Wilensky and Resnick’s reiterate Papert’s emphasis on the role of our language in defining the contours of our thinking.
Languages make a fundamental distinction between the singular and the plural. Indeed, in writing the above description, we needed to decide whether to use the verb “is” or “are” when referring to slime mold. But, as the case of the slime mold shows, the distinction between singular and plural is not as sharp as might first appear… In our view, the very question of “objectness” becomes a question of “levels.” Objects that are viewed singular at one level are best viewed as plural at another (Wilensky & Resnick, 1999, p. 8, 9).
Our language underlies many of our conceptual misunderstandings of emergent levels since it forces us to submit to binaries when things could, in fact, be much more complex. As described in the above quote, the same object could be viewed as singular or plural depending on our level of analysis. It is as if we have two units of analysis: the singular and the aggregate. The behavior of the aggregate is not a direct reflection of the behavior of its constituent elements. Nevertheless, it could be predicted if analyzed as an “emergent level.” Debugging one’s train of thought is another advantage offered by programming and that is also harder to achieve via our spoken language. This makes clearer that the “way we see the world is greatly influenced by the tools we have at our disposal (p. 14).”
Being able to predict the attributes of the emergent level from the behavior of its constituent elements can have a tremendous impact on the lives of students and people in general. Our daily actions shape our cultures, societies, and environments in ways that are hard to predict without level analysis. Nevertheless, we do in many cases formulate erroneous predictions and act accordingly when there could be better ways to act.
When people see patterns in the world, they tend to assume centralized control even if it doesn’t exist. And when people try to create structures in the world (such as organizations or technological artifacts), they often impose centralized control even if it’s not needed (p. 9).
Can you imagine how a deeper understanding of patterns that emerge without central control could affect our society? Organizations could then be designed in different ways and people’s relationships may be redefined. For instance, designing less centralized social structures may engender less social hierarchy and privilege. Moreover, as echoed by Wilensky and Resnick, it is hard for us to predict how our individual actions contribute to macro social patterns. Gaining such an understanding may assist us in combating global concerns, such as ecological and ideological threats, by understanding what and how individual actions affect emergent patterns.
Finally, I believe that fostering computational literacy could also “empower ideas” since it offers insightful discoveries—is “powerful in its use;” reveals connections that are hard to see otherwise, such as those between different levels or different disciplines (physics and chemistry for example)—is “powerful in its connections;” and relies on learners’ previous knowledge of micro-levels to predict macro-levels—offers syntonic learning (Papert, 2000, p. 727; Wilensky & Resnick, 2000; Wilensky et al., 2014). Consequently, computational literacy could bring the “magical flare” (that I described in my first blog) back to ideas by revealing underlying patterns and connections.
My question is whether people who practice level analysis will be able to better predict macro phenomena without using computational literacy tools. In other words, could level analysis become a skill that helps us better analyze social or aggregate phenomena without using computers—is it a transferrable skill? Or will it remain a computer-bound one?
I agree with you! I was very challenged by their choice of words and their implications. Thinking of slime as both "it" and "they" and of ourselves as both "I" and "we" is an idea that I would've liked to be more fully elaborated.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of levels certainly lends itself to the social sciences: sociology, economics, human geography, political science. How much, I wonder, are we able to model these ideas to children in middle school, though, and is the "juice worth the squeeze?"
As the researchers in the Simpson article were very careful to question the students in just the right way to coach them toward making their connections, it wasn't the computers that taught the students- They were simply objects to think with- It was the student-student (internal and external) and student-teacher interaction that still appeared to reinforce the learning.
From my foxhole, I see the challenge as training students and teachers to ask the right questions, rather than training both to program.
It hadn't occurred to me that level understanding might not be transferrable. In fact it seemed that the use of a computer was merely a useful tool in exploring the micro-macro interaction. Take for example the slime mold and the idea that turtles with better smell will form bigger colonies faster. The computer is greatly helpful in the modeling of this situation, you could do it by hand, but it would be time consuming and likely frustrating. (I find it useful to remember that computer programs can be reproduced in life, but we are limited by time and numbers, so it is not generally a good idea.) So by modeling the system i've discovered that in fact a better sense of smell leads the turtle to find a group faster and makes it more likely to stay there. Now look at life, what draws us into social groups? If we are interested in making larger social groups, what do we need to take into consideration? Or, what are the factors that have created small tight knit groups? Take two people, one is looking for a social group and the requirements are the group likes social get togethers, the other is also looking for a social group, but they require social get togethers that happen in the evening and involve dancing and music. The former will find a large group of people while the latter might find a much smaller group. This analogy isn't perfect because not everyone they meet will conform to their standards whereas all turtles emitted pheromones.
ReplyDeleteI really like your question about whether or not this skill of level analysis is transferable to other subjects outside of the computer. I agree with Ruth that the computer is very helpful in modeling a scenario. When I was reading the article my mind drifted to social studies- specifically economics and how that has impacted societies and the history of our world. I see this as an extension of the predator and prey because it balances power dynamics, resources, and the relationships between various people/businesses. Can this be done without a computer? Yes, I have seen simulations done in the classroom where students are given a role to play and the teacher demonstrates how inflation, free trade, and tariffs impact the economy they set up in their class. I wonder if such a complicated and leveled idea could be expanded to the macro- so rather than experiencing it as an individual students could design it and could play the role of the teacher and see the dynamics from a birds eye view?
ReplyDelete