-paced nature of a mastery-based approach allows students who are self-conscious to make significant gains in a seamless and natural way.

As far as remediation is concerned, any mastery-based system can provide a wealth of triage opportunities, if enough quality content is available. And, with the development of adaptive technology, triage opportunities have the potential to be even more sophisticated than before. An adaptive system can determine the exact needs of each student and match him with learning objects and activities that bring him up to speed quickly.

Myth 5: In mastery-based learning, standards are too low and advanced students are not challenged.

In mastery-based learning, advanced students can progress through material at their own pace and remain engaged by pursuing more challenging work. The richer the content within the learning system, the more material a student can explore if he advances at a swifter pace than the others in his cohort. In this sense, the standards for such students are not low at all–they stretch to help each student maximize potential.

Because success is defined on an absolute and individualized basis, students cannot be satisfied with their achievements relative to others; they are encouraged to seek their own course and take responsibility for their own learning. A sophisticated adaptive learning system can take this to a new level. Because an adaptive system is computerized and involves tagged content, it can be hooked up to enormous repositories of expert material that normally lie beyond the realm of school. When appropriate, such a system can direct students to specific articles, studies, reports and books created by experts, for experts. Adding even a slight degree of adaptivity to the sheer amount of digital content available has the power to significantly amplify the learning experiences we are currently familiar with.

For a more detailed treatment of how adaptive learning can expose students to advanced work, check out this post: Why Students Don’t Like School Part IV.

All Kinds of Learning for All Kinds of People

by Pearson Learning Solutions
April 25th, 2012

Check out the video above to learn more about the benefits of participating in competitions and experiential applied learning.

This year, Pearson sponsored the 2012 Annual American Marketing Association (AMA) International Collegiate Conference and Case Competition. This is the 34th year of the AMA Collegiate Conference, which saw over 1,400 students compete in competitions that tested their marketing, sales, and business skills in a variety of ways. During the case competition, AMA collegiate chapters were presented with possible real-world marketing problems. Pearson executives judged and critiqued their presentations.

Students analyzed the problem, researched solutions, and created a cohesive Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) plan that addressed hypothetical marketing problems. Forty-eight reports were submitted from collegiate chapters around North America and the top 10 were selected to present their IMC plan to Pearson judges at the conference. The 25 minute presentations consisted of in-depth overview of the of their situational analysis, market research, target markets, strategic positioning, and execution of their marketing tactics followed by questions from the Pearson judge panel.

The case competition experience challenged students to use their strategic thinking skills, apply their skills to a hypothetical situation, and give them insight into the world of marketing.

The top ten finalists presented as if they represented top agencies and were pitching to a client. After a full day of presentations, judges found it was difficult to rank the top chapters because of the thoroughness of analysis and professionalism exhibited from all groups. The team from the British Columbia Institute of Technology took first place for their well developed plan and pristine presentation skills. Following in second place was University of Pennsylvania, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, and University of Wisconsin – Whitewater. In third place were Aurora University, Hofstra University, Portland State University, Southern Connecticut State University, Texas State University – San Marcos, and the University of Arizona.

Congratulations to all Case Competition top finalists, competitors, and conference attendees!

Increasing Student Retention in Online Courses

by Jennifer Golightly
April 24th, 2012

Increasing student retention in online courses involves a combination of strategies that can be deployed at both the institutional and the course levels. This article will present a few of these strategies with some research-based analysis of the ways in which each will contribute to student retention in the online classroom; the most important of these strategies include institutional recognition of the wide variety of factors that may have an impact on student retention in online programs as well as the importance of course design in order to maximize retention rates.

Research shows that course completion and program retention rates are “generally lower” in online courses than in face-to-face courses. In fact, more than 50% of nontraditional undergraduates will leave college without earning a degree after three years (National Center for Education Statistics 2002). Such a statistic is
important for understanding retention rates in online programs since these programs typically attract a larger number of non-traditional students, who may have a number of factors that work against their success. According to Rovai and Downey (2010), these factors include “varying degrees of mismatch between the difficulty of online courses and students’ academic preparation, family and peer influences, the high degree of self-directedness required for most online programs, the interaction of course design and cultural issues, the need to adapt to computer-mediated communication, economic factors, variability in the level of employee support, and time management and technology issues” (145).

Institutional Influence

Clearly, some of these factors are outside institutional or faculty control. It is hard for institutions or online instructors to mitigate economic factors, increase employee support, or aid in offsetting family and peer influences. However, others of these factors are within institutional and instructional control, and it’s these areas where institutions and instructors of online courses should focus. Following the guidelines laid out by the Middle States Commission for the support of students enrolled in online programs is one easy way for institutions to ensure that students begin the program with the tools they need to succeed and thus to increase the chances that retention rates will be higher. Providing up-front information to prospective students about the nature of online learning, for example, as well as assisting these prospective students with decisions about whether or not distance education will best meet their needs can increase the chances that both students and the program itself will succeed.

Perhaps even more important are orientation courses for students enrolled in online programs. Each online institution should have a comprehensive orientation that provides students with information on the entire program, including support services (such as registration, advising, information resources, and student services) as well as the structure of the program (degrees, certificates, and programs of study available, along with information about the deans, chancellors, or directors of each program) in addition to more basic information about online learning (what to expect, how to participate in an online course, and what the workload is like) and the learning management system used by the institution. Such information could be provided in a few ways, but the most effective, according to research, would be to put the information into the LMS so that students experience the system as they are being oriented. Video tutorials, audio messages, and other multimedia tools should be used to help students become familiar with the system while simultaneously gaining knowledge about the institution and the resources available to them.

Designing for Success

A high number of studies point to the importance of course design in aiding student retention and success. According to Fisher and Baird (2005), “due to the rapid expansion of distance learning programs educators need to re-evaluate traditional pedagogical strategies and find ways to integrate curriculum, technology, community, and learning in a manner which supports student motivation, self-regulation and retention in virtual learning environments” (89). According to Fisher and Baird, online instructors should be focused on “designing curriculum that fosters the creation of web-based learning communities and peer-support networks among online students” through the use of “social media and web-based collaborative assignments” as methods for ensuring “student learning, retention, and student assessment” (89). Courses providing community and collaborative learning, research shows, are at the base of successful online programs.

Fisher and Baird’s study is now five years old, and it joins a chorus of other studies recommending similar practices in online course building. Still, in the online courses offered by various higher education institutions, a huge gap between theory and practice emerges. Many courses offer minimal interaction between the instructor and the students, let alone between students. Content is limited to a reading assignment and an ungraded discussion (in which the instructor sometimes—though by no means always—participates) or a quiz each week. There is no encouragement of student collaboration or shared construction of knowledge, and content, if it is presented (often it is not), is presented in text only. It’s as though many online instructors believe that because they are not physically present to their students, they aren’t really teaching—just facilitating a self-paced course. Students are wholly isolated in such courses; they have few means of building knowledge through community, and they’re deprived of the ability to assess their own grasp of the material through interactions with their classmates. These courses also frequently deny students feedback from their instructors, doubling their sense of isolation. It’s little better than deciding to learn a new subject by reading a textbook and completing the self-checks at the end of each chapter. In such a situation, it’s easy to see how students might become frustrated and give up.

When it comes to enabling students to succeed, everything is connected. Course design that enhances student success and learning can’t take place without faculty training in such course design. Instructors in higher education receive very little formal pedagogical training as it is; they receive even less training—and sometimes none at all—in online pedagogy (Levine and Sun 2002). Such a lack of training and development opportunities produce the problems outlined above: poor course design, lack of communication, a sense of isolation in students, and online courses that simply don’t work well because they have not really been designed with an online-specific pedagogy in mind—the instructor has simply copied and pasted lectures and materials from on-ground courses they’ve taught into the online course shell. According to Shanley (2009), “research from interviews with faculty and from faculty observations, indicate a perception that teaching online involves giving little feedback, rarely being present and allowing students to largely fend for themselves” (15). The result is an increase in student withdrawal and failure rates. As Rovai and Downey suggest, “[p]oor faculty development can adversely influence online program quality, lead to student dissatisfaction and attrition, and adversely affect the school’s reputation and branding” (2010, 145). These are areas where institutions and instructors must work together to improve the quality of online offerings in their programs.

Finally, online instructors must focus on combining thoughtful and deliberate course design with pedagogical strategies designed to foster success their students. In the online course environment, it is simply not feasible for instructors to “teach” class once a week as they might do in the face-to-face environment. Participation in discussions, providing thoughtful and individual feedback on assignments and papers—these are components of instructing an online course as much as they are a face-to-face course. (Most on-ground instructors would never begin a discussion in their classroom and then leave the room, and doing the equivalent in an online course doesn’t make much more sense.)  Similarly, using the same assessment model that has been used in on-ground classrooms—that is, providing only a few major assignments, such as a midterm and a final paper—simply won’t work in the online classroom.  Offering students a number of smaller assignments accomplishes three things that can contribute to their overall success: first, it creates a spread of points, so they don’t fail the course because they perform poorly on tests and half of the course points were exam points. Second, a number of smaller assignments helps them to build confidence in their ability to complete the course successfully; they feel that they are making progress, and if they’re doing well on the smaller assignments, they have more confidence when the bigger ones come along. Third, a larger number of assignments provides instructors with valuable information about where specifically individual students encounter problems. If there are only two large papers assigned over the entire term, it will be much more difficult to tell whether the student has trouble with the concepts, with the application of the concepts, or simply with writing. If there are a number of assignments, some assessing each aspect—conceptual grasp, application of knowledge, and so on—the instructor will have a much clearer sense of the student’s strengths and weaknesses and can then work to provide that student with guidance that can help them achieve success.

Jennifer Golightly, Ph.D.

Academic Trainer & Consultant

Fisher, Mercedes, and Derek E. Baird. 2005. Online learning design that fosters

student support, self-regulation, and retention. Campus-Wide Information

Systems 22 (2): 88-107.

Levine, A., and Joseph Sun. 2002. Barriers to distance education. American Council

on Education Center for Policy Analysis.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. The condition of education 2002.

Washington, D.C.

Rovai, Alfred P., and James Downey. 2010. Why some distance education programs

fail while others succeed in a  global environment. Internet and Higher

Education 13: 141-147. www.sciencedirect.com.

Shanley, Kevin. 2009. Ten factors of student retention in online courses. Master’s

thesis, Utah State University.

Cite 2012

by admin
April 23rd, 2012

By Dr. Jeff Borden

“If I was going to design the perfect environment for a person not to learn, I would design a classroom,” explained Dr. John Medina, the cognitive scientist who knows the human brain as well as any person on the planet.  This was just one of the challenging, powerful, and motivating statements that really showcased the week we had in Orlando, Florida last week for the 13th annual Cite conference.

By most accounts it was the best eLearning conference we have had in years, some saying it was the best ever!  While we could debate the merits of the week compared to past events, suffice it to say we had a fantastic time.  Three keynotes, one large group panel, a magnificent dinner event, and messages about personalized learning, real-world analytics for education, and automated grading using artificial intelligence were just some of the highlights.  We (literally) learned, we laughed, we cried, we collaborated – and so much more.

I think (hope) we got off to a strong start.  It’s hard to judge yourself, but from the reaction of the crowd our opening “iBand” was a creative enough beginning.  (Our iBand – Cognitive Dissonance – saw a Garage Band App for piano & guitar, Les Paul app for guitar, More Cowbell App for, well…cowbell, and Tambourine! – an app for…oh, you get it – played by the group, while I sang into the auto-tune / auto-harmony “Glee” app, did a decent job with our own version of the ultimate song!)

But the conference was off and running from there!  Dr. Mark Milliron really challenged education leadership in our first keynote, asking us to rethink education from the ground up.  From the ridiculous nature of the (century old) Carnegie Unit to education’s inability to be agile when it comes to data, research, or change, he motivated and inspired the audience.  It was the perfect way to begin tuning our paradigm for the week.

In the midst of challenging, engaging, and extremely informative sessions on the efficacy of social networking in education, the power of outcomes measurement, and mobile initiatives that are truly changing the landscape of learning, we had our next keynote.  Dr. Marilee Bresciani dared us to rethink assessment and (more importantly) proof of learning in education.  Speaking about balance in the classroom but yet serious accountability, she gave us some tools and tips for meaningful evaluation.

At the halfway point, after more brilliant sessions about creativity, effective hybrid classes, and the 9 Hallmarks accreditors are using to evaluate online programs, Dr. John Medina rolled over the audience like a thunder storm in July.  He battered old notions of what is “known” about learning.  He blew the whistle on how our memory actually works, dispelling myths and rumors throughout.  He gave meaningful thoughts about how to write a better book, how to design a better classroom, and how to improve retention of information for our students.  Along the way he was funny, engaging, powerful, demonstrative, and I have to say, one of the best professors a student could hope to have.

So, when Thursday evening’s take-off-your-tie-and-have-fun event came around, everyone seemed ready.  Our brains were oozing with ideas and information, brimming with inspiration and more informed questions than ever.  So, the salsa dancing, roll your own cigar bar, wood fired flat bread pizza line, and eLearning inspired cocktails were just the ticket.  My personal favorite moment was watching the caricaturist make take-home souvenirs from conference goers iPhone pictures of their kids.  Very cool!

By Friday morning, it was indeed a great time to wrap up.  The panel on real-world student services for online learning, complete with experts from Universities, Consulting groups, and Policy makers was a great lesson for everyone.  The mini TED-esque talks followed by meaningful Q&A was as inspiring as it was challenging.

So, when Adrian Sannier…(or should I say the Reverend?) stood up to deliver his final thoughts which would close the conference, it was cathartic for everyone.  Watching him tear up as he described a world where we actually and quite literally educated EVERY person on the planet who wanted it was beyond inspiring.  Seeing Adrian’s pride for his son, the YouTube guitar instructor, who was compared to none other than James Taylor, also a video guitar teacher (albeit a bit better known one), was impactful.  But coming together as a group of people who are not just trying, but succeeding in disrupting education…well, it is impossible to write down the words.

Thank you to everyone who made Cite such an amazing success this year.  As a person who goes to 30-40 conferences a year, it was an honor to be a part of something that just doesn’t happen very often – conference lightning in a bottle!  The marketing team who coordinated it did a brilliant job of putting together an agenda that was rich in content, high on engagement, and over the top with challenge.  If you didn’t make it, you should consider coming to Chicago next April.  Talk is already starting for Cite 2013 as a premier eLearning event for anyone who wants to change the world through education.

(Oh, and I already have something really cool planned for the opener…you don’t want to miss it.)

Were you there? We’d welcome your thoughts and feedback.

3 Ways Adaptive Learning Can Improve Remediation

by Knewton
March 22nd, 2012
College Readiness Today

Created by Knewton and Column Five Media

College preparedness is a hot topic today among teachers and education administrators. Its no wonder: one-third of today’s college students require remediation; of those students, about half will never receive a college degree. These statistics have serious ramifications for the future: students’ college and career readiness is an essential part of ensuring that America remains competitive in a changing global economy. Fortunately, the advent of technology such as continuous adaptive learning (a teaching method premised on the idea that the curriculum should adapt to each user) can help get students up to speed quickly. Prepared for the rigors of advanced work, students are more likely to flourish at the college level, complete their degrees, and find satisfying work after they graduate.

Here are just a few of the specific ways that adaptive learning can help produce these outcomes:

1. Adaptive learning can ensure that work is pitched at just the right level.

For many students, school work is both unpleasant and unproductive because the work is too difficult, the problems overwhelming. Thus the challenge is to assign work that gets the balance just right: too easy and there’s no satisfaction; too hard, and students will invest effort only to feel frustrated and lose focus. The key to helping students achieve a state of flow (a productive state of total mental immersion) is to escalate the difficulty of the work incrementally, so that students receive a constant stream of questions targeted at the precise level at which thinking and real engagement are likely to occur. Continuous adaptive learning can provide this by determining a student’s ability and “serving up” questions at just the right level.

Of course real life isn’t this simple–you don’t get a series of challenges perfectly calibrated to your level, so that every exertion leads to maximum satisfaction; the hope is, however, that adaptive technology can be harnessed so that students engage productively with schoolwork and are therefore better equipped to tackle “imperfect” challenges of the real world. Think of it this way: an adaptive learning system is like a superior mental work-out machine that leaves you ready to scale intellectual cliffs and undertake marathons of critical thought.

2. Adaptive learning can ensure that work is paced appropriately for each individual.

Many students fall behind because new concepts and knowledge are introduced at the wrong pace for them. An adaptive system can help educators discover the precise way that lectures, assessments, activities, and peer evaluation should be combined to produce maximum learning benefits for each individual. One student, for example, might learn best in the sciences if she absorbs a lecture, is tested on it immediately, and then engages in group work (see our post on Howard Gardner and Embracing Different Learning Styles). In English class, by contrast, that student might see the most gains if she engages in an activity, absorbs some instruction, then reinforces her understanding by evaluating someone else’s paper. Or for that student, the adaptive system might determine that it’s not the kind of classroom activity that matters but rather the kind of cognitive work she is doing. Maybe she needs rigorously analytical work (think logic games) before introspective creative work. Maybe her ideal “learning day” consists of math drills, history reading, then physics exercises.

The data generated by an adaptive system can also help determine the ideal amount of time each student should spend doing each type of activity. The system might discover, for example, that one student functions best if he learns in 20 minute spurts for 3 hours at a time with approximately 5 very short breaks thrown in, while another student works best in 1 hour segments with two 10-minute breaks built in. A truly adaptive system might even adjust as a student changes his habits over time.

3. Adaptive learning can enhance collaboration and community.

Isolation can exacerbate the challenges students experience in school. An adaptive system can improve student satisfaction and engagement by weaving a social component into remediation. For example, Knewton Math Readiness provides a dashboard that allows teachers to group students who are working on the same material together. Using the reporting features, teachers can also arrange peer review opportunities and form groups of students whose abilities complement each other. The possibilities are endless.

Study groups are an effective remediation tool because they address many student needs at once. Just as the best learning programs weave text, video, and diagrams together to appeal to students with different learning styles, successful group work often incorporates a variety of activities (paraphrasing, debating, drilling, and outlining being just a few examples) so that all students’ needs are met.

For more information on continuous adaptivity, check out this piece on modularity and embracing different learning styles.

Social Media and Student Engagement

by Hester Tinti-Kane
March 12th, 2012

This week, USA Today published an article and mentioned our 2011 research paper “Teaching, Learning and Sharing: How Today’s Higher Education Faculty Use Social Media”. The article – “Teachers Embrace Social Media in Class” – describes the divide in college faculty perspectives on social media. One side sees social media as a distraction negatively impacting student engagement (and mentions one institution who blocked access to social sites for a week) and the other sees social media as a tool to reach students where they are and focus them in on the learning process. Our survey includes responses from almost 2,000 college faculty about the usage of social media in class and the perceived value of social media sites for teaching and learning.

In 2011, 75% of survey respondents reported using social media in class and almost ½ of those individuals reported using more than just online video.

In 2011, college faculty shared which social media are most valuable to them in teaching, with online video as most valuable and Twitter as least valuable. Over 50% of those surveyed considered podcasts, YouTube and other online video sites as having “some value” or being “very valuable”.

The USA Today article brings a number of important topics to the surface. Is social media a barrier to student engagement? Can social media be used to effectively engage students in learning? How can college faculty meet the challenge of engaging students amongst the noise of today’s world? To find out some perspectives on this question, we ran a contest with our 2011 survey participants. I’ve embedded our winning video below – from Krista Jackman of the University of New Hampshire.

We will follow and contribute to this continuing discussion as we explore the role of teaching and learning in this era of continually evolving technology that impacts the daily lives of students across North America. For now I have some questions for you –

  1. Do you see social media as a distraction for your students?
  2. What strategies are best for engaging students and bringing focus back to learning?
  3. How do you feel about faculty using social media for teaching and learning?

Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Howard Gardner and Understanding Different Learning Styles

by Pearson Learning Solutions
February 29th, 2012

The average class size in the United States is over twenty students; which means that in every class, there exist students who exhibit their own unique style of learning.  When it comes to learning, as you know, one size does not fit all. Do you implement Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory in your classroom?

Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence

It was once believed that when you were born, you were a blank slate and could be taught to learn different things in a variety of ways. It wasn’t until 1983, when Howard Gardner’s book Frames Of Mind was published, that people began to accept the existence of seven distinct intelligence types.  Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory identifies seven distinct intelligences that come from students having different minds and therefore learning in unique ways. He has identified seven main intelligences, and explains that within each person lies a combination of learning styles, but theorizes that most students seem to favor one or more types over others.  Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences are: linguistic, logical, musical, bodily, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.

Classrooms that facilitate the theory of Multiple Intelligences are unique.  Teachers provide content in a variety of ways, allowing for students to determine which way of learning works best for them and to see how other children learn, adapting to other learning styles as they progress.

Let’s take a look at these intelligences and the types of students that may be found in your classroom.  Keep in mind, this list is not meant to be a “catch all” categorization under which all students fall.  Instead, think of it as a crude roadmap to the human brain.

Linguistic

As teachers, we wish that all students loved reading- however that is not the case. Linguistic learners display a strong interest in reading, writing, and communicating. You may find this type of learner glued to a book or notebook, or showing a strong interest in foreign languages.

Logical

Logic puzzles are a wonderful tool to incorporate in your classroom for the student who has an exceptional ability to reason and problem solve.  These students are often exemplary in mathematics-based subjects.

Musical

Musical intelligence, obviously, means a student has the ability to understand and express himself or herself through music.  You won’t have to try hard to find these students, as they may naturally gravitate toward band, choir, and other musical pursuits.  Their minds are stimulated by harmonious sound and rhythm (even that found in poetry), and that is something that can be harnessed in the classroom.

Bodily/Kinesthetic

What do the star athlete, the surgeon, and the dancer have in common? All three exhibit bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. They all prefer to, or are inclined to, use physicality to express their understanding.

Spatial

A daydreamer may simply be a student who exhibits spatial intelligence. They think in pictures and are able to visualize a problem, situation, or story, and less eager to express their understanding in the writing or verbally.  Try to harness this special kind of intelligence—students who are able to see the big picture can prove incredibly valuable as leaders, and in teamwork activities.

Interpersonal

Students with interpersonal intelligence are said to be “people-smart”, possessing the ability to communicate with others and understand their emotions. As a teacher, you have likely honed your interpersonal skills, as you are tasked with understanding a classroom full of students with unique emotions and needs.

Intrapersonal

The intrapersonal student may be perceived as an introvert, but probably has a good understanding of his or her own self, which is a valuable skill in and of itself.  This learner tends to be goal-oriented.

How to reach these students

With so many different learners, how is it possible to reach each student? As a teacher, you must accept that you are not going to reach every student in exactly the way that he or she needs.  What you can do is work to employ a variety of tactics and lesson tools in order to give students options. For example, in additional to a traditional assessment, you can provide an alternative assessment that allows them to build a portfolio or express their knowledge of the subject through a non-traditional format, such as a spoken exam.  To get started, assess your (and your students’) learning style at:

http://www.literacyworks.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html

Why personalize learning?

A personalized learning approach empowers students to want to take control of their education.  As providers of highly-customized learning solutions, we understand the importance of creating a learning environment in which all students have the opportunity to thrive.

Check out these resources to learn more about Howard Gardner’s theory, and about implementing Multiple Intelligences in your classroom instruction:

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/mi/index.html

Join the conversation: How does your school cater to different learning styles? Are you currently using customized learning tools or innovative approaches?

Embracing Different Learning Styles: The Benefits of Modularity

by Knewton
February 28th, 2012


Much has been made in edtech circles of the possibility of powering digital learning content that embraces different learning styles. But before any learning program can adapt to a user’s learning style, preferences, and activity on the system, it must be modular—that is, broken into chunks, the smaller the better–that can be recombined into courses that are personalized for individual needs. The more modular a course is, the more paths there are through the content, and the better it can adapt to each user.

What’s more, modularized learning content allows for consistent feedback and reinforcement and lends itself naturally to gamification (the use of game elements in non-game contexts) which can be a powerful force for engagement. Even if you’re an educator who doesn’t have modularized learning content, you can start thinking about the benefits of modularity now and begin working with course designers and software engineers to explore the potential of your digital library.

1. The more modular the course, the more precisely it can adapt to individual needs.

Since academic concepts can be tagged at the atomic level, corresponding academic work and assessments can be divided into smaller and smaller components. A computerized system can capture student performance and activity on all these components and analyze this data continuously. The result? Courses of study that are highly adaptive and personalized.

2. The more flexible the course, the more precisely it can adapt to different learning styles.

Here are just a few tangible ways that an adaptive course can accommodate different learning styles:

Students differ in their preferences for breadth vs. depth. While one student might prefer a broad overview of a concept before a deep dive into any particular area, another might prefer to cover one concept thoroughly before moving on to the big picture–and still another student might learn best by moving back and forth between the big picture and the details within that framework.

While grasping new concepts, students also face difficulties that are unique to them. For instance, some may be struggling with math word problems because they do not understand grammar while others may be struggling because they don’t understand the mathematical concept at hand or simply because they aren’t familiar with fractions or decimals or scientific notation. The more adaptive the system, the more effective it is at discovering the exact nature of student frustrations and weaknesses–and providing the necessary material to help students overcome their challenges.

3. A modular course allows for improved feedback and reinforcement.

The more modular the course, the more opportunities for student assessment and the more opportunities to provide feedback.

The days of waiting and agonizing over a single, all-defining grade are over. Continuous feedback allows students to correct mistakes quickly, confirm their understanding on a consistent basis, and adjust rapidly for misunderstandings. This means that their work is ultimately more productive because there is less energy focused on the emotions surrounding success vs. failure, smart vs. dumb, and instead, more energy directed toward actual learning and actual improvement.

A highly modular course with many opportunities for feedback built in can bring student confidence and self-awareness to a new level. It can expand upon traditional feedback (“correct,” “incorrect,” “try again”) with more specific, action-oriented feedback (“watch the decimal point,” “remember the quadratic formula”) and even reinforcement questions that prompt a student to reflect on the problem-solving process, underscore the concept behind the solution, or describe the structure of some body of information. Even if a student happens to correctly guess an answer, he will not be able to complete the lesson without proving his grasp of the underlying concept. This increases the chance he will experience repeat success with a similar problem in the future.

4. Modularity allows for gamification.

Not only does modularity allow students to take their own path through learning content, it allows for the gamification of that content as well. What is a game after all but a system with hundreds or thousands of paths through the same content–and countless opportunities for players to demonstrate skill, make decisions, and reflect on action and feedback?

Gamification can imbue school work with the sense of “epic meaning” and “blissful productivity” traditionally associated with games. Just as games keep players hooked by providing quick, satisfying wins, modularized content provides students with a sense of tangible progress as they earn points and badges and ramp up to new levels. If students feel that all their efforts count and are moving them toward a meaningful goal, they are galvanized to invest more in their own learning. Gone will be the days when school lacks continuity from subject to subject and grade to grade.

Gamification can incentivize long-term commitment as well. By allowing students to unlock content over an extended period of time (much as a game might unveil different worlds successively) and encouraging students to engage in complex collaboration and skill synthesis (which games tend to do naturally), a modular course that is gamified can generate a sense of real excitement and suspense around learning.

What Higher Education Can Learn from Gaming

by Knewton
February 27th, 2012

Gamification–the use of game design elements in non-game contexts–is one of the most powerful trends in education today. It’s easy to see why: with components like levels, points, and badges and many opportunities for collaboration and skill synthesis, games encourage a sense of ownership and investment in the game world. What’s more, games escalate the difficulty of work at just the right pace for each player and tend to release knowledge in a continuous way that keeps players fully engaged.

All of this makes for an extremely productive environment–one that schools could stand to learn a few things from. According to Joey Lee and Jessica Hammer at Columbia Teachers College, “the default environment of school often results in undesirable outcomes such as disengagement, cheating, learned helplessness, and dropping out.” For a variety of reasons, 1.2 million students fail to graduate from high school every year, and of those who do begin postsecondary education, only 56% nationwide receive a degree within six years.

Infographic: The Gamification of Education

How can games figure into the solution to this problem? Games, according to MIT’s Education Arcade, encourage “persistence, risk-taking, attention to detail, and “problem solving”–all “behaviors that ideally would be regularly demonstrated in school.” In other words, gamification can encourage productive behavior in students by imbuing learning content with the sense of meaning, excitement, and community traditionally associated with games.

When an educational game is compelling, all the components interact so smoothly it’s difficult to see how they were put together. Like any work of art, a game that works almost seems to defy analysis. To really get at the heart of gamification, it’s helpful to think about game creation from a step-by-step design perspective. Even if you’re not planning to design your own educational game, you can incorporate some of these principles into your own classroom or course materials.

Along the way, I’ll also tell you about our own experience here at Knewton designing a math readiness course inspired by the principles of gamification.

Step 1: Align game goals with cognitive work.
It may seem obvious, but a good educational game should be educational — that is, success or progress in the game should be aligned with productive mental work. To score points, move on to higher levels, acquire badges, or gain status, players should be required to solve puzzles, demonstrate mastery of some skill, or better yet, demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of relationships between different parts of a system. Why are systems so important? Because no matter what the subject (whether it’s English, math, or science), mastery depends on understanding how details fit into the whole.

In the course of playing a good educational game, students should grasp, for instance, that an increase in taxes may upset certain fictional constituents but increase the amount available to spend on city infrastructure — or that a decrease in the number of wolves in a wildlife reserve will lead to an explosion of rodents and an imbalance in the ecosystem. In other words, it isn’t enough that the game be about something educational — the Civil War, the Renaissance, or the digestive system. In the pursuit of game goals, students should be encouraged to assess the relationship between action and feedback, and this sort of analysis should facilitate a systemic understanding of information.

Step 2: Make your game adaptive.
A game wouldn’t be that much fun if the outcome of the game didn’t vary depending on the decisions you made.The Oregon Trail, for example, would hardly be compelling if it didn’t matter whether you had more doctors than farmers on board, or began with 50 or 30 pounds of food. Part of what makes the game entertaining is that players get to observe what happens if they tinker with the variables. Not only is this fun (because you get to make decisions), but it also encourages systemic thinking, which is at the heart of productive cognitive work.

This step of the game-building process may be the most challenging. After you’ve sketched out a rough vision of the game world as a “system,” you need to develop hundreds if not thousands (or more) of potential paths for players. You can achieve this by building in many opportunities for players to demonstrate skill, make decisions, and reflect on the relationship between action and feedback.

A useful approach is to think about your game as an adaptive system. At Knewton, we thought a lot about the kind of specificity described above when designing our college readiness course to yield personalized learning paths for each individual. Our adaptive learning system responds continuously to thousands of data points on performance, activity, preferences, and learning style. Not only does this ensure that problems are pitched at just the right level, it also enhances the connection students feel to their progress and work in the system.

So remember: when you’re designing your game, engineer it so that each player encounters a stream of challenges that are perfectly calibrated to suit his or her level. If the game is too easy or hard, players are likely to get bored or confused and put the game down.

Step 3: Build in opportunities for suspense, conflict, and complication.
A story without complications is hardly a story at all. Take The Great Gatsby. The plot is simple (poor man wants to gain the heart of rich girl) but what makes it an engaging story are the complications thrown in: whether or not Daisy truly loved Gatsby, Gatsby’s illegal activities, Daisy’s abusive husband and his relationship with a mistress.

In a story, complications tend to stem from character and from the idiosyncrasies of the environment (a storm or a war, for instance). In a game, complications can stem from these and other factors. After all, a game is much more than a workbook or problem set come to life; it should also generate suspense through unpredictable situations. The game may do this by throwing you a curveball (inflicting a natural disaster upon your city, for example) or by randomizing outcomes (so that every time you visit the “king,” you don’t know whether you’ll get thrown in the dungeon or given a thousand pounds).

Complications are also generated through what educational gaming expert Kurt Squire terms “overlapping goals.” Games are much more challenging and interesting when there are multiple goals present to seduce players and divert their attention. In the Knewton Math Readiness course, we incorporate the gaming principle of “overlapping goals” by providing multiple arenas of academic work for students to enter at any given point, so they never feel stuck.

So remember: whether you’re an administrator or an educator, don’t overlook the importance of “story” elements like suspense, conflict, and complication when evaluating and designing course materials and bringing them to life.

Step 4: Make sure the game is simple in the right way.
As Squire notes in his book Video Games & Learning, games are often criticized by educators for being inaccurate or biased–that is, for leaving out certain perspectives or promoting a particular view of the world, whether it’s a Critical-Marxist orientation to power or a materialist theory of history. Even something we consider highly accurate, like an anatomical diagram of the human body in a biology textbook, for example, only shows one system at a time. Even diagrams that do show all the systems in one place are inherently simplified, since they do not show every blood vessel, tissue, or cell. And if they did, they would cease to be illustrative. As Squire argues, models, figures, and diagrams are useful in part because of what’s not there. Games are simplified for the same reason: so that the relationships between variables become apparent and so that after a certain amount of activity, players walk away having learned something.

Does this contradict Step #3? Not really.The key is to find the right balance of simplicity (for the sake of illustration) and complexity (for the sake of suspense-generating complication and conflict). Thinking of the game like a story might help. Reading a bare-bones outline of a story plot is hardly interesting. But pad a story with too much description and unnecessary action, and you bore and confuse the reader.

Step 5: Make the game satisfying by building in a sense of progression for each player.

The story metaphor cuts in other directions as well. Just as you would not introduce too many subplots at once in a novel, you should not confuse the players by providing so many goals and opportunities that they are unable to focus. As Squire suggests, you should consider unveiling certain parts of the game only after players hit specified triggers: “A key [World of Warcraft] design decision may be not starting newbies in large, populated cities but instead waiting until they had experienced core game systems, such as combat, quests, and grouping, before lifting the veil and showing the game’s depth.” Not only does this design strategy focus the player’s attention, it also heightens suspense and investment in the game since players get more excited to enter a new world if it’s built up as a reward.

Inspired by these insights into player psychology, we designed the Knewton Math Readiness course so that students can unlock academic work in a satisfying way and experience a visceral sense of progress as they master skills. The process of “unlocking” something doesn’t have to be flashy or complicated, but there should be at least something that signifies the change, whether it’s a sound, an animation, or the accumulation of points and badges, to show students (or players) that they are making progress.

For additional resources on how to use gamified learning content in the classroom, check out the MIT Education Arcade paper, “Moving Learning Games Forward.”

CourseConnect for iPad: Learning on the Run

by Bill Zobrist
February 10th, 2012

Director, Online and Emerging Product Strategy

Early in 2010, I was thinking a lot about the forthcoming device that Apple was going to introduce that April later to become known as the iPad. There was a huge build-up of angst in the digerati on everything from rumored features to its use potential. No one even knew what to call it or how to classify the product with the three most popular potential categories being: slate, tablet and pad. Eventually, tablet won out. Everyone knew it was going to have a touch screen, but most were unsure of things like whether it would have a camera, or whether it was going to run iPhone’s iOS or big brother Mac OS. The build up was a marketer’s dream.

Since the world had been introduced to the phenomenally-successful iPhone (and iPod Touch) in June 2007, we had a lot to go on – or so we thought. Like so many other products, the iPhone was a thing of design beauty. Apple had once again made the killer consumer device that everyone had to have, or wished they could afford. The app world was off and running with Apple blazing the trail! For educators, the iPhone was the real beginning of mobile learning.

The iPhone put mobile learning on the map and in the palm of your hand. But the iPad was different. I remember thinking…it’s just going to be a big iPhone. How naïve I was. Yes, in some sense it is a big iPhone, but I failed to recognize how the form factor ultimately set in motion a paradigm shift in mobile learning. The screen size, the responsiveness, and the Apple ecosystem had just blown up online learning.

My colleague, Todd Hitchcock, and I wrote in the article Learning On The Run about this disruption. In summary, we believe tablets will transform learning across four key areas:

 Connectivity/Access While traditional online learning means being tethered to a computer, the mobile device truly provides for everywhere learning.

 Immediacy The speed at which the iPad and iPhone power on gives students the ability to jump into learning instantaneously.

 Learning Modality These devices are part of a new class and do bring a new array of tools that are effective for learning. Touch screens, location awareness, sensors, etc can all be utilized in challenge-based or experiential learning.

 Continuous Learning simply put, the rigid towers of education are tumbling down. Mobile devices foment the sea of change from traditional education to new forms of education that will take place largely outside of the ivory towers.

To those ends, we see the evolution of our CourseConnect™ e-learning product as an exercise in continuous innovation. Besides constantly improving the content and educational model, we need to make sure the learner using new and innovative device technologies can experience it.

CourseConnect™ had always only been accessible via a web browser on a traditional computer. Recently, the team enabled the ability for an iPad user to experience the Lesson Presentations at the heart of CourseConnect™ in an optimized presentation. Fully-interactive and beautifully-designed, it draws the learner into the personal learning experience for which we believe the iPad is so well-suited. Perhaps the most significant alignment to the four areas of change above is that of learning modality. The iPad, with its array of capabilities allows for learning in new ways using the GPS, the sensors, and the hundreds of thousands of apps. The iPad-optimized learning experience adds a new dimension to CourseConnect™ previously unavailable. The intense, personal experiences that the iPad allows for can only be viewed with dramatic positive outcomes for learners.

Join the conversation: What do you think about the iPad as a mobile learning tool?