Moore, O.K. and Anderson, A.R. (1968) ‘The responsive environments project’, in R.D.Hess and R.M.Bear (eds.), Early Education. Current Theory, Research, and Action. Aldine, pp.171-189.
【英語１】 次の英文を読み、以下の問い(1)〜(2)に答えよ。
(1)responsive environmentsの実例を一つ考え、理由とともに記せ。
(2)下線部を正しい日本語に直せ。
Responsive Environments
Responsive environments were in existence before any of the equipment considered below was available. Automation came later; and before turning to that topic we outline the requirements imposed on an environment in order to qualify it as “responsive.”
A person P is said to be in a responsive environment R if:
(a) R allows for a variety of actions on the part of P. These actions may be exploratory in character, or may be well thought out ahead of time by P. In either event:
(b) R responds in some reasonably systematic way to P’s action, with the result that P is informed immediately—or at some specified interval—of the consequences of his action relative to R.
(c) The pace of the activity is determined principally by P; P is not rushed or delayed in his actions relative to R, although some necessary time lag is allowed for in R’s response.
(d) R permits P to use his capacity for discovering constant features of R, relations between the behavior of P and the response of R, etc.
(e) R is sufficiently complex so that the interconnected relations discovered under (d) are generalizable; they shed light for P on general properties of physical, social, or cultural worlds.
It should be clear that not all environments are responsive, and that interactional situations do not fall under the heading of responsive environments as described above; in the course of interaction between two human beings, the general state of both persons is changed as a result of the encounter, but in a responsive environment the “program” of R is left unchanged by the action of P.
Classification of Machines
For the purposes of guiding the construction of mechanical responsive environments, we have been led to a consideration of machines generally, and to an attempt to give a classification of them in terms of the standards we use in evaluating them. We propose the following:
(a) Tools.
A tool is a machine to be judged primarily in terms of its efficiency ; most machines are tools. The point of using a tool is to overcome resistance at one point by the application of a force at some other point. Typical simple tools are the lever, the pulley, the screw, and the inclined plane.
(b) Reproducers.
A mirror is an example of a simple reproducer. More sophisticated examples are the phonograph and the camera. The thing we want to know about a reproducing device is how faithful it is: its fidelity.
(c) Responsive devices.
A responsive device is a machine which meets the requirements of a “responsive environment” as just described above; it is to be judged primarily in terms of a criterion which we shall call efficacy. The point of using a responsive machine is to change ( hopefully to enhance ) the emotional or cognitive state of a human being. An early simple responsive device is the harp. The criterion of efficacy requires disciplines beyond engineering to evaluate such a machine; the behavioral sciences are called upon to judge responsive devices.
(d) Interactional machines.
At present there are no successful interactional machines in existence. Any machine which can successfully take part in social interaction with human beings is an interactional machine; by “successfully take part” we mean that the human interactors would not recognize or detect that the machine is a machine rather than another human being. An interactional machine is not reproducing or simulating the behavior of any given person, but is a fellow interactor to be taken seriously in its own right. Even though no interactional machines exist, the question can still be asked as to how we would evaluate them if there were any. It would seem that one crucial criterion of adequacy for such machines would be that of congeniality.
