In re mathematica ars proponendi
quaestionem pluris facienda est quam solvendi.
The above motto, on the front
page of Georg Cantor's thesis, is cited in Stanislav Ulam's (1991)
autobiography "Adventures of a Mathematician." Cantor's
affirmation that "in mathematics the art of asking questions
is more commonly applied than that of solving problems"
is more than a statement of fact. For someone who, like Cantor,
the creator of Set Theory and discoverer of transfinite numbers,
could look at mathematics as a tremendous accomplishment of the
human mind, the same statement also becomes an article of faith.
To advance in any science, the most important thing is to be
able to ask questions: to ask the right questions and to ask
them the right way. In other words, knowing to formulate what
one does not know is a fundamental step in the advancement of
knowledge.
Despite appearances to the contrary,
we still know very little about human learning. Many respected
educational researchers will not agree with this statement and
claim that, thanks to their work and that of their colleagues,
we have a good handle on the issue of learning, particularly,
that we are pretty well able to create in a deliberate fashion
the conditions necessary for desired learning outcomes. They
are right, to an extent, as long as one defines learning as the
consequence of instruction; they are entirely wrong if one is
willing to look at learning as something more broadly defined.
The description below aims at providing further insight into
the problem and makes suggestions for addressing it through the
creation of a Web-based "Book of Problems." It is the
text of a proposal for an alternative interactive discussion
session at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (AERA), to be held in New
Orleans, Louisiana, April 1-5, 2002. Unfortunately, though acceptance
of the proposal was recommended by all three reviewers (mean
overall recommendation rating 4 on a scale of 5), the session
could not be accommodated at the AERA meeting in question, due
to the exceptionally high number of symposia submitted for 2002.
In view of the high level of
support and enthusiasm for the idea from the community of scholars
interested in developing it (see below),
the Book of Problems initiative remains under active development
and alternative ways are being explored for its implementation.
Interested scholars and practitioners who believe they can make
a significant contribution to the effort are invited to make
themselves known by writing to [email protected],
specifying the nature of their interest and indicating the kind
of contribution they expect to be able to make.
Meanwhile, AERA Division C, Section
5, reviewer comments concerning the proposed session have been
added at the bottom of this page,
considering that they give an indication of how an initiative
of this nature is being received by a body like AERA. They may
be seen as a first instance of the dialogue we are trying to
create around this issue in addition to actually operationalizing
the Book of Problems.
THE BOOK OF PROBLEMS
(or what we don't know about learning)
An Alternative Interactive Discussion
Session Proposal for the
Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association
New Orleans, April 1-5, 2002
Rationale
The problem addressed in the
proposed alternative session is our state of knowledge about
human learning. The underlying rationale is that we know very
little about human learning and that, by clarifying what we do
not know, carefully recording and annotating unsolved problems,
it should be possible to inspire entirely new areas and new kinds
of research into human learning.
The above assertion concerning
the state of knowledge about human learning must be qualified
with reference to how learning is defined. Most people don't
define learning explicitly. However, even if they don't define
it explicitly, it can easily be derived from their writings that
their implicit definitions of learning are limited to what happens
in a purposefully structured learning environment in which desired
attitudinal or competence goals are to be achieved along the
lines of well-designed processes. Such settings are the ones
in which most of the existing research practice is rooted. Basically,
therefore, what we learn from educational research is that "well-designed
instruction works," each specific study adding to our knowledge
of what "well-designed" means and the term "instruction"
referring to processes ranging from highly directive ones that
make people learn in prescribed ways to the more imaginatively
designed environments that allow people to find their own ways
to specifically defined learning goals. There is very little
research about learning that takes place beyond the instructional
context, such as incidental learning, or about how attention
to the conditions of learning in multiple settings (instructional
as well as non-instructional ones) may mutually reinforce the
depth of our learning. We avoid messy situations.
The past decade has seen an emerging
interest in broadening the way we look at learning to beyond
the instructional context per se. According to De Vaney and Butler
(1996), past definitions of learning have long remained under
the spell of Hilgard's (1948) definition, which states that "learning
is the process by which activity originates or is changed through
training procedures as distinguished from changes by factors
not attributable to training" (p. 4). Only quite recently,
this close linkage between instruction and learning has started
to disappear. Driscoll (2000), for instance, analyzes the definitional
assumptions shared by current learning theories. She notes that,
in order "to be considered learning, a change in performance
or performance potential must come about as a result of the learner's
experience and interaction with the world" (p. 11;
emphasis added). Tessmer and Richey (1997) argue for broadening
the instructional design concerns to beyond the instructional
context as such and to recognize "context" as an important
factor in the design of instruction. Shotter (e.g. 1997) emphasizes
the dialogic nature of learning, as do Savery and Duffy (1995)
with particular reference to constructivist learning environments.
John-Steiner (2000) elevates the idea of dialogue to the level
of creative collaboration. Visser (2001), building on these different
definitional developments, while attempting to bring the various
pieces together, proposes a definition that looks at learning
as a "disposition to dialogue" rather than as the collection
of mental processes that result from such a disposition; that
furthermore recognizes the ecological integration of diverse
levels of organizational complexity at which the dialogue takes
place, involving, in addition to individuals, social entities
of varying size; and that finally sees as the purpose of the
dialogue our ability to "interact constructively with change,"
rather than the mere acquisition of particular behaviors necessary
for such interaction.
Looking at human learning from
the perspective of these emerging definitional assumptions gives
a clear sense of how much more complex the world of learning
is than we ever thought. Consequently, it also heightens our
awareness of how little we actually know about that complex phenomenon.
Confronted by this enhanced awareness of the limitations of our
knowledge, it is worth looking back at the history of science
and ask ourselves if anything can be learned from the ways in
which human knowledge developed, going from crisis to crisis.
Progress in several fields of
intellectual endeavor has greatly benefited from open dialogue
among scientists who were concerned with what they did not know,
rather than with what they already knew. A clear example can
be found in the history of how our understanding of the fundamental
structure of matter and energy advanced throughout the twentieth
century, particularly during the first half of it, thanks to
the willingness and audacity of the scientists involved to keep
challenging each other at the frontier of what was known, i.e.
looking out over the vast unknown (e.g. Pais, 1991).
Another interesting example,
which inspires the current proposal, can be drawn from the history
of mathematics in the first half of the 20th century. The Polish
school of mathematicians, who used to gather in the cafés
and tearooms in such places as Lwów, developed a book
in which they inscribed - and annotated - the great unsolved
problems of their discipline. The book was kept in the Scottish
Café in Lwów (whence its name: The Scottish Book)
and handed by a waiter to the mathematicians in attendance when
they so wanted. Miraculously, this fascinating notebook, the
collaborative conscience of the mathematicians of the time regarding
what they did not know, escaped the devastation of World War
II and its aftermath and eventually got published. While it was
kept, it used to help challenge those who wanted to be challenged
to try and solve these problems. (The story of the Scottish Book
can be found in Ulam [1991]. The print edition of the Book is
hard to come by. A version of it, which was edited and translated
by Ulam, was published in 1957 in Los Alamos, NM, by the Los
Alamos Scientific Laboratory. An excerpt of the Book can be found
at http://www.icm.edu.pl/home/delta/delta2/dlt0209.html.)
It is contended that in the science
of learning we have reached a breakthrough stage that calls for
a similar honest reflection among scientists on what they do
not know as a means to move forward. Consequently, it is appropriate
for those scientists who have an interest in broadening and deepening
the meaning of learning to do what the earlier referred Polish
mathematicians did: keep a book of what they don't yet know -
not the nitty-gritty of it, but the really important problems
- and use it as an inspiration for them and others to advance.
While it would be attractive to use coffee and tea houses as
gathering places for the discussion of such matters, it is now
more appropriate to make this a Web-enabled effort as far as
recording and annotating of the problems is concerned. The actual
gatherings that contribute to filling the book progressively
may well be linked to events such as the annual meetings of AERA
where many of them come together anyway in a more or less frequent
fashion. Such gatherings can be complemented by various modes
of electronic interaction in between of face-to-face events.
The current proposal thus aims at starting the effort off on
the occasion of the AERA 2002 Annual Meeting. The overall theme
of that meeting, "Validity and Value in Educational Research,"
provides a most appropriate framework for the launch of a Web-based
"Book of Problems," focusing on what we do not know
about learning.
Nature of the proposed session
The proposed alternative session
will bring together selectively invited prominent researchers
to discuss ways of broadening research agendas in the area of
research on human learning. In addition to the scientists invited
prior to the meeting, the session will be open to attendees of
the AERA 2002 Annual Meeting who, based on the program information,
decide to attend. There will be no paper presentations. Rather,
in the running up to the session, a concept paper will be prepared
by the chair and circulated among the group of seven additional
scientists mentioned in the section on "Panelists"
with the aim of enhancing the document. The enhanced version
of the concept paper will be distributed to other selectively
invited colleagues who will be asked to attend the proposed session
and to partake in its preparation and follow-up. The concept
paper will also be given to conference attendees who decide to
join the session at their own initiative. They will have equal
status in the discussion with those researchers who have been
previously invited. In addition, the concept paper will be made
available via the World Wide Web.
Purpose of the session
The session, both through the
process of its preparation and implementation, has the following
objectives:
To create awareness among the
AERA membership at large of the importance of broadening and
deepening the meaning of learning.
To raise the level of sensitivity
and heighten interest among the research community to explore
new fields and modalities of research into human learning.
To make a start with the above
referred Web-enabled "Book of Problems" as a means
to consolidate and further develop the above research interests.
To make a start with establishing
a research community interested in collaborating, where appropriate
in a transdisciplinary mode, on key problems in the development
of the science of learning.
Panelists
As will be clear from the above
description, none of the alternative session formats listed for
the AERA 2002 Annual Meeting matches exactly the needs of the
above-referred discussion. However, that of the "Panel Discussion"
comes closest, followed by the formats of "Interactive Symposium"
and "Symposium." To comply with the given session formats,
the chief actors in the proposed session are referred to here
as chair/organizer and panelists.
Chair/organizer of the session
is Jan Visser, President, Learning Development Institute
(LDI) and Principal Investigator of LDI's Meaning of Learning
(MOL) project. For the purpose of organizing the session and
its follow-up, he will be assisted by Yusra Laila Visser,
Researcher at Florida State University and co-investigator of
LDI's MOL project.
The following scientists, listed
alphabetically, have agreed to join the panel: Carl Bereiter
(University of Toronto), Marcy Driscoll (Florida State
University), Vera John-Steiner (University of New Mexico),
David Jonassen (University of Missouri), Rita Richey
(Wayne State University), Gavriel Salomon (University
of Haifa), and Marlene Scardamalia (University of Toronto).
Session procedures
As mentioned, there will be no
paper presentations during the proposed session. An expectedly
large proportion of the participants will come well prepared
for the debate. They include researchers identified by the organizers
and the team of, currently seven, scientists who have already
joined the initiative. In addition, other interested researchers
will themselves take the initiative to contact the organizers
([email protected]) on the basis of information available in the
program of the AERA 2002 Annual Meeting or on the Web site of
the Learning Development Institute. Participants who "discover"
the session only while in New Orleans will be somewhat less prepared,
but everything possible will be done to make their participation
as effective as possible for the stated purposes of the session
and as beneficial as possible for themselves. This may require
a very brief summary of issues at the outset of the session.
The value of the session lies
in the energetic participation of all its participants in the
debate. The chair will apply his considerable experience in conducting
such sessions in ways that create maximum involvement of the
participants. Depending on the size of the audience, part of
the debate during the proposed two-hour session may be conducted
in small groups so as to raise the level of creative engagement.
In line with the set purpose for panel discussions, emphasis
will be on the ad hoc interchange, recognizing the value of both
divergence and convergence of positions in clarifying the issues
concerned. To allow this ad hoc interchange to develop effectively,
a fair level of improvisation will characterize the procedures
of this session.
Long-term issue
It is expected that the community
of scientists whose establishment is aimed at through the proposed
session, while begun in the AERA context, will grow beyond that
same context. The science of learning is a truly transdisciplinary
field. The Learning Development Institute (http://www.learndev.org)
and its partner, the International Center for Transdisciplinary
Studies and Research (CIRET; http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/)
will work together to achieve that aim.
Division/Section/SIG sponsorship
The broadness of theme of the
discussion makes it difficult to place it within the purview
of a particular division/section or SIG. Division C as a whole
is the one whose overall interest is most comprehensively related
to the area covered by the proposed session. However, sections
of other divisions and particularly a number of SIGs may also
have a keen interest in it. The proposal is submitted, in accordance
with set procedures, to one section (Section 5) of Division C
only. It is proposed, though, that sponsorship by the Division
as a whole be considered and that co-sponsorship by sections
of other divisions and SIGs be sought as appropriate.
References
De Vaney, A. & Butler, R.
P. (1996). Voices of the founders: Early discourses in educational
technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research
for educational communications and technology. New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan (pp3-45).
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology
of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hilgard, E. R. (1948). Unconscious
processes and man's rationality. Urbana, IL (as quoted in
De Vaney & Butler, 1996).
John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative
collaboration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pais, A. (1991). Niels Bohr's
times: in physics, philosophy, and polity. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Savery, J. R., and Duffy, T.
M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and
its constructivist framework. Educational Technology,
35(5), 31-38.
Shotter, J. (1997). The social
construction of our 'inner' lives. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 10, 7-24.
Tessmer, M. & Richey, R.
C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional
design. Educational Technology Research and Development 45(2),
85-115.
Ulam, S. M. (1991). Adventures
of a mathematician. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Visser (2001). Integrity, completeness
and comprehensiveness of the learning environment: Meeting the
basic learning needs of all throughout life. In D. N. Aspin,
J. D. Chapman, M. J. Hatton and Y. Sawano (Eds), International
Handbook of Lifelong Learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
===================================================
Username: jvisser
Proposal #: 5191
Title: The Book of Problems (or what we don't know about learning)
===================================================
Dear Dr.Jan Visser:
It is with sincere regrets that I must inform you that your
submission to the Division C:Section5: Cognitive, Social, and
Motivational processes (above title) was not accepted for the
(sic). We typically have a 50% acceptance rate and we
again had a large number of exceptionally high quality submissions
this year competing for 10% fewer program slots than we had last
year. Therefore some paper and symposia that might have been
accepted in prior years did not make it into the program this
year. I encourage you to seek outlets for the work you submitted
and cintinue to submit to Division C:Section5: Cognitive, Social,
and Motivational processes in the future.The rating sheets from
the reviewers who reviewed your submission are enclosed for your
information. I hope you will find the comments helpful.
Reviewer 1
----------
Choice of problem/topic4
Theoretical Framework4
Methods
Data source(s)
Conclusions/Interpretations4
Quality of writing/organization4
Contribution to field4
Membership appeal5
Would you attend this session4
Overall Recommendation4
Comments While I take issue with the proposer's premise that
educational researchers avoid "messy situations" in
their attempts to understand human learning and development,
and while I would not equate incidental learning with controlled
or "neat" experimentation, the premises do serve as
interesting points for debate and dialogue. Certainly, the strongest
selling point here is the list of players, whose insights and
perspectives on human learning and development would be worth
hearing for many people. Therefore, I would recommend alloting
space to this particular session.
Reviewer 2
----------
Choice of problem/topic4
Theoretical Framework5
Methods
Data source(s)
Conclusions/Interpretations
Quality of writing/organization5
Contribution to field5
Membership appeal4
Would you attend this session5
Overall Recommendation5
Comments Definitely accept this. This presents a new idea on
how to establish working learning communities and promotes scholarly
endeavors to the highest level. This is the type of thing a graduate
student just preparing to enter the world of academia needs to
see. This shows what true scholarly discourse looks like and
illustrates the far reaching benefits of the activity. Audience
appeal may not be as high as one would hope because I think many
people want a take home intellectual product that they can look
to for inspiration, ideas, etc. in their own research. That purpose
may be seen as more difficult in this new arena.
Reviewer 3
----------
Choice of problem/topic3
Theoretical Framework3
Methods
Data source(s)
Conclusions/Interpretations3
Quality of writing/organization3
Contribution to field2
Membership appeal2
Would you attend this session3
Overall Recommendation3
Comments This proposal is a little indefinite. I find it difficult
to see where it goes beyond what we already know. Although some
sources are cited for supporting the discussion, Hilgard is suggested
as the primary past influence, with the more recent notions represented
by Driscoll. This is debatable. One should not neglect any of
the more recent contributors within the realm of "cognitive
psychology" or of those who advocate a constructivist approach.
One who has made a major impact on this field and who has been
neglected is Donald Norman, whose work is NOT based on the earlier
definitions. Further, I see no effort in this paper -- even though
it is within the instructional technology area -- to employ empirical
support for the issues addressed. In a sense, it appears to be
an attempt to build a "straw person" and then to demolish
it. However, I have great respect for the potential contributors
and therefore find it possible to recommend it for the program,
even though not wholeheartedly.
===================================================