Seminar -- a class at a college or university in which a topic is discussed by a teacher and a small group of students.
My first college mentor, Joe Gettler, once said to me that seminar and semen have the same roots, and that a seminar should be thought of as a seed bed. Whether correct or not, that made sense. As with most things in life, there is a trick. With seminars, the trick is in selecting an appropriate topic.
I was trained in copper proteins as a graduate student. When I was trained, we thought there were at least four kinds of copper proteins. Hemocyanin moved oxygen in crustaceans much as hemoglobin did in mammals. Ascorbate oxidase worked on vitamin C. Tyrosinase oxidized tyrosine and led to natural pigmentation. And then there were those proteins that seemed to be there just for color. Imagine several witches with canoe paddles stirring a boiling brew; that's not a bad model. Today we understand these substances entirely differently. In fact, it is remarkable how similar those copper protein entities are to one another, how each has copper binding oxygen, and how the differences in functionality result from ways in which the protein pieces constrain what substances can get into the copper region.
To appreciate how much this means to me is to understand what it means to be a 'mechanisms' chemist. And, once a chemical mechanism is known, it is possible to manipulate many aspects of chemical reactions (higher yields, lower costs, greener processes, etc.)
A life goal of mine has been to understand learning in terms of mechanisms. Can learning be understood in the same way that a chemical mechanism is understood? Until very recently, this goal eluded me. If copper proteins circa 1965 bring to mind witches stirring cauldrons, then perhaps that is what learning should bring to mind today. Learning is a much more difficult field than copper proteins. One is not certain about what the data really are, nor is one sure about how to conduct experiments. When Gregg Schraw introduced me to the ICML, I was delighted. There was a separation into three categories that make sense to a successful teacher (prior knowledge, ability, and motivation). While the ICML represents a way to organize information about learning, it is less than a mechanism.
The ULM (unified learning model) really started from the ICML, but with three very important twists. The first was (thanks to Doug Phelps) that working memory capacity and ability are probably the same thing in the context of the ICML. The second was that (thanks to many people) motivation really amounts to working memory allocation. Finally, there was the notion (due to Cowan) that working memory involves activation of prior knowledge. If you buy those three ideas, then the ULM makes a huge amount of sense.
The ULM allows us to tie together the big three of successful learning -- prior knowledge, ability, and motivation. Moreover, it lets us do this in harmony with current thinking about neural development and neurological underpinnings of learning. That is, one can reexamine available knowledge about learning within a working memory framework. Ultimately I think that the real power of the ULM will be in terms of testability -- I think these notions can be tested experimentally.
I want to spend the entire TEAC 960 seminar for spring 08 visiting the ULM. It seems to me that, to do this, I need to help students focus. So, I'm thinking I should have each student prepare two papers.
That seems a bit restrictive to me, so I'm going for a third option, a related topical paper -- but one that I must approve in advance. Here's the deal.
In other words, there are four patterns: right/wrong, wrong/right, right/topical, and wrong/topical. The papers are to be of a length appropriate for making the author's point. They are to be scholarly, meaning that they should include appropriate and, almost necessarily, extensive [current] references. They are to be submitted as HTML pages with a folder containing any needed additional files (images). Either links or pdf copies of the references are to be made available as well.
In order to complete the course successfully, I must judge at least one of the two papers as good and the other as at least ok. In addition, there will be a discussion for which you are expected to participate by reading and, at least occasionally, contributing. This seminar is restricted to persons who are doctoral students or who intend to become doctoral students. There will be no formal instruction. There may be one (or two) live sessions using Breeze. All DWB doctoral students who have not graduated are expected to participate (either as TEAC 960, TEAC 995, or not for credit). Other doctoral students are welcomed.
My sense is that this can be a fun experience. It tells me how skilled the participants are. It makes them think. It allows us to wrestle with new ideas. Is the ULM more like a chemical mechanism or is it just more educational bs?
If this seminar works out, I intend to start a continuing seminar on instructional science. Also, I may work on an online instructional science book.
The next step in instructional technology is to create materials that shape themselves to the learner while bringing that learner to a common goal. This often talked about approach has rarely been achieved. In order the achieve that, we need a better grasp of the mechanism of learning, and that is what we are seek in this seminar. In other words, the ultimate goal is to figure out how one can design what amounts to learning software for all. Obviously work on cognitive load has impacted instructional design in technology. Think of this seminar as trying to take cognitive load research to the next level.