Reframing the transient information effect using Predictive Processing / Active Inference theory clarifies why the effect happens, and why the strategies to minimise the effect work.
We see it in ourselves in the way we interact with both written and spoken word, of course. We're constant prognosticators. We fill in the blanks. We also reinvent wheels with stunning regularity.
Thinking in terms of predictive processing seems to support more classical forms of "I do, we do, you do" such as using a well-wrought, clear problem-solution set from a math teacher to explicitly and visually lead a long set of practice problems with an very high degree of similarity and explicit steps. Working one problem and assigning an exit ticket is not sufficient. Ten, or thirty, would be better.
Old-school copywork is another method that provides immediate feedback and high-quality course correction considered relative to the wider language aspects of predictive processing. As it stands, we tend to ask for context to be applied by students where there is little or none, relatively speaking. We ask them to fill in the blanks out of thin air. Ex nihilo nihil fit, however.
This article provides much food for thought. Thank you.
Yes but... familiarity breeds less effective learning.... ( you need a desirable level of surprise for learning to happen!) I think its best to do the exposition (surprise), supported rehersal, then a few problems that do map out the bounds of the context... but not lots of similar practice.... a few problems to get the generative model tagged as salient for longer term retention, then switch to other material... then timed later ( that lesson, that day) revisit to reenforce salience, then build into the spaced retrieval. Ten problems max I would say maybe less, certainly not 30. Its worth looking at the structure of a full scripted Engleman-designed Direct Instruction lesson / program of lessons to see effective well designed instruction. Each 25-45 min lesson has 7-8 sections, only one of which would be new content.
It could be that my prior learning means that this doesn’t sit comfortably with me, as after 2/3 reads I don’t feel I have enough prior learning to judge the full efficacy of this proposition. I appreciate the intellect within the writing. If not the this is better than that premise. Which feels unnecessarily reductive.As a teacher here I read of abstracts, concepts but not practice, classroom commitment to learning and the development of connections. Where is the example that might help this embed itself in memory to have a road to follow to deploy predictive questioning? I see stacked up techniques but not road to drive down.Teachers love to share. Desire to inspire. But this abstraction as to which theory is better? Is that our Hippocratic Oath? Where’s the learning for a classroom teacher there? Where’s the example of this happening inside a classroom in a way that’s graspable for understanding.For practical application? So I worry that this is not talking to teachers but at them. Not talking with teachers but for them. Tell me why this matters for those of us walking through the door into classrooms next week? To breathe and grow learning needs challenge. Happy to know more.
We see it in ourselves in the way we interact with both written and spoken word, of course. We're constant prognosticators. We fill in the blanks. We also reinvent wheels with stunning regularity.
Thinking in terms of predictive processing seems to support more classical forms of "I do, we do, you do" such as using a well-wrought, clear problem-solution set from a math teacher to explicitly and visually lead a long set of practice problems with an very high degree of similarity and explicit steps. Working one problem and assigning an exit ticket is not sufficient. Ten, or thirty, would be better.
Old-school copywork is another method that provides immediate feedback and high-quality course correction considered relative to the wider language aspects of predictive processing. As it stands, we tend to ask for context to be applied by students where there is little or none, relatively speaking. We ask them to fill in the blanks out of thin air. Ex nihilo nihil fit, however.
This article provides much food for thought. Thank you.
Yes but... familiarity breeds less effective learning.... ( you need a desirable level of surprise for learning to happen!) I think its best to do the exposition (surprise), supported rehersal, then a few problems that do map out the bounds of the context... but not lots of similar practice.... a few problems to get the generative model tagged as salient for longer term retention, then switch to other material... then timed later ( that lesson, that day) revisit to reenforce salience, then build into the spaced retrieval. Ten problems max I would say maybe less, certainly not 30. Its worth looking at the structure of a full scripted Engleman-designed Direct Instruction lesson / program of lessons to see effective well designed instruction. Each 25-45 min lesson has 7-8 sections, only one of which would be new content.
It could be that my prior learning means that this doesn’t sit comfortably with me, as after 2/3 reads I don’t feel I have enough prior learning to judge the full efficacy of this proposition. I appreciate the intellect within the writing. If not the this is better than that premise. Which feels unnecessarily reductive.As a teacher here I read of abstracts, concepts but not practice, classroom commitment to learning and the development of connections. Where is the example that might help this embed itself in memory to have a road to follow to deploy predictive questioning? I see stacked up techniques but not road to drive down.Teachers love to share. Desire to inspire. But this abstraction as to which theory is better? Is that our Hippocratic Oath? Where’s the learning for a classroom teacher there? Where’s the example of this happening inside a classroom in a way that’s graspable for understanding.For practical application? So I worry that this is not talking to teachers but at them. Not talking with teachers but for them. Tell me why this matters for those of us walking through the door into classrooms next week? To breathe and grow learning needs challenge. Happy to know more.
This is such an interesting article and really reflects the idea of the brain as a prediction organ.