mardi 6 novembre 2012

The Korean version of the TEL Dictionary entries list now available

The Korean version of the TEL Dictionary entries is now available, prepared by Hyo-Jeong So from the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and Hyungshin Choi from the Chuncheon National University of Education in Korea.  A part from a now classical difficulty with "computational mathetic" (a term coined by John Self, which in my opinion we don't enough pay attention to -- I will come back on this) and "didactical engineering" which is burrowed from research in mathematic education, this translation was successful in translating all the terms. I am not familiar with Korean, but may be some of you are. You may want to have a look and comment.

mercredi 10 octobre 2012

The Japanese index of the TEL Dictionary is now available

Thanks to the effort and commitment of Jun Oshima from the faculty of informatics of Shizuoka university, the Japanese index of the TEL Dictionary is now available. As in the case of other languages, Jun has met some problems with the meaning of words or even their existence in the Japanese lexicon. Together with his colleagues, Jun was for example much concerned with the difference in meanings between "epistemic" and "epistemological". It is actually a concern shared with several other translators in other languages. Now that we have a good corpus of translations, I suggest that we start exploring and understanding the impact of these linguistic issues which indeed goes beyond the words. The creation of the Japanese index is the result of a team work under Jun leadership, contributors include Ritsuko Oshima, Shizuoka University; Etsuji Yamaguchi, Kobe University; Hiroyuki Masukawa, Shizuoka University; Toshio Mochizuki, Senshu University; Takeshi Kitazawa, Tokyo Future University; Moegi Saito, University of Tokyo; Hiroki Oura, Washington University

samedi 29 septembre 2012

"e-assessment", a new entry of the TEL Dictionary

Assessment is one of the key functions of a learning environment, be it formative or summative. I would even claim that implicitly or explicitly, consciously or not, it drives its design. The definition of e-assessment prepared by Valerie Shute and Yoon Jeon Kim for the TEL Dictionary reminds us the expectation that technology enhanced assessment would be more efficient than assessment, thanks to the power of the computer. I suggest to add: thanks to the possibility of getting more personalised and accurate information on the learner activity.

As a matter of fact, e-assessment, from a research perspective, might not be far from learner modelling, a term which is not mentioned as one of the related terms Valerie and Yoon enumerate. In your opinion, what ontological or semantic relation can be established between "e-assessment" and "learner modelling"?

mercredi 29 août 2012

The Russian version of the TEL Dictionary entries is now available

The Russian translation of the TEL Dictionary entries, prepared by Diana Bogdanova (Moscow State Railway's University), met some of the now classical problems of this very difficult exercise in spite of the excellent expertise of the translator. Some are solved in a way which preserves enough of the intended meaning, for example the translation of "Inquiry learning" into "Исследовательское обучение". But other are possibly more questionable, for example, the translation of "Educational affordance" into "Образовательная достижимость". As in all the other cases, this first release is tentative, we leave to the community of the Russian speakers to survey the proposal and make suggestions.

mercredi 27 juin 2012

Ma thématique, la didactique, l'informatique aussi

Les mathématiques sont, pour la didactique de cette discipline, un objet d'étude sous les contraintes particulières des problématiques de l'apprentissage et de l'enseignement. Elles peuvent aussi être un outil pour la recherche en didactique, pour comprendre les enjeux de contenu et comme un outil de modélisation. C'est à ce point que l'informatique, en tant que science et technologie, apparait avec toute sa puissance, au-delà des rêves d'innovation qui souvent paraissent en constituer la justification.

Conférence donnée lors des 
Journées EducTICE Lyon, juin 2011

mardi 26 juin 2012

Le savant et l’ingénieur …

Billet initialement publié le 16 août 2006, sur le blog Opinion on TEL (site Kaleidoscope.org)

L’été est propice à des lectures dont les thèmes sont souvent très éloignés de nos préoccupations professionnelles. Quoi que… voici ce que je retiens de l’une d’entre elles :
« Et quand le savant a rencontré l’ingénieur, la mécanique analytique le chemin de fer, vers 1840, la croyance a prouvé son pouvoir, et put se prendre pour un savoir. On est alors passé de l’ère des sociétés chaudes, où contrairement aux sociétés froides, l’on consomme de l’événement pour produire du mouvement, à l’ère de la société industrielle, où l’on consomme des machines pour produire du mythe. » (Debray, cf ci-dessous)
Je me suis d’abord arrêté sur la première phrase pour repenser sous cet angle nos recherches sur les EIAH. Mais il me semble que la seconde mérite aussi notre réflexion. Ne poussons-nous pas la consommation de technologies pour nourrir des mythes sur l’éducation ? où en adoptant ces mythes comme justification puérile ou mondaine. Ces deux derniers attributs me sont suggérés par la relecture de Bachelard qui, dans ce contexte si éloigné de son exploration de la formation de l’esprit scientifique, peut peut-être encore nous inspirer :
 « … la tâche de la philosophie scientifique est très nette : psychanalyser l’intérêt, ruiner tout utilitarisme si déguisé qu’il soit, si élevé qu’il se prétende, tourner l’esprit du réel vers l’artificiel, du naturel vers l’humain, de la représentation vers l’abstraction. Jamais peut être plus qu’à notre époque, l’esprit scientifique n’a eu plus besoin d’être défendu, d’être illustré au sens même où du Bellay travaillait à la Défense et illustration de la langue française. Mais cette illustration ne peut se borner à une sublimation des aspirations communes les plus diverses. Elle doit être normative et cohérente. Elle doit rendre clairement conscient et actif le plaisir de l’excitation spirituelle dans la découverte du vrai. » (Bachelard, cf ci-dessous). 

Régis Debray, Supplique aux nouveaux progressistes du XXI° siècle. Paris : Gallimard, 2006. pp.36-7
Gaston Bachelard, La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris : Vrin, 1938, pp.9-10.

lundi 28 mai 2012

The iPhone shrinked to a point of the kinetic space

If creativity means the capacity to imagine a use or an object away from its natural niche, then this is an excellent creative example. There, the iPhone is no longer a phone nor a digital assistant, it is a multiple-sensors device and the tangible representation of a point in the kinetic space. The innovative proposition of Joël Chevrier and his team, have applications for the learning in physics and mechanic, but also one may imagine that it could become a  representation of oneself body in the space and be used with young learners. This innovative pedagogical proposition exploits just a few of the potential of the iPhone: the accelerometer and the magnetometer. Just a few, but already enough to foster creative learning with mobile technologies.

jeudi 24 mai 2012

Did Scholar, the TEL environment of the 70s, involve adaptivity or personnalisation?

A recent discussion of the TEL Dictionary initiative LinkedIn group raised the question of the existence of a personnalisation or adaptivity objective in the design of SCHOLAR, one of the seminal TEL environments (Carbonell 1970 ). Indeed it is true that the whole objective was to adapt to the learner in a more flexible way than ever before. This effort was based on two principles.
  1. the use of semantic networks ensures that the machine and the learner have similar knowledge structures (ibid. p.197), facilitating a kind of shared understanding.
  2. "mixed-initiative dialogue" would allows a better adaptation of the interaction.
Hence we may think of a search for personalisation and adaptivity, although it might not have been the case. Or at least, not the case in these terms. This is well illustrated by the last words of an other report: "what we have tried to show in this paper is the fuzzy, ill-defined, uncertain nature of much of human knowledge and thinking. We want SCHOLAR to be just as fuzzy-thinking as we are." (Carbonell and Collins 1974). So, there is no evidence that the objective was personalisation. Actually after a close analysis of the types of learner's error (ibid. p.198), Carbonell develops a n argument in support of the claim that teachers are less interested in diagnostic than in allowing students to overcome errors. Interestingly enough, noticing that SCHOLAR at that point had limited diagnostic capacity, he writes: "The system could also ask for help when complicated diagnoses appear needed." (ibid. p.200). Unfortunately he died too early (1973) to develop SCHOLAR further, but I would suggest that he was following a different route than personalisation and adaptivity. An objective more related to the modelling of conversation with a knowledgeable other who identifies your errors and drive the conversation to correct them not necessarily diagnosing their origins or making sense of what he or she thought. That would be in line with the more general objective of Carbonell who viewed "the Scholar system as an environment to study natural semantics" (Carbonell and Collina 1974).

Illustration taken from Carbonell and Collins, 1970, "Mixed-initiative systems for training and decision-aid applications" (see the document there). 

Key reference: Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Computer-Aided Instruction. IEEE Transactions on ManMachine Systems, 11, 190-202. IEEE.

dimanche 6 mai 2012

Chercheurs 2.0... une mise au point

"La généralisation des outils informatiques et plus récemment l'arrivée des outils "Web 2.0" a-t-elle fondamentalement changé les habitudes de travail des chercheurs ? " Telles étaient les questions auxquelles demandaient de répondre les organisateurs de la  rencontre "Chercheurs 2.0, nouvelles habitudes de travail" à l'IUFM de Grenoble le 19 mai 2010.


   



Note pour un débat "provocateur" sur la formation ouverte et à distance (FOAD)

 Texte d'introduction à une contribution à la table ronde "Provocateur" du Symposium International Distances et savoirs, 10-11 décembre 2009, CNED Poitiers.

La formation à distance, depuis les origines, a exigé de ceux qui la mettent en œuvre -- comme de ceux qui en bénéficient -- la compréhension des circonstances particulières de son fonctionnement qui substitue à « ici et maintenant » un « où et quand on veut » qui remet en question les modalités habituelles de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage. La formation à distance est ainsi provocatrice parce qu’elle est source de contraintes à l’origine de questions et de remises en questions des pratiques communes.

La distance est au cœur des problématiques de l’enseignement et de la formation. Le maître dans les temps anciens marquait la distance en montant en chaire, plus récemment, au début du siècle dernier, l’estrade était fréquente. Ces dispositifs soulignaient une place différente relativement au savoir. On a peu à peu supprimé ces barrières matérielles, cependant symboliques ; mais si le professeur est « descendu » dans la salle de classe, une distance subsiste. Au fond, la première question que la formation à distance soulève est celle de savoir ce qui est mis à distance. Contrairement aux apparences, ce n’est pas le professeur ou l’enseignant, mais le savoir lui-même -- l’enjeu des apprentissages. D’ailleurs, ne parle-t-on pas d’accès à la connaissance, d’accès au savoir. Un accès rendu possible à « tous » dans la mesure où les contraintes économiques et d’infrastructure auraient été levées. L’enjeu de la formation à distance est donc d’élargir les possibilités d’accès à la formation et à la connaissance, et ce à quoi vont être attentifs les utilisateurs – professeurs, élèves ou familles – c’est la possibilité par ce moyen d’obtenir les diplômes et qualifications recherchés.

J’apporterai ici l’illustration de mon propre témoignage, à propos du projet TéléCabri que j’ai conduit dans les années 90 dans le cadre de l’hôpital de Grenoble. Il s’agissait de mettre en place une infrastructure et des pratiques pour, en s’appuyant sur les technologies de la distance, permettre à des enfants hospitalisés pour des durées significatives de recevoir des enseignements équivalents à ceux qu’ils auraient eu dans leur établissement. La principale spécification du projet, pris dans son ensemble, était que les élèves puissent retourner dans leur établissement d’origine sans pâtir d’une rupture de scolarité (les carnets de notes et autre bulletins circulant entre structure hospitalière et structure scolaire). Les parents, comme les élèves et les enseignants intervenants ne posaient pas de questions sur la technologie et la distance, mais sur l’efficacité d’un dispositif qui était pour l’essentiel transparent à leurs yeux. Ainsi, le critère de succès du projet était la transparence du dispositif technique aux yeux de ses utilisateurs. Le sentiment de distance doit s’effacer au profit de la seule problématique d’apprentissage. Ce qui est provocateur, c’est que le succès de la formation à distance réside dans sa disparition en tant que problématique propre de l’apprentissage ou de l’enseignement, ne subsistant que les contraintes de temps et d’espace à traiter pour telles mais en quelque sorte en arrière plan. En revanche, reste au premier plan la question des rapports entre la technologie et les savoirs dans un contexte d’enseignement et d’apprentissage.

A ce point je voudrais faire une remarque sur la différence d’évolution des vocabulaires dans la sphère anglophone et francophone. Dans le premier cas s’est imposée, sous l’impulsion principalement de la commission européenne, l’expression « technology enhanced learning (TEL) ». Dans la sphère francophone, depuis la fin des années 90 [*], s’est imposée l’expression « environnements informatiques pour l’apprentissage humain (EIAH) ». Je mets le mot « pour » en italique parce que c’est le mot essentiel, celui par qui les difficultés arrivent. En effet, on peut mettre en rapport moyens informatiques et apprentissage, et observer que l’immersion technologique conduit à des apprentissages (a posteriori). Une difficulté surgit, lorsque l’on prétend que ces environnements informatiques ont été conçus « pour » un apprentissage, car alors il faut être capable de justifier de ce que les apprentissages recherchés (a priori) ont été obtenus. Le programme scientifique auquel renvoie le sigle « EIAH » est ainsi autrement ambitieux que celui des « TEL ». Il poursuit en fait le projet initial des « tuteurs intelligents » que l’on a trop vite abandonné devant les difficultés auxquelles les chercheurs en informatique et en éducation étaient confrontés. Les EIAH ne sont cependant pas synonymes des tuteurs intelligents, la problématique englobe aussi bien les tuteurs que les micromondes, la formation à distance les didacticiels. Les EIAH n’auraient au fond à satisfaire que la contrainte de « connaissance », enjeu de l’apprentissage, mais il faut qu’ils ne l’oublient pas. C’est parce que cette contrainte a été mal spécifiée, ou trop rapidement, que Logo fut à la fois un grand succès et un grand échec. Un grand échec parce que finalement Logo a à peu près disparu des classes, faute de trouver sa place dans la caisse à outils qui permet de réaliser les prescriptions du curriculum scolaire. Certes Logo permet d’exprimer la créativité intellectuelle, et d’apprendre des concepts sophistiqués telle la programmation ou la géométrie, mais avec un décalage toujours sensible par rapport aux disciplines scolaires – la géométrie sous-jacente à Logo est la géométrie différentielle (le cercle est une figure à courbure constante) alors que la référence de la géométrie scolaire est la géométrie d’incidence et euclidienne (le cercle est l’ensemble des points à même distance d’un point donné). Pour autant, Logo est un grand succès parce qu’il a forgé le concept de micromonde et ouvert une problématique innovante qui a conduit à des réalisations telle celle de Cabri-géomètre, un micromonde de géométrie élémentaire dont l’interface offre un accès direct aux objets et à leurs relations. L’analyse des deux environnements du point de vue de la connaissance qu’ils engagent et de son rapport aux curricula permet de comprendre leurs réceptions différentes par les institutions scolaires.

Ainsi, la question de la distance ne prend de l’importance que dans la mesure où elle est à l’origine d’incertitudes, de questions sur l’accès aux savoirs en termes d’apprentissage et de leur validation. Ces questions sont intelligibles lorsque la distance est exprimée par des contraintes qui s’exercent sur la communication entre l’enseignant et les élèves, les élèves entre eux, l’accès à une représentation des savoirs en jeu ou aux activités qui les impliquent. Les technologies ont d’abord permis de dépasser les contraintes de l’éloignement géographique en gérant celles temporelles liées à la production des supports de formation et à leur acheminement. Les technologies contemporaines ont diminué sensiblement les contraintes géographiques et fait apparaitre les contraintes topologique, en même temps qu’elles mettaient au second plan les contraintes temporelles d’acheminement pour ouvrir sur celle de la gestion des relations entre temps de l’institution et temps de l’apprentissage, synchronie et asynchronie des échanges, ubiquité des ressources et permanence de leur disponibilité. L’idée même de distance devient seconde, elle cède la place à celle d’espace pour l’apprentissage (learning space) qui associe des espaces numériques et des espaces matériels, des structures sociales réglées par des institutions (e.g. l’école, la classe) ou par des processus sociaux instrumentés (e.g. communautés d’apprentissage) qui émergent des interactions sur Internet.

Au fond, la distance a disparu et les problématiques d’enseignement avec elle, au sens ancien de la malle-poste. Une autre problématique est apparue, celle d’espace d’apprentissage dont les propriétés essentielles sont topologiques et temporelles, plus que géographiques et chronologiques. Cet espace doit avoir des propriétés écologiques assurant la viabilité des processus d’apprentissage d’une connaissance donnée et de leur reconnaissance (certification). La mobilité des supports, la convergence entre téléphonie et informatique, l’accroissement des ressources en libre accès, la convergence des bibliothèques et des systèmes d’information, l’émergence d’une informatique ambiante (coordonnant des capteurs et exploitant leurs données) ouvrent sur une perspective nouvelle et des problématiques pour lesquelles la seule reproduction dans l’espace numérique des modèles de la classe inscrits dans l’espace architectural et institutionnel de l’école, ne sera plus suffisante.


[*] Cette expression est pour la première fois utilisée dans les actes des journées du PRC Intelligence Artificielle tenues à Grenoble en 1997. Elle est née en 1993 d’une réponse apportée par l’équipe grenobloise à une question posée par le comité scientifique de l’IMAG (fédération de laboratoires d’informatique et mathématiques appliquées de l’époque). J’avais pensé que par une telle expression on mettrait mieux en évidence notre projet scientifique en plaçant très précisément le défi dans la finalisation didactique de ces environnements. L’équipe EIAH a été créée dans le cadre du laboratoire Leibniz en 1995.

samedi 5 mai 2012

#ocTEL MOOC (week 3 A31) Isn't learning always active?

"Designing active learning" is the theme of the week. This title surprises me since indeed learning is always active. Whatever they are, leaning requires activities, actions and decisions on the side of the learner. Indeed, these are not of the same nature for rote learning and problem-based learning. Actually, this title is meant to exclude certain types of design (e.g. instruction) and favour those in which learning is the outcome of a creative activity (e.g. problem-solving, inquiry, design of a project, making an experiment or exploring a situation). This is well illustrated by the list of the learning theories the proposed material introduces which includes collaborative learning, experiential learning, enquiry-based learning and problem-based learning. In short, to be active means to have something to find or to construct as the ground for the learning process.These theories are pedagogical in nature; they induce very naturally a certain type of design of the learning situations. Other theories mentioned in the list, namely cognitivism, connectivism, constructivism, as well as the concept of zone-of-proximal-development are much more difficult to mobilize since they are general psychological theories with no straightforward translation as pedagogical theories. More often than not the so-called constructivist teachers design and implement situations around problem-solving, inquiries or projects following the principles of the corresponding learning design principles... even instruction, in particular for most best practice in higher education, is designed taking as driving force constructivism principles...

What would be helpful would be to have a reading grid for those learning theories, including indication on their limits as well as benefit depending on the content at stake and the more general constraints one my encounter in a classroom or... with educational technology.

FOAD, ce qui est mis à distance

"La distance est au cœur des problématiques de l’enseignement et de la formation. Le maître dans les temps anciens marquait la distance en montant en chaire, plus récemment, au début du siècle dernier, l’estrade était fréquente. Ces dispositifs soulignaient une place différente relativement au savoir. On a peu à peu supprimé ces barrières matérielles, cependant symboliques ; mais si le professeur est « descendu » dans la salle de classe, une distance subsiste. Au fond, la première question que la formation à distance soulève est celle de savoir ce qui est mis à distance. Contrairement aux apparences, ce n’est pas le professeur ou l’enseignant, mais le savoir lui-même -- l’enjeu des apprentissages. D’ailleurs, ne parle-t-on pas d’accès à la connaissance, d’accès au savoir. Un accès rendu possible à « tous » dans la mesure où les contraintes économiques et d’infrastructure auraient été levées. L’enjeu de la formation à distance est donc d’élargir les possibilités d’accès à la formation et à la connaissance, et ce à quoi vont être attentifs les utilisateurs – professeurs, élèves ou familles – c’est la possibilité par ce moyen d’obtenir les diplômes et qualifications recherchés." [consulter ici le texte complet]

L'éducation, enjeux marchands

Billet initialement publié le 30 août 2008 sur le blog Opinion on TEL (Kaleidoscope.org)

L'éducation est-elle un produit marchand ou, mieux, l'éducation est-elle un service marchand ? Cette question est analysée par Pierre Moeglin et Gaëtan Tremblay dans un article de la dernière livraison de Distance et savoir. La question est d'importance d'une part parce que le discours dominant tendrait à nous faire penser que la réponse est positive, d'autre part parce que les appels d'offre auxquels nous répondons semblent penser que la réponse est positive. En particulier, quiconque a été confronté aux évaluations par la commission européenne sait que la question économique est des plus sensibles... qu'il s'agisse de proposition (exercice libre) ou d'évaluation (exercice imposé). Formellement la réponse doit être positive puisque l'éducation relève de l'Accord Général sur le Commerce des Services (AGCS) au moins pour tout ce qui n'est pas sous la gouvernance des états (service fourni dans l'exercice du pouvoir gouvernemental).

Moeglin et Tremblay s'intéressent aux services d'éducation à distance. Mais en fait, cette précision importe moins qu'on ne le pense. En effet les technologies prennent leur place doucement mais surement dans l'enseignement et donc la problématique vaut d'être considérée dans sa généralité. En revanche ce que souligne cet article est l'internationalisation de cette problématique, attestée par le caractère mondial de l'AGCS. L'OCDE, la Banque Mondiale, le Fonds Monétaire International (FMI), nombreuses sont les institutions affirmant un point de vue économique avec probablement une déception en constant la faiblesse des revenus effectifs au regard des ambitions initiales. Mais cela ne parait pas affecter les discours soutenant l'idée de cette marchandisation, ni ceux s'y opposant. L'article souligne bien ce décalage entre les mots et les faits.

L'analyse s'articule sur trois pôles : l'économie, l'international, le professionnel (j'aurais pu écrire "l'innovation"). Les liens sont forts mais les différences aussi et on gagne à maintenir cette distinction (dont le troisième volet est peu exploré). On constate alors que sur le plan professionnel (instrumental) la montée en puissance des technologies de la distance est constante (comme elle l'est dans tous les secteurs de l'activité humaine) et passablement internationale (collaborations inter-universitaires). Le plan de l'innovation n'est pas détaillé mais évoqué parce que le discours y est (curieusement) proche de celui des tenants du libéralisme économique ; mais par la place qu'elle prend dans le développement instrumental il est clair que l'innovation est elle aussi en fort développement (l'offre des projets aux divers appels d'offre en atteste). Reste le pôle économique qui ne décolle pas... alors quoi ? Il faut peut être aller plus loin et autrement dans l'analyse.

L'article de Moeglin et Tremblay éclaire bien le décalage et le jeu entre idéologie (discours de décideurs de haut niveau et action de lobby industriels) et évolution technologique (déploiement des technologies dans l'enseignement). Le décalage est magnifié par l'intrication de l'instrumentalisation et de l'instrumentation technologique de l'éducation à distance. Nous avions, dans le cadre du réseau Kaleidoscope, exploré un peu précisément les relations entre recherche et industrie. Il est apparu que cette question ne peut être traitée sans différencier les segments opérationnels : champ de l'enseignement (K-12), enseignement supérieur, formation à caractère professionnel, formation au sein de grandes entreprises, offre grand public de formation. Il apparait alors que les enjeux, les verrous, les opportunités de répondent pas aux mêmes critères. Les questions de l'internationalisation, de l'activité profitable, des rapports entre industrie et professionnels ne se posent pas dans les même termes. La non distinction de ces segments (ou d'autres plus fins ou mieux définis) rend opaque les évolutions tant sur le terrain économique que sur celui de l'internationalisation (voire globalisation). Notons par exemple que les grands opérateurs industriels s'intéressent essentiellement aux infrastructures, alors que les contenus ils relèvent souvent d'une approche plus manufacturière. Ou encore, les marchés de l'enseignement scolaire sont locaux et mieux adaptés aux PME, alors que les universités s'orientent vers des marchés internationaux et peuvent relever d'approches industrielles (en particulier dans l'aire anglo-saxonne). Une meilleure affirmation des ces distinctions permettrait peut être de diminuer la confusion engendrée par la proximité superficielle des discours des lobby économiques et des forces d'innovation pédagogique. Ou alors ces derniers seront encore longtemps utilisés comme cheval de Troie, comme l'évoquent les auteurs.


P. Moeglin, G. Tremblay (2008) Éducation à distance et mondialisation. Éléments pour une analyse critique
des textes programmatiques et problématiques. Distance et savoirs 6(1) 43-68.

vendredi 4 mai 2012

"Adaptive learning environment", a new entry of the TEL Dictionary

Marcus Specht at the Mobile Learning Day (2009)
"Adaptive learning environment" is one of the challenges in TEL research, from the very beginning since indeed every one wanted learning environments to be as adapted as possible to... to what? To the learner style and state of knowing, first, but also to the content and the teaching objectives. It means that adaptation is a concern which is present in all aspects and all questions in the TEL research area.

Still, to define "adaptivity" is not too much of a challenge, but exploring carefully this concept in the case of TEL research raises issues which may turn into research challenges. It is the way I understand Marcus Specht, when in the definition he wrote for the TEL Dictionary he refers to "the convergence or possible conflicts between disciplines involved in research on adaptivity".

The learner is a user to who a learning environment must adapt and resist… It must resist when an evolution is necessary for the learning process, but adapt when it facilitates it. This suggests that the concept of adaptivity has to be shaped more accuratly to be useful for the design of TEL environments. Differentiations must be introduced in the models and frameworks, and reflected by the discourse on adaptive learning environments, depending on the fact that the driver of adaptation is the learning process, the learner (as a person), the content or the teacher.

By the way, is there a difference between "adaptivity" and "personalisation" of learning environments?

Campus numériques : une question de territoires ?

Billet initialement publié le 28 août 2006 sur le blog Opinion on TEL (Kaleidoscope.org)


« Le paradoxe de l’innovation et des TIC »... Le titre de l’article de Sana Miladi dans une récente livraison de Distances et savoirs suscite la curiosité. On s’attendrait plutôt à une intime convergence entre innovation et TIC, pourtant… l’impact de l’innovation des campus numérique sur les « anarchies organisées » que sont nos universités parait bien paradoxal au terme de son analyse : l’introduction de moyens d’enseignement ouverts, interactifs, personnalisés provoque l’émergence d’une organisation taylorienne de l’enseignement et une bureaucratisation accrue. De nouveaux métiers apparaissent, d’anciens métiers se transforment dans un mouvement qui accroit le sentiment du territoire et finalement parait fragiliser les protagonistes de l’innovation :
« Ce sont les contraintes qui pèsent sur chaque catégorie d’acteurs et les stratégies divergentes qui son mises en œuvre pour contrecarrer les incertitudes liées à l’innovation qui font émerger une forme de ‘bureaucratie’. Celle-ci serait le résultat de la confrontation de plusieurs légitimités professionnelles. Plutôt que d’engendrer de nouvelles logiques plus collectives, l’intégration des TIC dans la formation renforcerait les acteurs dans leurs logiques individuelles. »
Quelques pages plus loin, on trouve sous la signature de Michel Develay, Hélène Gaudinet et Maud Ciekanski une analyse qui répond, de fait, à ce constat en soulevant le problème de l’évolution de l’identité et de la responsabilité des personnels engagés dans le mouvement de création des campus numérique ; problèmes nouveaux de responsabilité qui appellent à la redéfinition de déontologie professionnelle pour formaliser une nouvelle éthique de la responsabilité. Finalement, nous devons probablement comprendre que ce que nous observons ne sont pas les campus numériques, qui adviendront quoi qu’il en soit parce que l’horloge numérique poursuit irrémédiablement sa course, mais un processus de transformation dont l’état actuel n’est probablement qu’anecdotique : « le travail en réseau engendrerait ainsi de nouvelles logiques professionnelles qui tendraient à modifier tant la nature des interactions que la culture professionnelle des acteurs impliqués ».

Quelles seront ces logiques ? ces évolutions professionnelles ? On ne peut probablement que se (perdre ?) en conjectures, ou alors rapporter et documenter ce que l’on observe. C’est ce dernier objectif que sert ce numéro thématique de Distances et Savoirs.

Toutes ces questions, spéculations ou préoccupations suggèrent que pour l’instant chercheurs et praticiens sont perdus dans un univers de solitude au sens de Michel Serres : engagés dans la traversée d’un territoire immense et inconnu, ils ont perdu de vue les côtes familières et ne perçoivent pas encore les nouvelles terres vers lesquelles ils vont. Heureusement, quelques grands timoniers nous montrent la direction : « ce qui est à l’œuvre est une véritable révolution culturelle qui est en marche rapide avec l’apport de l’Internet et des technologies de l’information et de la communication. Elles ont complètement modifié tous les modes de travail dans le monde de la formation, du travail, du loisir et de l’échange ». Enfin, pas si sûr… les modes de travail du monde de la formation ne sont pas modifiés, mais sous le choc d’outils qui ne sont pas encore des instruments, d’une remise en question volontariste avec peu de cadre pour penser ce qui est désiré et des visions plus idéologiques que rationnelles. Si les Sciences de l’éducation rencontraient une difficulté aujourd’hui, contrairement à Albert Claude Benhamou, j’affirmerais que c’est moins parce qu’elles manqueraient d’appuis sur la pratique—elles en ont au contraire beaucoup et de solides—mais de cadres théoriques pour penser et comprendre ce qui est à l’œuvre.


Sana Miladi : Les campus numériques : le paradoxe de l'innovation par les TIC. Distances et savoirs 4(1) 41-60
Michel Develay, Hélène Godinet, Maud Ciekanski : Pour une écologie de la responsabilité pédagogique en e-formation. Distances et savoirs 4(1) 61-72
Entretien avec le professeurAlbert-Claude Benhamou, promoteur des UNT. Distances et savoirs 4(1) 99-107

jeudi 3 mai 2012

La fidélité n'est pas le problème

Billet initialement publié le 21 juillet 2006 sur le blog Opinion on TEL (site Kaleidoscope.org)

Juillet 2006, La Grande Motte , les vacances. Enfin, pas tout à fait. Une cinquantaine de chercheurs de toutes disciplines se réunissent pour faire le point sur les progrès de la conception et de l’utilisation de simulations et réalités virtuelles pour l’apprentissage, surtout celui des adultes.

L’intérêt des simulations et des réalités virtuelles pour les apprentissages professionnels n’échappe à personne : disponibilité, accessibilité hors risques, réalisme… ce dernier terme est d’ailleurs celui sur lequel se focalise le plus nettement l’attention. Il en appelle d’autres comme « fidélité » de la simulation à une situation de référence, ou des expressions comme « simulateur pleine échelle ».

La question de la « fidélité » occupe les chercheurs dans le domaine des EIAH depuis les débuts—les années 70. Elle renvoie à la fois à un projet technologique qui intègre informatique et divers secteurs de l’ingénierie pour la réalisation d’espaces physiques permettant de reproduire de façon vivante la situation de référence (cabine de pilotage d’un avion, mannequin d’un patient, etc.), et à un désir d’affranchissement des barrières entre une réalité que l’on invoque et sa représentation. Si les technologies progressent, en revanche la frustration est toujours grande de voir nos désirs d’interchangeabilité du réel et du virtuel nous échapper. La faute en revient probablement à notre ignorance : la fidélité est hors de portée ; les recherches sémiotiques l’on mit en évidence il y a bien longtemps. Rappelons-le ce postulat fondateur : on ne peut confondre le signe et le référent. La question du référent, elle-même, est bien plus difficile qu’il n’y parait au premier coup d’œil : un lion dans une cage n’est plus vraiment un lion. Nous faisons fausse route !

Le problème n’est pas celui de la fidélité, mais celui de l’évaluation de la validité de la simulation au regard de l’objectif d’apprentissage. La conférence d’Anne-Sophie Nyssen fut lors de cette école thématique une excellente introduction à cette problématique, prenant la question du point de vue des bénéfices et des limites du recours aux simulations pleine échelle (dans son cas, pour la formation des anesthésistes). Comment mesurer ou documenter ces limites et ces bénéfices ? Manifestement pas en mesurant, en soi, la distance entre la simulation et son référent, mais la distance entre la compétence ou la connaissance que la simulation permet de construire et celle qui est visée par la situation d’apprentissage. Ce n’est donc plus le dispositif informatique qu’il faut évaluer mais toute la situation d’apprentissage qu’il permet (ou ne permet pas) de mettre en scène. Une voie que Jocelyne et Marc Nanard ouvraient, à Montpellier déjà, en substituant l’idée d’engagement direct à celle de manipulation directe à l’interface d’un logiciel.

mercredi 2 mai 2012

Une vielle idée

Billet initialement publié le 11 mai 2096 sur le blog Opinion on TEL (site Kaleidoscope.org)

Sans la production effective d'EIAH notre activité n'a pas grand sens. Cette production est rendue particulièrement difficile par au moins trois facteurs : le manque de forces humaines pour réaliser les développements informatiques nécessaires, la nécessité de réaliser des prototypes aussi proches que possible dans leur comportement et leur aspect de ce que seront les produits, enfin la difficulté à capitaliser les "briques" qui sont ici et là construites à la faveur d'une thèse ou d'un projet.


Notre économie de la recherche est désastreuse, non seulement au plan de l'identification et de la capitalisation des savoirs, mais encore à celui de la mutualisation et de la capitalisation des objets techniques. Cette considération n'est pas annexe, elle est centrale et conditionne largement notre capacité à développer et à conforter l'activité scientifique elle-même. Il nous faut développer un concept de plate-forme de mutualisation et de capitalisation de nos avancées technologiques. Pour cela, nous devons décider de quelle partie de nos réalisations (prototypes, maquettes et produits) est susceptible d'une standardisation opérationnelle et avec quelle relation avec un cadre commun d’expression des modèles. Il faut nous engager dans cette voie, mais pas avec les même contraintes que celles que cherche à imposer le monde industriel : la recherche de standards, nécessaires à notre communication et au partage des nos réalisations techniques, ne doit figer à aucun moment ni notre approche ni ses résultats.

La nécessité d’une telle plate-forme rejoint celle d’un grand instrument sur lequel conduire les recherches avec des moyens en personnels techniques et avec des ressources informatiques qui sont hors de portée des laboratoires. Ce « grand instrument », outil pour la recherche expérimentale sur les EIAH, est non exclusif des moyens plus ponctuels que nous continuerons de produire, il est un complément finalement naturel de l'effort de constitution théorique que nous devons engager.


vendredi 13 avril 2012

Science 2.0, is it a new practice or the leveraged version of an old one?

Retrieved from a post of  Nicolas Balacheff on the SOA scientific portal on September the 25th, 2009

Since the beginning of its history, Scientific research has been a social activity with a large place given to communication, debates and collaborations. There are many evidences of this social dimension of the scientific activity, including famous and extensive exchanges of letters. The development of the publishing industry and business has leveraged the capacity of disseminating research results, questions and debates. The impact of IT-based tools has accelerated the phenomena, but has not changed its meaning and scientific raison d'être. The main revolution is in the capacity nowadays to not only share theories and results, but also instruments and data at a point never experienced before. This is the core of Science 2.0, as emphasised by Barbara Kieslinger and  Stefanie Lindstaedt in an analysis of Science 2.0 practices, it means in our field "the possibility for researchers to share lab results, protocols, class activities, etc." (p.2). We fully agree.

But there is one point worth to discuss. The authors mention (p.1) the effort invested in "publishing one's ideas". The word "idea" deserves some attention. The scientific activity, in my opinion, is less about sharing ideas than agreeing on results which could be turned into shareable knowledge shareable. What means that the issue is to discuss the rational and the argumentation (if not proof) supporting the claimed results. Sharing ideas leads to an over emphasis on social interactions and concern about ownership, sharing results would call for paying more attention to the data, the theories and the methods we use and down play the issue of ownership (which actually can never be avoided, e.g. polemics about anteriority). If sharing and publishing ideas is our core business, then I understand those who fear theft (plagiarism) and vandalism. If we privilege the sharing of results then the risk is less important, but the challenge more difficult to take up because it means some consensus on the theoretical frameworks and the related methods. Indeed, I mean results coming from work advanced enough so that it makes sense to share it (and not unfinished work, see p.2 sec. 3.).

The discussion on TEL Science 2.0 is actually a discussion about our scientific practice (whatever is the technology): What do we publish? What does it mean to publish "ideas" and "unfinished" (and sometimes not started) projects? Data cannot be published without being documented, here what can we say, then what are the conditions for sharing data in our domain?

In the end the problem is less to open up our research, than demonstrating by reaching reasonable theoretical and technological consensus that it produces something tangible, and not only discourse. The risk of Science 2.0 is exactly that: increasing and accelerating the production of discourses at the price of forgetting the production of high quality results and developing the TEL knowledge base.

A note after the reading of: Kieslinger B., Stefanie N. Lindstaedt S. N. (2009) Science 2.0 Practices in the Field of Technology Enhanced Learning. In: Science2.0 for TEL Workshop. ECTEL, Nice, France

dimanche 8 avril 2012

The TEL Dictionary initiative at the MEI spring school

Jointly held with the first Medical Education Informatics (MEI2012) conference, the Medical Education Content Sharing Technologies Spring School included in its programme a presentation of the TEL Dictionary initiative. The following slide-show introduced the project, then participants were invited to react and comment (see the report here).

vendredi 6 avril 2012

Questions from the MEI2012 Spring school about the TEL Dictionary initiative

About 20 PhDs and senior researchers from different disciplines participed in the TEL Dictionary session of the Medical Education Content Sharing Technologies Spring School held  Thessaloniki on April 5th. After a short presentation of the TEL dictionary initiative, participants were invited to scan the current lists of terms and expressions included in the TEL Thesaurus, in order to make remarks and suggestions and express their own priority. Here are the results and some comments.

Participants express their wish to see in the list terms and expressions from disciplines which provide TEL research with important concepts. Here they are: Connectionism, Connectivism, Case based learning, Community of practice, Active learning, Interactive learning, Worked examples, Digital literacy. They are from the learning science. Only one term from computer science was suggested: Intelligent agents. What may be emphasized is that there are no terms specific to TEL research, but terms pointing to concepts and theories from education and psychology that researchers need. So here is the needed extension for the next release of the thesaurus.

Four expressions from the thesaurus were pointed as deserving priority: Distributed learning, Game-based learning, Ubiquitous learning, Collaborative learning. This corresponds well to one of the prominent stream of communication of the MEI 2012 conference: internet as the place were to content is shared and learning communities are emerging.

Then, three questions:

Why is "constructionism" in the thesaurus and not "constructivism"?
Both terms are used as keywords to tag paper in the TeLearn open archive, hence both could have been in the first version of the thesaurus. However, "constructivism" is one of the big concepts in psychology,  for which it is rather easy to find well documented definitions. Since the strategy is to develop the thesaurus in an incremental way, this term has not been included at the first stage. "Constructionism" is a term which has been coined by S. Papert as a response within the Logo framework to the limitation found in referring only to "Constructivism" (one of the foundational reference of Logo). This is then a term specifically introduced in TEL research, and hence we took it (see the definition prepared by Richard Noss).

Why is "Virtual campus" in the thesaurus? It seems to be a direct translation of a French expression (campus virtuel) and not a genuine English keyword.  
It is right that "campus virtuel" is a keyword in the French TEL research area. However, "virtual campus" is an entry of wikipedia where it is defined as "the online offerings of a college or university where college work is completed either partially or wholly online, often with the assistance of the teacher, professor, or teaching assistant." A quick look at Scholar shows that this expression is rather popular internationally and for quite a long while. As suggested by the participant, there is also the expression "Digital campus", which looks rather close and possibly more English. But may be we have to be cautious with such feelings and to take the time to come back to the literature to check the claim against evidences. 

One should notice that "teaching" is not in the thesaurus, why?
To some extend we can consider as a curious fact that the word "teaching" is not present. There is the word "tutor", what suggest that teaching is not completely foreign to the TEL research area, as it were. But it is right that the word is not in the set of keywords from which we started -- those of TeLearn repository and also a questionnaire to the community. One reason may be that the focus on learning and the learned tended to push aside teaching if not the teacher. And this is reflected in the keywords chosen by researchers, even if they use the word in their writings. Another reason  may be that in English there is some "teaching" in the meaning of learning (as it is the case in French where you can say "les élèves apprennent l'anglais", but also "j'apprends l'anglais à mes élèves"...

What would make a social software a science 2.0 tool?

Retrieved from a post of  Nicolas Balacheff on the SOA scientific portal on September the 25th, 2009

Moving "away from managing generic individual networks to managing contextual shared spaces", Graaasp seems to be a smart tool to shape a learning community, be it in TEL or in an other domain. If I understand well, its key characteristic is the richness of the support to social interactions on top of content, the proactive support to establishing links and the dynamic of the roles within the community.

Reading a scenario of use of Graaasp, I wondered what would be the specific added value of this environment for a researcher in TEL. I came to thinking that it is not its versatility in resonance with a young domain which rapidly change, move, evolve. It is not its openness to the variety of disciplines and competences in a multidisciplinary domain. It might be its capacity to dynamically create a common knowledge base as a side effect, if I may say so, of the creation of trusted community and working groups. Indeed, there are other domains which are young, not well established and multidisciplinary. But I wonder whether there are other domains in which there is so little agreement on the theoretical and methodological frameworks, uncertainty on what is known and accepted, reluctance to build a common knowledge base -- if not sometimes a serious doubt about he fact that there can be "results" in a scientific sense in TEL.

We know how to build FAQ from the analysis of a flow of questions and answers, can we build a knowledge base from the analysis of the queries of the students and the feedback and support from knowledgeable others -- supervisors, senior researchers or peers? Would Graaasp be instrumental in doing that? If so, I would see it as a fully Science 2.0 infrastructure, what is more than being a software supporting the construction and shaping a community from a social perspective.

A note after the reading of: Gillet D., El Helou S., Joubert M., Sutherland R. (2009) Science 2.0: Supporting a Doctoral Community of Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning using Social Software. Science2.0 for TEL Workshop. EC-TEL

lundi 26 mars 2012

They play. So far, so good. But, what do they learn?

Retrieved from a post of Nicolas Balacheff on the SOA scientific portal on February the 26th, 2010
 
Martin Oliver and Caroline Pelletier contribution to the edited book "Digital Generations" is quite interesting and stimulating, taking up the challenge of contributing to our effort to understand "what, if anything, people are learning by playing games" (p.69) Their contribution is based on activity theory, referring primarily to Vygotsky, built on the system formed by the Tool as a mediator between the Subject and the Object (the latter meaning the intention of the subject) and its contemporary extension by Engeström and others which takes into account the social determination of both the Subject and (his/her) Object(ive). The authors make the relevant remark that taking a systemic perspective means that properties which may be identified cannot be ascribed to the Subject as an isolated part of that system. What raises a theoretical and methodological difficulty when the problématique is to understand learning (or Subject semantic/meaning attached to a behaviour). Meeting this difficulty with the cK¢ model [*], I solved it (if I may say so) by considering what could be seen as the projection of the system model onto one of its components, the learner (or onto the Tool). In the case of cK¢ it leads me to propose the (P, R, L, Σ) quadruplet to model the learner conception (what could be mirrored by a quadruplet of the same kind to model the Tool). So, it is clear that I am interested in the method of analysis which the authors propose in order to operationalize the theory.

Then, looking precisely at the proposed methodology, I see a few issues which may be interesting to discuss: contraction, action/operation and in the end the reference to learning and the related question "what is learned?"

Contradiction is a difficult concept to manipulate from a methodological point of view. As Piaget analysed it, contradiction exists if there is a witness of its existence and it can be noticed only if there is an explicit awareness of an objective or an expectation. So there may be a contradiction from the point of view of the observer and not from the point of view of the Subject. How to decide on that? Which observed behaviours can inform the observer? These are difficult questions but critical ones when learning is at stake (as pointed by the authors). So we cannot diagnose a contradiction if there is not an evidence that it is the case for the Subject and hence if we cannot state what is the Object from the Subject point of view. This points a new question: is the Object what the designers or the researchers or the observers claim to be? This question which is important to model the game-playing activity is indeed critical from a learning perspective (it is directly related to identifying learning outcomes). The authors identified in the discussion section, in relation to the interpretation and classification of observed behaviours, the "such claim are difficult to justify without assuming (rather than knowing) the intention of the player" (p.83). My own position is that this is a central issue for learning and that our research effort must start from that point : an explicit hypothesis on the learner intention.

The delicate distinction between action and operation could be better addressed if it was contextualised by such a claim about the intention of t he Subject or the Object of the activity. The authors express their expectations of a progress if a finer grained reading of the actions or the behaviours (eg eye tracking) was possible. My claim is that it may be of no help if the observer cannot relate it to an intention or an objective. Actually it is the identification of the Object in the system and/or the intended learning outcomes (at least as research hypotheses) which will determined the reasonable level of granularity we have to reach.

Eventually, in my opinion, the question "what is learned?" cannot be answered without responding to the question of the objective, intention, aim of the game and the situation which contextualises it. If we do not start from that point, we will progress as blind researchers and in the end respond "they learn how to play" (p.86), which may be a disappointing and quite unhelpful answer. We may agree that this applies also to the problem of understanding the Subject intention, then the nature of the Object and in the end the whole question of learning in a game environment. This issue may be peripheral from a strict game-play perspective, where whatever is learned the motivation and the interest in the game is the thing which counts, but it is critical from an educational point of view.

Note: - Piaget et al. (1974) Recherches sur la contradiction Paris: Presses univ. de France, 2 volumes. - (P, R, L, Σ) stands for Problem, Operators (in French "règles"), Representation (semiotic system), Control structure

A note after the reading of: Oliver M., Pelletier C. (2006) Activity theory and learning from digital games: developing an analytical methodology. In: Burckingham D., Willett R. (eds)  Digital generations (pp. 67-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

vendredi 23 mars 2012

Retrieved from a post of Nicolas Balacheff on the SOA scientific portal on February the 27th, 2010

I recently read an article from Begoña Gros on the use digital games in education which offers a general overview of video-games and their contribution to learning, with an interesting discussion of their use in a school context. While focused on instructional design and not on computer science design, it still touches a few technological issues.

After a short history of the area from the research perspective, Begoña Gros reports on what we can learn from research on the contribution of games to learning. Several general cognitive competences are mentioned: improved spatial skills, iconic and spatial representations, ability to read images, divided visual attention, keeping track of events at multiple location on the screen, better developed attentional skills including metacognitive competence enhanced by the collective game play (sharing strategy, knowledge, sharing resources). "However, there is no research that actually documents a link between video games playing, attentional skills, and success in academic performance or specific occupations" (p.30). So it is not surprising that while most teachers acknowledge the contribution of games to the development of a variety of skills thay witness a resistance in adopting them in their everyday practice. One reason is the time needed to become familiar enough with a game so that a significant activity can be engaged. Another reason is that "it is difficult for teachers to identify how a particular game is relevant to some component of the curriculum, as well as the appropriateness of the content within the game" (p.35). This resonate with the remark that "game designers are not concerned with the accuracy of contents of the games and, on occasions, they are capable of producing contradictions or erroneous concepts with respect to the function of particular games used in learning activities" (p.36) This time, "design" means computer science design of game-based learning environments.

The main concern which is transversal to this paper is that of the challenge of adapting computer games to school and curricula. I would suggest an other challenge which is that of a closer collaboration between researchers in computer-science and education to design learning games not only adapted to the use in schools but also coherent with the game of knowledge.

Blog post after the reading of: Begoña Gros (2007) Digital Games in Education: The Design of Games-Based Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40 (1) 23-38

mercredi 21 mars 2012

A conversation on "debriefing", a key stage in the use of learning games

Based on a post on the SOA Science corner blog , originally published on Tuesday 23rd, February 2010 (18:58)

What may be the differences between games and simulations? A paper by Sara de Freitas and Martin Oliver [*] suggests that there is not much, and hence that it is quite natural that many of the learning issues that are relevant for simulations are also relevant for games. If there is one difference to mention, it comes mainly from the entertainment characteristic which is attached to games, and it is exactly this dimension which makes both of them appealing to education and difficult to use. This difficulty rests in the fact that "in educational contexts, there is a need not only to enter the 'other world' of the game or simulation, but also to be critical about that process in order to support reflective processes of learning as distinct from mere immersion in a virtual space" (p.255). The authors notice that the apparent mismatch between the game and the curriculum may be due to “the omission of a clear debriefing session” (p.260). Then, the key question of evaluation: what should be the characteristics of a game (more generally a simulation), so that the debriefing is made possible? This implies that we can tell what the game-simulation is vis-à-vis the knowledge at stake (i.e. the expected learning outcome). This dimension of the analysis which is, in my opinion a prerequisite, is not considered in the paper. Should we add it as a fifth dimension to the four already proposed (context, learner, internal representational world, processes of learning)? Or is it subsumed in a way that I didn’t catch in my reading?

Martin Oliver responded (February the 26th 2010) that...
Sara de Freitas is certainly interested in the kinds of games that resemble simulations - she likes to use the portmanteau "gamesim" to denote this category.
Personally, I think that attempting to draw clear definitions that distinguish games from simulations would be problematic - my opinion is that what makes them useful or not is how they get used. A game can be treated as a simulation, and a simulation can be played with; it's a matter of convention which side of the definitional line they are placed on.
The discussion in relation to the "other world" experience of the game reflects that Higher Education (rather than, say, training) values the ability to reflect upon and critique experience, not just improve it. (Obviously that's a value statement, and not universal, but I'd refer people to Ron Barnett's work for a more general discussion of this kind of issue.)
The debriefing session is an example of a pedagogic technique intended to help bridge differences between play and curriculum performance - in some ways, this could be understood as just one more example of the classic problem of learning transfer. What is learnt from play is unlikely, in itself, to map neatly onto the goals of the curriculum; the debriefing simply recognises that a process of reinterpretation or renegotiation may be necessary. I don't think that "debriefing" describes a well-defined pedagogic interaction - more a class of conventions about asking people to make sense of the experience they have just had. To this extent, all that's required of a game (or simulation) is that people have an experience to reflect upon. We haven't tried to engage with what makes some debriefings better than others; this is, I'm sure, a fruitful area to consider but it's not one we looked at. Matching the game design to that debriefing is then an obvious and sensible approach - but again, it was outside the scope of this particular paper (which focused on evaluation rather than design).
And the conversation continued (Nicolas Balacheff, March the 1st, 2010)

"Debriefing" is a concept worth to be discussed a bit further. In order to explain why I think this way, I will start from the idea that inviting students or trainees to play a game is always (I use this word on purpose), a teaching/training-learning context, with an agenda in mind. This agenda may be hidden to the learners, but it is a key reason why to choose a game and invite them to play it. This agenda can be described in terms of learning outcomes (from a piece of knowledge to a specific behaviour -- possibly at a meta level like in problem solving or socialisation). Even if the game is successful it is unlikely, because of the richness of the game-play and the short time given for the genesis of whatever mental construct, that the learners will realize what was important, new, worth to be made explicit, put in a certain form and kept for further use. It is even more difficult to imagine that they will be able to relate any interesting outcome to knowledge socially or culturally shared by the community they will join after this teaching/training-learning period. So, from an educational perspective, debriefing is critical. Within the frame of the theory of didactical situations this phase is called "institutionalization". Indeed, this is even stronger than "debriefing", it means that the teacher-trainer has a special voice and responsibility in acknowledging the learning outcome and the value of a learning game.

A note after the redeading of: de Freitas, Sara and Oliver, Martin (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers and Education 46 (3) 249-264. 

samedi 17 mars 2012

Why do learners (not) blog?

Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff  (2010) comments on papers available on the SOA scientific portal

We have heard here and there claims and expectations about the so-called Learning 2.0 revolution. The rational is that learners will be able to share, collaborate, exchange in a more open and dynamic way, blowing the barriers that formal education and training may have raised on the way towards knowledge. Among learning 2.0 tools, there are blogs. All of us, I mean the blogers, know that bloging is not such an easy thing and having the tools is not enough. So a paper like the one of Behringer and colleagues is especially interesting in that it explores in a pragmatic and rigorous way the students motivation or lack of motivation to use blogs; among the latter there is a preference for direct communication and fear of a loss of privacy. May be not a surprise… a question one may have is that of knowing how far this is intrinsic or witnesses the weight of a culture and a lack of experience of these tools.

A note after the reading of: Andergassen, M, Behringer, R, Finlay, J, Gorra, A, and Moore, D. “Weblogs in Higher Education – why do Students (not) Blog?” Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 7 Issue 3 2009, (pp203 -215)

vendredi 16 mars 2012

Could designed-based research become the TEL research standard?

Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff  (2010) comments on papers available on the SOA scientific portal

Design-based research is a rather interesting framework for TEL research project,which although not new (the seminal papers go back to the early 90s) does not seem to have deserved all the attention it should in the European research area. Taking as an indicator the references of the EduTech wiki from TECFA (*), one may conjecture that it reached us in the early 2000, but since then I have not the feeling that it has spread very much within our research community. I don't see clear reasons for that. In my opinion we must spend some efforts, especially in a network like Stellar to consider this approach. From the presentation of Wang and Hannafin (ETR&D 53/4 2005), design-based research seems to be especially adapted to multidisciplinary research as well as to research which must be carried out in close connection to the field it explores. It may be the case that some researchers think that they are working in this paradigm while actually they do not, since there are at least two occasions of misunderstanding. The first source of misunderstanding is the emphasis of design-based research on iteration, an emphasis which is reminiscent of the life cycle of technology design. But here iteration is not only aiming at the improvement of the design, but also at critically revisiting theories to develop or refine them. What is valued is the practical use of theories (p.13), and the fact that theoretical and practical issues are tightly related. The second source of misunderstanding is that because of its close relationship to the field, design-based research may be confounded with action-research. This is missing the priority of design-based research, while acknowledging its situatedness, to transcend the particularities of the context in which the experiment is been carried out. This difficulty is very well identified in this paper, and addresses directly the main concern of our field which is of understanding what results we produce which could be of a general value beyond the specific project in which it has been obtained: "Generalizability […] must be verified according to the theory goals of the design and discipline requirements of the research. Researchers need to optimize a local design without decreasing its generalizability […]" (p.19). So design-based research is not a sophisticated conceptualisation of the life cycle of a technology, it is of a different nature and objective than action-research. To some extend it can be seen as a proposal for a new discipline with original problems of methods and rigour.
There is one point on which this paper passes a bit too fast. It is the meaning of "real", what could count as "real-word context". Any experiment or observation carried out in a classroom changes what it is as opposed to its normal functioning. This is well-known but  as a common sense fact and scientifically not enough documented. The authors acknowledge the complexity of reality, but do not catch the need to model it in an explicit way (with all the constraints of something which is out of reach of an exhaustive description, indeed). Any experimental science is faced to this need including natural science. The place where an experiment is carried out is an experimental apparatus, it has to be described as such even if it is embedded in a so called real context. (it means a context which is largely out of control but if which many features have no impact). This is a condition to be later on able to discriminate between generalizable results and "idiosyncratic" (p.19) adaptations or observations, and to sort out which of the data are relevant for further analysis. This dimension of design-research may well be the missing element to succeed in becoming the scientific standard it is ambitions.

Blog post based on the reading of: Wang F., Hannafin M.J. (2005) Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments.  Educational Technology Research and Development 53 (4) 5-23, DOI: 10.1007/BF02504682

jeudi 15 mars 2012

Moving research on learning games forward

Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff (2010) comments on papers available on the SOA scientific portal

Among the text I have recently read about learning games, "Moving learning games forward. obstacles, opportunities and openess" (Klopfer E., Osterweil S., Salen K. 2009) is in my opinion the most comprehensive, insightful and likely to provide a good basis for beginners in this research area.

First it synthesizes efficiently the common views of learning games and of the relations between games and schools, without caricaturing the situation. Second it considers in a contrasted and balanced way digital games and learning games from an economical and a functional perspective (what they are for). Third the paper survey ideas and principles about the design and use of learning games, covering most of the aspects be they technological or cognitive, educational or institutional.

One the one hand, some claim that games are so efficient to favour and enhance creativity and learning that the value of school is questionable, they even may not hesitate to abandon schools. Others consider that games are not relevant or manageable in school context and hence tend to exclude their use. The authors, considering the arguments, argue that there is room for the use of games, and that this use can enhance learning, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. A first condition is that the school context does not kill the basic characteristic of game-play which is "freedom", while drawing attention to the fact that a game is based on a structured set of rules with "win" states criteria (so "freedom" must not be read in a naive way). The game structure guarantees "fairness by being applied transparently and equitably to all players" (p.5); a point which is important because it allows ending a game not depending on an (apparently) arbitrary decisions of a teacher. In other words, if a game is ruled by some knowledge, then it is this knowledge which will serve to end the game. A principle which is at the core of the theory of didactical situations (*); later in the paper this takes the form of principle: find the game in the content.

After a discussion of commercial games, the authors conclude that "learning games can also be fun and have mass market appeal" (p.9) and suggest that they have not to mimic the high-tech look and feel of video games. One must leave common sense ideas about what a game should be (e.g. game=virtual world) and understand the fundamental characteristics which may make them relevant for learning: "feedback, structure, goals or path to progress" (p.14). Eventually, they propose criteria to characterise learning games: "they target the acquisition of knowledge as its own end and foster habits and understanding that are generally useful within an academic context." (p.21). A puzzling thing here, is that they make a difference between learning games and training games, and seems to associate tightly school and academia. A position which can be understood if "training" is viewed in a very limited way, and vocational studies is marginalized -- what would be a mistake.

Eventually: "what is the magical recipe for a good educational game?" (p.27). Luckily, the authors dare to ask such a question but do not respond by a recipe, but rather by a set of principles and tips (some) borrowed from Castranova (quoted by Baker 2008): "making a game out of learning will most certainly not be the way to approach the development of learning games. However, "finding the fun in that learning" and devising ways to focus on and enhance that fun as a core game dynamic is a good strategy", and "go to the right tech". Then 14 principles of design are listed. A list not homogeneous, addressing different levels and layers. I would retain only a few of these:
"4. Put learning and game play first" (p.31) adding this warning: "There may be some fixed set of constraints on both the technology and learning goals that are unchangeable--and of course, sometimes the combination just won't work";
"5. Find the game in the content", including the quite strong claim that "in any academic discipline, there are elements that are fundamentally game-like", moreover adding that "an educational game should put players in touch with what is fundamentally engaging about the subject matter" (p.28). Such statement converge in a very interesting way with the Brousseau's claims about the game of knowledge when in the 70's he coined the theory of didactical situations (**). Including the refutation of the idea that "games single-handly teach the subject matter". I would add that learning games need a well designed didactical framework (including the teacher).
"11. Define the learning goals" (p.36), this seems to be common sense but I agree with the authors that there is a common view that learning in a game context will happen naturally and be of value. But if we ask "what are kids supposed to be learning?", then the role and outcome of the game is anything but obvious.
To conclude this reading note, let me emphasise this call: "it is imperative that researchers and developers more clearly define their learning goals and corresponding assessment tools be developed and shared openly" (p.37). Definitely this paper is more than a survey, it is a research programme and could be now read as such. Many of the statements hide difficult questions, the game now could be to discover them, state them and propose a research strategy to address them.

mercredi 14 mars 2012

Teachers adopt technology, learners should

As Rosamund Sutherland notices, educational technology has entered the classroom, but in many cases in support of the teacher activity (e.g. the interactive white board used as an enhanced black board) and not so much in support of learners activity. But let's hear her view:
But may be this is the result of the incapacity yet for technology to respond to the proper ecology of the classroom which is complex either from a spatial, social or intellectual perspective. The classroom as a technology enhanced learning space, still a challenge.

vendredi 9 mars 2012

Exploratory learning versus Inquiry learning, where is the difference?

You may have recently received the call for the ITS 2012 workshop on "Intelligent support for exploratory environments: exploring, collaborating and learning together" which central object is the designed implementation and use of Exploratory Learning Environments (ELEs).

An occasion to ask whether there is a significant difference between Exploratory learning and Inquiry learning. Both terms are used, do they share meaning or is there a nuance I miss?

dimanche 4 mars 2012

Learning aware environments

Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff (2006) e-Agenda European Forum, Casteldefeld

Once upon a time (Eden research workshop, Casteldefeld 2006), I was asked the question: “Can we introduce learning in every human activity”? From a non-English speaking perspective this question may sound strange. Isn’t it the case that learning is present every where and at every moment in our life?  This is a matter of survival. Learning is a competence shared by all living organism. Learning is life long. It starts with our first breath and continues with it until the very last second. However there is something specific to human beings, which is that not only do they learn to survive in their biosphere, but also they have to learn to survive in a noosphere that humanity is continuously building, renewing, transforming. The noosphere is made tangible by human artefacts, but essentially by language. Learning in the noosphere is so complex that specific strategies have been developed to support it, namely teaching (or education, instruction, training, coaching, etc.).

Designing environments likely to stimulate and support learning outside formal education and training experience—or situations mimicking these—was in most cases out of reach until the emergence of the digital technology which bridges the biosphere, where our bodies and activities are developing, and the noosphere where minds and intellectual constructs are developing. While language and the related symbolic technology (writing and reading) were the privileged tools to support learning, digital technologies go beyond by producing highly interactive simulations and virtual worlds. But more significant is the development of augmented reality, the systematic embedding of sensors and system on ship in all artefacts which open the possibility of a “merge” of both spheres. Here is the challenge of ambient computing.

Just as the rest of our environment, modern digital technology cannot support learning if they have not been designed on purpose by incorporating teaching (coaching, instructing, scaffolding, or else) features. This is the challenge of designing, implementing and understanding learning aware environments. That is environments which have the capacity to recognize and capture relevant events from observing the human activity, the ability to understand the learning needs and then to provide the adequate feedback in whatever form. This is a scientific and technology challenge for ambient computing and research on cognitive systems. This is also a political challenge because the full development of learning aware environment will not be possible without addressing ethical (protecting the individuals and the communities) and economical problems (accepting that knowing is a universal right).

How do you expect people to learn in the future?

"How do you expect people to learn in the future?" A question I heard recently, which will never be out of date... here is how I viewed it ten years ago.

I remember, fifty years ago, I thought that by the end of the century cars would have almost disappeared and we will all be equipped with personal helicopters… It is the way I expected people to travel in the future! I am afraid that the question is as risky today in the case of learning. What I expect, is more relevant environments because of the development of virtual reality and a better understanding of learning and teaching (training). Learning may not change a lot in the coming fifty years, but the learning opportunities and possibilities may improve a lot; in particular behavioural learning and training should dramatically develop (acquisition of tacit knowledge, learning of how to perform professional gestures). On the other hand, if reliable and secure on-line certification develops, then lifelong learning which always existed from an individual perspective, may become a reality from an institutional perspective. Failure in the initial formal schooling will appear far less critical, and eventually the institutional models of school and training systems could change at this point since evaluation and assessment is the real driving force of any (to-be-) institutionalised learning.

Some progress since then?

Teaching, an emergent property of learning environments (2)

Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff (1999) notes for the EU/US conference, Stuttgart

One of the main characteristics of complex knowledge is on one hand that to master it requires to master several different pieces of knowledge organised in the form of a system, and on the other hand that its use depends on methods which are not mere algorithms. Such knowledge cannot be constructed spontaneously even when the learner is provided an adequate problem-situation, an in some cases such situations are still unknown (e.g. linear algebra). As a result complex knowledge requires specific learning environments and content specific teaching strategies.
The complexity of such knowledge also comes from the fact that the corresponding conceptions, i.e. cognitive constructs, can be very different the one from the other and rather complex to understand and to model. The current research on students' understanding of the concept of "function" in mathematics or of the concept of "energy" in physics witnesses it. The development of technological tools to use these knowledge (formal computation, simulation, etc.) increases the difficulty by modifying within a kind of systemic loop the nature of the users conceptions.
One cannot expect one universal agent to be able to handle the complexity supporting the learning process in the case of complex knowledge. On the contrary, there is a need for specialised agents, either artificial or human, able to cooperate and to coordinate their actions in order to provide the best support to the learner.

The development in Grenoble of the project TéléCabri, within the "Computational Environment and Human Learning Group" (EIAH) of the Leibniz Laboratory, allows us to get an insight of this complexity at different levels:
  • At the epistemological and educational level, e.g. all the problems of learning in an environment which associates the best technology, like the microworld Cabri-geometry, and the classical means (books, notebook, etc.), as well as the teaching problems raised by the cooperation of teachers through the technology but also with the technology, with a full distribution of learners, teachers and resources within space and time.
  • At the technological level, e.g. the problems of ensuring that the platform which associates different types of machines, visiocommunication, TCP/IP and H320 protocols, access from the TéléCabri site as well as from students or teachers places. At this level the institution has to realise that education may quickly need not only buildings, teachers and administration staff but also engineers.
A platform like that of TéléCabri is structured by several different axis of interaction and cooperation: between teachers and artificial agents, between human teachers with the mediation of the technology, but also between learners mediated by the technology. Indeed we must add the interactions between learners and teachers either in an asynchronous mode or in telepresence, and between learners and the learning environment. Learning does not occur because of one specific type of interaction, but because of the availability of all of them depending of the needs at the time when the interaction is looked for.

It is rather clear that the solution to the problems one meets on such a platform cannot be solved by one super-ITS being implemented on a learner super-machine. It is also clear that the availability of human teachers is crucial either because of the limits of the technology or because of the needs of students for a human presence. Then, the learning environment should be constituted by lot of resources, content specific as well as conception specific (taking into account the variety of learners possible conceptualisations); the teaching power of the whole system will not the property of one of its components but the emergent property of the interactions of all the agents involved either artificial or human, learners or teachers. May be it is just rediscovering that education has never been the result of the action of one isolated tutor but of the Society at large...

Cuban wrote in 1987: "[Teachers] will either resist or be indifferent to changes that they see irrelevant to their practice, that increase their burdens without adding benefit to their student learning, or that weaken their control of the classroom" (p.71). After more than a decade focussing on the learner, we could rephrase this quotation to emphasise the need for more investigations on what could be the conditions for the educational efficiency of learning environments from the point of view of general education or training as well.

Up to now, most of the basic or applied research, have been carried out in classical environments (schools or training centres). This has strong limits since it is not true that teachers and learners can involve in a radical way the new technology.The TéléCabri project is an attempt to do so, targeting students being not being able to join the classical schools (they are cured at home or in an hospital). By the way, this platform developed in the Grenoble Academic Hospital is an excellent example of a EU-USA collaboration (it is the product of a joint effort from the EIAH group, Hewlett-Packard and PictureTel).

A step further would be to set up an Educational Technology Centre (like those suggested by the "President's information technology advisory committee" to President Clinton—august 1998), this would be a very expensive and complex initiative which would surely benefit from an international synergy, putting together the best of education and technology from EU and USA.