The content in each Unit of C4R’s curriculum is the result of a close collaborative effort between researchers and professors from universities across the United States, and a dedicated team of curriculum developers who turn scientific rigor concepts into bite-sized content and applicable skills.
We spoke with Dr. Richard (Rick) Born, Professor of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School and former Director of the Harvard PhD Program in Neuroscience, and Dr. Ani Govjian, Senior Curriculum Developer at C4R - the team behind our very first release, Confirmation Bias: The Original Error - to learn about the creative process for this Unit and their own learning experiences bringing it to life.
What inspired you to choose Confirmation Bias as your contribution to the Community for Rigor curriculum?
Rick: To be honest, the topic that I initially proposed in our application was just “bias.” Since this is a huge topic—too big for one Unit—we winnowed it down in early discussions with the folks at C4R and at NIH/NINDS. But what I especially like about the topic of “confirmation bias” is that it is simultaneously very interesting from a psychological perspective (with, as you know, a rich history of experimentation) and it is critically important for good experimental design. And not only is it important for rigor in science, but it crops up in all sorts of interesting ways in errors of human thinking: from belief in astrology to the very problematic tendency for liberals to seek out their news from MSNBC and conservatives to watch Fox News. It really is a powerful, pervasive and pernicious cognitive bias.
Can you briefly describe the process of creating this Unit with the C4R team? What was it like?
Rick: It was a long, difficult and interesting process! The first year was kind of frustrating, because the team was rather . . . incomplete. But as the staff came together, it was fun to brainstorm about what activities would be most effective in bringing across the concepts. Ultimately, I was really impressed with the creativity and thoughtfulness that the C4R team brought to the final product.
How did you approach structuring the content to be engaging and effective for learners?
Ani: I broke down the content as much as possible to be digestible and almost modular. I wanted the content to be useful for both students and instructors, so that it was just as easy to pick up and run with for solo learners as for a seasoned instructor working with a group. I also tried my best to insert a little bit of humor with the delivery and use of the raven art assets that our wonderful design team created. Ultimately, I tried to put myself in the position of future learners, and build empathy for their experience both with the content and the activities.
What sets C4R apart from other scientific rigor educational materials?
Rick: Well, it’s still early days, and I’ve only seen the materials associated with my Unit. But if this Unit is an indication of what’s to come, I’d say that the use of sophisticated web-based technology to guide the learners through educational activities is going to be the main selling point of our effort. By focusing on activities that are clever and engaging, it makes the learning seem almost effortless. The other thing that I think makes C4R unique is the rich community that has been created through outreach by the C4R team. I hope it can be sustained!
What challenges did you face while developing this Unit?
Rick: I’d say there were two major challenges. First, because even the more focused topic of “confirmation bias” is so large, it was difficult to winnow down the materials to a Unit’s worth of Lessons. The experimental literature on confirmation bias is vast, and so much of it is interesting (at least to a neuroscientist like me), that I had to discipline myself to only include the main findings that were directly relevant to the important elements of experimental design, like randomization and blinding. The second major challenge was created by our mutual pedagogical decision to minimize the amount of “lecturing” and focus on activities that would inculcate specific skills and competencies. I’m an old guy (well into my 60s), so this form of teaching was relatively new to me. But, in the end, it was great, because it stretched me to be more creative, and I think this has translated to me being a better teacher in the classroom.
You’re a subject matter expert, experienced researcher, and professor. Did you learn anything new from your experience creating the Confirmation Bias Unit with the C4R team?
Rick: Yes! I just gave you one answer —the focus on activities led me to grow as a teacher, and this was the direct result of the pedagogical approach that C4R embraced. I’d say the other major, highly pleasurable, source of growth for me was the opportunity to dig into the psychology literature on confirmation bias and learn about classic studies, like those of Peter Cathcart Wason and Robert Rosenthal. It’s fascinating stuff!
Is there any content that you wish would have been included in this Unit but didn’t make it?
Ani: The pig videos! Our expert on this Unit, Dr. Rick Born, who supplied a wealth of information on confirmation bias, had a great example of observer bias in a study (Tuyttens et al., 2014) asking participants to make sense of “differing” pig behavior (they’re the same pigs). Getting access to the original videos in the study didn’t work out for us this time, but it was a really important example.
Do you have plans to expand or improve this Unit in the future? Are there any upcoming features or updates users should look forward to?
Ani: Yes! Our team has a backlog of changes we want for updating content and activities. This first version is the culmination of a lot of thought, hard work, and care. This is why we’re getting this Unit in front of learners and educators to see what works for them as well as what doesn’t. Through community feedback and collaboration, we’ll continue to improve.
.png)
