I was just wondering if the notion of 'negotiation of meaning' (Wenger, 1998) could be fruitful in describing or combining the two contrasting perspectives. This process consist of both 'participation' and 'reification'. Reifications of knowledge or representing it as stable, formalisable is an important process - not only the process of actually representing it, but also the value of having, shared stable representations of domains of knowledge, which can act as important boundary objects for the other process 'participation'. This process could be said to be the emergent process of knowledge creation - if the stable representations do not open to participation and engagement or become part of the interactions of learners/teachers.
In short - participation/reification are two sides of a coin and not necessarily contrasting (though I am aware that there are different research traditions and views of learning connected with these) - but I wonder if the concept of 'negotiation of meaning' could bring together, rather than contrasting the perspectives?
I think, I know what is meant by an 'ecological' perspective, but to outsiders I think this might be a hard term to come to terms with :) at least it requires a bit more explanation - then again, I am not quite sure, who is the intended audience of the Vision Statement.
>I was just wondering if the notion of 'negotiation of meaning' (Wenger, 1998) could be fruitful in
describing or combining the two contrasting perspectives. This process consist of both
'participation' and 'reification'. Reifications of knowledge or representing it as stable, formalisable
is an important process - not only the process of actually representing it, but also the value of
having, shared stable representations of domains of knowledge, which can act as important
boundary objects for the other process 'participation'. This process could be said to be the
emergent process of knowledge creation - if the stable representations do not open to
participation and engagement or become part of the interactions of learners/teachers.
>
>In short - participation/reification are two sides of a coin and not necessarily contrasting (though
I am aware that there are different research traditions and views of learning connected with these) -
but I wonder if the concept of 'negotiation of meaning' could bring together, rather than
contrasting the perspectives?
Thomas - do you think we might get different advantages from thinking about learning from these
two perspectives? - like seeing light sometimes as particles, sometimes as waves. Both are good
models, but they are applicable in different contexts. Your 'participation/reification' dichotomy
reminds me of the Mode 1/Mode2 knowledge dichotomy, the first being formal and reified, the
second being the folk knowledge that comes from shared lessons from practice. Both are of value,
and are becoming more blurred in the knowledge economy. But I think this is not quite the same
dichotomy as the ontological/phemomenological one, is it?
>
>I think, I know what is meant by an 'ecological' perspective, but to outsiders I think this might be
a hard term to come to terms with :) at least it requires a bit more explanation - then again, I am
not quite sure, who is the intended audience of the Vision Statement.
Probably right - are there other better terms?
>Thomas - do you think we might get different advantages from >thinking about learning from these
>two perspectives? - like seeing light sometimes as particles, >sometimes as waves. Both are good
>models, but they are applicable in different contexts. Your >'participation/reification' dichotomy
>reminds me of the Mode 1/Mode2 knowledge dichotomy, the first being >formal and reified, the
>second being the folk knowledge that comes from shared lessons from >practice. Both are of value,
>and are becoming more blurred in the knowledge economy. But I think >this is not quite the same
>dichotomy as the ontological/phemomenological one, is it?
>
I didn't actually think of it as a dichotomy, but rather as two occuring processes in learning, as to dissolve the contrast. So I thought of it is the continous interplay between these "modes" - we continously create and rely on stable representations and treat knowledge as independent of context and at the same time have to engage in 'work' of making sense of them in a particular setting - then creating new stable representations and so forth - I think, I was thinking in terms of a learning process and not so much in the dichotomy ontological/phenomenological - I thought of it as a way to describe the interplay between the two "modes".
But I was not thinking in terms of distinctions between formal/folk knowledge - I think I meant the we in our interactions, where knowledge emerge, are continously drawing on and using stable and formal representations of knowledge; it was meant to making it appear less "contrasty"; so I thought the way to show that we recognise the values of both could be through such a perspective where they are mutually enhancing each other, and that neither can live without the other - but I may be off the point you want to make in the chapter!
>Probably right - are there other better terms?
Oooops - well, that hit me as a boomerang :) I have no better suggestions!
>.... I thought of it is the continous interplay between these "modes" - we continously create and rely
on stable representations and treat knowledge as independent of context and at the same time have
to engage in 'work' of making sense of them in a particular setting - then creating new stable
representations and so forth...
- yes that makes sense
> - but I may be off the point you want to make in the chapter!
not at all! - this chapter is about the trends in the thinking in Kal, so it's whatever we collectively want
it to be.
We recognize the value of two contrasting perspectives on knowledge: an
ontological approach, which views it as stable and capable of formal representation,
independent of its context; and a phenomenological perspective, which views it as
an emergent property of the interaction between the learner, the teacher, their
social contexts, the representation of the formal and informal knowledge, and the
affordances of the mediating technologies. (D2.1.6 pp9-10)
We recognize both the ‘didactic’ and the ‘ecological’ perspectives on how learning
comes about – TEL may designed to support didactic intentionality, as in tutoring
systems, or to provide an interactive and collaborative computational environment
in which actors are enabled to create new meanings through rich experience. And
both perspectives may focus on human-machine interactions, or on human-human
interactions mediated by machines, or both. (D2.1.6 p11)
[Is this really meant to be written for all audiences? How do these relate to trends
w/in Kal?]
- does need rewriting, and if we aim for a short document it does have to be a lot pithier - But
also, Sten's task force on evidence from the projects will be able to give more concrete
representations of what is coming out of the Network members' research.
This comment is a marker to seperate between the disscussion on version 1 and that on version 2. The comments on version 1 are retained for reference below.
Magic Forest and Dragon Pathways microworlds can illustrate this kind of approach. They are powerful environments for children to build narrative learning environments and games in an easy way. (http://educacao.cnotinfor.pt/produtos/tic.php)
Due to their object oriented approach they enable the learner to focus on the properties of each element of a narrative or game and on how each of them interacts with each other. The whole interdependency appears, like this, as an emergent behaviour. You don’t need to build up the entire structure, neither to detail all the sequences of the narrative. You simple define some rules, for some objects and then marvel yourself with predicted and unpredicted results that push you again to new narratives.
Magic Forest and Dragon Pathways, with the iconic rules based object programming language, makes it easy to animate any situation, should it be a story, a game or a simulation.
... good example, but what do they learn? can we say something about that?
Diana
>Magic Forest and Dragon Pathways microworlds can illustrate this kind of approach. They are
powerful environments for children to build narrative learning environments and games in an easy
way. (http://educacao.cnotinfor.pt/produtos/tic.php)
>Due to their object oriented approach they enable the learner to focus on the properties of each
element of a narrative or game and on how each of them interacts with each other. The whole
interdependency appears, like this, as an emergent behaviour. You don’t need to build up the entire
structure, neither to detail all the sequences of the narrative. You simple define some rules, for some
objects and then marvel yourself with predicted and unpredicted results that push you again to new
narratives.
I do think that you need to differentiate knowledge and wisdom. at the basis of wisom is effective action - which does not necessarily arise from synthesis of knowledge.
I would suggest that the MyArtSpace project falls into the category of technology to enable learners to create and negotiate new ideas. The premise behind MAS is that teachers discuss an open question with the students. The students then visit a technology-equipped museum and with handheld technology they curate their own interpretation of the visit, using a combination of resources provided by the museum and their own perspectives captured through photos, notes and recordings. These form the basis for sharing, reflection and discussion back in the classroom.
The update of the hyper-document is published today for discussion in the Webinar on Monday 6
November at 10.00 GMT and 11.00 CET.
GATEWAY contribution to How has TEL research changed in the EU? What are the historical shift?
As stated in the ODL Liaison Committee policy paper 2006, Educational research that is relevant within the actual policy context, timely, conceptually ambitious, culturally sensitive and, above all, of convincing scientific quality is now essential for the long-term success of Europe. In recent EU Policy Frameworks education, training, human resources and employability are being intertwined and increasingly related to reforms in national learning systems in Europe, in the frame of the lifelong learning perspective. In spite of the fact that all these policy strands recognize the priority of human resources development and citizens’ empowerment, research on education and training in Europe is presenting a number of critical weaknesses, which might jeopardize the ambition of Europe to grow and generate new employment.
A major problem of eLearning and ICT for learning is the knowledge gap on learning innovation. The problem is deriving from a lack of priority for a comprehensive learning innovation within research programmes, the lack of accumulation and utilisation of current practice and the few available research results, including the consolidation of the knowledge gathered and available.
Maybe one important historical shift is presented by the ODL Liaison Committee in the Policy Paper 2006 [http://www.odl-liaison.org/pages.php?PN=policy-paper_2006] which proposes concrete initiatives and recommendations for actions by EU institutions, national governments and other stakeholders of education and training systems:
1- to promote educational innovation research and its coordination by well-organized measures at EU and national level,
2- to increase the relevance of educational research in Europe, and
2- to evaluate and systematically utilize research results,
thus maximizing the impact of research on innovation and effectiveness of education and training systems and to better link policy, research and innovative practice.
Detailed description of the three recommendations:
1. to promote educational innovation research and its coordination by well-organized measures at EU and national level. An effort should be made to create a visible and interdisciplinary area for research on learning innovation within the EU 7th Framework Programme for RTD, within the new Integrated Programme on Lifelong Learning and in the DG Employment and Social Affairs action lines devoted to innovation; the same should apply to National Research Plans, many of which tend to reproduce the architecture of the EU Framework Programme. At present finding a “place” and a funding opportunity for integrated and interdisciplinary research on learning system interaction is often impossible since every specific programme stresses much more technological or social aspects of research, defining “not innovative enough” or “not corresponding to the work plan requirements” any proposal which tries to balance and integrate the different perspectives through which one can study learning systems innovation.
2. to increase the relevance of educational research in Europe, with a focus on meaningful linking and integrating the existing research domains (pedagogy, psychology, technology, organization, economics, institutional reform, links to society, etc.), establishing further interdisciplinary contexts that might better relate to the present and future challenges of learning systems, according to new thematic clusters. An effort is required to make the research community understand the societal demand for accountability and relevance of educational research;
3. to evaluate and systematically utilize research results, thus maximizing the impact of research on innovation and effectiveness of education and training systems, and strengthening the case for increased funding to educational research.
In addition the paper proposes one recommendation which is particularly relevant to Networks of Excellence:
"Develop effective mechanisms to let all stakeholders contribute to the development of a new research agenda. Promote utilisation of research results by stimulating both researchers and “research users” (practitioners, policy makers, education and training institutions) to establish collaboration channels and to adopt mutually understandable terms, concepts and – most importantly – some common value commitments and visions on future Lifelong Learning in Europe."
Specifically, what is the added value contributed by the academic community?
Collectively, Kaleidoscope has identified 10 issues to think about the future of research on TEL, which are described in a paper about the future of Technology Enhanced Learning
[www-didactique.imag.fr/Balacheff/TextesDivers/Future%20of%20TEL.pdf]
1- An ambitious research programme combining collaborative learning, mobile learning and inquiry learning would be an excellent case to question the concepts and theoretical framework underlying these sectors and to develop a comprehensive approach.
2- Research is needed to address professional learning and training, based on highly realistic and interactive simulations, microworlds and role-play environments, allowing a deep immersion in virtual and/or augmented reality providing access to the acquisition of embodied knowledge. There is a need to develop more efficient and more relevant multimodal interface able to track and analyse learners’ behaviours and to provide symbolic, graphic and haptic feedback.
3- A strategic research agenda should cover all cognitive and technological issues related to the design and compatibility of highly interactive learning objects, as well as their use and the development of a new ecology of learning, which means that not only the cognitive and technological issues, but also the socio-cultural, socio-organizational, institutional should be considered. There is a need to develop implementable models of context-as-construct that can inform the design of future TEL.
4- The TEL research agenda should include the search for models accounting for learning as an emergent process in complex systems which ecology is shaped by social, epistemic and technological factors. These models must be empirically valid when confronted to actual use, and computationally tractable to ensure cost effective and efficient transfer.
5- Blended learning, from a practical and theoretical perspective, needs concepts and models to support its development and ensure its efficiency. These concepts and models must allow to address all the issues of compatibility, applicability/interoperability and validity of the de-facto standards and specifications of the large variety of learning objects and environments likely to cooperate in more and more complex learning situations.
6- It would be very productive to create a collection of domain specific evidence and research based recommendations, in order to inform practice and actual use, but also to explore the differences and commonalities with respect to design principles and use of TEL environments and get a better knowledge and understanding of the challenge of TEL from an epistemological perspective (computational transposition, new epistemological structure of communication and social interaction, fundamental question of the philosophy of TEL and the evolution of education and cognition).
7- The use of digital technology for the certification of knowledge and skills will be a driving force for the deployment of TEL. Research must contribute to the “decompartementalization” of learning practices and examinations and assessment either at school or on the work-place or to validate informal learning.
8- Support is needed for technology-enhanced innovative authoring and learning systems, tools and services, organised in flexible software architecture enabling the creation of domain specific platform that take into account the context and allow dynamic adaptation to different learners based on substantial advances in pedagogical theories and knowledge models.
9- It is critical to enhance the support of the experimental dimension of research in TEL in providing frameworks for the description of the experimentation settings and processes, frameworks for the description and annotation of experimental data in order to enhance the capability to share, manage and compare data, taking up the challenge of combining multiple disciplinary frameworks, tools and means to instrument the experimental situation so as to gather experimental data in a meaningful way (i.e., the right data set and in a coherent manner, with respect to the chronology for instance), hence providing the infrastructure for the management and sharing of all these information as well as the support of the collaboration of the researchers in every phases of the experimentation process.
10- The complex process of adoption of TEL in the different learning contexts is at the centre of where we should concentrate research efforts in the near future.
Following are some notes taken during Diana's presentation at the Convergence Workshop:
Trends w/in Kal
What are the trends/policy shifts? And the agenda we wish to promote
Ten points doc. as way of organising this section
Mike Sharples: Specific instances of more general trneds. i.e. linking formal and informal; support for lifelong; techn enbling soc. constructivist approach to learning. Use 10 points as they are
Ulrich Hoppe: these concrete examples are not all at same level. Programming lang. as thinking tools is not a trend. I wish it was, but it is not.
Zsuzsamna Kondor: Eastern European country --- programming language is important to us.
Ulrich Hoppe: there are established things that in a spiral way they have reinterpretations that provide new relevance; then there are really new things
Jan Derry: Aware of how we present thsee things so that we do not divide things up and map them directly. Far more nuanced. Spectrum of approaches. Don't try to tie down too neatly.
Sten Ludvigsen: Jstification for some of these trends. For me this doesn't deal w/ jsutification. We're describing landscape and outlining possibilities.
DL: policy shifts --- anxious about.