Systems Thinking and Simulations: Part II

2 comments

Posted on 19th February 2010 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds |Experiential Learning |Simulations

“We learn best from experience, but we never experience the consequences or our most important decisions. How then can we learn? (Senge, 1990)”

We all work and live in complex systems. However we learn how to interact with segments or parts of these systems as opposed to learning the whole. For example in an end-to-end product development system, the end user or client places the demand on the system. Clients are spread out over large areas and their reasons for placing demands on the system vary. Product development systems normally are fragmented and spread out over the globe in some cases.

Consider a modern development process where the marketing research occurs in one location, design and prototyping occur in another location, production at an over seas manufacturing facility and finally it enters the global sales and distribution network. Normally the way we learn about these systems is with information centric “system overview” presentations followed by each team or group learning their respective roles in segmented training courses or curricula. There is a problem with this approach. What people do not learn, as Senge (1990) suggests, is how all the parts and processes interact with one another over time and distance.

Most of the systems that we work in are now very global. As a result of this larger distribution of the segments, the system becomes ever more complex and it becomes more difficult to understand how our actions will impact some other part of the system. Some of these added complexities include: local culture, language, policies and regulations. To make matters worse, the systems that we work in also include environmental and global economic impacts. So how can someone learn how the entire system works and how their small actions impact the larger system? The answer suggested by Senge (1990) is through the use of simulations which he refers to as “microworlds”.

“Microworlds will, I believe, prove to be a critical technology for implementing the disciplines of the learning organization. And they will accomplish this by helping us rediscover the power of learning through play. (Senge, 1990, p. 315)”

In 1990, Senge presented screen shots of simulations developed on a Macintosh, probably developed in Pascal. Pascal, named after the scientist and philospher Blaise Pascal, was a very early object oriented programming language which is needed to develop object based simulations. What do I mean by object based simulations? Let’s consider a very simple system like the heating system in your home.

The system has a thermostat used to adjust the desired temperature which is the setpoint. The thermostat also has a temperature sensor to receive feedback from the system, your house, in terms of current temperature. What the thermostat does is determine if there is a gap between the current temperature and the desired temperature (setpoint). If the temperature is below the setpoint, a switch is closed and your heater motor starts up, blowing hot air throughout the house. Once the air temperature around the thermostat reaches setpoint, the thermostat switch opens and shuts down the motor. If we were going to develop an object based simulation for this system, we would create several objects in a programming language.

  • House
  • Windows
  • Air
  • Thermostat
  • Switch
  • Blower Motor
  • Person 1
  • Person 2

What the programmer would do is create a representation of each one of those objects and program into the object the variables and functionality for each. The house might be the object that connects all the other objects. If a window is open, then temperature of the air in the house goes down, if the air outside the house is colder then the temperature inside. Why did I select two persons as objects? Because we all know that people have different preferences for what is a normal temperature in the house and person 1 might walk up and drop the setpoint on the thermostat or open a window if he or she is too warm. Now once you have your single house simulation up and running you can make duplicates or instances of it and change some of the variable on sets of house instances. For example you can set the variable for 1000 homes that have poor seals on their windows. Make 100,000 instances of the homes and provide outputs of what is going on in the 100,000 homes to the power generation system. Now you can start to see what is going on in your system. For anyone that has every played SimCity, this might sound familiar. However SimCity is missing a critical component, live social interaction. Human nature is extremely complex and nearly impossible to fully simulate. So what if we take complex simulations like SimCity and now add live people into the environment and let them make decisions and take actions at a micro-level as well as a macro-level.

One of my favorite science fiction shows, Stargate Atlantis played out this scenario in one of their episodes. In Season 3, Episode 16 called “The Game”, two of the shows characters, Sheppard and McKay discover what they believe to be a simulation game on the Atlantis computers of two societies. McKay controls the one society and Sheppard controls the other. What they find out is that the game that they have been playing is connected to a real world with real people on it. What they learn when they finally meet the people on these worlds is that the game gets a bit more complex when real people are involved.

3D virtual live environments like Second Life have the potential to provide for these sorts of complex simulated worlds with the added dimension of real people with all the complexities that humans bring into a complex system including emotion and complex cognitive processing within the human mind.

So why would this sort of simulation be important? It is important not only for systemic learning but large scale decision making.

Let’s say that congress is considering ways to save energy and in turn save the environment. Someone in congress suggests a tax break for replacing old doors and windows. This seems like a good program but how will it actually impact the system? How will a law like that impact the economy and the environment. Only with complex interconnected system simulations can we begin to understand the impact of a decision like that.

Or what if a CEO and her executive staff are considering moving the manufacturing division to another country. How can they really know what is going to happen in year, two years or even ten years forward in time. Simulations could help to drive this kind of visioning. In fact if the team wanted to understand different impacts from how different cultures react to the system, they could place people from the different locations around the globe into the simulation and allow them to act as they normally would act when presented with a complex problem such as a spike or steep decline in demand.

Now what we need is to gradually build objects on a standard platform and gradually begin to interconnect them until we have a mirror image of the Earth’s systems. This would allow government and corporate leaders to “play” things out before making decisions to develop a product, outsource, go to war, or change a major policy. It’s an intriguing and also scary thought.

What do you think?

References

Senge, Peter M. (1994) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Currency. Print.

Book Review: “Learning in 3D”, Kapp & O’Driscoll, 2010

1 comment

Posted on 16th February 2010 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds

The new year brings with it a new hot topic and new book for learning technology professionals ,which I have written about in several posts, 3D live virtual learning environments.

In the Spring of 2009 I attended the 3D Training, Learning and Collaboration (TLC) Conference in Washington D.C which was hosted by one of the authors of this book, Dr. Tony O’Driscoll from Duke University. I left that conference with the impression that we are on the tipping point of using this technology more prolifically in corporate training and higher education. The second author of the book, Dr. Karl Kapp from Bloomsburg University, I have known for a few years. Over the years, Karl and I have had a few intellectual and fun conversations regarding the art and science of instructional design and technology.

Learning in 3D is an excellent primer for corporate training managers, educators or instructional designers and technologists wanting to get a better understanding of the why, what and how of using 3D virtual live environments to support learning and collaboration.

Why
Learning technology gurus like Dr. David Merrill, Dr. Michael Allen, Kevin Kruse and many others, have been preaching to a deaf audience for decades that information centric e-learning page turners are not going to change behaviors. O’Driscoll and Kapp (2010) begin the book with a discussion on the topic of old paradigms of instruction that simply do not work. Tony and Karl, welcome to the podium of evangelists. So many of us have been preaching this same thing for many years now. It is true that “chalk and talk” instructor led courses are not designed to impact business objectives, normally. Most e-learning and online 2D live web-cast events are boring and not designed to provide sufficient demonstration, practice and motivation to learn. However, it’s not so much the technology as much as it is the design.

In the early 90s I worked for a manufacturing company. I needed to learn about something called “ladder logic” which is a programming language for industrial computers used to run machinery. I was handed a stack of floppy disks. For you youngsters those are sort of like CDs but smaller and much more flammable. Anyway, I loaded up this computer based training course that not only provided me with information on how “ladder logic” works but it actually provided in black and white, a fully functioning simulation. I was able to move switches and lights around my ladder and toggle the switches to see what was happening. It was a fully experiential learning activity running on DOS off of a bunch of floppy disks. My point is that it’s not the technology, it’s the design and implementation stupid. Driscoll & Kapp (2010) give us a nice deep understanding of the importance of good design throughout the book.

Kapp & O’Driscoll &  (2010, p.55) present an equation that I believe is missing a few variables. The equation states that when interactivity and immersion are multiplied they result in engagement in motivation. If you have ever played a game that was highly interactive, highly immersive but not sufficiently challenging or too complicated, you probably quit playing the game. We can not forget this key variable in the equation and that is challenge (C). The other part of the equation that is critical is relevance (R). Referring to Keller’s ARCS model, the R standing for relevance; if the learning is not relevant, motivation will be negatively impacted. Tony, Karl .. sorry my undergraduate studies in physics forced me to challenge your equation.

What
Every good academic book and executive presentation has to have a model which is normally a pyramid or a series of circles. O’Driscoll & Kapp (2010, p. 83-84) do not let us down in this book. In fact they developed a multi-level model of concentric circles. If Dilbert had to present this slide to the VP he would be sent out of the room for sure. I get it because I’ve spend the past 15-20 years studying instructional design and technology but this is not a model for the novice.

The book outlines eleven “archetypes” or “building blocks” for 3D virtual immersive environments. I have to admit I first thought that the archetypes were a list of instructional strategies. However the term “building blocks” is a better way to describe them. For example “avatar persona” is an attribute of 3D virtual worlds. “Role play”, “Scavenger Hunt”, and “Guided Tour” are examples of how to use 3D virtual environments. “Co-Creation” is a more of a function of some 3D virtual environment software packages (e.g. Second Life allows for co-creation functionality). I think I would have organized these a bit differently into the same “types” or categories. A table is presented (p. 117) that aligns instructional domains with the archetypes. This is nice job for getting started.

Kapp & O’Driscoll  (2010) present in Chapter 6 a nice series of case studies. Everyone loves sample case studies and you will not be disappointed by the rich sampling of real world examples which lots of nice screen shots. If you are getting hung up on the learning principles and models, you might want to skip the case studies to get a “feel” for what’s it all about and then go back and re-read the descriptions of the model and archetypes. And please join 2nd Life and explore the various spaces there. You can also search on YouTube for visuals of some of the examples presented in the book.

How
In addition to describing the principles and practical examples presented, training managers and learning technology evangelists are presented with a set of recommendations on how to move your organization into the 21st century.

So, do we need a new cognitive technology like 3D virtual live environments? Kapp & O’Driscoll  (2010) present a series of solid arguments that have convinced me that we do need to add this to our tool bag but, we need to ensure that we design it and implement it correctly. This technology is going to provide us with opportunities to implement social learning theories presented by Bandura (1977), situated learning and “legitamate peripheral participation” presented by Lave & Wenger(1991) and distributed cognition of Hutchin’s (1995) research on the Palau. In my next post we will be discussing how we can implement Senge’s (1994) “microworlds” in order to teach systems thinking inside 3D virtual learning environments.

Thank you Dr. O’Driscoll and Dr. Kapp for a very nice addition to our cognitive technology library.

Reference

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

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

Kapp, K. M., & O’Driscoll, T. (2010). Learning in 3D, Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

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

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

Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Currency.

Peter Drucker was an Advocate of Cognitive Technologies

0 comments

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

Was Peter Drucker an “e-learning rebel”?

“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

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

1 comment

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

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

Innovation, Tacit Knowledge and 3D Virtual Environments

0 comments

Posted on 14th July 2009 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds |Cognitive Science |Emerging Technologies

This is a proposal to use 3D Virtual Worlds to capture tacit knowledge and support a culture of innovation in a problem solving context.

Innovation is closely linked with the creation of new knowledge in an organization. (Chang & Lee 2008.) There are two types of knowledge developed in an organization as defined by Nonaka (1991), explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge refers to the type of knowledge that is documented in an organization such as operating procedures, company policies, training presentations, flow diagrams and spreadsheets. In contrast, tacit knowledge is the experiential learning in the heads of the employees that is not easily documented.   For example a master troubleshooter can quickly diagnosis a problem but might have a difficult time explaining the process to a junior mechanic. Wayne Gretzky, when asked about his abilities in hockey stated, “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.” That ability to be where the puck is going to be is a form of tacit knowledge.

The development and sharing of tacit knowledge is a critical component to stimulating innovation. (Nonaka 1991.) Tacit knowledge generally must be passed from one person to another as a cognitive apprenticeship through demonstration, practice and feedback from the expert. To support the sharing and gathering of tacit knowledge in the organization and stimulate an environment of innovation, it is proposed that a 3D multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) be developed to challenge teams to enter and solve problems much like a team works on a challenge in a mulit-player online game (Dieterle & Clarke). Teams will be provided with several problem solving tools as well as a knowledge repository to search and retrieve explicit knowledge.

Leonard & Strauss (1997) suggest that innovation requires teams where the members come from diverse cognitive backgrounds to create what they call “creative abrasion.” Creative abrasion is analogous to what happens in an atomic particle accelerator. To discover something new, physicists attempt to smash atomic particles into one another. If physicists were to gently rest one particle against another, very little happens. For this initiative it is proposed that team members come from various parts of the organization with cognitively diverse backgrounds. Cognitive diversity refers to the way in which one solves a problem. For example, two individuals could have the same skills and knowledge in chemistry or biology but approach problem solving in either an analytical or creative style. (Leonard & Strauss 1997.)

In referring to reasons why knowledge management initiatives generally are not a success, Kondo (2006) points out that the success should not be measured in the technology alone but in the people using the technology. As a result we will measure two metrics of success in this knowledge management initiative. First we will measure the successful implementation of the technology solution ensuring that it is delivered within budget and that user testing demonstrates that the requirements gathered in the first phase of the project are met. However we will also return to our voice of customer data gathering tools to explore how people in the organization are benefiting from the technology.

The overall goal of the initiative is to demonstrate the value in capturing the tacit knowledge demonstrated during the problem solving sessions to increase innovation in the organization.  In addition the initiative is expected to decrease the cycle time of collaborative problem solving. We will conduct follow up interviews with management to evaluate whether the knowledge captured in the 3D virtual collaboration environment have influenced their strategic decision making and contributed to the innovation level for the organization.

References:

Chang, S., & Lee, M. (2008). The linkage between knowledge accumulation capability and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 3-20.

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.

Kondo, F. (2006). Five steps to a successful knowledge management initiative. In ITworld | IT news, technology analysis and how-to resources. Retrieved from http://www.itworld.com/print/10599

Leonard, D., & Staus, S. (1997). Putting your Whole Company’s Brain to Work. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 110-121.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.

3D Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) .. Same as Live?

2 comments

Posted on 3rd July 2009 by admin in 3D Virtual Worlds

We introduced 3D MUVEs into the research division of our company this week as a pilot. About 20 people participated in the pilot which used Proton Media’s Protosphere technology. Users participated in live virtual lectures as well as scientific poster sessions. In the real world actual posters are created and used as a visual aid to facilitate discussions around ongoing scientific research. In the virtual world, larger then life posters were simulated and users could navigate their avatars over to a poster and get into live discussions as if they were in a real world scientific poster session.

One of my colleagues participated in the session. She is about 55 years old and has never played a 3D game or spend even a minute in 2nd life, however she loved the experience. When asked how an audience would react to this type of environment for training when surveys revealed that people wanted live training she responded, “This is the same as live training”. Think about that for a moment. Someone who had only been in 3D live virtual environment once, expressed such a heretical statement like this .. “the same as live training.”

« Older Entries