In Alan Kay's Dynabook
it is best to learn something kinesthetically, then iconically, and finally the intuitive knowledge will be in place to allow the more powerful but less vivid symbolic processes to work at their strongest(Kay1990).
What said scientific studies on the field of learning by doing and other
related pedagogical approaches?
What research says
Meta-analysis (Filip Dochy et al.) shows that learning-by-doing is
beneficial with know-how activities, particularly when the know-how is directly
related to kinetic manipulations. When learning new notions, on the other hand,
the benefit is at best null. Moreover, another study[1] revealed that the required manipulations can
be an obstacle when learning, requiring too much cognitive attention from the
learner, exhausting the available cognitive resources to effectively learn the
targeted notions. Worse, the less the learner knows about the notion, the more
difficult it will be for him/her to progress and learn[2].
These studies prove learning-by-doing is beneficial in some situation but is
not a universal learning model. What really matters from the learner
perspective is to be active... in his/her own head!
Inquiry learning is another model the Dynabook was designed to facilitate,
as brilliantly illustrated in the Squeakers documentary[3]. Inquiry learning, first conceived by
Rabelais, Montaigne, and Rousseau, is a very powerful idea. Its assumptions is
that knowledge discovery is intrinsically linked to the human progress. This
learning model is at its best to learn scientific methodology, particularly
under a strong teacher guidance as seen in the Squeakers documentary; however
this learning methodology is not effective to learn scientific facts and
notions[4].
The other learning model cherished by A. Kay is the problem solving
approach[5] favored by the constructivism movement. The
Dynabook design, particularly its GUI, favors the approach of learning by
doing. It is reflected in the nature of Smalltalk: direct modifications of its
user interface and its library system, the live development techniques, and
learning from the environment itself. All these technical paradigms open the
door to direct manipulations and learning by doing.
Not sure these technical
paradigms help the learner in a problem solving approach. Moreover, it has been
since proven by several scientific studies[6] that the problem
solving approach is most of the time ineffective compared to other techniques
such as learning by the examples. Again the main drawback of the problem
solving approach is the enormous cognitive overload put on the learner.
Moreover, the fewer knowledge the learner owns, the heavier the overload. It is
again a socially unfair approach.
Perspectives
The Dynabook concept is based on these learning models - learning by doing,
inquiry and problem solving approaches, all linked to the constructivism
movement. These approaches are not universal and to be effective they must be
used with dedicated and appropriate guidance from a teacher.
It is true that there is a strong romance in the Dynabook concept: a learner
discovering a new concept and building its computerized model[7]. There is a dual cognitive constraint here:
an as-yet unknown concept and programming its model. It is unlikely to
happen.
Nevertheless it does not make the Dynabook concept irrelevant. On the
contrary it should be given more attention to facilitate other learning
approaches scientifically proven to be effective. Moreover, the Dynabook
concept was thought to be a malleable computing tool. This remains a necessity
so that it can be adjusted to any new effective learning approach emerging in
the future. A. Kay's Dynabook approach is centered around the child. Sadly the
teacher - or any other person playing the role of learning guide - is mostly
invisible. It will be very interesting to look at the Dynabook from the teacher
perspective, too, taking the point of view of the person owning the
knowledge.
What does it mean for Dynabook to be a malleable tool from this
perspective?
Any opinion on the topic? If so leave a comment for further reflection.
Thanks to Chao-Kuei Hung for his editing.
Notes
[1] F. Bara, A. Tricot, Le rôle du corps dans les apprentissages symboliques: apports des théories de la cognition incarnée et de la charge cognitive, Recherche sur la philosophie et le langage, 2017[2] J. Sweller, P. Ayres, S. Kalyuga, Cognitive load theory, Springer, 2011
[3] B. MacBird, Squeakers (TV documentary), Ball State University, 2002
[4] E.M. Furtak, T. Seidel, H. Iverson, D.C. Briggs, Experimenting and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research, 82, 2012
[5] A. Kay, The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design (pp. 191–207), Addison-Wesley, 1990
[6] J. Sweller, G. A. Cooper, The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra, Cognition & Instruction, 1985
[7] A. Kay, A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages, Xerox Palo Alto RC, 1972
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire