Technology for Classroom Orchestration - New Science of Learning - page 510

bias. On the other hand, the teacher has to consider the broader scope of what's
happening inside the class and to some extent also outside the class. So, there is a
difference of scope in the concerns of each side. The new models we analyze in this
chapter are compatible with these two levels since they articulate in a single picture
individual cognitive processes, social interactions and the class life. We hence refer
to them as “ integrative models ” versus other models that have a more local scope
(e.g. the zone of proximal development, the repair theory, etc.),
Integrative models are not learning theories. They do not predict how learning
may result from specific activities. Instead, their strength is to be rather “agnostic”
with regard to learning theories. Theories provide us with a particular lens to grasp
the complexity of learning in classrooms, but they are somehow exclusive. Isn't
it legitimate to combine them, for instance to reason on the metacognitive skills
that can be internalized through social interactions (Blaye, 1988)? Isn't it legiti-
mate to design activities that combine self-explanation and socio-cognitive conflict?
Teachers don't have to choose among Bloom, Vygostky and Piaget. Researchers
don't have to choose either. Students have a single brain; they don't switch between
brains when moving from individual to social activities. When two peers perform a
classification task, individual induction and social argumentation are deeply inter-
twined. The interest of the models we discuss hereafter is to pay attention to the
multiple levels that enter into play when explaining that a method “works well.”
It is also their weakness: by addressing many aspects, they remain quite abstract.
We hence attempt to extract more specific factors but these models do not pre-
dict learning effects, they are ways to think about the reality for which we design
learning environment. We analyze very broad models, orchestration and ecosystems,
and then instantiate them with homemade specific models [“split where interactions
should happen” (SWISH) and “Der Erfahrraum”]
The “Orchestration” Model
Many scholars have used “orchestration” to refer to the design and real-time man-
agement of multiple classroom activities, multiple learning processes and multiple
teaching actions (Brophy & Good, 1986; Tomlinson, 1999; DiGiano & Patton,
2002; Fischer, Wecker, Schrader, Gerjets, & Hesse, 2005; Gravier, Fayolle, Noyel,
Leleve, & Benmohamed, 2006; Dillenbourg & Fischer, 2007; von Inqvald, 2009).
The metaphor is appealing. Both music writers and teachers have to harmonize mul-
tiple “voices.” They need a fine-grained control of time. They translate a global mes-
sage (emotions, knowledge) into a sequence of atomic actions (notes, interactions).
Rothstein-Fisch and Trumbull (2008) explain that they use the word “orchestration”
instead of “management” because it “denotes bringing about harmony” (p. 101).
Moon (2001) justifies the use of the word “orchestration” to mean “the process of
managing a whole learning group in such a way as to maintain progress towards the
learning outcomes and improvement of practice for all” (p. 120)
Unfortunately, the classroom “orchestration” seems to have a different mean-
ing than its musical counterpart. In music, orchestration refers to writing the score
that an orchestra will play. It does not refer to the activity of the conductor when