MINDTOOLS
What
is Mindtool ?
Mindtools
are computer applications that when used by learners to represent what they
know, necessarily engage them in critical thinking about the content they are
studying (Jonassen, 1996). Students can’t use Mindtools as learning strategies
without thinking deeply about they are studying.
Mindtools are seen as part of a
Contructivism and in some articles the use of Mindtools facilitates movement
from a more traditional classroom to a classroom of intentional,
student-centred knowledge construction (Irving & George, 2000).
The term 'Mindtools' itself does not
denote a specific category of application, but speaks more to a division of
labour between learner and computer, with the learner carrying ultimate
responsibility.
Research shows evidence for the continued
use of Mindtools and the need for more research, particularly in the areas of
the cultural constructs that may be associated with these tools. Finally, a
simple checklist is presented for evaluating Mindtools for the classroom
context, adapted from Jonassen(2000).
Jonassen saw Mindtools as cognitive tools based in selected computer applications, used for "engaging and enhancing multiple forms of thinking in learners" (Jonassen, 2000:3). A cognitive tool may be defined as "a type of software that is used in ways that enable, extend, or reorganize the processing capabilities of normal human cognition (Azevedo-Carns, 1997).
These selected software applications require students to think in meaningful ways to represent what they know. The use of Mindtools may be a sort of symbiotic relationship where students "enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning" (Jonassen, 2000:4).
The use of these computer applications as Mindtools for
learning requires that the students think deeply about what they are doing
(Jonassen et al, 1998) and this further focus is seen as a sort of
mind-extension (Derry and LaJoie in Jonassen et al, 1998).
The descriptions of Mindtools provided by Jonassen in <u>Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking</U> (2000) gives concrete examples of the way this software is used in several Constructivist classrooms. While examples are given in detail with support for educators to find the right software, the definitions of Mindtools are a little less specific, including:
The descriptions of Mindtools provided by Jonassen in <u>Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking</U> (2000) gives concrete examples of the way this software is used in several Constructivist classrooms. While examples are given in detail with support for educators to find the right software, the definitions of Mindtools are a little less specific, including:
- Mindtools are cognitive amplification and reorganization tools
- Mindtools do not necessarily reduce information processing (that is, make a task easier); rather, their goal is to make more effective use of the mental efforts of the learners
- Learning with Mindtools requires learners to think harder about the subject-matter domain being studied than they would have to think without the Mindtool
- Mindtools are intellectual partners
- Mindtools represent a Constructivist approach for using computers (Jonassen, 2000:10).
Jonassen is careful to note that Mindtools is a concept as "much as a real thing" and his own construction may be less inclusive than others' conceptions (Jonassen, 2000:17). It is clear, however, that the learner uses the Mindtool - the Mindtool is an intelligent tool, taking care of some basic tasks and relying on the learner to provide the intelligence, not the computer (Jonassen et al, 1998).
Advantages
of Mindtools
a. Educational Reasons
With the
use of mindtools, the teacher is able to perform lower-level operations that
enable the learner to devote more time to meaningful mental processes. The
teacher and student provide the intelligence, not the computer
b. Theoretical Reasons
Mindtools
facilitate knowledge construction in which students organize and represent what
they know.
c. Practical Reasons
A lack of
available software, cost and efficiency are reasons for using mindtools. When
purchasing even just a few computer-assisted instructional programs, many
school districts opt out due to the great expense. The use of these mindtools
is more time-efficient because less
time is spent learning to use different programs.
d. Pedagogical Criteria for Evaluating Mindtools
All
mindtool applications can be used in assessing
a student's progress. Mindtools often yield many solutions and involve
multiple, sometimes conflicting, criteria so the student is compelled to make
elaborations and judgments.
e. Critical Thinking Skills
Critical
thinking is the dynamic reorganization of knowledge in meaningful, usable ways.
It involves making judgments, measuring
against a standard, as well as assessing reliability and usefulness
f. Creative Thinking Skills
Creative
thinking is closely related to critical thinking. Creativity requires going
beyond accepted knowledge to generate
new knowledge. A student is able to summarize main ideas into his or her
own words
g. Complex Thinking Skills
Complex
thinking combines the basic learning and recall of both critical thinking and
creative thinking into larger processes. Using mindtools, students produce new ideas and make decisions by selecting between
alternatives in a systematic way.
h. Collaborative use of mindtools
The use of
mindtools can make better communicators
and more sensitive students. Leadership skills should be modeled by the
teacher and cooperation with group members.
i.
Learners as Designers
The common
homily, “the quickest way to learn about something is to have to teach it”. In
Mindtools, learners are teaching the
computers. They don’t use Mindtools naturally and effortlessly, but they must think harder. And from that, they
can design their own knowledge bases.
j.
Knowledge Construction
Constructivism
is concerned with the process of how we
construct knowledge.
k. Learning with Technology
When
students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the
computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning.
l.
Un(Intelligent) Tools
Derry and
La Joie (1993): the appropriate role for a computer system is not that of a
teacher/ expert, but rather, that of a mind- extension “cognitive tool”.
Mindtools are unintelligent tools, relying on the learners to provide the
intelligence, not the computer.
m. Distributing Cognitive Processing
Computer
tools, can function as intellectual partners which shares the cognitive burden
of carrying out tasks (Salomon, 1993). When learners use computers as partners,
they offload some of the unproductive memorizing tasks to the computer,
allowing the learners to think more productively.
n. Cost and Effort Beneficial
Mindtools
software is readily available and affordable less than $100. They are also easy
to learn, can be mastered within a couple of hours.
Disadvantages
of Mindtool
o. Intimidating
for those with little or no technology experience
p. internet
safety issues are now teacher's responsibility
q. Asynchronous
interactions can be time consuming for problem-solving or arriving at a
consensus
r.
Discussion threads can
become complicated and go off topic
s. Security
risks in information exchanges
t.
Issues arise with
connectivity, hardware, and software
The
opinions
Examples
of product
1. Semantic Organization Tools
Help learners to analyze and organize what they know
and/ what they are learning
Databases, semantic networking tools (Concept
mapping)
1.
Dynamic
Modeling Tools
Describe the dynamic relationships among ideas
Spreadsheets, expert systems, systems modeling
tools, and microworlds.
2.
Information
Interpretation Tools
Help the learners to access and process the volume
and complex information
World Wide Web
3.
Visualization
Tools
Help humans to represent and convey those mental
images
MacSpartan
4.
Knowledge
Construction Tools
Papert: used the term of constructivism to describe
the process of knowledge construction resulting from constructing things. When
learners function as designers of objects, they learn more about those objects
than they would from studying about them.
5.
Hypermedia
Consists of information nodes, whuch are the basic
unit pof information storage and may consists of a page of text, a graphic, a
sound bite, a video clip, or even an outline document.
Students are likely to learn more by constructing
intructional materials than by studying them.
Designing multimedia presentations
6.
Conversational
Tools
A variety of synchronous and asynchronous computer-
supported environmental are available for supporting this social negotiation
process.
Online telecommunication: live conversation such as
Chats, MUDs, MOOS, and videoconference, and asynchronousdiscussion using email,
Listservs, bulletinboards, and computer conference. Those form of
communications can be used for supporting interpersonal changes among students,
collecting information, and solving problems in groups of students (Jonassen,
Peck, & Wilson, 1998)
Interpersonal exchanges: keypals, global classrooms,
electronic appearances, electronis mentoring, and impersonations. (Harris,
1995)
Information collections: information exchanges,
database creation, electronic publishing
Problem solving: information searches, parallel
problem solving, electronic process writing and social action projects.
Keyperson
David H. Jonassen
As an educational psychology
professor, Jonassen’s research has focused (at various times) on constructivist
learning environments, Mindtools (cognitive learning tools), cognitive modeling
and task analysis, and systems dynamics and modeling.
Jonassen believed that the
traditional way that computers were being used to teach was not appropriate.
Students were not being fully engaged. Jonassen believed that educators must
present lessons in a manner that would be meaningful for the students,
representing what the students knew. Mindtools promoted higher-order critical
thinking skills, using combinations of tools such as databases, networking
tools, spreadsheets, systems, multimedia, hypermedia, microworlds, and
visualization tools.
His recent work has moved
towards problem-solving. To this end, he has been working in the engineering
education field, training students to solve problems. Engineers typically
encounter ill structured problems and Jonassen set out to investigate what
elements make up such problems (so that problem solving skills could be taught
in schools). These elements tended to fall along the lines of regulatory,
social, and monetary constraints.
References
Jonassen, D.H., (in
press) coputers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking, 2nd
Ed. Columbus, OH: Practice- Hall.
CSCL
7.
What
is CSCL?
Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) is an emerging paradigm in instructional technology that
continues to be "refined and extended through use" (Koschmann, 1996,
p. 1). CSCL also represents a convergence of three disciplines, education,
psychology, and computer science that have come together to create this new
approach to learning. Wasson (1998) depicts that convergence in the following
figure that places CSCL in an area of overlap with all three fields.
The
analysis of collaborative learning
Koschmann
(2002a) presented a programmatic description of CSCL in his keynote at CSCL
2002:
CSCL is a field of
study centrally concerned with meaning and the practices of meaning making
in
the context of joint activity, and the ways in which these practices are
mediated
through
designed artifacts. (p. 18)
Advantages
of CSCL
The benefits of collaboration have been recognized for
countless years as evident from sayings such as:
·
Among
any three persons, one is my teacher. - Confucius
·
To
have joy one must share it. Happiness was born a twin. - Indian Proverb
·
Together
we stand, divided we fall. - Watchword of The American Revolution
·
Working in groups is rewarding
when the group product reflects multiple perspectives and expertise and when
the best ideas emerge through the ongoing dialogues and discussions between
members of the group.
·
Many research studies indicated
that collaborative learning is effective in generating positive outcomes not
only in academic performance, but also in supporting the affective and social
aspects of learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Slavin, 1991,
Harasim, 1990). Johnson et al. (1998) said,
·
"College life can be
lonely ... College students can attend class without talking to other students
... anyone, no matter how intelligent or creative, can have such feelings ...
Contributing to other's well-being increases one's own well-being. Without the
sense of belonging, acceptance, and caring that results from cooperative
efforts with others, students can remain isolated and vulnerable" (p.
4:11).
·
In an online collaborative learning
environment, learners do not need to walk alone nor be isolated from other
learners. Through collaborative learning, learners can make their knowledge
public, test their ideas with others, experience multiple perspectives and move
to deeper levels of understanding through collaborative writing, discourse and
dialogue
Ted Panitz described various
benefits of collaborative learning (http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopbenefits.htm) including:
- Academic benefits
- Promotes critical thinking skills
- Involves students actively in the learning process
- Models appropriate student problem solving techniques
- Personalizes large lectures
- Motivates students in specific curriculum
- Social benefits
- Develops a social support system for students
- Builds diversity understanding among students and staff
- Establishes a positive atmosphere for modeling and practicing cooperation
- Develops learning communities
- Psychological benefits
- Increases students' self esteem through student centered instruction
- Reduces anxiety through cooperation
- Develops positive attitudes towards teachers
Disadvantages
of CSCL
Despite
its many benefits, CSCL has both benefits and limitations. CSCL poses a number
of challenges for both the instructor and the student in that it requires a
level of comfort and competence in using the tools to support the
collaboration. In addition, it is not appropriate for all learning tasks.
Learning problems or tasks must also be complex or challenging enough to
warrant a collaborative team effort. On the other hand, it cannot be so
difficult that it is beyond the resources, time, or collective expertise of the
team members.
Why Use
CSCL?
CSCL is derived
from Computer Supported Collaborative Work. The main difference between CSCL
and CSCW is the context and the purpose. You learn from course offerings, the
instructor, administrative staff, peers, experts, and members in the community.
You not only gain knowledge of the subject matter, but also from interacting
with others. Technical and social aspects of learning throughout the process
are import parts of the learning in this CSCL course.
In this CSCL
course, the course material is provided on a courseware called,
"Blackboard provides a platform for group discussions, you will
communicate asynchronously through posting messages at your convenient time in
the course conference areas and synchronously through online chatting and video
conferencing. The following illustration will help you visualize your
relationship to the course CSCL environment and your learning at Collaborative
Technologies Institute.
Cooperative
Learning
The foundation of CSCL is that of
cooperative learning. Although cooperative learning has been used in education
for many years, it has been only until recently that its value has been more
widely recognized and increasing emphasis has been placed on cooperative
learning in both k-12 and higher education. The cooperative approach to
learning is said to have the following characteristics:
- involves learners working together on some task or issue in a way that promotes individual learning through collaborative processes.
- provides an opportunity to learn through dialogue, discussion, and the exploration of diverse ideas and experiences in a collaborative group.
- is process-driven and usually involves people working together to solve a problem or to develop an intellectual product not easily achievable by a single person.
- involves using the diverse perspectives and resources within the group to deepen understanding, sharpen judgement and extend knowledge (Cowie and Rudduck, 1988).
- yields outcomes beyond academic achievement such as increased competence in working with others, developing group leadership skills, and other skills.
- engages learners in thinking about why they are learning, and for whose purpose they are learning.
Another important aspect of
cooperative learning, compared to traditional, curriculum-based learning, is
that it makes public our own learning and understandings where not only we can
reflect on them, but have the benefit of the perspectives, feedback and helpful
feedback from other learners. In doing so, we not only deepen our own
understanding, but develop shared understandings with others and to build
knowledge together. Such an environment is sometimes termed a
"knowledge-building community."
The most extensive research in
cooperative learning has been done by the Cooperative Learning Center at the
University of Minnesota. They have initiated significant research studies in
cooperative learning and have compared cooperative learning to other learning
approaches. As noted by Johnson and Smith (1998), most learning that we see in
our educational institutions is based on one of three approaches to learning
including:
- individualistic approach: In this approach, the assumption is that individuals have no effect on each other. Individuals work by themselves to achieve goals unrelated to others' goals. They work alone and strive for their own success. Individual performance is evaluated based on the preset criteria and what benefits self does not affect others.
- competitive approach: In this approach individuals work against each other to achieve a goal only one or few can attain. Individuals work alone and strive to be better than classmates. Individual performance is evaluated based on a curve or ranked from best to worst.
- cooperative approach: Individuals work together to achieve shared goals and work to achieve their own and others' learning. Individuals work in small heterogeneous groups and strive and celebrate joint success. Individual performance is evaluated by comparing performance to preset criteria.
Is cooperative learning better than
individual or competitive learning? Johnson and Johnson (1990) reviewed over
323 studies conducted over the past 90 years that compared learner performance
in cooperative, individualistic, and competitive learning situations.
Johnson and Johnson conclude that
"Generally achievement is higher in cooperative situations than in
competitive or individualistic ones and that cooperative efforts result in more
frequent use of higher-level reasoning strategies, more frequent process gain,
and higher performance on subsequent tests taken individually
(group-to-individual transfer) than do competitive or individualistic
efforts" (Johnson & Johnson, 1990).
Collaborative
Learning
Harasim et al. (1998) defined
collaborative learning as, "any activity in which two or more people work
together to create meaning, explore a topic, or improve skills." They
described that, in the collaborative learning environment, the students work
with their peers and the instructor, rather than being the "sage on the
stage," serves as the "guide on the side" and gives advice
whenever necessary. Rather than formal lessons being delivered, a student-centered
instructional approach is employed. This view is consistent with the views of
Rocshelle and Behrend (1995), who describe collaborative learning as "the
mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve a problem
together."
Differences
Between Cooperative and Collaborative Learning
As you may have noticed, the
definitions of cooperative and collaborative learning are such that it is often
difficult to understand in what ways they differ from each other. There
continues to be arguments about what differentiates cooperative and
collaborative learning. One argument is that they differ in the degree to which
control resides with the instructor or the group. In this view a cooperative
learning environment is one in which the teacher largely controls the goals,
tasks, processes, and rewards of the group. A collaborative learning
environment would be one in which the group exerts far greater autonomy in the
choice of its goals, tasks, roles, and processes. This view is not accepted by other
educators and there are other concepts of collaborative learning that relate
more closely to the development of knowledge-building communities or the
development of individual knowledge through a community of practice. You will
notice that, although we use the term "computer-supported collaborative
learning", our text uses the term "computer-supported cooperative
learning." We will use both terms interchangeably throughout the course as
the field itself has not yet arrived at consensus on the use of either term.
I. What is Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (CSCL)?
Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has grown
out of wider research into computer supported collaborative work (CSCW) and
collaborative learning. CSCW is defined as a computer-based network system that
supports group work in a common task and provides a shared interface for groups
to work with (Ellis et al. 1991). Collaborative learning is defined as groups
working together for a common purpose (Resta, 1995). The
differences between CSCW and CSCL are that CSCW tends to focus on communication
techniques themselves, and CSCL focuses on what is being communicated; CSCW is
used mainly in the business setting, CSCL is used in the educational setting;
the purpose of CSCW is to facilitate group communication and productivity, and
the purpose of CSCL is to scaffold or support students in learning together
effectively. They both are based on the promise that computer supported systems
can support and facilitate group process and group dynamics in ways that are
not achievable by face-to-face, but they are not designed to replace
face-to-face communication. CSCL and CSCW systems typically tailored for use by
multiple learners working at the same workstation or across networked machines.
These systems can support communicating ideas and information, accessing
information and documents, and providing feedback on problem-solving
activities. The research of CSCL and CSCW covers not only the techniques of the
groupware but also their social, psychological, organizational, and learning
effects.Back to the table of content
II. The Emergence of Theories of
CSCL
Many theories contribute our understanding of the computer
supported collaborative learning. These theories are sociocultural
theory (based on Vygotsky's intersubjectiveness and Zone of Proximal
Development), constructivism
theory, self-regulation
learning (skill, will, and execute control), situated
cognition, cognitive
apprenticeship, problem-based
learning (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt), Spiro et al.'s
(1988, 1991) cognitive
flexibility theory , and Salomon et al.'s (1993) distributed
cognition ("effect
of" and "effect with" technology). These theories are based
on the same underlying assumptions that individuals are active agents that they
are purposefully seeking and constructing knowledge within a meaningful
context. CSCL aims at providing both an authentic environment and
multiperspectives that can tie in students' prior knowledge. Computer supported
systems are cognitive tools that can team individuals with the technology to
form a joint intelligence which shares the labor during the group process. To
solve the problem of the limited human working memory (7+-2), CSCL can function
as scaffolder to provide resources and modify individuals' cognitive ability.
Pea (1985) mentions that computer also can off-load part of cognitive process,
such as modeling how to find information, so individuals can focus cognitive
resources elsewhere. In principle, individuals will develop the cognitive
skills necessary to accomplish many of the cognitive process that are
demonstrated in the partnership (the "effect with" technology). An
explicit goal of the CSCL environment is to facilitate deep understanding.
Though, each CSCL software may have different functions, one general
characteristic is to promote reflection and inquiry that assist the in-depth
learning.Back to the table of content
Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of learning emphasizes that human intelligence originates in our society or culture, and individual cognitive gain occursfirst through interpersonal (interaction with social environment) than intrapersonal (internalization). Miller (1995), based on Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, conducted four-year long ethnographic study to examine classroom context for open-forum English literature discussion. Teachers in the study promote scaffolding, metacognitive reflective, inquiry strategies to encourage students to think critically and response to the context and each other. After one year of experiment, students are able to internalize the teacher-scaffolded discussion and reflective strategies. However, whether students adapt the strategies learned in the open-forum English class to other class content depend on whether the social contexts value or invite interaction and actively engage thinking. This study shows how social environment can influence students' learning and thinking. Forman and Cazden (1985) observe students' discourse in solving collaborative problems. Their results support Vygotsky's two phases of social process. In the initial phase of problem solving, students encourage, support, and guide each other are often observed. In the second phase, students come to their own conclusions based on experimental evidence, and resolve their conflict by articulating their argumentation. Forman and Cazden (1985), thus, concluded that students can gain new strategies through peer collaboration by interpersonal discourse.
Another aspect of Vygotsky's theory is the idea that the potential for cognitive development is limited to a certain time span which he calls the "Zone of Proximal Development" (ZPD). Vygotsky defined ZPD as a region of activities that individuals can navigate with the help of more capable peers, adults, or artifacts. In Vygotsky' view, peer interaction, scaffolding, and modeling are important ways to facilitate individual cognitive growth and knowledge acquisition. ZPD can compose of different levels of expertise of individuals (students and teachers), and can also include artifacts such as books, computer tools, and scientific equipments. The purpose of ZPD is to support intentional learning. Vygotsky's sociocultural approach of learning and ZPD can be successfully employed in the study of Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment.
Back to the table of content
II. 2 Constructivism Theory
Basically, constructivism views that knowledge is not
'about' the world, but rather 'constitutive' of the world (Sherman, 1995).
Knowledge is not a fixed object, it is constructed by an individual through her
own experience of that object. Constructivist approach to learning emphasizes
authentic, challenging projects that include students, teachers and experts in
the learning community. Its goal is to create learning communities that are
more closely related to the collaborative practice of the real world. In an
authentic environment, learners assume the responsibilities of their own
learning, they have to develop metacognitive abilities to monitor and direct
their own learning and performance. When people work collaboratively in an
authentic activity, they bring their own framework and perspectives to the
activity. They can see a problem from different perspectives, and are able to
negotiate and generate meanings and solution through shared understanding. The
constructivist paradigm has led us to understand how learning can be
facilitated through certain types of engaging, constructive activities. This
model of learning emphasizes meaning-making through active participation in
socially, culturally, historically, and politically situated contexts. A
crucial element of active participation is dialog in shared experiences,
through which situated collaborative activities, such as modeling, discourse
and decision making, are necessary to support the negotiation and creation of
meaning and understanding.In sum, the contemporary constructivist theory of learning acknowledges that individuals are active agents, they engage in their own knowledge construction by integrating new information into their schema, and by associating and representing it into a meaningful way. Constructivists argue that it is impractical for teachers to make all the current decisions and dump the information to students without involving students in the decision process and assessing students' abilities to construct knowledge. In other words, guided instruction is suggested that puts students at the center of learning process, and provides guidance and concrete teaching whenever necessary. Perkins (1991) indicates that students may easily get lost in management without any experience to guide them through the information jungle. This student-centered guided learning environment is considered, however, more appropriate for ill-structured domains or higher-level learning (CTGV, 1991).
Back to the table of content
II.3 Problem-Based Learning / Anchored Instruction
Problem-based learning (PBL), anchored instruction, is a student-centered, contextualized approach to schooling. In this approach, learning begins with a problem to be solved rather than content to be mastered. This is consistent with new models of teaching and learning that suggest the emphasis of instruction needs to shift from teaching as knowledge transmission to less teacher-dependent learning. The concept of anchored instruction was stimulated by the "inert knowledge problem" which states that the knowledge can be recallable only when individual is questioned explicitly in the context in which it was learned (CTGV, 1993). The issue of learning transfer, situated cognition, and collaborative learning are primarily concerns in anchored instruction (CTGV, 1990). It emphasizes the importance of creating an anchor or focus that generates interest and enables students to identify and define problems and to pay attention to their own perception and comprehension of these problems (Bransford, J.D. et al, 1990).
PBL was originally developed to help medical students to learn the basic biomedical sciences. The goals of PBL include: 1) developing scientific understanding through real-world cases, 2) developing reasoning strategies, and 3) developing self-directed learning strategies. Besides its origin in medical education, PBL has been used in other settings such as engineering and architecture. As students articulate and reflect upon their knowledge in PBL, they develop more coherent understandings of the problem space (Hmelo, et al.,1995). The active learning used in PBL should promote the self-directed learning strategies and attitudes needed for lifelong learning (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1989). Self-directed learning objectives of PBL are particularly important because PBL may facilitate development of lifelong learning strategies necessary to stay current in the face of rapid technological advances.
Back to the table of content
The concept of distributed cognition emphasizes the interaction among individual, environment, and cultural artifacts. It claims that development and growth of cognitions of individuals should not be isolated events, rather the changes should be a reciprocal process. It starts from the minds of individuals, through the reciprocal teaching and guide each others or acquainting themselves with the tools. It leads to the changes of the subsequent joint performances and products, the improved competencies then can distribute among and reside in individuals. As who plays the leading role in influencing distributed cognitions is really situated bounded. For example, in a well-balanced group interaction, group competencies may play a dominate role, in the presence of powerful tools, the tools may help to guide individual, and in absence above two sources, individual's competence will dominate. Oshima, Bereiter, and Scardamalia (1995) based on distributed cognition, examines students in knowledge construction and transforming in CSILE network environments. The results indicated that students who benefited most from the activities, engaged more in knowledge-transformation. This system allows students to distribute information and interact with information resources in a joint space, can prompt conceptual progress (knowledge assimilation and knowledge construction). Dede (1996) predicts a distributed learning and knowledge-building community will be the new paradigm of 21st century education.
Three sources emerge from the theory of distributed cognition: First, the increasingly important role that technology plays to handle intellectual tasks to ease individual cognitive load. Second, the reemphasis on Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, a theory that describes how the character of social interactions and externally mediated action makes explicit certain processes, that come to be internalized in the private thought of the individual. Third, dissatisfied with cognition is only in one's mind, shifting attention on cognitions that are situated dependent and distributed in nature (Salomon, 1994).
Back to the table of content
Spiro, et al., (1988) suggested that people acquire knowledge in ill-structured domains by constructing multiple representations and linkages among knowledge units. This can be achieved by designing hypermedia documents that present multiple cases where similar concepts are linked across cases (Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Learners visit, and more importantly revisit, the same case or concept information in a variety of contexts.
Sprio's Cognitive flexibility theory and criss-crossed landscape theory approaches address important issue in transfer, how general knowledge is transferred in ill-structured domains. They suggest a mixture of well- and ill- structuredness in the early stages, to familiar learners with grounded knowledge yet avoid establishing rigid presentation. Intermediate course of cases were selected to seek a balance between continuity and discontinuity; a partial overlapping across cases rather than from any single perspective that running through many cases, this will strengthen the interconnectedness of the cases. Spiro, et al. (1995) illustrate how to apply cognitive flexibility and constructivism theories into designing instruction in ill-structured domains that promote advanced knowledge acquisition.
Back to the table of content
II.6 Cognitive Apprenticeship
Cognitive apprenticeship is a term for the instructional
process that teachers provide and support students with scaffolds as the
students develop cognitive strategies. Wilson and Cole (1994) describe the core
characteristics of cognitive apprenticeships model: heuristic content, situated
learning, modeling, coaching, articulation, reflection, exploration, and order
in increasing complexity. Cognitive apprenticeship is a culture that permits
peers to learn through their interactions, to build stories about common
experiences, and to share the knowledge building experiences with the group.
Collaborative discussion occuring in CSCL is important for student learning
because it activates prior knowledge which facilitates the processing of new
information. CSCL is designed to help students at acquiring cognitive and
metacognitive knowledge by means of observation and guided practice( Collins et
al, 1989).Teaching Teleapprenticeships model is an example that based on the theory of cognitive apprenticeship, developed by The College of Education at the University of Illinois. It extends the face-to-face apprenticeships used in the traditional teacher education program by conducting in electronic network collaborative learning environments. The goal is to link teacher education to practice teaching. Both qualitative and quantative methods are used to evaluate the project. Research results can be found in Levin & Waugh,(1996 in press).
Back to the table of content
It is not possible to separate cognitive tasks from social tasks, because all cognitive tasks have a social component (Perret-Clermont, 1993). Constructivists view cognition as situation-bound and distributed rather than decontextualized tools and product of minds (Lave, 1988 ; Pea, 1994). Thinking is both physically and socially situated that problem tasks can be significantly shaped and changed by the tools made available and the social interactions that take place during problem solving. Situated cognition, a new paradigm of learning, emphasizes apprenticeship, coaching, collaboration, multiple practice, articulation of learning skills, stories, and technology (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). "Community of practice," a concept emerging from situated cognition, emphasizes sharing and doing, construct meaning in a social unit (Roschelle, 1995). Situated learning occurs when students work on authentic tasks that take place in real-world setting (Winn, 1993). However, the very difference between metacognition approach of learning and situated belief of learning is that situated learning is usually unintentional rather than purposeful. These ideas are what Lave & Wenger (1991) call the process of "legitmate peripheral participation."
As Lave (1991) states that learning is a function of the activity, context and culture in which it occurs, which contrasts with most classroom learning which is abstract and out of context. Education can apply the two basic principles of situated cognition into classroom practice: 1. present in an authentic context, 2. encourage social interaction and collaboration. It is believed that rich contexts can reflect students' interpretation of the real world and improve their knowledge being transferred in different situations. Collaboration can lead to articulation of strategies that can then be discussed, which, in turn, can enhance generalizing grounded in students' situated understnading.
Back to the table of content
Flavell (1976) first invented the term metacognition. He defined metacognition as one's knowledge regarding one's own cognition as well as control and monitor one's own cognition. The terms self-regulated learning and metacognition are interchangeable in the current discussion.
A self-regulated leaner is aware when she knows a fact or has a skill and when she does not. She views acquisition as a systematic and controllable process, and she accepts greater responsibility for her achievement. In other words, She is the initiator of the learning process. Self-regulated learning has played a part in behavioral theory, cognitive theory, social cognitive theory, and constructivism theory. In behavioral theory, regulation is through external reinforcement. In cognition theory, self-regulation is equivalent to metacognition, knowing about and regulating cognition. Social cognition theory views self-regulation as combining self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction. Constructivism theory perceives individuals as active agents who construct and reconstruct their knowledge (Davidson, K., 1995) .
Self-regulation plays a crucial role in all phases of learning and cross-domains. Schoenfeld (1987) states that self-regulation has the potential to increase the meaningfulness of students' classroom learning, and the creation of a "mathematics culture "in the classroom best fosters metacognition. Schoenfeld (1983) showed that many problem-solving errors are due to metacognitive failure rather than lack of basic mathematics knowledge. He further insists that all metacognitive strategies are illustrated in action, should be developed by students, not declared by the teachers. Study metacognitive strategies are important as well, in reading to learn and can be applied to enhance text processing ( Grow, 1996a). To teach students to become active, motivated, self-regulated learners is a continuing issue in education. Authentic and meaningful classroom activities that are relevant to real-life situations are likely to engender students' cognitive activity and conceptual change (transfer). Scaffolding, dual instructions (verbal persuasion and modeling), and teaching appropriate cognitive strategies are believed to have positive impact on increasing students' efficacy.
Teachers or instructors can help students set achievable goals and provide feedback highlighting progress toward goals (Gerald Grow's SSDL model, 1996b). Linking students' success and failure with cause, is a highly persuasive source of efficacy. Ensure appropriate leaner control in the task that requires students to become self-directed learners. It is assumed that students can be taught to become more self-regulated learners by acquiring effective strategies and by enhancing perceptions of self-efficacy. Poor learners can benefit from reciprocal teaching that through process of modeling, guiding, and collaborative learning. The major responsibility of teachers is not to dispense knowledge, and no single teacher can teach students everything they need to know in their entire lifetime. Equipping students with self-regulated strategies will provide them with necessary techniques for becoming independent thinkers and lifelong learners. Dede and Palumbo, (1991) indicate that develop constructive instructional systems should be grounded in the psychology of learning and transfer rather than in the human factors and technological design issues. They further claim that the development of constructive systems should support metacognition and problem-solving skills development.
Back to the table of content
III. CSCL Tools
Computer-supported systems are often
categorized according to the time/location matrix: synchronous (same time) vs.
asynchronous (different times), and face-to-face (same place) vs. remoted
(different places). Synchronous tools support the simultaneous interaction
among group members, for example, videoconferencing. Asynchronous tools support
individual work alone to contribute group process. E-mail is an example of
asynchronous tool. More detail descriptions of CSCL tools can be found in Dr. Resta's CSCL class of Fall 1996
and Yu-Ping Hsiao's homepage. Following are two examples of CSCL environments.Collaborative Learning Environment (CSILE)
CSILE, an educational knowledge media system, developed by Scardamalia & Bereiter at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. This system is designed to support students in purposeful , intentional, and collaborative learning, in a local network environment. Students can select different communication modes (text, video, audio, animation) to generate "nodes." These nodes contain ideas or information that related to the topic under study. Nodes are available for others to comment on, leading to dialogues, and an accumulation of knowledge. A series of research has been conducted cross different curricula in these environments. The body of CSILE research presents the most complete view to date of the educational potential of LAN for support collaborative learning (Breiter & Scardamalia, 1984, 1987, 1989,1992, in press). CSILE based on Zimmerman's (1989) self-regulated learning (CSILE term is intentional learning) and constructivists' view of learning. It emphasizes on building a classroom culture supportive of active knowledge construction that can extend individual intentional learning to the group level. The purpose is to make students think and reflect their thought process which provoke question asking and answering in a public forum. The ultimate goal is to get students involved in knowledge itself rather than improve one's mind, a World 3 view , which shifts from individual mastery learning to improve the quality of public collective knowledge (Scardamalia, et al., 1994).
III. 2 Collaboratory Notebook
Collaboratory Notebook, a shared hypermedia database designed to provide a scaffold for students to conduct collaborative open-ended inquiry, created by the Learning through Collaborative Visualization (CoVis). Collaborative inquiry is considered desirable, in part, because it reflects the authentic practice of science by scientists. The Collaboratory Notebook has been designed to scaffold students as they learn to conduct open-ended inquires in a collaborative context. A primary function of Collaboratory Notebook is to allow teacher to monitor and guide students' process of learning. It emphasizes learning process instead of learning outcomes. Edelson, et al., (1995) analyzed Collaboratory Notebook usage, indicated that students with more positive attitudes about science and more experience using on-line communications media, took better advantage of the features of the environment. (Edelson, et al, 1995).
Back to the table of content
IV. Research Findings (OTHERS
OPINION)
Following are some of research findings of computer
supported collaborative learning:¥ A numerous research evidence suggests that a combination of group rewards and strategy training produces much better outcomes than either one alone (Fantuzzo et al., 1992).
¥ The results of ACOT's two years (1986-87) study of seven classrooms that represented a cross section of America's K-12 schools are promising. Teachers are able to translate traditional text-based instructional approaches to the new electronic medium. Student deportment and attendance improved across all sites, their attitude towards self and learning showed improvement as well. In terms of test scores, at the very least, students are doing as well as they might without all of the technology and some are clearly performing better (Apple Research Labs Publications).
¥ Sherry and Myers (1996) study group dynamics of graduate students collaboratively design WWW process. They confirm Scardamalia, et al's. (1994) "World 3" view that the group becomes a self-reflective, and self-organizing system that each member contributes her own expertise and, in turn, learning new skills and extending the group knowledge based.
¥ Study shows that the more skilled teacher participates with the technology, the more positive attitudes they have developed toward technology (Zhao & Compbell, 1995).
¥ There is substantial evidence that students working in groups can master science and mathematics materials better than students working alone (Slavin, 1989).
¥ King (1989) observes verbal interaction and problem solving behavior of small collaborative peer groups working on CAI tasks. He finds successful group involved in more task talks than social talks. They ask more task related questions, spend more time on strategies use, and obtain higher elaboration scores than did unsuccessful groups.
¥ Weir (1992) indicates that both teachers and researchers find that students who work together on "real world problems show increased motivation, deeper understanding of the concept and an increased willingness to tackle difficult questions that they cannot answer alone." This focus on authenticity and experiential learning is reiterated in numerous articles.
¥ A series of CSILE studies conducted by Scardamalia and Breiter, indicate that students gain deeper understanding and collaboratively construct knowledge while working in CSILE environments.
¥ CSCL environment can accommodate a larger group size (can up to 20, studies show size =60 is too big) that increases idea generation and decision making. The ideal size of face-to-face group is four.
¥ The role of the teacher will shift from primary source of knowledge to that of expertise in learning. A good teacher should be an expert learner, who can facilitate students' learning and information searching (Riel, 1994).
Back to the table of content
V. Further Research Questions
Educators increasingly provide comupter-supported tools to
collaborative groups of students. There are many research questions, however,
need answer for new technological implementation. Of particular interests are
the following groups: theoretical perspectives, learners'(teachers' and
students') perspectives, subject domains, and tool designing perspectives.¥ How do participants become aware of the benefits of collaboration via computer-supported tool, and how can these subsequently improve their learning?
¥ What kinds of strategies (collaborative strategies, self-regulated strategies, social interpersonal skills) do learners use in cscl environment? and how much do they gain through the process?
¥ What theories of learning can be transferable to CSCL systems?
¥ What are the roles of teachers in the CSCL environments? what are their attitudes toward the CSCl systems? What makes them use or not use the systems? What kind of supports and training they need to integrate into their curriculua?
¥ Does computer mediation require the development of new and special pedagogical techniques?
¥ How can best utilize the attributes of the CSCL systems in designing a particular subject domain? The best computer-supported tools should not simply offer the same content in a new format, rather they should provide new ways of thinking in that domains (Resnick, 1995).
¥ What are the important design considerations for developing CSCL applications ? What are some of the problems of implementation? Koschmann,(1995)
¥ How to apply CSCW experience to CSCL? CSCW that supports business teams will not be the same for students in an educational setting. There is a need to redefine the role of individual, her responsibilities, the level of interaction, and environment (Olson et. al, 1993) .
¥ How to marry methodologies from CSCW and educational research to CSCL? Webb (1993) identified that questionnaire and content analysis based on critical thinking and social interaction are powerful methods to study on-campus on-line conferencing.
Back to the table of content
VI. Educational Implementation
(Future Trend)
Education should shift from individual, technology-free
cognition to a resourceful collaborative learning, and distributed
intelligence. Learners should be empowered through thoughtful use of
technologies as well as through innovative use of technologies, and benefit
from social distributions of cognitions. I agree with Salomon et al.'s comments
(1991) that education should pay more attention to the "effects of"
technology rather than the "effects
with" technology, so that autonomous performance may be achieved. How to design CSCL tools for educational purpose? Scaradamalia et al. (1989) argue that it should be students not the computers to solve problems, make planning, and set the learning goals. The role of computers should be to promote and facilitate learners to maximize use of their intelligence and knowledge. In other words, the intellectual tools design should focus on Salomon's suggestion to provide quality scaffolding that entails metacognitve guidance to facilitate students learning how to learn (the "effect of" technology), rather than off-loading and task dividing that try to ease students' cognitive burden (the "effect with" technology). The idea of distributed cognition is relatively new yet crucial. The attempt of my proposed dissertation is to investigate self-regulated (metacognitive) strategy use in computer supported collaborative learning environment. To see whether this kind of higher-order knowledge can be distributed among peer and environment.
DISADVANTAGES
OF CSCL
The
down side of this kind of collaboration is that this process can be a source of
frustration. One study has shown that asymmetric collaboration among the
teammates was identified by the students as the most important source of
frustration (Capdeffero & Romero, 2012). They have also identified other
sources of frustration such as: difficulties related to group organization, the
lack of shared goals among the team members, the imbalance in the level of
commitment and quality of the individual contributions, the excess time spent
on the online CSCL tasks, the imbalance between the individual and collective
grades, and difficulties in communication,
No comments:
Post a Comment