“A long shot, Watson, a very long shot!” (- Sr. Arthur Conan Doyle)

     Have you heard about Watson, the IBM computer that is going to be on “Jeopardy!” this week? Watson is a super computer that has been programmed to play “Jeopardy!” against two of the game show’s greatest champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. Watson can answer trivia questions remarkably well, but did it actually learn the information, and does it understand the questions and answers? It’s certainly got me thinking.
     My first thought was, no, Watson did not actually learn anything. It has been programmed to perform, but it can only perform within the parameters the programmers established. To me, the strongest element of learning is the ability to take new information from one situation and apply it to another. However, after looking in the dictionary, I realize my definition may be off.
     In fact, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary lists the first definition of the verb “to learn” as follows: “to gain knowledge or understanding of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience” (Learn, 2011). This definition doesn’t include the ability to transfer the information to new a context, like I had original thought. It also states that one learns by instruction, which is conceivably equivalent to programming, in the case of Watson. So, perhaps Watson has learned the information it relies upon to answer trivia questions.
     Beyond learning, there are the concepts of knowledge and understanding. Wiggins and McTighe (2005), in Understanding by Design, make it pretty clear that there is a difference between knowledge and understanding. Wiggins and McTighe state, “An understanding is a mental construct, an abstraction made by the human mind to make sense of many distinct pieces of knowledge” (p. 37). From this description, we see that understanding is on a higher level of cognition—a level that is attained by applying “distinct pieces of knowledge.” Therefore, knowledge is a building block that leads to understanding. This concept is also apparent in Bloom’s Taxonomy, which places Comprehension (understanding) above Knowledge (Page, 2010, p. 56).
     One can argue that Watson learned a variety of facts, which is the knowledge Watson relies on to answer the trivia questions on “Jeopardy!”, but does Watson understand? Again I’ll rely on Wiggins and McTighe, who state, “Understanding thus involves meeting a challenge for thought. We encounter a mental problem, and experience with puzzling or no meaning. We use judgment to draw upon our repertoire of skill and knowledge to solve it” (p. 39). By this definition, one could even argue that Watson understands the game show prompts, at least some of the time, as evidenced by the computer’s ability to sort through its “repertoire of skill and knowledge” to answer the prompt correctly. Of course the computer can make mistakes, but, then again, so do humans and animals, so why not computers.
     However, as we delve deeper into the layers of understanding, it seems less and less likely that a computer, even one as well programmed as Watson, can be said to truly understand. Wiggins and McTighe present six facets of mature understanding:
     When we truly understand, we,

1. Can explain
2. Can interpret
3. Can apply
4. Have perspective
5. Can empathize
6. Have self-knowledge (p. 85)

It’s possible that Watson exhibits the first three points (explaining, interpreting, and applying); however, I suspect the computer would not be able to demonstrate the ability to have perspective, empathize, or have self-knowledge. Thus, Watson does not have the ability of mature understanding (back to the drawing board IBM!).
     While it may be silly to look at learning, knowledge, and understanding as it applies to a computer, I believe it to have been a valuable exercise nonetheless. As humans, we perhaps take for granted the fine differences between these three concepts—in fact, we often use these terms interchangeably—but, by applying them to an inanimate object, we have to really examine our definitions of these concepts and determine how they might be applied to something outside our normal frame of reference. For that matter, this was an exercise in understanding the concepts of learning, knowledge, and understanding by transferring what I’ve learned in one context (the typical teacher-student relationship) to that of a different context (the programmer-computer relationship).

If you’d like to read more about Watson’s big match, here is an article from the New York Times, and one from the Washington Post.

[LIBR250 Prompt: What does it mean to learn?  Include thoughts and definitions regarding knowing and understanding?]

References

Learn. (2011). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learning?show=10&t=1297730018

Page, B. (2010). 12 things teachers must know about learning. Education Digest, 75(8), 54-56.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.