These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] on the learning sciences, constructionism, and technological determinism

Hi Jenna,
I would agree with Mike that you need to stand firm (and proud) in your position. How do the adversaries of "techological determinism" brand themselves? "Social determinists"? Or, simply by having less to say, do they manage to escape the fear-word "determinism" and call themselves advocates of "social choice"? But you can't let them do this; fight "ism" with "ism", if they insist.
But -- more productively -- I would just point out that you are sketching out a position that is much more finely honed than the hopelessly coarse "broad-brush" characterization of technological determinism. As your specific example of the blind man and the walking stick (which I remember discussing with Mike extensively 'back in the day') demonstrates, the specific nature of the technology "shapes" or "constrains" (not "detemines", for heaven's sake) behavior in specific ways through the specific affordances it provides to its user. Now, yes, I deliberately used the word "specific" four (4) times in the previous sentence, but that was to show that there are several places where you have the ability to specify (!) quite a bit of detail about the particular kind of shaping, affording, behaving, that is going on.
And Shirky's (ref?) observation is quite an interesting one, although I'm not sure I would say that the tool/instrument/technology has become "boring". I would say instead that has achieved a certain critical level of "transparency", by which one might mean that the user can coordinate with his/her environment directly while using the instrument. Instead of the (pre-learning, pre-'literate') system "organism <--> tool+environment", we've reached a point where a more meaningful decomposition is now "organism+tool <--> environment". So what does the skilled blind-man-with-walking-stick exploring a cave perceive? Not "the pattern of pokes of the walking stick on his hand", but "the structure of the cave". 

Jerry


On Sep 21, 2009, at 3:55 PM, mike cole wrote:
And Jennifer, who on earth would lead you think you cannot bridge between this discussion of artifact construction and mediation and media studies! You have one proud graduate of the IU psych department here who is a senior member of a communication department and who is perfectly happy to discuss 
such matters.
Don't let people scare you with the ghost of McLuhan's excesses!! Be of 
stout heart. And give us a reference for Clay Shirky.

Is a noob an apprentice youst2b? No pain, no gain?
:-)
mike
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Jenna McWilliams <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu >wrote:
As a doctoral student in a Learning Sciences program, I've been following the various recent XMCA threads with great interest. Of course I haven't weighed in with my thoughts on the field of learning sciences, because a) I'm a n00b, and b) as a n00b, I'm reading lots of foundational texts by 
members of this listserv.
Right now, I'm neck-deep in Mike Cole's 1993 piece with Y.Engestrom, "a cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition." At the same time, I'm also immersed in readings about constructionism, esp. by Papert and Resnick. Because of this, I took great interest in Jerry Balzano's argument 
that:
"Constructionism emphasizes the value of building interesting artifacts in 
the world that can be shared and discussed with other learners;
Constructivism emphasizes the value of building schemata one's own head. As 
for the computer, it is simply a vehicle.  Who among us doesn't use a
computer for at least some part of most of the things we create?  And
Papert's mantra is, why should it be any different for kids? So computers are simply awfully good tools for creating interesting, shareable artifacts. But the focus is on the artifacts, e.g. programs to teach fractions to elementary school students (Harel & Papert, 1991, to my mind the "landmark" study in this area), and not at all on the computer science. In fact, the hope is that, as kids (and their teachers?) become more and more comfortable and "literate" with these tools, the "technique", like the technique of penmanship, of reading, etc., fades appropriately into the background."
With respect to that last point, that the technique of working with newer technologies fades into the background with increased comfort and literacy, I wonder how this relates to Bateson's example cited by Cole & Engestrom of 
the blind man using a walking stick:
"Suppose I am a blind man, and I use a stick. I go tap, tap, tap. Where do I start? Is my mental system bounded at the hand of the stick? Is it bounded by my skin? Does it start halfway up the stick? Does it start at the tip of 
the stick?"

In fact, I'm wondering right at this very moment, as I type this very
sentence, where my mental system ends and the tool begins. Materially, my fingertips are the end of me--but practically speaking, we might consider my keyboard as a tool much like a blind man's walking stick, so we could say I extend into my laptop. We could say that I extend into the screen that shows me what I've typed. We could say that when I send this email, I extend into the listserv to which this email is directed. And so on and so on, until our 
eyes cross and we get too perplexed to continue.

It's all a thought experiment--all fun and games--until learning gets
involved. Clay Shirky writes that it's not until a tool becomes technically boring that it becomes socially interesting. We can say this is true of the blind man's walking stick: Once he becomes accustomed to using it, once he 
starts to experience it as part of his being, then things really get
interesting. The networked computer, still a novelty to many older members 
of our culture, is 'boring' to young learners--which means that its
remediation for creative and pedagogical purposes begins to be possible. 
With the walking stick, we can try to climb mountains.
In the field of media studies, this approach to tools and technologies is often at risk of being dismissed as "technological determinism." Argue too loudly that tools play a part in shaping practice, and you get into hot water faster than you can say "Marshall MacLuhan." I wonder, then, how others think and talk about these issues: How can we talk about tools, practices, activity systems, and distributed cognition in ways that cross the divide between learning theories and media studies? Is there value in trying to bridge these fields, or in considering these issues for learning? 

Oh, what's a young learning scientist to do?


~~

Jenna McWilliams
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
~
http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
~
jenmcwil@indiana.edu
jennamcjenna@gmail.com




On Sep 19, 2009, at 6:46 PM, mike cole wrote:
Sounds right to me, Jerry. When properly implemented, Papert's approach 
has
a lot of attractive features from a cultural-mediational,
activity-oriented
approach to development.
That was a big conditional WHEN back there. Too many copy cats with only 
the
cat's whiskers.
mike

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Jerry Balzano <gjbalzano@ucsd.edu>
wrote:

Michael,
I wouldn't call Papert's Constructionism "computer science heavy". I 
think
the most important thing about it, in these days where folks in cognitive science are debating "externalist" and "internalist" views of cognition, 
is
that Constructionism is explicitly externalist and social, where
Constructivism is internalist and "schematic".  Constructionism
emphasizes
the value of building interesting artifacts in the world that can be 
shared
and discussed with other learners; Constructivism emphasizes the value of building schemata one's own head. As for the computer, it is simply a vehicle. Who among us doesn't use a computer for at least some part of 
most
of the things we create? And Papert's mantra is, why should it be any 
different for kids?  So computers are simply awfully good tools for
creating
interesting, shareable artifacts. But the focus is on the artifacts, 
e.g.
programs to teach fractions to elementary school students (Harel &
Papert,
1991, to my mind the "landmark" study in this area), and not at all on 
the
computer science.  In fact, the hope is that, as kids (and their
teachers?)
become more and more comfortable and "literate" with these tools, the "technique", like the technique of penmanship, of reading, etc., fades 
appropriately into the background.

Jerry

On Sep 18, 2009, at 6:23 AM, michael a evans wrote:

David,
I agree wholeheartedly with your point below - again, that's why I've 
found it necessary to bring Vygotsky to the forefront  in my
course...currently, it appears that learning scientists either refer to a "situativity" or "constructionist" position when they talk about research goals - I've mentioned that I'm not quite clear what is meant 
by "situativity" and the "constructionist" movement took off with
Papert and his interpretation of Piaget being too individual-
centered...I kind of like the "constructionist" position, but can't 
find any theoretical ground for their work - it is, indeed, very
applied and computer science heavy...

I obviously picked the *wrong* time to think about reducing my
contributions to the list - I'll continue to lurk but do need to
discipline my focus ;^)...

Again, thanks for the great discussion!
Michael~

On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:14 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:

Michael,
Sorry to be losing your voice, but the tenure packet demands cannot be 
ignored--good luck.
The methodological stricture you noted in connection with design-based research is laudable: "theory must be tested in real-world (mainly in- and out-of-school) environments." But it is the goals of the research that need attention with respect to those of sociocultural theory. Theory is instrumental in design science. The interests are centered 
on
creating and understanding effective learning environments, not
organizing an extendable coherent theoretical approach. Here's the opening paragraph of a section titled "A Design Science" from Keith's 
introduction to the Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences:

"As scientists who are focused on creating effective learning
environments, learning scientists ask questions like: How can we
measure
learning? How can we determine which learning environments work best? How can we analyze a learning environment, identify the innovations 
that
work well, and separate out those features that need additional
improvement? In other words, how can we marshal all of our scientific knowledge to design the most effective learning environments? These questions are fundamental to scientific research in education." (p. 
13)

David


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu ] 
On Behalf Of michael a evans
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 7:13 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] From Keith Sawyer on learning sciences
I think David (and Tony) have raised some wonderful questions about the learning sciences and have called out inconsistencies that demand 
further investigation - as I believe I've hinted, I'm going to
identify a couple of these as I work through my course this
fall...nevertheless, I thought Keith's contribution was accurate as far as I understand the history and position of this new domain...
A methodological principle, based on a technique that is referred to 
as "design-based research," that I resonate with in the learning
science literature is that theory must be tested in real-world (mainly in- and out-of-school) environments - as I tell my students, no "arm chair, purely descriptive" theory is allowed...I take that a bit to the extreme for demonstrative purposes, but want to convey the idea that the learning sciences are pragmatic (and so some might label it 
"applied)...
I'm going to caution again that neither How People Learn nor a Google 
search result can fully capture the principles of the learning
sciences - I highly recommend a close read of Sawyer's chapter
forwarded by me via Tony...
One last thing: I'm going to have to reduce my contribution to the list as I prepare my dossier for promotion and tenure - it's been a 
difficult choice, but absolutely necessary...
If anyone would like to take up my offer for a symposium on this topic 
at ICLS 2010, please drop a line off list...

Cheers,
Michael~

On Sep 18, 2009, at 7:02 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:

Mike,



Thanks for bringing in Keith's authoritative voice.

I think there is a natural way in which socioculturalists are in
sympathy with learning sciences goals. Both are interested in dealing with learning in a full-bodied way that honors the complexity of the 
full human being. And I suppose it is a kind of good news that
Vygotskyan scholarship is considered fundamental to the LS effort. 
But
the differences of purpose may be more significant than the
commonalities. Learning scientists are interested in managing
theoretical heterogeneity. As you pointed out earlier, the
methodological co-development of "design experimentation" is an
important window into the learning sciences. Missing from LS is the 
central effort toward theoretical synthesis that characterizes
sociocultural psychology.
This raises broader questions about the status of these enterprises 
as
socio-historical movements. The sociocultural movement, broadly
considered, is a scientific search for explanation--well, perhaps we 
aren't quite deeply enough determined by data to be a science--
maybe a
blend of science and philosophy. The status of LS is more ambiguous. 
Perhaps "applied science" would be the correct rubric. Perhaps a
postmodern variant of science. Or perhaps an (unwitting?) hegemonic 
extension of cognitive psychology.
It really is unclear the extent to which the computational metaphor 
remains central to LS, particularly when the status of the
enterprise is
unclear--perhaps ambiguous. In Keith's construal, computation is just one of the orienting theoretical tools. But as Martin noted a couple 
of
days ago:
"further Googling discloses 'three principles [of the New Science of 
Learning] to guide the study of human learning across a range of
areas
and ages: learning is computational- ...; learning is social-...; and 
learning is supported by brain circuits linking perception and
action.'
I suppose two out of three aint bad, but the fact that the first is 
first speaks volumes."

David Kirshner


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:03 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
Subject: [xmca] From Keith Sawyer on learning sciences
Keith is not currently subscribed to xmca. Here is his response to 
some
of
the recent posts. I will collate relevant replies and send along to 
him
as
seems useful.
mike
I read through the thread. But rather than subscribe (I have been subscribed before and I can't afford to have that many messages in my 
inbox)
I will send you this note which you have my permission to post on my 
behalf.
If in a week or two you think I need to return to the thread again, 
please
email and let me know.

<Beginning of quotation for you to post>
The most comprehensive view of the interdisciplinary field of the 
learning
sciences is the 2006 handbook that I edited, THE CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK 
OF
THE
LEARNING SCIENCES. This follows on and is compatible with the 2001 
HOW
PEOPLE LEARN book, but that earlier book is more directed towards 
education
practitioners and policy makers.  My introduction chapter to the
handbook,
based on interviews with several founding figures of the learning 
sciences,
answers a lot of the questions that have appeared in this thread. 
Here
are
my answers to some of the thread questions:
1. In the early 1990s, the learning sciences emerged from several 
historical
trends:
(a) the Artificial Intelligence and Education conferences that were 
taking
place through the 1980s. These were very much production systems in 
the
Anderson mold. Those who became learning scientists rejected the AI 
and
Education approach for the most part, so the concern with production 
systems
in some XMCA thread postings is misplaced.  The AI and Education
conferences
continue to take place today but there is basically no interchange 
with
the
learning sciences.

(b) cognitive developmental research (conceptual change,
continuations
of
Piagetian studies of developmental stages of various cognitive
abilities;
think Lauren Resnick, Andy DiSessa)
(c) the broad 1980s shift in the cognitive sciences from a narrow 
mentalist
focus on cognition, to a more situated/distributed notion of
cognition.
Vygotsky was only one of many influences in this movement, which was 
part
of the 1980s zeitgeist in AI and in cognitive science; that may be 
why
you
don't see more explicit citation to Vygotsky in the Handbook. (I 
chose
not
to have a series of "theoretical foundations" chapters in the
handbook;
if I
had, Vygotsky would have been one of them.) So situativity has been 
built
into the learning sciences from its very beginning almost 20 years 
ago.

2. It's a complicated question to ask, what distinguishes the
learning
sciences from educational psychology more generally (or, from
cognitive
development, or from instructional design, or from constructivism in 
IT,
or
from situated cognition, or from human-computer interaction, or from 
serious
games research, or from science education research, or from math
education
research). Learning sciences has links to all of these. So what 
unifies it
as a distinct perspective warranting its own name? That's not a
simple
answer, but my handbook introduction attempts to answer this
question by
summarizing the epistemology that is generally shared by those who 
call
themselves learning scientists. If I try to elaborate that here my 
posting
will get too long.

3. LS is absolutely not the same thing as neuroeducation.  Most
learning
scientists do not neuroimaging, and most of us are quite skeptical of 
the
present capabilities of cognitive neuroscience to impact educational 
practice.  (See John Bruer's "A bridge too far" ER article.)
However,
we
are receptive to benefiting from neuroscience, once the methodologies 
become
more advanced...perhaps unlike some LCHC-ers whom I suspect in
principle
are
opposed to neuroscience and education.  The NSF news story about
Meltzoff
that started off this thread may have given some of you an
unfortunate
misimpression of the field. Meltzoff is one of the co-PIs of the NSF 
science of learning center along with John Bransford and Roy Pea
(Stanford)
and several others, and none of the other PIs are doing neuroscience. 
The
reason why the story refers to the "science of learning" rather than 
the
"learning sciences" is because the NSF grant program had that name.
And yes, I am the same Keith Sawyer that does research on creativity 
and
collaboration.  My own chapter in the handbook (other than the
introduction
and conclusion) is titled "Analyzing collaborative discourse."


mike coole wrote:

Keith-- A discussion of learning sciences, its history and its



functions,


has erupted
on xmca. You are right there in the middle. It would be great if you 

could


find time to

help in the discussion and educational process.
mike


--

R. Keith Sawyer
Associate Professor
Washington University
Department of Education
Campus Box 1183
St. Louis, MO  63130

www.keithsawyer.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca