Getting to know the boundaries to schooling
 Alan McCluskey |
The new Forrester report about the Post PC Era is interesting for our discussion here. See The future of education in a post PC era |
|
Alan McCluskey |
The nature of some ICT tools can be a solid boundary to learning, reinforcing existing boundaries by incorporating them, hard wired, in their structure. The development of the Personal Learning Environment (PLE) is interesting in this respect. Some see it as a personalised extension to existing institutional structures (classes, tests, control, teacher-centred, dictated content,...). Other see it as a much freer support for learner-driven learning (where help and guidance, for example, come from recommendation systems rather than set reading lists and subject-based, curriculum driven content). Here are some links:
|
|
Alan McCluskey |
In another discussion group here run by Franco Furger, it has been question of the Kahn Academy (see the TED video) and the use of video to teach. Without necessarily condoning the experience, which I believe raises a lot of questions, one quote struck with respect to our discussion here about boundaries (between school and home). Talking about the use of video clips Salman Kahn says (approximately): "... the lectures are done as homework (the video clips) and what the students did for homework they now do in class." As a result there is much more interaction in class, he says. |
|
Alan McCluskey |
Denis Gillet of the EPFL pointed out a very interesting concept: seamless learning environments. Here's one definition from the document cited below: "Seamless learning environment bridges private and public learning spaces where learning happens as both individual and collective efforts and across different contexts (such as in-school versus after-school, formal versus informal)." (Looi et al. 2010 p.156) http:/ |
|
Raymond Morel |
J’ai de la peine à démarrer dans cette discussion, aussi je vais essayer de reformuler ma compréhension de « Learning in dissolving boundaries » :
Merci d’orienter ma lanterne. Comme promis lors du workshop de Münchenwiler au moment où vous avez pris la décision de laisser le Forum « parler » trilingue j’ai laissé « Google translation » œuvrer pour la langue de Goethe et celle de Shakespeare en espérant que les progrès de la traduction par ordinateur sont fulgurants. Bonne chance ! L’original était donc en français ! Ich finde es schwierig, in dieser Diskussion beginnen, also werde ich versuchen, mein Verständnis von "Lernen in Auflösung Boundaries " umformulieren:
I find it difficult to start in this discussion, so I'll try to rephrase my understanding of "Learning in Dissolving Boundaries":
|
|
Alan McCluskey |
Thanks for your very perceptive comments, Franco. I am unsure how to respond. Yes, I am convinced that current (and possibly all) institutional structures are a barrier to learning, where, by "learning" I mean developing new ways of doing things and exploring new perspectives on things. It is a conviction (and a way of life) rather than a "norm". "Institutions" in the sense of structures that are devised to help organize our lives, are essential in a complex world but we mustn't lose sight of the fact that they are not written in stone and are also necessarily barriers to change and learning. Institutions can be so ingrained that we take them for granted. We find it very difficult to look beyond their everyday activities to question what they fundamentally do and challenge their appropriateness. See my article about the hidden curriculum of schools. In what do I see signs that society at large, if not schools in particular, is tending to a more flexible, more open, less top-down approach to exchange and learning? Take what we call personal learning environments (PLEs). Seen from the perspective of learning institutions, they are platforms that enable continued control over learning while allowing learners greater apparent customization of their learning experience. This is a power-driven, institution-centred way of seeing them that tends to impoverish the learning experience. How many promising doors do schools shut when they say no to Facebook, to SMS, to Twitter, to smartphone, etc? PLEs are at their most interesting when they are seen not as platforms for control but as the multiple combinations people make of both the many tools and apps freely available and tailor-made ways of working that are open and best suit their needs at any given moment. These combinations are constantly changing and differ from person to person. And this is how people naturally use them, albeit not necessarily explicitly so. This is where we are going. Failure of schooling institutions to understand the implications of this shift may well lead to declining influence, dwindling budgets and finally irrelevance.
|
|
Alan McCluskey |
Merci pour ces questions Bernard. Dans un article écrit en 1998 intitulé "Complexity and the Networked Society" je parle des idées d'Ilya Prigogine, Prix Nobel, au sujet de la complexité. Cet article répond en partie à tes questions concernant la science. Il faut comprendre que la science et les mathématiques parlent de complexité non pas dans le sens commun des choses, c'est à dire, ce qui est compliqué, mais des choses dont le niveau de complexité est tel qu'émerge de cette complexité des phénomènes nouveaux que l'analyse des parties constituantes de cette situation ne pouvaient pas laisser prévoir. Voici plusieurs citations de Prigogine (traduites en français) de cet article: "Ce n'est plus des situations stables ou permanentes qui nous intéressent, mais plutôt des évolutions, des crises et des instabilités." Prigogine explique que le changement dans la complexité n'est ni linéaire ni évolutif, mais se fait par des ruptures qui émergent de manière inattendue de la complexité elle-même. Les dimensions des changements qui ont lieu ne sont pas proportionnels aux changements des conditions de départ. C'est le fameux effet de papillon! "Nous voyons actuellement l'émergence d'une science qui n'est plus limitée par des situations simplifiées ou idéalisées mais qui plutôt confronte la complexité du monde et permet à la créativité humaine de fleurir comme l'expression singulière d'un trait commun et fondamental à tous les niveaux de la Nature." C'est pourquoi je dis que l'école, pour faire face à la complexité doit également ne plus se limiter à des contextes simplifiés et idéalisés (la logique du livre scolaire et la croyance que un élève ne peut apprendre à partir d'une situation volontairement simplifiée), mais doit confronter la complexité du monde, dans sa complexité, et de manière créative. Prigogine et Stengers parlent d'une nouvelle approche possible: "... le dialogue expérimental basé sur deux éléments essentiels à la relation entre l'homme et la nature: compréhension et modification." Et ils rajoutent: "L'expérimentation requiert une interaction entre théorie et pratique qui implique une véritable stratégie." L'école reste largement ancrée dans le formel et le théorique. Pour aborder une expérimentation elle va devoir accorder plus de place à la pratique et à l'expérience de chacun en tant que champs riche de connaissances. Elle va également devoir faire une place aux changements, non seulement comme sujet d'études mais également comme pratique en son sein. McCluskey A. (1998), Complexity and the Networked Society, Connected Magazine, http:/ Prigogine I, Stengers I (1986) La nouvelle alliance, Folio essais, Paris Prigogine I. (1996) La fin des certitudes: Temps, chaos et les lois de la nature, Editions Odile Jacob, Paris. |
|
Alan McCluskey |
And here is the English translation (and one or two extra ideas) for those who find understanding French difficult. Thanks for these questions, Bernard. In an article written in 1998 called "Complexity and the Networked Society" I spoke of the ideas of Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner, about complexity. To some extent that article answered Bernard's questions about science. It is important to understand that the complexity Prigogine talks about is not that of everyday life where we use the word to mean that which is complicated. Rather it refers to those situations in which the level of complexity is such that completely new and unexpected phenomena emerge from it that no prior analysis of the constituent parts could have predicted. This fact explains the failure of analysis as a tool to understand complexity. Here are a couple of quotes from Prigogine from that article. "It is no longer stable situations or permanency that interest us, but rather evolutions, crises and instabilities." Prigogine explains that change in complexity is neither linear nor evolutive, instead it emerges unexpectedly in the form of ruptures due to complexity itself. The dimensions of the resulting changes are not necessarily proportional to changes in the initial conditions. This is the well known but possibly not so well understood butterfly effect. "We are witnessing the emergence of a science that is no longer limited to simplified, idealised situations but rather one which confronts the complexity of the world and allows human creativity to flourish as a singular expression of a fundamental trait common to all levels of Nature." It is for this reason that school, if it is to be able to embrace complexity, needs to go beyond simplified, idealised contexts (as epitomised by text books and the belief that pupils can only learn from situations that are deliberately simplified) and creatively confront the world in all its complexity. Prigogine and Stengers evoke a possible new approach: "... the experimental dialogue is based on the two essential elements of the relationship between man and nature: understanding and modification." And they add: "Experimentation demands an interaction between theory and practice that implies a veritable strategy." The approach of school remains largely formal and theoretical. To come to terms with experimentation, school is going to have to grant more place to practice and individual experience as a rich source of knowledge alongside the formal knowledge of which it has been the champion. School will also need to grant more room to change, not just as a subject to study, but all it is its own right, with the organisation and its ways of doing things. McCluskey A. (1998), Complexity and the Networked Society, Connected Magazine, http:/ Prigogine I, Stengers I (1986) La nouvelle alliance, Folio essais, Paris Prigogine I. (1996) La fin des certitudes: Temps, chaos et les lois de la nature, Editions Odile Jacob, Paris. |
|
Bernard Vuilleumier |
Merci Alan pour ces précisions, mais je ne suis pas sûr d'avoir bien compris. Lorsque que tu dis
De quelle complexité s'agit-il ? Celle des scientifiques ou celle du sens commun ? Comme tu te réfères à Prigogine, j'imagine qu'il s'agit plutôt de celle des scientifiques. Mais alors une question se pose : comment l'étudient-ils ? Prigogine, qui s'est beaucoup intéressé à l'auto-organisation, a construit un modèle permettant de simuler l'émergence de comportements «complexes» lors de réactions chimiques. Ce modèle (connu sous le nom de Brusselator) fait apparaître des cycles : lorsqu'on mélange deux produits, les réactions chimiques engendrées font varier leur concentration de manière cyclique. Le point remarquable de ce modèle, c'est que ce cycle est indépendant des concentrations initiales : il y a émergence d'un cycle limite. Si on reporte la concentration d'un produit en fonction de celle de l'autre, on obtient quelque chose comme ceci : Or ce modèle est très simple aux yeux des scientifiques. Il s'élabore et s'étudie selon les canons de l'approche analytique (ceux qui seraient intéressés par une usage pédagogique de ce modèle peuvent voir un exemple de question Moodle que je pose à des gymnasiens). Plus récemment, Stephen Wolfram, dans son ouvrage A New Kind of Science, a étudié la complexité. La thèse centrale de cet ouvrage est la suivante : toute la richesse et la complexité du monde physique émergent de règles sous-jacentes très simples. Que penses-tu de cette approche qui contraste avec plusieurs de tes affirmations ? S'il s'agit de l'autre complexité, celle du sens commun, alors j'aimerais bien avoir quelques exemples d'«apprentissage», de «gestion» et de «maîtrise» de cette complexité. Quand on ne voit pas le fond, ce n'est pas toujours que les eaux sont profondes. Elles peuvent être troubles !
|
|
Alan McCluskey |
A summary of this (unfinished) discussion can be found here. |
|