Kevin Denney: Archiving Learning
3.6.08 | A key component of our contextual research while developing the electronic learning record has been understanding how people collect and store data and objects. We’re especially interested in storage habits related to hobbies and collections. One of the more interesting and, at least to me, previously unknown phenomenon amongst younger children is their predilection to dispose of what they’ve created. One of the kids we interviewed is an avid creator and recorder of music. He likes nothing more than to create music using his guitar and computer, fiddle and perfect the digital recording, and dispose of every recording. He doesn’t share the recordings with others, nor has he ever kept a recording. The recording and playback are to him, simple a part of the process of playing music.
This pattern of creation, and nonchalant destruction of the fruits of learning, appears in similar forms from other research subjects. The excitement of design is the challenge of creating a system of solutions that fit patterns of daily life. As we begin to see daily life patterns like these and peer through the fog at the first outline of what an electronic learning record might look like, we’re asking ourselves when is something ready for placement in a record? Or, is everything the kid creates captured in the record and separating the wheat from the chaff is done by the kid at a later date? Is the record smart in terms of knowing what to record and what not to record?
Editor’s Note: Learn more about the Electronic Learning Record here. Also see Project Lead Patrick Whitney‘s previous Spotlight post on schools in the digital age.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated to ensure topic relevance and generally will be posted quickly.
Comments
Dave H. Crusoe
3/6/08
4:43pm
I’m intrigued - but intrigued because I’d be less interested in observing the end product, and more interested in observing the evolution of patterns of thinking.
In the case of your student producer, for instance, that might be an exploration of how a particular rhythm or sequence germinates, and then develops through the course of several pieces. The final piece, perhaps, is what he saves for future reference.
The interim pieces - and the final product - are no more than example artifacts produced along the way.
I’d also suppose that the producer couldn’t name that process, simply because he wouldn’t be consciously considering it as he produced music. It’s my guess that he simplifies it: “I didn’t save it because I wasn’t happy with it”, which indicates some kind of internal goal hasn’t been met.
And so, I think to some degree, all media that’s produced is neat to place in record; but what’s most fascinating, and depending on the use, most helpful, is the patterns for thinking that evolve and merge throughout the experience.
The hard part, then, is writing the software that can identify patterns within and across productions.
This could, for instance, easily be applied to writing or mathematics tutoring software, etc (I believe in the case of the latter, early attempts have been made to do just this).
Cheers, and hope this provides some food for thought,
—Dave