eLearning Rebel

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

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.