Techno-science products for Education. What is on the horizon?

Schools are bombarded with products and courses that claim to be informed by research in Neuroscience and/or Digital Technology. Despite warnings from the OECD, the Royal Society (UK), the Wellcome Trust (UK) and Deans for Impact (USA), about the over extrapolation of science it is unsurprising that schools ‘buy into’ these products. A web of interrelated influences is determining how schools make spending decisions: government’s unrelenting pressure for school improvement, government’s adulation of techno-science (as a driver of the economy), the marketing might of the techno-science industry, the media’s tendency to hype innovation claims.

Affective Computing is one techno-science product that will arrive in the education marketplace. In the life world we express emotion, and interpret emotion in others, in a variety of ways. Affective Computing technologies are machines programmed to collect and interpret that information. The HE Horizon report for 2016 has just been published and it predicts a time to adoption of 4-5 years. The Horizon reports are collaboration between the New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (HE), Consortium for School Networking (K12) and are a useful source for a history of techno-science in education (1). Reports have been produced yearly, for Higher Education since 2004 and from 2009 for K-12. Each report draws on the expertise of a large international community of experts who collectively identify six emerging technologies for potential impact on Education, two within 1 year, two within 2-3 years, and two within 4-5 years. In general Horizon predictions: ubiquitous wireless in 2005, social networking in 2007, mobiles and cloud computing in 2009, electronic books in 2011, tablet computing in 2013, have been realised.  K12 has mostly mirrored the HE sector albeit with a lag of up to three years.

Technology forecasts made in the Horizon reports deserve attention before their arrival in the educational marketplace. Education has undoubtedly benefited for example, adult part time distance education students who use technologies such as mobiles and forums for discussion and collaborative activities with peers, from a place and at a time that is convenient. These technologies allow institutions to offer pedagogy that was not previously available to Distance Education. By contrast, virtual worlds have been much less successful. Second Life (SL), a commercially owned platform that provides users with facilities for constructing virtual objects and a virtual representation of self (avatar) was launched in 2003.  Most HE institutions in the UK invested financially in SL estate however; by 2011 it was largely abandoned by Education. SL was trumpeted as a superior online context when compared with text based forums.  The key claim, that it provided an immersive online experience, drew on ideas about ‘embodiment’ (neuroscience) and  ‘presence’ (communication) that were uncritically translated to learning contexts.

Emerging technologies such as SL tend to attract journal special issues and dedicated conferences yet critique of their educational value is sub-optimal. For example, Stanford University will host the first conference on ‘wearables for learning’ in November 2016 (2) Wearable technologies are incorporated into jewellery, clothing, footwear and were first listed as an emerging technology in the 2013 Horizon report. In the call for submissions the 19 topics are more focused on how to develop and introduce wearables to education than why the technology may be of value. Educational products that work best are those that target a problem already identified by practitioners for example, being able to offer a socio-cultural pedagogy to students studying at distance, the sophisticated video software from IRIS so that teachers can appraise and discuss real life practice and student behaviours with colleagues (3).

What are the educational problems that Affective Computing could address? Affect is not a constant and a practical strength of Affective Computing is its monitoring capability. However, a major limitation is that Affective Computing requires a computer mediated learning context for example: a VLE, an intelligent tutoring system, wearables. Affective Computing relies on data collected by other digital technologies, a case of a technological development being determined by the availability of other technologies. There are other issues; the ethics of quantifying the student, the validity of the physiological data collected, and the substantial question of how to theorize affect. A techno-scientific solution for mental health needs in the form of Affective Computing would be attractive to policy makers but is Affective Computing technology fit for purpose? To avoid being passive receivers educational researchers and practitioners need to infiltrate the specialised journals and technology conferences to challenge motivations and critique the value of these products for practice.

1 http://www.nmc.org/nmc-horizon/

2 http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=55214&copyownerid=46939

3 http://www.irisconnect.co.uk

A multi-disciplinary conversation about Collective intelligence – reflection on some missing elements

The mobile phone and its connectivity with the internet allows growing numbers of us to find, connect, and interact. That was the technological foundation for the original vision of cMOOCs (developed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes) as a democratic learning experience, and connectivism as a learning theory for a digital age (Siemens 2005).

Collectivism, as discussed in a multi disciplinary context at Nesta http://www.nesta.org.uk/event/roots-collective-intelligence, relies on the same technological infrastructure. What is collectivism and how does it differ from connectivism? We heard that the Internet allows for a new form of activism for example, political. How do individuals participate? We were given the example of number of Facebook likes as an indicator of collective intentionality, a starting point. However, how to sustain collectivism i.e. participation, was a recurrent question; how does an individual move on from the Facebook click to participate?  Participating in connectivist learning opportunities requires good infrastructure design and from the individual curiosity, motivation to learn, to contribute, openness, digital literacy (a fair amount) and I would argue that digital fluency and socio-emotional experience are the elements that sustain on-going participation.

Intelligence. Summing up the day Colin Blakemore focused on intelligence. His considered opinion was that we hadn’t spent enough time talking about what we meant by intelligence. He is a cognitive neuroscience and so unsurprisingly, he also spent some time reflecting on the contributions made by the speakers who were cognitive scientists. Those mainly cohered around what, when and how collective intelligence occurs with when and what depending on group size (Robin Dunbar) how on noise reduction, competence, persistence, reputation (Chris Frith). Others concentrated on decision making as investigated in the laboratory; the role of argumentation in decision-making and the quality of decision making. This was a useful contribution as we had already heard that a binary response as the norm could be the problem for collectivism in political contexts. Also, it has some connection with learning science, where design for collaborative learning (i.e. group work) requires a joint task and the opportunity to propose ideas, discuss them with others, negotiate a solution to disparate ideas, and contribute to a shared outcome.

Overall, the multi-disciplinary approach was very successful. However, there was a sense that the individual was objectified. The subjective was largely missing from the day; purposefulness and socio-emotional experience. Therefore, it was interesting to learn about the fall off in Wikipedia contributions since bots were introduced. The explanation provided was that the bots were overly obedient to protocol and rules - another example of the clunkiness of bot interaction as described in a previous post and that the uniquely human nature of socio-emotional experience is so often neglected

Surely, design is important both for successful knowledge building and the socio-emotional experience of collective action.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-38.

Spending a day with the Emotion Historians

This event https://emotionsblog.history.qmul.ac.uk/2015/09/tears-and-smiles-programme/ was an opportunity to exercise some transdisciplinary thinking. Could emotion historians contribute to the scholarship of online and distance education?  Specifically, the issue of disembodiment when interpersonal interaction takes place online.

Descriptors assigning purpose to an emotion (e.g. mocking, patronising) peppered the day and emotion as culturally situated performance for control, or to resist control, was a strong theme to emerge. Emotion as a rational act expressed for strategic purposes although, there was some debate on ‘the complex emotion repertoire’ of Margery Kempe (a medieval mystic). While those around Kempe  perceived her behaviour as irrational it could be explained as a manifestation of illness. Self-report by Kempe, that sensory stimuli could  trigger strong emotion, would fit with the experience of some with neural evidence of temporal lobe epilepsy. 

Emotion as experienced and in particular socio-emotional experience, those feelings and thoughts embedded in the dynamic of an interpersonal interaction, did not feature. Understanding social emotions is important for a socio-cultural pedagogy based on the idea that students will co-construct knowledge through discussion, through sharing ideas. The negotiation of ideas can generate strong emotions and when it takes place online it is through written communication and is mediated by a digital device i.e. the physical other is unseen. ‘The textual face of the medieval poet’ did provide an eloquent account of using literary device such as metaphor and the multimodal  (through styling for example, embolden) to express emotion and achieve emphasis through writing  (as is the case when people interact online).  But once again, this account was confined to the expression of emotion and one-way interaction i.e. poet to reader.

Art history provided considerable resource throughout the day, an observer interpretation of an expressed emotion that is then reinterpreted by the historian.    By contrast social emotions rely on language,  spoken or written, and their history would require a different resource. So, while I enjoyed an illuminating set of talks, thank you, I am still searching for the history of those emotions, experienced and expressed, that are embedded in the social.