8.10.07

The Campfire and The Veld

One can imagine the time in our pre-paleolithic history when formal learning consisted of two balanced parts:

During the day, people with skills would show others how to do something. "Grab the spear here," the teacher might say, taking the hands of the apprentice and putting them in the right spot. "Now practice in that veld over there by throwing it at that big tree. Keep doing it until you get it right. Then throw it at the smaller tree."

While at night, people around the campfire might tell of great adventures, including myths and legends. People would share ideas, and help their community expand their thinking. The best story tellers would gain bigger audiences and develop their own craft of narrative and suspense.

Then came the technology of writing. And suddenly the balance shifted. Written work scaled well, where the work of one village could impact villages all around it. Communities were able build on the written work of the past. The discipline of drama evolved geometrically. Meanwhile, practicing in the veld didn't change much. It was still a one-to-one activity.

Since the technology of writing, many subsequent discoveries have further augmented the "learning to know" skills. Paintings, theaters, printing presses and books, photographs, schools, universities, sound recordings, movies, scanners, and Google all turned our culture into masters of linear content, enabling both great artists and our own exquisite vocabulary around plot devices, antagonists, suspense, and the hero's journey, just to name a few. We can watch a Spielberg movie, a piece of campfire-style intellectual property that is the recipient of cumulatively trillions of dollars of investment and R&D, and evaluate it at a level of cultural sophistication that would awe citizens from a even a hundred years ago.

And yet, in the "learning to do" area, we are little better than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. For teaching the simplest skills, we mirror our ancestors ("put your hands here"), and for the more complicated skills, we don't have a clue. Ask a Harvard Business School professor to develop leadership (or any Big Skill) in a student and she will go into campfire mode with PowerPoint slides of grids, case studies, and so-called inspirational stories.

The advent of flight simulators and computer games, however, have finally introduced technology around "learning to do" that can scale. Today, there is a robust, if nascent, set of "veld" tools that is receiving a significant intellectual investment of the current community. Today's "authors," often in the form of game designers, are creating virtual velds where participants can repeatedly practice skills, instead of just hearing about them.

And, correspondingly, an entirely new language is being developed. Gamers now effortlessly talk about end-of-level bosses, mapping Actions to interfaces, the attributes of on Maps, and what is good or bad level design.

During the next twenty years, the veld technologies (the "learning to do" through games and simulations) will successfully challenge the campfire institutions of universities, movies, and books not only for the discretionary time of the community (which we have already seen), but for help in improving their quality of life. We are already seeing glimpses of the latter through Carmen SanDiego, The Oregon Trail, Age of Empires, America's Army, Full Spectrum Warrior, Virtual Leader, and Brain Age. Will Wright, the creator of SimCity and The Sims, is the first Shakespeare or Beethoven of this medium.

In other words, people will engage in games not to play a super-hero, but to actually become more like one. And the balance between "learning to do" and "learning to know" may finally be restored.

14 comment(s):

sylvia martinez said...

How does learning to do something that no one has ever done before fit in? Is there a "learning to invent" category?

It seems to me that one of the weaknessess of our educational systems is that while you can learn skills that already exist, we aren't sure that these skills transfer to the unknown problems that need to be solved in real life. This is an issue in serious games too. We can simulate known situations, but how do we teach the unknown?

How do you teach the skills of the guy who first attached a pointy rock to a stick? How do you teach the skills of the next generation of tinkerers who figured out what kind of rocks, what kinds of sticks, and how to best tie them together. That all happened without anyone telling them, "Now, have a new idea, and practice it until you improve the spear in a way I can't even imagine. Off you go."

Clark Aldrich said...

There is definitely a learning to invent. I think of it in three levels. First - action - coming up with a new idea. Second - system - creating an environment where new ideas are invited and explored. Third - Results - Does an individual or group evaluate themselves on how many new things they do?

Downes said...

Yeah - overall agreement here.

Not sure 'sandlot' is the best word - it is a colloquialism, culturally specific.

Clark Aldrich said...

I agree. "Sandlot" is the best word I could think of (I played with "practice field"), but I would change it in a second if the community comes up with a better word.

bill7tx said...

In prehistory, it was probably more like, "Go over there where you won't hurt anybody and throw your spear at trees until you can hit the smallest tree every time." No sandlot involved. The Romans would have called it a "campus" -- it alliterates with campfire, but unfortunately today it would connote spearing students.

Clark Aldrich said...

A great addition, Bill. Thanks.

Newman said...

Happy Holidays and thanks for the great post.

The main point I took from the post is that 'Learning to know' was adopted in the major learning institutions because it was scalable.

that "learning to do" was harder to adopt in an industrial society and now an information society.

That games and simulations are now providing that ability to scale and could (hopefully) challenge the dominance of the 'learn to know' campfire paradigm.

Couple of points: I have been thinking alot lately about this idea. What if something other than the lecture or campfire became the dominate instructional model? Suppose an idea like 'think pair share' was how most classrooms and training sessions worked - it wouldn't be a campfire model (one gifted storyteller holding everyone's attention) it would be the cocktail party with bunches of groups forming briefly and breaking apart to reform again with others.

Ah - one more point. Have you read the Wired Magazine article on Guitar Hero? The producers talk about how playing the music / game, may become the preferred method of interacting the songs. Instead of buying the music CD, you download the game version and can play along , with your friends, score points, etc. This seems like a 'learning to do' model.

Anyway, as always, thanks for writing,
Newman

Clark Aldrich said...

Hi Newman,

You summed up the "learning to do" argument better than I did, so well done! Now, if you can come up with a better name than "Sandlot" I will really be in your debt!

I also had not read the Guitar Hero article, but now must. It is a great point.

cba

Newman said...

Thanks to you! Whenever I get a positive feedback from someone I respect, it makes me feel great!

I've looked for that article on wired.com but can't find it. bummer.

As far as the 'sandlot', maybe from gymnastics the 'practice mat' or from trapeze 'the net' or from gradeschool 'the playground' (close to sandlot) or from skiing 'the bunny slopes' ...


hope you are well, Newman

Chucky3000 said...

How about the role of the coach in the "learning to do" situation? Sure, the "hold the spear like this" example covers part of what a coach does, but good coaching goes beyond demonstrating a skill. If the chemistry between coach and student is right, the results can be phenomenal. (Exactly how to simulate this chemistry in a serious game would be a challenge.)

One function of a coach is certainly mechanical, in that the coach can observe the student's "form" and point out where mistakes are being made. "You didn't fully extend your arm when you threw that spear." But beyond that, a good coach can all but read the mind of the pupil. "You're afraid you'll loose your balance, so you're not putting all your weight into the throw." It's this latter input that can be most valuable, the empathy that a coach has for a beginner.

And, not to get all mushy here, but there's an emotional value to the relationship with a good coach that can cause a student to learn better, try harder, focus more... The value of emotions in learning is undisputed, as is the effectiveness of "purposeful" learning. We perform better if success really MEANS something to us, and sometimes impressing or pleasing a coach who we respect, admire, or fear is the little something that makes it all happen.

How to get this into serious games is the next question. Think of how annoying the paper clip "assistant" is in Microsoft Office. But maybe that kind of preprogrammed wizard is the precursor to the sort of artificial intelligence that could act as a true virtual spirit guide.

Or maybe there's nothing wrong with the old fashioned way of doing things. Millions of years of evolution have worked to make us into beings who will work very hard at a task for which the only payment may be a pat on the head and an "atta boy."

Chris Walsh said...

I'm a big fan of "learning to do", and I see the potential for immersive gaming to help us make this more scalable.... however, I want to echo "Chucky"'s comments about relationships.

We are social beings, and research has continued to highlight the importance of social context as a critical component for learning. The immediate, contextual feedback we get from teachers, coaches, and peers is so much richer than anything that simulated environments can offer - and I'd guess we are at least a generation or two away from truly immersive, Star Trek-style simulations that can begin to rival face-to-face learning - let alone help us design and invent together.

So - what do we do in the meantime? First - we need to continue to design and play with new learning environments - not being satisfied that there is "one-way" or a magic formula to making it work. These experiments need to be conducted offline as well as online.

Second, I think we need to better understand the relationship between "learning to know" and "learning to do". They are much more intertwined than we like to believe, and often happen at the same time (ex. an amateur mechanic learns how an engine works as he takes it apart and puts it back together).

Third, we need to build direct connections between simulated learning and real-life actions. We can't hope that skills will transfer "automagically" - we need to develop direct pathways and feedback loops between both environments. Without this - our new "velds" are idle exercises - no better than today's worksheets.

Thanks for getting this conversation started Clark - and I look forward to seeing where this takes us all in 2008.

Chris : )

www.infinitethinking.org
www.school180.com
www.epochlearning.com

Clark Aldrich said...

The role of both coach and community is critical (see entries here on both). Both can be virtualized, to a degree, and automated, to a degree, but also need to be both synchronous and F2F as much as possible. But coaching works best when around a repeatable action in somewhat controlled environments. Thus the simulation (or playing field or battle field) provides the Yin to the coaching Yang.

L said...

Hmm, to bounce of what Chucky and Chris said about the social and emotional nature of people... I've spent a good chunk of a year in Second Life and have discovered that one of the things that can happen is the establishment of surprisingly strong social/emotional ties.

Very solid (if virtual) social structure can arise among people who only know each other through the communications they have mediated by their avatars. In fact, (wild speculation here) it would seem that avatar mediation prevents the triggering of prejudice and stereotypes, allowing people to represent themselves as they wish.

While this does open the door to fraud, it has been my observation that most people seem to prefer to "be the real me"

sm said...

網頁設計,情趣用品店,情趣用品專賣網

A片,色情A片,免費A片,成人影片,色情影片,a片免費看,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色小說,色情小說
AV,AV女優

辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊,A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,0204貼圖區,sex520免費影片,情色貼圖,視訊ukiss