Layering Book: Background and Boundary Conditions
Background and boundary conditions
I recognize that many of you have different interests. I want to make your use of this resource as efficient as I can. Some may be primarily interested in an explanation of how learners and educators/designers can add their own annotations, questions, and links on top of existing digital content. The Forward or what they have learned from other sources may be all they feel they need to motivate an exploration of the tools that make this possible. If you fall into this category, the descriptions of various tools and what each tool allows a user to add to existing content are provided in the chapters that follow and in my related online content. Go ahead, skip this chapter. You can always read this chapter later if you find you have an interest in a broader context.
Perhaps you would prefer to consider my justification and identification of some basics first. I would argue that basic insights should generalize across many online and device-based services and tools and a general focus will provide the background to make use of tools not described here. I admit that I tend to approach things like a college professor and feel the need to offer a theoretical perspective and research support for the practices I recommend. We are trained to take this approach and I believe anyone offering others suggestions should have evidence that what they recommend works. I always want to see the data myself and then why not pass this on to others? The decision comes down to how much of this background needs to be shared. I will leave the decision to you. One nice thing about digital content is that there is very little additional cost to offering more in comparison to less. Continue reading if you are interested in my context for layering for learning. Skip to the next chapter if you are ready to get started learning about specific layering services. I will make this a “choose your own adventure” book.
Theoretical orientation
Whether we can explain our theoretical orientations or not, as educators we base our decisions on some core personally endorsed models of learning and teaching. These models inform how we believe others learn and how we can influence learning through teaching. I will provide a brief description of my theoretical orientation and a little more on the research base for the tactics this ebook recommends.
My perspective can be described as cognitive at the microlevel and social constructivism at the macro level (see Grabe and Grabe, 2018, for a much more involved description). By the way, I will provide a full reference section as the final chapter in this book. Somewhere in your undergraduate coursework, I assume you have encountered these models. By microlevel, I mean the moment by moment processes involved in thinking and learning. Certain issues must be understood at this level. For example, working memory capacity and activation of existing knowledge are important ideas I would describe as microlevel concepts. I will return to explain a few microlevel concepts at a later point.
By macrolevel, I refer to a higher or more general level way of explaining important processes in thinking and learning. In other words, the macro level ignores the specific details of how things happen cognitively, but this level can provide general guidelines that can be used to propose teaching and learning practices. As I said, I believe that social constructivism offers educators many useful insights. A simple way to think about constructivism would be to suggest that each individual generates personal understanding by using what they already know to process new experiences. The new experiences could be the events we experience in daily life or the experiences more purposefully provided through formal education (books, discussions, presentations, etc.). Social constructivism suggests that the learning of others can be influenced through social experiences. While learning is accomplished by each individual, the interactions with others serve as inputs to these thinking and learning processes. Such interactions may occur face to face as happens in classrooms or via some external mechanism such as reading a book or online sources such as social media.
The work of educators and instructional designers might be thought of as efforts to influence the processes of learning in students. There are no guarantees, but educators and designers can influence learning through the content provided and the tasks assigned. This may seem obvious and not particularly novel to educators, but the selection of resources and the recommendation of activities to influence the individual processing of these resources are very demanding tasks. Not all content will be motivating or be a resource an individual is capable of processing. The same is the case with the recommendation of activities. Depending on how the learners might try to engage new experiences on their own, recommended activities could facilitate or impede learning. Activities could be helpful or beyond the capabilities of some and busy work for others.
It is essential not to ignore self-directing learning. I constantly indicate that all learning is done by the learner. This is obvious when you think about it. Even in classrooms, students take final responsibility for the activities of learning. Educators can only encourage, direct, and recommend. Self-directed learning implies something a little different and also something quite relevant to layering topics. We learn throughout our lives whether for personal reasons or because continual upgrading is required for our work. In such circumstances, we must be self-starters in selecting content to feed our thinking and we select the tactics we apply in processing this content. Layering tools and tactics can be quite important as ways to engage processing tactics.
It is all primary source content to the learner. Some years ago I became familiar with the concept of a primary source. I was lucky to be working on a grant project that was focused on developing online content for K12 students and one area of concentration was state history. To that point, I had little interest in the study of history and had few personal experiences learning history. One of the areas we ended up emphasizing in our project was what practitioners call the historian’s craft. If you have never heard this term conduct an online search for this phrase. It has a formal meaning and college students with history majors may even take a course entitled the historian’s craft.
The idea of the historian’s craft, as I understand it, is that historians take primary sources — diary accounts, maps, images, interviews — and consider these sources in an objective and rigorous way. The methods of consideration are taught and learned. From the observations based on scrutiny of these primary sources and the existing knowledge of the historian, a historical account (the secondary source) is created. The secondary source might be a written artifact or a presentation. Our project was focused on the nature of the historian’s craft and how it might be applied by students — how to observe in an objective way, how to record these observations, and how to create a product integrating several related observations.
In thinking about this process, it occurred to me that the concept of a primary source was not unique to historians. Historians have data sources and research methods that can be identified just like we identify the data sources and methods of scientists. As an educational researcher, I conducted research and collected data from this research. I always read and interpreted research related to my research interests. By interpreting the data generated by my research in combination with my interpretation of other research studies, I would try to author and publish a research paper. I would try to do so in a way that was true to the intended meaning of the research I had read and to the methodology and data from my own research. I generated a secondary source from the primary sources I had considered.
As an author, I have been in another situation that takes this process one step further. I have consumed other books, research articles, and personal experiences to generate textbooks. I have tried to do so in a way that is objective. The book generated from my processing of the inputs (primary sources) might be considered a secondary source.
This brings me to a student who might read my textbook. To that student, the book is a primary source. That student could also read the original journal articles I cite, but whether the student does this or not, the book is an input that the student attempts to integrate and understand within the context of other learning experiences associated with a course and from personal experiences. In other words, whatever the inputs, the learner must process novel content to arrive at a personal understanding. It is all primary source content to the learner and to achieve meaningful learning the content must be treated in an objective way, integrated with what is already known, and shaped into personal understanding whether communicated to others or not.
I see this perspective as consistent with the theoretical position of social constructivism. A chemistry textbook might include elements to assist the learner and go beyond mere description of chemical phenomena, but the meaning as understood by the learner is what he or she constructs. The same could be said of the instructor adding content and explanation beyond that provided by the textbook. The content and the tactics to encourage thinking on the part of the learner are inputs to what the learner constructs.
Back to the historian’s craft. Historians learn this craft and in a formal educational setting are evaluated on their proficiency in applying it. They are provided experiences with different types of primary sources and are guided in making objective observations. They learn to build these observations into a model consistent with the objective data and to explain and test this model against other inputs. The model — the historical account — is not there until it is constructed. The skills to get from the primary sources to this model can be figured out from a great deal of experience, but the reason that fledgling historians likely take a course with a title such as “the historian’s craft” is that the skills can be modeled and explained by someone with greater experience and can be learned as a function of instruction in a far more efficient way than would result from floundering around without guidance. This is the type of instruction we are promoting here. The content we provide students is what I would label as primary sources. We also have the opportunity to teach and model the use of strategies for constructing personal understanding from such sources.
While what I am describing so far is a general perspective, our primary interest here is in online content. This book intends to consider how modeling and prompting can be layered on such content to both encourage learner understanding and to help learners develop the skills necessary to learn without this layer of assistance or to create this layer themselves as an aid to study or the processing and organization of information for personal projects.
So much for a general perspective. What follows a) explains concepts key to the perspective taken here, b) identifies specific examples of layering tools and tactics educators and learners can apply to existing online resources, and c) provides some research findings examining the effectiveness of these added experiences.
Key insights from the micro level
Working memory — Whatever is layered on whatever already exists adds to the workload of the learner. Specifically, the consideration of additional information or the completion of an additional task represents more to do. While the goal of this ebook is to explain how such additions can be helpful, it is essential to recognize that there are some situations in which additions can be damaging. One potential problem happens when multiple tasks must be accomplished simultaneously. The new combination may or may not be more than the learner can handle. Understanding ways to sequence cognitive tasks when possible is also an important skill in dealing with overload.
The Forward contains a good example of the problem of cognitive overload. A learner taking notes during a presentation is doing multiple things including trying to understand what is viewed and heard AND trying to record key ideas as notes. Most times most of us can do this without difficulty, but this is not always the case. There is a limit to our working memory capacity (think of this as what we can hold in our awareness for short periods) and whatever we try to do can break down when we try to do too much. The example of layering in the Forward provides an example in which the combination of understanding and note-taking overloads working memory. This combination is most problematic when the information is simply coming too fast or a topic is presented that we cannot understand in real-time. The solution provided by the technology tool was to turn what are normally simultaneous demands on learner working memory capacity (note taking while listening) into sequential demands (use the recorded audio at a later time to fill in the gaps in incomplete notes). The solution offered by the technology tool allows the learner to generate an efficient resource for studying (a complete set of notes) that would not have been possible when the learner had to take notes in real-time.
We will eventually explore the concept of a second brain. One function of external storage in a second brain is to take part of the load off our biological brain. The example of storing the audio from a lecture while taking notes provides some examples of cognitive offloading. A learner can think and take notes differently knowing that this secondary storage of the original content is available. Working memory can be applied in different ways. A notebook can be a second brain, but far more powerful tools can be provided with technology tools designed for external storage, processing, and retrieval. Layering tactics can link and provide the mechanisms for connecting new content, what a learner already knows with externally stored content as a learner builds and interacts with a second brain.
Don’t try to do too much sounds simple enough, but what too much is varies with the individual learner. To make things even more complicated, those learners most in need of support are already experiencing heavier cognitive demands. Struggling and higher cognitive demands mean pretty much the same thing. Trying to help by adding a learning strategy may do more harm than good if the “helpful” strategy completely overloads the learner. So there are multiple issues to consider and the ideal decision on what tactic to apply may vary from learner to learner.
Here is one thing to remember when you get to the description of specific learning services. Recognizing that you can show and hide layered elements can offer a way to control cognitive load. A variant of this exists in the note-taking and audio recording tool just described. One does not have to replay the audio when reviewing the notes. Access can be used when it would be helpful. There are multiple ways in which this on/off principle might be helpful. A layered resource offered to a group of learners will likely overload some and be unnecessary for others. In those situations where the use of layered capabilities is not required, communication with students to provide guidance will assist students in adjusting their approach to learning. Long term, relying on cognitive skills without external support is most commonly the goal so getting to the point certain layering tactics may not be necessary is a goal.
Activation of existing knowledge
The cognitive and constructivist theoretical perspectives both value the use of what learners already know to understand new experiences. This only happens when a learner thinks of (remembers) relevant existing knowledge when considering new experiences. Motivation, cognitive capacity, and learner strategy combine to determine if existing knowledge is activated and used in interpreting and processing new experiences. This condition for effective learning is highlighted here because the probability of activating existing knowledge can be increased by layering different kinds of prompts on information sources. For example, if I want you to understand the relevance of a general principle (e.g., overloading working memory), I can ask you to provide an example. In asking this question, I have encouraged you to use what you already know (life experiences) to bring meaning to a new concept. For overloading working memory, you might recognize that this concept explains distracted driving and discovering this connection makes what could have been vague quite concrete. By the way, you might not have generated this connection when reading the previous section of this book because of the focus on classroom learning, but I bet you now see the application. The point is that this connection was always possible (I assume you are familiar with the concern over distracted driving), but the existing knowledge may have not been brought to bear unless prompted.
Depth of Processing
The thinking (cognition) we engage in related to information we encounter can vary in what some researchers describe as depth and the depth of processing can be influenced by an external task (Craig & Lockhart, 1972). In a simple classroom experiment designed to demonstrate the consequences of levels of processing (Bugg, DeLosh & McDaniel, 2008), college students were shown PowerPoint slides containing a single word and simultaneously asked to answer a Yes or No question about each word. The questions were designed to influence how the word was processed: orthographic question (e.g., “Is it typed in capital letters?”); phonological orienting question (e.g., “Does it rhyme with ‘shock’?”); or a semantic question (e.g., “Does it fit in the sentence ‘The ___ was building a nest’?”). After the list and a short delay, the participants were surprised and asked to write down the words they could remember. There were significant differences in the probability of retention between the words associated with each question type with the question type requiring the processing of the words for meaning producing the highest likelihood of recall.
The notions that information we think about can be processed to different depths and the opportunity of using external tasks to influence how information is processed are both of great importance in an educational setting. In this classroom, the laboratory focus on how to influence the memory for single words is not usually of great interest, but the important insight is in recognizing the reality that simple exposure to information is not sufficient to assure deeper outcomes such as understanding and application. Such outcomes may occur or may not depending on the self controlled cognitive behaviors of each learner. However, the researchers did establish that different external tasks may influence this individual behavior in predictable and desirable ways. Our emphasis here is on recognizing and applying what some of these external tasks might involve. Here, these external tasks are encouraged through layering elements such as questions or comments such as “this concept is especially important” on information.
Depth of processing is potentially relevant to many different situations. One recent focus has been surfaced by studies that compare processing when content is provided by screen versus by paper (e.g., Delgado, et al., 2018). The results of these comparisons have been mixed, but when differences exist they have tended to favor reading from paper. Obviously, this issue should be considered in a resource such as this that proposes specific value-added applications of technology. One of several possible explanations has been shalllowing which proposes that after many experiences with reading content from a device for purposes such as texting or scrolling through our social media accounts, we often do not process lengthy text content to the same depth. The proposal is that the shallow processing approach transfers when encountering more lengthy sources. You may be more familiar with the term skimming as describing a similar phenomenon.
I am not certain what to say about the screen versus paper issue. I do think it important to acknowledge the concern that others have. To me, the methodology of the studies to this point have relied on one-shot comparisons of reading a single document and may not apply to extended use of one format or the other for learning tasks. While committed to the potential benefits of supplementing the learning processes with technology, understanding how learners actually respond will always be important and researchers have yet to really explore long-term applications. I think it obvious we all should learn the advantages and disadvantages of skimming versus deep reading and develop the insight and control (metacognition) allowing learners to select the most appropriate approach. Metacognition is considered in the next section. I would argue being flexible is the goal whether information appears on paper or a screen. The purpose of layering tactics is to increase engagement and again these tactics are likely more relevant in some situations than others.
Metacognition
Metacognition roughly translates as thinking about thinking. The processes of thinking and learning operate under our personal guidance. We plan, execute, and evaluate our thinking processes. Actually, this position is optimistic. Learners differ in their application of metacognitive skills. Whether because they have not developed these skills, are not motivated to optimize their learning efforts, or because they are overloaded by the struggle to execute other cognitive processes, many learners cannot function in an efficient and self-controlled manner. The result has always struck me as very unfair. Learners who struggle are also most likely to have little insight into what has gone wrong and when an adjustment of some type might be helpful. This has resulted in the fitting description “they don’t know what they don’t know”.
I like to use this personal example to explain what this situation can look like in the field. I spent a good part of my academic career teaching the introductory course in psychology. You might recognize the situation — hundreds of students listening to a lecturer and reading a giant textbook. It always seemed to me that we put the most inexperienced college students in the situation of being most responsible for their own learning. Inevitably, there were students who struggled with the content load and the vagueness of this learning environment.
Here is the type of interaction with the students who struggled that exemplify for me a common example of metacognitive failure. Students who were having difficulty sometimes approached me to seek advice. Often, in the course of our conservation, they would make a statement I assumed was intended to convince me they were already giving the course their best shot. They would say something like “I really tried to prepare for the last test. I read each chapter three times.” I appreciated that they certainly had spent a lot of time. I would not explain this to the students seeking help, but I would bet none of the students who received As on the exam had read the chapters three times. The more successful students understood the content during the first reading and when some section of one of the chapters was confusing they would simply reread that section or ask someone for help with the more difficult concepts. The more successful students were both better comprehenders and better metacomprehenders. They knew what they did not know and took action to efficiently address the few failures of comprehension that did occur.
What to do in such situations? Tutoring would help. A tutor could probe a student’s understanding, identify problem areas, and try to explain what had not been understood. In these interactions, the tutor would be substituting for the failed metacognition of the student. Large universities struggle with how to provide such assistance. Faculty members schedule office hours that the students most in need of assistance often avoid and offer other services to assist struggling students. However, the cost of such efforts quickly reaches practical limits. In addition, the separation of the initial study sessions and the tutoring experiences makes the process very inefficient. To be efficient and most effective, a learner needs to realize something has not been understood at the time failure occurred. This is when the context of what is being processed is active and when responding by something as simple as rereading a few paragraphs would be most efficient. This is a good way to think about the difference between the more and less successful students. Trying to deal with vague problems weeks later and probably the day before an exam tends not to work out as well.
So, how can the concept of layering address the metacognitive problems of the students I am trying to get you to recognize? One way to help a student to identify a failure of understanding is to ask them a question. Unfortunately, this is the situation students experience when taking examinations. They learn they do not understand specific things because they find they cannot answer individual questions at a time when it is too late. Of course, educators use questions in other ways and at times more useful for remediation. Many educational resources include questions at the end of chapters. Educators may distribute study guides. Still, there is a separation between the content and the probe for understanding. What if questions could be combined with content? This is what a tutor would do when teaching a topic directly. This technique, which researchers have called “interspersed questions or adjunct questions”, has been explored by researchers for years and can effectively encourage and direct learning.
If this idea makes sense to you, there are two challenges. First, little existing content exists that has been prepared in this format. Even if this were the case, the focus here is in the use of online “primary source” content and very little of this content has been prepared as a learning resource. Second, what the research on interspersed questions suggests is that many students skip these questions. Clearly, taking the time to answer these questions slows the learner down if the goal is to get through the material as quickly as possible. With paper-based material, researchers know such things because they do things like video their research participants. A teacher would not have the same data.
Technology tools available to teachers provide solutions. Questions can be layered on specific locations within online content and responses to these questions can be stored for teacher viewing. The teacher does not even have to carefully evaluate the response, but can scan just to see that students are making an effort to respond. There are ways to substitute for the metacognitive challenges of learners.
One more observation. Self-directed learners have no teacher or tutor to help. In a way layering tools and maybe now using an AI service as a tutor may offer an alternative.
Key insights from the macro level
Generative learning — Generative tactics are instructor or student-initiated activities intended to help the learner integrate new experiences with existing knowledge. Generative activities might be described as external tasks intended to influence internal, mental behavior. The intent of a generative tactic is exactly the type of thing the levels of processing research indicated to be important. The idea that activities can be requested of the learner at specific points during the learner’s effort to understand online resources is the basis for what I am describing as layering for learning. The generative activities identified here include familiar strategies such as questions, notes, and suggestions (individual strategies will be discussed in detail at a later point). What is more innovative is the use of technology to control when a specific strategy is applied and in some cases store the output for later use.
Scaffolding — Scaffolding is an important construct within social constructivism. Scaffolding implies a structure of support and the meaning here is similar. The goal is to ease the burden imposed by a complex task. Scaffolding can involve taking over certain components of a complex task to ease the demand on the learner or prompts and templates that remind, trigger, and organize important activities.
Scaffolding is intended to be a temporary state with the expectation that as learners become more skilled the external supports will be withdrawn and more independence expected of the learner. Note my earlier comment that elements layered on texts can be displayed or hidden. So, the teacher as guide could highlight key ideas, remind readers of the study of a previous relevant topic, or add a question to provide feedback on understanding. These elements can be displayed or hidden when added to digital content.
Exposure / Studying / Applying
I have a way of thinking about the facilitation that can be achieved through the use of technology tools that require a differentiation I find difficult to label in a convenient way. This differentiation has implications for understanding when a tool should be used or avoided, who (teacher, learner) would be most likely to be applying the tool, and whether the goal is to master a cognitive skill that can replace dependence on the tool or to master the technology tool for continued use.
From the perspective of a student, learning typically begins with an exposure experience. The learner reads something, watches something, or hears something. The something could be a book, a website, a video, a classroom presentation, a discussion, a hands-on learning task such as a laboratory experiment, or an unplanned life experience. Understanding may or may not result from this exposure and understanding may or may not result in the achievement of other educational goals such as retention or application. The tasks of reading, listening, etc., can be differentiated from tasks that follow and that might be described as studying. Often, studying relies on artifacts generated in real-time during exposure. For example, notes might be taken or a textbook highlighted and annotated. My point for your consideration is that technology might be involved in influencing cognitive processing during exposure or the generation of these artifacts to be used in studying. In some cases, studying may involve a return to the content experienced during exposure, but this secondary exposure hopefully allows cognitive functions that are different and more efficient than a repetition of the original exposure. Because studying is not time dependent in the same way that most examples of exposure are, different technology tools become more practical to use during studying. Or, the same tool (e.g., questions) might serve different functions during exposure and studying.
The goal of the technology tools I describe as relevant to exposure and studying are not always intended for lifelong use. However, for some layering tactics, we often continue to use layering tactics beyond our time in classrooms. You probably use some of these tactics, but may not describe what you still do as studying. You may highlight books you read or write notes in the margins. Perhaps you are searching for information you need for a job or for the accomplishment of some other life task. I will argue that layering skills have lifelong value, can be improved through instruction, and that the development of digital layering skills offers unique advantages. Note that study skills, information search and organization skills, and the digital means to implement such skills are often not the focus of our formal education. You may or may not have learned strategies for taking notes and you probably were forbidden to highlight a high school textbook. Yet, you may take notes to try to remember a gardening technique or highlight a Kindle book because you have found something you intend to use later. Guidance and suggestions for using such techniques exist and a focus on such “life skill” techniques is a relatively easy addition to the development of related techniques as applied to improving learning during exposure and study.
Just as a quick tease related to my focus on digital layering techniques and within this context why differentiating exposure, study, and skill development matters. Again, consider the present controversy concerning whether it is better to read from paper or the screen. It makes a difference whether the focus is on the exposure phase, the studying phase, or the development of life skills. There are clear advantages to digital data (e.g., highlights, notes) when working with a digital device rather than paper. Search, organization, and isolation are far easier with digital content when applied to large amounts of content. As a professional knowledge worker, I prefer to work with digital content so that the work I do can take advantage of digital layering tools. I no longer have a large stack of highlighted photocopied journal articles and multiple books with Post-it® notes of different colors inserted in key locations on my desk when I write. This same content is in my computer (actually stored in a way that I can access from multiple devices) in a digital format. It has been highlighted as it was read and I have added notes with personal thoughts and reminders. This original content and my additions can be searched and segments copied to generate an outline or at least a collection of ideas I intend to shape my writing. I have developed skills that make up a personal workflow based on trial and error, but having someone to teach the digital tools and related strategies would certainly have been helpful. Even knowing that reading paper books and journal articles might result in easier processing during exposure, I would not encourage young academics to build or borrow a personal paper collection. I would encourage teachers at any level to develop a similar approach to processing resources that inform their classroom practice. No matter the profession, there are life circumstances in which we all focus as knowledge workers. Learning to use some of the layering tools for “studying” available digital content could be considered the development of a useful life skill.
Boundary conditions
The theoretical background just outlined provides a focus, but many educational situations and teaching and learning activities would be consistent with this perspective. This ebook intents to get to specific classroom tactics so it makes sense to establish what might be described as boundary conditions. These limits should allow you to anticipate what you should understand and be able to implement after careful consideration of the content that follows. You will likely see other applications based on what you will learn and I see such extensions as a good thing, but I want to communicate how I am attempting to limit what is to be covered.
Two interrelated points of emphasis should allow me to communicate my intentions. These two emphases include:
◆ Online content much of which will be open source, and
◆ Teacher as instructional designer (designing for yourself would also fit here)
These emphases allow a contrast with an instructional focus relying on commercial instructional content. I will explain that the tools and tactics described can sometimes be applied to other categories of content, but this will not be the focus I will consider in depth.
The Internet offers access to what for all practical purposes is an unlimited source of information. Within this great body of content is some suitable for instructional purposes. These resources offer advantages and disadvantages to educators. On the positive side, the resources are typically free and representative of the resources many of us now use heavily for personal learning. The issue of cost is always important in education. Relevance in education is partially a matter of preparing learners for the situations they encounter outside of formal educational settings. Few of us rely on textbooks to address the constant demand for vocational adjustments and functioning in other life situations. This is why I also consider self-directed learners as an audience for this content.
On the negative side, few free online resources were designed as instructional resources for K-12 learners or anyone else for that matter. In fact, much accessible content is factually flawed and some even purposefully misleading. Learners are often lost in finding useful resources and unable to differentiate the quality material in the content they do access. Some argue that lateral reading (cross checking content with other sources) should be standard practice when content is to be used for an important purpose.
Both the potential and the limitations of online content establish the importance of teachers functioning as instructional designers. Once located, online content not intended for instruction needs to be adapted for inexperienced learners. This may present certain challenges for educators used to relying on commercial materials. Challenges may also exist for educators already making use of primary source content, but inexperienced in what can be done with online digital resources.
I want to raise one related issue that limits the suggestions I might imagine. The tactics proposed here are sensitive to copyright issues. The layering techniques I propose do not modify the content as created by someone else, but add elements of instruction on top of this content. This is why I decided to use the word layering. The basic material still comes from the server and includes any ads as intended by the author. I recognize that the inclusion of ads is a relevant issue to educators, but as a matter of personal ethics I do not propose the use of content without consent in ways not offered by the author. So, the boundary conditions I have in mind should be interpreted as defining a focus on online web pages and online videos as made available by individuals other than the classroom teacher. The role for the teacher here is to function as instructional designer and layer helpful components on these online resources.
The following chapters will focus on the specific tactics educators and learners can use to improve student processing of such resources.
Categorization of layering services
This chapter concludes with a category system explaining the types of services available for layering and identifies the category that will be emphasized here (Category 1 below). Each service is unique as a function of the tools the service makes available, the content a service can be used with, and the business model of the company offering the service. It is not practical for me to consider each individual service, but I have found it convenient to identify a category system I think educators should consider. In this section, I will identify these categories, define the basis on which I associate services with a category, and offer links to examples of that category.
Category 1 — two servers/independent content. My focus in the original edition of this book was focused on this category of content. Examples of this category involve a real-time combination of content from a source with added elements layered on this content from a second server. The combination is created when requested in contrast to a stored combination of a source modified in some way. I think the difference I am describing here is important as it addresses a copyright issue and what might be the concerns of the authors of the original content. The content creators may intend that their content contain ads or record hits associated with the original website as a source of income. Content that is captured in some way and then modified to be provided from a different server would not address these concerns. So, in this approach, a request to the server providing the layering service sends a request to the server providing the original content and then adds elements on this content before sending the composite to the learner. The original content creator is credited with hits on the original server and any compensation related to clicks on embedded ads. The layering service may be free or may require payment for the addition of layered elements and other capabilities. Examples of this type of service include: Hypothes.is, InsertLearning, Scrible.
Category 2 — One server, independent purchased content. This category of service provides the opportunity for layering elements and possibly collecting and using information generated by these layered elements making use of commercial content provided by an independent source. As the eventual user, you don’t purchase the original content because the layering service collects the money and then compensates the source. It would be possible to purchase the original content, but then not have access to layering capabilities. The examples I have in mind typically involve digital textbooks. Examples of these layering services include: Glose, Perusall, Kindle/Diigo. I list Kindle in combination with Diigo because many are familiar with Kindle books, but the highlighting and annotating capabilities of a Kindle book can be extended using the capability of Diigo to offload the layered content, organize this content using an outliner, and share this content with others. I actually use Readwise to review annotations and highlights I add to the Kindle books I read. There are benefits to Readwise that allow me to pass on this content to note storage and organization tools I use. More on these more complicated arrangements at a later point.
Category 3 — One company offering both a layering capability and content. In this example, a company that provides digital content and includes layering capabilities that can be used with this content. An example would be Newsela.
Category 4 — User can upload content to a service providing layering and collaboration capabilities. Examples include Google docs, Edji, Kami, PlayPosit.
The examples I list could in some cases be listed in multiple categories. For example, several examples allow users to add their own content that can then be accessed through the service. Examples are associated with a category based on a unique capability of that example consistent with the capabilities defining that category. For example, some services listed under Category 2 allow users to add content, but the services listed for this category also work with digital textbooks indirectly purchased from other publishing companies.
The content that follows describes examples for only the first category of this system. Examples of this category will allow you to explore without having to make a purchase. My focus is one describing how layering tools work and how they might be applied. Layering elements such as highlighting or questions can be applied for similar purposes whether applied to a digital book, a web page, or content generated by a teacher.