CEP 901B Proseminar in Technology & Education

1. CEP 901B Proseminar in Technology & Education Matt Koehler Punya Mishra January 21, 2003

2. Today… • General Housekeeping • MiAmE takes over… • Simulations: Some thought • Brief introduction to your research projects • Meeting with your parole officer

3. Reminders • First summary in your annotated bibliography due today • Two pages • Format as suggested by prelim questions http://www.msu.edu/user/pdickson/cep901/prelimprocedures.htm#CEPSE%20Preliminary%20Exam%20Questions • MiAmE needs to • Sum up the online activity for the yahoogroup AND • Create a web page for today’s activity. Send it to Matt

4. Reminders • Not everybody has their web site up • Send Matt the link • And please no word documents • Readings are up for next week, DKSC is in charge (instructions by Thursday please) • Please post to the yahoogroup by the deadline (as decided by the group of the week) • This means you (you know who you are)! No exceptions!

5. Ready set go… MiAmE Heat! Get on your feetAs we take a seat To see how simulations are so neat

6. Lets start by dropping the ball • … quite literally!

9. Looking beyond the interface What do we see? and maybe more importantly… … what do we get?

10. See \ Get … • Simulations afford us the opportunity to do otherwise impossible, difficult, or impractical (e.g., launch a rocket, see the insides of a frog, make money by marrying multiple times) • IMPOSSIBLE: Distorts reality (e.g., shooting someone in a video game, or killing your sims by making them fall into the pool) • DIFFICULT or IMPRACTICAL: Virtual pendulum, why not a real one? Why not interact with real people?

11. … • Simulations can focus on the relevant, and ignore the irrelevant (i.e. they can make the “phenomena” more ideal, ignore air resistance; don’t have to worry about not cleaning up) • Who gets to decide? • What if the “irrelevant” is relevant? • Danger of oversimplifying • Confusing the theory with reality • Hiding the process of construction and underlying theory and model

12. … • Simulations allow us to make manipulations and see their effects (it doesn’t matter how far you push the ball, if you don’t clean up things will get messy) • Manipulations might not be possible in the real world (making people change sexual orientation by forcing them to act in certain ways) • Cognitive overload: requires reasoning about multiple causations (hard to keep track of what multiple Sims are doing)

13. … • Simulations can make stuff that is hidden in the real world visible (e.g. vectors of momentum, a trail of movement, color to represent temperature, etc. Intentions, ghosts etc.) -- conceptual hallucinations multiplied many times over. • Lack of correspondence between reality and the simulation (far too many to mention) • Obscures the process of deciding what to make visible, and what representations are profitable for that phenomena (dependent on the developer of the system).

14. … • Allows theory building and modeling. By simulating, the process of modeling becomes visible, accessible, assessable, and sharable (can play games with different characters, economies etc.) • -- conceptual hallucinations multiplied many times over. • Who’s doing the theory building and modeling? Why should I believe them? • Hides the complexity of real experience

15. … and so? • Representations … • depend on artistic conventions • work within the matrix of scientific history, discourse and practice (hidden assumptions and biases) • are theory laden (mixed blessing) • construct reality as much as are constructed by reality • are working conceptual hallucinations

18. Some contrasts to think about • Experential versus Symbolic • Surface versus Deep structure • Simple versus Complex

19. White & Frederiksen, 2001 • Simulation / Modeling fits into a cycle of scientific inquiry (doesn’t replace it)

20. White & Frederiksen, 2001 • Argue that reflective assessment is important for students to make part of simulation (doing is not enough) • At each step of the inquiry, students use these categories to evaluate themselves and each other. • Study compared outcomes for students who have the REFLECTIVE ASSESSMENT included, versus those who did not. (Both groups of students had the same curriculum and use of simulation).

21. White & Frederiksen, 2001

22. White & Frederiksen, 2001

23. White & Frederiksen, 2001 • So, what can you / they conclude?

24. Which brings me to …

25. Simulations: Researchable issues • Is simulation better suited for particular types of learning (which types? For whom?) • Are simulations more engaging? (For whom? With what personal characteristics?) • Does learning with simulation enhance learners feelings of self-efficacy?

26. Simulations: Researchable issues • Can people learn more with simulations than other types of learning? • Declarative knowledge • Procedural knowledge • Causal knowledge • Transferable knowledge • Does the introduction of simulation change the nature of the classroom? (ie. From I-R-E to something “better”)

27. Research issues contd. • What makes a good simulation? • Resemblance with reality? • Fun? • Correct causal structure? • Graphics? • Interactive? • When to use simulations? • Before, during or after some subject familiarity?

28. Contd. • Connections? • Still vs. dynamic illustration • Hands on vs. didactic teaching • Learner-centered versus Teacher-centered • Mental models • Analogical reasoning • Model based reasoning • Scientific reasoning

29. For next week • Visit by other prosem students • To discuss APA style (get your manuals) • Start thinking of research project • And your next reading • Topic for next week: hypermeDia • Guest visit by Matt Koehler

30. there is more to perception than meets the eye – r. l. gregory The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes – Marcel Proust