Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by doubtingthomas »

In this paper, we explore one novel method that we propose can raise germane cognitive load...With this method, we hope to address the lack of attention devoted in the cognitive load literature concerning the negative impact of existing knowledge on acquiring new knowledge
Students reported that more traditional instructional approaches demanded less attention because they appeared simple and clear. Consequently, students did not necessarily consider how the presented information fitted with their prior knowledge. When asked about the contents of the multimedia they watched they were more likely to say that their preconceptions were presented in the multimedia than those who watched a misconception treatment. We think it is remarkable that small changes in the content and presentation of a short multimedia treatment can have a pronounced effect on the way in which the presentation is viewed, and the learning that results from it
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20244

Long story short, students who thought it was "simple and clear" scored significantly lower on the exam. Students with existing knowledge of a subject don't pay close attention to the details.

Makes me wonder if apologists (who are typically a lot older than students) don't pay attention to details.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
drumdude
God
Posts: 5219
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by drumdude »

I think it depends on what angle they're trying to get at. The details matter tremendously when those details are faith promoting. Those details do not matter or are irrelevant when they are not faith promoting or are harmful to Mormon faith.

It's all part of the tried and true apologist shell game.

With regards to the paper, I would think that it doesn't really apply to Mormon apologists because typically Mormon apologists are not trained in the area they are doing apologetics in. You see a ton of Mormon lawyers writing apologetic essays about archeology, linguists writing essays about ancient metallurgy. John Gee is one of the few Mormon apologists that actually has some academic expertise in his area of apologetics, and that was planned intentionally to make LDS apologetics appear more credible.
User avatar
DrStakhanovite
Elder
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by DrStakhanovite »

For those who can’t get past the paywall, here is more context (about 10 paragraphs under the header of “Discussion” and goes from page 15 to page 17, pages 18 and 19 are the references):

Muller, et al wrote:In Experiments 1 and 2, students who watched multimedia that included alternative conceptions on Newton’s first and second laws achieved higher posttest scores than those who viewed multimedia that strictly followed established design guidelines. These results help extend the findings of refutation text studies (Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003; Guzzetti et al., 1993; Guzzetti, Williams, Skeels, & Wu, 1997) to the area of linear multimedia. Linear multimedia is different to refutation text because it is transient in time. Learners cannot easily refer back and forth between scientific and alternative conceptions as they can with refutation text; instead, they must construct their understanding as the multimedia progresses. In spite of this, students on average were able to achieve higher posttest scores with misconception multimedia than with concise expository treatments. This study is in good agreement with our previous results, confirming that a measure of conceptual change can occur with learning resources that some would consider “passive.”

The novel finding reported here is that the inclusion of alternative conceptions measurably increases the cognitive load on learners during instruction. Furthermore, it appears that this increase in cognitive load is germane since students who watched misconception treatments achieved greater posttest scores than those who saw expository treatments. Follow-up interviews support this conclusion. Students reported that more traditional instructional approaches demanded less attention because they appeared simple and clear. Consequently, students did not necessarily consider how the presented information fitted with their prior knowledge. When asked about the contents of the multimedia they watched, they were more likely to say that their preconceptions were presented in the multimedia than those who watched a misconception treatment. We think it is remarkable that small changes in the content and presentation of a short multimedia treatment can have a pronounced effect on the way in which the presentation is viewed, and the learning that results from it.

Cognitive load, as utilized in this study, may be a useful construct when considering methods of science teaching in a range of settings, not just in multimedia. Often the idea of active or “heads-on” learning is used to describe the desired result of innovative pedagogy (e.g., Hake, 1998), but it is not clear exactly what this type of learning is or how it can be measured (without using academic tests). Germane cognitive load resembles active learning in that it refers to conscious, effortful activity on the part of the learner that results in measurable long-term learning. Cognitive load researchers have shown that this load can be measured in a variety of ways including physiological measures and self-reported rating scales (Paas et al., 2003). Perhaps the established methods in cognitive load research can be used to evaluate new teaching practices and science educators can consider whether cognitive load offers a useful framework for understanding active learning.

Qualifying the inclusion of discussions of alternative conceptions as germane cognitive load still begs the question of how learning from only correct expositions is different from learning with the inclusion of alternative conceptions. Although our data do not bear directly on the different learning processes, we suggest that schema theory offers a satisfying explanatory framework for the observed effect. The kind of learning taking place differs depending on if and what kind of prior knowledge is activated. For the case of no prior (relevant) schema being activated, offering learners a discussion of alternative conceptions allows for schema induction (analogous to well-understood concept-learning mechanisms), with counterexamples being an important resource for induction (e.g., Langley & Simon, 1995). For the case of a schema being activated, but one that is not (fully) in accordance with the correct explanation offered in the presentation, the schema representing prior knowledge (beliefs) can be structurally modified and/or the belief strength can be reduced (Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, & Thagard, 1986). The information from the refutation and dialogue provides important information for which part of an existing schema to modify (or to replace it completely). Finally, for the case where an existing schema is activated and it is identical in content to the correct explanation being offered in the presentation, that schema can be seen as being “strengthened” and the probability that it will be used again by the learner is hence increased.

In comparing the two misconception-based multimedia treatments, there was no observable difference in the posttest scores from the refutation and dialogue groups. However, interviews suggest that in addition to remedying alternative conceptions, the dialogue treatment may provide affective benefits. Students appreciated seeing their ideas presented in the multimedia and felt less alone in their confusion, as a result.

Some might question whether the methodology allowed some students to consult with other resources or peers before or during the posttest, or to not pay attention to the multimedia, thereby undermining the results. We cannot rule out these possibilities since students were allowed to participate in their own time as they saw fit. However, it is incredibly unlikely that refutation and dialogue students, all randomly assigned, would behave in such a way as to artificially inflate their scores. More likely is the possibility that unanticipated student behaviors resulted in an underestimation of the benefits of the dialogue and refutation. Regardless, the results of this study should be applicable to real learning settings with learners enrolled in the subject matter, one of our central objectives for this work. In future studies, it would be interesting to replicate the present experiments in a laboratory setting. Learners may concentrate more on the multimedia when supervised by researchers, potentially improving the results with all forms of multimedia. In addition, short answer questions could be asked together with multiple-choice items to get a more complete picture of student learning.

Science education researchers might doubt the extent to which conceptual change can be facilitated by multimedia. When considering this concern, it is important to keep in mind the range of experiences students have, and the different amounts of mental effort they invested (Cook, 2006). For some students, misconception multimedia certainly failed to make any impact on their conceptions. However, for others, the evidence suggests that some degree of conceptual change was achieved. After all, conceptual change is not regarded as an all-or-nothing process but rather as a gradual shift over time (diSessa, 2006). Discussions in interviews indicate that even when a student has taken a step toward conceptual change, it may not be apparent in his or her answers to multiple-choice questions. This is a second way in which the results obtained in this study may be a conservative estimate of the learning that occurred.

From a multimedia design perspective, the essential conclusion of this study is that alternative conceptions need to be understood and included by designers in linear multimedia resources, especially in science education areas where misconceptions are common. Students who watched multimedia treatments that did not include alternative conceptions reacted quite positively to them and believed they learned something from the experience. However, their responses to multiple-choice questions and discussions in interviews indicate that they generally did not change their previous conceptions. Instead, they became more confident in their preconceptions, believing that the multimedia supported their views. Multimedia that makes no mention of common alternative conceptions is therefore not only ineffective, it is detrimental. Since students do not recognize that the presented information differs from their preconceptions, such multimedia inadvertently reinforces alternative views.

It is important to note that we do not claim that online multimedia is the best method for changing students’ conceptions, nor should it be a stand-alone solution to conceptual difficulties. We do suggest that (a) linear resources can be more effective than interactive simulations in cases where students have little accurate prior knowledge, (b) linear resources can be improved by including alternative conceptions, because (c) this results in students investing more mental effort that (d) means they are more likely to recognize discrepancies between their extant knowledge and correct scientific conceptions. We, therefore, recommend that misconception-based multimedia be used as a resource in conjunction with interactive teaching methods. Furthermore, it can be worked into simulations to provide scaffolding and help focus on conceptual issues (Rieber et al., 2004).

Already, vicarious learning inspired tools are being used in physics reform methods. The Tutorials in Introductory Physics worksheets include scripts of common dialogues involving alternative conceptions between hypothetical characters (McDermott & Shaffer, 2001). Students are asked which character they agree with, if either, and why. This leads to reflection on important concepts, which appears to be beneficial for both novice and more experienced learners. Peer instruction is another method that has improved performance by involving students in dialogues about conceptual questions (Mazur, 1997). The results of this study suggest that it is not just discussing but observing discussions that leads to these impressive conceptual gains. It could be argued that observing should precede engaging in dialogue to set the groundwork for ideas to come and limit faulty effort (Bandura, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978).

We would like to thank Emily Perks and Kester Lee for aiding in the production of multimedia materials, and reviewers for their suggestions for the manuscript.
I don't see the connection, but the article is interesting regardless.
Image
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by Moksha »

I think apologists realize that parallel proofs for LDS claims are found wanting when they pay attention to detail.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by Binger »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:59 pm
I think apologists realize that parallel proofs for LDS claims are found wanting when they pay attention to detail.
Are you referring to the exmo apologists or the LDS apologists?
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by Moksha »

Binger wrote:
Tue Jul 12, 2022 9:14 pm
Moksha wrote:
Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:59 pm
I think apologists realize that parallel proofs for LDS claims are found wanting when they pay attention to detail.
Are you referring to the exmo apologists or the LDS apologists?
Good question, I hadn't considered the possibility that ex-Mormons would be pushing LDS parallel proof claims.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
drumdude
God
Posts: 5219
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by drumdude »

Binger wrote:
Tue Jul 12, 2022 9:14 pm
Moksha wrote:
Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:59 pm
I think apologists realize that parallel proofs for LDS claims are found wanting when they pay attention to detail.
Are you referring to the exmo apologists or the LDS apologists?
Define exmo apologist.

The opposite of a Mormon apologist is a normal default human being. It’s a stretch to call someone who holds to the null hypothesis an apologist.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by doubtingthomas »

DrStakhanovite wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:25 am
I don't see the connection, but the article is interesting regardless.
The students who watched traditional instructional approaches paid less attention. Would you agree?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
DrStakhanovite
Elder
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by DrStakhanovite »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Fri Jul 15, 2022 3:38 am
The students who watched traditional instructional approaches paid less attention. Would you agree?
Yes, but compared to what? (bolding mine):
Muller, et al wrote:In Experiments 1 and 2, students who watched multimedia that included alternative conceptions on Newton’s first and second laws achieved higher posttest scores than those who viewed multimedia that strictly followed established design guidelines. These results help extend the findings of refutation text studies (Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003; Guzzetti et al., 1993; Guzzetti, Williams, Skeels, & Wu, 1997) to the area of linear multimedia. Linear multimedia is different to refutation text because it is transient in time. Learners cannot easily refer back and forth between scientific and alternative conceptions as they can with refutation text; instead, they must construct their understanding as the multimedia progresses. In spite of this, students on average were able to achieve higher posttest scores with misconception multimedia than with concise expository treatments. This study is in good agreement with our previous results, confirming that a measure of conceptual change can occur with learning resources that some would consider “passive.”
Mormon Apologetics is fundamentally oriented towards either refuting or otherwise undermining alternative conceptions and is a persistent feature in their work. If anything, this article could be used to justify the thesis that apologetic material sticks with people much better than the simple exposition found in official Church material.
Image
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Could it be that apologists don't pay attention to details?

Post by doubtingthomas »

DrStakhanovite wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 6:44 pm

Yes, but compared to what? (bolding mine):
Muller, et al wrote: In spite of this, students on average were able to achieve higher posttest scores with misconception multimedia than with concise expository treatments.
Right. The students who viewed multimedia that strictly followed established design guidelines thought the content was "simple and clear."

When the critics do a presentation, perhaps they should begin by addressing the typical apologetic arguments first?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
Post Reply