Learning with robots

In a previous blog post I wrote about learning by making, and discussed the theory of constructionism, which holds that we learn through immersing ourselves in, and engaging with situations. Not to be confused with constructivism (the theory first proposed in its cognitive form by Jean Piaget, and in its social form by Levrenti Vygotskii). A lot of research into learning by making was conducted by Seymour Papert, with notable learning tools such as the LOGO programming language being developed. As far as Papert is concerned, learning in this manner is important because it is a departure from transmission models of education, enabling us to construct and reconstruct knowledge in our own unique ways. One of the first uses for LOGO was to enable children to program a floor robot, giving it instructions to move around the room and perform simple tasks. This remains a very effective learning device - children love the idea of robots, and enjoy being able to control them. When used in conjunction with other talks, floor robots such as Beebot can become very powerful in introducing children to new ideas and new skills, and can encourage them to experiment, learn from their mistakes and develop higher cognitive processes.

This video demonstrates how the theory can be applied to scaffold children's numeracy skills



Learning with robots by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Limitless learning

The personal learning environment (PLE) is still a bone of contention. Over at the Open University of Catalonia, in Barcelona, Ismael Peña-López has been doing some stirling work on theories surrounding Vygotsky's learning model and PLEs. His article can be accessed here in its entirety. Ismael starts by simplifying Vygotskian theory. He reasons that for Vygotsky, learning features three distinct layers: 1) What learners can achieve independently, 2) what they can do with the help of someone else (he calls this a more knowledgeable other or MKO and 3) that which is beyond the learner's reach, even with the help of an MKO.

Layer two can be defined as the Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD. What is interesting about Ismael's model is the way he incorporates the ZPD into a general model of the PLE, and argues that in fact, both MKOs and ZPD can constitute a PLE. This is all premised on whether we conceive of a PLE as a learning philosophy rather than simply a set of tools as most people see it. I'm in agreement with Ismael on this - I see the Personal Learning Environment as more than just a set of tools, or experiences, or environments. For me, the PLE is also more than a counterpoint to the centralisation/standardisation philosophy that spawned the institutional content management systems and services we see commonly today in schools, colleges and universities.

For me, the PLE is peculiar to the individual who makes it. It reflects his personality, learning characteristics and preferences. PLEs are constructed by the individuals who use them. This requires individuals to manage the connections between the tools, experiences, spaces and people, and this is often achieved within a digital framework. It is at the point that we accept that PLE is a learning philosophy, says Ishmael, that the entire vista of possibilities begins to open up to us. Ismael then makes the bold claim: "A PLE can be conformed by virtually everything that exists out in the cyberspace. If virtually everything is at reach, virtually everything can be understood as the more knowledgeable other. With a full, total, comprehensive access to the more knowledgeable other there virtually is no upper limit of the Zone of Proximal Development, there virtually is no level of problem solving that is unreachable for the student." The diagram above illustrates this vast potential very clearly. This is a bold and interesting theoretical punt which should serve to reinvigorate the debate about the purpose and scope of Personal Learning Environments. It means that potentially, if we have the appropriate tools and are connected to the right people, learning will be limitless.

Image by Ismael Peña-López


Limitless learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Have the wheels come off?

A recent article written by Audrey Watters carries the emotive headline The Failure of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), and there has been some heated response. In the article, which is actually balanced and measured, Watters comments on recent media reports that the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Project inspired by Nicolas Negroponte does not increase test scores. She goes on to discuss the implications of this supposed failure with a nod toward the anti-Edtech brigade, whom we assume are saying 'told you so', and also in the context of other technology projects which have had reasonable success. On such project mentioned is Sugata Mitra's Hole in the Wall project (HITW), where computers are placed in villages and deprived areas for children to use with no evident teacher support. A comparison between the two projects is quite helpful.

When compared to Negroponte's OLPC project there are clearly some differences. Although both Negroponte and Mitra believe fervently in a 'minimally invasive education' where children are allowed to explore for themselves, OLPC is conducted largely on a 1-1 computer to child ratio. Ostensibly, this sounds sensible, and with personalised learning high on the political agenda, OLPC has been welcomed with open arms by many governments worldwide, particularly those with widespread poverty. In a real sense, OLPC has been a very real attempt at bridging the socio-economic divide. OLPC does exactly what it says on the tin - it provides one highly resilient laptop computer for each learner.

In the HITW project on the other hand, computers are almost always used by small groups of children, who together work through their exploration, negotiate their meaning and solve problems collaboratively. Perhaps this is the first important difference we need to contend with. Are children better learners when they learn on their own, or when they learn with their peers? Swiss psychologist and child development theorist Jean Piaget would have agreed with the OLPC project. The child is a solo scientist, in Piaget's terms, and this makes discovery learning a most valid approach. Learning on your own, according to Piaget was just as valid as going to school to learn communally. Russian constructivist psychologist Lev Vygotsky would have disagreed with this position, and would probably have pointed to HITW as the most effective way to learn, because in his terms, children acquire their skills through conversation, the use of language and collaborative learning - or in his terms, through the asymmetric relationships that exist within the zone of proximal development.

Notwithstanding this kind of theoretical posturing, a second point to consider is that the HITW project situates computers in communal spaces where they cannot be moved. Does this in some way also situate what is learnt, so that those gathered around it gain something extra that they would not gain from the OLPC's fairly mobile device that can be used in multiple contexts? OLPC and HITW are different, but one is not necessarily any more effective or powerful than the other.

Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, we need to consider the tests used. Are we simply to accept that the tests used by a variety of authorities to measure OLPC children's learning gain are accurate, or appropriate? Are they actually measuring what we should be measuring? As highlighted by several of the comments on the Audrey Watters blog, many are rightly sceptical. Can we (and should we) actually measure the sheer joy of discovering something new? Are we not ignoring the excitement generated by new experiences? Can we quantify how powerful this is as it generates motivation and the impetus to go on and learn more, both inside and outside of the classroom? Can we really accurately capture the many sensory experiences children enjoy when they are learning, and reduce these to a single grade or mark of overall achievement? Finally - is the measure used to gauge the contribution OLPC has made toward learning really necessary? Surely these are immeasurable, and the only reason anyone would attempt to do so, is because there is a hidden political agenda that emerges as  a measure of peformativity (i.e. school league tables). It seems a shame that much funding for innovative education projects relies on centralised government money.  One Laptop Per Child is a Herculean effort at liberating and democratising learning. It should be praised not buried.

Image by Steve Wheeler


Have the wheels come off? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

(re)Designing learning in a digital world

(re)Designing Learning Spaces for a Digital World

View more presentations from Steve Wheeler

My keynote speeches to academic staff at Massey University on the Palmerston North and Wellington campuses this week were accompanied by the slides above. I deliberately inserted a (re) in front of the Designing theme, because I wanted to make it clear that we need to redesign and re-engineer many of our current practices in higher education, including course design, assessment and student support. Things are changing, and so is the nature of knowledge. No longer is it enough for teachers to transmit knowledge to students - much of it quickly goes out of date. In order to prepare students for a coming world of work we cannot clearly describe, we need to instill a flexible set of transferrable skills that include adaptability, change management, creative problem solving, collaboration and a range of digital literacies that will enable them to meet any challenges head on.

In the keynote presentations I tackled some contentious topics, including the issuing of challenges to a number of long standing and widely accepted theories (or beliefs) about how learning occurs. Yesterday's post will give you some clues about my views of learning style theory, but I also challenged a number of 'digital age' theories, including Marc Prensky's notorious Digital Natives and Immigrants theory, Wim Veen and Ben Vrakking's rather more insidious Homo Zappiens model, and Don Tapscott and Anthony William's Net Generation theory. I also challenged Maslow's hierarchy model of motivational needs, and Neil Fleming's VAK modality model of learning approaches. Even Vygotsky's ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) was placed under the microscope as we travelled through a landscape of emerging pedagogies that are aligned to supporting learners in a digital age. Previous commentary by other more eloquent and eminent critics would be better to pursue than any I could possibly articulate here, but in the meantime, I hope these slides will serve in some small way to illustrate the key messages. If you were at either of the two presentations and wish to add your comments or questions you are most welcome to do so in the comments box below.


(re)Designing learning in a digital world by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Seven billion teachers

Everyone on Earth is a teacher. We all have the ability to help others to learn. This is exactly what Vygotsky had in mind when he proposed his famous Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theory. Children (and adults too) can learn more broadly, deeply and extensively if they have a knowledgeable person by their side, than they can on their own. In our society, we often think of that knowledgeable other person as a professional educator, a tutor, lecturer or classroom teacher. But it need not be. Not everyone is cut out to be a professional educator, but anyone can teach and most of us do exactly that, just about every day. The artistry of a good educator though is to continually engage students in learning, to inspire them to persist in their studies and to transfer their own personal passion to that student's learning. The art of education is to draw out the very best from learners, to encourage them to excel at what interests them, and to instill this within them so they continue to do so for the rest of their time on this planet. The very, very best teachers can do all these things, and usually instinctively.

We learn in a multitude of ways, some within formal settings, others less formally. How did you learn to tie your shoelaces? Most people would remember a friend, or a parent showing them how it was done. Then it was practice, practice, practice, until you could do it without thinking. Your first language was acquired naturally before you ever went to school. You learnt informally, listening to your family members speak and then engaging with them as you built your vocabulary. One of the great, unchanging roles of a parent is to be an informal teacher of their children, and older siblings also take a hand. Children today learn a lot of social rules and mores through informal play, long before they ever see a school playground.

If there is any difference at all between formal and informal learning, it is where that learning is heading. What is the study for? In formal learning contexts, learning is usually aimed toward obtaining some kind of qualification, an accreditation of a skill or knowledge. In informal contexts, it's simply about living. Going to school or college can be a real effort, day in, day out. Formalised learning can be a chore, but it need not be. This is where the skilled teacher can make learning engaging and fun, and motivate students to arrive each day anticipating something special. It takes passion, dedication, drive, tenacity and self-belief to become a professional educator. That's the difference between education and teaching, and it is why, although there are 7 billion teachers in the world, only a select few ever go on to become skilled educators.

Image by Momento Mori


Seven billion teachers by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

You've been framed

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development theory has long been revered by the education community as a model for describing what happens when we learn in social contexts. Bright young things will know that the ZPD describes the space where, with the help of a knowledgeable other person, they can extend and enhance their learning beyond that which they might achieve on their own. Reading through the recent blog post by Graham Attwell on Vygotsky's theory, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what has been discussed. Graham has a problem with ZPD in that it implies the presence of a teacher or expert. I agree that this is indeed problematic when we view the amount of self-organised learning and user generated content that is proliferating on the Web. It's blatently obvious we don't always need a 'knowledgeable other' to be breathing down our necks as we negotiate meaning and learn for ourselves in informal settings. Lev Vygotsky's ideas were the product of his lifelong immersion in Communist Soviet society, and it's apparent as you read his writings just how influenced he was by the notion of collective action. Perhaps this is one reason why his work was suppressed for so long and only began to emerge as a major theory of learning long after his premature demise.

Enter Jerome S. Bruner, an American academic who repurposed the idea of the ZPD by introducing the concept of scaffolding (often erroneously attributed to Vygotsky). According to Wikipedia, scaffolding is: '...the provision of sufficient support to promote learning when concepts and skills are being first introduced.' It fades away as the learner becomes more autonomous or expert. If we apply Bruner's ideas we illuminate Vygotsky's model in the digital age. Let's think for a minute: on a building site (the analogy used by Bruner) what is scaffolding used for? It's not used to support the building, because that must ultimately stand on its own. No, scaffolding is there to support the building process - and to support the builders themselves.

Let's now consider that the building represents 'knowledge'. We are constructing this knowledge through a process of exploration, modelling, problem solving and reflecting through interaction with artefacts and social processes. Let's assume the builders represent the learner. The learner uses a number of support mechanisms to achieve the construction of their knowledge. Then the scaffolding is brought down as they move on to the next phase of their learning.

The scaffolding removes the problem of needing a 'knowledgeable other'. It also reconciles ZPD theory with Activity Theory, where social processes and influences assume more importance than social presence. Scaffolding can be any tool or service the learner requires at that time and in that context. It can be a mobile phone or a personal computer. It can be a TV programme or a newspaper, a conversation with a friend or even a chance remark that is overheard. Scaffolding frames the learning process, and supports it, and these are the processes that we see with personal learning environments.

Related posts:

Vygotsky, ZPD, Scaffolding, Connectivism and PLEs (Pat Parslow)
Scaffolding and online synchronous communications (Sarah Horrigan)

Image source

Sharing spaces

When Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky's concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) began to take hold in teaching circles in the 1980s, personal computers were still largely stand-alone, and the World Wide Web was little more than a twinkle in Sir Tim's eyes. Vygotsky was educated in the Stalinist USSR so his ideas of cognitive gain were inevitably tinged with communal ideals, resulting in a theory rooted in social contruction of learning. But how could teachers translate these ideas into authentic learning contexts? A seminal conference paper entitled PC is to Piaget and WWW is to Vygotsky revealed a glimmer of light. The paper was quite prescient, but also wide of the mark, because it was written in 1995. That was of course the year many consider to have marked the emergence of the Web into the mainstream of our consciousness. Yet it wasn't until the social dimensions of the Web began to emerge into mainstream use around 6-7 years ago that Vygotsky's social constructivism approaches began to be realised.

Now we see learners collaborating, corresponding, voting, networking and connecting using a bewildering array of social tools such as wikis, blogs, social networking sites, photosharing and videosharing services and mobile telephony. It has to be documented, and all of us are the ones who will do it.

Below, as I promised in an earlier blog, is my own small contribution - the first in a series of 60 second videos which will illustrate how students are using the social web to create shared learning spaces. In this video you will see that they are not only sharing spaces, but also tools and technologies (a sort of technological multi-tasking) which provides them with their desired and possibly optimised learning spaces. Learning is the same as it ever was, but thanks to the new tools I believe it is also subtly changing.

Click to play

Digital scaffolding

Earlier this week at the Open EdTech Summit in Barcelona, I spent some time with Professor Paul Kirschner of the Open University of the Netherlands. During one of our creative thinking sessions (see yesterday's post) Paul came up with an idea for the support of online learners which I promptly gave a name to. In this post I am briefly going to outline the concept of Digital scaffolding.

As the name indicates, the concept is based on a social constructivist perspective, loosely on the ideas of Lev Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Jerome S Bruner took the idea onwards, by proposing scaffolding as a means of fading support as learners become more expert and independent. These are fairly familiar concepts to most people in education, and simply involves learners being supported to achieve a level of competence or knowledge which goes beyond what they could otherwise achieve on their own. Generally the idea when first expounded, was descriptive of human support. Now, with the advent of digital technologies and intelligent agent software, the concept can be extended.

The problem is this - many learners enter the somewhat 'cold digital wasteland' of online learning with no immediate signposts or recognisable help. Sure, there are FAQ pages and help call numbers, and supposedly a tutor who can provide online support. But how about learners coming into the online environment at exactly the point where they can be challenged and motivated enough to press onwards, but not to the point where they quickly lose impetus and crash out of the programme? How do we use digital media to ensure that learners are challenged just enough within their ZPD and how can we scaffold their learning so they can maintain their progress through their course of studies?

Paul and I believe that intelligent agents and/or expert tutor support can provide this type of digital scaffolding. We will no doubt be working on this idea in the coming year or two to develop it further into a concrete proposition. But that's the germ of the idea. Let us know what you think.