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…

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

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

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

Martin Oliver responded (February the 26th 2010) that...

Sara de Freitas is certainly interested in the kinds of games that resemble simulations - she likes to use the portmanteau "gamesim" to denote this category.

Personally, I think that attempting to draw clear definitions that distinguish games from simulations would be problematic - my opinion is that what makes them useful or not is how they get used. A game can be treated as a simulation, and a simulation can be played with; it's a matter of convention which side of the definitional line they are placed on.

The discussion in relation to the "other world" experience of the game reflects that Higher Education (rather than, say, training) values the ability to reflect upon and critique experience, not just improve it. (Obviously that's a value statement, and not universal, but I'd refer people to Ron Barnett's work for a more general discussion of this kind of issue.)

The debriefing session is an example of a pedagogic technique intended to help bridge differences between play and curriculum performance - in some ways, this could be understood as just one more example of the classic problem of learning transfer. What is learnt from play is unlikely, in itself, to map neatly onto the goals of the curriculum; the debriefing simply recognises that a process of reinterpretation or renegotiation may be necessary. I don't think that "debriefing" describes a well-defined pedagogic interaction - more a class of conventions about asking people to make sense of the experience they have just had. To this extent, all that's required of a game (or simulation) is that people have an experience to reflect upon. We haven't tried to engage with what makes some debriefings better than others; this is, I'm sure, a fruitful area to consider but it's not one we looked at. Matching the game design to that debriefing is then an obvious and sensible approach - but again, it was outside the scope of this particular paper (which focused on evaluation rather than design).

And the conversation continued (Nicolas Balacheff, March the 1st, 2010)

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

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

A didactical view on authenticity

Retrieved from the TEL opinion blog, August the 27th, 2008

The search for authenticity of learning situations is a concern for most designers of TEL environments. Most of them realise soon that this is a desperate project since any environment is a representation of some kind of a reference, often called "reality", which keeps staying at a distance. To be as close as possible to reality does not mean much, unless we can qualify or quantify the closeness. Indeed, this is a challenge and we are not be well equipped today to take it up. A solution might be to find a theoretical framework within which we can formulate the problem, and then search for a solution within this framework. This first step will put limits on this solution, but it will make it much more tangible and so accessible to further progress. Currently we too much lack definitions and references to ensure that we can seriously discuss the issue. But, let's try something...

 First, we may agree that a learning environment becomes such if it is embedded in a situation which can contextualise the learner activity and hopefully stimulate, support and validate his or her successful learning. Be they formal or informal, these situations have an objective which can be made explicit in learning terms at least from the point of view of their designers; the fact that this objective is explicit for learners is another story. Following Brousseau(*), let's call "didactical" these situations. Didactical situations can be distinguished from other situations by their explicit intention to "teach". And here is the problem! As soon as the learner identifies this intention and bases on it his or her activity, it is very likely that the learning outcome will not have the expected "authenticity". All the search for authenticity of learning situations (and learning environments) is dedicated to the overcoming of this difficulty.

Second, let's consider the limit case of a didactical situation which didactical intention is completely transparent. If learning occurs in such a situation, we could ascertain that its outcome has the expected "authenticity": it does not owe the didactical intention (in other words the reasons for the activity of the learners are in the knowledge at stake not due to any guessing of the teacher or trainer expectations) These are "adidactical" situations, let's quote Brousseau:

"[The student must know that] this knowledge is entirely justified by the internal logic of the situation and that she can construct it without appealing to didactical reasoning. Not only can she do it, but she must do it because she will have truly acquired this knowledge only when she is able to put it to use by herself in situtations which she will come across outside any teaching context and in the absence of any intentional direction. Such situation is called an adidactical situation. Each item of knowledge can be characterized by a (or some) adidactical situation(s) which preserve(s) meaning; we shall call this a fundamental situation." (Brousseau p.30)

These three concepts: didactical situation, adidactical situation and fundamental situation will allow us to locate our problem of authenticity, and to formulate it.

So, designing an authentic learning situation depends on our capacity to characterize the related fundamental situation in relation to the piece of knowledge which learning is at stake. The problem is then not the closeness to reality, but the fact that the situation has the epistemic properties specific to this piece of knowledge. The specification of a so-called authentic environment requires first the expression of these epistemic properties and of the way they can be "translated" in the tangible world. However, once we have such a situation, there may be still a long way to designing an adidactical situation likely to be made available to learners. The design of this adidactical situation and the related environment is the challenge of designers of authentic TEL environments. After that, there is still one issue for the teacher: bring to life this adidactical situation in the classroom without damaging its "authenticity", what is the didactical challenge!

A quick example to conclude this post: the concept of "angle" in mathematics finds its full meaning when linear measurement is not possible or too "expensive" (for example when sailing on the Atlantic). Let say that the fundamental situation for "angle" is the problem of locating a point in the macro-space. We can realize that the classroom can hardly host a macro-space, we have then to find a situation which has the characteristics of the macrospace (linear measurement being impossible or too "expensive") and can be implemented in a classroom. If the problem were presented in the frame of a piece of paper (micro-space), the situation may appear quite artificial in the students eyes (a ruler is enough), then the corresponding didactical situation would be delicate to negotiate and in the end fragile. Technology can offer a solution, opening the window of the computer on the macro-space...

Brousseau G. (1997) Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics . Springer (Kluwer Acad. Pub.)

In search for the authenticity of learning situations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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