It is hard to believe that anyone still believes that learning is essentially the accumulation of a body of knowledge. And yet, even to this day, the model of learning that continues to prevail is that of learning as ‘filling a pail.’ The professor talks, the students listen. The books are read. And learning is demonstrated by the restatement of the accumulated knowledge in a test answer or essay.
With advanced information and communications technologies, you’d think we could do better. You would think that we could extend the definition of learning so that it encompasses much more than the mere accumulation of information. Yet it may appear that the state of the art in learning technology is a system whereby learning objects are run through an aggregation machine and fed to a willing and compliant learner. As Friesen (2003) observes of the Sharable Content Object model proposed by Advanced Distributed Learning, “Through its depiction of varied content (screw-driver, soldier, teacher) being subjected to the machine processing of a "’earning management system,’ and subsequently being communicated to the relevant organ of the ‘student,’ ‘professional’ or ‘warfighter.’”
In the three previous instalments of this series, we have seen that knowledge is more than a mere accumulation of information, more than a pile of facts.
- Knowledge is an integration of these facts into a system or order, a ‘web of belief.’
- Knowledge management, accordingly, isn’t a collection of bits of information in a database, it is rather the recreation of the web of belief as an information and communications network.
- The application of knowledge to learning isn’t the mere aggregation of clumps of knowledge, it is the devising of a means to provide access to this network in learning situations.
If learning consists of nothing over and above access to the network, as just described, though, then it is in a certain sense no improvement over the model suggested by ADL’s Sharable Content Model; all we have done is extend the definition of content. What we want, if we are to extend our understanding of learning beyond the ‘filling a pail’ metaphore, is to consider the different ways in which we would use access to such a network.
But what ways? We could approach this question variously, but a straightforward and familiar route might be to look at the types of learning we might expect a student to encounter as expressed in, say, Bloom’s taxonomy. In addition to merely ‘knowing,’ a student is expected to ‘analyse,’ ‘synthesize,’ ‘evaluate’ and ‘value,’ to name a few. These capacities are all, in turn, associated with a set of actions. These actions, in turn, suggest approaches to learning design. (Clark, 1999)
This action-based aspect of learning is captured in the Instructional Management System (IMS) learning design specification. As originally described by the Open University of the Netherlands, “Regardless of the pedagogy involved, in practice every learning design came down to: a Method prescribing various Activities for learner and staff Roles in a certain order. Each activity refers to a collection of specific objects and services (called the 'Environment') needed to perform the activity. In order to support the description of individualized learning designs, learner Properties, Conditions, and Notifications are needed.” (IMS, 2003)
To understand the IMS approach to learning design it is most useful to think of the act of learning as being similar to being an actor in a play. Learning design, on this view, is thus the design of all the elements of the play: the script, the setting, the props, and the actors. As the IMS document states, “a person gets a role in the teaching-learning process, typically a learner or a staff role. In this role he or she works toward certain outcomes by performing more or less structured learning and/or support activities within an environment. The environment consists of the appropriate learning objects and services to be used during the performance of the activities.” (IMS, 2003)
This is a clever concept. It captures the idea of learning as a process in which students are guided, and yet in addition requires that they do more than absorb information. It requires that they participate, as actors, in various scenarios. Learning objects, as resources, appear in various guises during the sequence of activities that constitute the play: as stage props, as off-stage prompts, as directors’ instructions, as other characters in the play. In other words, the play gives the student a structure through which they access the knowledge network.
Although IMS describes learning as being like a play, it is arguable – and I would argue – that we should instead look at learning design as being similar to game design. Even in the IMS learning design specifications, though the design is in accord with stated learning objects, the process and outcome may be open-ended, as the ‘Treaty of Versailles’ simulation example suggests. (IMS, 2003a) And the use of a game metaphor enables an additional element the play metaphor does not: success conditions.
In a play, the only indication of success is adherence to the role, in other words, remembering your lines. Placing a student into a play is, therefore, nothing more than a fancy way of making that student memorize facts and perform by rote: just the sort of pedagogy we thought we could overcome with modern information and communication technology.
In a game, however, there is no fixed script. The student must actively decide what to do at any given time. And these decisions have consequences, as the game has various possible outcomes (usually characterized as ‘win’ or ‘lose’, though many more sophisticated scoring systems are possible). In a play, the use of a learning object or resource is by direction, just as it would be in a classroom under a teacher’s instruction. But in a game, the use of a learning resource is motivated by a desire to obtain a successful outcome, and such a motivated use is more likely to be an active use.
The difference between learning design as a ‘play’ and learning design as a ‘game’ is this: in the former, the learners are actors, playing a role, and to more or less a degree, following a script. In a game, however, the learners are agents, seeking to achieve an objective, and to more or less a degree, employing their abilities.
The difference between actors and agents may seem small. But it is the difference between doing what you are told and making decisions for yourself. It’s the difference between our directing learners, or challenging them. And in this small difference lies the core of what information and communication technologies can bring to learning.
Clark, Donald. 1999. Learning Domains or Bloom's Taxonomy.
Friesen, Norm. 2003. Three Objections to Learning Objects.
http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html
(McGreal, R. ed.) London: Kogan Page, forthcoming.
Instructional management System (IMS). 2003. IMS Learning Design Information Model.
Instructional management System (IMS). 2003a. IMS Learning Design Best Practice and Implementation Guide.
All articles in this series by Stephen Downes
What do we know about knowledge?
So What is Knowledge Management Anyway?
From Knowledge Management to Learning on Demand
Learning: More Than Just Knowledge
Designing Learning Objects
Learning Objects Standards
Distributing Learning Objects
Using Syndicated Learning Content
How Learning Communities use learning
Beyond Learning Objects
Learning in Communities
Creating and Capturing New Knowledge
