"I'd love to kiss you, but I just washed my hair..."

When the tantalising Madge (Bette Davis)  toys with Marvin’s testosterone in The Cabin in the Cotton (1932)  there is a delicious mismatch between correlation and causation captured when Madge claims "I'd love to kiss you, but I just washed my hair..."

I know I cannot talk for the rest of you (and I know Marvin didn’t suspect a thing) but whilst I accept that “the kiss that didn’t happen” and “the just washed hair” are correlated,  there is something about the way Madge looks at Marvin (check it out and see if you agree ) that makes it hard for me to accept Madge’s claim for causality.

I just wish that other dubious claims of causality were as easily to reject.

For example

Engagement”, “authenticity” and “belonging” are correlates of learning.

But the widespread notion that enhancing student engagement, authenticity, or a sense of belonging will cause enhanced student learning outcomes is unfortunate.   Whilst these attributes may be correlated with enhanced learning they are not causal agents for enhanced learning outcomes.

“Engagement”, “authenticity” and “belonging” may all be important in their own right but they do not cause enhanced student learning outcomes.

Enhancing student “engagement”, “authenticity of task”, and or “belonging” does not cause improved student learning outcomes anymore than “just washed hair“ prevents you kissing someone you desire.

And I suspect that this confusion between correlation and causation is responsible for undermining the credibility of many of our e learning initiatives in school.

I'd prefer to argue that enhanced student learning outcomes are caused by students learning how to learn.

And how can students take control of this learning process and learn how to learn?  They could start by reading Stephen Downes on 7. "How to Learn”

When learning to learn students must take control over finding pattern and making connections.  This requires students to plan, monitor and evaluate their pattern finding activity.  They need to be flexible; and to make choices about what to do next.  It is through taking this control that students develop self efficacy. 

And this is what I reckon is critical in causing enhanced learning outcomes. When students set specific, proximal and hierarchical goals for themselves, they can select specific strategic methods to enhance their learning outcomes.  Then when students self evaluate they can compare their learning outcomes to their set goals, explaining the success or failure in terms of the learning strategies adopted.

If no goals have been set than students have to explain success of failure of their learning outcome through social comparisons with their peers, introducing notions of fixed ability. – “I’m no good at writing essays.”  "X is smarter than me." 

All of which helps me understand that disturbing research from the UK a few years ago - on the percentage of failing students who will fail next assessment against age - by the time you are 14 there is a 95% chance that a failing student will fail the next assignment compared to the 50% chance that a failing student will fail again when the student is 7 years old.

If we don't make the effort to teach kids to learn how to learn, it seems we risk teaching them to learn how to fail.

Can we use ICTs to enhance the conditions of value when students learn how to learn - when they plan, monitor and evaluate their pattern finding activities across unistructural, multistructural, relational and extended abstract learning outcomes? 

We certainly can …and we will do so so much better when we can see past all the "I'd love to kiss you, but I just washed my hair..." claims

Comments

[Dina]

Hello Artichoke,

Have to disagree firmly with your thesis here. Leading the pack of researchers who have positively correlated engagement with learning is psychologist Ed Deci at the University of Rochester, who has 25 years of peer-reviewed research on the topic. Here's his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-What-Understanding-Self-Motivation/dp/0140255265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200916637&sr=1-1

And his website: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/publications/pub_edu.html

And check out my post if you have time.
http://theline.edublogs.org/2007/12/19/self-determination-theory-for-dummies-part-one/

Thanks for your thought-provoking post.

[Bill Kerr]

hi arti,

Although there is good advice here from Steven and yourself I don't think we know enough about learning yet to be very clear of the distinction b/w correlation and causation. In the absence of a unified learning theory people will continue to cherry pick their favourites and for some engagement etc. will continue to be a favourite, constructionists will still want to build things, etc.

"Plan, monitor, evaluate ... strategic methods"? Is this causation or just more scientific sounding jargon for correlation?

Might be better to be more nitty gritty? When talking about learning talk about learning something and go into more detail about that particular something?

[Karyn Romeis]

Whatever its impact on learning (or on anything else for that matter) we should not be surprised at the drive to belong, to become part of something. It permeates almost all aspects of our society. And in every group: real, virtual, on- or off-line, there seems to be a pecking order - this, to my mind, epitomises the thymotic urge.

[Artichoke]

Hi Dina – thanks so much for the disagreement – and like you I prefer my disagreement to be firm rather than tentative

I thought the disagreement would come from a whole load of edubloggers claiming that they could never kiss anyone (however much the state of their desire) if they had just washed their hair - so your response was somewhat of a relief -

I will admit right away I remain un-swayed by your argument and your appeal to an expert – but I think what we are disagreeing over is the distinction between correlation and causality – warning - rush of scrambled thinking follows

We can claim that when we see kids with enhanced learning outcomes they seem usually highly engaged in learning but I’d be stunned to find any researcher who’d claim that enhanced engagement is necessary and sufficient for enhanced learning outcomes. Which is what we are saying when we claim that enhancing engagement will cause enhanced learning outcomes.

I agree that engagement may be correlated with learning – but then a whole raft of other stuff is correlated with learning (as measured by school test scores) it doesn’t mean that any of them cause learning (or high test scores)

I explored this thinking a little earlier in this post after reading Freakonomics but will paste the bit that is related in here.

The regression analysis of data from the US Department of Education Early Childhood Longitudinal Study ECLS – into “the academic progress of more than twenty thousand children from kindergarten through to fifth grade. The subjects were chosen from across the country to represent an accurate cross section of American schoolchildren.”
The study found eight ECLS factors that were correlated with school test scores (note correlation not causality) and eight factors that are not.
The eight factors that are correlated with school test scores:
• The child has highly educated parents.
• The child’s parents have high socioeconomic status
• The child’s mother was thirty or older at the time of the first child’s birth
• The child had low birthweight
• The child’s parents speak English at home
• The child is adopted
• The child’s parents are involved in the PTA
• The child has many books in his home
The eight factors that are not correlated with school test scores:
• The child’s family is intact
• The child’s parents recently moved into a better neighbourhood
• The child’s mother didn’t work between birth and kindergarten
• The child attended Head Start
• The child’s parents regularly take him to museums
• The child is regularly spanked
• The child frequently watches television
• The child’s parents read to him nearly every day.
Levitt and Dubner Freakonomics offer the following response to the regression analysis
To overgeneralise a bit, the first list describes things that parents are; the second things that parents do. Parents who are well educated, successful, and healthy tend to have children who test well in school; but it doesn’t seem to matter whether a child is trotted off to museums or spanked or sent to sent to Head start or frequently read to or plopped in front of the television.
For parents – and parenting experts – who are obsessed with child rearing technique, this may be sobering news. The reality is that technique looks to be highly overrated. (p161)

The ECLS data suggests another possibility – perhaps motivation, engagement and belonging and enhanced learning outcomes are simply coincident effects with a common cause - “Parents who are well educated, successful, and healthy” – and until you can totally preclude parental backgrounds (and a heap of other variables) from engagement studies you will never know

Or perhaps when you have learned something so well taht you can think about it at an extended abstract level - make generalisations - archetypes - it causes you to become highly engaged - now there's a claim - enhanced learning outcomes cause engagement

As you can tell correlation and causality is difficult territory – I think we oversimplify it

I guess to get close to determining causality you need to preclude the influence of many other factors – and my suspicion is that there is not enough of that sort of analysis – be it regression analysis or meta analysis available for any of us to claim that increasing student engagement is necessary and sufficient for enhancing student learning outcomes.

I am always happy to be persuaded otherwise - about Bette Davis's desire to kiss and student engagement

[Artichoke]

Re: And in every group: real, virtual, on- or off-line, there seems to be a pecking order - this, to my mind, epitomises the thymotic urge.

Thymotic is a new word for me Karyn – I had to look it up - and in the process stumbled upon this attempt to use the term All politics is thymotic

I like new words and new reads so thanks - my next challenge is to wriggle it into a conversation somewhere –

The biologist in me means I am more familiar with things like pecking orders ...and your comment meant I started to explore the connection between a thymotic urge and the reality of an established pecking order

In high school biology we usually attribute grouping behaviour in animals to one of two reasons

1. Animals occur together because they are attracted to each other and form a group

2. Animals may respond independently to the same stimuli forming an aggregation

What makes groups different from aggregations is that groups (be they herds, flocks, shoals) stay together as a result of responding to one another’s presence. (perhaps we can see a function for twittr as the grouping equivalent of the tail flash, urine spray or the “deep breathy roars of the howler monkey”

Groups in the animal world are usually described as being open (temporary membership) like those Bogong moths I met in Sydney or closed (stable membership).

Social hierarchies commonly develop in closed groups where the membership is stable enough for each individual to recognise other members.

And we mostly claim that the significance of an established hierarchy is the minimisation of conflict.

When groups get too large and individuals in the group struggle to recognise every other member – or the membership of the group becomes less stable, conflict occurs.

But given that evolution is individually based not group based you have to ask ..

What is the advantage to an individual under the influence of a thymotic urge to stay with the group?

Especially if, the individual with the thymotic urge is not the alpha male, and has no expectations of becoming one.

Is it because they imagine the group (or group think) offer more chance of recognition that testing themselves in the wilderness?

Thanks for the new thinking Karyn - I don't quite know what I make of it yet

[Karyn Romeis]

All your points make enormous sense, Arti, and I think some of your questions can be answered by the fact that people don't always stick with a particular group. The whole thing is quite organic and volatile. In my mind's eye, as clear as day, there is a picture of a chemcial reaction. We don't all stick with the same groups we had at school. As our needs change, so we may move from one group to another. Perhaps this is where your group/aggregation distinction comes in. (because I have insufficient knowledge to make the call as to which is which - and perhaps because some collections are a hybrid of both - I will simply refer to "groups" for the rest of this comment)

Sometimes, however, we demonstrate our evolution by sticking with a group out of choice, long after that group has ceased to meet the need that drove us to join it in the first place. We may also choose to remain loyal to a group we did not choose to join in the first place (such as family). I am far less dependent on my antecedent family group than my sister, for example, and I know that it pleases her to see herself as a more embedded member of that group. It pleases me to see myself as more self-reliant - although I am occasionally hurt by the "first refusals" that go to her as a result - but I do not consider that that group is any less precious to her than it is to me.

I am still in touch with several people who were at school with me, but the bonds between us are, in most cases, nowhere near as powerful as they once were. We have moved on and pivotal bonds have now become peripheral.

When we left South Africa, I left behind an aggregation of the dearest friends I have ever known and have, for nine years, been on the lookout for a similar aggregation to which to attach myself. I have yet to meet with success. This has left a loose end, which causes me discomfort.

But this is how it is. We are social for many reasons, and we draw affirmation from the sense of belonging thus engendered. We like to be a part of something that is greater than ourselves.

I can't see how the social/read-write/web 2.0 phenomenon could exist were this not the case.

[Artichoke]

Thanks for the feedback Bill,

Perhaps I would have been safer to focus on the language arts – have just cherry picked this from Wiggins and McTighe who do great thinking in the "understanding by design" area

Misconception: If the student offers an engaged and rich response to literature, he understands that work of literature.

This is a common misconception in language arts. Reader response becomes equated or confused with understanding of the text. For example, a student might have a thoughtful engaged , and fluent response to a text, but the teacher’s response might erroneously suggest that he also has provided a substantiated and subtle interpretation of the text. But some highly responsive and engaged readers get the meaning all wrong, wheras some seemingly detached or bored readers can penetrate to the core of the book’s most important ideas and meanings without being engaged by them. P60 "Understanding by Design" Wiggins and McTighe 1998

[Bill Kerr]

"Misconception: If the student offers an engaged and rich response to literature, he understands that work of literature ... some seemingly detached or bored readers can penetrate to the core of the book’s most important ideas and meanings without being engaged by them"

Someone may be engaged by literature in a general sense but be bored by a particular book. Their easy understanding and rejection of the boring book may in part arise from their superior understanding of literature in general, in part, brought about by their engagement.

All the words we deal with in learning are suitcase words with multiple meanings. The word "learning" itself has many meanings.

Engaged might be used to mean pleasure, curiosity, interest or concern".

People just don't learn so well unless they are interested.

[Artichoke]

I love the notion of "suitcase words" Bill ...and I agree that learning is a complicated example of a suitcase word

Is it possible that interest (and engagement per se) is/are a consequence of learning rather than learning a consequence of student/ personal interest?

I can think of many instances (personal and anecdotal evidence I know)where my interest has come after the event (where learning stuff I'd never have chosen to even begin to struggle with) has been the event that has catalysed my interest ... and I am beholden to the many educators in my past and present who have introduced and persevered with developing my understandings for topics that on their introduction left me completely indifferent

[Bill Kerr]

Enhancing student “engagement”, “authenticity of task”, and or “belonging” does not cause improved student learning outcomes anymore than “just washed hair“ prevents you kissing someone you desire

I query the connection b/w the 3 things - engagement and belonging being more "emotional" and “authenticity of task” being more "cognitive". If you understand a topic more deeply then you can teach the important things first - or setup a task which assists this. eg. I once wrote a logo program to teach quadratics and in writing it improved my own understanding of what was important about quadratics. My final program was fairly behaviourist but there was a constructionist underpinning in that I wrote and could modify the program based on student feedback. And the program engaged me, the teacher, as well. That's another point - developing authentic tasks keeps the teacher engaged and interested and thats important for student learning!

[Bill Kerr]

hi arti,

Attempting to clarify my previous comment a bit more. From my perspective attempting to clinical separate the cognitive (eg. pattern recognition reinforcement) from the emotional might be a mistake. Hence, I take perverse delight in pointing out that of the 3 things on your list (“engagement”, “authenticity of task”, and or “belonging”) at least one of them has a strong cognitive component. I would argue the need to climb the pyramid, not banish one side of it - the pyramid having both a cognitive and emotional base on different sides.

the guy says back to Bette: "Give me a platonic kiss then and I won't muss with your hair"

I'm just a frustrated script writer.

[Artichoke]

Thanks for all this new thinking Bill ... and thanks for the follow up blog post on Minsky

We are starting a new ict_pd cluster this year, the schools involved have chosen to base the new learning on environmental “sustainability”.
Means I am currently trying to unpack “What so worthy and requiring of understanding in Sustainability (The balance between human needs and those of the natural environment), and Kaitiakitanga (Managing the modern day environment based on a Maori world view and notions of guardianship, all life is connected, manu, tapu and mauri).
The mind map I have created of curriculum connections and classifications for Sustainability is so extensive that it is increasingly hard to read it on one screen. Sustainability is a little like one of those Russian matryoshka dolls, every time I determine something that is important to understand I realise that it also has important prior understandings inside.
It occurs to me that many of the “concepts” we expect students to grapple with are so complex, abstract and evolving that most students and their teachers struggle with a lack of the background facts and information necessary if they are even to begin to understand. And it helps me understand why the learning outcomes in these sort of concept curriculum topics often seem to limit themselves to a stream study or a project on reducing school litter– not unlike those environmental studies learning outcomes in the 1980’s.
Learning is an even bigger concept than sustainability – so thanks for adding in some extra connections to Artichoke - my mind map equivalent on Learning. I’ve put MInsky on my “What is worthy and requiring of understanding in Learning” list

[Tony Forster]

"Is it possible that interest (and engagement per se) is/are a consequence of learning rather than learning a consequence of student/ personal interest? I can think of many instances ... where my interest has come after the event"

Arti, have you set up a false dichotomy here? Engagement and learning are closely intertwined. In a lot of ways engagement is learning is engagement. Its less causation than isomorphism.

Call it play or fun or games, the idea that we are biologically preprogrammed to learn and to enjoy learning comes up time and again. So if we try to make school enjoyable aren't we actually trying to make a good learning environment.

"The will to learn is an intrinsic motive, one that finds both its source and its reward in its own exercise. The will to learn becomes a 'problem' only under specialized circumstances like those of a school, where a curriculum is set, students confined and a path fixed" (Bruner)

"Games are thus the most ancient and time-honored vehicle for education. They are the original educational technology, the natural one, having received the seal of approval of natural selection. We don't see mother lions lecturing cubs at the chalkboard; we don't see senior lions writing their memoirs for posterity. In light of this, the question, "Can games have educational value?" becomes absurd. It is not games but schools that are the newfangled notion, the untested fad, the violator of tradition. Game-playing is a vital educational function for any creature capable of learning."
Crawford, The Art of Computer Game Design
http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html

"play is traditionally viewed as applying only to young children. Play seems to be something you have to give up when you grow up" "the extensive research on play with children and adults in anthropology, psychology, and education indicates that play is an important mediator for learning and socialization throughout life" Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play

You point out that engagement may creep up on you. You haven't demonstrated that we shouldn't try to engage students, just that engagement does not have to be immediate.

[Tony Forster]

Arti
Do you write this blog because you enjoy it (engagement) or because you are learning. Did the engagement cause the learning or the learning cause the engagement?

I suspect it is a nonsense question, the engagement and the learning are indivisible.

[Artichoke]

Ooh I do hope I have Tony, I often contradict myself within the one post but the ability to blog create an argument where none exists is even better ...

I was attempting to argue that we often neglect learning (and learning outcomes) through an overemphasis on "engagement" in school - especially when we talk about the use of ICTs in classrooms. To argue that engagement is not enough ... is not necessary and sufficient for learning ...and I continue to believe that to be the case when I observe many of the ICT rich learning environments and initiatives going on in schools

....and from there the "false dichotomous lurch" to considering that perhaps engagement is not even necessary for learning to occur is easily made.

And I know this is only anecdotal but I do think I have learned heaps of things in life without ever being engaged ...without any apparent enjoyment ... before, during or after ...so I remain unsettled

The blog question is far easier to answer ... I blog because ...ahhh

[Rosemary Lopez]

I really do not get the connection with the kissing and the wet hair. I must ask my parents for the meaning of this. Maybe they have clear answers also.

[Hey Lindgren]

I agree with the writer of this blog. For the students to take control on their learning process is that they must 'learn how to learn'. In fact this 'learning how to learn' is the number 1 in the 4 pillars of education written by the International Cpmmission on Education for the 21st Century, chaired by Jacques Delors and published by UNESCO in 1996.

Learning to learn implies learning how to learn by developing one's concentration, memory skills and ability to think. This type of learning is concerned less with the acquisition of structured knowledge but more with the mastery of learning tools.