This session was essentially a discussion of Emile and associated questions raised in the area of "Education Philosophy."
A several students made observations about the prerequisites for Emile as implemented - i.e. what level of physics knowledge was needed; what level of programming knowledge was necessary. Is there an "intended audience" in the sense of age, prior knowled ge, too much knowledge...
A lengthy discussion followed the thread of "Science Education" vs. "Humanities Education" in terms of goals. Questions of problem solving skill may be defined quite differently in each domain. Quantitative measurements may be more traditional in scienc e classes; qualitative evaluations may be more common within the humanities. Does this apparent difference impact the design of education artifacts? Is the technique used to encourage reflection different in each area?
Questions of domain differences prompted a discussion of collaboration
methods and efforts to define appropriate tools. Discussion methods
for the formal presentation of ideas (science domain) may work best in
asynchronous text mode. Face-2-face collabo
ration styles may work better in other settings.
The issue of adaptive vs. adaptable scaffolding was discussed in terms of how to evaluate student needs. Should the instructor set general levels for an entire class/environment? Does such a setting imply uniform ability and learning style? Should stud ents be permitted to remove all scaffolding at will with no "cautionary feedback?"
These questions returned the discussion to philosophical questions of instructor role in the delivery of knowledge. What model do we have for the TechnoTeacher? - Master Programmer? Domain HelpDesk Coordinator? Preferences Tweaker? Fellow Student?
The final 1/2 hour was a tour of the Computational Graphics Environmentt and the actual implementation of Emile.