Test Post

Test Post

Bogus' Travels in SL: And what really is Social Constructivism

Bogus' Travels in SL: And what really is Social Constructivism

One last post...

A Discussion Relating Flocking Behavior, Social Constructivism and Educational Systems

We may not yet know how to combine oil and water but they are both liquids...

The culmination of my final Gaming and Simulation project in SL is the following observation and speculation. My initial focus was to discuss and determine how SL could be used to create an environment in which mob mentality or group think could be studied. Given the immersive and collaborative nature of the environment, simulating group behavior seemed reasonable. Dr. Gibson’s and class feedback on my original ideas refocused these thoughts about pure mob or group thought to look at groups having to do with “scientific” discovery. Many of the ideas about what constitutes scientific discovery were influenced by a book recommended by Dr. Gibson; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn 1962. That is the discovery of and maintenance of constructs that are formalized in scientific discourse and its supporting literature. Among constructs that could be considered as potential study targets, include the nature of matter, learning as a social science, the “laws” of math and physics and the study of medicine and law, learning theory, instructional delivery and other similar fields. For that matter, virtually, any subject field that requires a well developed knowledge base that has been socially constructed by “subject matter experts” and maintained within a realm of incremental changes over a period of time and resists radical and significant change -

"closely examined, whether historically or in the contemporary laboratory, that enterprise [cleaning up the loose ends in normal science] seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies. No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others." Kuhn, 1962 p.24

not only that, but challenges to long established scientific constructs is heartily resisted by all members or would be members of the group of subject matter experts in such a way as to manifest itself as group thinking or on the fringes, even a mob mentality of sorts (my assertion). If this be the case, what ability does an outside the box (group) thinker have of influencing current practice, research or new ideas within the established group and within the well developed, although hardly universally agreed upon constructs, presently maintained and held to be immutable by the group at large? And what is the requirement to be membered into such a group so as to be acceptable to the group and contribute to the maintenance of the sacred constructs but not disturb or change the construct sufficient enough to merit ejection from the group or mass ridicule by the other group members? And what resemblance to these groups or role does our educational system bear or play in the establishment of these “immutable” constructs and the acceptance in or banishment from the groups of those in non-conformance with the “consensus” of the group? Again, looking to Kuhn, 1962, p.11; he seems to spell out the requirements:

...to earn "membership in the particular scientific community with which he will later practice"... "Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition."

Ironically, it is the group member that disagrees with the group that often identifies new constructs, at odds with the greater group. This disagreement can have at least one of two extreme or at times lesser results - construct failure and isolation of the disagreeing group member; or construct success that changes the very underpinnings of the group, causing the group paradigm to change and possibly saving or rejuvenating the greater group.

"What, then, do Jim Watson and I deserve credit for? If we deserve any credit at all, it is for persistence and the willingness to discard ideas when they became untenable. One reviewer thought that we couldn't have been very clever because we went on so many false trails, but that is the way discoveries are usually made. Most attempts fail not because of lack of brains but because the investigator gets stuck in a cul-de-sac or gives up too soon." Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal, View of Scientific Discovery (1988) -Discovered the structure of DNA and received a Nobel prize

In pure animal flock behavior, group behavior is safer than disagreeing or acting out of unison with the group - e.g. a herd of Zebras fleeing a pack of hyenas... the Zebra that can't keep up with the pack is likely to be pursued by multiple Hyenas until exhausted and ultimately eaten. The Zebras staying within the pack are more likely to survive to be chased again. In human group interaction we aren't often pursued by Hyenas but often other more serious events can have the same effect; i.e. pollution, scarcity of food, inflation and loss of personal liberties. Human safety is also often found within the confines of a larger group - rarely does a group hunkered down or on the run for safety sake make discoveries that would save the greater group from eventual peril. It is the dissenting group member thinking outside the confines of the group that seriously fails or occasionally succeeds to become the group's benefactor - I would argue that no member of a group ever proposed a significant solution to a group problem without first being criticized by some or all of the group and that mere membership in a collective group may impede the type of creativity necessary develop workable solutions to complex problems. Kevin Kelly, in Out of Control, 1994, chapter 2 at http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch2-b.html seems to indicate as much when he states

"A flock was once thought to be a decisive sign of life, some noble formation only life could achieve. Via Reynolds's algorithm it is now seen as an adaptive trick suitable for any distributed vivisystem, organic or made." Kelly's assertion came on the heels of discovering relatively simple computer algorithms that perfectly emulated flocking behavior among animated computer objects. Some quick research showed scripts also available for SL that implement flocking in mobile objects i.e. animated insects and other critters -

http://slconceptual.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/lsl-swarm-script-for-second-life-make-birds-butterflies-etc/

But eventually one of the pack will get past the stallion and begin to snap at a mare or a foal. As the chase relentlessly continues, one gets a tooth-hold on a leg or the belly or the genitals and the animal is dragged down. While the rest of the herd canters to safety, the hyenas leap on the fallen zebra, ripping it to pieces. Pasted from <http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biodiversity/Chapter2/page_266.htm>

Milgram's theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch's work, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment>

"For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope." Albert Einstein

The bigger question is can we identify dissenting group members that may eventually prove beneficial to the group? Feta Wylie and I were text chatting about this earlier this evening in SL when I asked for his insights. Feta reminded me of the colored doughnut demonstration two weeks ago. From that, we could observe that although the instructions stated that the doughnuts should be wornovertop of the avatar, many different ways of attaching the donuts could be observed. Stretching that observation a bit further, could we assume that individuals that do not appear to be following instruction are possibly understanding the instruction in such a completely different light that it looks like they don't know what is going on? (aka Wackos). This observation may allow the identification of people that can't follow instructions but we don't know their intention and we can't determine if their deviation will be beneficial to the group long term. Building on Jamesee's work from last week, I think that an SL interview scenario might lend some insight into the intention. To know whether or not these deviations will eventually be beneficial I think will require long term observation; if we care to remain alert long enough to care whether or not someone we classify as a wacko will ever contribute significantly to the betterment of the group!

Second Life is one of these MUVEs. A handful of corporate customers have bought virtual space, called “islands,” in this virtual reality to use for “in world” meetings, and a growing number in this group is recruiting there, too. Linden Lab doesn’t keep statistics on how many of its corporate customers handle hiring this way, but it says the number has grown exponentially since Second Life began in 2003.

Much of the recruitment is done through job fairs. TMP Worldwide Advertising & Communications, an advertising firm in New York, held two virtual job fairs last year, events that included employers like Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Verizon Communicationsand Sodexho, a food and facilities management services company. Bain & Company, the global management consultants in Boston, has sponsored virtual job fairs in Second Life, as well. Pasted from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/jobs/10pre.html?_r=4&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The implications for education are not insignificant. Does the social construction of knowledge encourage or discourage creative thinking by individual members or the group at large? What if the communication, collaboration and cooperation required by a constructivist environment was found to limit the kind of extreme thought (outliers) where the most significant solutions are oftenincubated? Do universities and public schools with well defined subject areas and thought pattern norms contribute to the advancement of creative thought or do they stifle creativity and serve as arbiters of the "acceptable" within a range of "typical" behaviors and cognition?Kozloff on Constructivism: Note that students do not discover truths or verify propositions; they develop interpretations. And these interpretations are constrained by the group's interpretation. With an astonishing show of naivete, the writers fail to address the questions that Introductory Sociology students would ask immediately--namely, "How do relations of power emerge in these groups such that some members' 'voices' shape the interpretations ('voices') of other members? How does conformity to the interpretations of some members, or to the emerging consensus, come to be felt as a moral obligation? Does the consensus reflect the culture, sex, or class interests and values of the more powerful 'voices' in the 'community'?" (See Bianchini, 1997, on the reproduction of social inequality during "inquiry learning" projects.) Pasted from <http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/ContraConstructivism.html

Simulating and proving these hypothesis using SL may be a tall order but borrowing on Cheryly Oh's work from two weeks ago, I propose SL as an adaptive participative environment where communities can be convened or sought at will to observe anonymously. Close observation of avatar behavior in SL (using invisibility scripts) may provide a quasi real enough environment to glean real-life behavior in action and understand the relationships between established communities, community members that don't fit in and the long term interactions that might be indicative of RL success or failure.

Conceptual Assessment Framework - or, in other words, dynamic interrelated rubrics on steroids!

Gibson, et. al., Chapter 15, p.308-322 has my head spinning and I really need to reread it but time does not permit at present; all the well as some soaking in and rumination need to occur before a reread would do any good.   I think what Gibson is saying is that simulations can provide educational opportunities on many different levels depending on who is the intended audience, who is the assessor and what is being assessed and the extent of formative vs. summative evaluation and how it is being used to determine overall assimilation of new knowledge and understanding.  What has me completely baffled is what the interrelationships would have to look like in the relational database that would be needed use to track and draw conclusions necessary to support feedback on what type and how much learning occurred; and how this relational database would relate to the table of rubric data necessary to quantify data received.  Pages 318 and 319 seem to provide some clues that changes in reasoning from Level I to Level II can be identified and accumulated to provide some of this evidence but setting it up would still seem quite a challenge.

Gibson et. al. chapter 16 and especially beginning with page 330 started to shed some light on my baffling in chapter 15.  The Navigational Path Model looks strangely like a self-similar geometric construction otherwise known as Fractals and partially explained by Chaos Theory.  

Fractal image linked at http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/bios/boyd/padi_bg.html

While chapter 16 doesn't seem to overtly imply that chaos theory or fractals could be useful in organizing and predicting student performance as a form of assessment, it does lay the groundwork by showing that avatar tracking generates a significant amount of data that varies over time, is semi-predictable based on varying inputs and generally knowable within a range of outputs.  "Using the Matrix as an example, a node can be a white rabbit tattoo, or the choice of a red or blue pill.  It is the point in time when the players are required to make a choice that could potentially lead them down a different path" Gibson et. al 2007, p. 330.  References are also provided to Information Foraging Theory by Pirolli and Card 1999 which does have fractal and chaos theory inferences as shown by a quick search of the web.

Off of my wild tangent and back to the gist of chapter 16, rules and procedures are recommended to facilitate organization and assessment of game play using more or less traditional data mining methods given definitive and quantifiable outcomes that were included during the original design of the game.  Game design for assessment includes the use of ADDIE crossed with data flow diagraming and pseudocoding.  While these traditional methods of assessment are proven and very workable using traditional database technology, I wonder about their ability to anticipate for conditions that could indicate learning or new knowledge development outside of what was anticipated by the designer's ability to predict or foresee and thus dismissed as irrelevant or incorrect.  Until new methods of assessment that are not specifically related to existing database analysis methods can be developed and proven, our best bet might be to conclude as Loh did on p.344 of Gibson et. al. 2007 when he surmised that the teacher's role in learning in the online gaming environment may best be that as Dungeon Master, host and referee and ultimately assessor of relevant learning.  And perhaps aided by the best implementation of avatar and other tracking systems that provide the most relevant data necessary to the teacher for the real work of facilitation of and assessment of learning.

Well it's 11:50pm and Chapter 17 and 18 are up but out of time to read this evening - I need more hours in the day and more days in the week...

A quick scan of the remainder of this week's reading seems to show that my conclusion of chapter 16's reading may be partially answered in chapter 17 and partially affirmed by chapter 18.  More to come after a good night's sleep - looking forward to tomorrow's discussion in SL on EdTech Island at 8:00pm est.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Despite initial insights in the first half of the century, chaos theory became formalized as such only after mid-century, when it first became evident for some scientists that linear theory, the prevailing system theory at that time, simply could not explain the observed behaviour of certain experiments like that of thelogistic map. What had been beforehand excluded as measure imprecision and simple "noise" was considered by chaos theories as a full component of the studied systems.

From random interrelated thoughts to a final paper rough draft...

Freedom to work at your own pace can be a good thing but I'm having some difficulty motivating myself to complete my final project in this course.  I've been tossing around the ideas for my final project for some time but decided that this evening was as good a time as any to sketch them out in my bogus blog.

Here's the premise:

The idea for this project came to light when I was reading Jones and Bronack in Gibson et. al., 2006.  They assert that "Knowledge, according to social constructivists, is the artifact of decisions made by people in groups, based on their on-going interactions.  In a sense, knowledge is a public record of transactions between like-minded people."

While Jones and Bronack's quote seems harmless enough it potentially explains scientific discovery, war, parties, establishment of any consensus group and virtually any activity involving group consensus or group identification with an individual or thought pattern.

Can we mimic consensus behavior in a simulative, real-time environment; i.e. Second Life?, what can we learn from the interaction between students engaged in such activity? and what can students learn from participating in such an environment about the good and bad that is inherent when engaging in group collaboration?

As a side topic, I think it might be worth exploring for another paper or an extension of this one whether or not all formal education is rooted in consensus and if so, how does this affect our ability to truly think independently without being ostracized by the group?

Some of these thoughts are continuing to develop as a result of last Thursday's session in SL and my initial readings in a book titled "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn, 1962.  Dr. Gibson suggested this reading for me back in week 5.  Kuhn is working towards establishing the proof for Jones and Bronack's (I'm sure Kuhn wrote long before Jones and Bronack) knowledge as a social construction supposition and seems to make quite a good point that there is not only group consensus that exists most of the time but occasionally group dissension that sets the wheels in motion for revolutionary knowledge altering discoveries.

The next challenge is whether or not these observations are reconcilable through my favorite ID theory.  I had proposed, and continue to propose the theory by the Kamradt's with my own customizations.  

More to come - 

Are video gamers a recent, unique and quantifiable demographic? ...and what implications does this have for their education?

This week's reading in Gibson et al 2007 focused heavily on the differences between gamers and non-gamers loosely identifying non-gamers with the boomer generation and gamers with the generation beginning from 1970 and forward. As a late boomer I can relate to the generational differences between myself and folks 20 years younger - I'm pretty sure that these types of generational differences have always existed but have they always been so intently studied?

I found general agreement and embraced much of the reading in the middle of chapter 6, chapter 7 and chapter 8. Troubling me in chapter 6 is the statement made by Aldrich 2004 in Gibson et al 2007, "...when learners engage with computer simulations, they become engaged in an atmosphere where they possess complete authority and are ruler supreme, such that everything within the context of the game environment is dependent on their actions." I agree with that statement completely but is this a desirable mode in which students should be encouraged to operate? Is the young boy at the checkout counter insisting on a piece of gum and eventually being placated by the artfully and unmistakable wearing down of their parent in no less a position of authority?

Like the story of Pinocchio where young lads venture the the island of indulgence to partake of what they will only to be later turned into donkeys, is the encouraging of students to become ruler supreme having similar effects to the egos of these students who once conditioned via gaming environments come to expect similar free reign in the world of reality? Aka Columbine...

On a lighter note Aldrich 2004 in Gibson et al 2007 hits a sweet spot with my observations of learning over the years when he states "Going through struggles, and then working through them, is essential if problem solving is to take place." Tying this struggle into learning through gaming shows that indeed, gaming seems to encourage persistence even in times of struggle with the game aiding in motivation through the four characteristics identified by Bransford et al 2000 in Gibson et al 2007, p.179; (1) Active engagement with content, (2) participation in groups, (3) frequent interaction and feedback, (4) personally relevant connections to real world contexts.

The motivational effectiveness of games on the "gamer generation" is explained by differences in gamer cognitive styles as identified by Prensky in Gibson et al 2007, p.179 (table I) and Aldrich et al 2005 in Gibson et al 2007 where gamers tend to favor values such as: imaginative, cheerful, broadminded, courteous and independent and Non-Gamers tend to favor values such as: honest, loving, responsible and helpful. This statement begs the question of whether gamers tend to disfavor unimaginative, grumpy, narrow-minded, cowardly dependents and while assuming that non-gamers are resistant to lying, hateful, irresponsible selfish types? Not exactly opposites but a pretty big gulf to cross.

Gibson et al 2007, chapter 9 moves from theory to practice and shows utility development of a gaming environment meant to appeal to "Gamer Teachers". This environment creates a sim in a game environment based upon well researched and documented classroom management, pedagogical and behavioral scenarios. Maybe for once pre-service teachers will actually learn what it is like to cope in a classroom environment before their first day of unaided teaching - I know I would have embraced such an environment 20 years ago.

What I liked most about chapter 9 is that the development of the classroom scenario sim has definite goals and objectives for the teachers to learn as well the ability to view expert advice as needed. To me this is significant since it is a quantum step towards acknowledging that a higher source of authority is codified and predictably identifiable and not only usable but in fact highly recommended. For a while I had been starting to wonder if the future of teaching was bent on the effluent social construction of knowledge or if some higher authority might have a chance at carving out a preferred knowledge based on best practice and expert ( as opposed to social group) knowledge. Certainly teaching as a mechanism to mentor and lead students towards a functional, proven and relatively focused end point must still be alive and well.

And what really is Social Constructivism

This week's reflection has me concerned about the content of Chapter 5 in Gibson et al, 2007. Jones and Bronack make some pretty big leaps about the nature of knowledge in this chapter and eventually follow in the steps of American education pioneer and revisionist, John Dewey. Throughout this EdTech graduate program at Boise State the courses have tended towards the constructivist methods of education; that is, education that is socially constructed by students in their learning environment. It is said that this type of education tends to be more relevant and meaningful to the student - my assumption all along is that I am in agreement, as long as the instructor has a goal for the knowledge learned and the student meets those goals, however they arrive at them, is OK. Jones and Bronack turn around my perception of social constructivism and through their chapter build a case that all that is knowledge can only be known within a group of like-minded individuals. This strategy was at the very essence of philosophies and ideals embodied by Carl Marx and Joseph Stalin as they attempted to reform government through their radical ideas and anti-capitalist philosophies. If people could be made to think that there was no higher form of authority than what they collectively agreed to and if their collective agreement could be orchestrated by the welfare state then socialism and gradually communism would follow. Ironically each of these systems which appears to begin by empowering the people breaks down and ends up with the concentration of power by the elite few that first put these wheels in motion. Reference the following excerpt from the Communist Manifesto for a snapshot of where I think things may be headed:

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life? (emphasis mine)

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” (emphasis mine)

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Chapter 6, although legalistic was more concrete in the use of simulations for learning concepts of law and learning how to navigate and negotiate within the legal system. Page 119 in Chapter 6 also mentions in Table I that learning is 'pulled' by learners and sort of follows along the thoughts that I began in the last post regarding precognition. If Chapter 6 had any issues of concern it is in the referencing of bounded vs. unbounded instruction. Insomuch that unbounded instruction would have no constraints whatsoever and is left to the creativity and imagination of the student to construct their own knowledge as far as the practice of current law would allow. Unfortunately our present legal system seems to already be severely unbounded and like a house built ever bigger upon a deck of shiny new playing cards, seeks to establish precedent upon precedent such that eventually there is little resemblance to any law or public morality(whatever that is) at all. Is there an end or will society eventually decay to the point of desolation via class warfare (the real kind of war with weapons, etc.) and eventually wipe out everything out to the point where those that are left get to start over with a relatively blank slate?

This passage and indeed much of this blog seems to be overly concerned about the state of things educational with regards to new learning methodologies, but this is my blog and I would be remiss if I didn't express my struggles in attempting to assimilate the assigned reading!