Nicolas Balacheff's home page
   
log in
|
Search
|
| powered by Kaleidoscope © 2003-2007 | help |
When the space is the interface
Making
accessible phenomena by means of simulations is one of the added values of
computer-based learning environments. To make it simple, let's say that the key
feature of simulations is to have a good mathematical model plugged on an
efficient visualisation of the targeted
phenomena. However, such simulations are processed within the limited space of
the screen of the computer over a short period of time. The development of
virtual reality and the so-called full scale simulations allow the access to
spaces beyond the limits of the screen. However, one is still immerged in an
artificial world with time and persistence
constraints (notably, this is not the case in MMOs). The idea of
embedded phenomena coined by Tom Moher opens smart ways to overcome several of
these limitations.
An
embedded phenomenon is the emergent
property of the behaviours of a set of
"distributed media located around the classroom representing 'portals'
into [the] phenomenon depicting local state information corresponding to [its
mapping onto the physical space of the classroom]." The space of the class
becomes the interface with the model which has been implemented; but it is more
than that since a simulation can run
"continuously over weeks and months, creating information channels
that are temporally and physically interleaved with, but asynchronous with
respect to, the regular flow of instruction." This approach opens new significant
possibilities for the simulation of phenomena where space and time count.
Migration of bugs, movement of the
planets or earthquake find with embedded phenomena a much more relevant
framework to challenge learner modelling, requiring an effective
conceptualisation of space and time.
But the essential contribution may be not at the level of the acquisition of the
concepts themselves but at the level of the acquisition of the methodology and
the organisation of the scientific work. Students have to organise the space
and the time to collect data, then gather and analyse what they have obtained
individually to build a collective knowledge. Given the role of time, the
experiment cannot be replicated at will. Close to what happen with on the field
studies , observations have to be planed, showing may be more accurately the
relation between observation and theory.
Moher
emphasises the positive effect of his approach, its "affective
impact" (more emotional interest in the phenomena) and its impact of
productive social interactions. And indeed one must recognise that this smart idea provides students with an
unprecedented experience. However, there is not much conceptual analysis, and
it is difficult to assess how far this will be manageable and robust enough
under the classical practical constraints in school. It is said at the
beginning of the paper that "the [embedded phenomena] framework does not
prescribe an instructional design per se, not does it provide any direct
scaffolding to support learning", but few lines later it is claimed that
"phenomena are made accessible and responsive to the needs of learners
through the novel uses of classroom time and space". How are needs of the
students, specifications of the environment and orchestration required from the
teacher taken into account in the design and the implementation of embedded
phenomena? There is inherently a simplification in the design of this framework
and, at the same time, a complexification of the teaching and learning context.
How far does this count? How does it impact the learning outcome? And the
teaching task?
Embedded
phenomena have a huge learning and teaching potential, but it also opens the
way to quite difficult and stimulating research questions. No doubt that we
will be eager to discuss these with Tom Moher when he comes to the Learning
science conference next summer in Utrecht .
Moher, T. (2006). Embedded Phenomena: Supporting Science Learning with Classroom-sized Distributed Simulations. Proceedings ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006) (April 2006, Montreal, Canada), 691-700. (Best Paper award) Commentsposted by Nicolas Balacheff on Saturday 12th, April 2008 (19:31)
One more question: is embedded phenomena a technology push or learner driven? Or does it show that this question is outdated? posted by Tom Moher on Thursday 7th, August 2008 (06:27)
First, let me express my appreciation for the blog entry, and my apologies for the delay in replying. I am grateful for the kind comments. I agree with you that the strength of 'embedded phenomena' lies in creating a space for authentic inquiry, with all the caveats associated with the term 'authentic.' Science inquiry is physically demanding, it transpires over extended periods of space and time, and these aspects of science are infrequently addressed in classrooms. Let me try to briefly address some of your questions: (1) How are needs of the students, specifications of the environment and orchestration required from the teacher taken into account in the design and the implementation of embedded phenomena? The assertion that "we only provide the phenomena" is, admittedly, a bit disingenuous. As a technologist, I have worked hard to develop a background in the learning sciences, but my education has a long way to go, thus the caveat. In truth, the vast majority of our time is spent with classroom teachers developing the instructional contexts within which our 'embedded phenomena' operate. No two implementations are alike; each is conditional upon the learning goals, populations, and domain understandings of the instructors and students. Sometimes I feel that the most important dependent variable is the way in which practitioners blend the phenomena into their larger instructional units, but the need to assert learning gains is strong within a context of high-stakes testing.. Is the question outdated? I think not. A lot of the work that proceeds under the rubric of "learning technologies" is, I think, based on technology push. I don't mean this critically; technologists typically don't know the classroom, and classroom researchers often can't anticipate the affordances of emerging technologies. It's a positive, creative tension. We depend on one another as filters...and that's all to the good. You can't add comments with your actual clearance level. |
 | ||||||||||||