Howdy all,
You brought up some great points... all of you. I'll respond to a couple of them here.
Let's see... Pauline, I believe there *are* some important differences between learning to DO versus learning to PASS THE EXAM. Although those two goals overlap (we hope in a very large way), there are times when -- for the exam -- you need rote memorization of facts that you would otherwise refer to in a reference book. In most cases, a deeper understanding of the content is more useful for an exam than a good recall of facts, because with a deep understanding you can figure out the answers to problems and scenarios and code examples that you've never seen before.
On the cert exams, people with strong memorization of the facts but only a surface understanding will often be thrown off by questions that are only slightly different from the mock exam questions they studied.
But... people who become, say, very proficient Java programmers cannot pass the exam without raw memorization of those things that they never use, and probably never will!
So the Head First
EJB cert book will be different from the Head First Java (an intro to Java, not a cert study guide) book, because of the additional emphasis on improving retention and recall. The memory stuff is not a replacement for the deeper understanding, but is an addition, added on to support someone who needs to know not just how to do and think about EJB, but also how to pass the exam.
And it is true that some learning / memorization can become linked ('anchored') to other things. So we recommend, for example, that when studying for the exam, you don't always study in the same place. That way your learning will be independent of a specific location, so that when you're in the exam room, you aren't thrown off. On the other hand, you *can* use this to your advantage. Maybe wearing the same shirt when you study, that you can then wear into the exam room. It might have some *small* benefit to do that. But hey, sometimes that extra point or two is exactly what you need. When I first studied for the
SCJP, I always carried a stuffed "Duke" (the Java mascot) with me. I took it into the exam room
(I can't believe I just admitted that). Even if my learning wasn't anchored to that Duke toy, at least I felt more comfortable in the room, and being more relaxed will ALWAYS help you in the exam.
There is good stress and bad stress. Good stress can help you learn, but that's the stress that comes with the excitement of a challenge, something you know will be difficult but that -- and this is the key -- you are UP TO. In other words, you have to believe that you can do it. When the stress comes from feeling overwhelmed, stupid, unable to do it, etc. -- then memory and learning are harmed. The chemistry of bad stress works against learning. So if you're teaching, anything you can do to make people feel relaxed and that, "yes, this is tricky stuff, but you will absolutely be able to do this."
A lot of people feel stressed because they think they are the only ones who aren't 'getting it'. Or that they shouldn't be confused. One of the things I try to do in the classroom, and in the Head First book, is to always let people know when it is OK -- and normal -- to feel confused! On some topics, I wasn't able to say it all in one page in a way that would make perfect sense, so we would even have a character on the next page who looks completely confused and says, "What did you just say?"
Another phenomena in the classroom is that many people are afraid to ask questions. So they hope and hope that someone ELSE will ask the question that they have. In the book, we have sections in every chapter titled "There are No Dumb Questions", where we ask the questions that students so often ask, even if they seem obvious and silly. We don't make very many assumptions in this book, because that's something I personally HATE about a lot of books. They make a statement without explaining it, assuming that it made perfect sense the way they explained it. We assume, on the other hand, that most of what we say does NOT make perfect sense after one clear sentence. So we say the same thing in multiple ways, and using different techniques. There is redundancy, but not repetition. We say that same thing in multiple ways, not by repeating the same thing, the same way, over and over.
Another key point that's been mentioned several times in this
thread is individual learning styles/preferences. This is important in many ways, which we try to exploit in Head First (I'll explain in a moment). But even taking into account the uniqueness of each brain, there *are* attributes common to all humans -- things like:
* Our brain is tuned to process most information visually. Everyone's brain.
* Our brain is tuned for novelty. It is always seeking that which is unusual, unexpected.
Plus, some folks think a particular style is a valid way to learn simply because they managed to learn that way in SPITE of how sub-optimal it was. Like people will insist how much they learned from a lecture, without realizing that they could have learned so much more... and more quickly and deeply... in another way.
Having said that, everyone's brain IS unique and there can be a wide range of perferences. This was really a big consideration for the Head First format -- there was a lot of research on this about 10 years ago, when people were building "adaptive" CBT programs. We all imagined that the learning needed to be in the learner's own preferred style. So we did what was called "over-authoring", where you create content for learning a particular topic in multiple ways, not just one. It was speculated that this would only serve to distract everyone... but they found just the opposite. People would naturally be drawn to the styles that they preferred, AND when multiple styles were offered, people learned BETTER than if the entire learning was presented in their preferred style alone. So, you want people to have their preferred style, but layering in other styles enhances EVERYONE's learning.
In Head First we're somewhat limited, because it is a printed book, but we rely heavily on over-authoring. Nearly all of the information in the book is presented in several different ways -- the same content. Everything from right-brain stories and metaphors and patterns to left-brain bullet points and step-by-step sequencing.
And everything is supported by both pictures and text. The ratio of pictures to text is vastly different from a traditional book, however.
We try to use other senses, but that's difficult. The hands-on exercises are meant to be done right inside the book, workbook style. The *games* are optional, and only at the very end of the chapter. They are there for people who like them, on the assumption that "more time on task" is always a good thing.
We don't have anything auditory, but we do a "poor-man's audio" by including rhymes and a lot of thought-bubbles over the heads of characters, where you can "hear" them talking out loud. This isn't ideal, but a lot of people will "hear" these things in their head because they are pictures of people talking, or the rhymes, and that still offers a chance that the info will be coded in more than just a text or visual way.
Gotta talk to O'Reilly about the scratch-n-sniff for the next book
(just kidding)
Now, will *everyone* learn from the book? No. We figure some people will hate it -- and hate it with passion! And they will hate it without ever even giving it a chance, from a learning perspective. Hating it doesn't mean you won't remember
Think of all the things you WISH you couldn't remember...
For one thing, though, the book has a definite personality style, and that -- much more than learning style -- will turn some people off. The book was absolutely geared for a younger, hipper audience than your father's text book. It is kind of a wired-meets-MTV-meets Dick-and-Jane workbook. And there is a little edginess to it that some people won't like. It's actually much more tame than we had originally planned, but still... it has a photo of a girl in a bathtub discussing
polymorphism, and there are a few implied (but not explicit) swear words, for example.
Some people may even find that personally offensive. But think about it -- I came under fire for javaranch, many times, because people said "You aren't taking Java seriously."! Those people will hate it. Some people believe humour is a distraction. In reality, it can be extremely beneficial for learning.
In America, though, because most people aren't given any training in learning, they *believe* that things are distracting in a bad way, when in reality these distractions are actually enhancing their learning. Xerox Parc did a lot of research on this -- where they studied how much certain distractions actually *improved* learning! Counter-intuitive, I know, but there is a basis for it. Most of it has to do with simply waking the brain up by changing the pace, instead of a relentless march of pure technical content.
So, you might be annoyed by something, yet still learn better from it. But if someone hates the Head First format and style, as we know some people will, they probably shouldn't get near it.
Some people will dismiss it as just "pasted in clip-art distractions". There is, I'm sorry to say, a tiny bit of that. But VERY little. 95% of the visuals/pictures in the book are there to support the learning. So if you just flip through the book without really looking at it, you might think, "Oh lots of pictures and people and fun stuff, but where's the meat?" Without realizing that these things ARE the meat.
The Roger Schank book I most recommend is :
world class e-learning book amazon link In fact, if I could recommend only one book for people developing courses of any kind (not just elearning), that would be the book.
But if you google him, you'll find other interesting things
If you're from a CS background, then you might already be familiar with his older AI work, which I also love.
OK, a couple of other comments... someone mentioned that getting people to work in groups together can be stressful for some people. Yes! That's absolutely true. A human instructor has to be very sensitive to that, and there are ways to introduce people into working in groups in the most non-threatening way. You can't put people on the spot, or draw attention to them, unless they are comfortable with this. But if done well, it can be helpful to take someone just a little beyond their comfort zone, as long as they do not become stressed. Many instructors are not capable of doing this, and a lecture is often the safest thing for them to do. This is also culturally-specific as well -- although not quite as much as many people believe.
But that's why I am a huge fan of e-Learning, because you can have the best of both worlds. People can interact together, yet at their own pace and without feeling threatened. If done right, I believe that this could be the "ideal" learning scenario for the greatest number of people. It is still missing the important aspect of people talking through things out loud, although in our book we tell people to do this. We can't make them do it though.
This talking out loud thing is a classic programmer trick, some people call it "Teddy Bear Programming" where if you don't have someone around, you prop a teddy bear (or pet) in front of you and start explaining the situation. More often than not, this leads to a solution -- even though the teddy bear obviously didn't actually SAY anything (and if it did... I would like the number of your pharmacist
but just the act of speaking it out loud triggers previously-untapped parts of your brain, for working on that issue.
OK, that's more rambling than you ever wanted
Back to work now, thank-you to all for this discussion. I love it!
cheers,
Kathy
