Category: Information and digital literacy

AI drawn fish and chips

Using AI GTP-4 to grade & linguistically analyse text

Lee Fallin Leave a comment

In my final experiment of the day with GTP-4, I am using the earlier AI-generated blog post, Debunking the myth of Learning Styles as the base. Peter Hartley spurred this post, acknowledging there was more fun yet to be had with GTP4 and this base material. He was right (and I promise the image at the top of this article will make sense by the end!).

First up – let’s see how the AI grades itself.

Using GTP4 to grade writing produced by GTP4

As I still have the entire conversation detailed earlier in AI-led blogging: An experiment with GTP4, DALL-E & Grammarly, I was able to prompt the grading directly. I asked:

Grade your earlier message that is Titled: Debunking the Learning Styles Myth: A Call for Evidence-Based Educational Practices

You are a Lecturer working at a prestigious university in the United Kingdom. You are to grade this work on a number scale from 0 to 100. A score below 40 represents a fail. You will need to provide detailed feedback to justify your grade, and you should identify areas of improvement to help your student take their work further next time.

Prompt

And the grade it gave itself?

Title: Debunking the Learning Styles Myth: A Call for Evidence-Based Educational Practices Grade: 85/100

Feedback:

Overall, this article is well-written, presenting a coherent and compelling argument against the concept of learning styles. The language is formal and appropriate for a specialist audience, and the structure is clear and organized. The article also demonstrates a good understanding of the relevant literature.

Areas of improvement:

  1. Depth of analysis: While the article covers the main arguments against learning styles, it would benefit from a more in-depth analysis of specific studies that debunk the concept, providing a more comprehensive critique.
  2. Counterarguments: Addressing potential counterarguments and providing refutations can strengthen your argument. Consider discussing the reasons behind the popularity of learning styles and possible alternative explanations for the observed effects.
  3. Practical implications: It would be beneficial to discuss specific examples of how evidence-based practices can be implemented in educational settings, giving readers a clearer understanding of the alternatives to learning styles.
  4. Source integration: While the article cites relevant sources, it could benefit from a more seamless integration of these sources into the text. Using direct quotes or paraphrasing specific ideas from the sources can help build a more robust argument.
  5. Originality: Although the article presents a well-established critique of learning styles, try to incorporate more original ideas or unique perspectives to make the argument more engaging and thought-provoking for your audience.

In summary, this article demonstrates strong writing skills, a clear structure, and an understanding of the relevant literature. To improve the article, focus on deepening the analysis, addressing counterarguments, discussing practical implications, integrating sources more effectively, and incorporating original ideas. Keep up the good work and continue to develop your critical thinking and writing skills.

GTP4

Evaluating the feedback

Not a bad evaluation. In reality, an actual university assignment probably wouldn’t score this well in presenting only one view (unless that was the task). It is correct in that counterarguments are required.

It is also interesting to see it suggest the use of direct quotes – something we’d generally ask students to avoid in order to demonstrate their own understanding.

The nod towards originality and depth of analysis very much capture the goals required for higher-level grades.

Read More
Growth mindset: A visual representation of a growth mindset, such as a seedling growing into a tree, to emphasize the importance of fostering a growth mindset and avoiding stereotypes associated with learning styles.

Debunking the Learning Styles Myth: A Call for Evidence-Based Educational Practices

Lee Fallin 7 Comments

This post stands as an independent article on learning styles, and I wanted to publish it as such. However, it is part of a wider experiment as this whole article – text and images are generated by an AI. Find out more here: AI-led blogging: An experiment with GTP4, DALL-E & Grammarly

Introduction to Learning Styles

Learning styles have been a popular topic in education for decades, with various models suggesting that individuals have different preferences for how they process and absorb information. Some of the most well-known models include Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic (VAK) learning styles and others like Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

However, the validity of learning styles as a concept has been widely debated among researchers and educators. Numerous studies have attempted to validate the existence of learning styles, but the evidence supporting their effectiveness is weak, and some even suggest that the concept is a myth. Critics argue that the idea of learning styles may oversimplify the complex process of learning and lead to ineffective teaching methods.

Instead, contemporary research points to the importance of adaptable evidence-based teaching practices that focus on learners’ diverse needs. This includes employing various teaching methods, engaging multiple senses, and addressing different skill levels rather than focusing solely on learning styles. In this way, educators can create a more inclusive and effective learning environment that benefits all students, regardless of their preferences.

The concept of learning styles has enjoyed widespread popularity in education for decades, despite a lack of empirical evidence supporting its efficacy. This post aims to challenge the legitimacy of learning styles and provide a compelling argument for why educators and researchers should be critical of their propagation. Learning styles ultimately harm learners, and the education community should embrace evidence-based practices instead.

1 – Lack of Empirical Evidence for learning styles

A cornerstone of any effective educational theory is a robust body of empirical evidence. However, numerous studies have failed to provide conclusive support for the existence of learning styles or their impact on learning outcomes (Coffield et al., 2004; Pashler et al., 2008; Willingham et al., 2015). Meta-analyses have revealed a consistent lack of empirical evidence to validate learning styles (Coffield et al., 2004; Pashler et al., 2008), indicating that the concept is built on shaky foundations.

2 – Oversimplification of Learning

The idea of learning styles oversimplifies the complex and multifaceted process of learning (Geake, 2008; Hattie, 2009). Learning is not solely determined by individual preferences but is influenced by a myriad of factors, including prior knowledge, cognitive abilities, motivation, and socio-cultural context. By reducing learning to a set of static styles, educators may inadvertently neglect these crucial aspects of the learning process, hindering their ability to cater to students’ diverse needs (Dunn & Griggs, 2000).

3 – Perpetuation of Stereotypes

The propagation of learning styles may reinforce stereotypes and an overly deterministic view of learners (Scott, 2010). By labelling students as “visual,” “auditory,” or “kinesthetic” learners, educators may inadvertently constrain students to a particular mode of learning, limiting their potential for growth and development (Dweck, 2006). This typecasting may contribute to self-fulfilling prophecies and hinder students from exploring alternative learning strategies, ultimately hindering their academic progress (Dweck, 2006).

Classroom diversity: A photo of a diverse group of students engaged in various learning activities. This image can demonstrate the need for evidence-based practices that cater to individual differences, rather than relying on learning styles.

4 – Misallocation of Resources

The continued acceptance of learning styles may misallocate educational institutions’ resources (Paschler et al., 2008). Schools and districts divert valuable resources away from evidence-based practices by investing time and money in training teachers and developing learning materials based on a concept with weak empirical support (Hattie, 2009). This misallocation has significant implications for the quality of education and students’ academic success.

5 – The Opportunity Cost of Ignoring Evidence-Based Practices

By propagating learning styles, the education community risks neglecting evidence-based practices that have been shown to improve learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009). These practices include formative assessment, feedback, metacognitive strategies, and collaborative learning (Hattie, 2009; Zimmerman, 2002). By focusing on debunked theories such as learning styles, educators may miss opportunities to implement strategies that genuinely improve student learning.

Conclusion

The persistence of learning styles in educational discourse is a concerning phenomenon that warrants critical examination. Given the lack of empirical evidence and the potential harm caused by the propagation of learning styles, we urge educators and researchers to abandon this outdated concept and embrace evidence-based practices. Doing so can create a more inclusive, effective, and empirically grounded educational environment that benefits all learners.

References

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (2000). Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher education. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), 123-133.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of “learning styles.” Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 5-17.

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Certification really does matter…

Lee Fallin Leave a comment

This is an opinion piece and is unapologetically skills-y. As with everything on my blog, this piece represents my personal thoughts and is not representative of any organisation I work with.

Today I had the pleasure of attending Prodigy Learning’s CertMatters Live conference. The event was hosted at the British Library, which is always a bonus as it is one of my favourite places in London (no surprise for someone who works in a library!). If you are not familiar with Prodigy Learning, they are a leading company in the training and certification industry in the UK and Ireland. They are responsible for managing certification programmes for Microsoft, Adobe and more in the UK and Ireland.

Why is this of interest to someone working in higher education?

Excellent question. I’m going to make a rare jump into the ’employability and skills agenda’ to answer that. Businesses are looking for skilled graduates, and there is a wide base of evidence that suggests there is a HUGE skills gap in the whole labour market. While a lot of these are soft skills like critical thinking, leadership, communication and so on, there is also a dramatic shortage of those with the right technical skills. Many of these technical skills can be demonstrated through the Microsoft Technology Associate (MTA) examinations. For more practical Microsoft Office certification there is the Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS) certifcations. There is also an excellent certification for educators – the Microsoft Certified Educator (MCE).

For this blog, I’m going to focus on the certifications related to Microsoft Office Specialist. This is not to suggest any less validity in those offered for other software vendors or from the Microsoft certifications (MCE/MTA), but my interest lies in Office and it is easier to leverage examples of the benefit of MOS certifications. In short, if institutions can offer students the opportunity to gain MOS certifications, it gives students more opportunity to evidence their skills in a crowded jobs market. It makes them look less-risky to employers as there is evidence of their competency. More importantly, it gives them the chance to brush up on their skills – these certifications are not all easy to get and they will need to earn them!

I think it’s also important to acknowledge the wider context our students are working in. Many of them will graduate and work in careers that don’t yet exist – especially when we look a decade ahead. To cement this point, I’m just going to bring my notes in from the keynote from Chris Rothwell at Microsoft:

Okay – but why certification?

These technical skills can actually be difficult to evidence. This makes it very difficult for businesses to identify graduates that actually possess the skills they are looking for. Immediately the value of internationally recognised certifications must be clear.

Certifications also have the possibility of addressing another serious problem. Many students write application forms or curriculum vitae that suggest they have skills. Sadly, this is not always a reality. I am not suggesting they are intentionally deceitful. Far from it! Many are often unaware of what they don’t know about the software they are using every day. From personal experience, I have interviewed many students who claim to be ‘expert’ in Microsoft Office. On further digging with Microsoft Word for example, it turns out they’ve never come across styles, mail merges, master documents, content controls. Experts they are not.

Certification gives them the option to actually learn and practice the software to a recognised level of competency. When confident, students can take the formal exam and if they pass, they can receive certification. Simple!

Where does this fit in?

Well. There are many approaches. It can be used both within the curriculum or as an optional extra-curricular opportunity. Whatever you do, offering certification alone isn’t enough. Anyone working towards certification will need learning materials to help them towards it. This could be resources developed in-house, or the badging of existing teaching where it links to certification. There is also the option of products like Microsoft Imagine Academy, lynda.com and GMetrix.

This diagram may give you a better feeling of how this all interacts:

Now. I am personally not going to suggest these should be rammed into every programme. I don’t think it would be appropriate. I’d love to see a world where every student could have the opportunity to undertake these employability-enhancing certifications. I just don’t think it should necessarily be core or forced. Some people came to university, not for employability, but for curiosity or the love of learning itself.

Now – there are exceptions. For example, people studying certain business modules probably should be competent with Excel. In those cases, I am all for curriculum integration. There are definitely cases for this with the MTA certification too.

I am not suggesting a wholesale buy-in to the degree/graduate factory. But I want to make it clear – offering certifications does not suggest this. It is about providing students who are about to go out into the rapidly developing employment market a better chance at evidencing what they can do and gaining a job! It is also acknowleding that there may be spaces where these certifications should actually be incurriculumn because it actually represents what it is to have a degree in that subject area.

It isn’t just students…

So – I’ve focused heavily on students. I think I would be doing certifications a disservice if I suggested it was for students alone. There are huge technical skills gaps throughout the whole higher education sector. There are many professional services that would be quicker, slicker and more efficient with the right technical skills in place. I am not suggesting this is part of delivery savings, but if we use Office Software to make the business of education more efficient we can all spend more time with students. This is not a bad thing.

For this bit, I’m going to defer to my notes from Elaine Topham‘s (Grimsby Institute) session on creating super staff. Elaine had an inspiring approach to fostering lifelong learning in staff, especially professional services.

What’s the catch?

Well. Like everything good in life, certification isn’t free. Single exams can be quite expensive, but these are incredibly efficient when purchased in bulk. Compared to the cost and development of in-house solutions, I think certifications represent excellent value. It’s also important to reinforce the recognition these certifications hold with employers. They also offer digital badging through Acclaim. I’m very interested in digital badging and I put a question to the panel at the end of CertMatters Live to dig into this a bit deeper. I ask the panel them how important they feel the ‘digital badge’ aspect of certifications is. The best answer was simple:

Employers are lazy.

Digital badges are quick and easy to see and verify.

More about CertMatters Live

CertMatters Live also hosted the UK and Ireland regional Word, Excel and PowerPoint Championships, with the three winners being sent to New York to compete internationally. Exciting stuff.

More information about CertMatters Live can be seen on the website.

Using academic social networks for literature searching

Lee Fallin Leave a comment

This ‘perspective post’ is going to look at using academic social networks for literature searching.

Now I want to make it very clear I am not advocating replacing a proper academic search strategy – with a social network. That’s a terrible idea! The University of Hull Library subscribes to some fantastic resources and you can check them out via your Subject LibGuide.

That caveat aside, I can now say that networks like Academia.edu and Researchgate.net can be very useful for collecting literature. I think they have two very specific purposes in any literature search:

  1. Expand your search beyond academic databases
  2. Find papers that you have already identified as useful, but we do not subscribe to

Expanding your search

The University Library has a fantastic guide on How to plan and conduct your searches. This is definitely the place to start any search, focusing your search on the resources identified in your Subject LibGuide.

If you still need more evidence, want to go beyond this kind of search or find more literature. That is where the networks come in. On both Academia.edu and Researchgate.net – you can search for research papers. This is never as precise as an academic database and it doesn’t have the same level of configuration –  but it will potentially give you access to thousands of articles.

One strength of Academia.edu and Researchgate.net, is that it is what I like to think of as a ‘human-curated’. I’ve struggled to find many topics through traditional databases, but come across a trove of papers on networks. The tagging and conversations on these networks allow a different kind of search to the title/keyword/abstract search of most databases.

Academia.edu and Researchgate.net will give you very different results to a database. Often results are lots of peer-reviewed papers, many with full-text available. Where text is not available, you can always ask the author for a copy and I tend to get a 50% success rate. This isn’t as immediate as library subscriptions, but is useful to expand the search. Results are however not always peer-reviewed and reliable. You may find unusable, non-peer-reviewed papers or essays. While you cannot cite these papers, their bibliographies are a treasure trove of potentially useful papers that you may not of already found.

Finding the full-text of papers you have already identified

The University Library subscribes to a large range of journals. Often, if you can’t find the full-text, it may be that you are not searching in the right place. The Library Catalogue will point you in the right direction (search for the journal title – NOT article title). If you can’t find the journal through the catalog, University of Hull staff and students are eligible to request an inter-library loan. This is an excellent service – but before using it, it is often worthwhile checking Academia.edu and Researchgate.net for the papers. Even if the papers are not there – the author may be and you can get in touch with them. This may get you the paper quicker, and lets you save ILLs for when you really need them.