Special Issue on knowledge transformation, design and technology Three papers from the Technology-Enhanced Learning Research Programme
Special Issue on knowledge transformation, design and technology Three papers from the Technology-Enhanced Learning Research Programme
复制标题
知识转化、设计和技术特刊技术强化学习研究计划的三篇论文
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00466.x
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Noss R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Noss R
技术能促进学习吗？尽管学习和计算科学领域的许多研究人员进行了干预，但到目前为止，这是从业者和政策制定者以及稳定的研究人员在该领域引用最多的问题。然而，在过去的十年左右，人们逐渐认识到这个问题的局限性，以及它的技术中心主义，即把角色归于技术，而忽视了环境和活动。注意力已经转移到技术如何介导学习，不同的技术如何以不同的方式塑造学习和教学，以及如何设计技术来影响教学和教师的行为。由经济和社会研究理事会及工程和自然科学研究理事会共同资助的技术强化学习研究方案是教学和学习研究方案的后续方案，它突出了这一意识，强调需要进行跨学科研究，将设计、实施和评估研究结合起来，从而明确认识到远程教育领域的研究可以而且应该是多么复杂。作为这项工作的一部分，人们的注意力正在含蓄地转向增强隐喻的局限性，这种隐喻鼓励人们相信，技术进入学习文化就像在食谱中添加成分一样。更重要的是，增强的隐喻认为要增强的东西是理所当然的。它导致了一种倾向，即把知识本身看作是学习转变中的一个不变量，问是否有技术就能更容易、更快、更有效地获得某些知识。这种观点的局限性在于没有认识到知识本身是由计算机的存在介导的，没有认识到知识是如何被技术重塑的，重新思考可以学到什么，与问一个给定的学习如何有效一样重要。这就是Seymour Papert所说的“10%的挑战”--研究人员需要至少花一点时间--10%的时间--思考认识论，而不仅仅是认知或教育学。一种方法是强调元认知主题，寻找证据表明基于技术的学习将注意力集中在解决问题、启发式策略的发展或参与和动机的情感维度上。然而，这只是对Papert挑战的部分承认。另一种选择是考虑认识论而不是（Meta）认知，询问当技术使新的表征基础设施的出现成为可能时，所涉及的知识会发生什么变化;技术如何不仅在如何获取知识方面发生变革，而且如果技术经过深思熟虑的设计和部署，（Kaput et al.2002; Wilensky & Papert 2010）。这种方法的一个重要推论是，技术具有相互作用，对新的表征形式的研究为当前的实践和教学提供了一个窗口（Noss & Hoyles 1996）。任何变革性的技术都需要时间来采用自己的惯例并建立其独特的文化-早期电影中经常被引用的“拍摄舞台”就是一个很好的例子：摄像机改变了表演、导演、情节等概念。对这种转变的研究可以告诉我们很多关于学习的事情，在多大程度上建立教学实践，甚至创新实践实际上是由现有技术的约束和塑造，以及如何新的类型...
Does technology enhance learning? Despite the intervention of numerous researchers in both the learning and computing sciences, this is by far the most cited question in the field on the part of practitioners and policymakers alike, as well as a steady stream of researchers. Slowly but surely, however, the last decade or so has seen some acknowledgement of the question’s limitations, and its technocentrism in ascribing roles to technology that ignore context and activity. Attention has shifted to how technology mediates learning, how different technologies can shape learning and teaching in different ways, and how technology can be designed to influence the behaviours of teaching and teachers. The successor to the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, the Technology-Enhanced Learning Research Programme, funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, flagged this awareness, stressing the need for interdisciplinary research that incorporates research on design, implementation and evaluation, thus recognizing explicitly how complex research in the field of TEL could and should be. As part of this work, attention is implicitly turning to the limitations of the enhancement metaphor, which encourages a belief that technology enters into the culture of learning like some addition of an ingredient to a recipe. More importantly, the metaphor of enhancement takes for granted the immutability of what is to be enhanced. It leads to a tendency to render knowledge itself as an invariant in the transformation of learning, asking whether the acquisition of some knowledge is easier, or faster, or more efficient with technology than without it. The limitations of this view lie in a failure to recognize that knowledge itself is mediated by the computer presence, and that understanding how knowledge is reshaped with technology, rethinking what can be learned, is every bit as important as asking how effectively a given piece of learning can be effected. This is what Seymour Papert calls the ‘10% challenge’–the need for researchers to spend at least a little time–10% will do–thinking about epistemology rather than only cognition or pedagogy.One approach is to stress metacognitive themes, looking for evidence that technology-based learning focuses attention on problem solving, the development of heuristic strategies or the affective dimensions of engagement and motivation. However, this is only a partial recognition of Papert’s challenge. The alternative is to consider the epistemological rather than the (meta-) cognitive, asking what happens to the knowledge at stake as it is transformed by the advent of new representational infrastructures made possible by technology; how technology can be transformational not only in terms of how knowledge is accessed, but also of how the landscape of knowledge is potentially reconfigured if technology is designed and deployed thoughtfully (Kaput et al. 2002; Wilensky & Papert 2010). An important corollary to this approach is that there is a reciprocal role for technology, in which the study of new representational forms offers a window (Noss & Hoyles 1996) on current practice and pedagogy. Any transformative technology takes time to adopt its own conventions and establishes its distinctive cultures–the much-cited ‘filming the stage’of early film is a good example: the camera transformed the notion of performance, of direction, of plot and so on. The study of this transformation can tell us much about learning, how far established pedagogic practice–or even innovatory practice is in fact constrained and shaped by existing technology, and how new kinds …