IMPLICIT MEMORY durable , resilient and robust

1. IMPLICIT MEMORYdurable, resilient and robust TriUne Research Experiment – mother document

2. THE BEGINNING • ApDijksterhuis en Malcolm Gladwel • Als 95 % onbewust, dan waarom de focus op bewust leren? • Maar hoe in praktijk toe te passen? Ofwel: leren we niet al lang impliciet? TriUne Research

3. Bedien de juiste systemen op de juiste manier • Leerproces: werkgeheugen • Niet overbelasten • Gebruik verschillende modi (Badelley 1997) • opslag van kennis en vaardigheid: ltmemorysystems • Declarative (episodic, semantic) • Non-declarative (procedural, priming, conditioning)

5. Victor Lamme: “De FMRI inzetten voor en na een training kan precies laten zien wat er veranderd is. Dat is nog eens een evaluatie!”Bron: Leren in Organisaties, februari 2010

6. Impliciet en expliciet Impliciet (niet-declaratief) geheugen • Procedureel • Priming • Klassiek conditioneren Expliciet (declaratief) geheugen • Episodisch (persoonlijk) • Semantisch (feiten kennis)

7. Learningconditionsforimplicitmemory

8. What is practicable? • Errorless • In sports (golf) • For patientswithdegradedmemory • Analogy (alsosimilarity and metaphor) • in sports (table tennis) • In motor skills (process management)

9. Demands of the realworld • It must work (or at leastbe a promisingtechnique) • It must fit intoexistingprocesses (training orworkprocesses)

10. Learningneeds Masterprocessesthatcomply to the followingrequirements: Time pressure (temporal proximity), complexity and magnitude of impact Example: Financial management processes Performance gaps: • Performance is insufficient , errrorsoccur, • timing is a problem (late response, late performance ) • risks are notperceived and dealt with, • knowledge is lacking

11. Whatworks? Explicitinstructionleavesusmostlywithdeficienciesdescribedabove Implicitinstruction serves the non-declarativeproceduralmemory : this is aboutaboutskills, not the technicalknowledge. Implicitinstruction serves the non-declarativeprimingmemory: this is about (deeprooted) reflexes.

12. Analogylearning 5 levels: • MEANING:Bite-sizelexical items (words, nouns, adjectives, etc) thatexhort readers to picture the words as symbolsforothermeanings • RHETORIC: Short phrases meeting retoricalneeds in particularcontexts. Activatefamiliarrhetorical-contextcategories. • HIGH LEVEL LABEL FOR PERCEPTIONS: A lexical item (‘safety net’) is effortlesslyevokedlablefor a situation in another context (protectionagainstpensioen-gat) • LARGE SCALE REMINDINGS: the perception at hand evocesvarious and differingsituations. • CREATE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS: a given scenario/perception is comparedwithconcoctedscenarios (if the situation at hand means x, could we asumethat y couldbeconceived as well?)

13. For the realworld – analogylearning • Analogies are common and subjects are often not aware of using them • It makes a difference whether subjects generate the analogy themselves or are provided with them • The facility to generate analogies based on structural features does not depend on the level of expertise in the field of the problem, but on the fact whether the analogy was produced ore merely received. • Ideally, both encoding and retrieval conditions must match for the successful analogical retrieval to occur. • both experts and novices are capable of generating true structural analogies if the circumstances permit. If the encoding and retrieval conditions highlight structural features, than both experts and novices can generate analogies based on structural features. To generate an analogy, people do not need the training that is needed for true expertise, but must be in a context that highlights structural relationships.

14. Criteria foreffectiveness • Durability: time elapsedbetween training and test • Resilience: response times • Robustness: performance under stress

15. Part II: the experiment

16. How does it fit? • Analogylearning: • Learningprocess 1: Prefabricatedanalogies: provide novices with expert analogies • Learningprocess 2: Selfconstructedanalogies / provide learnerswith a proces of creatinganalogies

17. Analogylearning Donnely and McDaniel 1993: • Metaphors and analogies are one of the centralways of leaping the epistemological gapbetweenoldknowledge and radicallynewknowledge • Connecting a familiar (source) concept to a new (target) concept, permits the learner to useinformationabout the source domain to make more informedspeculationsabout the target domain.

18. Analogylearning of scientificconcepts Warning: learningwithanalogiesenforces the ability to draw inferences, butitmayactuallybeharmful to mastery (cross over effect, seebelow). So, at the start of the intervention, one has to determinewhether the goal is ability to generateinferencesorliteralknowledge Secondly, one has to avoidsurface relations (source and target sharesuperficialsimilarity))

19. Cross over effect Inferentialknowledge Factualknowledge Analogy Literaltext

20. Example of literaltext Concept of a pulsar: A pulsar is a collapsing star. As the star collapses, it rotates steadily and it also emits a stream of radiation. The stream of radiation from the pulsar flows continuously. However, by virtue of the fact that collapsing stars rotate, the pulsar's stream of radiation appears to us here on Earth as though it was [sic] flashingintermittently. In this literal presentation, the focus is placed on a single domain of knowledge: pulsars. The statement describes concrete attributesaboutthat domain.

21. Exampleanalogytext A pulsar is a rotating, collapsing star that emits a stream of radiation. The radiation from a rotating pulsar acts like the light from a rotating lighthouse beacon. The pulsar's radiation (or beacon's light) streams continuously. But for us here on Earth (or for boats far at sea) we see only intermittent, pulsing flashes of pulsar radiation (or beacon light). Here, the concept of a pulsar is taught through its connection with a domain more familiar to most students: lighthouses.

22. In Gentner's (1983) view, processing an analogy requires that individuals perform a cognitive mapping between the dynamic relations, the so-called relational predicates, that are shared by the two domains. Some relevant predicates in our example are ROTATING and STREAM. These predicates are common to the two domains, so an understanding of the predicates in the source domain (lighthouse) permits the individual to appreciate the relations described in the target domain (pulsar). The notion of cognitive mapping implies that with analogy, one's cognitive resources are spent primarily at an abstract level, linking two seemingly unrelated domains. Ideally, the learner maps the commonalities from the source to the target and avoidssurface relations.

23. Learning benefit • The largest benefit willbefor novices in the particular domain of knowledge/skill (subjectswithlittle background in the general topic of instruction) • Therefore, analogicalrepresentationsmay serve anespeciallygoodintroductoryfunctionto learningnewconcepts.

24. The results indicate that the most appropriate representational form for conceptual learning depends on the learner's goal. If the goal is primarily to answer questions of fact, then analogical learning may be inappropriate. Yet, it is interesting that despite their poorer performance at answering basic level questions, subjects in this analogy condition were able to recall significantly more information about the concepts than subjects in the literal condition. Thus, the appropriateness of literal teaching under our instructional conditions (text, auditory, and visual graphic presentation combined) is relegated to a relatively narrow form of conceptual mastery, one having to do with verbatim recognition of presented material. Analogies, on the other hand, appear to be most appropriate when the goal of learning is meaningful understanding, understanding at a level that allows the learner to draw inferences beyond the stated facts.

25. analogy design • in textonly • in images • in animated video • Scenario 1: mappingof familiar (source) ontonewsituation (target) (source is providedbyexternal agent) • Scenarion 2: building a familiarsource (source is generatedbyparticipants)

26. Analogy design (2) • Takeuniversityor HBO textstexplainingspecific management concepts • For each concept, construct a didactictext in twoversions: literal and analog(Scenario 1: provide analogy, Scenario 2: have participantsgenerateanalogy) • Supplement Learning adjunct (seebelow) • Supplement the theanalogy (and the literaltext) withdynamic, visualpresentations of the concepts (cartoon videos) • Before entering the analoglearningcondition, describe the concept of analogy to the subjects • Test with multiple choicequestions • Test Durability, Resilience and Robustness

27. Analogy design: Learningadjuncts The analogy as suchmaynotgenerateinferentialskillto the level thatcanbeachievedthrough the help of a learning adjunct (such as elaborativeinterrogation). It is assumedthatthismayoccurifanalogies are providedbyanexternal agent. Externalyprovided, the analogymay • notalwaysbeconsistent with the learnersknowledge baseor, • maynotberichenoughto help the learner construct a betterunderstanding (mental model) of the toe belearned

28. Studyadjuncts: why? • Analogygeneratesinferential thinking • appropriatestudyadjunctscan support the inferential effect (in order to eliminate the loss of factualinformationabout the concepts to belearned) • The crux: the distinctionbetweenhigher order relational processing (analogy) and the processing of specificfactsallowsa priori specification of what kind of adjunctswillbeeffectively combine withanalogy.

29. Material-appropriateframework (MAP) • Suggestesthatfor a learning adjunct to beeffective, the type of processing evokedby the learning adjunct should complement the type of processing ancouragedby the textmaterialitself.

30. Studyadjuncts • Key word highlighting (increases (a little) factualknowledge) • Student-generated schematic • Trainer/experimenterprovided schematic • Elaborativeinterrogation Note: Schematics only support inferenceknowledge of analogylearners ONLY providedthat the schematics explicitly label the component parts and the behavior of each part.

31. Elaborativeinterrogation • requireslearners to explainwhyphenomenadescribed in the textoccur. • produces superior factuallearningbecauseitactivates relevant prior knowledge and fostersconnectionsbetweenthis prior knowledge and the newfacts. The activation of prior knowledge to help understandnew relations mightalsoaidinferencelearning

32. Elaborativeinterrogation Assumption: bygoingthroughelaborativeinterrogation, the learnerconstrcts a mental model of the situationdescribedby the text. That mental model helps the learner to go beyond the statedfacts. Therefore, the answermaybethatyou have to let learnersgeneratetheirownanalogy, guidedbyinterrogativeinterrogation (appliedjust as 'scafoldingbyscientistswho deal withunexpectedoutcomes (seeabove). Both (EI and Analogy) help to create mental models and both support inferential thinking.

33. Performance test • multiple choice, immedeatelyafterlearningsession • durability (whatremains?), • resilienceand (response time) • robustnesstest (stress) after2 weeks