Peter Drucker was an Advocate of Cognitive Technologies

4 comments

Posted on 5th February 2010 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds | Cognitive Science | General

“Such subjects – whether reading and writing, arithmetic, spelling, historical facts, biology, and even such advanced subjects such as neurosurgery, medical diagnosis, and most of engineering – are best learned through a computer program. (Drucker. P., 1993)”

Did I read that correctly? Peter Drucker, the “MBA type”, management and leadership guru, is saying that neurosurgery is best learned through the computer? Peter Drucker (1993) writes about how computers will be a solution to improve education by providing opportunities for experiential and self-directed learning. Who would have thought that Peter Drucker was an advocate of self-paced instructional technologies?

One key principle that Drucker points out is that we need to utilize technology to help improve achievement and performance in the workplace (Drucker, 1993). What we typically do is use technology to do the same things we currently do with a slight bit of efficiency. Let me give a few examples in the field of cognitive and instructional technology.

Computer based training has been around since the 60’s but e-learning has only become mainstream since the mid-1990s. The reason for the slow adoption is that e-learning development tools, up until the 1990s, were very difficult to use. You needed to be a computer programmer to use them. Once tools like “Lectora Publisher” and “Toolbook Instructor” began offering simple template based tools to built e-learning quicker, the use of e-learning began to take off. However the technology was not used correctly and is generally not used correctly today. What we do is convert what we do in the training room and convert that to an online lecture and quiz. This is what Drucker refers to as simply doing “old things better”.  When what we should be doing, and some do this well, is looking for ways to use online self-paced learning technologies to teach and learn in ways that we can not do otherwise. This is what Drucker refers to as proper “exploitation” of knowledge. We have the knowledge to create experiential learning experiences in online learning but we simply use the technology for information centric didactic instruction.

I will give you another example regarding the use of 3D virtual live environments for learning. The first thing trainers asked 3D virtual artists to create was a virtual classroom that looks like a classroom. We took the image that we are so familiar with and know is sub-optimal instruction because it does not provide for contextual realistic experiential learning and converted it into a virtual version. This is what Drucker refers to when he said, ” The technology will still be significant, but primarily because it should focus us to do new things rather than because it will enable us to do old things better.” (Drucker, 1993)

Disclaimer: I am not making a negative statement about this software application just the use of it in this particular instance. Having a 3D virtual classroom with students from around the world sensing as if they are in same room does add value and is very cool. However, to address the vision of Peter Drucker we have to find ways to use this cognitive technology to teach and learn in ways that are not possible in the traditional classroom. We want to provide kids in this environment (pictured below) with opportunities to learn in ways not otherwise possible for them. Likewise, in the corporate world, we want to take knowledge workers out of the cubicle and into a space that allows them learn in ways not otherwise possible.

Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness.

Distributed Cognition … Science Fiction or Reality

0 comments

Posted on 4th February 2010 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds | Cognitive Science | Collective Intelligence

Can we observe distributed cognition in multi-player online virtual environments?

In Star Trek the Next Generation the Borg are a race of part machine and part human which makes them cybernetic life forms or cyborgs. They are interconnected by something that they refer to as the “collective”. The “collective” is a network that allows the Borg to work together in unison  at all times no matter where they are. They are part of a network that acts like a neural network in the brain. The other attribute of the Borg is that they are loaded with really cool technologies. The only problem is that they can not put them away when they go to sleep at night because they have been surgically implanted. I think if my 14 year old doesn’t stop texting non stop, his cell phone will eventually be permanently linked to his hands. There’s an idea for an innovation. Who needs a keyboard to text when you can surgically implant the ability to text right into our finger tips.

This sounds a bit like “distributed cognition” described by Edwin Hutchins in his book “Cognition in the Wild” (Hutchins,1995) Edwin Hutchins worked for the U.S. Navy as a Research Phychologist in the early 1980s. Edwin Hutchins decided to spend time on a naval vessel observing how the men on board worked together in unison. He gathered both quantitative and qualitative data using numerous data collection techniques. In the first 5 chapters of his book he takes you through an excruciating tour of that data collection process. If you happen to be in Navy or ex-Navy and in the learning and development profession, this book will have you riveted. For the rest of us, read Chapter 1 and then jump to Chapter 6 where he talks about situated contextual learning and the concept of distributed cognition.

“It (Hutchins’ research) is about locating cognitive activity in context, where context is not a fixed set of surrounding conditions but a wider dynamical process of which the cognition of an individual is only a part.” (Hutchins, 1995)

So Hutchins selected a Naval vessel as the context and the dynamic process that he observed was the myriad of interconnected activities involved with navigating a large Naval vessel. While Hutchins was on board, as luck had it, the ship had a power failure and the teams on board had to spring into action to resolve a life threatening situation. He was able to observe a unique dynamic of multiple individuals working as if they were one distributed cognition. Now he does not suggest anything metaphysical going on here. This is a very well designed research study. The basic premise is nothing new. Dewey (1938) talked about learning through experience. Bandura (1977) talked about learning in a social context through observation. Lave and Wenger emphasis the concepts of situated learning. Hutchins merged these theories into general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969) and observed all of it, in the context of a closed and very complex system. And this is were we start to look at learning both as the individual cognitive learning  and the social context for learning, both being part of the learning process.

“In reality, however, participation in social practice – subjective as well as objective – suggests a very explicit focus on person, but as person-in-the-world, as member of sociocultural community. As an aspect of social practice, learning involves the whole person; it implies not only a releation to specific activities, but a relation to social communities – it implies becoming a full participant, a member, a kind of person.” (Lave & Wenger, 1991)

Now consider how corporate and public education manage learning. We sit people in seats in rows and columns and have them face forward, and please hold your questions till the end. So why don’t we listen to near 70 years of research and practice and consider how we could apply these principles with today’s cognitive technology capabilities? Ok, so not all training courses look this bad. In fact there are quite a few excellent hands-on experiential training courses out there. I used to teach a few of them when I worked as a technical stand up instructor.

However, is there a cognitive technology that can get us to where we want to be? The obvious technology that can integrate all of these concepts and what Hutchins (1995) observed on board the Palau, is through 3D live virtual environments which consequently are build on an object oriented model to allow for another learning theory to be introduced, which is Instructional Transaction Theory (Merrill, 1996). Although I will also mention that not all 3D virtual software packages are created equal. It is important to understand the back-end technology, down to how the system is coded, to ensure that it will be able to support the theory. However, this is a topic for a future post.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969). General System Theory Foundations, Development, Applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognitions in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning, Legitamate Peripheral Participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Merrill, M. D., & ID2_Research_Group. (1996). Instructional transaction theory: instructional design based on knowledge objects. Educational Technology, 36(3), 30-37

Information is Not Instruction, Dr. David Merrill

2 comments

Posted on 23rd January 2010 by admin in Instructional Strategies

Dr. David Merrill is one of the true founding fathers and visionaries of effective instructional technology design with over 40 years in academia, research and consulting in the field of instructional technology. He is the true evangelist for well designed instruction, both instructor led and e-learning. I have met Dr. Merrill and heard his lectures on several occasions and consider him to be a mentor from afar. I remember watching Dr. Merrill in the mid-90s at one of first ASTD technology conferences in Orlando. I was hooked on his message and have been an follower of Dr. Merrill’s message ever since. I am also an alumni of Dr. Merrill’s summer instructional technology institute at USU. I remember being a bit star struck as I stood at the sign-in booth at the conference and started to meet the experts and theorists in the field who were signing in. We were even invited to Dr. Merrill’s home to see his incredible train set.

The problem is that our instruction in the training industry is still very information centric after all these years. Drucker pointed out that knowledge that does not improve productivity simply becomes information (Drucker, 1993). If we create new knowledge and then simply drop it into a searchable database, we have lost the productive yield of that information.

Please watch this video and make it your goal and mission to develop effective instruction and not just “good looking fancy” instruction. We also need to focus on designing instruction so that it leverages knowledge in such a way that it will improve performance and productivity in the workplace.

Dr. David Merrill, Effective Instruction

Papers written by Dr. Merrill

Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness.

Virtual Mind Folders

1 comment

Posted on 21st January 2010 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds | Cognitive Science | Collective Intelligence

This past week, I attended a seminar hosted by, Microsoft,  Proton Media, a 3D virtual meeting company, and Erica Driver from Thinkbalm.

The title of the event was, “Life Sciences 2010“. It is difficult to say what the focus of the seminar was. Several topics were discussed. As I walked into the lobby I was greeted by Proton Media employees and a book signing by Tony O’Driscoll for his new book, “Learning in 3D“, which he co-authored with Dr. Karl Kapp. My expectation was that the focus would be on learning in 3D virtual worlds in the context of the life sciences industry. That is not what we covered. The seminar was focused on how to manage the cacophony of information, that we deal with everyday, bring it together and make meaning out of it. And with 3D virtual spaces we do not have to manage the information alone, we can invite others into the mental dance in a form of distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995).

Erica Driver gave a very nice presentation and presented the challenges that we face specifically in the life sciences industry today.

  • We are facing more and more mergers and acquisitions.  This topic is close to my heart. The company that I work for is in the process of the merger and integration process. It is a very stressful and ambiguous process. You are bringing together two global corporate cultures that have evolved for nearly a century.
  • In the life sciences industry, the life cycle to bring a new product to market is anywhere from 10-15 years. During this time, team members come and go, business units re-organize, regulations change and even the needs of the patients change. It is really difficult to keep a consistent ongoing process over such a long period of time.
  • We need to practice better cross divisional, cross disciplinary collaboration and communications in the 21st century life sciences industry.

So the question is, how can 3D virtual collaboration environments help to address these issues? This was, I suppose the focus of the seminar. I was hoping for a greater emphasis on creating learning organizations through the use of 3D virtual environments but the focus was truly around the collaboration capabilities of 3D virtual environments which is the current header title line on Proton Media’s website, “Virtual Collaboration for Business.”

I sketched a drawing as Erica and other panel members discussed a concept that suggests that 3D virtual environments have the potential to merge or unify disparate data and information that comes to us in many forms through the business day. These include all forms of information content through web sites, email, voice mail, instant messaging, online learning content, social networking discussions, .. etc. So how do you bring it all together and make meaning out it? How do you construct knowledge that is useful out of all the information streams coming at you every day through multiple channels? Sound familiar? It is starting to sound like constructivist theories for learning.

Another point made is that we live in a 3D context all the time. We do not work and collaborate on a flat 2 dimensional surface. We meet, collaborate, problem solve and learn in a 3 dimensional space. However most of us stare into a iPhone, Blackberry or laptop at a 2D screen with multiple channels of information which can sometimes be quite overwhelming. So imagine bringing all that information together in a single room and placing it on the walls, in 3D charts and graphs and even 3D objects. Now walk into your room of information with a few friends. It is sort like inviting friends into your mind to see how you are bringing it all together in a synthesis of contextualized information. Let’s add a bit here, take a little away there, analyze it and synthesize it some more. It is truly a cognitive extension of you brain, a place to keep your thoughts in a 3D virtual folder.

The space doesn’t have to look like your cluttered desk. It should be your happy place like the middle of a field with some trees, birds chirping and maybe a babbling brook. Place your stuff there, move it around, think about it and when your are ready, invite some of you colleagues in to add some of their thoughts.

References

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Skinner, Virtual Environments and Behavioral Change

0 comments

Posted on 13th January 2010 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds | Cognitive Science

 In B.F. Skinner’s (1971) book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”, he introduced the concept that behavior is directly influenced by the environment. Skinner stated, “Young people drop out of school, refuse to get jobs, and associate only with others of their own age not because they feel alienated but because of defective social environments in homes, schools, factories and elsewhere.” This was a unique concept that environments would have an impact on behaviors.

This is the quote that caught my attention in terms of what we might be able to do as instructional technologists, “Behavior which operates upon the environment to produce consequences (“operant behavior) can be studied by arranging environments in which specific consequences are contingent upon it.” He then states, “… changes in the environment of the individual have quick and dramatic effects.” (Skinner, 1971). Consider as a thought experiment if you could wave the magic wand and change the environment of an inner city classroom. In a moment it is transformed into a rich hands on learning environment. It were the words “arranging environments” that caused me to reflect on what we are now doing in virtual learning environments.

In New York City, Mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to test the concept of changing the environment in order to reduce crime. It was a controversial concept but it appears to have worked. He changed a few small things in the environment and somehow crime went down. So this would suggest that if a child is living in a neighborhood with old battered buildings, and graffiti on the walls, bad odors, that his behavior will be impacted as a result. Take that same child and place them in a clean orderly neighborhood and the child’s behavior will change for the better.

At IDEO, an innovation company, Tom Kelley explains that they try to create an environment of creativity. Google seems to do the same thing. The environment has a direct impact on behavior in the workplace. Now I reflect on my workplace which has rows and columns of never ending fabric covered boxes in a drab beige color. This type of environment changes the behavior of workers.

So what does this have to do with cognitive technology? Training and education, according to Skinner, Gagne and Mager is about changing behavior. Instructional designers define measurable learning objectives, develop training programs and hope that they impact a positive change in behavior.

What if we could place people in a simulated virtual environment that takes them from the drab cubicle to a large spacious room with lots of plants and running water, maybe with the soft sound of birds singing in the background. Now within that environment, task them with learning a new concept or solving a complex business problem. Could we change the motivational level to learn in the same way that the child changes his or her behavior in the clean orderly neighborhood? It is really an unanswered question but in theory motivation should go up.

Have you ever gone to a dark, dreary library with the musty smell of books. It is so quiet you hear your own heart beat. Are you motivated to stay and peruse the books. I want to get what I need and then quickly get the heck out of there.

Consider the classrooms in most public schools. Take a look at the image below. This is the vantage point for most learning in public schools around the world. I can just smell the chalk dust when I look at this picture. And oh boy were those seats comfortable. No wonder we all have bad backs. No wonder Einstein stared out the window. He was bored. Environment changes our behaviors. Desire to learn is a behavior.

How about a classroom that looks like this? That’s my character in 2nd Life, sitting in a lounge chair gazing out at the stars. Now add a group of people to sit around and discuss what they are seeing. Get out of the chair and fly around the solar system. Rather then talk about Egypt, go there and explore the pyramids. Now in that environment challenge your students with a difficult question, while standing amoung the pyramids or sitting in chairs in front of the moons of Jupiter. I believe that the conversation will be much richer in this environment then the drab rows and gray cinder block of the typical classroom.

References

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam/Vintage Books

Have we learned anything since Dewey regarding experiential learning?

4 comments

Posted on 8th January 2010 by admin in Cognitive Science | General | Instructional Strategies

First let me say that if Dewey where to sit and observe the teaching model in today’s modern public schools he would probably be appalled that so little has changed. Dewey’s concern for children learning from purely didactic lectures based on information from the past is still a problem today. (Dewey, 1963) Children have very little opportunity during a school day to learn by experience other then the walk to and from school.

I have a 14 year old son Steven. Last year I was called into a teachers conference to discuss Steven’s lack of motivation to follow the direction of his history teacher. The teacher began to explain to me that the students were asked to copy facts from a sheet of paper that I could tell was created over 20 years ago and transpose the facts to another sheet of paper. The teacher actually could not understand why my son lacked the motivation to perform this task.

Modern theorists like Kolb (1984) and Merrill (1994) have expanded off of the theories of Dewey to develop models for experiential and task centric teaching models. However, like Dewey, Kolb and Merrill are just as frustrated with the state of instruction in our schools and adult learning centers, as was Dewey at the turn of the century. Merrill (1994) has exclaimed in so many of his papers and lectures that “information is not instruction”, followed by an emphasis on the need for whole task centric instructional strategies.

Other then a few select progressive schools, the scene is generally the same in all of our U.S. based schools. From children in the 1st grade to adults in their first years of college, you can observe students sitting passively in their plastic molded desks, textbooks in hand, listening to the rants of the wise teacher or professor at the front of the room. The books are more colorful and now available in an electronic format, but in reality, very little has changed in a hundred years.

References

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Merrill, M.D. (1994) Instructional Design Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications

Heidegger, Things and Learning Objects

0 comments

Posted on 1st January 2010 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds | Cognitive Science | Learning Objects

In Heidegger’s philosophic description of things, he uses physical objects to discuss things like the jug or the chalice. In his essay entitled, “Things”, Heidegger uses the analogy of a jug filled with wine to provide his philosophy on things or objects. The truth of the jug is not known until you pour out the wine and consider the whole system, the source, the purpose and the recipient of the wine. The wine comes from the grape. The grape comes from the earth and the sun. The wine can be poured to honor the gods as a libation: bringing all these together in “mirror-play.” In other words it’s not the jug or the wine that are the things, it is the four-fold unity as Heidegger suggests that gives meaning to the thing.

So how do we look at the soft programming objects developed by writing lines of text in a programming language?

Computer programmers follow a methodology referred to as object oriented programming in which they create small mini-programs that represent objects. These objects have attributes such as name and type, and functions referred to as methods. Programming objects can act and be acted upon. They function like a template that they can be used to create or instantiate new objects over and over again. For example a text box in Power Point is an object. Every time you create a new text box in Power Point , you are instantiating an object. It is a very simple object but it is an object nonetheless.

For a much richer understanding of soft objects, visit Second Life (www.secondlife.come) and learn how to create an object. What would Heidegger have thought of “prims” as objects in virtual environments like Second Life? Here’s a video from Dr. Tony O’Driscoll on the seven sensibilities of virtual worlds, including sense of self and sense of distance which I suspect Heidegger would have had to much to say about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2jY4UkPbAc

In the world of knowledge and learning management we deal with soft objects more then hard objects. We deal with information and the context of information. The computer, the mp3 player or the CD-ROM for that matter are physical objects that contain the soft objects. So how can we apply Heidegger’s metaphor of the jug and the four causes to knowledge and learning management objects?

References

Heidegger, Martin, (1971). The Thing. Poetry, Language, Thought. (Albert Hofstadter, Trans.).(pp. 165-182). New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

Virtual Worlds and Dreams

0 comments

Posted on 24th October 2009 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds

Second Life is one of many virtual world products on the web that allows a user to assume an avatar persona and socially interact with other people in a virtual world. On October 24th, 2009, 9:40 am eastern standard time, there were 52 thousand people logged into Second Life. In the past 60 days 1,222,789 people logged into Second Life. In addition to Second Life there are currently 150 virtual worlds online today and by 2012 that is expected to grow to 900. (Mitham, 2009)

The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of this new phenomena in terms of learning in these environments. These environments are live social environments and as a result learning theories including social learning (Bandura, 1977), and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) could apply to these environments but there is very little research in this field to confirm that social learning is occurring and more importantly if newly learned behaviors are transferred to the external world. Bandura (1977) discovered in his experiments then when a child watched a video of someone hitting a punching bag in anger that they would imitate the behavior. However in virtual 3D worlds you are not only watching the behaviors of others but you are watching a projection of yourself in the third person. It is like watching yourself in a dream and having control over what is happening in your dream.

Virtual worlds are now being introduced into the workplace for the purpose of supporting organizational learning goals. If  organizations jump into these unchartered waters too quickly the technology could be quickly rejected by learners in large global and highly diverse organizations.

How can we categorize the learning if any, that is occurring when people engage in activities in an online virtual environment? Can we observe the application of theories in social learning, specifically situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in online virtual learning activities and are the behaviors demonstrated online, transferred to the real world or do they remain in the virtual environment? If the behaviors remain in the virtual environment then the technology has very little value supporting organizational learning goals which seeks to change behavior in their employees. In fact, this study could discover that learning in these environments could negatively impact behaviors in the workplace.

References
Bandura, Albert. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Print.

Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press

Mitham, N. (2009, September 16). Laying out the foundations of Lifelogging. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/?s=Number+of+Virtual+Worlds

Social Learning Theory – Old Wine in New Virtual Bottles

6 comments

Posted on 23rd October 2009 by admin in Cognitive Science

Learning in a Social Environment for 20 Years
We all grew up learning in a social environment in a traditional teacher centric classroom. The learning was normally information centric and intentionally not contextualized. Then we went on to college to sit in a live lecture hall with a large group generally followed by a small group practical or lab experience. As a result, following sixteen to twenty years of learning in a social environment, it is not natural to arrive at a corporation and learn using an online asynchronous elearning models. However, corporations, for the past 15 – 20 years have pushed self-paced elearning to their employees, while learners and trainers continually fight back asking for live classroom and lecture style experiences.

A Decade of Poor Online Programmed Learning
Despite the availability of nearly 50 years of research in instructional technology, much of corporate self-paced online learning is boring and in-effective. Very few online learning modules actually apply research in learning theory other then the fundamental programming instruction principles developed by Skinner in the 1960s. Money is frequently wasted both in the development of poor online instruction together with the lost opportunity time consumed when workers are forced to sit through ineffective online learning.

Three Generations Working and Learning Together
There are currently three generations in the workplace all with varying experiences learning from technology. The generation currently entering college have never known a time when there was no internet or online gaming. They have never known a time when they couldn’t communicate instantly to anyone with an internet connection in the world. How do we merge the learning styles of the Atari© Generation of the 80s with Playstation© Generation of the 90s and coming soon the virtual online generation of the new millennium. Games are now played live online with players from all over the world.

New live collaborative learning technologies promise to offer functionality to support social, action and situated learning theories, specifically multi-user 3D virtual environments. (Dieterle & Clarke, in press) The investment in these environments can be quite high and acceptance by older generations can be quite a challenge. Situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) suggests that learning occurs in a collaborative contextualized setting however it is difficult and costly to implement situated learning theory in traditional corporate learning programs. Online virtual 3D environments provide an opportunity to explore the application of social learning principles like Action Learning Theory and Situated Learning Theory in ways that were not previously possible.

References:

Dieterle, E., & Clarke, J. (in press). Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In M. Pagani (Ed.),Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and networking (2nd ed). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.

Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press

Applying action theory in multi-user learning environment to corporate disaster

0 comments

Posted on 10th October 2009 by admin in Cognitive Science

There is no question that we have a serious social problem in regards to the developing values and ethics in management. We have skilled managers but how are they looking at problems and addressing them. What values are they using to make decisions? Clayton Cristensen points out that when management constantly follows after the profits, which every MBA program tells them they should, they can fall into a trap of growing a company beyond it’s bounds to support it. This results in cycles of lay-offs, mergers and consolidations. Finally the company can not sustain these cycles and simply die. Can learning technologists and learning theorists come to the rescue?

Action learning theory tells us what most instinctively know, that we learn through working out relevant problems, practicing our skills and reflecting upon them (Pedler, 2005). Social learning theory suggests that we learn through modeling after demonstration and also when we know that a positive reward will be provided if we pay attention to the modeling. (Bandura, 1977) Situated learning suggest that we learn when we practice in context of the real life task (Lave & Wenger 1991). Despite the research in these foundational learning principles, we still find learning in corporate training centers delivered either in a traditional lecturer centered setting or through knowledge centric online learning. Very little learning is contextualized and provides for sufficient practice, reflection and social learning. New learning technologies promise to offer these attributes, specifically multi-user virtual environments. (Dieterle & Clarke, in press)

Can multi-user virtual environments support action learning and social learning, and situated learning theory more effectively than individualized learning models and technologies?

Keywords: action learning, social learning theory, multi-user virtual environments, distributed cognition, situated learning

References:

Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Print.

Dieterle, E., & Clarke, J. (in press). Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In M. Pagani (Ed.),Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and networking (2nd ed). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.

Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press
.
Pedler, Mike. “A General Theory of Human Action.” Action Learning: Research and Practice 2.2 (2005): 127-32. Print.

« Older Entries