Resources

AI & SOCIETY

Augmented learning, smart glasses and knowing how

by Wulf Loh & Catrin Misselhorn (2020)

Abstract:
While recent studies suggest that augmented learning employing smart glasses (ALSG) increases overall learning performance, in this paper we are more interested in the question which repercussions ALSG will have on the type of knowledge that is acquired. Drawing from the theoretical discussion within epistemology about the differences between Knowledge-How and Knowledge-That, we will argue that ALSG furthers understanding as a series of epistemic and non-epistemic Knowing-Hows. Focusing on academic knowledge acquisition, especially with respect to early curriculum experiments in various STEM disciplines as investigated by the BmBF “Be-Greifen” project, we take the Be-Greifen holo.lab setup as an example for showing that ALSG shifts the learning focus from propositional knowledge to epistemic competencies, which can be differentiated as “grasping”, “wielding”, and “transferring”.

Keywords:
Higher education
Augmented reality
Knowing-How
Smart glasses
Assistive technology
STEM.

Affiliations
Int. Center for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities (IZEW), University of Tuebingen, Wilhelmstr. 19, 72074, Tuebingen, Germany (Wulf Loh)
Department of Philosophy, Institute of Philosophy; Chair of the Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Stuttgart, Seidenstr. 36, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany (Catrin Misselhorn)

+

Loh, Wulf / Misselhorn, Catrin
Augmented learning, smart glasses and knowing how.
In: AI & Society 35 (Mar 2020), pp. 297–308.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00881-3

+

Notes
1. As we will see later on, this shift is nonetheless accompanied with an increase of “understanding” as an ability—a “knowledge-how”. However, the paper does not focus on this increase, but rather on the shift itself.
2. For a detailed description of the setup, the experiment and the results, see Strzys et al. (2018).
3. For a detailed account about whether Ryle should be regarded as a “moderate” or a “radical” anti-intellectualist, see Fantl 2012.
4. We are not so much concerned here with the linguistic distinction between “Hannah knows that p” or “Hannah knows how to φ” (Stanley and Williamson 2001), since framing the KT/KH debate in this way already presupposes an intellectualist conception of KH, in the sense that the locutions “p” or “φ” are merely syntactically preceded by a different illocution (“knows that”, “knows how”, “knows why”, etc.).
5. Cf. also on this the SECI model (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), in which knowledge creation and diffusion are modelled as going back and forth between processes of explicit (externalization, combination) and implicit (internalization, socialization) knowledge creation and transfer.
6. This even holds true for KH such as riding a bike, where the rules of the practice are in great part determined by physical laws rather than social norms. However, what counts as successfully riding a bike is still subject to the interpretation by the other participants and therefore also by practice-internal “standards of excellence” (MacIntyre 1985).
7. We stick with the term “competency” rather than “competence”, as it is the term primarily used in the literature (Jones et al. 2001; Voorhees 2001).
8. Cf. Baumberger 2014, Elgin 2017; Kvanvig 2003, Strevens 2013.
9. We do not make use of the more in-depth descriptions from Baumberger 2014, Grimm 2006, and Pritchard 2010, which spell out grasping in more detail as being able to explain why p holds, as well as being able form counterfactuals. This is because these accounts focus on explanatory understanding, i.e. where “the vehicle is an explanation that answers the why-question and the object is a phenomenon like an event” (Baumberger 2014), rather than objectual understanding, i.e. “when understanding grammatically is followed by an object, as in understanding the presidency, or the president, or politics, or the English language” (Kvanvig 2003). For the purposes of this paper, we concentrate on the objectual understanding of an academic subject matter within the STEM disciplines, e.g. thermodynamics, viscosity, or Newtonian physics in general.
10. Nothing that we say here, however, precludes the possibility to apply our findings to other academic learning contexts or any learning context for that matter.
11. We cannot go into detail here as to which design principles have to be adhered to in order to not inappropriately “railroad” the learner and undermine her autonomy. Most design principles of AREs so far are based on occlusion and attention, rather than on autonomy (Schmalstieg and Hollerer 2016).
12. In the field of game studies and videogame theory, actional involvement is described as tying the player to the game by endowing her with the capacity to intervene and manipulate gameplay (Isbister 2017; Poole 2000; Vorderer 2006). Whether this analogy actually puts AREs in general and ALSG in particular in the vicinity of “gamifying” Deterding et al. (2011) the learning experience, is a question that merits further analysis.
13. There are studies as to whether ALSG increases overall learning performance (cf. Santos et al. 2014), but not whether employing ALSG might shift the kind of knowledge that is acquired. As the shift from KT to KH facilitates access to and availability of knowledge (Seel 2003), the increase in learning performance may not only be attributed to the decrease in cognitive load, but also in part to this shift. To validate this hypothesis, however, more research would be needed.

References.
Abel G (2012) Knowing-How: indispensable but inscrutable. In: Tolksdorf S (ed) Conceptions of knowledge. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 245–266
Anderson JR, Lebiere C (1998) The atomic components of thought. Erlbaum, Mahwah
Andrews J, Higson H (2008) Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: a European study. High Educ Eur 33:411–422
Aristotle (2014) Complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford translation. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Ayres P, Sweller J (2005) The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In: Mayer R (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 135–146
Azuma R (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 6:355–385
Bartram D (2005) The great eight competencies: a criterion-centric approach to validation. J Appl Psychol 90:1185–1203
Baumberger C (2014) Types of understanding: their nature and their relation to knowledge. Conceptus 40:67–88
Baumert J (ed) (2001) PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Brockett RG, Hiemstra R (1993) Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L (2011) Gamification: Toward a Definition. In: Tan D (ed) Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1–4
DFKI (2018) Praxis and theory linked in MINT study—The “Be-greifen” project. https://www.dfki.de/web/news/dfki-cebit-2018/be-greifen. Accessed 19 June 2018
Dochy F, Segers M, Sluijsmans D (1999) The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Stud High Educ 24:331–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935
Dworkin G (2017) Paternalism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
Elgin C (2017) True enough. MIT Press, Cambridge
Ermi L, Mäyrä F (2005) Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: analysing immersion. In: Proceedings of the DiGRA conference 3
Fantl J (2012) Knowledge How. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-how/. Accessed 2 Apr 2018
Fodor JA (1968) The appeal to tacit knowledge in psychological explanation. J Philos 65:627–640
Gibson J (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press, New York
Gilbert JK (ed) (2005) Visualization in science education. Springer, Dordrecht
Gobert J (2005) Leveraging technology and cognitive theory on visualization to promote student’s science. In: Gilbert JK (ed) Visualization in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 73–90
Grimm SR (2006) Is understanding a species of knowledge? Br J Philos Sci 57:515–535
Haglund J, Jeppsson F, Schönborn KJ (2016) Taking on the heat—a narrative account of how infrared cameras invite instant inquiry. Res Sci Educ 46:685–713
Hall GE, Jones HL (1976) Competency-based education: a process for the improvement of education. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs
Holec H (1981) Autonomy and foreign language learning: prepared for the Council of Europe. Council of Europe Modern Languages Project. Pergamon Press, Oxford
Ichikawa J, Steup M (2017) The analysis of knowledge. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/. Accessed 18 June 2018
Isbister K (2017) How games move us: emotion by design. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Jones E, Voorhees R, Paulson K (2001) Defining and assessing learning: exploring competency-based initiatives. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002159. Accessed 11 June 2018
Kuhn J, Lukowicz P, Hirth M, Poxrucker A, Weppner J, Younas J (2016) gPhysics—using smart glasses for head-centered, context-aware learning in physics experiments. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 9:304–317
Kurz R, Bartram D (2002) Competency and invidivual performance: modelling the world of work. In: Robertson IT, Callinan M, Bartram D (eds) Organizational effectiveness: the role of psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 227–255
Kvanvig JL (2003) The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
MacIntyre A (1985) After virtue: a study in moral theory, 2nd edn. Duckworth, London
Mayer R, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38:43–52
Moreno R, Mayer R (1999) Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol 91:358–368
Moreno R, Mayer R (2007) Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educ Psychol Rev 19:309–326
Mößner N (2015) Visual Information and Scientific Understanding. Axiomathes 25:167–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-014-9246-7
Mulder M (ed) (2017) Competence-based vocational and professional education: bridging the Worlds of work and education. Technical and vocational education and training, vol 23. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Neitzel B (2012) Involvierungsstrategien des Computerspiels. In: GamesCoop (ed) Theorien des Computerspiels zur Einführung. Junius, Hamburg, pp 75–103
Neuweg HG (2004) Tacit knowing and implicit learning. In: Fischer M (ed) European perspectives on learning at work: the acquisition of work process knowledge. Office for Off. Publ. of the Europ. Communities, Luxembourg
Newman M (2003) A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of problem based learning: on behalf of the Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Group on the Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning. In: Special report, vol 2. LTSN-01, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford Univ. Press, New York
Nozick R (1981) Philosophical explanations. The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge
Philbeck T (2017) Can we build a resilient employment market for an uncertain future? In: Hughes J, LaGrandeur K (eds) Surviving the machine age: Intelligent technology and the transformation of human work. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 83–106
Plato (2006) Theaetetus. Sophist, Reprinted. Plato, vol 7. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge
Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
Poole S (2000) Trigger happy: Videogames and the entertainment revolution. Arcade Publishing, New York
Pritchard D (2010) Knowledge and understanding. In: Pritchard D, Haddock A, Millar A (eds) The nature and value of knowledge: three investigations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–88
Rapp D (2005) Mental models: theoretical issues for visualizations in science education. In: Gilbert JK (ed) Visualization in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–60
Regt H de (2014) Visualization as a tool for understanding. Perspect Sci 22:377–396
Roush S (2005) Tracking truth: knowledge, evidence, and science. Clarendon, Oxford
Ryle G (2009) The concept of mind. Routledge, London
Sailer M (2016) Die Wirkung von Gamification auf Motivation und Leistung. Springer, Wiesbaden
Santos MEC, Chen A, Taketomi T, Yamamoto G, Miyazaki J, Kato H (2014) AugmentDE
ed reality learning experiences: survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7:38–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.37
Schatzki TR (2002) The site of the social: a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
Schmalstieg D, Hollerer T (2016) Augmented reality: principles and practice. Addison-Wesley, Boston
Seel N (2003) Psychologie des Lernens. UTB, Munich
Stanley J, Williamson T (2001) Knowing How. J Philos 98:411–444
Strevens M (2013) No understanding without explanation. Stud Hist Philos Sci 44:510–515
Strzys M, Kapp S, Thees M, Klein P, Lukowicz P, Knierim P, Schmidt A, Kuhn J (2018) Physics holo.lab learning experience: using smartglasses for augmented reality labwork to foster the concepts of heat conduction. Eur J Phys 39:35703
Sweller J (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci 12:257–285
Sweller J (2005) Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer R (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–30
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2009) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, 2nd edn. Penguin, New York
Voorhees R (2001) Competency-based learning models: a necessary future. New Dir Inst Res 110:5–13
Vorderer P (ed) (2006) Playing video games: motives, responses, and consequences. Routledge, New York
Wallis C (2008) Consciousness, context, and know-how. Synthese 160:123–153
Wild E, Möller J (2009) Pädagogische Psychologie. Springer, Berlin