In the field of evaluation research, computer scientists live constantly upon dilemmas and conflicting theories. As evaluation is differently perceived and modeled among educational areas, it is not difficult to become trapped in dilemmas, which reflects an epistemological weakness. Additionally, designing and developing a computer-based learning scenario is not an easy task. Advancing further, with end-users probing the system in realistic settings, is even harder. Computer science research in evaluation faces an immense challenge, having to cope with contributions from several conflicting and controversial research fields. We believe that deep changes must be made in our field if we are to advance beyond the CBT (computer-based training) learning model and to build an adequate epistemology for this challenge. The first task is to relocate our field by building upon recent results from philosophy, psychology, social sciences, and engineering. In this article we locate evaluation in respect to communication studies. Evaluation presupposes a definition of goals to be reached, and we suggest that it is, by many means, a silent communication between teacher and student, peers, and institutional entities. If we accept that evaluation can be viewed as set of invisible rules known by nobody, but somehow understood by everybody, we should add anthropological inquiries to our research toolkit. The paper is organized around some elements of the social communication and how they convey new insights to evaluation research for computer and related scientists. We found some technical limitations and offer discussions on how we relate to technology at same time we establish expectancies and perceive others work.
Deep Dive into Redesigning Computer-based Learning Environments: Evaluation as Communication.
In the field of evaluation research, computer scientists live constantly upon dilemmas and conflicting theories. As evaluation is differently perceived and modeled among educational areas, it is not difficult to become trapped in dilemmas, which reflects an epistemological weakness. Additionally, designing and developing a computer-based learning scenario is not an easy task. Advancing further, with end-users probing the system in realistic settings, is even harder. Computer science research in evaluation faces an immense challenge, having to cope with contributions from several conflicting and controversial research fields. We believe that deep changes must be made in our field if we are to advance beyond the CBT (computer-based training) learning model and to build an adequate epistemology for this challenge. The first task is to relocate our field by building upon recent results from philosophy, psychology, social sciences, and engineering. In this article we locate evaluation in re
In the research field of computer-based learning, evaluation is by far the less understood issue. Computer scientists in this field live constantly upon dilemmas and conflicting theories, since evaluation is differently perceived and modeled among educational areas. Should the assessment tools in the learning environment be based on discursive or multiple-choice questions? Should questioning be objective or subjective? Should evaluation be based on reasoning or on hands-on experience? Should it be conducted by the student or by the tutor? Designing and developing a computer-based learning environment is a tough work, but to be trapped in these dilemmas reflects an epistemological weakness. The issue becomes more complex when recognizing that good evaluation requires much more than simple assessment tools, with many events of interest that can occur and be recorded by the computer. Although more information is the basis for a better evaluation, there is no simple answer to support the selection of relevant events and the analysis of acquired data.
Computer science research in evaluation imposes a challenge being among conflicting and controversial research fields -philosophy and psychology, social sciences and engineering. Has computer science an adequate epistemology for such a challenge? Were the CBT (Computer-based Training) systems the far we could go? We believe not, but deep changes must be made in our field. The first task is to relocate this research field by building upon recent results from these conflicting fields.
In this article we focus on evaluation considering results from communication studies, a very broad field of social sciences. Evaluation goes beyond the statement of how much, but rather to concern itself with the question of “what value”. It seeks to cope with the tutor and student questioning of “what progress am I making”. Evaluation, therefore, presupposes a definition of goals to be reached -objectives that have been set forth [8].
Furthermore, recalling Suchman’s statement that “how people work is one the most kept secrets of America” [11], we suggest that evaluation is by many means a silent communication between teacher-student, sons and parents, peers, and institutional settings. If we accept that evaluation can be viewed as set of invisible rules known by nobody, but somehow understood by everybody, we should add anthropological inquiries to our research toolkit.
The paper is organized around some elements of the social communication and how they convey new insights to evaluation research for computer and related scientists. We point out some technical limitations and offer discussions on how we relate to technology at same time we establish expectancies and perceive others work.
Communication has been firstly and successfully modeled as an emitter and a transmitter connected by a channel [10]. This model rose from the needs of telegraphic communication, such as the range of frequencies for a physical channel, or in other words, the amount of information that may be conveyed from emitter to transmitter. It enabled the study of issues such as buffering strategies, time division and frequency division multiplexing, error detection, self-recovery encoding, and cryptography.
Many advances were built over the telegraphic communication model. If we reflect upon the character of such advances, we shall notice that social sciences probably have trouble to address its investigations with the telegraphic model. The reason is the dramatic simplification it inflicts to the concept of “communication”, which could simply be interchanged with “transmission”. The point is, although such model was very successful in many areas, for social sciences a new model needed to be crafted, as argued by Winkin [14]. We build on that to inquire whether evaluation research was also rolling on the same inadequate track. We suggest that evaluation has a strong communication aspect and investigate it from the orchestral model perspective. In the orchestral model, communication is depicted as a permanent social process that integrates multiple behaviors: speech, gestures, looks, mimics, and space between people. Evaluation as communication would comprise all these attributes.
In this section, we selected five research findings from anthropologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists to describe the orchestral communication model. For each of these findings we discuss how they construct the notion of evaluation as communication.
The double bind consists of a contradictory relation to whom one person stimulates the other just up to the point the other starts responding. The contradiction stems from ceasing the stimuli as soon as the response starts. Individuals get trapped in a paradoxical situation, because they do not know whether to be responsive or to be indifferent. Bateson et al. [4] first realized it while studying the Balinese mother and her child. In later studies about schizophrenia, Bateson
…(Full text truncated)…
This content is AI-processed based on ArXiv data.
