In search for the authenticity of learning situations

Retrieved from the TEL opinion blog, January the 4th, 2007
 

 "WallCology" is a neologism coined by Moher's team to designate "a ubiquitous computing application [...] which situates a virtual ecosystem within the unseen space of classroom walls" (p.163). Actually, this technology blows the boundaries of the screen, and even of the internet; it invade the "real" world, following the design principles of embedded phenomena project which I introduced in a post some times ago. From a content perspective:

"WallCology situates students within a complex virtual ecosystem, where they may conduct investigations focusing on topics such as the identification and classification of species, habitat selection, population estimation, food chains, predator-prey relationship, life cycle phases, adaptation and response to environmental change" (p.164)

Then learners are exposed to a field of experience which hybrids the "real" and the "artificial" worlds. It is not an augmented reality, nor a virtual reality, but a new world which holds key characteristics of the world we are familiar with: persistent, tangible, immersive. Phenomena are simulated, and the simulation is -- I may say -- seamlessly embedded in the learner physical environment. The underlying vision is of offering learners the experience of contemporary science inquiry (i.e. "collaboration of researchers from multiple distributed sites working around research questions associated with a common phenomenon" -- p.165). However, the project does not propose only a technology but a comprehensive environment in which learners have to cooperate, organise their work and also to learn how to behave in order to make experiments and observations possible: The WallCology "creatures" are designed to behave in such a way that "students must learn to approach the observation points quietly, and to consider the reaction to noise as a component of their behavioral description" (p.167).

Designed with "the desire to problematize inquiry", WallColgy includes a lot of the characteristics to facilitate a "move closer to authentic physicality" (p.166). However, Moher's team suspected limits in this choice. I don't mean only technical limits but what we may call epistemic limits. For example, they decided to use imaginary creatures instead of "authentic" ones in order not to frighten young children and to avoid stereotyping the living conditions of some learners.

This consideration points a question rarely addressed: what means "authenticity"? Once one has said that there will always be a distance between the real world and any of its representation, what can we add? Is authenticity an issue of the same nature for entertainment, expert planning (architecture, surgery, etc) or learning and training?

The environment has been implemented in two classrooms, respectively for seventh and third grade learners. The article report on these experiences is contrasted. On the one hand there are clear indications that learners played the game and their behaviors provided "tentative evidence of the effectiveness of the feature in promoting authentic inquiry practices" (p.169). Learners were genuinely committed to the problem induced by the situation and the WallCology context, they caught the complexity of the task and invented strategies, new research questions and structured their cooperation (distribution of roles). Many positive cognitive outcomes are then reported, but their progress was more at what I may call an instrumental level; at a more conceptual (so to say) level the progress is more limited. As Moher and his colleagues report it: learners (esp. Seventh grade) "did not show improvements on pre-post items related to the use of behavior as a cue to species identification" (p.170), or "none were able to give strong characterization of [the tag-recapture method] conceptual motivation" (p.170). Indeed, the authors have noticed that "the design of instruction and the design of technology proceed in parallel, mutually informed by curricular goals, classroom practice, and advances in technology" (p.171). But noticing this is not enough. So to say, the report of the project about students achievements resemble the reports of students about the bugs behaviors: there should be now a step towards a more substantial conceptualisation. If I dare a parallel, a psychological model of the bugs might not help the learners, but a model of the bugs interactions with their environment is surely the stake. Then:

what about a model of the [learners<->WallCology] system, or may be more generally what about a [subject<->milieu] system from a learning perspective?

Moher, T. (2008). WallCology: Designing interaction affordances for learner engagement in authentic science inquiry. CHI 2008 Proceedings - Learner support (April 5-10, 2008 - Florence Italy) - pp.163-172.