cK¢ is not a cognitive model (a response to Guershon Harel)

The first question Guershon Harel [*] asked about cK¢ is

3. To what extent is the cK¢ a cognitive model?

Actually, this question comes after a more general one: (1) "What is a cognitive model and what are its purposes?" and a more direct one (2) "Is the cK¢ a cognitive model?
My response is very simple and direct:

cK¢ does not propose a framework to construct cognitive models. It does not pretend to model an "approximation to processes of humans’ mental activities" and do not ambition to be "capable of explaining mental processes or interactions among them", eventually it does not aim at answering a specific question such as "how do we learn to categorize perceptual objects?"

Yet, cK¢ has a very strong relation to the learner by being focused on his or her interaction with a learning environment (more precisely the "milieu"). Indeed, cK¢ could contribute to a cognitive approach, but it is not its objective in the first place.

Based on the evidence we can get from the learner's activity, the objective is to characterize it in terms intelligible from a mathematical perspective and which can serve as inputs to take teaching decisions. Two types of evidence are easy to get: representations manipulated by the learner and operators he or she uses in order to achieve a task or to solve a problem. Actually, these operators are not always explicit but it is not impossible to have an interpretation of the learner's behaviours which makes sense from a mathematical perspective (this corresponds to the Vergnaud coup de force when he coined the concept of "theorem in action"). It is then reasonable to claim that we have a picture of the learner understanding when these representations and operators are stable within a problem-space. This has to be completed by a description of the means the learner uses to take a decision about the validity of his or her activity and the related outcomes. It is the idea of the control structure. Once we have a characterization along these four dimensions, we can conjecture a mathematical meaning, but this does not tell what are the related mental activities or cognitive structures as psychology or neuroscience would understand them. It is very likely that different learning theories would shade different lights on these characterizations. However, my claim is that such characterizations are sufficient to assess the so-called mathematical understanding, and to take teaching decisions or  to design learning environments.

For the rest, cK¢ shares many of the scientific characteristics of "cognitive models": it is based on "rigorous methods", it is "capable of generating testable predictions" and of generating descriptions in "formal, mathematical or computer, languages". It does not describe processes but  nothing prevents it a priori to contribute to such descriptions, this is something to explore.

Eventually, it is important to realize that cK¢ does not ambition to construct models to respond to the question "How does a child transition from additive reasoning to multiplicative reasoning?" but to the question "What are the optimal conditions to initiate and support the child transition from additive reasoning to multiplicative reasoning?"

Teaching, an emergent property of learning environments

Teaching, an emergent property of learning environments - IST 2000

I first presented this view of teaching in the context of the design of learning environment in 1999 on the occasion of a EU-US conference in Stuttgart (see the notes here and there). This new version was prepared for a talk at IST 2000 held in Nice; it includes outlines of the project Baghera which was emerging:

The project Baghera, a leading project of the Leibniz Laboratory, has the objective of shaping and experimenting radically new perspectives on the design of eLearning environments. First, by eLearning environment we mean not only the technology but the whole complex constituted by the machinery, its users and its environment. Second, it is the project basic belief that the complexity of human learning can be faced only if the design of eLearning environments takes the collaboration between artificial and human agents as a foundational principle. This requires a strong pluridisciplinary approach at every stage of the design and of the implementation.

A platform like the one we look for, is structured by several different types 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. One type of interaction, or one type of agent, being selected depending of the needs of the learner at the time when the interaction is looked for, as well as of the specific characteristics of the knowledge at stake.

Then, the learning environment, constituted by content specific resources and conception specific resources (taking into account the variety of learners possible conceptualisations) gets its teaching power not from 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. In this approach the crucial issue is not that of the genericity of the technological environment (which is always obtain to the detriment of its cognitive and epistemological specificity), but of its adaptability and openess to change.

May be this is just rediscovering that education has never been the result of the action of one isolated tutor, or single intitution, but of the Society at large...

By the way, why “Baghera”? Because at the core of the system we intend to develop a society of non-human agents whose interactions will aim at the education of a human learner. But unlike the famous story, this time some human agents will take part in the adventure…

cK¢ , the Chicago talk and Guershon Harel questions

cK¢, a model to reason on learners' conceptions 
 

This presentation at PME-NA 2013 was followed by comments and questions from Guershon Harel on the invitation of the conference organisers.  I publish below with Guershon's permission his reaction on the talk, and will respond to his questions in coming posts on this blog.

Questions Inspired by or Generated from the cK¢ Model Presentation
Guershon Harel, University of California at San Diego

I would like to thank the program committee for inviting me to react to Nicolas Balacheff’s plenary talk. I have known Nicolas for many years, both professionally and personally. I feel honored to have the opportunity to react to his work.
A fundamental human nature is that not only do humans seek to resolve puzzles, but also they seek to be puzzled. Scholarly work, thus, is judged not only by the questions it answers but also by the questions it generates. Nicolas’ paper—of which the talk you have just heard is part—does exactly that: It addresses fundamental questions about learning and thinking and at the same time generates new questions.
A strong feature of Nicolas’ work, in general, and of this paper, in particular, is its attempt to define concepts and ideas rigorously. This puts the reader in a mood to follow suit, by asking questions of rigor as well.
What I will do in the time allocated to me is to share with you some of the questions Nicolas’ paper generated for me as I tried to build a coherent image of the cKc model. It is possible that the image I constructed is entirely idiosyncratic, not coinciding with the image—or better say conception—intended by Nicolas.
Whatever the case may be, I highlight that the sole purpose of the questions I present before you now, is to generate discussions, with the hope that they would further understanding, generate research studies, and advance effective classroom implementations of the cKc model. Balacheff’s paper is about a “[cognitive] model of a learner”. The adjective “cognitive” is important here to differentiate it from other types of models. So, following the rigorous style of the paper, the first question one might ask is:

1. What is a cognitive model and what are its purposes?

Briefly, and aggregately, the essential characteristics of “cognitive model”, as they appear in the literature include the following:

a. Cognitive models are approximation to processes of humans’ mental activities, such as attention, understanding, inferencing, decision making, etc.
b. They are derived from basic principles of cognition, such as a particular theory of learning.
c. They are based on rigorous methods of elicitation of cognition.
d. They are capable of explaining mental processes or interactions among them.
e. They are capable of generating testable predictions, both quantitative and qualitative.
f. They are described in formal, mathematical or computer, languages.
g. They aim at answering a specific question; for example: how do we learn to categorize perceptual objects? Such as:

i. How does a student learn to categorize problems according to their mathematical structure?
ii. How does a child transition from additive reasoning to multiplicative reasoning?
iii. How does one learn to categorize paintings according to the periods to which they belong?

h. They may target cognitive processes or cognitive states.

For example, the question, “What are humans’ categories of perceptual objects?” is a question about product rather than process. Likewise, the question “What are students’ proof schemes?” is a question about state, not process.
To illustrate the difference between these two types of models, I mention two examples of works many of you are familiar with. These are the seminal works of Marty Simon and Jere Confrey. What sets the research programs of Marty and Jere apart from many other works is their focus on the mechanisms that account for conceptual learning: namely, the transition from one conceptual state to another.
So relative to this background and characterizations, the questions one might ask about the cK¢ model are:

2. Is the cK¢ a cognitive model?

Or less rigidly,

3. To what extent is the cK¢ a cognitive model?

4. Is the cKc a model of learning processes or learning states?

Furthermore, given the unique nature of the mathematics discipline among the various disciplines, and given the complexity of the classroom setting, in general, and that of mathematics classroom, in particular,

5. Is the cK¢ a model of a learner (period), a model of a learner learning mathematics, or a model of a learner in a mathematics classroom setting?

As mathematics educators, we are most interested in the interactions among the three models outlined by Balacheff: the model of the learner, the model of the content to be learned, and the model of pedagogy. Nicolas indicates “For the last two [models], research has constantly been very active with some promising progress. On the contrary, modeling the learner proved to be a real challenge.” Two questions of interest, though they perhaps go beyond the scope of the paper, are:

6. What exactly are the challenging aspects of modeling learning relative to modeling content and pedagogy?
7. What are the interdependent relationships among these three models?
8. What is the efficacy of such models if they are constructed independently from each other? In particular, can models of content and pedagogy be viable without the presence of a learning model?

A more philosophically oriented, yet critical, question is

9. Are cognitive models of thinking possible?

This question is derived from the third characteristic of mental models I listed earlier; namely, a mental model is based on a rigorous method of elicitation of cognition. This characteristic is particularly problematic. Here is why. The cK¢ is a model of learning/thinking. As was pointed out by Colin Eden, “if we take seriously Karl Weick’s aphorism that we do not know what we think until we hear what we say, then the process of articulation—that is, the learner’s utterances and behaviors that constitute the data for the construction of the model—is a significant influence on present and future cognition. Since articulation and thinking interact, as is largely accepted, then an elicitation of cognition that depends upon articulation is always out of step with cognition before, during, and after the elicitation process.”

Even if we overcome this philosophical hurdle, an empirical question emerges:

10. To what extent can a general learning model be viable, given human diversity of character, culture, and circumstances?

The fourth component of the cK¢ model is control. Balacheff characterizes control under the general umbrella of metacognitive behaviors. The control component is crucial, and is Balacheff’s significant addition to Vergnaud’s model. It is crucial because it is the place where issues of the learner’s understandings are to be revealed. The set of four examples Balacheff discusses to illustrate the cK¢ models are illuminating, but I still found myself wanting to better understand the cK¢’s definitions and treatment for crucial control constructs such as understanding, meaning, and ways of thinking.

These are crucial constructs with various instantiations. For example, when we talk about “understanding” and “meaning”, we—researchers and teachers—want and need to distinguish, for example, between “understanding in the moment” and “stable understanding”, and between “meaning in the moment” and “stable meaning”. Likewise, we want and need to observe ways of thinking, or habitual anticipations of meanings, both desirable and undesirable. Thus, it is natural to ask:

11. What are “understanding,” “meaning,” and “way of thinking” for the cKc model, and what is a reliable methodology to elicit them?

12. What is “Problem” for the cK¢ model?

Recall that Balacheff’s definition of “conception” is a quadruplet (P, R, L, Σ). Balacheff recognizes that the first component, Problems, is problematic; namely, he faced the question as to how to characterize the set of the problems for a particular conception. After considering two possible characterizations, one by Vergnaud and one by Brousseau, Balacheff describes P as a set of problems prototypical to the field to which the conception belongs. This characterization raises theoretical, methodological, and instructional questions.

Specifically, the cK¢ model postulates that problems are the source and the criteria of learning and knowing. And following Vergnaud and Brousseau, problems are also held as the engine of the teaching process. A consequence of these largely agreed upon positions is that the cK¢  hinges upon the school prototypical problems one chooses to elicit conceptions.

The difficulty that arises here is that many of these prototypical problems are alien, not intrinsic, to the students. The students might be able to solve them, but the kinds of perturbations they engender with the students are didactical, aimed solely at satisfying the will of the teacher. Thus:

13. If the problem is alien to the learner, what meaning can a researcher give to the operations and control components of the model?
14. How is to be determined by researchers, and more importantly by teachers, whether the problem posed to elicit conception is intrinsic or alien to the learner, and how does this determination effect the observer’s conception of the learner’s conception?

The Problem component is also a crucial factor in Balacheff’s definition of generality. Generality is one of the factors in the cK¢ model shaping relations between conceptions. As such, it is crucially important, for the simple reason that it provides a criterion for conceptual development; namely, how one conception is more general than other.

Balacheff defines generality as follows:

C=(P, R, L, Σ) is more general than C’= (P’, R’, L’, Σ’) if there exists a function of representation ƒ: L’→L so that ∀p ∈P’, ƒ(p)∈P.

The examples of relative generality discussed in the paper work nicely according to this definition. Balacheff’s definition also worked well with many of the examples I tested. For some
cases, where P=P’, the definition may need further refinement. Consider the following example:

A 13-year-old girl, Tami, and an 8-year-old boy, Dan, were interviewed in pair.

Interviewer: One pound of candy cost $7. How much would 3 pounds of candy cost?
Tami: Three times seven, 21.
Dan: I agree, three times seven.
Interviewer: What if I changed the 3 into 0.31? What if the problem were: One pound of candy cost $7; how much would 0.31 of a pound cost?
Tami: The same. It is the same problem, you have just changed the number, 0.31 times 7.
Dan: No way! It isn’t the same. Can’t be [angrily]. It isn’t times. Why did you [speaking to the interviewer] agree with her?
Interviewer: I didn’t agree with her, I’m just listening to both of you. How would you solve the problem?
Dan: You take 1 and you divide by 0.31. You take that number, whatever that number is, and you divide 7 by that number.

Indeed:

On the one hand, the set of problems belonging to Tami’s conception is identical to set of problems belonging to Dan’s, and it seems that there is always a translation between the corresponding L and L’ satisfying Balacheff definition of generality. Hence, the two conceptions seem to be equivalent. On the other hand, intuitively, I want to attribute a greater generality to Tami’s conception, with all the great admiration I have for Dan’s conception.

In closing,

Three of Balacheff’s goals for introducing the cK¢ can be summarized as follows:

a. Make more efficient our own research.
b. Clarify concepts and their relationships.
c. Contribute to better understanding of learners’ understanding, so as to support decision making for teachers and learners.

It is against these goals that I chose the questions I have just presented.

Thank you

The Arabic translation of the terms and expressions of the TEL Dictionary has been released

The Arabic translation of the entries of the TEL Dictionary has required a considerable effort which demonstrates once more that questioning the Technology Enhanced Learning vocabulary from a multiple perspective is needed. This time five expressions have not found a satisfactory translation: Constructionism, Pedagogical agent, Virtual pedagogical agent, Animated pedagogical agent and Programmable course. The case of "constructionism" is not a surprise, it is in fact in all languages not translated but transliterated. For the next three cases, it is the term "agent" which is resisting. In my opinion,  the last case should find a solution soon. Suggestions and contributions are welcome, for this purpose LinkedIn members are invited to join the LinkedIn "TEL dictionary initiative" group.

The terms documented by the TEL Dictionary are now available in...
English  • العربية • Български • Dansk • Español • Ελληνικά • Eesti • Français • Magyar • Italiano • 日本語 • 한국어 • Nederlands • Português • Русский • Slovenčina • Türkçe • Tiếng Việt • ‪中文(繁體)‬ • ‪中文(简体)‬

cK¢, an introductory talk on the occasion of the PMENA annual conference

Next fall, on the invitation of PMENA (the Psychology of Mathematics Education North American Chapter), I will have the occasion to present an introductory talk to the cK¢ model. The text of the talk entitled "cK¢, a model to reason on learners' conceptions" is now available on the arXiv.org. Here is a summary:

"Understanding learners' understanding is a key requirement for an efficient design of teaching situations and learning environments, be they digital or not. This keynote outlines the modeling framework cK¢ (conception, knowing, concept) created with the objective to respond to this requirement, with the additional ambition to build a bridge between research in mathematics education and research in educational technology. After an introduction of the rationale of cK¢, some illustrations are presented. Then follow comments on cK¢ and learning. The conclusion evokes key research issues raised by the use of this modeling framework."

 The PMENA 2013 conference is held in Chicago from the 14th to the17th of November.

cK¢, une introduction à l'occasion de la conférence PMENA 2013

J'aurai l'occasion cet automne de présenter les principes et objectifs du modèle cK¢ dans le cadre de la conférence annuelle de la section américaine du groupe international Psychology of Mathematics Education. Voici le résumé de mon exposé dont le texte est disponible sur HAL sous le titre "cK¢, a model to reason on learners' conceptions"

"Understanding learners' understanding is a key requirement for an efficient design of teaching situations and learning environments, be they digital or not. This keynote outlines the modeling framework cK¢ (conception, knowing, concept) created with the objective to respond to this requirement, with the additional ambition to build a bridge between research in mathematics education and research in educational technology. After an introduction of the rationale of cK¢, some illustrations are presented. Then follow comments on cK¢ and learning. The conclusion evokes key research issues raised by the use of this modeling framework."

 La conférence PMENA a lieu du 14 au 17 novembre à Chicago.

Experiential learning, the new entry of the TEL Dictionary

What does exactly mean "experiential learning"? Is it learning serendipitously from an eventful life or is it learning from empirically from experiences one managed for you or that you managed yourself? How far is this concept from "inquiry learning" or "exploratory learning"?

The documented definitions of Experiential learning prepared by Vyara Dimitrova and Paul Kirschner for the TEL Dictionary clarify these issues and are excellent basis for further discussion.

One more question: would "experiential learning" from an educational perspective be a concept enhancing our tool box to understand the theoretical tensions between informal and formal learning?

#ocTEL MOOC (week 4 A42) Why would the student do or say this rather than that?

The second activity of this week on "Producing Engaging and Effective Learning Materials" is about the evaluation of resources in our area. So, it means, in my case, evaluating a resource for the learning of mathematics. However, I will start from a more general perspective. Whatever is the targeted learning, the first thing to check is the validity of the content the resource claims providing the learners with respect to the referent discipline. Then only, I will assess it from a learning perspective. Indeed, there are many issues to consider from accessibility to usability, motivation and autonomy. But, three questions have a hight priority in driving my evaluation:

Why would the student do or say this rather than that?
What must happen if she does it or doesn’t do it?
What meaning would the answer have if she had given it?

I borrow these formulations from the Theory of Didactical Situations (Brousseau 1997 p.65), but the questions are very pragmatic. The theory works here as a driver of our thinking; it is a tool to anticipate what could be the learning outcome, its likeliness, the possible limits and hence the needed intervention of a teacher. Depending on the responses, one may have to stage the use of the resource in one way or another.

Interaction and feedback are the main objects of the evaluation. The issue is not that students will do that or this, but why they do it,  because the constructed piece of knowledge must appear as the best adapted to the situation. Knowledge is something you reconstruct for yourself and appropriate because of its use value. The next issue is to verify, if the resource is interactive in some way, that it can feedback students so that they have a chance to realize that something went wrong and then react to that. If the resource is not interactive, then the issue is whether it is possible to figure out any thing about the activity (possibly, just reading) of students and find the appropriate support to bring. Eventually, the stake of this inquiry is the meaning possibly constructed by the student.

All this means that there is enough documentation about the resource, otherwise one has to guess or invent... just having a resource without information about its design, the intention of the designer and indications about its use, it is hardly possible to make a proper evaluation. This may be the reason why I couldn't do it for the proposed resource. But, anyway, I will make the exercise when achieving the third task of the week.

Some thoughts about Learning aware environments

Reference: Nicolas Balacheff, Learning aware environments, eAgenda 2006 European Forum, Castelldefels, Spain, 24 October 2006
 

Could we “introduce learning in every human activity”? From a non-English speaking perspective this question may sound strangely. Isn’t it the case that learning is present everywhere and at every moment in our life?  This is a matter of survival. Learning is a competence shared by all living organisms. Learning is life-long; it starts with our first breath and continues until the very last one. 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.).

At this point it is interesting to come back to the origin of “learning” and “teaching” in the English language. Both words have a German origin, tracing back respectively to “læran” and “tæcan” in Old English. While the latter meant “to show” or “to persuade”, the former was preferred to mean “to teach” or “to guide”. Then, could we suggest that the English word learning has a teaching connotation, and that as a result the meaning of  the question is: “can we introduce læran in every human activity?”, what introduces the idea of environments with “teaching” capabilities.
 

Designing environments likely to stimulate and support learning outside formal education and training —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 technologies 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. They are 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 technological 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).

#ocTEL MOOC (week 4 A41) Can TEL be taught or only learned?

The theme of the week is "Producing Engaging and Effective Learning Materials", with as a first task comparing learning resources, with three examples. As one can easily realise, since the content is completely different in each case, the comparison will be at the level of the style, organisation, choice of media and ways of involving learners. But let's see what is proposed...

The first suggestion is to use one resource from Khan Academy’s YouTube videos. So, I chosen the "Introduction to Vectors and Scalars":

Actually, a surprise! This introduction aims at clarifying the distinction between "vector" and "scalar". If I have understood well: a scalar is a quantity (for example, a distance of 5m between two points) and a vector is a scalar associated to a displacement (for example, moving 5m to the right). It could be a bit more complex, introducing change of time, suggests the teacher. Then, he introduces a distinction between velocity (vector quantity, the move has a direction) and speed (scalar quantity, the direction is not specified). I am unsure of what will be the conceptions of vector and scalar that learners could develop after this lesson (e.g. what about scalars operating on vectors). So, the benefit from this staging of vectors can be discussed, but I recognise the power of the enchantment of the blackboard: the speed of the discourse regulated by that of the hand, the hesitations and small mistakes which give the flavour of informal discourse, the always positive style: it might sound like very complicated ideas, but we will see in the course of the video that they are actually very simple ideas... (quasi verbatim). There is a kind of illusion of being close to the tutor, feeling that he is speaking to you. Well done! But still unsure about what could be the learning outcome...

So, now let's move to the second example, taking one example from one resource from ElearningExamples e-learning games. Among the great many possibilities, I chosen the "Learning center for young astronomers". This center gives access to several resources either texts or video, possibilities to navigate among resources. Some questions give opportunity for engaging in kind of interactions. The resource includes suggestions for use in the classroom. This is a classical environment for getting information along a not too boring journey in an encyclopaedia. It is not motivating by itself, but if learners have some motivation they may enjoy. I had a look on other resources of this set of examples, they are essentially game-like. The most difficult was to understand how learning is addressed. Games? yes, but learning... not obvious.

Eventually, I visited the iEthiCS simulation as suggested. The thing to emphasize is the clarity and the simplicity of the environment, and still an engaging style. Indeed, it is for adults and moreover medical students usually with a quite hight motivation towards case-based learning. After watching he video of the case, the student can make choices and get video commentaries (there is a text-based version). This is rather lively and efficient. The feeling of a contact with the tutor, although with little interaction (just decision choices), is realistic and convincing. This is a good video-based teaching.

So, now back to the task: "comparing resources". To be frank, global comparisons is likely to be meaningless. But it is possible to make some on aspects shared by these resources. For example comparing the use of video by Khan Academy and iEthics, or the way learner's navigation is framed by the Center for young astronomers and iEthics. All seems adapted to a certain conception of learners and of their autonomy, and they look quite well with their own style (that one may indeed always discuss). But an other question is whether they would succeed in "passing" the content they intend to give learners an access to. A question that #ocTEL does not ask, but the question which in the end is the most important. Khan academy treats knowledge as information so everything will depend on the listener, the Center for young astronomer does that too but in a more active way. Only iEthiCs treats knowledge as a tool for problem solving and not as information only, this is this which drives the design of the environment and it is, in my opinion, the key challenge of the design of TEL environments.

Eventually, the task includes a question about the extent to which these resources "differ from that of the resources we’re using in ocTEL?" There are two remarkable differences: these resources are rather focussed, while ocTEL is totally and vastly open (real risk to get lost), these resources target delivering some knowledge in some form, while ocTEL organizes exchanges of ideas and opinions about something which may be or not supported by some knowledge about TEL.I have not the feeling of following a course, but of being on a market place with a lot of possibilities. But it is hardly possible to identify what I am learning, and if there is something to learn beyond getting all these information.

Actually, we are touching there the main difficulty, challenge and weakness of TEL. So, my question: can TEL be taught or only learned?

#ocTEL MOOC (week 3 Webinar) Did the 3E framework inspire the design of the ocTEL MOOC? I wonder...

This week 3 webinar on "Activity design for online learning" was presented by Keith Smyth based on the 3E framework that he used in support to the improvement of the adoption of TEL at Edinburgh Napier University. Surprisingly the link with the three activities proposed by #ocTEL for this week 3 is not obvious and may be empty but at a very general level -- that is the level of the word "activity". It is not to mean that the webinar was not interesting, but one may expect more coherence between the activities in a MOOC.

The 3E framework is "based on a tried and tested Enhance-Extend-Empower continuum for using technology to effectively support learning, teaching and assessment across disciplines and levels of study", explain the authors. Here is a view of the continuum:

Enhance	Extend	Empower
Adopting technology in simple and effective ways to actively support students and increase their activity and self-responsibility	Further use of technology that facilitates key aspects of students’ individual and collaborative learning and assessment through increasing their choice and control	Developed use of technology that promotes learner autonomy and requires higher order individual and collaborative learning that reflect how knowledge is created and used in professional environments

In a way, I see that as a meta-model to frame the type of use of the technology one may want to adopt. This continuum seems especially relevant for adult education with the last stage coming closer to professional situations. Then within each of these levels we are left with nothing very tangible and operational to develop the design. We were left with 3 to 4 minutes to fill in the table with one example... a real challenge.

There is a lesson to be learned anyway, which is that whatever is the design a the level of actual student activity, there must be also attention paid to the higher level of design which is that of the course management as a series of activities and their evolution. In this respect the webinar was interesting and relevant. But, thinking about and learning "learning theories" was probably not the most relevant to prepare to it, something closer to curriculum development and/or course management would have been welcome.

Eventually... did the 3E framework inspire the design of #ocTEL? I wonder...

#ocTEL MOOC (week 3 A33) Learning forward, designing backward

The third activity for this week 3 on Designing active learning is to design an activity and to review a learning activity. I didn't design one specifically for this MOOC, but I am happy to share one which I designed for a Doctoral school a few years ago, it was about the design of learning game, starting by inviting students to play a game...

About learning games and the design of learning spaces

The idea is simple: invite students to play a game first alone against the teacher who manages to sometimes loose, sometime win. This the time to acquire the rules. Then the students play against each other, first alone, then in team with a spokesperson who will play the strategy of the team. There are two levels of debriefing, the first one specific to the game as such, the second to understand the structure and the function of the game as a learning situation. Eventually, students are invited to analyse a simulation game in epidemiology. The sequence closes with a more theoretical analysis of the role of games in learning.

The lesson learned from this exercise is that while learning goes forward from action to articulated knowledge, the design of a learning situation must go backward from the targeted learning outcome back to the optimal situation to engage learner in the process. This situation could be a game but not necessarily, it must essentially be a situation which allows learners to mobilise what they know, whatever it is, in order to make the first step towards the target. The sequence of situation is a journey allowing the construction of the required mental constructs, then language, then means to evaluate and give ground to the piece of knowledge which has emerged.  This is a quick summary, but the essential is there.

It is with this in mind that I reviewed two activities proposed by (@James Kerr), History of Educational Technology-A Collaborative Timeline Project, and (@ElizabethECharl), Webquest – a hunting we will go. In both cases, the difficulty is to figure out precisely what will be the learning outcome and how the situations are appropriate for this objective. Kerr activity is interesting as such, it could stimulate conversations on the history of educational technology and beyond on the role of technology in education. It is an open situation which could give ground to several different learning objective. Elizabeth activity is more focussed on information search on the net. It is a starter, and actually presented as such, which fruitfulness will depend on the follow up either by new situations or by the teacher -- here a librarian. As a learner, I am now in standby in both cases...

The "Informal learning" entry of the TEL Dictionary has been updated

Vyara Dimitrova and Paul Kirshner have just released a revised version of the "Informal learning" entry of the TEL Dictionary.

It is interesting to notice how much the concept of "informal learning" which sounds common sense, is difficult to define. In my opinion, this comes from two different understandings of the term... "formal". Either, "formal" means "institutional" and informal learning is learning taking place outside the institution. Or, "formal" means "intentional" and in this case informal learning is any learning which takes place serendipitously. My guess is that most psychologist have the second meaning in mind, while educationalists have the first one.

Right?

#ocTEL MOOC (week 3 A32) While playing, one cant' help learning

The focus on this week second task is on game-based learning as the best example of good case of active learning. The reasons given are brief and clear: "It encapsulates many principles of active learning, such as engagement in an authentic context, learning by mistake-making and reflection, experiential learning, collaborative learning and learning by problem-solving". Apart from the word "authentic" that I would discuss, I agree with the list. But is it enough? In my opinion: "no", because the issue is not that some learning occurs but to be able to tell what learning occurs and, even better, that an intended learning objective has been reached. For this, it is not enough to engage the learners in an active play.

Let's take the case of the proposed games, of which I tried two: the adventure game Lost in the City and the strategy game Westward.  After 15 minutes of play (recommended), I stopped, I stepped back and I tried to respond to the question: "What do you think you could learn playing this game?" The only response I could offer is that we could learn how to play these games and that it may take some time. Then what we could learn once being reasonably familiar with the game is not obvious, although there could be a general statements (I prefer to leave the floor to a knowledgeable other): "The game “Lost in the City” is interesting as an exercise in following directions and solving puzzle" (@James Kerr), "Westward [...]  felt as though it wrapped entertainment around learning very well, and could present learning in an engaging way" (@James Kerr). Yes, but which learning? James Kerr refers to "The Oregon trail" as a similar game. If I got it well, it is both a role-play and a simulation game of a period in the history of the US (as a matter of fact, following a link from the wikipedia page of "The Oregon trail" one reaches "Westward!" and learn that it is an online adaptation of it  - but may be not to confuse with Westward - without an exclamation point).

So, before being lost (or loosing my reader, if one happens to reach this line), I must tell what I learned today from activity 3.2. The first thing is that I learned a bit how to play these games which I didn't know before; and indeed, while playing, I cant' help learning. The second thing is that one cannot say clearly and precisely what can be learned when playing a game; almost every learning is possible from learning how to play, learning some attitude, some skills and serendipitously some content or know-how which could have a meaning and a utility outside the universe of the game. The analysis is almost impossible.

Hence, the reasonable approach is to question the game from the perspective of the learning outcome one targets. I will come back to this point with the week 3 activity 3.3.

Gérard Vergnaud, quelques mots sur la théorie des champs conceptuels

Une interview le 2 septembre 2011 pour SINPRO-SP (syndicat d'enseignants de Sao Paulo), durant laquelle, en quelques minutes, Gérard Vergnaud dessine très clairement les lignes de force des recherches qu'il conduit depuis plus de quarante ans.

#ocTEL MOOC (week 2 Webinar) Eventually, it's wise to distinguish the driver from the traveller!

This week, for the first time since the beginning of this course, I can attend the webinar. The connexion is easy and the environment is rather well designed. We have a sense of the audience (about 50 people), the moderators are active, the chat is lively and the presentation (slides and comments) is clearly displayed. May be, for a foreign learner, not perfect in English, the discourse is too fast and difficult sometimes to catch; however with the support of the slides and thanks to a well structured talk, it is possible to follow anyway.

 The topic of the webinar, presented by Helen Beetham, is to explore and consider possible responses to the question "What do we need to know about learners?".

I usually understand this question from an epistemic and cognitive perspective, but this time the angle is more focused on the learner as a user of the MOOC. This makes me realize the difference between a the user of a course and a learner. If one consider a course as a commodity, then there are a few question to ask about the user which are of a different nature than if you consider it as an instrument for learning purposes. I mean that there are two different questions: (1) what we need to know about the learner as a course user? (2) what do we need to know about the learner as a knowing subject? The commodification, if I may dare this neologism, of courses by the technology makes relevant questioning who is the learner as a user (eventually as a client as he or she may pay for the service).

Let's try a metaphor: a car is both a commodity and a means for go from one place to an other, however before travelling one must be able to drive. Hence, if you conceive a car you must know something about the driver, the question of who he or she is as a traveller is an other story... Back to learning: such a question is not that critical in a classroom because of the possibility to adapt in real time to the difficulties which may appear. In a distance learning course of a reasonable size, there is the possibility to intervene if needed and respond to needs with not a too long delay; actually there is a physical distance but the social distance is not too important. In a MOOC, the social distance may be rather critical since it is very easy to remain unnoticeable and isolated from the others. So, being autonomous, proactive and digital-something is required, and one may understand that the institutions try to ensure that this is fine before students engage in a MOOC. To some extent, ensuring that the driver has a licence is a wise idea.

Eventually, I think we have to consider seriously Roger Emery remark: "Issues I face: Concentration, Focus, Application, Dedication. In a traditional 'classroom' I am locked in a room for an hour with a facilitator and community of learners with no distractions to concentrate on the learning and subject. I've never been able to replicate that experience online" (@SolentRoger).

#ocTEL MOOC (week 2 A21) Prerequisites for attending a MOOC

The topic of the week is "Understanding learners needs", which in my opinion is better expressed by understanding the prerequisites for enrolling potentially successfully in a (Massive Open) On-line Course. Four questionnaires are suggested to get a first idea of what that could mean. Here they are:

Penn State University: Online Readiness Assessment San Diego Community College: Online Learning Readiness Assessment Illinois Online Network: Self Evaluation for Potential Online Students University of Houston: Test of Online Learning Success 

I took two, then became curious and took all...  I responded sincerely to all the questions and got from the University of Houston the advice to improve on some aspects. I was not in the worse cluster, nor the best but in the one of those who have to manage a few things to ensure a successful on-line curriculum. Penn State was OK, as well as San Diego, but the most enthousiastic was the Illinois Online Network:

Sign me up! You are a great candidate for online learning.

Were is the difference from? Indeed from the nature of the questions and the range of possibility to respond. In the case of Houston, it is possible to "strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree". So, for some questions "neither agree nor disagree" is often  the best response as long as you consider it as expressing that actually the response is: it depends. For example, for the question "I am capable of making time for my coursework", a sincere response is: it depends, as you may be willing to but for many reasons you cannot. Actually, such questionnaires may be reliable on questions dealing with accessibility to the network and to a good enough computer, and with computational skills. It is much more debatable for the assessment of dimensions of the personality or of learning skills. Just take the case of procrastination, (in many culture) people may not admit it publicly, if even they understand the word.

Let say, that alternatively a short document should advice the potential user of the kind of access to technology and of the basic skills they need in order to engage. Going ahead is than a question of responsibility on their side. If they think that they have a not a sufficient access to technology or not enough skills, then open to them the possibility to express it and ask for support. For the rest, the technology must be able to figure out what are the difficulty of the learner. To take an example, procrastination can be identified from the log and a support could be kindly and politely offered. By the way, I am late in achieving the tasks in ocTEL although I don't look at myself as a procrastinator... it just happens that this #ocTEL MOOC cannot be at the highest level of priority of my to-do list; but the technology should recognize that I keep going and maintain effort to keep in the main stream.

Although I know something on TEL and I have used several educational software, I have no experience of online learning. #ocTEL is my first experience, so I can take it and myself as a case to explore expectations and concerns. The main point is that I expected a course and I feel more engaged in a kind of speedy brainstorming on learning and technology. The technology works well and is friendly to the skills of a normal digital immigrant (not a native). The quantity of events and contribution is hugged, it is not obvious to connect and take benefit from participating in this emergent community of practice. But, I don't surrender, so see you in the next Blog post which will be on Activity 2.2 and about the webinar (which I attended on week 2).

#ocTEL MOOC (week 1 Webinar) It's all the complexity of adopting TEL

The theme of  #ocTEL week 1 is "TEL Concepts and Approaches". The preparation includes many activities with the idea (paraphrasing the presentation of the week) that it may be a chance to ‘ground’ ourselves within the learning landscape by exploring examples of theories and approaches, or to have an opportunity to talk about specific theories, the approaches they take and the outcomes they achieve. I did two of these activities and published the outcomes in preceding posts (here and there). Then, I looked at the slides of the related webinar and the exchanges in the chat window.

The topic of the webinar of this week is "Teachers Talking about TEL", presented by Liz Masterman. I missed it, but I read the powerpoint and the comments from the chat window (sorry Liz, I couldn't find time to sit and follow the talk  -- the recording is here). If I got it well, it opens questions dealing essentially with acceptability of TEL and the difficulty of its adoption in higher education covering questions about students needs and preferences, the role of learning and teaching theories, the reuse of digital resources (OER), the transformation of practice... This is so rich that it is difficult to step back from the brainstorm and to think about what we get from such a course: all doors are open and are left open in the end: the conclusion takes the form of five questions. So, let's take them as a homework:

1. Is there a tension what students want and what might be more beneficial to their learning?

Yes, this is often the case and this a very general situation. Just considering the content, in compulsory education or higher education, we know that students interested in a certain topic would very much like to avoid others they don't like. For example, in medicine it is classical that students are eager to enter the ward, but not to take the biochemistry or statistic courses. An other example could be the willing to learn English but avoiding learning all the technicalities of the grammar. As a matter of fact, too many students have a project but do not understand the curriculum. There issue is that you really understand the curriculum once you know...

2. ‘Good use of technology builds on all the education theory.’ Do you agree?

To respond "Yes" is difficult to avoid, but it is actually meaningless. Good use of technology builds on much more than educational theories, there are also the communication theories, ergonomic, computational literacy. Moreover, if the idea is to say that all the learning and teaching theories, and educational as well, can be of some help, one may agree but so what... The issue may be, when facing a problem, to find how to formulate it and understand it, and then to find the means to get the most relevant response. But, if this response is informed by a theory, would that mean that we have to know it (functionally, and not only by name)? This may be a real challenge. Eventually, would agreeing means that we consider that such good use builds on behaviourism as well as on constructivism, cognitivism as well as situated learning. Unfortunately not all the learning theories are consistent among themselves. So, definitely, we have to reconsider the question.

3. What are the trade-offs and compromises in using (open) educational resources created by others?

This is a very difficult question which may not have a definite and general answer. An educational resource is in general the product of a process which is largely part of its meaning. The big issue is to know how to document a resource so that it can be reused. This issue might be easier to manage in higher education, but still there is a significant difference between an educational document on the "Little Fermat theorem" and one on "A dream within a dream", a poem of Edgar Allan Poe. When these resources were dominated by books, teachers tended to choose text-books close to what they had learned (or had been taught) and the way they had learned, and to appropriate them for a long period. With the current blooming of on-line resources, it is rather difficult because very little is known of them. TEL has developed the concept of Learning object and the related meta-data, but still this is much less operational than expected.

Aside the difficulty of appropriating the resources prepared by others, there is the need for teacher to remain the creators of their courses. It is through this creative process that they can solve the actor paradox: each time a course is delivered, or an educational resource used, it must be as it were the first time with the same enthusiasm and liveliness so that the student can enter the knowledge game and not be offered the mere repetition of a course which is delivered every years alike.

4. Where is the locus of ‘cool TEL’ in your university/college and what is its relationship to institutional support?

No genius loci yet for TEL in Grenoble (but its in the agenda). However there is a place where TEL develops in a blended approach for many years now, it is the first year of medicine at Grenoble University. The model is that of a flip classroom, with all the material delivered on DVD and then a questions-answers session with tutors, and eventually an evaluation simulating the future exam. It is very similar to a MOOC (at least 1500 students attend) but before the MOOC (it is not Online yet). It is interesting, in relation with the webinar discussion to notice the motivation of this innovation: equity between students. An other interesting innovation, of a different nature, is offered to students of the second year of this medicine school. It is called Laboratorium of epidemiology and it consists of a simulation with the objective to set a context to motivate students to learn statistics in a situated way.

5. What information will best help you decide whether to try out

That information which I will get in the ocTEL MOOC, indeed! Actually, I am already fully convinced.

Learning analytics versus Data mining, questioning definitions

In this communication presented at LAK2013 (Leuven), Kris Lund and myself considered an analysis of the TeLearn archive, of the Grand Challenges from the STELLAR Network of Excellence, of two Alpine Rendez-Vous 2011 workshops and research conducted in the Productive Multivocality initiative in order to discuss the notions of multidisciplinarity, multivocality and interidisciplinarity. We used this discussion as a springboard for addressing the term “Learning Analytics” and its relation to “Educational Data Mining”. Our goal is to launch a debate pertaining to what extent the different disciplines involved in the TEL community can be integrated on methodological and theoretical levels.

You may want to read the [full paper] available on the TeLearn Open Archive.