Main author : Nicolas Balacheff (CNRS)

Nature of the deliverable : Report

Dissemination level : Public

Planned delivery date : December 2005

Due to an error in the numbering, this deliverable is

referenced as D2.1.16 in the updated Technical Annex

(Months 13-30)

Summary

This deliverable presents the process which is accompanying the construction of a shared vision of Kaleidoscope scientific

complexity, challenge and perspectives. It has been chosen to keep a record of the process. The first sections of this deliverable set

the scene, and then things move backward presenting the initial steps at the end of the document.

History

Filename

Status

Release

Changes

Uploaded

D02-01-06-F.pdf

Final

1

All paragraphs

completed, including

the presentation of

the background of

the questions

(section 2.1)

08/01/2006

D02-01-06-V1.pdf

Draft

1

03/01/2006

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 1 of 42

Deliverable D2.1.6

Content

1.1 T

O THE READER

.................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 T

HE DOCUMENT OBJECTIVE

.................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 I

N SEARCH FOR A POSITION

,

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS

...................................................................... 3

2.1 Q

UESTIONS BACKGROUND

.................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 T

HE QUESTIONS

.................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 T

HE TEXT

,

VERSION

2 ........................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 T

HE LEARNING ECONOMY AND THE NEEDED LEARNING CAPABILITY

—

A FEEDBACK

(D

IRCKINCK

-

H

OLMFELD

)...............................................................................................................................................16

4.1 F

ROM AN ACADEMIC BRAINSTORMING TO A

F

UTURE WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY

...............................17

4.2 C

RITICS OF THE INITIAL STATEMENT

....................................................................................................18

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 2 of 42

4.3 G

ROUPS OUTCOMES

:

PROPOSAL FOR FUTURE WRITING WORKSHOPS

....................................................22

5.1 T

HE TEXT

,

VERSION

1 ..........................................................................................................................25

5.2 T

HE FEEDBACK

....................................................................................................................................32

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 3 of 42

This deliverable could have presented the last draft of a document, indicating the status of

an on going discussion on a difficult issue. However, this would have hidden the main

related outcome: the process which is accompanying the construction of a shared vision

of Kaleidoscope scientific complexity, challenge and perspectives. Eventually, it has

been chosen to keep a record of the process, but to offer to the reader the possibility to

reach quickly the final picture if he or she is willing to, skipping the whole story:

presenting the initial steps at the end of the document.

Indeed, what we have now in hands is less a confident statement about Kaleidoscope than

a corpus witnessing our thoughts, hesitations, beliefs and opinions, convergences and

differences. An exact picture of the scientific challenge we are facing.

The initial objective is to produce a reference text for the network scientific development.

It is not intended, nor desirable, to close the network on a unique view of research on

TEL, but to reflect the commonalities and differences, as well as the debates in the

network at a scientific level—that is, at the level of the concepts and the methods, of what

is recognized as results of research (see the below, section 3.1.1 “Caveat”, for a more

extended presentation of this ambition).

It is very possible that we is important is less the concrete outcome than the effort of

make explicit the different position and the clarification it will need.

An initial document has been prepared by Nicolas Balacheff and Richard Noss, entitled

“A vision for Kaleidoscope”. This first version has been distributed to the Core Group for

remarks, suggestions and questions (this text and the related material is presented below,

section 5).

The second step has been a brainstorming meeting held in Madrid on September 2005 the

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 4 of 42

12

th

. This meeting has been very active, however the material gathered is not yet fully

exploited (see a record of this material below, section 4).

Following this session, a new draft has been prepared, to be presented to the Contractors

General Assembly. Within the few weeks between the Madrid brainstorming and the

Porto CGA, it was not possible to produce a completely new document close enough to

the Core Group Expectations. Beside some editing, a Caveat and a Coda have been added

to clarify the limits and the intentions of this second draft (this text is reproduced in

section 3 with one related contribution).

This second draft has been distributed to the Kaleidoscope team leaders and discussed in

Porto as part of the joint program to the Contractors General Assembly. Indeed, this

discussion emphasized the difficulty of the challenge but also evidenced the interest and

the positive willingness of the consortium. The result is two fold: (i) a first set of

questions drafted by Richard Noss, (2) the establishment of a blog and a forum dedicated

to a continuing discussion on the Kaleidoscope Scientific vision statement (a report on

this CGA session and the related question are presented in section 2).

The initial version of the scientific vision statement was presented to the assembly of the

contractors and teams representatives during a specific session organized jointly to the

Contractors General Assembly held in Oporto on December the 6

th

, 2005. A synthesis of

the Core Group's remarks as they stood, was presented. The discussion showed the

willingness of the CGA to continue the process. It acknowledged the difficulty of this

enterprise, but also a clear willingness to take up the challenge. This discussion will

continue through electronic means, based on the initial questions drafted here after

(section 2.2).

The discussion emphasized that the text must envision the future, showing how lessons

are learned from an historical perspective. Il must reflect the existing diversity, and not

lose its relation to the “real world” context. The Kaleidoscope scientific vision statement

should demonstrate a European identity and its specific contribution to research on TEL.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 5 of 42

A general recommendation is to have a short statement introduced by a clear picture of

its purpose and its structure. However it is acknowledged that this will be difficult if, at

the same time, we want to express the different views about knowledge, concepts and

learning processes as well as the diversity of the research approaches and methodology in

Kaleidoscope.

In order to rise to this challenge, the agreed strategy will be to rework the existing

document, so as to propose to the consortium a series of questions and related possible

positions, in order to stimulate reactions and contributions. This will be supported by

either blogs or forums, depending on what is the most efficient and relevant means

(expressing position or managing a focused discussion). The starting point will be

questions extracted from the current version of the scientific vision statement and the

related positions it expresses. This will be followed by a Kaleidoscope Scientific Vision

Statement, which will be produced based on an analytical summary of the corpus of the

threads of discussion and of the positions expressed by the partners individually or

collectively. More texts may be produced in relation to this short document, presenting

more detailed analysis of where we are, what we must know, what are the issues to be

addressed: these will be called - provisionally at least - 'accompanying 'chapters'. These

texts should contribute to the effort of accumulation of knowledge in the field of TEL, a

task that has yet to be achieved or which is, at best, left invisible and tacit.

A collective effort to produce the Kaleidoscope Scientific Vision Statement will prove

successful if generates enthusiasm and synergy among the partners to show how the

different disciplines provide strength to the integrated network. The effort will lead to a

stronger and more useful integration: in this sense, the actual product of the text should

be seen as secondary to the process of achieving it (we note that, given the complexity of

what is at issue, the content may only ever - in the lifetime of Kaleidoscope - be regarded

as provisional).

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 6 of 42

1. How can the substance of learning be transformed by the design of adaptive

systems that take account of the social and cultural embedding of learners?

2. How might digital technologies afford pluralistic possibilities in epistemology

(what might be learned and how) and equity (by whom can it be learned and

when?)

3. In what ways can digital technologies be deployed to foster more open and

accessible routes for learners throughout the life course?

4. Can we design methodologies for exploring the possibilities of more productive

learning, that is more successful and efficient in achieving its intended outcomes?

5. What are the social and cultural affordances and constraints for the embedding of

digital technologies in learning and teaching?

1. To what extent can we accept or reject the notion that technology can engender

fundamental change in learning and teaching?

2. What would constitute fundamental change: how would such change be

recognised? How might it be researched?

3. How can we research the range of expressible phenomena that digital

technologies can facilitate? What are the new possibilities for engagement with

knowledge?

4. What are the contingencies of subject knowledge on TEL?

5. How does the tension between individual cognition and community learning play

out with digital technologies?

6. What are the main obstacles to the development of a cumulative research

programme in the field?

7. How should the field take forward design as a research challenge? What are the

major ways in which epistemology and design are inter-related?

8. How are implementation and knowledge mutually interrelated?

9. What are the key methodological challenges for researching TEL?

10. What are the affordances of TEL for the development of equity, learning within

communities? What new patterns of learning styles and diversity emerge?

11. what are the challenges of instrumental genesis both on a cognitive (individual)

level and a social (community) level?

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 7 of 42

This document intends to reach within and beyond Kaleidoscope to address the concepts,

methods and scientific perspective of the members of the network, and develop an agreed

statement on a common scientific vision based on the recognition of our commonalities

and differences. The coherence of the vision rests on the adoption of a unique perspective

or way of understanding "technology-enhanced learning" (TEL), as well as the

recognition of a common challenge which calls for a variety of approaches from

technology to education, from computer science to human and social sciences.

In proposing such a vision, we acknowledge that Kaleidoscope is made up of a very large

and heterogeneous collection of researchers, many with quite distinct views on

conceptual frameworks and the appropriate research methods to investigate TEL.

Precisely because we recognize TEL as a research domain with its own specificity

irreducible to any individual contribution, we must be able to express its scientific

objectives and provide a clear identification of the field, together with strategies for

cross-fertilization of different approaches and overall growth of this research area. One of

the objectives of the document is to contribute to the clarification needed to enhance the

visibility of TEL in the European Research Area.

In short, the production of this document witnesses our joint effort to provide a well-

shared understanding of our scientific commonalities and differences. If successful, it

will plays the role of the common horizon we face moving along our way in individual or

common steps. But we should stress: this document is not the endpoint, it is only a

beginning. Our key objective is to stimulate debate as a precursor of theoretical and

practical clarity.

There was, and perhaps still is, a strand of opinion – not to say research – that chooses to

focus on the most obvious dehumanizing elements of the computer. This recognition is

hardly contentious: the computer is, like other technologies before it, responsible for

deskilling, dehumanizing, for reducing aspects of human interaction to interaction with a

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 8 of 42

machine. introduction

Critiques of this kind are right to draw attention to the roles to which computers are put

and the rationales for their existence, but they throw out the educational baby with the

sociological bath water. Recognising that digital (or any other) technology can never be

an independent agent of radical change for learning, misses the uniqueness of what the

computer has to offer. It ignores the dialectic between how cultures structure technology

and how technology can shape the culture which gave birth to it.

The vision of the computer that gives rise to this view is based on a cultural stereotype of

the computer as a lifeless 'thing' – like all stereotypes, it has, of course, an element of

truth. But it misses the (for some) surprising paradox that the technical achievement that

has been responsible for dehumanization is also the most likely candidate for catalysing

fundamental transformation of learning.

There is an opposite point of view which claims that the technology itself will bring

about fundamental change, independently of the social context. Once again, there is an

important kernel of truth: it is easy to point to the emergence of critical technologies

(printing, railways and so on) that are responsible for wide-reaching change in societies:

and it is certainly the case that ubiquitous technology is a necessary condition for change.

But this point of view misses the crucial point: our interest focuses not on the potential of

digital technologies, nor even on the potential of such technologies for learning. It centres

on the possibilities for learning about the world, as well as studying how the technology

is socially constructed by human beings. The technologists and humanists make the same

mistake, in viewing the technology as a thing in itself, and worse, in accepting the

cultural stereotypes of what the technology is for – to calculate more quickly, write more

easily, access information more effortlessly. The resolution to this apparent dichotomy is

to locate knowledge at the centre of our concern: both from the point of view of

understanding the roles of technology in culturally mediated settings, and for designing

it.

Learning as an outcome as well as a process is at the core of any problématique of TEL.

A question about learners which is shared by all stakeholders is “do they learn?”. The

answer is straightforward: yes. Yes because, whatever the situation, the human being will

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 9 of 42

learn; human beings adapt themselves to the environment and its accompanying

technology or they ignore it. So too for learners. So the question needs reformulation: not

"do they learn?" but “what do they learn?”. This raises a much more difficult problem

since it implies that one knows how to specify the desired learning outcomes and to

demonstrate their presence as a result of the learning process (i.e. the actual use of the

environment).

If we consider the learning of mathematics or physics, the learning of literature or

surgery, the learning of chemistry or of philosophy, it is obvious—even from a

commonsense perspective — that these topics differ drastically when viewed from a

cognitive perspective or from an educational perspective. Understanding this disparity

helps us to appreciate that it is not learning which is central to our problématique, but the

learning of something.

Our research, our design, our innovation should not be “learner centred” but “learning x

centred”. In certain ideological or cultural contexts this may sound contradictory, as a

return to a content-centered approach, with the idea of a “knowledge” standing

immutably in isolation. In fact, there is no contradiction. Our approach is not based on an

ontological definition of knowledge but on a phenomenological definition which

considers knowledge as the emergent property of complex interaction between the learner

and her/his environment.

Understanding knowledge, its human and social nature, as well as its proper ecology, is a

strategic condition for the development of TEL from a theoretical and an operational

perspective. We need a pragmatic

1

characterisation of knowledge in order to support our

efforts to understand and to stimulate better design and in-the-field implementation of

TEL.

Research in TEL abounds with examples of technology influencing, mediating, shaping

how learning takes place – each of these descriptions hides the possibilities of different

1

Pragmatic is here used in Popperian sense, that is a characterisation which is relevant to our

problématique although it will surely leave open most of the existing questions raised by this philosophical

concept—but still sufficiently coherent with what we know now from cognitive sciences and epistemology.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 10 of 42

paradigms, and different criteria for success. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the

social dimension of computational design, implementation and use provides a critical

dimension along which to view the evolution of digital technologies. Although there

continue to be whole fields and sub-fields that ignore this dimension, the reality of

painstakingly slow change, the resistance of formal learning to embrace technologies, and

the explosion of interest in the social setting can now be taken for granted. There is no

doubt of its explanatory power, and few serious contenders for theoretical frameworks

that fail to acknowledge the importance of focusing on human interaction, even when the

focus of study is on the design of computational systems.

While the sociocultural turn of the last two decades in the social sciences has had an

important and far-reaching effect on research in TEL, it is equally important that we do

not lose sight of what the cognitive perspective still has to offer. We are interested in

learning x, and x exists between the ears of the learner, as much as in the culture of which

she plays a part. We cannot afford to lose sight of the individual while at the same time,

acknowledging how the individual's knowledge is shaped in interaction with others, and

how it is validated by her participation in the social situation. There is a dialectical

relationship between the technology and its situational embedding, a mutual shaping of

both that deserves consideration, and which is critical if design is to achieve the objective

of human learning.

There is no necessary conflict between the individual and social perspectives, provided

there is a clear demarcation of what each is designed to study. Further, the apparent

conflict points to the need to study the problem at different levels of analysis: Individual

learner, communities of practice, social and cultural structure. Considered from the point

of view of learning, technology-in-use mediates between teacher (however instantiated)

and learner, shaping and moulding what both can know. This is potentially a two-way

channel of communication with the computer, and our task is to study how this 'channel'

operates and under what conditions to maximise its educational 'bandwidth'.

The price of failure to resolve this tension between social and cognitive is the failure of

the cumulativity of TEL research, a failure exemplified by the ebb and flow of theoretical

frameworks, the difficulty of theoretical application, and the struggle to match

methodological constraints to the problems under consideration. In addition, we need to

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 11 of 42

recognise that there are different “voices” involved, different objects (goals), with diverse

rules of discourse – the knowledge which counts for one group of students may be

irrelevant for another.

TEL depends on the cognitive, situational and epistemological adequacy of

computational environments for human learning. Naming technological artefact in this

way, highlights our intention to make more visible the two interacting “micro” systems

(the technology and the human learner), the “mezzo” system (including complex

interactions between multiple learners, machines, and teachers) and the "macro" system

(concerned with corresponding issues at the institutional level). The key word in

computational environments for human learning is "for": these environments are a priori

dedicated to learning, necessitating a focus directly on person-machine interactions, or

indirectly, on persons' communications mediated by the machines.

This intentionality drives the design of TEL environments in two ways. At an epistemic

level it requires the characterization of the point of learning, whether of an academic

nature (how to read) or of a more tacit nature (how to behave). At an educational level it

requires a characterization of the conditions likely to permit the expected learning to be

achieved, thanks to the combination of the properties of the environment and the

properties of its use.

The educational or didactical intentionality which is encapsulated in the design of a

learning environment, may not be the object of an explicit implementation (like for

example in so-called tutoring systems), but can emerge from the properties of the system

which makes it relevant for a teaching-learning project (like for example in educational

microworlds). In fact, this ecological model, in which there exists initial and background

conditions and constraints gives us a far more realistic view of the possibilities of TEL

than the perspective that seeks to draw determined 'outcomes' from a given set of inputs.

The ecological perspective allows us to think of meanings being created within a setting

alongside technology, rather than simply brought into it from outside. The implication is

that we do not have to characterise change agents as thwarted, stymied by habits and

routines. Instead, we can see actors in settings making sense of their roles from the

interplay of meanings brought to them from diverse practices.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 12 of 42

There is a problem of implementation of design. Even if technological constraints have

been aligned (choice of a programming language and of an OS, choice of the interfaces

and other hardware, etc.), or if the design has produced a well formalised specification,

there is still the difficulty of putting design into practice. For example, important

decisions of implementation are related to management of time and organisation of

actions by algorithms, and then to their representation by programs in a given language.

This management implies the introduction of explicit order where more often than not

order is unanticipated or does not even matter – or may even run counter to the

knowledge to be learned.

The choice of a system of representation determines the kind of manipulations that can be

made available to the user. It implies that the feedback of the machine on the learner's

actions may differ from one environment to another, due to implementation choices

rather than to content characteristics. The idea of computational transmutation names the

process that leads to the specification and then the implementation of a model – we use

here the notion of transmutation proposed by Roman Jakobson, who named

transmutation “this motion of a text across other media”. In the same manner, TEL

introduces a transmutation of knowledge. A large part of this process deals with the need

to align the requirements of symbolic representation and computation, and the related

transformation of knowledge that occurs when it is 'implemented' as technology.

On one level, we might react to this problem as mere (although complex) technological

limitations, to which the solution may be to suggest alternative specifications or

implementations to eliminate them. But this misses the fact that other choices would give

rise to other unintended effects. The issue is not to suppress these effects: they are an

inevitable result of the computer's presence. Any representation has effects, it reshapes

the knowledge and the way it is learned. The challenge for TEL research is to express

precisely what these effects are and what might be their consequences. Instead of

searching for an impossible epistemological fidelity, trying to avoid bias between

representations and what they intend to represent, the way forward is to delineate the

epistemological domain of validity of the chosen model or representation.

This is a crucial point that provides a central pillar for our research perspective. Our

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 13 of 42

challenge is to take account of new knowledge in two senses: first, in the sense above, to

understand how knowledge is transformed (or mutated) in implementation. Second, to

study and account for new knowledge that is required by post-industrial societies,

knowledge that is inevitably and increasingly computationally-represented, including, for

example, an understanding of the influences of new media and the difficulty of filtering

information to create knowledge and understanding. Moreover, Kaleidoscope's

perspective points to the complex sociotechnical nature of implementation which, in

turn, calls for multiple approaches that incorporate diverse research traditions – social,

psychological, computational, semiotic and so on.

Thus a foundational postulate of our research domain is that TEL design is domain

dependent because knowing is representation dependent. We are about to recognise that

knowledge, as well as learning, is a constraint on the design of TEL environment.

Even posing the question "What happens when technology is put to use?", is to risk the

implication of an ontological essence of technological artefacts that exists independently

of the human use to which it is put. It focuses our attention on a crucial issue, namely

what happens to the user as she uses the technology, how her activity is shaped in

interaction with the technology.

This perspective leaves out an important reciprocity. When computational tools become

an integral part of a learning environment, the knowledge modeled by the system and the

students’ conceptions of that knowledge will both change in the process. The tool shapes

what the person can do, what she can think, what she can know, what becomes possible

and what becomes impossible. In the opposite direction, the tool is shaped by the person:

physically (or virtually) by adapting it, moulding it for evolving purposes; or

conceptually, by using the tool in ways unforeseen by its designers.

There is a paradox here. Our intention is to design systems that are genuinely expressive,

not merely tools that achieve a particular goal. And yet, the more open and malleable the

technology, the more likely it is that the learner will reshape the tool in use, possibly in

directions unanticipated by (or antithetical to) the designer. On the other hand, while

systems focused on narrow knowledge domains minimise this risk, they tend not to

enable radical transformation of the learning process.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 14 of 42

There is an historical difficulty for research on TEL to identify terms and frameworks

that we can share, for expressing the differences and commonalities of approach at a

conceptual and methodological level. As a consequence, there arises a considerable

problem in sharing results or specific outcomes beyond general statements or claims.

This is exacerbated at the level of the technology we produce (and often re-produce). A

significant difficult is the scant information usually available on the actual context of

experimental work, both because sufficiently thick descriptions are often incompatible

with conventional publishing constraints, or because there are no agreed criteria for

reporting data of this kind.

Two crucial questions, which actually determine the viability of research in TEL, must be

mentioned here:

How to describe properly the context in which we observe TEL, the

corresponding setting either "natural" or "experimental", the context in which we

carry out controlled experiments?

Is it possible to establish a kind of international standard, or record of best

practices, or recommendations, and in which forms?

The answers, even partial answers, to these questions would make interesting PhD. The

result will be to facilitate the sharing of results and their framework and foundation. An

accompanying measure should be the development of a systematic policy for a research

instrumentation, implementing testbed infrastructure. The added value of testbeds is to

construct a relevant context to systematize the way we describe, inform, and comment

upon the observations and the experiments we carry out. This is the price we will need to

pay in order to make sense of the research outcomes we would like to share, and of the

technology itself.

The idea of research instrumentation in TEL must be given a clear priority. It includes the

systematization of data description and sharing, replication of research by different

teams, sharing at a technological level (something like object-web at a domain level). It

also includes an exploration of what is the meaning of "result" in our domain and the way

we can archive and document them.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 15 of 42

We return here to the specific question of knowledge, what computational environments

are for. The key challenge is to study the problem from multiple viewpoints, and to do so

from a perspective that prioritises the development of understanding the knowledge

mutations that arise from the computational presence. In particular, we need to study,

among many other issues:

what are the changes in the range of phenomena that can be addressed?

how do specific computational implementations mediate this range?

what are the new possibilities for engagement with knowledge?

what are the problems of instrumental genesis?

what new patterns of learning styles and diversity emerge?

Research on TEL addresses a set of questions and issues which are socially critical and

politically sensitive. There is a strong temptation to impact education and training in a

direct and effective way, sometimes encouraging us to prescribe solutions for change.

While the urge to improve is important, we must not forget the complexity of the

institutional, social, political and economical nature of learning. It is the role of society to

decide and implement reforms and innovation, but it is the role of research to inform and

support these desired reforms and innovations. The value of scientific discourse rests in it

intrinsic validity: this does not mean that there is anything like a “proof” of the results of

TEL research, but that this research is able to back its results by enough evidence and

analytical argument, so that these results are based on a strong rationale. Research on

TEL cannot be content with opinion and beliefs; its challenge is to produce knowledge

about the design, implementation and use of TEL even if we must be prepared constantly

to revise this knowledge.

Technology enhanced learning is directly concerned with education. However, its scope

is more limited. Indeed, education is first a political issue covering question like those of

the choice of a model of society, of the values one want to convey, as well as the question

of the role of education. Our specific initiative is to bridge the scientific, political and

social dimensions of research on learning.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 16 of 42

From various sources it seems evident that we are entering what has been termed the

‘learning economy

2

. On a societal scale this means, amongst other things, that we are

moving from an economy based on traditional industrial production into an economy and

industry focusing on innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. Lundvall

3

suggests the

concept the learning economy instead of the more often used ‘knowledge society’ to

characterise this phase of socio-economic development. Lundvall explains the concept as

follows: “The basic assumption behind this concept [The learning economy] is very

simple. The point of departure is, that the technical development, the globalization and

political processes concerning deregulation and liberalization all together imply an

acceleration of the speed of technical and economic changes and reorganization. To-day,

it is not as much the access to a certain knowledge amount, which is decisive for the

economic successes of companies and individuals, however rather their ability and

capacity rapidly to acquire new competencies in line with new types of problems. New

knowledge arrives in an increasing tempo, however the economic relevant ’knowledge

amount’ is at the same time reduced, while knowledge becomes obsolete faster than

before” (Lundwall op. cit. p. 56 our translation). It’s therefore the companies and

individuals capability to learn rather than solely access to knowledge, which determines

socio economic development. And rapid changes give an advantage to rapid learners.

The challenge of the learning economy spans several institutions and structures, and the

need to deepen our knowledge on innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship seems

evident. This is a double-fold challenge in that it means both a deeper understanding of

what fundamentally constitutes innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship for the

2

Florida, R. (1995). Toward the Learning Region. Futures, 27, 527-536.

Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). National systems of innovation toward a theory of innovation and interactive

learning. London: Printer.

OECD (2000). A new economy? The changing role of innovation and information technology in economic

growth. Paris: OECD.

3

Lundvall, B.-Å. (2001). Universitetet i den lærende økonomi. [Universities in the learning economy] In P.

Maskell & H. S. Jensen (Eds.), Universiteter for fremtiden - universiteterne og videnssamfundet (pp. p. 51 -

91). Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur Press

.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 17 of 42

individuals and the institutions, but simultaneously an understanding of how to support

and nurture these processes in education, work and organisations

4

(Ryberg and

Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2005).

Kaleidoscope is engaged in both challenges, focusing on the role of ICT for innovation,

learning, creativity and entrepreneurship. In this endeavour we are laying the foundation

for the field of research that exists at the intersections of studies of technology, learning

and design.

The initial agenda for the Madrid brainstorming included two phases. For the first phase,

the participants were invited to contribute by making a statement .(1 slide, 5 minutes)

with the intention of open exchange of ideas, views and scientific agenda, then four

parallel groups would have worked on a synthesis to be shared by the end of the morning

(the outcome targeted was a list of hot topics, statements, on conceptions on what

research should be, and possible research priorities). The second period, to last the whole

afternoon, should have allowed the identification points of convergence and divergence

emerging from the morning brainstorming. The impact of this day of brainstorming was

expected to be the drafting of a new document and the organization of the discussion with

the Contractors General Assembly to be held in December 2005.

However, the discussion during the first session quickly acknowledged two difficulties:

(i) some members of the Core Group thought risky, if not impossible, to produce a unique

document to express the position of Kaleidoscope, (ii) the large variety of views and

understandings of the stake and the content of the document did require a less classical

approach than the one adopted. So, it has been decided on the spot to change the strategy

and move to the one proposed by Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld. It was expected from this

4

Ryberg, T., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2005). Challenges to Work and Education in the knowledge

society - studying power users of Information Communication Technology. Paper to the First International

Power Users of Information and Communication Technology Symposium, August 6 - 11th. 2005. San José,

Costa Rica.: Organiser: Educational Development Center.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 18 of 42

other approach, Future Workshop, based on ideas from Jungk and Müllert

5

, to “activate

all participants and provide the basis for a very creative and constructive process”.

Further more it establish ownership to

the process and the shared enterprise, as

well as it is a very effective method to

point out problem areas.

Then the brainstorming meeting has been

reorganised to meet this challenge and

use this approach, with two periods:

- the first period with individual

statements organised with (i) a

phase of critics, where each

participant is encouraged to present

critical statements to the initial

draft of the scientific statement; all

critics being put on a wall-paper, then (ii) based on the critics, a phase of evaluation

where each participant distribute 10 points in order to indicate, which are the more

important points from his/her perspective.

- the second period organised as a vision phase, during which some parallel groups

elaborate the visions.

Ranking Critic statement

vote

ID

Starting point is a classification of existing research in KAL

0

2

There should be a clearly defined target group for the scientific statement

0

3

Focus on achievements of field as well as outstanding challenges

0

4

We need first to understand

-

what is there in context of scientific practice, fragmentation

and diversity

0

6

5

Jungk and Müllert (1984), “Fremtidsværksteder, Politisk Revy”

Following a picture from

the Jungk and Müllert book with

(translation by Ian Semey)

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 19 of 42

-

and then analyse the levels and perspectives research

innovation practice and policies

The document only sees problems and no solutions

0

7

Missing challenges for the field & how we will address them

0

10

Don’t think in terms of opposition (or balance) between 2 poles: eg.

Humanism vs technologies (etc.) But think in term of more dialectical

relationships (more dynamic, more evolutive/evolving)

0

12

Vision document should correspond to a mission

0

16

Missing a path for how KAL can be a driving force

0

21

It is not clear what this document will be used for

0

22

Do not try to offer a meta-theoretical/methodology philosophical solutions

but target (maybe) such issues (as issues)

0

25

Concrete suggestion (challenges, agenda) missing

0

26

We should start describing the mission (what we want to do)

0

27

TEL is technology driven, how to cope with it

0

28

Be careful with the user of work “ecological” more broad sense society of

risks” and our responsibilities (sciences ins not more seen as positive) is

questioned by the society

0

33

Difficult to make sense of “missing vision”, who for?

0

37

Tension between individual and social is equated with cognitive and

social, is this what is meant

0

40

1 A historical perspective is needed to frame what is actually new

19

34

2

a) This document should provide:

- how we imagine the future of the field of education with TECH

- how we imagine the future of the research in our field

- how we see ourselves as an actor in this field

b) This document should be inclusive of the diversity of schools of thought

/existing and to come

17

8

3

It does not show enough the added value of the academic community vs

what other bring to the field

16

24

4

The paper should not define an epistemological / theoretical position of its

own (but reflect/manage existing diversity)

15

15

5

Vision = current challenges and already done work in addition to some

future vision – share research outcomes is a current challenge

10

20

6

The paper should be a visionary research program/agenda.-

conceptualising what we know

- KAL as a driving force in the development of ICT in the learning society

- Identify a EU approach

9

1

7

Producing new ideas and testing them should be at the center (innovation

and innovation research methodologies)

8

31

8 The paper does not have visions for the future

7

5

9

Recognise explicitly the merits of diversity of the field, in terms of

paradigms, perspectives on a scientific ground. Make how this discourse

differ from a policy, pragmatic discourse

6

14

10 Too abstract and to focussed on precise questions

6

19

11

Does not take the context real world into consideration in its approach to

learning

6

39

12 Too focused on knowledge and not on attitudes, emotions and learning

5

18

13 Does not provide research questions for researchers

5

29

14 Computer modelling is not only implementation

5

30

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 20 of 42

15

If this document addresses only the research community then we need

other docs addressing decision makers an practitioners

5

32

16 Does not show a European identity for research on TEL

4

11

17

In case the scientific statement targets the research community it should

better go to a TEL scenario approach which will provide same concrete

learning situations (environments the TEL research & technology issues

related to them

4

17

18 Too high level not enough concrete

4

36

19

The document takes and epistemological point of view (TEL design is

domain dependant” foe ex, which is shared by part of KAL but not by the

entire network I guess

3

9

20 The statement is not concrete enough too conceptual

3

13

21 Identity concrete issues an problems phenomena and research questions

2

35

22 Take account of space, kinaesthetic, affective and aesthetic components

2

38

23

Exploring various aspects of TEL and forcing us to confront issues and be

explicit about our understanding of key concepts such as learning,

knowledge, meaning use and the role of Technology

2

41

24

Put more interest n the concept of infrastructure (technologies as

produces of infrastructure in an ethological/ecological sense, because

these infra and their main operators/actors will shape the future

1

23

Ranking Critic statement

vote

ID

1 A historical perspective is needed to frame what is

actually new

19

34

2 a) This document should provide:

- how we imagine the future of the field of education with

TECH

- how we imagine the future of the research in our field

- how we see ourselves as an actor in this field

b) This document should be inclusive of the diversity of

schools of thought /existing and to come

17

8

4 The paper should not define an epistemological /

theoretical position of its own (but reflect/manage

existing diversity)

15

15

7 Producing new ideas and testing them should be at the

center (innovation and innovation research

methodologies)

8

31

9 Recognise explicitly the merits of diversity of the field, in

terms of paradigms, perspectives on a scientific ground.

Make how this discourse differ from a policy, pragmatic

discourse

6

14

9 Does not take the context real world into consideration in

its approach to learning

6

39

10 Too focused on knowledge and not on attitudes,

emotions and learning

5

18

10 Does not provide research questions for researchers

5

29

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 21 of 42

10 Computer modelling is not only implementation

5

30

11 In case the scientific statement targets the research

community it should better go to a TEL scenario

approach which will provide same concrete learning

situations (environments the TEL research & technology

issues related to them

4

17

12 The document takes and epistemological point of view

(TEL design is domain dependant” foe ex, which is

shared by part of KAL but not by the entire network I

guess

3

9

13 Identity concrete issues an problems phenomena and

research questions

2

35

13 Take account of space, kinaesthetic, affective and

aesthetic components

2

38

14 Put more interest n the concept of infrastructure

(technologies as produces of infrastructure in an

ethological/ecological sense, because these infra and

their main operators/actors will shape the future

1

23

Ranking Critic statement

vote

ID

2 a) This document should provide:

- how we imagine the future of the field of education with

TECH

- how we imagine the future of the research in our field

- how we see ourselves as an actor in this field

b) This document should be inclusive of the diversity of

schools of thought /existing and to come

17

8

3 It does not show enough the added value of the

academic community vs what other bring to the field

16

24

5 Vision = current challenges and already done work in

addition to some future vision – share research

outcomes is a current challenge

10

20

6 The paper should be a visionary research

program/agenda.- conceptualising what we know

- KAL as a driving force in the development of ICT in the

learning society

- Identify a EU approach

9

1

8 The paper does not have visions for the future

7

5

9 Too abstract and to focussed on precise questions

6

19

10 If this document addresses only the research community

then we need other docs addressing decision makers an

practitioners

5

32

11 Does not show a European identity for research on TEL

4

11

11 Too high level not enough concrete

4

36

12 The statement is not concrete enough too conceptual

3

13

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 22 of 42

13 Exploring various aspects of TEL and forcing us to

confront issues and be explicit about our understanding

of key concepts such as learning, knowledge, meaning

use and the role of Technology

2

41

The strategy of this group has been to make a table of contents, based on the available

expertise. The outcome were then the following:

Chapter 1: Introduction

-

Set the stage / audience

;

Inspiring style

(

);

Bringing diversity of the network

;

Collective commitment for

Kaleidoscope

-

Historical premises

Chapter 2: The Changing World

- Societies (learning economy, knowledge, participatory);

Multi-Cultural;

Language Diversity

;

Globalisation Issues

(

“Growing Divides”); Learning

Outside School (Work / Play)

;

-

Shaping of Technology / Influence, Drive Technology

;

Emerging Technologies

Chapter 3: Implications of the Changing World in Terms of TEL

- What kind of Technology do we need to support New Pedagogies;

- Learning in the Changing World and how it is Integrated in Institutions

Chapter 4: Trends within Kaleidoscope

- What has been done within Kaleidoscope

Chapter 5: Changing the World (of Learning): Challenges for Research

- “Driving Force as Actions” Diversity of Learners; Interfaces;

- Harness Creativity; Technology Disappearing; Etc…

Chapter 6. Mechanisms to Make the Change Happen: Research Practice

- Context of Research: How do we Support Research? How to foster

reearch; Multidisciplinary Terms;

- Sub-Communities → Gradually Accumulate;

- Laboratories ↔Social Experiment (Diversity of Methodologies)

Chapter 7: Research Programme (including suggestions to the commission).

In order to effectively produce the document the group suggested to keep the editorial

team,

Nicolas Balacheff & Richard Noss, and to invite contributors on specific topics: Ana

Paiva & Ulrich Hoppe on “Interfaces & Disappearing Technology”, Chronis Kynigos on

“Context”, Barbara Wasson on “Reference to Societies”, Ton: de Jong on “Changing Skills”,

Lone Dirckinck Holmfeld on “Growing Divide, Learning Economy, Empowered Users”.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 23 of 42

The Group 2 suggested the following structure for a document:

1) Basic idea and orientation of Kaleidoscope: This should very much reflect what

the “founders” of Kaleidoscope thought, it could condensed parts of the initial

draft (possible editors: Nicolas Balacheff and Richard Noss; 1½ to 2 pages).

2) Historical premises: Embedment in pedagogical/epistemological thought of the

past including more recent trends but not excluding the real old stuff (possible

editor Sten Ludvigsen).

3) Current ICT trends relevant to education (see the list of Group 1).

4) Developments within Kaleidoscope: Example of activities results that indicate

future lines of research. (suggestions: Trails + ICALTS, MOSIL, TELMA, Game

environments)

5) Key issues for the future

This group suggested few other ideas:

- The idea of testbeds or pilot sites that would allow to study effects across the

curriculum and in different

institutional settings (possible start from a

contribution from Nicolas Balacheff)

- The development of description and modelling techniques for learning

processes/scenarios inspired and potentially supported by computational methods

(possible editor Ulrich Hoppe)

- Support integration and interoperability of computational models to learn with

(Editor Felisa Verdejo)

Academic oriented

- Looking at society? (professions, practices, digital literacy)

- ITC embedded everywhere → Life is different

- EU; Researcher; Language to be understood

Innovation Research:

- What is needed? What is important? Challenges.

Diagnostic

List of questions → (What is there → What is for the future) Too specific?

- Collaboration & cultural exchange & role of technology (Language

learning; Different interfaces)

- Issue of computer games → impact of technology (DIAGNOSTIC—

Brain; How does it changes way to communicate /learn?)

- How do we challenge current changes? (Not only positive, challenge not

welcome; Resistence)

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 24 of 42

- Changes related to values → Yes → No

- Standardization

- Population diversity (EU identity—Contribute with something special

from Europe; Language – socio dimension – physical)

You now learn something different → different skills

How can we we follow innovation? &contribute to

How can design & innovation co-exist? → both social & technical

Agendas → what are the others agendas? (Administration—way to manage);

Researchers; School practitioners—working conditions professional association

stuff)

Articulate so it is understood by others

But even in KAL we have different research agendas

Open source as part of vision → market influence!

Say one thing: what is your vision of the future

- Harnessing creativity inventiveness of the youth today (not necessary in

learning situation)

- Allowing & encouraging & recognising Kids Building—Communicating

(learning by building)

- Make technology disappear, holograms that interact with people

(technology goal)

- Follow groups of people in long term perspective (growing up with tech) -

> vision for research methodology—Pedagogically-rich Technologies

- Make simultaneous things view (unlocking / unveining the knowledge

which is embedded / invisible in artefacts)

- Maniability of techonology for learning → learn in diverse ways

- Preparing people for skills that are needed – creative constructive

contextual → context rich /applicable

- What do we understand are the needed competences for a knowledge,

participatory, ambient (pervasiveness) → Society ?

- Changing attitudes –> Technology plays a role … → EG. In the way you

see the others

How do we see the future of research in TEL

- methodology (action research)

- structure (EG group of research teams → is this good?, →

multidisciplinary → multiorganisation

- Integration of methodologies

Diversity for a purpose

Wheel being reinvented → pressures because of technology

We cannot just accumulate knowledge

Gradually accumulate within a sub-community

Build on the shoulders

Validation (what is valid knowledge → criteria)

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 25 of 42

Do we look at neuroscience & the way brain is impacted (biology)?

Collective commitment fo Kaleidoscope on this has not been discussed.

Nicolas Balacheff & Richard Noss , July, 2005

There was, and perhaps still is, a strand of opinion – not to say research – that chooses to

focus on the most obvious dehumanizing elements of the computer. This recognition is

hardly contentious: the computer is, like other technologies before it, responsible for

deskilling, dehumanizing, for reducing aspects of human interaction to interaction with a

machine.

Critiques of this kind are right to draw attention to the roles to which computers are put

and the rationales for their existence, but they throw out the educational baby with the

sociological bath water. Recognising that digital (or any other) technology can never be

an independent agent of radical change for learning, misses the uniqueness of what the

computer has to offer. It ignores the dialectic between how cultures structure technology

and how technology can shape the culture which gave birth to it.

The vision of the computer that gives rise to this view is based on a cultural stereotype of

the computer as a lifelss 'thing' – like all stereotypes, it has, of course, an element of truth.

But it misses the (for some) surprising paradox that the technical achievement that has

been responsible for dehumanization is also the most likely candidate for catalysing

fundamental transformation of learning.

There is an opposite point of view which claims that the technology itself will bring

about fundamental change. Once again, there is an important kernel of truth: it is easy to

point to the emergence of critical technologies (printing, railways and so on) that are

responsible for wide-reaching change in societies: and it is certainly the case that

ubiquitous technology is a necessary condition for change. But this point of view misses

the crucial point: our interest focuses not on the potential of digital technologies, nor even

on the potential of such technologies for learning. It centres on the possibilities for

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 26 of 42

learning about the world. The technologists and humanists make the same mistake, in

viewing the technology as a thing in itself, and worse, in accepting the cultural

stereotypes of what the technology is for—to calculate more quickly, write more easily,

access information more effortlessly. The resolution to this apparent dichotomy is to

locate knowledge at the centre of our concern.

Learning as an outcome as well as a process is at the core of any problématique of TEL.

A question about learners which is shared by all stakeholders is “do they learn?”. The

answer is straightforward: yes. Yes because, whatever the situation, the human being will

learn; human beings adapt themselves to the environment and its accompanying

technology or they ignore it. So too for learners. So the question needs reformulation: not

"do they learn?" but “what do they learn?”. This raises a much more difficult problem

since it implies that one knows how to specify the desired learning outcomes and to

demonstrate their presence as a result of the learning process (i.e. the actual use of the

environment).

If we consider the learning of mathematics or physics, the learning of literature or

surgery, the learning of chemistry or of philosophy, it is obvious—even from a

commonsense perspective—that these topics differ drastically when viewed from a

cognitive perspective or from an educational perspective. Understanding this disparity

helps us to appreciate that it is not learning which is central to our problématique, but the

learning of something.

Our research, our design, our innovation should not be “learner centred” but “learning x

centred”. In certain ideological or cultural contexts this may sound contradictory, as a

return to a content-centered approach, with the idea of a “knowledge” standing

immutably in isolation. In fact, there is no contradiction. Our approach is not based on an

ontological definition of knowledge but on a phenomenological definition which

considers knowledge as the emergent property of complex interaction between the learner

and her/his environment.

Understanding knowledge, its human and social nature, as well as its proper ecology, is a

strategic condition for the development of TEL from a theoretical and an operational

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 27 of 42

perspective. We need a pragmatic

6

characterization of knowledge in order to support our

efforts to understand and to stimulate better design and in-the-field implementation of

TEL.

Research in TEL abounds with examples of technology influencing, mediating, shaping

how learning takes place – each of these descriptions hides the possibilities of different

paradigms, and different criteria for success. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the

social dimension of computational design, implementation and use provides a critical

dimension along which to view the evolution of digital technologies. Although there

continue to be whole fields and sub-fields that ignore this dimension, the reality of

painstakingly slow change, the resistance of formal learning to embrace technologies, and

the explosion of interest in the social setting can now be taken for granted. There is no

doubt of its explanatory power, and few serious contenders for theoretical frameworks

that fail to acknowledge the importance of focusing on human interaction, even when the

focus of study is on the design of computational systems.

While the sociocultural turn of the last two decades in the social sciences has had an

important and far-reaching effect on research in TEL, it is equally important that we do

not lose sight of what the cognitive perspective still has to offer. We are interested in

learning x, and x exists between the ears of the learner, as much as in the culture of which

she plays a part. We cannot afford to lose sight of the individual while at the same time,

acknowledging how the individual's knowledge is shaped in interaction with others, and

how it is validated by her participation in the social situation. There is a dialectical

relationship between the technology and its situational embedding, a mutual shaping of

both that deserves consideration, and which is critical if design is to achieve the objective

of human learning.

There is no necessary conflict between the individual and social perspectives, provided

there is a clear demarcation of what each is designed to study. Considered from the point

6

Pragmatic is here used in Popperian sense, that is a characterization which is relevant to our

problématique although it will surely leave open most of the existing questions raised by this philosophical

concept—but still sufficiently coherent with what we know now from cognitive sciences and epistemology.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 28 of 42

of view of learning, computational technology-in-use mediates between teacher (however

instantiated) and learner, shaping and moulding what both can know. This is potentially a

two-way channel of communication with the computer, and our task is to study how this

channel operates and under what conditions to maximise its educational 'bandwidth'.

The price of failure to resolve this tension between social and cognitive is the failure of

the cumulativity of TEL research, a failure exemplified by the ebb and flow of theoretical

frameworks, the difficulty of theoretical application, and the struggle to match

methodological constraints to the problems under consideration.

TEL depends on the cognitive, situational and epistemological adequacy of

computational environments for human learning. Naming technological artefact in this

way, highlights our intention to make more visible the two interacting “micro” systems

(the technology and the human learner), the “mezzo” system (including complex

interactions between multiple learners, machines, and teachers) and the "macro" system

(concerned with corresponding issues at the institutional level). The key word in

computational environments for human learning is "for": these environments are a priori

dedicated to learning, necessitating a focus directly on person-machine interactions, or

indirectly, on persons' communications mediated by the machines.

This intentionality drives the design of TEL environments in two ways. At an epistemic

level it requires the characterisation of the point of learning, whether of an academic

nature (how to read) or of a more tacit nature (how to behave). At an educational level it

requires a characterisation of the conditions likely to permit the expected learning to be

achieved, thanks to the combination of the properties of the environment and the

properties of its use.

The educational or didactical intentionality which is encapsulated in the design of a

learning environment, may not be the object of an explicit implementation (like for

example in so-called tutoring systems), but can emerge from the properties of the system

which makes it relevant for a teaching-learning project (like for example in educational

microworlds). In fact, this ecological model, in which there exists initial and background

conditions and constraints gives us a far more realistic view of the possibilities of TEL

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 29 of 42

than the perspective that seeks to draw determined 'outcomes' from a given set of inputs.

The ecological perspective allows us to think of meanings being created within a setting

alongside technology, rather than simply brought into it from outside. The implication is

that we do not have to characterise change agents as thwarted, stymied by habits and

routines. Instead, we can see actors in settings making sense of their roles from the

interplay of meanings brought to them from diverse practices.

There is a problem of implementation of design. Even if technological constraints have

been aligned (choice of a programming language and of an OS, choice of the interfaces

and other hardware, etc.), or if the design has produced a well formalized specification,

there is still the difficulty of putting design into practice. For example, important

decisions of implementation are related to management of time and organization of

actions by algorithms, and then to their representation by programs in a given language.

This management implies the introduction of explicit order where more often than not

order is unanticipated or does not even matter – or may even run counter to the

knowledge to be learned.

The choice of a system of representation determines the kind of manipulations that can be

made available to the user. It implies that the feedback of the machine on the learner's

actions may differ from one environment to another, due to implementation choices

rather than to content characteristics. The idea of computational transmutation names the

process that leads to the specification and then the implementation of a model – we use

here the notion of transmutation proposed by Roman Jakobson, who named

transmutation “this motion of a text across other media”. In the same manner, TEL

introduces a transmutation of knowledge. A large part of this process deals with the need

to align the requirements of symbolic representation and computation, and the related

transformation of knowledge that occurs when it is 'implemented' as technology.

On one level, we might react to this problem as mere (although complex) technological

limitations, to which the solution may be to suggest alternative specifications or

implementations to eliminate them. But this misses the fact that other choices would give

rise to other unintended effects. The issue is not to suppress these effects: they are an

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 30 of 42

inevitable result of the computer's presence. Any representation has effects, it reshapes

the knowledge and the way it is learned. The challenge for TEL research is to express

precisely what these effects are and what might be their consequences. Instead of

searching for an impossible epistemological fidelity, trying to avoid bias between

representations and what they intend to represent, the way forward is to delineate the

epistemological domain of validity of the chosen model or representation.

This is a crucial point that provides a central pillar for our research perspective. Our

challenge is to take account of new knowledge in two senses: first, in the sense above, to

understand how knowledge is transformed (or mutated) in implementation. Second, to

study and account for new knowledge that is required by post-industrial societies,

knowledge that is inevitably and increasingly computationally-represented, including, for

example, an understanding of the influences of new media and the difficulty of filtering

information to create knowledge and understanding.

Thus a foundational postulate of our research domain is that TEL design is domain

dependent because knowing is representation dependent. We are about to recognize that

knowledge, as well as learning, is a constraint on the design of TEL environment.

Even posing the question "What happens when technology is put to use?", is to risk the

implication of an ontological essence of technological artefacts that exists independently

of the human use to which it is put. It focuses our attention on a crucial issue, namely

what happens to the user as she uses the technology, how her activity is shaped in

interaction with the technology.

This perspective leaves out an important reciprocity. When computational tools become

an integral part of a learning environment, the knowledge modeled by the system and the

students’ conceptions of that knowledge will both change in the process. The tool shapes

what the person can do, what she can think, what she can know, what becomes possible

and what becomes impossible. In the opposite direction, the tool is shaped by the person:

physically (or virtually) by adapting it, moulding it for evolving purposes; or

conceptually, by using the tool in ways unforeseen by its designers.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 31 of 42

There is a paradox here. Our intention is to design systems that are genuinely expressive,

not merely tools that achieve a particular goal. And yet, the more open and malleable the

technology, the more likely it is that the learner will reshape the tool in use, possibly in

directions unanticipated by (or antithetical to) the designer. On the other hand, while

systems focused on narrow knowledge domains minimize this risk, they tend not to

enable radical transformation of the learning process.

There is an historical difficulty for research on TEL to identify terms and frameworks

that we can share, for expressing the differences and commonalities of approach at a

conceptual and methodological level. As a consequence, there arises a considerable

problem in sharing results or specific outcomes beyond general statements or claims.

This is exacerbated at the level of the technology we produce (and often re-produce). A

significant difficult is the scant information usually available on the actual context of

experimental work, both because sufficiently thick descriptions are often incompatible

with conventional publishing constraints, or because there are no agreed criteria for

reporting data of this kind.

Two crucial questions, which actually determine the viability of research in TEL, must be

mentioned here:

•

How to describe properly the context in which we observe TEL, the

corresponding setting either "natural" or "experimental", the context in which we

carry out controlled experiments?

•

Is it possible to establish a kind of international standard, or record of best

practices, or recommendations, and in which forms?

The answers, even partial answers, to these questions would make interesting PhD. The

result will be to facilitate the sharing of results and their framework and foundation. An

accompanying measure should be the development of a systematic policy for a research

instrumentation, implementing testbed infrastructure. The added value of testbeds is to

construct a relevant context to systematize the way we describe, inform, and comment

upon the observations and the experiments we carry out. This is the price we will need to

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 32 of 42

pay in order to make sense of the research outcomes we would like to share, and of the

technology itself.

The idea of research instrumentation in TEL must be given a clear priority. It includes the

systematization of data description and sharing, replication of research by different

teams, sharing at a technological level (something like object-web at a domain level). It

also includes an exploration of what is the meaning of "result" in our domain and the way

we can archive and document them.

We return here to the specific question of knowledge, what computational environments

are for. The key challenge is to study the problem from multiple viewpoints, and to do so

from a perspective that prioritises the development of understanding the knowledge

mutations that arise from the computational presence. In particular, we need to study:

- what are the changes in the range of phenomena that can be addressed?

- how do specific computational implementations mediate this range?

- what are the new possibilities for engagement with knowledge?

- what are the problems of instrumental genesis?

- what new patterns of learning styles and diversity emerge?

This is a provocative “vision” document that attempts to put forward a distinct

perspective on how to think about the relation between human activities, specifically our

understanding of “learning” activities, and the role of technology in “supporting” this set

of activities. Here are some initial brief comments, divided into a Policy section, a

Substantial Issues section, and a Minor Issues section.

While welcoming the opportunity to open a debate on the nature of learning and

“knowledge” as described in the document, we would question the belief that we can

have a single coherent VISION for the whole Kaleidoscope network. This is because the

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 33 of 42

network is made up of a very large and heterogeneous collection of researchers, many

with quite distinct views on conceptual frameworks and the appropriate research methods

to investigate “technology-enhanced learning” (TEL). While we agree that it is useful to

have a debate within KAL on these fundamental issues, we are not sure that it is

necessarily of value to attempt to produce an overall VISION for the whole project, and

indeed, feel that this may just create additional problems within the network, especially if

the VISION document is going to be used in policy discussions about the future of the

network. Thus, we would rather argue for a rather brief Mission statement for the

network, if such is required for policy/political reasons, that states things in rather general

terms, and have a more substantive debate about the issues within the different internal

network forums.

This document is difficult to make sense of – in the sense of ‘what is the key message’ it

is trying to get across. It deals with quite a few different and diverse issues, which is

necessary, but at the same time these various issues do not seem to provide a consistent

‘point of view’ throughout the document - which I think is what is originally intended by

the authors - concerning the idea of ‘knowledge of something’. On the other hand we

think it is almost impossible or at least rather difficult to provide such a coherent ‘point of

view’ across so many different research and practice communities, including different

scientific disciplines.

The attempt to shift the focus ‘from learning to knowledge’ is a bit difficult to make

sense of from a historical research point of view - at least within scientific

learning/teaching traditions in several countries. It is not necessarily our experience that

researchers do not take the ‘what’ of learning into account (as this would be rather

senseless). Focusing on learning deals with the ‘how’ of the ‘what’ to learn. The ‘what’

to learn (as well as ‘why) is rather a political decision (usually written in school

curricula), than a scientific one.

Concepts like knowledge, new knowledge, knowing, meaning, intentionality,

representation are introduced without any clear definition or reference to published

sources. Given that part of the purpose of this document is to engage in serious

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 34 of 42

intellectual debate, then these fundamental concepts should be defined, and their

relationship specified. (e.g. the concept of knowledge in the document refers to

‘something out there’ (a rather passive concept of ‘information’), but also to something a

human being processes. Also, how does knowledge, as used here, relate to the conept of

meaning? There are quite a few ‘postulates’ that are not ‘justified’ in the sense of

reference to the literature, which makes it difficult to know where the authors are coming

from in places.)

Section ‘The tension between individual and social’: The dictonomy or tension between

the individual and the social seems to be equated to the distinction between the cognitive

and the social. This needs a bit more explanation or justification.

Section ‘Design and intentionality’: This section is difficult to understand. Also it seem

unrelated to the rest of the document – using concepts such as meaning, intentionality,

ecological model, change agents)

Section ‘Implementation’: …. “ a fundamental postulate of our research domain is that

TEL design is domain-dependent because knowing is representation-dependent”. The

first sentence is obvious, but the idea that this is ‘because knowing is representation

dependent” needs justification/reference.

Section‘Use’: We agree strongly that use is an important issue ( Cf. Bannon & Bodker

(1991) Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artefacts in Use (In J.M.Carroll (ed.)

Designing Interaction (Cambridge: Cmabridge University Press), also M. Robinson

(1993) Unanticipated Use… in Proc. ECSCW’93, Milano Italy). However, the proposed

paradox between ‘expressive’ and ‘goal-oriented’ tool, may not be a paradox. The choice

between the two is (or should be) dependent on the ‘zone of prozimal development’ of

the user and the content (the ‘what’ to learn).

Section ‘Methodology & instrumentation’: to establish best practices or

recommendations might be possible within the same research question or research object.

But we should not forget that it is the research question(s) that determines the

method/methodology. The method must be appropriate to the research question. In terms

of the first question you raise re viability of research in TEL, , it would seem that the

work of Mike Cole and colleagues at the LCHC at UCSD, and others over the past 25

years has attempted to address this issue of describing and understanding “settings” for

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 35 of 42

empirical studies that go beyond traditional experimental settings.

The Introductory section on views on “humanism versus technologism” (sic) opens up a

large topic concerning technological and social determinism which, while interesting in

its own right, may not be a topic which one wants to “open up” at the very start of a

position papers about learning and technology. We agree that there is a need to relate the

issues to a general philosophical perspective on the nature of tools and media, and the

evolution of society, but are not sure of its placement in this text.

We believe that this draft document does raise a number of interesting topics for

discussion within KAL, so thanks for the provocation! The proposed shift from speaking

of learning, as a process (“How”), to that of knowledge, as a product (“what”) raises very

large questions, in our view for the whole framing of TEL research.

We question if any document of this form, even if revised, can achieve a VISION of TEL

that all members of the NoE could accept. Rather, we would suggest that the document is

kept as an internal discussion point within the network, which can give rise to substantive

debate and critique in workshops and other fora within the network, serving as a “probe”

- exploring various aspects of TEL, and forcing us to confront issues, and be explicit

about our understanding of key concepts such as learning, knowledge, meaning, use, and

the role of technology.

Critical issues to be addressed by future research on TEL

- Research on TEL still largely self-referential, responding to academic

priorities rather than social ones, either disembodied from real contexts or

mostly limited to easily “operationable” ones (one’s own university

course, students, staff, etc.). Failing to understand/take into account the

complexity of institutional and social contexts.

- Too “scientific” and not enough “political” (i.e., disconnected from the

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 36 of 42

political debate and even worse, sometimes substituting it), whereas

education is first a political issue (what model of society “we” want to

build, which values we want to convey, what role education should have:

maintaining the status quo vs. encouraging evolving societies, reproducing

vs. questioning the dominant economic paradigm / the dominant

knowledge paradigm, etc. what social model it should conveys, who’s

responsible to decide priorities, etc.). Also, disconnected from, or

otherwise substituting, the reflection on more global educational and

social policies (inclusion, cultural, etc.).

- Based on an abstract model of users, assuming human beings are

essentially rational, goal-oriented, aware, un-affective and context-

independent.

- Too short term, failing to address issues of societal change and innovation

that require much longer time spans to take place (and consequently be

analyzed). This depending on the funding models.

- Mostly focusing on “explicit” knowledge and failing to address the issue

of “implicit” knowledge (conveyed through the process, the settings, the

roles, the implicit norms required to be “part of the community” and to be

“successful” in this community etc.).

- Focusing mostly on mental processes and failing to take into account

space, kinesthetic, affective and esthetic components also affecting human

development (and mental processes!).

- Evolving slowly from “computing” paradigm, and shy in proposing

“expression” paradigms.

In a joint effort the role of the Vision is to provide the well-shared understanding of what

we (all together) would like the world to be if we succeed in our effort. It plays the role of

the common horizon we face moving along our way in individual or common steps.

For an effort like Kaleidoscope, it is my intuition, that the Vision should not concern the

nature of the learning activities (process and outcome), since it will never be shared by all

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 37 of 42

the people joining the effort, but, may be, should concern the way in which we can build,

The Vision is something we all want and for which we are ready to work for (as soon as

the mission is stated), and that should be accomplished within (at least partially) within

the time frame of the mission. I do not see the Kaleidoscope vision as something that

respect these basic features of what is named Vision in project management.

“The vision of the computer that gives rise to this view is based on a cultural

stereotype of the computer as a lifeless 'thing'–like all stereotypes, it has, of

course, an element of truth. But it misses the (for some) surprising paradox that

the technical achievement that has been responsible for dehumanization is also the

most likely candidate for catalysing fundamental transformation of learning.”

Ok to start presenting different approaches–and elaborate on the social constructivist

position

“There is an opposite point of view which claims that the technology itself will

bring about fundamental change.”

It is questionable if it’s the technology in it-self which bring about fundamental change

cp. the social constructivist approach

“to point to the emergence of critical technologies (printing, railways and so on)

that are responsible for wide-reaching change in societies: and it is certainly the

case that ubiquitous technology is a necessary condition for change.”

why suddenly ubiquitous

“our interest focuses not on the potential of digital technologies, nor even on the

potential of such technologies for learning. It centres on the possibilities for

learning about the world.”

I don’t agree—I find it very important for Kaleidoscope also to study and understand how

the technology is social constructed (cp. the SKOTtradition)—especially, because we as

designers are direct involved in this construction process.

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 38 of 42

And in my view, the technology as mediating our activities, will certainly also influence

the possibilities for learning about the world

“quickly, write more easily, access information more effortlessly. The resolution

to this apparent dichotomy is to locate knowledge at the centre of our concern.”

Another argument could be that learning should be in the center – compare the whole

discussion on learning economy vs. knowledge society.

And learning—there is missing a chapter on societal changes and the need for learning,

innovation and change.

This shift in focus seems strange for me—especially if talk about “Technology enhanced

learning”?

“Our research, our design, our innovation should not be “learner centred” but

“learning x centred”. In certain ideological or cultural contexts this may sound

contradictory, as a return to a content-centered approach, with the idea of a

“knowledge” standing immutably in isolation. In fact, there is no contradiction.

Our approach is not based on an ontological definition of knowledge but on a

phenomenological definition which considers knowledge as the emergent

property of complex interaction between the learner and her/his environment.”

Maybe better to present different approaches / views.

What about different concepts of knowledge: episteme, techne, and phronesis? What kind

of knowledge are you talking about?

“in learning x, and x exists between the ears of the learner, as much as in the

culture of which she plays a part. We cannot afford to lose sight of the individual

while at the same time, acknowledging how the individual's knowledge is shaped

in interaction with others, and how it is validated by her participation in the social

situation.”

Individual learner, communities of practice, social structure—different levels of analysis

“potentially a two-way channel of communication with the computer, and our task

is to study how this channel operates and under what conditions to maximise its

educational 'bandwidth'.”

Avoid using channel—the computer is far more complex

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 39 of 42

“of the cumulativity of TEL research, a failure exemplified by the ebb and flow of

theoretical frameworks, the difficulty of theoretical application, and”

There is both a cumulative aspect—however also different “voices”—the knowledge and

learning area is not unified! The knowledge who counts for one group of students may be

irrelevant for another group of students—also from a phenomenological perspective

“computational”

Why reduce to computational?

“There is a problem of implementation of design.”

Maybe implementation should be viewed as complex sociotechnical – and therefore also

draw on multiple theoretical approaches: social, computational, semiotics/

communication…

“how knowledge is transformed”

And learning

“to study and account for new knowledge that is required by post-industrial

societies, knowledge that is inevitably and increasingly computationally-

represented, including, for example, an understanding of the influences of new

media and the difficulty of filtering information to create knowledge and

understanding.”

May be this area should have a certain paragraph – need for new skills and

competencies?

“TEL design is domain dependent because knowing is representation dependent.”

take care not to be too restricted—and remember your own point of departure in a

phenomenological and situated position.

Theoretical approach? Interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary? Technological and

sociological or transdisciplinary?

“- How to describe properly the context in which we observe TEL, the

corresponding setting either "natural" or "experimental", the context in which we

carry out controlled experiments?”

“- Is it possible to establish a kind of international standard, or record of best

practices, or recommendations, and in which forms?”

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 40 of 42

Yes, that’s a good idea.

This is after having read and appreciated the comments from Liam, Rosella, Anette and

Antonio.

It seems to me that vision (about research), policy and mission are three very different

things which can be addressed distinctly in the text. Policy, for instance, addresses the

issue of ‘what we want to do (or to be done with) the outcomes of TEL research’, i.e.

how we envisage that they can be used by politicians and by the education systems. Also,

whether we as TEL community are interested in influencing how the results will be used

and the ways in which we are proposing to do this (i.e. are we going to try to create and

established institutionalized mechanisms to liaise with the system).

Second point is that I think there should be a meta-section about the titles of the sections.

For instance, what is meant by ‘versus’? Are the terms on the sides of versus opposite or

are they the two ends? Are they the ends of a continuum (i.e. our vision is to strive from

one to the other) or are they the sides of a highway in which TEL is moving in zig-zag

fashion? What is the implication that the main notions delineating TEL research are these

and not others?

Also I agree with Rosella about the time issue and want to add that of research time-

scale. Why should a piece of research be 1-3 yrs long? In what kind of time-frames can

we hope to gain more research knowledge? What are the tensions between applied

research and systemic – social issues (e.g. what happens to the individuals – students –

engaging in longitudinal research which shows no recognizable learning gains).

I agree with other comments about the difficulty to build a shared vision document.

Kaleidoscope is a very large community of researchers on TEL with a variety of different

visions, conceptions, approaches, research themes, interests… which must live together

under the same roof. In my view the vision document should rather be a meta-vision

document providing a broad identification of the field together with strategies for cross

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 41 of 42

fertilization of different visions and overall growth of this research area. These strategies

may also include to give priority within the network to specific lines of research (such as

the ones described in section “Methodology and Instrumentation” of the draft document).

Relationship between TEL and education In a vision document the rapport between TEL

and education (or educational research) should be clarified. While the focus of TEL may

be on learning x with technology, education includes items like values, choice of

contents, promoting a harmonious growth of humans by balancing cognitive, relational,

emotional, expressive, …skills (see Rossella comments). It is perfectly all right for TEL

researchers to focus on specific learning “phenomena”or specific learning environments.

However I think that research on TEL should have a lot of focus on building bridges

between TEL and non technological (so far) educational research. Just as an example,

questions like “what contents for scientific education and whom for” may have strong

relationship with TEL for a variety of reasons:

- TEL can make suited to education contents otherwise difficult to address

and to manage with a specific group of learners

- TEL may help finding new approaches to the problem of the increasing

size of scientific knowledge which should be part of the culture of

individuals

- through TEL a strong connection may be established between the methods

of science (a very important content of scientific education) and the

methods of learning science……

The social demand for learning The document provides a vision of TEL as a field

structured around three focal points (technology, human learning, knowledge). In this

field new “phenomena” take place that require to be explored and modeled. In this frame

the social dimension exists as one aspect of the learning process which must be properly

balanced with the other aspect - the individual dimension.

Another aspect of the social dimension is worth being explicitly considered in the vision

document. There is a social demand for learning, there are emerging features of our

society (such as acceleration and globalization) which impose requirements and

constraints on the learning processes and which are at the same time opportunities for

TEL. At the same time, the opportunities offered by TEL contribute to generate new

Kaleidoscope Deliverable

D02.1.6

Submitted 08/01/2006

Page 42 of 42

social situations and phenomena. My proposal is to think of TEL as organized around

four focal points: technology, human learning, knowledge and society. This means that

the research on TEL should include also the study of the relationship between society and

technology. A particular aspect of this relationship refer to the institutional and cultural

context of the learning processes.