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.
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.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire