Rethinking Concept Based Learning in the IB to Facilitate Far Transfer (part A)

Concepts are explored in order to both deepen disciplinary understanding and to help students make connections and transfer learning to new contexts.

What is an IB Education, p6

This is a two part article on Concepts in the IB the follow on is: Rethinking Concept Based Learning in the IB to Facilitate Far Transfer (part B): Offering SIMPLE SOLUTIONS!

The search for an effective means of transfer

The International Baccalaureate has clearly articulated the six principles that inform all of its programmes, which it calls 'Approaches to Teaching'. The second of these is 'Focused on conceptual understanding'. The above quote is the explanation that the IB has given as to why concepts are important - they are designed to do two things:

1. Deepen disciplinary understanding
2. Transfer learning to new contexts through the connections they make

The different Programmes try to achieve this through a variety of approaches using a mix of key and related concepts:

In the MYP these are worked into a contextualised sentence called a Statement of Inquiry (SOI) which "represents a transferable idea". In other words the SOI is purportedly a mechanism for far transfer, whether it manages to do this is discussed later.

The report is in

Recently the IB commissioned a report by the University of Nottingham to review their approach and commitment to conceptual based learning. The report is fascinating (if long). They identified the obvious disparities in the table above and recommended (p11):

• Definitions - The (...) subdivision into ‘key concepts’ and ‘related concepts’ is used (...) with some potential confusions. The (...) ‘organic” development of ideas is one reason for the discontinuities in terminology (...) We recommend that the use of these terms be reviewed within the programmes.

CLARITY will help everyone, both the teachers delivering concepts and the students using them. I have some suggestions as to how this clarity can be achieved, but let us first look at another significant recommendation - one that any suggestion needs to address - the very notion of TRANSFER.

WHAT IS TRANSFER AND HOW DOES IT HAPPEN?

Exploring theories - Is transfer even possible?

Interestingly the report writers express some skepticism about the potential for transfer (p11). They are not alone there is a quite a large body of writers arguing that it doesn't happen. Part of the problem is the lack of precision when we are considering what is being transferred. What the IB report writers specifically state is that:

Some consideration needs to be given to the idea of transferability (generalisability) within the IB programmes. We have raised some doubts about this and suggested the need for a closer look at concepts such as situated cognition and embodied cognition.

This needs some unpacking.

Situated cognition (of which embodied cognition is a part) is an expansive theory that suggests learning is embedded within a context. It argues that learning is not separable into semantic claims and actionable activities (knowing-what and knowing-how), rather that learning is a social activity and thus remains inseparable from that activity. It goes on to suggest that learning in the abstract (think maths word sums that are detached from reality) is thus wasteful and so all learning activities need to be authentic as these are the only meaningful contexts we might meet in the future.

One of the outcomes of this notion of learning is, unfortunately, a skepticism that far transfer can even occur, because, by definition, it requires the use of the learned material in a completely new context. In the words of Seeley Brown, Collins and Duguid, key proponents of the situated cognition theory,

Many teaching practices implicitly assume that conceptual knowledge can be abstracted from the situations in which it is learned and used. This article argues that this assumption inevitably limits the effectiveness of such practices. 

Abstract from linked article

It is not that these main proponents don't think it can happen, it is just that they have a lot of reasons to suggest why it cannot (and no real suggestions as to how it can). What we can, however, deduce from this is that the University of Nottingham believes that a process of abstracting concepts, and a trusting belief that doing so will cause transfer, is questionable.

So does that mean that transfer is impossible? Well no, for two big reasons:

1. Situated cognition is only a theory and it is not the last word on the topic
2. There are examples of where transfer has occurred see Gick and Holyoak's study

********

Quick Aside: How do we know if transfer is even happening?

This is actually a real problem for the IB. There are no formal mechanisms for identifying if an idea in one context actually makes it to another context. It does not assess for transference of conceptual understandings (there are pragmatic considerations of standardisation here) but neither does it set up a system to help teachers evaluate the relative success of a transfer of an idea.

In MYP, for example, the concepts are used to formulate generalised Statements of Inquiry (SOIs) that are kept explicitly broad in order to allow for a transfer of the idea to other disciplines. Aside from the fact that these SOIs are notoriously hard to create, there is little producible evidence that they help to transfer understandings to another subject. Teachers are encouraged to draw connections as to how it could connect to other subjects. Yet, at no time do we assess if this generalisation transfers to these new situations.

It's as if we throw a ball to a future unit and yet never check to see if and where it landed.

It is not enough to create a definition of what concepts can do or what an SOI will achieve and not check .... especially if there is significant doubt as to whether this can theoretically work.

*******

Back to the theories - how do we improve transfer?

Common sense tells us that transfer must occur, it is self evident that we do use things learned in one context in another, experience, however, tells us it happens less frequently that we would like.

The better question then is "under what conditions is the possibility of transfer improved?". The answer seems to be to understand learning according to a more connectionist theory of learning and to support new learning through better coordination. Looking back at the Gick and Holyoak experiment, they showed that being more explicit in the identification of the analogies present in the learning leveraged transfer.

So we want to teach students to spot analogies and where these can be applied in novel situations. By being explicit about this helps transfer. At the same time we don't want students assuming all perspectives are analogous. This could lead to more misconceptions than insights (this would be an example of something called negative transfer). We want them to see that different disciplines have different perspectives and insights. Rather than this detracting from transfer I believe this is key to attaining a greater sophistication (nuance) in our conceptual understanding.

This thinking is akin to Perkins and Salomon's high road transfer - in their must-read article on this topic they state that "Conventional educational practices often fail to establish the conditions either for reflexive or mindful transfer. However, education can be designed to honor these conditions and achieve transfer." To get to this high road transfer they refer to a process of 'bridging'. They call us to make a deliberate the search for connections, if we don't it will not just happen reflexively:

High road transfer, in contrast, depends on mindful abstraction from the context of learning or application and a deliberate search for connections: What is the general pattern? What is needed? What principles might apply? What is known that might help? Such transfer is not in general reflexive. It demands time for exploration and the investment of mental effort.

David Perkins & Gavriel Salomon

Grant Wiggins also advocates making the discussion around transfer much more explicit.

In summary to address the issue of transfer:

• We need to teach for connection, and to explicitly acknowledge analogies.
• We need to acknowledge when disciplines differ in their approach.
• We need to assess (review, reflect and respond) it to ensure that it is happening

WHAT COULD THE IB DO TO IMPROVE TRANSFER?

Building a clearer categorisation of concepts in the IB

If you got this far then you might need reminding that concepts in the IB have two roles - deepening understanding and transferring ideas. Whatever framework we build (in light of what we learned from the theory of transfer) needs to address both goals.

1. Deepening disciplinary understanding - The specificity of generalisations

The main problem with the IB concepts as they exist today comes from the faulty view that conceptual understanding must always be generalised generalisations. This idea comes from Lynne Erickson's claim that concepts are mental constructs that are abstract, timeless, and universal (Erickson & Lanning, 2014, p. 33). The problem with this is that if we make generalisations too broad and try to apply them to too many situations then they become superficial (or mere truisms) and do nothing to deepen understanding.

I think that understanding comes instead from the specificity of the generalisations.

To explain this, consider the disciplinary concept of gravity in physics. In this concept there are generalisations but they are highly specific. Some concepts even have specificity within the disciplines (especially those that are interpreted by various 'schools of thought'). It this very specificity that gives them their disciplinary depth (this btw is why I struggle with the list of related concepts in the MYP - many of these concepts detract from their function - to deepen disciplinary understanding).

The report to the IB highlights these deep disciplinary ideas, and it advocates for the consideration of Threshold concepts (p31). I think this is a very useful approach and I would think that we would do well to take the advice of the report and reserve "the term ‘key’ for concepts which are truly of central importance to an area, and use the term ‘related’ for concepts which may be seen as of lesser importance." (p11). In which case the key concepts should be threshold concepts which we would do well to articulate. I think we do NOT define a list of related concepts as I think that teachers can figure them out without need for constraints.

2. Transfer to new contexts - building connections not generalisations

The problem with generalisations being broad extends to the transfer issue. If they are too generalised then they become oversimplifications of reality and loose nuance. Take this example: The interaction between the Montague and the Capulets in Romeo and Juliet is a relationship. The interaction between traders and buyers in a market economy is a relationship. The correlation between the speed of a vehicle and its mass is a relationship. Identifying a generalisation to sum all these up will lose the contribution of the various disciplines. It offers little to transfer.

In this example the term is problematic because it draws from different interpretations of meaning (this is a valid point but it a chosen key concept in the MYP, so it must stand up to this scrutiny). The issue persists even if the definition is understood by all but the perspective differs due to disciplinary lens. Take for example the key concept Identity. A biologist might focus on genetics, an anthropologist on cultural norms, an historian on a situational narrative, an artist on expression, a sociologist on status, an economist on freedom of choice afforded by income and a psychologist on self actualisation etc. Simplifying this all down to a bland statement about how identity is important to help us understand our place in the world loses all these nuances, and detracts from transfer.

If however we see Identity and Relationship as a meeting places for distinct specific generalisations (disciplinary understandings) then there comes an opportunity to compare and contrast these understandings. I would call these meeting places: Interdisciplinary connections. I would not have too many of them but they should be accessible to all subjects (ie they must be shared). I would propose 8-10 would suffice.

In other words since we have repurposed key concepts to the role of deep disciplinary understandings there is a spot vacant for terms that support transfer of ideas. Interdisciplinary connections would replace their role but not attempt to subsume ideas into a single idea (which is what key concepts seems to do) but connect ideas with varying degrees of similarity.

At these meeting places, sometimes we will find parallels and analogies between various disciplinary understandings, these should be actively sought out and reflected on. At these times a connection is built. But connections are also built when disciplinary ideas sit in contrast to other subjects.

This notion of transfer tries to preserve the disciplinary context of the ideas, rather than abstracting them and seeing them as universal. This notion of transfer sees ideas as evolving, as more disciplinary understandings / insights are gained, rather than seeing ideas as timeless.

Note: This is not too different from the knowledge framework in Theory of Knowledge - where disciplinary approaches to knowledge acquisition are compared and contrasted. It is not too different from Criteria D in the MYP Interdisciplinary Unit (IDU).

Revisiting the Statement of Inquiry

If we did this I would advocate that we remove the requirement for a broad generalisation and instead focus on how the disciplinary concept which is the focus of the unit (be that the threshold concept, or a redefined key concept, or a related concept) contributes to a larger conceptual theme (the interdisciplinary connection). To avoid clogging the sentence with too many abstract terms I would remove the requirement to include the global context from the sentence but I would require the SOI to be framed in a global context (perhaps in a section called Relevancy or Authenticity). This context must be a feature of assessment too - to maintain the authenticity of the assessment.

The other reason for getting rid of the general generalisation of an SOI and replacing it with a disciplinary specific insight to a general theme is respect. Many teachers don't seem to hold these broad statements in much regard. These teachers consider that it waters down the disciplinary insight; and if they don't respect it in their own unit then what hope have we that they respect it from another unit. This approach maintains the disciplinary integrity of the insights gained but still makes it open for connection to further disciplinary insights - this strangely makes it more available for transfer.

Checking transfer happens

Students should be encouraged to keep a reflective journal on each interdisciplinary connection. These reflections can be presented for formative review to see if transfer is actually happening.

The added bonus of doing this is that it would cause students to revisit the insights that they reached previously. They will be thus doing this in a context outside the situational context it was learned in. This makes the recall harder but it makes it last longer if it is achieved. If the connection can be made (which teachers we need to facilitate) then the learning is now in a new (more interdisciplinary) context. Added to this it is well known that the benefits to learning, of a spaced revisiting of material, is huge.

This is just one example, I think we would do well creating a backpack of possible strategies to actively support this type of transfer.

Final note on Situated Cognition - authentic problem solving

One of the tenets of the theory is that learning needs to situated in real life 'authentic' situations. It argues that learning is facilitated by problem solving authentic problems. This is essentially what is done in an IDU but why restrict ourselves to these? Why not spend some curriculum time solving real world problems using a complete range of disciplinary approaches? Present these problems in relation to the global contexts or the sustainable development goals and explore the issue from multiple perspectives, look at multiple interdisciplinary connections and multiple disciplinary insights and embed the skill of looking for interdisciplinary solutions to problems. This is what we want of our graduates and this seems to me to be a more active method of facilitating this kind of essential transfer.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?

1. Could we get clarity by dropping the terms key concepts and related concepts and start using threshold concepts and interdisciplinary connections?
2. Does the notion of 'specificity of generalisations' help clarify the role of concepts?
3. Would using a mechanism focussed more on connectivity than universality help in the transfer of learning?
4. Would enforcing the review of interdisciplinary connections as an explicit part of the curriculum reinforce the transfer of ideas?
5. Can we make more space for authentic problem solving as we look at ways to facilitate transfer?
6. Would a simplified SOI focussed on the disciplinary nature of the unit actually help with transfer?

Please, if these ideas resonate or irritate, share your thoughts.

Medwell, J., Wray, D., Bailey, L., Biddulph, M., Hagger-Vaughan,, L., Mills, G., … Wake, G. (2019). Concept-based teaching and learning: Integration and alignment across Ib programmes. University of Nottingham.

What is an IB Education. (2013). [ebook] International Baccalaureate Organisation. Available at: https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/what-is-an-ib-education-2017-en.pdf [Accessed 12 Feb. 2020].

Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. 

Meyer, E., & Land, R. (2003). Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses (Occasional Report 4). University of Leeds.

Seely Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P., (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher; v18 n1, pp. 32-42

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355

Lakomski, G. (2003) Moving knowledge: the so-called problem of transfer and how to reframe it. Conference Paper, The Fourth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities, University Warwick.

Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Retrieved from https://jaymctighe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Transfer-of-Learning-Perkins-and-Salomon.pdf