Category: learning theory

Categories
birds exam readings learning theory public participation in science

Exam readings: Public participation in science

Citizen science projects like those at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology are an important venue for science communication. These two papers evaluate whether and what project participants learned about science as a process during two of these projects.

First: Deborah Trumbull, Rick Bonney, Derek Bascom & Anna Cabral. “Thinking Scientifically During Participation in a Citizen-Science Project.” Science Education 84 (2000): 265-275.

Summary: One assumption of citizen science projects is that participants will think more scientifically after participating; this paper analyzes letters written by cit. sci. participants to see whether this is the case. People participated in a bird seed preference test; they received a kit with information on scientific method/process, and instructions for the experiment mentioned that they would be learning about the process of inquiry. Demographics of participants: they tended to be older, well-educated, white, and had positive attitudes about and interest in science. Survey results suggested that, after participation, participants didn’t have changed levels of scientific knowledge. The authors decided to analyze the many unsolicited letters received from participants to look for evidence of inquiry (e.g., clearly identifying problems or hypotheses, designing an experiment, changing procedures if necessary, and analyzing and interpreting the results.) Some people did demonstrate inquiry, but not many (especially consistent observation, changing methods when not working, hypothesis formation.) They conclude that more explicit education about the process of inquiry is probably necessary for people to actually try it out. They also highlight some other potential problems with cit. sci. projects, e.g., people not understanding the point of pooling consistent data from a wide geographic area, or the relationship between prior knowledge and a formal research question.

Comments: The main conclusion here is that citizen science projects do have the potential to increase inquiry, but that it probably has to be emphasized in the instructional materials. Another possibility is that more localized or community-based citizen science projects might promote inquiry through a higher level of interaction (though this might have to be guided in some way…)

Links to: Roth & Lee (measure scientific literacy differently in citizen science projects); Brossard et al. (assessment of learning/attitudes about science in another CLO project)

Second, Dominique Brossard, Bruce Lewenstein, and Rick Bonney. “Scientific Knowledge and Attitude Change: The Impact of a Citizen Science Project.” International Journal of Science Education. 27.9 (2005): 1099–1121. Print.

Summary: Presents an analysis of the learning of participants in the Neighborhood Nestwatch Project (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). This project asked participants to put up nest boxes and report data about birds that used them using standardized protocols. Participants received protocol information, info about bird biology, and practical info about nest boxes; they were also encouraged to interact with CLO staff electronically or via phone. The project had a dual emphasis: collecting wide range of nesting data and increasing participant knowledge and change attitudes. Using a framework of experiential education, authors predicted that bird knowledge and knowledge about scientific inquiry would increase. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (increased attention activates persuasion), they predicted that there would be an increase in positive attitudes toward science and the environment. They found that attitudes toward science and the environment didn’t change (science-beliefs might have been more complex than test questions, or lack of emphasis in educational materials; environment-may have been high to begin with). While knowledge of bird biology increased, knowledge about the scientific process did not (they attribute this to both the level of emphasis of these things in educational materials and participant interest).

Comments: The authors recommend that more emphasis should be made on the scientific context in order to directly increase understanding of science and inquiry. This seems to be a common issue with citizen science projects- people participate with certain interests in mind, and generally this is not to learn more about the scientific process.

Links to: Trumbull et al. (CLO project); Roth & Lee (perspective of science literacy as a communal thing, making it ineffective/inappropriate to test individuals’ knowledge for citizen science projects)

Categories
exam readings identity learning theory

Exam reading: “Life on the screen”

In “Life on the Screen,” Sherry Turkle builds on many interviews with MOO participants (which really is a step back in time) to look at the psychology of computer use:

Summary: Turkle explores ideas about the computer both as a new medium of interaction and as a model for the human mind. The computer provides spaces to explore our own identities: taking on virtual personae and different genders, forming online relationships, and working through psychological problems in a virtual space. For Turkle, computers are an iconic postmodern technology, providing us “objects to think with” and simulate reality (in contrast to earlier notions of the computer as a modernist, hierarchically-programmed tool). Additive models for computer programming (complexity emerges from lower-level parts) have been incorporated into ideas of how the human mind works (“connectionism”). Acceptance of this decentralized mindset is leading us from ideas of the unitary self to a more multiple, fluid self-identity (e.g., there are blurry boundaries between avatars and our real-life personae). We see computers as capable of intention and intelligence, but still draw a sharp line at calling them living. Our comfort at describing ourselves in machine terms and computers in human terms is helping mainstream the idea that humans are programmed “meat machines.” She also discusses drawbacks of increasing virtual experience: loss of the public sphere, devaluation of real experience, and privacy and accountability issues.

Comments: Discussion of specific programs (esp. MUDs), technologies, and trends in AI research is obviously dated, but many of her general observations still apply. Other authors touch on the drawbacks of virtual space more fully; Turkle’s emphasis is on the psychology of computers & virtual spaces.

Links to: Hayles (model of mind); Haraway (multiple identities); Gee (learning by exploration)

Categories
exam readings hypertext learning theory

Exam reading: “Electronic literature”

N. Katherine Hayles has studies a number of issues related to human-technology interaction, including ideas about consciousness, technological determinism, and the physical experience of technology use. In “Electronic Literature,” she explores said genres as a set of metaphors for her earlier work:

Summary: In this book, Hayles builds a case for electronic literature (e-lit) being a metaphor for modern human-computer interactions. She begins by outlining the current diversity in e-lit genres, and discusses the importance of interpreting e-lit while keeping in mind both print and new media theories. She discusses three major ways e-lit reflects on HCI. First, it foregrounds “dynamic hierarchies” (feedback/feedforward systems that tie together objects into dynamic hierarchies) and “fluid analogies” (flexible algorithms that structure interactions), both of which inform her interpretation of how consciousness arises (other key concepts: recursive loops, adaptive systems). Second, it supports her interpretation of where agency resides in HCI (thus, what our framework for study should be). She rejects both technological determinism (e.g., media determine what we can/can’t do) and purely human embodiment (e.g., tools are only important in how they affect the human body), and instead argues that agency is distributed among both humans and their tools. Third, e-lit helps us explore the interactions between the conscious mind and bodily knowledge; it “revalues computational practice” and foregrounds how human agency interacts with nonhuman agents.

Comments: I’m glossing over the many specific examples Hayles uses from e-lit to support her arguments (book comes with a CD with several examples). I have problems with two big arguments on a scientific basis (given, these are not my areas of expertise): the definition of cognition that calls current attempts at AI “aware” (more of a philosophical issue), and the equation of brain plasticity and the ability to learn with genetically heritable change (this is a bigger issue for me, and supports her assertion that tool use has shaped human evolution- my understanding is that this is lacking in empirical evidence at this point).

Links to: McGann (HCI); Manovich (transcoding-multiple layers of meaning); Norman (knowledge of the mind and of the body)

Categories
exam readings learning theory networks

Exam reading” “What video games have to teach us…”

This exam reading, “What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy,” by James Gee, was not what I expected (after an admittedly quick look at the book synopsis). Rather than making the case for incorporating educational video games into the classroom, Gee uses their structural features to highlight techniques for teaching “critical” learning to students:

Summary: In this book, Gee tries to make a case for incorporating inherent teaching principles of video games into educational settings by drawing connectiong between v.g.’s and current learning theories (primarily situated cognition, “New Literacy Studies,” and “connectionism”). Learning occurs within semiotic domains: sets of practices that utilize different media to communicate meanings. These domains have two aspects: content and a social group (“affinity group”) with a specific set of social practices. According to Gee, current educational practices teach content outside of these social contexts, which makes learning shallow (drill and test-based) and difficult to apply to real-world contexts or transfer to new domains. “Critical” learning arises from experience in a domain, affiliation with the affinity group (at least at some level), preparation/practice for future problem solving in the domain, and understanding the “meta” structures of the domain (content and the affinity group). Another important aspect of learning is identity: learners have a core (everyday) identity, a “virtual” identity within the learning situation (e.g., student, elf), and a “projected” identity that involves the desires/motivations for developing your virtual identity in a certain way (e.g., not wanting to let your character down). This projected identity is crucial for critical learning, but can be challenging to achieve. Gee also views learning as situated within in specific contexts, associational and embodied (in the sense of embodying the learner’s choices and actions), rather than abstracted from general principles. Embodied learning occurs in a “probe, hypothesize, reprobe, rethink” cycle; what divides novice learners from experts (“critical learners”) is the added ability to critically evaluate the results within the context of the specific domain they are working in, rather than just from “real life.” Learning should also be scaffolded appropriately to pace students’ learning, and it should be recognized that learning in these contexts is social: different members of a group have different skills, and knowledge will be situated in various tools, symbols, and learners.

Comments: Gee’s work incorporates some concepts I’m familiar with from other contexts: communities of practice, social learning theory, and the associational/mental models theory of memory. His motivation seems to be less about incorporating video games into school settings than using v.g.’s as models of how “critical” learning should operate. Some of these concepts are things I’m looking into in my subject reading lists.

Links to: Spinuzzi (network-based learning); some of my subject reading list authors