Earlier this morning, Greg Kulowiec (@gregkulowiec) shared his thinking that AppSmashing needs a reboot. Whereas the original idea of AppSmashing described the capacity to use multiple apps to create and share something new via iPad, the idea has morphed over the years to encompass other platforms.
I remember Greg initially describing AppSmashing as the potential to capture “snippets of complexity” when the technology removed all barriers to how students might express their learning. In his latest post, he describes the potential for students to not only combine apps but also devices. As an example, he offers up the notion that students may want to use virtual reality as a storytelling platform. To achieve this goal, they might use a combination of apps on their phone/mobile device as well as a variety of tools on a Chromebook or laptop. With this rebooted version of AppSmashing, students have unlimited opportunities to express their creativity.
In response to Greg’s post, Caitlin Krause (@MindWise_CK) posted a link to a Wikipedia article about the Reality-Virtuality continuum defined by Paul Milgrim with the comment of “Milgrim Makers.” According to the Wikipedia article – which does need additional citations – this Reality-Virtuality continuum presents a scale from the completely virtual to the completely real with varing degrees of augmented reality and augmented virtuality. If I interpreted Caitlin’s intimation correctly, then a Milgrim Maker would be a student who not only considers the modality of their creations in terms of apps and devices, but also the reality of their learning experiences along this continuum.
Caitlin’s comment first brought be back to some of the ideas from educational philosopher Albert Bandura. From a sociocultural perspective, Bandura (1986) argues that learning occurs because of the interactive relationship between the environment, the behaviors of the individuals, and the cognitions that occur as a result of the first two forces. In response to external events, learners engage in actions that ultimate effect their beliefs and perspective of the world. Therefore, learning occurs through direct action on the part of the learner, the associations formed in response to those events, and the ability to form new mental images through observation. With this last piece, think about how medical students learn by observing more senior doctors. It would be too dangerous for a student to learn something like surgery by just picking up a scalpel. Instead, they gain knowledge and understanding through observation and vicarious experience (Bandura, 1986).
With this in mind, the Milgrim Makers might begin their learning process by first considering whether they should learn through active, associative, or vicarious experience and then determine the degree of reality or virtuality that might allow that learning to occur. From there, we can consider the power of context in building mental images. According to the ideas of situated cognition, knowledge is constructed in context and connected to the physical cues presented by that context (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). As an example, ever try to remember something and think about what the room looked like in which you learned it? If Milgrim Makers can create new and potentially unlimited forms of context through reality/virtuality, then they might be able to create different associations with content.
Imagine this scenario, a group of fifth graders have been studying Ancient Egypt. To share their learning, they decide to create the experience of engaging in an archaelogical exploration of King Tut’s tomb. First, they use cardboard, paint, etc. to make a physical tomb in the classroom. Then, some students use augmented reality so that visitors to the tomb can take a multimedia tour that includes video clips, digital artifacts, audio narration etc. Another group of students uses virtual reality so that visitors can pretend to be archaelogists and actually “dig” to find some of the other artifacts that surround the sarcophagus.
From the perspective of sociocultural theory, the Milgrim Makers are engaged in active, associative, and vicarious learning depending upon the point at which they engage in the King Tut experience. They are also situating their learning within the context of the physical and virtual environments. Finally, through this situated learning experience, students develop the language of experts via cognitive apprenticeship.
Typically, students learn content – such as history and archaelogy – absent both the authentic context as well as the language of practitioners (Brown et al., 1989). Students do not have the opportunity to “do” history or “do” archaelogy. Instead, they read/watch about it from a distance and in an artificial classroom setting. Situated learning and the idea of a cogntiive apprenticeship would immerse students in the language and culture of the profession.
In thinking about the idea of an apprenticeship, a student learns a profession through guidance and scaffolding. Over time, the master gives the student more and more ownership until they become a professional. Much like how the medical student does not learn surgery by just operating on a live human being, and instead engages in observation, association, and guided partice over time, students could have similar experiences in the classroom through various forms of reality.
With the King Tut’s tomb example, the teacher could guide the students to understand what it means to be a historian, to seek out primary sources and artifacts, and to then make connections to the events of the past. Similarly, they could scaffold the skills of an archaeologist, ultimately allowing students to create their own scenarios. This is where students might use the various forms of reality both to consume new experiences as well as to create them.
Coming back around to Greg’s comment about AppSmashing and Caitlin’s concept of the Milgrim Makers, maybe the reboot needs to consider not just the act of creating an artifact, but the process of creating the learning experience. Maybe students and teachers need to view themselves as architects of learning. Because, what if, instead of limiting thinking to technology or no technology, or reality or virtuality, or even the available devices and apps, instead we consider the unfettered opportunities to deeply engage in the experience of learning?
References:
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. http://doi.org/10.2307/1176008