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

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Thanks Andy for a hake of a story on false positives in fmri studies. There
is a lot to be cautious about. What sort of blows me over at times are
studies such as those on expert abacus users that find, for example, that
you get lots of action in the right parietal and related areas when they are
calculating away with their mental abacuses. So? Every theoretician since
Lashley would say that such processing happens there for that kind of visual
task. They would drop dead if they did not see see such activation. But
instead, when its there, its suddenly more real than the amazing sums such
people can calculate with the arms folded.

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