Learning with computers

The term “mindtools” refers to computer application that supports a constructivist approach to learning and is often called learning with computers. Mindtools, as personal knowledge construction tools, allow learners to construct, share and revise knowledge in more open-ended environments rather than using computer programs just to present and represent information (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). Using computers as Mindtools will facilitate learning in the need to place learning and problem solving in real-life contexts where there are no exact answers. From the constructivist learning view, learners often select and pursue their own learning in a rich and complex information environment, and it will be more effective in preparing learners for life-long learning.

Constructivist learning is concerned with the process of learning, not with the value of what is being actually learned. How to evaluate the worthiness of learning in an on-going diagnostic process that lets the teacher to determine if the learner has gained understanding of concepts and knowledge? We can try to get some ideas from evaluation in experiential education. As an old approach learning, experiential educators promote learning through participation, reflection, and application to situations of consequence. They have developed methods to answer questions about how experiential education works (Hendricks, 1994). For example, Eisner (1993) thinks evaluation tasks should:

(1) reflect real world needs, by increasing students' problem-solving abilities and ability to construe meaning;
(2) reveal how students solve problems, not just the final answer, since reasoning determines students' ability to transfer learning;
(3) reflect values of the intellectual community from which the tasks are derived, thus providing a context for learning and enhancing retention, meaning, and aesthetic appreciation;
(4) not be limited to solo performances, since much of life requires an ability to work in cooperation with others;
(5) allow more than one way to do things or more than one answer to a question, since real-life situations rarely have only one correct alternative;
(6) promote transference by presenting tasks that require students to intelligently adapt modifiable learning tools;
(7) require students to display an understanding of the whole, not just the parts; and
(8) allow students to choose a form of response with which they are comfortable.

I believe that teachers should play a coaching role providing external sources in a constructivist learning environment. It is my feeling that a combination of teachers’ instruction on computer skills or summative decisions about learning contents and students self-reflection on learning processes will look promising as an approach of learning growth. Also, traditional evaluation methods such as the collection of items in a portfolio, or case study analysis could certainly prove useful as well.

[References]:

Eisner, E. W. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education: Some criteria in search of practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 219-233.

Hendricks, B. (1994). Improving evaluation in experiential education. ERIC Digests (073), ED376998 1994-11-00. Available URL http://ericae.net/db/edo/ED376998.htm

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H.P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Snowman, J., & Biehler, R., (2006). Psychology applied to teaching (11th ed. ). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rethinking learning in the digital age

Seymour Papert develops his long and distinguished career in rethinking how schools should work based on Constructionist learning. Also, he focuses on the impact of new technologies on learning in schools. In his book, The Children's Machine, Dr. Papert explores the art of learning; a topic that has been widely ignored by educational researchers. He introduces the concept of 'mathetics,' which he defines as the art of learning, and discusses the "mathetics" in the school setting and in light of his own experiences. His story, how to deal with the etymology of flower name, emphasizes the need for connectedness, and for tying new learning to interests and knowledge structures that are already in place. Papert believes that a successful learner has a desire to making connections, both between different mathematical ideas and his/her current state of understanding.

Traditionally, educators emphasize conveying a lot of information and facts, and do not model the learning process. They try to delivery of answers far more than the learning of answers. Papert(1993) claims that “in school children are taught more about numbers and grammar than about thinking.” He expects children to become motivated learners and problem-solvers through providing the learners with the appropriate tool—computer-- to participate the learning process. From his constructivist view of learning, Papert (1988) established some important guidelines for the placement and use of computers in schools as follows:

1. Seek out open-ended projects that foster students' involvement with a variety of materials, treating computers as just one more material, alongside rulers, wire, paper, sand, and so forth.
2. Encourage activities in which students use computers to solve real problems.
3. Connect the work done on the computer with what goes on during the rest of the school day, and also with the students' interests outside of school.
4. Recognize the unique qualities of computers, taking advantage of their precision, adaptability, extensibility, and ability to mirror individual students' ideas and constructions of reality.
5. Take advantage of such new, low-cost technological advances as temperature and light sensors, which promote integration of the computer with aspects of the students' physical environment.

Currently, more constructivist learning practice is taking place in our education institutions due to the exploitation of the digital media. For instance, Stager (2005) at Pepperdine University has designed successful post-graduate courses by applying constructionist learning theory in an online community of practice. The courses produced enough stimuli, support and expectations of reflective practice to assist students to learn about learning while learning to do wondrous things (Stager, 2005).

[References]:

Papert, S. (1993). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, Basic Books: New York.

Papert, S. (1988). Computer as material: messing about with time. The Teachers College Record, 89(3). Available URL http://www.papert.org/articles/ComputerAsMaterial.html

Stager, G. (2005). Towards a pedagogy of online constructionist learning. 2005 World Conference on Computers in Education, Stellenbosch, South Africa. July 2005.

High-tech, a barrier to think deeply?

In Tarlow and Spangler’s article, they discuss issues that surround the question of whether or not the conveniences of technology have been beneficial in increasing our ability to reflect and think critically. They prefer conventional learning practices, e.g. reading, writing, drawing, singing, etc. Tarlow and Spangler (2001)state: "We must also redouble our efforts to be sure that the children still get the benefits of our oral and literate traditions through plenty of physical activity, singing, making things with the hands, listening to and reading literature, drawing pictures with crayons and paints,…".

I partly agree with Tarlow's assertion that people are much less likely to consider the possible choices and decisions made as they buzz through information quickly. How can you expect students playing with computers and watching television to think deeply about the complicated questions of post-modernity? Tarlow suggests a pedagogical consideration in the substitution of technology in which children learn to read and write after being immersed in written form—mostly by being read to and falling in love with children’s literature (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001). Some conventional practices, like note-taking, are still the most important skills students can use to improve their understanding and retention of material that they read and are taught in class. Yet, they might be the most erratic and unmonitored student activities that occur in the classroom (Teaching today, 2005).

The word “literacy” traditionally refers to one's ability to read and write print-based media sources such as books and newspapers. This new century demands that we expand our definition of literacy to include a wide variety of media, including computers, video games, television, and the Internet. All of us can practice "reading" messages and stories across multiple media platforms, as well as "writing" our own media in multiple forms. As a result, literacy is not disappearing or being replaced by technology usage and its surrounding cultural practices, but instead it is enhanced.

Some people may argue that one does not necessarily always think deeply when one has access to the rapid, easy information. But as educators in the field of instructional design, we all need to think deeply about what is an appropriate solution when incorporating technology. Truly, critical thinking does require time to develop awareness and process perspectives, consider effects, and build relationships (Gokhale, 1995). It means deep thought requires time to reach a level of ability for students to conceptualize abstract connections between experience and areas of unique interests, or new applications of connecting new and old knowledge bases. However, as we all know neither time nor presentation means ensured deep thought, comprehension, and critical thinking because individual differences in learning style or media preferences. So either the two-dimensional quality of linear thinking or the multi-dimensional approach can utilize technologies to facilitate learning and enable access to previously unreachable information.

[References]

Gokhale. A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.

Tarlow. M., & Spangler, K. L. (2001). Now more than ever: will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67(3), 23-27.

Teaching Today (2005), Note-taking: an essential skill to help students focus and think deeply. Available: URL http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/weeklytips.phtml/28

Cultural sensitivity in instructional design

Value absolutes in product evaluation include ethical, legal, and ecological standards (Reeves, 1997). Evaluators use these standards when evaluating the merit and value of programs and products. Reeves (1997) proposed cultural sensitivity as an addition to that essential list of value absolutes. He suggests that the ultimate goal of product and program design is not to design culturally neutral materials, but to create enriched learning environments. Also, he introduced a new concept the “emancipatory evaluation”, which requires the evaluator to determine all theoretical perspectives relevant, with special emphasis on traditional minorities.

Cultural sensitivity is a term used to describe the ability to view the world from the perspectives of members of other cultures (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). It is a mind-set that includes not only an awareness of the diversity of the learners, but an appreciation for the differences. Creating a culturally sensitive learning environment requires the instructional designer, as well as the educator, to evaluate his/her own culture, and his/her own feelings toward other cultures. The instructional designers and educators sensitivity to cultural differences may be a deciding factor in empowering or repressing the students world views because they constantly make decisions about what and how will be learned and many other factors that affect the learning environment.

In a culturally diverse learning environment, curriculum designers or teachers are expected to develop positive attitudes and behaviors toward the students, understand individual specific learning styles that students bring from their culturally different backgrounds, and select or use instructional materials which facilitate a positive learning environment (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). As a result, employing a set of culturally sensitive strategies could create an opportunity for many kinds of academic achievement in a culturally diverse classroom, and may improve learning outcome for all students. This method of catering to the learning characteristics creates a climate in which students will change their negative attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors about cultural diversity and then learn to celebrate their diversity.

How can cultural issues be considered so that an instructional design can be used in culturally sensitive, responsive and appropriate ways? Bentley, Tinney and Chia (2004) recommended six design guidelines that have good points for American instructional designers or educators. The six guidelines are as follows:
1. Explicitly describe the educational values embedded in the course.
2. Offer optional scaffolding elements to help learners.
3. Consider the knowledge and skill level of English required to use the course.
4. Avoid slang and locally used words and phrases.
5. Before any real-time activity, make topic information available ahead of time for students so that students have the extra time needed to review the topic.
6. Materials should place little emphasis on personal achievement, promote group work, be written in impersonal style and emphasize tradition and history. (Bentley, Tinney & Chia, 2004).

In conclusion, culture is a critical influence on the acceptance, use of and impact of learning resources (Collis, 1999). Sometimes it is loud and cannot be ignored, but at other times it is silent and implicit. Instructional designers must be flexible, know the learners, and constantly be alert to the issue of culture in designing materials.

[References]

Bentley, J.P.H., Tinney, M.V., & Chia, B.H., (2004). Intercultural internet-based learning: Know your audience and what they value. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Chicago , IL. (ERIC #: ED485118).

Collis, B., (1999). Designing for differences: cultural issues in the design of WWW-based course-support sites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), 201-215.

Reeves, T.C., (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.

Snowman, J., & Beihler, R., (2006). Psychology applied to teaching (11th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.