|
Main Topics
Home
Up
Pedagogy
Action Learning
Technology
Policies
ICT
Limitations
Learning
Teaching
Alignment for ICT Use
Authentic teaching
Success Factors
Relationships
Requiste Variety
Tentative Theory
More information ...
| |
The law of requisite variety states that
The larger the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the variety of perturbations (input variations) it is able to compensate.
( more )
Although derived from cybernetics the underlying principle can be useful in considering a wide range of
situations, including the following:
Learning Objects
The challenge: Learning objects as 'controlling systems' must be able to compensate for perturbations in terms of the learners' actions and responses.
There are two ways to increase the effectiveness of a learning object:
- A learning object should have a range of possible responses that is able to deal with the range of actual inputs from users
- A learning object (as controlling system) should receive minimal variation in input from the student (as environment).
The inputs from the user are partly in response to the material, prompts and options provided by the learning object.
Perhaps this explains why IT is generally so much more successful for training than it is for education. Training usually involves
- a specific context (to which the training applies) leading to
- well defined learning tasks (often related to specific competencies)
- anticipated starting points (people seeking training are likely to have certain characteristics as a result of being ready for this particular training – readiness being more or less established in the entry process
- anticipated previous experience (on which to draw)
All of this contributes to reducing variation in user inputs, that is, fewer perturbations to
which the learning object must be able to respond from its available range of possible actions.
In contrast, education is much more problematic in terms of the learner’s context, the learner’s needs and the learning tasks that are likely to meet those needs.
From the ‘perspective of the learning object’ perturbations reflect the mismatch between
- the assumptions that underpin the design and functionality of the learning object and
- the user’s needs and/or the user’s attempts to meet them through the learning object and the device in which it is being engaged
I suspect that there are two things that might help address this mismatch between will be to minimise
- 'hardwiring' of applications (learning objects) and
- situate the learning object in relation to a teacher-learner working relationship. (Note the ‘teacher’ may be a colleague, friend, boss…)
Unfortunately the Learning Federation adopted the notion that a learning object was something that (almost) any student should be able to use independently anytime and anywhere. I am not sure the learning theory that would support such a possibility has been developed yet, except by the Emperor's tailors - you know, the
fellows who provided 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.
Using current educational theory, an ideal learning object would be able to
- gauge the students needs, interests, hopes…
- identify suitable tasks in order to address these matters
- gauge the student’s zone of proximal development in relation to each task
- place the next step within the zone
- and also mediate the student’s thinking, that is, engage with the student in a way that helped them to
- reflect on how they responded to the inputs received,
- o reflect on what thinking they used to develop a response to the input
- o prepare a response appropriate to the input received and the situation into which the response is to be made
- o reflect on how they presented their response to the inputs received
- monitor the effectiveness of all these steps and draw conclusions for future use
- respond to the student’s progress in relation to all of the above
It is worth noting that in any computer mediated learning process the 'controlling system' changes from step to step and hence the environment also changes.
At any moment in time the controlling system may be the
- the student (and his/her knowledge, skills, experience, purposes, motivation...)
- the learning object itself
- computer operating system
- a software component (eg, Flash)
- an external resource (eg, a website, peripheral...)
- connections (eg, power supply, internet...)
The controlling system defines the environment by default: if the student is the controlling system at
a particular point then the other elements makeup the environment and may present 'perturbations' to the student as controlling system.
Computers as a ‘perturbation in the environment’
When computers are introduced into the classroom environment they bring with them perturbations for many teachers in terms of how their use can be incorporated into the class program.
Example: Many teachers experience having computers in their classrooms as a double bind. The teachers may hold the view that: “All individual children should undertake similar learning tasks at the same time…but…there are insufficient computers to allow such an approach”.
Not all teachers have the available responses (requisite variety) to deal well with this situation. Two common responses are
- keep the use of computers in these classrooms to a minimum: maintain the existing program to ensure equitable opportunity and progress
- facilitate computer use on the basis of 'withdrawal' from the class program so that computer use runs in parallel to (is not really part of) the class program.
Note: there are issues of declining quality of experience and learning over time when the latter option is implemented. The first students to undertake the task are likely to do well, later students less well and the last students are likely to have the task done for them or not at all and this results in little or no learning.
Teachers with the requisite variety
The teachers who do best with ICT are those who have a richly structured program involving shared purposes with complementary tasks for the class, groups and individuals. The use of the technology is not the central learning task for individual students but something by which the users
contribute to the success of
other individuals, groups and the class. Such teachers appear to take a sociological perspective
with respect to learning, rather than see learning as an almost clinical (psychological) process with reference to (effectively isolated) individuals.
These teachers are flexible and dynamic in making responses around purposes, meaning, provision of support, actual tasks, working arrangements, access to facilities and resources… in order to achieve the requisite variety.
The issue of reliability
Most of the 'reliability' issues reported by teachers relate to the
requisite variety. For teachers, ‘unreliable’ means that they ‘can't rely on being able to use the technology'
within their window of opportunity. From this observations made in this study
technology in the situation is 'unreliable' because the controlling system (often
the user) cannot deal with (does not have a sufficient range of available actions to respond to) the 'perturbations' in the environment.
A second reason is that they are unable to deal with the interim period before the ‘perturbation’ can be
resolved: the window of opportunity is not sufficient to enable resolution of
the issue. Teachers who operate extended linear, small step (short windows of
opportunity) programs struggle to deal well with the interim. Examples of
perturbations experienced as reliability issues can be found here
Conclusion
Thus the Law of Requisite Variety prompts us to take a total system view and to understand the way in which control within a system moves from element to element on a moment by moment basis. The implications are that, while simple models can be powerful for the purposes of design, the underlying assumptions should not be so simplistic that the devices and arrangements developed on the basis the simple models fail when placed in real situations. They must have the requisite variety in their range of actions to deal with the 'perturbations' encountered
when situated in the lived experience and everyday activity of those for whom the arrangements and devices
are developed.
|
