Intelligent and Effective Learning Based on the Model for Systematic Concept Teaching

Chapter 1

Introduction and overview of the framework for Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT), research on effects, some general evaluations from outside the SCT community, what kind of children can benefit from this educational approach and case studies

Introduction

Practitioner’s Manual and the lessons for Systematic Concept Teaching

Intelligent teaching and intelligent learning

Nyborg’s framework for educational thinking, planning and teaching practice

What is Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) — what, how and why

The research on effects of Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) and on the many reports on SCT

Some general evaluations from outside the Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) community

What kind of population can benefit from Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT)

The importance of example cases, lessons and video clips/film

Introduction

Systematic Concept Teaching

(SCT) is an educational as well as a metacognitive approach. Moreover, Systematic Concept Teaching is also a method that supports and enriches the teaching/learning of school subjects and skills in most content areas. The main developer of Systematic Concept Teaching was the late Professor Magne Nyborg from Norway.

Practitioner’s Manual

and the lessons for Systematic Concept Teaching

This present Practitioner’s

Manual (Part 1) consists of 11 chapters together with an intervention program (Part 2) for Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT), located on the website. The intervention program consists of 56 lessons for SCT based on the principles of the Model for Systematic Concept Teaching (abbreviated: The Concept Teaching Model or, the CTM). Each lesson plan incorporates various hands-on activities together with sets of animated slides that are effective for teaching each of the Basic Conceptual Systems and the related Basic Concepts (conceptual vocabulary) they encompass. Each lesson also contains Home Practice Worksheets for follow-up cooperative learning between the student and her/his parents. In addition, there are several more SCT resources on the website, including video clips of SCT, cf. the introduction to the resources on the website.

Intelligent teaching

and intelligent learning

The first word

in the title of the present manual is intelligent … (learning). In Chapter 2 under the headline Comments to Nyborg's definition of ability to learn and intelligent teaching and intelligent learning, the reader will find the word intelligent put together in a combination of intelligent teaching and intelligent learning. When dealing with the notion of intelligent teaching and intelligent learning, it is important to understand the concept of intelligence in relation to the ability to learn within Nyborg's theory of learning and overall framework. Nyborg defines intelligence as the ability to learn (in a transferable way). In this sense, ability is understood as:

… a designation

… for a high degree of an acquired, current capacity to perceive, learn, remember, think, solve problems, act, etc., without necessarily considering to what degree/extent this capacity is rooted in and reflects original aptitude or potential.

(Nyborg, 1980, p. 259, translated from Norwegian)

The fact that the ability to learn can and has to be learned by means of upbringing and teaching is central in Nyborg’s theory of learning. Thus, it should be obvious that Nyborg looked on the ability to learn in a dynamic way, implying that the ability to learn is not fixed, but changeable and malleable as a consequence of what he terms intelligent teaching and intelligent learning. Intelligent teaching and intelligent learning should be taken to mean:

… teaching that produces good understanding during learning. And what is clearly understood (Latin: intelligere — understand), is usually remembered very well too. It also denotes teaching conceptual knowledge which can be integrated in many different ways into conceptual systems, principles, etc., all of which lend themselves to transfer of learning; i.e., a process that may accelerate further learning for all persons.

(Nyborg, 1993, p. 488)

It is both Nyborg's as well as the present authors' view that Systematic Concept Teaching can lead to the results described above. It should not be difficult to notice that intelligent learning as a result of intelligent teaching, describes outcomes that may be characteristic of what can be termed as intelligent functioning.

The dynamic view on abilities implies that there is a continuous change of pre-requisites for learning in the person as new experiences affect the brain. This is a view that is clearly supported by recent research on (the brain's) neuroplasticity, which — very simplified expressed — is about how the brain constantly is reorganized or rewired as new experiences are made (e.g., Doidge, 2007; Taylor, 2008; Costandi, 2016).

Nyborg’s framework

for educational thinking, planning and teaching practice

As previously stated

the principal researcher and developer behind the educational approach referred to as Systematic Concept Teaching was the late Professor Magne Nyborg (1927─1996) at Oslo University, Norway, who for many years did extensive research on learning difficulties. He developed a comprehensive theory of learning and a corresponding educational practice. The latter was developed in close collaboration with colleagues, including Dr. Andreas Hansen, Norway, who has followed up Nyborg’s research and, over the years, undertaken various projects with Systematic Concept Teaching focused on children with and without learning difficulties.

Nyborg’s theoretical and empirical work has resulted in the following four instruments for educational thinking, planning, and teaching practice, cf. Figure 1.1, following:

1. The green colored double oval shape at the top of Figure 1.1 — Nyborg's theoretical model of a learning person in interaction with learning situations — the PSI-model (Person-Situation-Interactions during learning). This model, presented in Chapter 2, is as previously stated, a depiction of the central parts of his theory of teaching/learning. Language plays a crucial role in learning, thinking, and communication in this theory.

2. The blue colored square shape on the left in Figure 1.1 represents an inventory of Basic Conceptual Systems and their related Basic Concepts – the BCSs, cf. Chapter 4, which contains both a short and an extended version of the inventory. The BSCs are of great importance for performing Analytic Coding, the analyses of and comparing of different objects and events using knowledge about Basic Conceptual Systems and their related Basic Concepts, cf. Chapter

3. The yellow colored double circular shape in the centre of Figure 1.1 represents the Concept Teaching Model, the CTM. The CTM is the model developed for the teaching of Basic Conceptual Systems as well as more Complex Conceptual Systems than only single concepts, cf. Chapter 3.

4. The yellow colored circular shape on the right side in Figure 1.1 symbolizes the Model for the Teaching/Learning of Skills, cf. Chapter 5. The color yellow that is used to represent both the Concept Teaching Model and the Model for Teaching Skills indicates that both of these are teaching models, while the double circle shape denotes that the CTM is the central didactical model.

Figure 1.1. Nyborg's framework for educational thinking, planning and teaching practice (see comments following).

In addition to the four models comes an educational practice developed over years with teaching academic concepts and school subjects, including skills of different kinds, cf. Chapter 8 (Teaching Beginning Reading), Chapter 9 (Teaching Early Mathematics) and Chapter 10 (Applying Basic Conceptual Systems [BCSs], and performing Analytic Coding to teach academic concepts and school subjects in general).

A rather large body of teaching projects and formal research projects have been carried out within the tradition of Systematic Concept Teaching; cf. some of them presented through example cases in Chapter 11.

The PSI-model (cf. Figure 1.1 and Figure 2.1), which, as pointed out above, is a depiction of the central parts of Nyborg's learning theory, makes it possible to imagine theoretically what might be expected to occur within a learning person in relation to external observable events, in light of the model understood as an information receiving and processing system in dynamic interaction with its surroundings.

Thus, the PSI-model can serve as an analysis tool for reasoning about what happens when learning in children and young people does not occur adequately, and which educational measures might be implemented to enable children and young people to acquire the appropriate prerequisites for learning; the aim being to improve their ability to learn, cf. the subchapter below with the what, how and why of Systematic Concept Teaching.

The phrase nothing is as concrete as a good theory is something that seems to fit in here. Nyborg's learning theory and framework for educational thinking, planning and teaching practice together provide good (concrete) guidance for how to provide optimum conditions of learning for individuals who may differ widely in prerequisites for learning (Nyborg, 1993, the front page).

As will be obvious from what is stated above and throughout this manual, there is a close connection between Nyborg's learning theory, the application of his models (cf. the description of these above), and SCT practice. This connection makes it possible to perform precise analyses about what can be done to facilitate learning and development in different areas.

What certainly distinguishes SCT from many other cognitive educational approaches/methods is the generalization and transfer of learning aspect. When working according to the principles of the Concept Teaching Model (the CTM), Basic Conceptual Systems (BCSs) and Analytic Coding (AC) can, in the next stage, be used directly to teach skills and academic concepts, as well as other concepts and conceptual systems in almost every thinkable area. In other words, there is a direct line from teaching children Basic Conceptual Systems, training them in performing Analytic Coding as well as making use of language in their thinking, learning and problem solving, to Systematic Concept Teaching of Academic Concepts and school subjects and skills of different kinds — in principle in most subject areas and at increasingly higher levels.

What is

Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) — what, how and why

Systematic Concept Teaching

(SCT) refers to the systematic teaching of Basic Conceptual Systems (Color, Shape, Size, Position, Place, [Surface] Pattern, Direction, Number, Time, etc.) and their related Basic Concepts, which are made verbally conscious through oral language skills. These Basic Conceptual Systems (BCS) and their related Basic Concepts are taught utilizing the Model for Concept Teaching (The CTM) which was initially developed by Dr. Magne Nyborg, Norway, with additional procedures developed later by Dr. Andreas Hansen.

This approach aims to help children who have had negative experiences concerning their learning possibilities develop positive expectations towards learning. In addition, it seeks to teach them to direct and take control of their attention, training them in prolonging and expanding their short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) by consciously applying language in these processes (outer as well as internalized private speech).

Moreover, it makes children aware of and trains them in the use of language as a tool for further thinking and problem-solving. In short, an essential aim for SCT is to teach children how to be more effective learners. This approach also includes training children in how to apply a precise and decontextualized (or situational independent) language when it is needed in communication, thinking and learning.

Teachers are trained to deliberately apply BCSs and their related Basic Concepts as tools for the teaching of academic concepts and school subjects together with verbal and non-verbal skills of different kinds as children learn more and more Basic Conceptual Systems (BCS) and their associated concepts.

The research

on effects of Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) and on the many reports on SCT

The research

within the tradition of Systematic Concept Teaching started with a focus on children and youth with intellectual disabilities, especially those whose IQ scores fell within the range of 50 to 70 under laboratory conditions (Nyborg, 1971). Nyborg also focused on children with learning problems in the special schools previously present in Norway (Lyngstad, 1985; Lyngstad & Nyborg, 1977; M. Nyborg, 1977; R. Hope Nyborg, 1983). It continued with research on the teaching/learning of children and youth with typical as well as below typical intellectual functioning within the ordinary pre-school, primary and secondary school system in Norway (Hansen 1987, 1995 December, 2006a, 2006b, 2009; Karoliussen, 1994; Karoliussen & Hørte, 1994; R. H. Nyborg, 1995 December; Sønnesyn, 2006).

In addition to the three doctoral theses that have emerged within the tradition of Systematic Concept Teaching (Nyborg, 1971; Bócsa, 2003; Hansen, 2006a), many books and booklets have been published on this approach, as well as approximately 14 master theses that have been completed. Beyond this, approximately 40 to 50 reports have been produced in Norway, describing projects with Systematic Concept Teaching and its possible effects for children and adolescents at various ages and with various learning problems. Systematic Concept Teaching has also been implemented in a few other European countries, as well as in Seattle, Washington, USA.

Almost without exception, the studies and reports conclude that Systematic Concept Teaching is an approach that results in children and adolescents learning in such a way that they experience a positive development of their oral language skills and their motivational dispositions towards learning. Most often this corresponds with reports of improved learning of school subjects including actual skills when such matters also are evaluated.

Some general evaluations

from outside the Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) community

In some cases,

Systematic Concept Teaching theory and practice has been compared to other approaches by professionals from outside the SCT community. This happened in 2003 when Hansen and three others were challenged by Dr. Martin Miller to write about mediation, after having participated in a Symposium on the topic at a conference the previous year: The meaning of mediation. Different perspectives. Simply put, mediation refers to the specific role of adults and other more competent individuals in the cognitive development of children as well as how best to promote learning. A. Hansen wrote about mediation from the perspective of Magne Nyborg, Ruth M. Deutsch from the perspective of Mediated Learning Experiences (Reuven Feuerstein), Yuriy Karpov wrote on Vygotsky's conception of mediation, and H. Carl Haywood wrote on mediation within a Neo-Piagetian framework. The articles were published in the Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology (Volume 3 Number 1 May 2003) with M. B. Miller as guest editor for the topic.

In Miller’s discussion of the varying perspectives, he writes about the similarities and differences among the perspectives, with some references to the common historical bases of these varying points of view and, of course, on many important aspects of mediation. When Miller compares the effectiveness of the different theories/models with their methods, he sums up his findings as follows:

It is worth noting that to my knowledge, Hansen shows striking objective evidence of the effectiveness of Nyborgian methods with special-needs children, those with significant intellectual and related learning deficits, in my view more convincingly than I have seen with any of the methods derived from the other models that have been described here, although I do not know the special education literature, if any, on Vygotskian derivatives in Russia. I believe that the effectiveness of the Nyborgian model in special education is explained by the particulars of the teaching methodology that we have read about, at least partially, in Hansen's paper.

(Miller, 2003, p. 84)

As the reader will notice, Miller gives a very positive evaluation of the effective-ness of Systematic Concept Teaching.

Another comment on Systematic Concept Teaching theory and teaching methodology comes from the late Dr. Robert Burdon, University of Exeter, as guest editor on a special issue of the journal: Thinking skills and Creativity (Volume 2 Issue 3 2009). The theme being: Thinking goes to school. Hansen's (2009a) article in this issue was based on a paper originally presented at a Conference in South Africa 2009 (South African branch conference of the International Association of Cognitive Education and Psychology in Cape Town, February 2009 – The conference theme: The art of thinking) on which Hansen was one of the Keynote speakers. His article is titled: Basic Conceptual Systems (BCSs) — tools for analytic coding, thinking and learning: A concept teaching curriculum in Norway. In reference to Hansen's article, Robert Burdon (2009) comments, among other things, that:

… It would appear that the programme has been most widely and successfully used with children suffering from severe speech and language delay, but a case can surely be made that the logical process by which the key language concepts have been identified and the intensive reinforcement accompanying their introduction makes wider application worthy of consideration. … [work in progress]…, based on sound theoretical principles, which warrants wider dissemination and consideration.

Further evidence that Systematic Concept Teaching should be considered among the effective methods for those diagnosed as having intellectual disabilities is the fact that Hansen, in May 27–31, 1997 was invited to New York to participate in a symposium at the annual meeting of the American Association on Mental Retardation (Now: The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities). The heading of the symposium was Teaching thinking to persons with mental retardation: International perspectives. The four perspectives and the presenters are presented in the citation below by the moderator Dr. H. Carl Haywood (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN), who writes in the abstract book for the meeting as follows:

Adequate development of basic logic systems has come to be recognized as a vital tool of learning and socialization. Seen as a learning tool, cognitive development is even more important for persons who, by definition, have difficulty learning than it is with those who learn more easily. Four perspectives on this issue, representing four national cultures (Australia, Norway, Israel, and Russia) are presented, each with a theoretical introduction and some empirical data in support of its use in the education of persons with mental retardation (put in by the authors in 2018: Intellectual Disability), each with a theoretical introduction of its use in the education of persons with mental retardation. Ashman discusses Process-Based Instruction as an inclusion tool. Hansen presents evidence for educationally produced changes in abilities to learn, focusing on Basic Conceptual Systems, and a Concept Teaching Model. Tzuriel presents the best-known model, that of mediated learning and structural cognitive modifiability, and shows how it is used in Israel and elsewhere to improve learning competence. Karpov and Gindis present the relevant cultural-historical approach of L. S. Vygotsky and shows its contemporary application in persons with mental retardation.

(H. Carl Haywood, 1997, p. 16)

What kind

of population can benefit from Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT)

Generally,

one can say that SCT is well suited for children starting at the ages of four and five, who are able to understand oral language information to a certain degree, and who are able to imitate short sequences of words (or signs) with the teacher and other children in a group, as a model. Recently some experiences with a simplified form of SCT (the application of several activities from Phase 1 and some from Phase 2 of the Concept Teaching Model, cf. Chapter 3), indicate that children between two and three years of age might also benefit from SCT.

As mentioned above, throughout a period of more than 30 years, many teaching experiments related to Concept Teaching were carried out by Magne Nyborg, Ragnhild Hope Nyborg, Andreas Hansen, Turid Lyngstad, as well as by many colleagues and students. To summarize these findings, it is possible to say that the following categories of learners have been shown to benefit from this approach to teaching:

Early teaching of typically developing children; that is within pre-school settings and in the early grades of primary school

Children, young people and adults with specific disabilities, including different kinds of language-learning disorders.

Children and young people with general disorders of learning, combined with a lower IQ

Children, young people whose primary language is not the dominant language of the culture in which they currently live

Children and young people with "behavioral disorders’, including schizophrenia

In addition, there are good reasons to expect that children and youth with hearing loss can also benefit from the implementation of SCT. The same is the case for children and youth with vision problems, cf. Case Study no. 6 in Chapter 11: Experiences from SCT of a young blind preschool boy.

The importance of example cases,

lessons and video clips/film

The theory

behind SCT and the corresponding teaching models may not be sufficient for some teachers/readers to decide whether this approach might be appropriate in their work as a preventive measure and/or as a remediating approach for (their) struggling children and youth. Just as important as the content of this teaching Manual are the accompanying detailed proposals of lessons with animated slides, in-depth descriptions of case studies with SCT and short video clips demonstrating the application of the Concept Teaching Model, thus giving life to the more general text and illustrations in this manual on SCT. The lessons and video clips can be found on the website, while

Chapter 11 contains examples of various case studies. These case studies include:

Study 1: A case study of SCT with Steinar and Astrid – two students with learning difficulties in combined educational settings — grade 2 and grade 3.

Study 2: A case study of SCT with Ann, a girl diagnosed as having non-verbal learning disabilities — grade 3 and grade 4.

Study 3: Presentation of a repetition and extension of a three-year fieldwork experiment (students with intellectual disabilities) (5 students: 8–11 years old).

Study 4: Basic Conceptual Systems as tool for reducing a non-native speaker’s inadequacy in order to promote the growth of personality (one girl 6–8 years old).

Study 5: A pedagogical treatment approach for young schizophrenics (two adolescents — 17-18 years old).

Study 6: Experiences from SCT of a young blind preschool boy.

Study 7: Experiences from the practical application of SCT in Seattle 2010-2018.

Chapter 2

Central aspects of the learning theory behind Systematic Concept Teaching as depicted in the PSI-model including comments related to its application in educational practice

The PSI-Model and Nyborg's theory of learning

The PSI-Model referred to as a model for making analyses as well as a definition of learning

The important term Perception or Experience, as Nyborg defines it, which includes Sensation and Coding as sub-processes

The relationship between Sensation and Coding as subprocesses of Perception and what is at any given time the LTM activated basis for performing Coding

Three Long-Term Memory (LTM) structures

The difference between numbers, words and other symbols and concepts of classes

Definition of class concepts

A distinction between two main groups of Concepts and Conceptual Systems

Perceptual coding and an example of Analytic Coding

Short-Term Memory (STM) — a memory for coded Sensations, a necessary memory for staying within contexts and, in the continuous flow of Sensation, a process (arena) for conscious thinking, problem solving and learning

Comments on other information processing models and memory frameworks as compared to the PSI-model.

Comments to Nyborg's definition of ability to learn and intelligent teaching and intelligent learning

Some sources important for the development of Nyborg's learning theory

Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) — a six-point summary of SCT as an overall strategy with reference to the PSI-model

Comments to executive functions, metacognition and self-regulation in relation to Nyborg’s theory of learning and the PSI-model

The PSI-Model

and Nyborg's theory of learning

The PSI-model,

cf. Figure 2.1 following, represents a depiction of the central parts of Nyborg's comprehensive theory of learning, and points out the proposed relationship between the psychological processes and psychological structures of a learning person engaged in dynamic interactions with other people. The model draws a very simplified, general and symbolic picture of a person in relation to situations. Situations that can become learning situations if they include something that is more or less unfamiliar or new and not yet learned by the person.

Moreover, it is important to understand that the PSI-model describes a person in a constant and dynamic interaction process with other people and the environment, whereas in the static PSI-model illustrated below, we are only able to observe a snapshot of this process.

What is situated on the left side of the model represents the external events or phenomena of a learning situation that can also be observed by individuals other than the learner. What is found to the right of the longest vertical line in the model symbolizes the learner (person) and what is occurring (sketched) inside of her/himself during a learning situation, i.e. respectively, psychological processes; (1) Sensation and Sensory Memory, (3) Coding and (4) Short-Term Memory – as well as (2) Long-Term Memory stored psychological structures in terms of knowledge, skills and dispositions (for becoming emotionally and motivationally activated by what is currently sensed, remembered and thought of by the learner).

The explanation of the PSI-model is collected from different sources written by Nyborg. However, the PSI-model is given an especially thorough review in Chapter IV in Nyborg's (1993) book Pedagogy… . How to get direct access to the book online is shown on the website, cf. Look for: Access to Pedagogy …

Figure 2.1. The PSI-model of a Learning Person (Nyborg, developed 1973–1992)

Explanation:

OR – observing or orientation responses, made by the person in order to come in contact with stimuli, i.e., turning his/her head, following contours with his/her eyes, oral orientation, etc.

SD – (discriminative stimuli) or sensory stimulation which occurs prior to the action (R) and gives an opportunity to act or releases autonomous reactions.

R – the person’s responses to SD.

SF – Feedback stimuli from the person’s own actions, i.e., the person can often see/feel what s/he is doing, hear what s/he is saying, etc.

SC+/- – or the consequence of the actions, i.e. stimuli which is or appears as a consequence of the persons own actions; negative consequences are what the person is trying to escape from, avoid or remove; positive consequences are such which the person is trying to achieve, reach or get in contact with etc.

SM – Sensory Memory. STM - Short-Term Memory. LTM - Long-Term Memory.

s – sensations corresponding to OR, SD, SC, SF, and R.

The box with Executive functions, metacognition and self-regulation to the very right of the four-sided shape in Figure 2.1 is an addition proposed added by Hansen, even though Nyborg did not discuss these constructs. The reader is referred to the last subchapter in this chapter entitled: Comments to executive functions, metacognition and self-regulation in relation to Nyborg’s theory of learning and the PSI-model for an explanation and more information in this matter.

In Nyborg's theory, there is an emphasis on learning as a factor in the development of a person. Development in this context is understood as a result of growth processes (biological growth) and learning processes. Maturation is referred to by Nyborg as a concept that seems to describe a process in a fuzzy boundary zone between growth and learning, without there being a clear definition of maturation in the literature. In his theory, Nyborg focuses on the importance that language plays in learning and development and emphasizes strongly the role that Basic Conceptual Systems (BCSs) as prerequisites for learning have for coding in perception, for Short-Term Memory (STM), for thinking, problem solving and learning, for choice of acts, for communication, for social development as well as for personality development in a broad sense.

The PSI-model referred

to as a model for making analyses as well as a definition of learning

When combined

with knowledge of the other three components of Nyborg’s framework for educational thinking, planning and teaching practice, (the Inventory of Basic Conceptual Systems, the Concept Teaching Model and the Model for Teaching Skills), the PSI-model makes it possible to theoretically imagine what might be expected to occur within a learning person in relation to external observable events, in light of the model understood as an information receiving and processing system/model in dynamic interaction with its surroundings. Thus, the PSI-model can also serve as an analysis tool for reasoning about what happens when learning in children and young people does not occur adequately, and which educational measures might be implemented to enable children and young people to acquire appropriate prerequisites for learning and, in this way, improve their ability to learn. According to Nyborg and with reference to the PSI-model, the process of learning can theoretically be defined as "changes within a person caused by:

having experiences, (cf. numerals 1 and 3 in the PSI-model),

storing experiences more permanently in Long-Term-Memory (LTM – cf.numeral 2), and eventually,

processing stored and remembered experiences in terms of thinking (cf. numeral 4 and a continuation of this process in the PSI-model)." (Nyborg, 1993)

Nyborg emphasizes that learning for an individual can and should also include learning by thinking, that is, learning by putting together, comparing and combining experiences made ​​at different times in life. As stated, it involves a theoretical definition of learning.

The important term

Perception or Experience, as Nyborg defines it, which includes Sensation and Coding as sub-processes

Nyborg points

out that the word experience in any event is a key word in the understanding of what learning means: namely to experience by various combinations of:

Sensations – in every way that is possible for humans (to experience), and

Coding of what is sensed by means of what is already stored in and activated at each moment from the person's long-term memory (LTM) (1994a, p.7, translated from Norwegian)

Moreover, it is appropriate to point out here that the Concept Teaching Model (CTM) strongly emphasizes that students should have the opportunity to sense (have sensory-based experiences with) as many examples as possible of a specific phenomenon of reality in order to have the kind of experiences that lead to the best possible conceptual learning.

The relationship

between Sensation and Coding as subprocesses of Perception and what is at any given time the LTM activated basis for performing Coding

In the PSI-model,

cf. Figure 2.1, the numerals from 1 to 6 in the Person-part of the model designate a rather typical order of events (seen in relation to the observable external events or the situation) in the same way as this might occur within a natural teaching and learning situation. It should be stressed that this concerns a cycle that usually transforms into ever new cycles. The numerals 1 to 6 and the direction of the arrows in the Person part of the PSI-model indicate the following relations:

Sensation(s) originating from different sources within and outside of the person, i.e. OR, Responses or Acts, SD, SF, SK+/-, etc., and Sensory Memory (SM) which in turn

activate Long-term Memory (LTM) contents. This serves as a basis for

Coding, as the second process in perception, of what is sensed in light of previous experiences,

in order to possibly store it for a short period of time in Short-Term Memory (STM), before a possible

Response or Act is chosen and performed.

Coding of the Consequences of the response or action contributes to the evaluation of whether the right choice was made. STM is in this connection an important factor when it comes to interpreting the present in light of the immediate past (Context), i.e., STM might be said to function as a context-creating process.

It is important to note that the arrows from (1) SENSATION and SM to (2) LTM indicate that activated LTM stored experiences are the basis for (3) CODING/interpretation as the second process in perception. The contents of LTM, along with the person's immediate focus and (learning) set, thus constitute the central basis for the coding process at any given time. It is therefore of interest to look at the contents of LTM. The results of learning, i.e., from having experiences, processing experiences and storing the outcome in a person at any given time are designated as long-term memory (LTM). The reader can find an 11-slide series of the PSI-model on the SCTR website that presents the elements in the same sequence in which they are theorized to activate/occur.

Three Long-Term Memory

(LTM) structures

In the PSI-model,

Figure 2.1, LTM (2) is divided into three main structures, each symbolized by a key word. Arrows indicating back and forth movement between the three LTM structures in the model highlight the fact that these LTM structures are in a strong interactive relationship with each other, cf. Figure 2.2 on the following page.

Figure 2.2. LTM structures ¹

One or more of these structures is activated when a person senses something, and in this way becomes part of the coding of what is sensed. These structures should be taught/learned within every school subject.

The first of the LTM structures, Knowledge/Cognition, can be divided into four different units of stored experiences at different levels of complexity:

IMAGES of certain things, plants, animals, people, events, etc., that are frequently experienced as wholes, and which constitute a person's subjective meanings of the words and other symbols with which they may be affiliated. Images can be analyzed or unanalyzed. An obvious example here would be images related to a kitchen, first frequently experienced in the home.

CONCEPTS OF CLASSES OF PHENOMENA: Concepts of Classes refers to class-organized experiences stored in LTM in terms of knowledge of partial similarities and partial differences. An example here would be a person who has acquired (sensory-based) experiences related to different kinds of kitchens and detected partial similarities and differences between all of them. On the basis of these partial similarities and differences, the person forms her/his [class] concept of what comprises a kitchen, as a result of which s/he also can recognize and communicate about (other) kitchens s/he has never seen before.

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS refers to single class concepts organized hierarchically in LTM within larger structures (conceptual systems) by means of symbols/language skills. An example here would be that, "Kitchen, is included as a concept within a larger conceptual system (superordinate term) coded as rooms, and at the same time placed at the same level as bedroom, basement room, living room, etc. (subordinate terms to room").

PROPOSITIONALLY ORGANIZED MEANINGS refers to concepts and conceptual systems organized sequentially by means of symbols (ordered by syntax or grammatically) to propositional/complex meanings, e.g., in terms of descriptions, explanations, definitions, principles, formulas, laws, rules, equations, etc. An example here would be a statement like: We have just bought a new kitchen that has ... .

The second of the LTM structures, Skills, which includes both Verbal and Non-Verbal skills, constitutes the acquired/learned and LTM stored basis for the performance of all actions. In order to analyze a skill that is to be learned, for example, determining which parts it consists of, how the parts differ from each other, in what order they occur, etc., a person also needs concepts/knowledge, cf. Chapter 5: Skills and a model for teaching skills.

The third of the LTM structures, Emotional and Motivational dispositions, forms the basis for being emotionally and motivationally activated by what is sensed, remembered or thought of by a person at any given time. It is important to note that dispositions in this sense do not refer to something innate to the individual, but are defined as learned dispositions. Learned dispositions that are stored in LTM can be awakened or activated by new sensations. In this way, activated dispositions contribute to the coding of what is sensed at each moment and influence the choice of actions in actual situations. Thus, dispositions can considerably impact the transfer process; in other words, they can either impede or facilitate learning in the individual.

Another aspect is that dispositions can usually be named, based on the person’s learned language skills and on conceptual knowledge of different kinds. As a result, most typically developing individuals are able to name what they know they like, what they are motivated by, what they are afraid of or angry about, what they despise, etc. It is therefore important for a person to acquire a positive attitude in relation to learning in general and towards learning situations of different kinds.

In order for adequate learning to take place, it is essential therefore that learners first develop the LTM structures that are suitable for the coding of the stimuli included in actual learning situations.

Systematic Concept Teaching (SCT) as an educational approach aims to contribute to positive change and development of all three LTM structures including facilitating children's acquisition of learning strategies (Hansen, 2006a).

The difference between numbers,

words and other symbols and concepts of classes

In Nyborg’s

theoretical framework there is a distinction between numbers, words and other symbols, on the one hand, and concepts of classes on the other hand. The former category mentioned may be looked on as the names of or as labels for concepts of classes and other kinds of meanings.

Definition of Class

concepts

How does

Nyborg precisely define the word concept, and determine when adequate conceptual learning has taken place?

… the word concept denotes LTM stored, class-organized experiences: i.e. concepts can be said to be the name for stored and retrievable knowledge about similarities between different members of classes of phenomena. (This also includes) knowledge about differences within a class and differences between members of a given class and members of other classes that it can be confused or mixed together with (cf. the interference aspect).

(1985a, pp. 102, translated from Norwegian)

The quotation above states that, concept learning concerns class organized experiences or concepts about classes of phenomena. It also states that the term concept is used primarily to denote a way to organize and store experiences in long-term memory. In other words, concepts constitute a kind of knowledge or cognitions that are learned and stored, and which can then be transferred to new learning situations and used for further understanding.

In line with this definition of the term concept, adequate conceptual learning is said to have occurred when the person has discovered the relevant similarity or similarities that are shared between different members of a class, e.g., how various kinds of balls are similar.

But concept learning is not just about the detection of relevant similarity or similarities. The person must also learn to ignore irrelevant similarities and become aware of the partial differences between members of the class, e.g., that some balls have a particular size, color or are used in certain games. Detecting partial differences enables the person to be able to differentiate between members of different kinds or different subgroups of balls, for example, soccer balls, volleyballs, handballs, etc., cf. the discussion of conceptual systems as a knowledge category.

Also, the person must discover the partial differences between individual class members and specific members of other related classes in order to avoid confusion. An example here would be discovering the differences between a tennis ball and a croquet ball. The person should also be able to account for these similarities and differences verbally.

The person’s ability to verbalize these similarities and differences is an indication that adequate conceptual learning has taken place. The model for Systematic Concept Teaching (CTM), as it is explained in Chapter 3, is designed to precisely facilitate the processes that are involved in the detection of partial similarities between members of a class as well as the detection of partial differences within and between members of classes.

Nyborg does not deny that conceptual learning can take place without much comprehensive symbol association. On the other hand, he points out and emphasizes repeatedly in his works the impact that words and other symbols learned in terms of language skills have in the organizing part of concept learning. Also, how these language skills become even more important when images are organized into concepts of classes and concepts of classes into conceptual systems and propositionally organized meanings.

A distinction

between two main groups of Concepts and Conceptual Systems

Nyborg distinguishes

between two kinds or two sub-groups of concepts and conceptual systems. In simplified terms, Nyborg talks of:

Sub-group 1: Basic Conceptual Systems (BCS) and their related Basic Concepts that represent attributes of and relations between wholes and their parts, such as Color, Shape, Size, Position, Place, (Surface) Pattern, Direction, Number, Time, etc.

Sub-group 2: More Complex Concepts and conceptual systems and their related concepts in regard to whole phenomena and their parts such as whole plants, animals, persons, and objects; for example: trees, horses, rooms, boats, towns, and events such as to go, to dance, etc.

According to Nyborg, the first sub-group of concepts and conceptual systems mentioned is called basic because they are foundational for learning the later and more Complex sub-group of concepts and conceptual systems. These more Complex concepts and conceptual systems are more completely based on Analytic Coding or performing abstractions, cf. the subchapter Perceptual coding and an example of Analytic Coding for an example of Analytic Coding of a letter.

When individual concepts are organized into Basic Conceptual Systems (BCSs) utilizing (oral) language skills, these Conceptual Systems are particularly useful as tools for performing analyses of the (outside) world. The extent to which children can perform such precise coding/interpretation as a foundation for subsequent learning will depend on their acquired LTM stored prerequisites for learning in terms of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, which form the basis for what can be activated from LTM during the coding process at any given time.

Perceptual coding

and an example of Analytic Coding

Coding,

cf. numeral 3 in Figure 2.1: The PSI-model, and in particular Analytical Coding, is a central concept in Nyborg's theory of learning. He defines coding as:

The word coding refers ... to the fact that most of what is sensed by an experienced person can be recognized or identified as more or less similar to something s/he has previously learned and stored. Thus, coding is used as a designation for the second component in the perception process, which has its main basis in long-term memory (LTM), i.e., in the LTM stored experiences from the person's prior learning, which are activated, partly by recent antecedents (experiences) which are remembered for a short time, and partly by the sensations that the person is currently experiencing.

(1985a, p. 32, translated from Norwegian)

By recent antecedents [experiences]— Nyborg points out that the coding also must be understood in a context where LTM storage of recent antecedents (experiences) or sensations brings about a (learning) set that influences the activation of LTM-stored experiences. This makes it possible for the person to code items and events into or in light of the context in which they at any time are included — in addition to the activation that occurs as a result of the immediate sensation.

The coding process happens inside a person, but not necessarily in such a way that it is expressed on the surface, making the coding observable by others. In accordance with the three-part basis for coding in LTM, it is conceivable that the coding process takes place by means of several possible coding reactions and at various levels of consciousness.

The simplest form of more conscious coding is probably conducted by recognition in the sense that the person experiences that, this, or something similar, is something that I have experienced before. Such coding can often be accompanied by unconscious emotional coding reactions of a different nature, but emotional coding can probably also take place on a more conscious level in light of stored and associated emotional dispositions. Also, coding often results in motivational reactions that induce what a person will or will not want to do and, does or does not do. Moreover, coding can also be reflected in the way a person makes use of things; which can help potential observers to draw conclusions about the coding. Very often, an experienced person can put their coding into words.

Nyborg also points out (1978, p 230) that one must assume that multiple coding systems are operating at the same time with similar coding processes running roughly parallel to each other. Under such conditions one can hardly expect that all coding processes will, at the same time, be at a conscious level. Thus, coding does not need to be clearly conscious in a person. Often, we find ourselves in such familiar and well-learned situations that coding can occur with little or minimal conscious attention to what is sensed. In other words, much of the coding seems to take place by itself — automatically — so one cannot easily detect and recognize that coding takes place (Nyborg, 1985a, p. 33).

However, coding can also be performed at a conscious level in a multifaceted way by means of (oral) language skills in terms of Basic Conceptual Systems (BCSs) and related Basic Concepts. Theoretically, such coding happens when we assign perceived items and events membership in specific classes by a combination of language skills and conceptual knowledge, i.e., in a verbally conscious way. This is done by activating and transferring what we have previously learned and stored in LTM. For example: This is a house (because it is [partially] similar to houses I have previously experienced in that it has…).

In the example above, a person assigns an item object membership in a specific class labeled house (house as a class concept) by a combination of language skills and conceptual knowledge. This type of coding is described as Analytic Coding and is considered particularly important when learning about something new. In such cases, it involves transferring previously learned BCSs to new situations (cf. 2.1 and the numeral 3). Analytic Coding (or varied descriptions) involves an external or internal control of the direction of attention during learning (or under recognition) through the words for BCSs, thus making them verbally conscious – Number (of parts), Color, Shape, Position, Size, (Surface) Pattern, etc. This can include:

Analytic Coding or multi-faceted description of an item / event, or, it can be about

Analytic Coding in terms of an analysis of the similarities and differences between two or more items or events.

As stated, Analytic Coding can take place at an internal level, but can also be performed on an external and observable level by a person performing self-instructions during coding as well as when s/he reports about the outcome of the shifts in attention: What parts can this thing be divided into? (Possible answer.) What is the number of parts? (Possible answer.) What Color, Shape, Position, Size, Place, etc., does this part/do the different parts have? (Possible answers.)

It may be appropriate to note that Analytic Coding or directed attentional shifts by means of BCSs can also be thought of as equivalent to performing abstractions (multiple abstractions) or performing classifications (multiple classifications). In addition, when individual basic concepts are organized into and form BCSs, these BCSs can be denoted as tools for performing analyses, comparisons and abstractions. As already indicated, this particularly detailed and precise form of coding by means of BCSs is regarded as a central process in both conceptual as well as skill learning. 

 Following, the reader is challenged to experience the Analytic Coding of a letter by answering the questions and also by noticing how the words for Basic Concept Systems precisely direct one's attention towards the features which characterize the following letter h: 

What is the number of parts in this letter? Or, How many parts does this letter have?

What shapes do Parts 1 and 2 have?

What positions are Parts 1 and 2 in?

What place do Parts 1 and 2 have in relation to each other and in relation to an imagined writing line?

What height do Parts 1 and 2 have in relation to each other?

What is this letter a symbol for? Or, What does this letter represent in reading and writing?

(Possible answers are to be found in footnote ²)

As previously pointed out, Analytic Coding by means of BCSs is also of great importance for the teaching and learning of Complex Conceptual Systems (CCS) and concepts concerning classes of whole phenomena and their parts (people, animals, plants and things and their parts, and whole events as well as parts of events). This can be exemplified by having the teacher challenge her/his students by asking the following questions:

In which aspects are all rooms (doors, windows, gardens, roads, rivers, mountains, towns, etc.) similar? How are all … similar?

How can rooms be different?

What can rooms be mistaken for?

The answers to such questions can help students considerably in their construction of precise and verbally conscious concepts, which in turn can be organized into hierarchically ordered conceptual systems symbolized by means of language skills. On the other hand, in order to master this kind of inductive approach to learning, children need extensively training.

As already stated, it can be argued that Basic Conceptual Systems and their related Basic Concepts are needed for a more thorough means of teaching/learning school subjects in general as well as for teaching/learning skills of different kinds. In other words, BCSs are tools for teaching/learning in different areas and at different levels of learning. This can easily be illustrated by looking at, for instance, the teaching/learning related to the Solar System. The logic of this is as follows: Besides utilizing information from three-dimensional models, photos, illustrations and sometimes computer data programs in teaching students about the Solar System, the outcome for the learner is heavily dependent upon her/his understanding of the teacher’s use of sentences loaded with BCSs and related Basic Concepts concerning elements such as Color, Shape, Position, Place, Size, Direction/Movement, Temperature, Surface Properties, Substance, Weight, Time, etc. In other words, BCSs and their related Basic Concepts are central with respect to teaching/learning about the Solar system.

The example concerning the Solar System illustrates how dependent a learning person — in other words, all of us — is on mastering and applying BCSs and their Related Concepts as tools for communication and as prerequisites for further learning at increasingly higher levels (deliberately or in a more automatic way). This is especially crucial for individuals with learning difficulties. Having gradually learned the conceptual basis for and the strategies of performing Analytic Coding through concept teaching, many of them will become more effective learners in a broad sense; in other words — they become more intelligent, cf. the subchapter in this chapter entitled, "Comments to Nyborg's definition of ‘ability to learn’ and ‘intelligent teaching and intelligent learning.'"

In Chapter 3, the reader will be presented with the Concept Teaching Model as a method for teaching students Basic Conceptual Systems and their related Basic Concepts and how, together, they form the important prerequisites and tools for performing Analytic Coding. In Chapter 4 the reader will learn about the Inventory of Basic Conceptual Systems (BCSs), Analytic Coding and a proposal for exercises in Analytic Coding. In Chapter 10 the reader will be informed about the role Basic Conceptual Systems (BCSs) and Analytic Coding have as prerequisites in general for teaching/learning academic concepts and different school subjects, etc. Before all of that, however, the next subchapter will focus on Short-Term Memory as depicted in the PSI-model and as part of Nyborg's theory of learning.

Short-Term Memory (STM)

— a memory for coded Sensations, a necessary memory for staying within contexts and, in the continuous flow of Sensation, a process (arena) for conscious thinking, problem solving and learning

While sensory memory

(SM in the continuous flow of [1] Sensation in the PSI-model, Figure 2.1) can be described as a very short memory for encoded sensations, STM in this model is to be understood as a short-term memory for coded sensations, i.e., sensations coded by what is activated from LTM. In line with this, STM in Figure 2.1 is located within the same 4-sided shape as LTM. In this way, Nyborg symbolizes that STM can be considered a process section of LTM, i.e., the contents within the LTM structures which at any given time are activated and thus functioning as the basis for coding of what is newly sensed. For this reason, STM in Figure 2.1 is placed as numeral 4 in the series of events starting with (1) Sensation and SM, (2) activation of LTM, (3) Coding, and finally (4) STM.

Within the framework of STM in Nyborg's theory of learning, it is also possible to imagine that processing of what was recently experienced might occur after the actual sensation has ceased; in other words, different events that have taken place recently, are held onto and compared. This might also be referred to as thinking about recent experiences.

A step further is the elaborated processing of what is currently kept and compared in STM (Sensation/SM → LTM→ Coding → STM) together with stored information/knowledge activated directly from LTM to STM [LTM→ STM], making it possible to compare larger amounts of information experienced at different points in time — so to say, thinking simultaneously about different pieces of information/knowledge experienced over time. Thus, incoming information is linked to existing knowledge in LTM and, as a result, expanded.

In addition, it is a fact that what is recently sensed and coded might initiate chains of thought which gradually lead to thinking which is more distanced from or which is not as much constrained by what is happening at the moment or what was recently sensed.

However, thinking might also occur relatively independent of what is sensed at the moment. In other words, experiences stored in LTM are activated at different times and put together so that one might think at the same time about both, what is experienced and what is remembered and thus, among other things, learn by means of thinking.

There is a general view within STM related research that the duration of STM can be extended by means of rehearsal. In relation to how STM is discussed here, this means that the person holds onto and prolongs in time what is recently coded by repeating it one or more times in a verbally conscious way (either by external/outer speech or by internal/inner speech).

When Nyborg discusses STM he relates it, in general, to (immediate) memory span studies, i.e., studies assessing the number of items in a sequence that individuals are able to reproduce relatively immediately after a presentation. Such tests usually make use of the names for numbers, letters, speech sounds, or the like. These are presented in the form of a random sequence of such items, the goal of which is for the individual to hold the sequence in memory and then recall the items, either in the same order (bound recall) that they were presented or, recall them in the opposite order as presented as a measure of STM.

Nyborg (1994a) points out that according to Miller (1956), under the previously mentioned conditions, adults are generally able to recall 7 ± 2 (5-9) coded units (unrelated or without any meaningful context) or chunks of information.

It is also important in this context to note that Miller (1956) further assumed that it is the size of the chunk or coding unit that nonetheless decides the number of bits/items that can actually be retained and recalled after a short time. If each chunk applied by a person includes, for example, 2 information bits/items, the person will be able to remember 7 X 2 = 14 information bits/items. If, however, each chunk contains four bits/items of information, the person will be able to retain and recall 7 X 4 = 28 bits/items of information. Some examples of chunks or coding units with 2 information bits/items might be colors (red, green), furniture (chair, table), domestic animals (cow, sheep), birds (sparrow, tomtit), etc., while the same units with 4 information bits/items might be colors (red, green, blue, yellow), furniture (chair, table, bench, stool), domestic animals (cow, sheep, goat, pig), birds (sparrow, tomtit, magpie, crow), etc. Chunking like this can of course only occur in persons who have previously learned and LTM-stored the concepts necessary for organizing (chunking) and re-organizing possible word lists or information to retain.

In light of his more general research on learning (e.g., Nyborg 1971, 1978) as well as from his memory span research (1981a, 1985a), Nyborg argues that STM as a function can be developed in terms of duration as well as with regard to the amount of retained items as a result of good teaching and corresponding learning. This implies that STM cannot be considered as having a fixed duration and size for a person (except when it comes to the number of coding units or chunks, as Miller (1956) called them, but rather should be perceived as a function of a person's LTM basis for coding. From such a perspective STM can vary/function as either a positive or negative factor, depending on what a person has learned in different areas, and depending on whether the person is hindered by activation of negative emotional and motivational dispositions or is motivated by activation of more positive dispositions in relation to the immediate situations (Nyborg, M & R., 1990a, p. 51).

Teaching that aims to improve STM functions — in cases where these do not seem to function well — should at least focus on the following two factors:

The teaching should give children and young people the opportunity to learn and organize concepts, integrated with and organized through language skills, into conceptual systems and propositionally organized meanings. We're talking about knowledge, which in turn can be activated through appropriate coding in perception and thus forms the basis for a more effective and well-functioning STM function.

When LTM is organized as stated above, it can form the basis for learning to code quickly and accurately by coding units (e.g., in terms of conceptual systems rather than single concepts or images) that provide opportunities for summarizing large amounts of information, which can later be reconstructed in free recall. This free recall also requires that the person utilize rehearsal as an active strategy to maintain or prolong (in time) what is recently coded, in such a way that the largest possible number of information bits related to the coding units can be reconstructed when needed.

In a broader perspective STM, as defined within Nyborg's theory of learning and by its location in the PSI-model, Figure 2.1, appears essential for putting together and processing what is recently sensed and coded. In this respect, STM can be referred to as a memory that binds together or creates contexts in the situations the person is involved in at any point in time. Put in another way it's possible to say that STM also functions as an important prerequisite for staying within contexts.

Nyborg emphasizes this by stating the following:

The greatest importance of STM might be to provide the basis both for (1) compiling and thus comparing temporally separate events and, (2) binding or creating continuity within events, i.e., sequences of perceptions or series of thoughts. STM is, in this regard, fundamental to establishing relationships between sequences of separate mental phenomena. To create such connections the person must, at any given time, be able to perceptually code or think in light of what is recently coded or thought of, in other words, by means of what could be kept or retained in STM.

(1984, pp. 24–25, translated from Norwegian)

In the quotation above, Nyborg refers to STM as well as to thoughts and thinking. The word thinking is not written into the PSI-model, cf. Figure 2.1, although Nyborg includes thinking in his learning theory and explicitly as an element of his theoretical definition of learning, where the last of three parts is described as to process/elaborate stored and activated experiences in terms of thinking. According to Nyborg, this can also be described as learning by thinking.

To summarize, STM in the PSI-model should be understood as a memory for coded sensations, as a necessary memory for staying within contexts, and in the continuity of it, as a process (arena) for conscious thinking, problem solving and learning (Hansen, 2006).

Comments

on other information processing models and memory frameworks as compared to the PSI-model.

In 1985,

Nyborg did a comparison between his PSI-model of information processing, cf. Figure 2.1, and a comparable model presented by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968), two models presented by Bower (1967, 1975), and a model presented by Fisher & Zeaman (1973). His conclusion