Layering book: Generative Activities
Generative Tactics
I attribute the concept of generative processes to Merlin Wittrock (1989). As suggested in the previous chapter, the core idea of generative processes is that external tasks can stimulate the processing of new information and the integration of this new information with what is already known. Beyond this theoretical perspective, Wittrock was willing to identify some of the external tasks or events that would serve to stimulate these mental processes. From the original list, I have picked those tactics I feel can be implemented using the tools identified in the chapters that follow. These external stimuli include:
● Titles
● Headings
● Questions
● Summaries
● Main ideas
● Examples
● Pictures
Possible applications
In addition, Wittrock proposed that the educator/designer could not only provide these additions, but often could help the learner acquire the skill to generate these same additions without the help of someone else. So, for example, the designer could encourage processing by asking questions, but learners could also generate questions as personal study aids or to be used as cooperative learning experiences with peers. A new opportunity would be to have an AI service generate questions on a topic or target a designed source. Other researchers have used the original Wittrock theory or a similar perspective to identify tactics that would serve a similar generative role. For example, Rothkopf (1970) described the potential benefits of mathemagenic activities. Mathemagenic translates roughly as giving birth to knowledge and was used primarily to guide Rothkopf’s research on the benefits of questions (e.g., Rothkopf & Bisbicos,1967). Asking questions is likely a tool most educators use heavily.
Not all tactics now described as generative were listed by Wittrock (1989). The concept of a generative activity has provided a theoretical perspective used in evaluating other common learning strategies. By evaluating, I mean related research has attempted to establish when these external activities are useful and when they are not. Of specific relevance to the capabilities of the tools to be considered here are the activities of highlighting and note-taking. I am including note-taking (annotating) and highlighting because these popular tactics have been argued to have generative benefits and maybe not so obviously because so many layering services allow annotating and highlighting.
What follows is a more detailed and research-based analysis of several suggested generative activities that can be layered by designers and learners.
Text Signals
Some of the most basic generative tactics are embedded as part of the information content itself. Examples might include:
● Headings,
● Bolding, and
● References (e.g., recall from Chapter 1)
Such features are collectively described as organizational signals (Lorch & Lorch, 1995).
If it is not obvious how signals are generative, consider what they are intended to do and what would happen if these signals were not present. Such features are an addition on top of the basic content (layered) intended to direct attention. The hoped for response is that the reader will recognize the special role of the information (e.g., note that this is important, recognize this as a way to organize what follows) or will recognize a connection with something they already do know or will know (what you have read or will read in the content being considered) or what they may have encountered elsewhere (existing knowledge).
If you are not the author of content you assign, such simple and effective signals to guide processing are typically not available to you. The tools described in the following chapters (note my use here of an organizational signal — following chapters) allow others to add such signals to existing digital content. For example, as the teacher/designer, you can include a signal pointing out what the learner has encountered in another classroom experience.
Just ask: The flexible benefits of questions
The use of questions is my favorite example of an external way to encourage specific cognitive behavior. If you have read the preceding chapters you know this is the case. Convincing teachers to make use of questions is unnecessary and suggesting that questions can be framed to encourage specific cognitive behavior has a certain intuitive appeal once teachers think about what is required for students to generate an answer. If you want a learner to generate existing knowledge connections for a concept you have just described (e.g., xxxx), why not just ask? Can you give me an example of xxxx?
Even with the extensive experience teachers have questioning students, there are still some topics worth further exploration. My list includes the following:
● What are the ways in which questions can benefit learners?
● Does the type of question matter?
● Who can ask questions to encourage learning?
Questions can be used to influence the processing of information to improve understanding. The use of a question to connect existing knowledge with a new concept by asking for an example fits with this goal. A learner may or may not reflect on such connections without this prompt. Although the specific mechanisms of influence continue to be investigated, research demonstrating the value of questions in improving understanding (what is known immediately after reading) has existed for decades (Anderson & Biddle, 1967; Rothkopf & Billington, 1974; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967). Some research demonstrates that the benefits of questions vary with the placement (before, within, after content) and type of question (fact, inference, multiple choice, open-ended). A few additional details follow.
Questions can be used to establish expectations. Some textbooks take this approach and suggest at the beginning of a chapter that “when you finish reading you should be able to answer these questions”.
Questions can be used to check for understanding. This benefit relates to the problem of failed metacognition. It makes sense that experiencing the failure to answer a question suggests a lack of understanding and could trigger an effort to review or seek some form of assistance. Benefits of the improved recognition of failed understanding as a guide to efficient remediation have been demonstrated in multiple studies (e.g., Lin & Zabrucky, 1998; Walczyk & Hall, 1989).
You may have read that student comprehension when reading from a monitor does not match their comprehension level when reading from a paper resource. This is a concern when promoting the use of online content for learning. While the causes for this difference are still being worked out and this problem may result from the lack of long-term practice with reading from a monitor, it appears that poorer metacomprehension is part of the problem. Readers are less accurate in estimating their level of understanding when reading from a screen and tend to believe they understand better than is actually the case. They may skim and assume they are understanding. Without accurate insights into what is making sense and what is not, a reader cannot take efficient remedial actions such as the rereading of specific sections of text. The addition of test-like practice has been found to eliminate this difference (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Lauterman & Ackerman, 2014).
Questions can be used to improve retention. This benefit, sometimes described as testing effect or retrieval practice, implies that practice responding to questions improves long term retention. I like to translate this as “the more times you must pull information out of your memory, the easier recalling this information will become”. Researchers demonstrate this benefit in a convincing way by comparing groups of learners who either study for a certain amount of time or spend some portion of this same amount of time trying to answer questions. This outcome would likely surprise many and thus they would not invest their time in the most productive way. The assumption that completely self-directed study would be better than spending some of this flexible time answering questions is just not how it works out for learners randomly assigned to study methods. Making responding to questions part of studying improves retention (Greving & Richter, 2018; Pyc, Agarwal & Roediger, 2014; Rowland, 2014).
Researchers are developing more sophisticated insights into how retrieval practice should be applied. For example, even when a learner answers a practice question correctly, they should not drop it from their practice deck (using an old flash card way of understanding). The advantage in long term retention continues to improve the more times a question is answered correctly. These researchers used 5 times in their research. The metacognitive benefit is different from the impact of retrieval on retention (Badali, et al., 2023).
Here are a few additional findings you may find helpful. Questions placed before content improve the retention of information related to the questions, but have a negative effect on the retention of unrelated information. Questions experienced after the exposure to content have a more general, but weaker impact. Are there certain things you want to make certain students get? Higher-order questions (e.g., application, inference) have a stronger impact on later performance on both factual and higher-order questions than does initial exposure to factual questions only. Some studies demonstrate that open-ended questions are more beneficial than multiple-choice questions (Hamaker, 1986; Rowland, 2014) and this is especially the case when the goal is to improve retention (i.e., testing effect) (Greving & Richter, 2018).
One interesting research finding related to retrieval practice is that attempting to remember information does not have to be successful to benefit a learner. If you consider your own efforts to recall information you know you once learned, you might recognize how this would work. There is a benefit in the search as you consider what you can recall related to the specific information you are struggling to find. The activation of relevant existing knowledge is a general principle in generative learning. Look up the information you seek externally and now you have a possible connection to work with (Kornell & Vaughn, 2016).
If you are an educator reading this section, you might now understand that preparing and providing questions can be beneficial and immediately assume doing so is your responsibility. Certainly, you should be an important source of questions. However, depending on a teacher for guidance cannot be the ultimate goal. Obviously, if you are completely controlling your own learning, this is the case. Preparing students to ask questions of themselves and their peers allows for greater independence, more opportunities for learners, and works very well with the technology tools promoted here. Like designer-contributed questions, student-generated questions have received the attention of researchers for some time (e.g., Andre & Anderson, 1978; King, 1992).
Students may need some guidance when it comes to creating effective questions. Even educators may not appreciate the variety of question types that may be beneficial. For the benefit of students, I would re-emphasize the value of teacher modeling (externalization) in developing question asking skills. Take a short segment of content available to all. Suggest some questions you might ask. Request that students recommend questions they might ask with each other.
Question stems (e.g., King, 1992) and questioning templates (e.g., Graff & Birkenstein, 2014) offer another terrific resource for both students and teachers. If you are unfamiliar with the use of question stems, a quick Internet search should generate tens of sources for suggestions. Question stems serve as a form of scaffolding for question development.
If you are unfamiliar with the use of question stems, here are some examples:
● Do you agree or disagree with ………..? Support your answer.
● Give an example of ……….
● What is the difference between …… and ……
● How does …. effect …. ?
● How does …. tie in with what we learned when we discussed …?
If you wanted to try out the use of question stems, you might see if you can apply a couple of these stems to the content you have just read. Give an example of “teacher modeling of a complex cognitive skill”. What is the difference between “the results of questions asked before and after exposure to the content to be learned”? How does the testing effect tie in with what we learned when we discussed the linkages among items of information stored in long-term memory? How is it possible failing to answer a question can be helpful?
Prompts of this type can be used to scaffold very high-level cognitive skills. For example, a very important skill in using online resources is the capacity to examine in a critical way what a given resource proposes. We have moved far beyond being able to restate the core idea of a source now and are asking whether learners can determine whether what a source contends to be credible is personally acceptable and if a source fails such tests to explain why.
Questions and question stems can do more than directly reference the information in a source and focus the learning on how students are processing this information. Questions can prompt the learner to consider the various aspects of metacognition (Bannert & Reiman, 2012).
Students can be prompted to indicate:
● What do I already know about this topic? (Before or after skimming headings)
● Do I understand what I have read so far? What has been a challenge? (During)
● Can I explain what I have just read? What were the main points? (After)
So, there are specific ways to guide the use of questions that get learners (and teachers) started before they are comfortable with a process and encourage them to take action in ways that help them become more independent.
One more thing before I move on to consider other generative tactics. I have presented the benefits of questions in a very positive way. There is a caveat I must mention. The addition of questions to the content to be learned will not be beneficial unless students make use of the questions. Studies of voluntary use of such prompts reveal that compliance is variable (Narciss, Proske & Korndle, 2007; Tobias, 1989). My own research with college students on this topic demonstrates that those most in need of assistance are less likely to make voluntary use of questions that are provided. Higher achievers are easier to engage (Grabe, Flannery & Christopherson, 2008; Grimstad & Grabe, 2004). My conversations with teachers about these findings tend to be met with knowing nods. Of course, the completion of questions can be made a requirement. At a minimum, a mechanism allowing educators to check on learners from time to time would seem reasonable. Some of the layering services I recommend collect the responses students generate to layered questions and provide educators the opportunity to review and possibly grade these responses through what is commonly described as a dashboard. A dashboard offers a high level view and access to the various functions a service provides. In this case, such functions might include create class, assign students to class, assign tasks to class, access student responses to tasks.
I recognize that some learners will consider the use of questions as described to be unnecessary busy work. Given the intent of generative tactics is to encourage productive cognitive behaviors, requiring successful students to engage in external tasks might deserve this label. This could be one of those situations in which teachers should make decisions at the level of individual students. A mechanism providing teachers some information about student use of added prompts would allow the teachers to follow up with individual students and discuss how students are trying to study. You will find that some of the tools we describe provide this option. Layering can typically be turned on and off (are the additions present or not) so layering elements on content does not have to result in the same experience for all learners.
Highlighting and annotating
I am combining a discussion of highlighting and annotation tactics because the tactics share similar potential benefits. Both have the potential to offer generative benefits while processing new content and both have the potential to improve the efficiency of reviewing this content to improve retention and understanding (Kiewra, 1989; Kiewra, Benton, Kim, Risch & Christensen, 1995). Allow me a couple of disclaimers before I proceed. First, I used the disclaimer “potential” purposefully. The value of highlighting and note-taking depends on the needs of the individual and situation and these tactics can be applied in ways that are not helpful and may even be harmful. There are some who highlight and annotate in productive ways and there are some who highlight and annotate in unproductive ways. It is more than a matter of is it done or not.
Potentially (that word again) taking notes or highlighting content may be a way to avoid the work of understanding in the short term putting off the work that is required and that may never be invested. I call this the “I’ll get to that later effect”. If it is the content that is hard to understand but recognized to be important that is treated in this way, this is clearly not a productive strategy. Second, most probably regard the annotation of online content and note taking to be somewhat similar but yet different skills. It is true I am not taking the time to differentiate the various ways in which a learner can record core ideas and personal comments. Taking notes during a lecture is different in multiple ways from taking notes while reading a book. Adding notes to a notebook is different from taking notes in the margin of the source. However, I am taking the position that the assumed benefits of generative activity and efficient review are similar enough that the great volume of research on “old school” highlighting and note-taking offers general principles that can be used to guide thinking about online highlighting and annotation. In those situations when new capabilities change what might have been suggested practices (e.g., the introductory example of both taking notes and recording a presentation), I will note why new capabilities suggest different approaches (e.g., van der Meer, 2012).
My focus has been on generative activities to improve the understanding and retention of content as might be assigned in science, history, or social studies classes. The goals in teaching poetry and classic literature may differ. I admit to being far less experienced with teaching goals and practices when it comes to content such as fiction and poetry, but I have learned that the tactics of designer-generated prompts, modeling and discussion, and self-imposed generative strategies are very similar. For example, I know that the “professional” annotations of classic works of literature (e.g., Shakespeare) are provided by some companies supplying educational content and the exploration of these annotations and sharing annotations generated by students offers an approach to discussing the primary sources (Brown, 2007). The application of highlighting and annotating as ways to explore poetry and literature is not new with recommendations for how to teach such skills predating the technology-based methods emphasized here (photocopying content to allow highlighting, annotating by attaching sticky notes to page edges). The value of modeling, sharing examples, and prompts have been emphasized as well (Porter-O’Donnell, 2004). I have certainly learned that promoting many of the tactics I emphasize should not be described as original ideas. However, adaptation of these tactics by using technology offers advantages of cost, efficiency of use, efficiency of instruction, and personalization. Adaptations can change how old strategies work, but I would suggest that the similarities are sufficient to allow practitioners a place to begin.
I think that we are in a time of transition when it comes to assumptions about taking notes and annotating/highlighting content. You may have traditional views and are not presently taking advantage of new capabilities. For example, are you highlighting and annotating this ebook content as you read it? When reading a Kindle book, do you turn on the capability that allows you to view the most frequent highlights previously generated by others who have purchased this book? Will you download the record of your highlighting and annotation when you are finished? If you have not used these features, It is worth the time to investigate how these functions work.
I work nearly exclusively with digital content now because I can make use of just these capabilities in what I think of as my academic workflow. In my initial differentiation of exposure/study/application (see Background and boundary conditions), developing such capabilities is what I described as application. If you do not see these capabilities as personally relevant and are a teacher, you would probably not make a point of teaching such skills to your students. I can only encourage your exploration of such techniques and perhaps that you consider sharing the process of exploration with your students.
In some ways, I think students already recognize some advantages in changing how we all think about new opportunities for studying content. For example, I recognize that college students are annoyed when professors who lecture are not willing to share the outline of their lecture with them (e.g., PowerPoint slides). Some professors provide their content and some do not. Professors have various reasons for denying these requests (e.g., a concern students will not come to class), but some key ideas derived from the research on note-taking could be used to argue the benefits of what the students request. For example, known limitations in the note-taking skills of even college students have been shown to be remedied through the provision of “expert notes” (Kiewra, 1985). I would think the notes of the instructor qualify as expert notes. The annotation of notes provided by the instructor may reduce the benefits of note-taking as a generative activity, but the resource provided by the instructor eliminates the unnecessary working memory demands of recording the information that could be easily shared and allows the student to use available capacity to annotate any provided content with personal insights and information not contained in the instructor’s outline.
It is likely time to think about traditional study tactics such as highlighting and note-taking in new ways. The format of educational content is changing (more video, ebooks, primary sources in a digital format) and the technologies we now use to experience these new formats offer some new opportunities.
The special case of video
Educational applications of video annotation are an example of a situation in which tool development has occurred before most educators and others who consume this content were aware there would be any use for such tools (Mu, 2009). It may surprise you that you can presently add annotations to video using several different services. If you are aware of the application of video annotation use in any way associated with K-12 classrooms, I would wager it is of the use of video annotation as a way to critique educators as they perform their classroom duties. In this case, educators, often preservice teachers, watch themselves or practicing teachers at work and add comments as a way to analyze different issues they observe in actual classroom situations (e.g., Rich & Hannafin, 2009). How does this teacher ensure that all students are paying attention? Would you have responded to Jan’s incorrect response to this question in a different way? Specialized software allows these comments to be linked to exact moments in the video. Supervisors can offer similar comments for novice educators to consider and the advantage of being able to study video without the need to travel to multiple classrooms and offer commentary after a review that might include multiple views of the same classroom event has obvious advantages.
The same or similar software can be used to annotate video from other sources and for other reasons. Why could this be useful? I would make the case based on two observations. First, the notion of using video to flip the classroom is gaining traction as a K-12 instructional strategy. The key idea in flipping the classroom is that students will watch presentations that might presently occur during face-to-face classes before coming to class. The major advantage is that valuable class time can be devoted to teacher-student and student-student interactions rather than more passive presentation activities. Second, more video (e.g., YouTube videos) is being assigned as instructional content. Such content often exists as what I previously referred to as a primary source and was not designed originally for instructional purposes. Frequently, these two uses of video are combined — the instructor assigns students to watch a video not developed by the instructor before coming to class.
Strategies for educational annotation of video presently draw heavily from what is known about annotation and note-taking with static, text-oriented content (Lee & List, 2019; Mu, 2010). You might predict how such additions could be layered based on thinking again about the example form the Preface describing layering notes on audio. The same goals of generative processing and efficient review come into play. Annotation of the video source offers some options not available when taking notes external to the source. Embedded annotations allow an efficient connection between the information source and the summary. This connection is helpful should the summary prove insufficient when reviewed. As was described in my introduction explaining the possible linkages between classroom audio and notes, if the notes are sufficient for study, it is far more efficient to study the notes and use the audio as backup when something does not make sense. Embedded commentary can be shared with others and appended to by them while still directly referencing the original material. Collaboration offers different perspectives on the same information.
The transition from supported to independent learning
Recall that Wittrock (1989) originally proposed that many of the generative tactics described here could either be encouraged and directed by the teacher/designer or applied independently by the learner. Since a significant goal of K-12 instruction might be to prepare students as independent learners, moving from designer-provided generative tactics to learner-applied generative tactics would seem a desirable transition and an important learning goal. As I keep indicating, some of you may already be in the situation of a self directed learner and still encountering some of the possibilities for the first time. What follows is the reiteration of three general and often interrelated instructional tactics proposed in the Theory and Background chapter as might be applied to the development of independent student application of generative skills.
Modeling
Annotation, self-questioning, and highlighting are helpful self-directed learning strategies when applied skillfully. Many students, even college students, attempt to apply such strategies without ever having experienced instruction or guidance. Often, students apply study skills because they model peers. They see others taking notes or using a highlighter and such observations become the impetus for a personal process of trial and error. Modeling can be used more purposefully and effectively to demonstrate effective techniques. The approach emphasized here proposes that educators model visible behavior, but also add expert think-alouds. The educator demonstrates a skill in context while simultaneously verbalizing personal decisions leading to visible actions (what is highlighted, the generation of a question). Such demonstrations include discussion and are followed by monitored student efforts to perform similar skills. This process of modeling and monitored practice can begin with young learners (Hartley, Bartlett & Branthwaite, 1980) so activities such as highlighting can be used far earlier than most might assume.
Both internal and external behaviors can be modeled. A focus on modeling internal processes is commonly described as a think aloud (e.g., Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). I most commonly describe a classroom situation in which a teacher models a skill for the class using a projected image of her screen while describing what she is thinking, but the recording of a video demonstration is a great hack to remember.
The approach of acting in some way, even cognitively, and simultaneously describing your thinking as you proceed continues to evolve as an instructional tactic. For example, White (2016) proposed using a screen capture tool on a computer or tablet to record teacher think alouds for eventual student use. This might be a great approach to individualizing learning from think alouds as only some students may need this tactic. White also proposes that the digital think alouds be extended to having students demonstrate and record their efforts to apply the skills first demonstrated by their teachers. For an emphasis on highlighting, note-taking, or some of the other skills emphasized here, the technique would involve the capturing of the screen (screencasting) as the model worked, thought, and verbalized.
Scaffolding
Scaffolding is intended to help learners develop skills within the most meaningful context possible. In this case, the meaningful context might be described as school learning or studying. In other words, when possible, it makes some sense to learn study strategies while studying. Of course, learning multiple and unrelated things at the same time can be more than many students can handle. The purpose of scaffolding is to provide guidance and limit working memory overload while students attempt to deal with complex challenges. As skills develop, these supports can be withdrawn to encourage independence.
So, if it is known that many students first highlight by selecting far too much content, a prompt can be inserted to ask students to highlight the most important idea in each of the following paragraphs. If it seems that students generate only fact-based questions, question stems can be inserted that guide students toward the development of application questions. If the goal is to develop self-monitoring skills, a prompt can be inserted asking students to identify the things they found most difficult to understand. (Leopold & Leutner, 2015).
Collaboration
The collaboration allowed through technology-based versions of many traditional learning strategies provide benefits through what I would describe as caring, sharing and comparing. Working with others increases motivation (caring), allows the contributions of many learners to be combined (sharing), and provides insight by contrasting a personal way of doing something with how the same task is approached by others (comparing).
The awareness that student work will be viewed by others and not just the teacher improves performance. When applied to writing, this motivational benefit is attributed to having an authentic audience (e.g., Cohen & Riel, 1989). I may be reaching just a bit to propose that products generated as shared study aids would be enhanced for a similar reason, but the proposal seems reasonable. Research with the development of note-taking does demonstrate the benefits of sharing and comparing. When taking notes collaboratively, students have a better body of content for study and an opportunity to explore how useful content can be recorded (Chiu, Wu, & Cheng, 2013; Chiung-Hui, Hsiao-Wei & Chiu-Yi, 2016). Collaborative note-taking and highlighting are promoted by many commercial services for work teams. Teachers at a given elementary school could represent a team and so would programmers working on the same coding project.
Social reading. This phrase may be unfamiliar, but social reading is a thing. Those who study literacy from a historical perspective, describe the tendency of intellectuals to quote from what they had read as an embellishment to their discussions. To understand this perspective, I recognize that some include the citation of quotes from religious documents in their discussions and presentations. As I understand the logic, this behavior relies on an assumption of common exposure to a text as a way to contextualize and support an argument that is being made.
Shared reading experiences are used in classrooms. An elementary teacher may set aside a daily time to read a book to the class and occasionally pause to use the shared experience as the basis for a comment or question. Book and journal clubs may meet to use an agreed upon book or article from a research journal as the focus of discussion. Some online services (e.g., GoodReads) bring book clubs into the digital age allowing individuals to share what they are reading and their reactions with a designated group of peers. I participate in a weekly book club and we use Obsidian for a variety of note-taking, sharing, and organizational tasks.
The way I am using social reading here is based on an analysis of the platforms and tactics emerging to be applied to the social reading of texts stored “in the cloud” (Cordón-García, Alonso-Arévalo, Gómez-Díaz, & Linder, 2013). The digitization of this content in combination with the opportunity for many to access this content synchronously or asynchronously allows multiple forms of communication among readers. Imagine reading a paper book a peer just gave you yesterday. If that individual highlighted content and wrote things in the margin, you would see these additions and what you saw might lead you to think about the content referenced by these additions more carefully. The old joke comes to mind that if you purchase a used textbook that has been highlighted, it would be nice to know what grade the last user received. Maybe this is only funny to educational psychologists. Anyway, the reading of a common digital document allowing an exchange of attached comments is quite doable.
In social reading, you might use your common experience in reading a book as the basis for a discussion with your peer readers. Tactics, such as highlighting, annotating, and more are easy enough to duplicate in connection with an online text and commercial and open source services that have been emerging and being improved in recent years. These services have not necessarily been focused on instructional goals, but the focus of this book is the exploration of the educational potential of what might be described as social reading and social studying.
Now, it is time to explore some tools for putting these tactics into action.
Summary
This section provided an overview of the concept of generative activities. The concept basically argues external tasks (e.g., taking a note, answering a question) can encourage the activation of productive cognitive (thinking) behaviors. I emphasize this perspective because it offers a way to understand the purpose of the additions a designed or learner can layer on existing web content and video.