Thank you for watching. Comments are welcomed and encouraged - what do you think? I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those KZitem notifies me off. FEEDBACK: KEY COMMENTS:
@KathySierraVideo
6 ай бұрын
🙏thank-you for this. I was sooooo all-in on Cog Load for most of my work life, then made a radical change after a couple years tumbling down the Ecological Dynamics rabbit hole. I had to rewind and reframe the “success” of my educational materials, through a completely different lens. In my attempt to “reduce cog load”, I inadvertently created solutions that mapped perfectly to non-linear pedagogy. Sometimes our learning solutions end up working extremely well, but our narrative for WHY they “worked” was dead wrong 🤷🏼♀️
@ElmerJonMupas
6 ай бұрын
what would you recommend on how to learn maths using an ecological approach
@Danny.Hatcher
6 ай бұрын
That is great question! I am working on a video to discuss ecological dynamics but applying the constraints led approach or ecological design to math might be a video case study I do. There is no short answer here 😁
@ernststravoblofeld
6 ай бұрын
An awful lot of education theory is cloaked in the language of hard science despite being highly speculative. This leads you to demand a level of rigor that just isn't there. Some things will always be speculative, and their support will always be somewhat anecdotal. And that's fine. I just wish it came without physics envy.
@tedbelbin2735
7 күн бұрын
I think there is some misconceptions here. Theres alot said but I'll just mention a few. 1. The idea that we cannot see how long term memory is being accessed/altered/new info encoded, and that it cant be answered, that is not necessarily a con with CLT inherently but moreso an area needing further work on. To be fair, I havent see any other large tested theories that provide any such explanation. It seems a case to me, and correct me if wrong, that we are saying X cannot account for Y phenomenon (which is fringe) and therefore we ought to give it less credence - but almost nothing else does. CLT and many other theories imo probably need to be looked at as whether or not they are the most credible and most predictive theories we have right now. Ditching something simply because it doesnt fulfill everything is a perfectionist fallacy and problematic. 2.Swellers quote about withholding information for learning is indeed problematic - but only at the surface level because this is not really what sweller meant. I think Sweller did a poor job at explaining here, what he probably meant to say was that due to the expertise reversal effect - giving learners the adequate knowledge is needed upfront. Sweller at times could be clearer by explaining the effect he's referring to rather than trying to provide universal statements that appear untrue when prior knowledge levels are different. Its true that worked examples, curriculum spreading, etc. are examples of withholding information but again its the communication thats wrong here, because sweller isnt trying to simaultaneously say that going over a month of information in an hour is good, yet at the same time, breaking it up across days, worked examples, problem based learning is good. I think swellers quote is being taken out of context, interpreted to mean instantaneous delivery of information, is incorrect. Too much of his work suggests its poor communication. 3. "But it doesnt say how different it has to be for it to be new". Correct, the modelling is rather weak so far in CLT. There is still more work needed on the theory to match domains and adequately model phenomenon - thats more a statement of where the whole of CLT is, thats not to discredit it necessarily. Right now if you look at CLT related work you will see that the only real pattern is that researchers have a comparison group and just say well I think group 1 will do better than group2. Thats about it. Theres a real lack of bold prediction and modelling right now. You could argue that it will be a long time before this happens as theres alot of variance within the topic of prior knowledge in general. But again, most of the cog science hasnt got enough predictive power right now, again this is a bit of a perfectionist fallacy as simply all of cog science has this issue. Its not special to CLT. 4. The constructionist - generative learning comment. Ahhh no. This is just a big misinterpretation because your statement cannot reconcile studies where explicit instruction lead to far greater learning than constructivist methods. This is again a moment of taking things out of context, whether intentional or not. Also your description of generative learning activities is still bound by the limits of Working memory. Is generative learning/ Select-organize-integrate helpful? yes - Is it universally good always? no. This is where CLT does have some practicality as the growing body of CLT is helping us more understand when and why elements to things (and that is why sometimes mixed results in studies). There is alot of points here, and I think its good that you at least explain how its not a perfect theory yet. Theres still alot of future ground, but I would say that if people are able to keep up to date they will see in literature reviews, and landmark studies, they will come across the indications of future work needed and be able to draw their own conclusions about the state of CLT.
@Danny.Hatcher
5 күн бұрын
Thank you for this comment. Love it! A 'perfect' theory is impossible but I recognize you likely are suggesting there is room for improvement which was one of the aims of this video. By saying I think Sweller meant... and communication/interpretations of the theory are misrepresented/misunderstood bolsters my underlying argument that CLT is to vague and is overhyped. Cognitive psychology is an important field of study but the emphasis on this theory over other load theories in learning science seems overhyped to me. I will certainly keep thinking on this, especially as an ecological psychologist.
@tedbelbin2735
5 күн бұрын
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on some points. I don't think it's overhyped, but often misunderstood. I certainly don't think researchers are overhyping it. It is however true that people has lot some focus on attentional processes and things that interact with it for learning. On your point about ecological psychology, ultimately a cognitive mechanicistic level explanation will be required alongside any robust findings, and CLT offters that ability. It's important to understand that as sweller talks about working memory, he often is also talking about ltm. Alot of people may think CLT is solely about working memory in a silo whereas his developments and integration with other theories suggest otherwise. This is probably where alot of issues arise with the lay readers on the topic. more integration of ltm into CLT is only apparent if you follow the bulk of his research (as opposed to other researchers). I find that most people who get the introduction to CLT do not actually follow his research, rather they look only at the base proposition of CLT. In summary, i think its the surface knowledge approach that is often taken with CLT causes issues with it. The gaps/yet to researched areas of it exist because alot of researchers do not attempt to advance the theory of CLT, rather they use it as a supporting metric for their research aims.
@Linvael
6 ай бұрын
It apparently is not obvious that all those terms mean the same thing actually, or refer to the theory you present at all. For example in 2018 SonarSource company published a whitepaper and introduced into their tooling a "Cognitive Complexity" measure. From a distance it appears to be touching on the same notes, preferring lower complexity to make code better (so more readable for programmers, so easier to understand so easier to learn). But the paper itself makes 0 mentions to the cognitive load theory, it sets it's own goals as what it wants to achieve (measure how complex a piece of code is better than previous standard, Cyclomatic Complexity) and what they're doing to achieve that, zero proof required as they're defining their own terms and goals. And it is a very useful measure, code with it being lower does look better to me, but there is 0 theoretical foundation for why that's the case. Which in turn makes me wonder whether it really is overhyped as you say - how many of the hyped usages are referring to the underlying theory, and how many are just using it because it sounds good regardless of how much of it is based on a proper foundation. Cause if you ignore problems in the foundations you mention, as long as it leads people to the time tested conclusions it's not terrible.
@Danny.Hatcher
6 ай бұрын
Agreed my assumption is that those watching come from cognitive psychology and applying the theory to practice which is typically educators. Good point!
@aforabe1197
2 ай бұрын
The stories of Dina Sanichar and Genie Wiley, children who were either abandoned or horribly neglected and were not able to talk at the time of their discovery, are good examples of the influence of social and environmental factors on language acquisition.
@DavidTheFox
6 ай бұрын
How do you come up with video ideas/find these kinds of topics? I would like to know, because these kinds of topics really interest me. If you could let me know I would be very thankful.
@Danny.Hatcher
6 ай бұрын
I have researched educational science literature for almost 10 years so I would say, academic familiarity 😁
@borylesny
6 ай бұрын
We suspect when long term memory is used when we measure activity of brain in areas responsible for memmory. So it is not only in theory (that Chess GM use more memmory when plaing games than casual players). That being said when you start reading cognitive sience studies that actually measured thease things, it's gets blurry and uncertain, cause brain is not a computer with separated RAM CPU etc, and we still understand very little how it works.
@mynameisnotyours
6 ай бұрын
CLT has been co-opted by racial studies types to address the unaddressable racial gaps in certain demographics.
@pengowray
6 ай бұрын
Thanks for the vid. Very thought provoking. It's an interesting approach to look at cognitive load as a scientific theory as you have here, but I believe it's been popular not because of how well it models the human mind (which it no doubt attempts), but because it's a useful paradigm for educators to think about instruction, much like a recipe is useful even if it doesn't model the chemistry of the ingredients, or the idea of darkness as 'evil' is a useful paradigm to analyze Star Wars even though it doesn't hold true even within Star Wars. At some point instruction is an art. It is experienced subjectively by the learner much like a book or video game. It doesn't work like billiard balls or interacting photons. Even interpreting the cognitive load model requires some art. You can find specific counter examples to every rule of instruction design just as you can for every rule of novel writing or video game design, but that doesn't stop those rules or tropes being generally useful, even when they apparently contradict themselves or are not specific enough to be scientifically testable. Instructors can easily and intuitively see the benefit of reducing cognitive load for beginners. Unlike physics, when it comes to any biological system (including human instruction), finding specific examples of contradictions to general rules is expected and normal. To give but one example from your video, the fact that only some people need speech therapists for some aspects of speech production actually helps strengthen the "biological primary knowledge" theory (though I'm not a big fan of it being called that), and doesn't even slightly contradict it. It's exactly what you would expect for any biological trait. To say cognitive load theory is a myth is like saying a story doesn't need a protagonist, or that you can make ice-cream without milk, or that RNA doesn't need to encode DNA. You would be right in all those cases, but that doesn't change how well each of those strategies work the majority of the time. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
@Danny.Hatcher
6 ай бұрын
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@stefanguiton
6 ай бұрын
Great videos as always
@Genz335
5 ай бұрын
I didn’t understand many things what you just said ;therefore i am watching it twice 😢😅
@patconroy1874
6 ай бұрын
Oh, I start tuning out after 30 seconds. Explain that Poindexter.
@neelam0_0
6 ай бұрын
Dude, just a tip gotta work on your thumbnails. Not all of the guys you are pinning are not famous enough to be recognised with the staple aesthetic you have. No hate- just a recommendation
Пікірлер: 22