So, in this short video,
I'm going to give a brief summary of part, of only part,
of this paper, the ICAP Framework: Linking
Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes.
And again, this paper by Micky Chi.
So, ICAP; interactive, constructive, active, passive.
You know it's very important that you remember that.
Why don't you take a minute to retrieve that knowledge.
So, there are four levels obviously to this hypothetical hypothesis.
So, there are four levels to this framework of how people learn.
Let's go through them. Let's start at the last letter P for passive.
This is probably a passive lecture kind of experience,
but these are probably passive as well,
at least according to Micky.
So, if you're just reading a textbook and not doing anything else;
highlighting, summarizing, just reading it,
and I'm not even talking about falling asleep while you're reading it,
then this is what she would call a passive engagement
with the reading modality of learning.
Or maybe if you want to talk about video lecture,
not in person lectures.
So, if you're just sitting watching a video,
which well, okay, I already had to do some activity.
But anyway, if you weren't doing anything but watching it,
then all we would know for certain is that you were passively engaged with it,
because remember it's about overt observed behavior.
We can't know what's going on in the head,
all we can document is what we can observe the person doing.
And in all three of these examples, they're passive.
And we're not even talking about this,
but clearly there's probably not any learning happening in that passive setting.
Let's go to the next letter, active.
Maybe this looks like more of an active study.
Well, one of the things that we brought up in the previous thing is
that there's different sorts of modalities
of learning that people commonly think about.
And so, in the paper,
they particularly describe the ICAP framework
in each of these and I'm going to start breaking it down that way.
So, what is active lecturing?
Well, if you're in a learning environment where the teacher is speaking, if you,
instead of just passively sitting there,
are repeating or rehearsing what was said.
And again, this needs to be overt or active.
So, that means I guess the professor or teacher would need to stop and have you repeat or
rehearse what was just said or copying solution steps,
if that's something you're doing from the board,
or taking verbatim notes of exactly what it was the instructor said,
then these are active ways of engaging in the lecture environment.
What about reading a textbook or other kinds of reading.
If underlining or highlighting what is going on,
then that's at an engagement level at the active level.
Summarizing by copy-delete, which is
where you copy out a paragraph, you delete some words,
but you're not retyping them,
and you're not putting them in your own words,
then that's an active level of reading the textbook.
And finally, if we think about video lecture,
well, if you don't just watch it all the way through.
If you pause it,
maybe because you're in a difficult part or you replay it to go back and get something,
then we can at least say that we know that you are
active in your engagement with the video,
because that overt behavior would at least tell us that.
How about constructive?
So, constructive is where we really start getting into this idea, again,
that your brain needs to be
engaged and building muscle and that we're building things up.
So, let me ask you about a couple of things you
think might be constructive for various learning environments.
Well, let's see if your ideas agree with Micky's in the paper.
So, she describes that constructive learning could be
observed in a lecture environment where a professor or a teacher is speaking,
by as stopping, you have to assume and asking students to reflect out loud.
Because again, if it's the active behavior of the learner then by definition
the teacher needs to stop talking so that
people can engage in those actively hitter's or it would just be chaos.
So, asking people to reflect on what was just spoken about or quote learned out loud.
Asking people to stop and draw concept maps,
which you may or may not have heard of,
and potentially, different disciplines,
different fields, have different levels
of evidence about how valuable they are for learning.
But it's just a way to synthesize your understanding of relationships of concepts.
Or finally, they stop and have people ask questions,
then that's certainly a constructive behavior because to ask a question,
your brain has to like literally think like what is it that
I'm not sure about of all the terms that were just used?
And construct a sentence that you speak out loud or in some other way and ask a question.
What about textbooks?
So, to be constructing knowledge when you're reading a textbook,
we would say that you need to maybe could engage in a self explaining action.
So, that's often like where you read maybe a subsection
or a paragraph in your textbook covered up and say,
okay, so what was important in that paragraph was that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So, you're trying to self-explain the concept or the content yourselves.
The other thing you could be asked to do is sort of to integrate things across text.
So, you read this, you read that,
what are what are similarities?
How are they different?
Compare and contrast or in that sort of way.
And then finally, taking notes in your own words,
usually small things summarizing.
But again, it has to be your own words not copy-delete.
You have to synthesize.
And again, you have to construct those sentence.
So much like asking a question,
you have to construct the sentence yourself about what you've learned.
How about video lecture?
What's constructive in video lecture?
Well, if you stop the video or ask to stop your video and explain a concept in the video,
I think you won't have done that,
that would be constructing your knowledge or
comparing and contrasting to prior knowledge or other materials.
So, asking you about your prior knowledge of reading the textbook
and saying what isn't constructive activity around that, that could be it.
And finally, let me jump to not jump,
let's go up to interactive.
And again, the idea behind interactive is that it has to be between two entities,
that could be as we see in the top left around two peers interacting.
Okay, that's tend to be maybe how we would think about it in a really large lecture hall.
It could also be an interaction between a peer and an instructor or a teacher.
So, different levels of knowledge.
But that discussion between them can be interactive.
And finally, Micky states that,
they believe also that the interaction could be with a computer entity,
a program that helps to learn.
As long as it was actually interacting with the input given by the learner,
not just giving off static,
the same feedback that comes over.
And, it has to be like, why did you pick four?
Actually reacting to what the learner is saying to the computer.
So, the key thing here is that interactive needs to be between two entities.
And another key thing, although,
let me just say that in this particular paper,
Micky uses words that seem to indicate that this is maybe one of the least
understood or well-developed ideas or of definitions of all her different levels.
That the interactivity needs to be involved multiple turn
taking rounds and that probably those turn taking rounds,
like between the people talking need to be fairly frequent and short.
But, there's not a whole lot of specific research.
I think that right now we can say definitely addresses the,
how fast these short turns need to be and how many turns need to happen.
But, it's certainly a really complicated issue.
So, let's look at lecture again.
Interactive and lecture.
What if the professor or the instructor or the teacher stopped and
asked you to turn to your neighbor and defend and argue a position,
maybe again, with a partner or maybe in small groups?
That engages peers in
interacting with each other and constructing their knowledge collectively together.
We call the social construction.
In reading, maybe it's obviously going to have to be with a partner of
some asking and answering comprehension questions with a partner.
I think would probably imagine this happening between two peers.
We might be able to imagine a program that asks you a question and then
responds based on what you write in terms of
comprehension and allows you to ask the question and goes back and forth.
I don't actually know of one, but I could imagine it.
Finally, let's think about video lecture.
What would interactive with a video lecture be?
So, I think one of the key things here is, again,
were thinking about synchronous turn taking back and forth.
So, maybe you have to be watching the video together,
that could be debating with a peer about the justifications given for something in
a video lecture or discussing
similarities and differences that are brought up in that video lecture.
These are the two examples that are given in the paper.
I have to admit, these are harder for me to imagine
what that really looks like than maybe some of the other settings.
And I can perhaps imagine people sitting around same computer
or getting together a resume or some other video conferencing and doing it.
But that's often not how we imagine online learning works,
where one of the benefits of having the video online is supposedly
the ability to be able to work on it asynchronously at your own schedule.
But I think this is
a really important topic of discussion and maybe we'll talk more about it.
