Hi Jaap,
Does emergent learning have to produce something unique or odd? If the artifact appeared out of place we might ask for an explanation that would show a new twist in logic or viewpoint. Even the obvious needs to account for itself but the oddity might be a richer source of explanations.
Hi Scott, Good Question. The difficult question is What is New or what is Unique. The teacher should know what is new for the student, for that is what is important. New and unique are personal subjective terms.
So if a little boy is gaming about the Roman Empire and while playing is learning historecal and cultural knowledage in the game than for this little boy it is New Knowledge.
Jaap,
I would think all learning is personal subjective to the person who learns. The boy playing the game is operating (in his mind) the conditions of play through a series of understandings of what is expected next. His brain is also constructing new or deeper understandings of the complexity of the subject along with the enactment / expression of more mature strategy of play. Something is developing here that is embodied within the boy, not the game or his teacher.
Better play patterns demonstrate change in strategy and maybe New Knowledge is included and I'd say the teacher wasn't involved it this beyond providing access to the game. School directs material judged useful by the culture it springs from to a student in a form determined to be most easiy metabolized into a thing called learning. All this occures at the surface.
How do we get to the person as product of themselves over person as "product" of education. Before we claim that something we did caused learning we need evidence they were listening to us. Would this be an Artifact?
