#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).