This section gives the reader a necessary understanding of the world-view of the classroom educator. We cannot develop effective educational technology without knowing the realities of that world. Also included in this section is a description of two important teaching methodologies that have great bearing on educational technology.
Educational technology for the classroom combines, by definition, elements of education and technology. The question we need to address is that of balance and understanding. It is an inalienable fact that everyone sees the world in a different way. This can present problems when individuals with differing world-views come together to collaborate. Educational technology is a collaboration between computer scientists (the creators) and educators (the users), and so it is incumbent upon the former to understand the latter in order to create usable tools. The quote below captures the quintessential problem posed by individual world-views:
"We do not describe the world we
see; we see the world we can describe." (Senge, 1995)
The implication of this quote for computer scientists is telling: they are more likely to create educational technology skewed towards technology rather than education simply because this is the world they know and inhabit. Even ignoring an unfamiliarity with the educator's environment, it is very difficult for computer scientists to step outside their world and place themselves in the mindset of the other; it is difficult to "unlearn" what may now be deeply ingrained, almost unconscious technological knowledge acquired over many years in order to see the world through neophyte eyes. Yet this is the challenge they face, and the barrier that must be crossed in order to produce usable, effective educational technology.
Our interests drive what we do and colour our world-view. Computer scientists are interested in computer science; educators in education. So, it is often the case that computer scientists seek to address computer science problems (e.g. distributed collaboration, real-time conferencing, etc.) wrapped in a blanket of education and call the, often unsatisfactory, result "educational technology." We deem the results unsatisfactory because they are often too complex or unwieldly for classroom use, or make unreasonable demands upon resources: they cater to the wrong end-users. Education should be the focus, not technology: because educators are the end-users, we should cater to their interests.
Our world-views can prejudice our perception of others. A common problem is to confuse a lack of knowledge with a lack of intelligence. However, just because someone does not know something does not make him or her stupid: the person just lacks knowledge of that particular thing. A lack of knowledge does not mean a person is incapable of knowing or understanding something; far from it. Computer science is infested with jargon, and this is acquired over a period of time. In effect, computer science is a dialect of the computer scientist's native language. We cannot expect educators to be fluent, or even familiar, with what is essentially a foreign language to them. And, by the same token, computer scientists should endeavour to learn the language of educators, once again, to try and bridge the gulf between the two groups. Learning the language means not only learning the terms but also the concepts and theories behind them.
Finally, it is incumbent upon computer scientists to create effective tools for educators. Here, we deem a tool truly effective if it goes beyond what is already possible. Effective educational technology is, ideally, a synergy arising from the combination of best educational practice coupled with the support (not dominance) of technology. Technology should add something to the educational experience above and beyond what is already possible. Remember: an electronic worksheet is still just a worksheet. If (as many educators feel) worksheets have limited educational potential, then to use computers to create electronic versions only allows us to use something inadequate faster; more often; or with greater ease (Campoy, 1992). However, the fact remains, we are simply perpetuating poor pedagogy. Worse still, we may be attaching false importance to it by dressing it up in new, high-tech clothes. We must strive to improve on what the educator has, not create electronic facsimiles.
We have seen that experience separates individuals through differing resultant world-views. We now go on to examine how different milieux, or environments, also affect what can be achieved within those world-views. The table below shows the typical milieu of the computer scientist and the K-12 educator:
Computer Science | K-12 Education |
---|---|
Familiar with technology; good infrastructure | Unfamiliar with technology; poor infrastructure |
Excellent Internet connectivity | Variable, intermittent connectivity |
High-performance equipment | Modest or poor equipment |
Unrestricted access | Restricted access |
Before we discuss this table, let us first acknowledge that there is likely no such thing as a "typical" educator or classroom. Educators and their available facilities cover the entire spectrum from poor (nonexistent, even) to state of the art (Holland, 1995). Even within the same school, facilities may vary wildly. One classroom may have several state of the art PCs connected, via ethernet, to a T1 Internet connection, whilst the classroom next door may have only a single, old, text-only Apple IIe with only a 2400-baud modem Internet connection through a shared telephone line. It is fairly safe to say that we are not, yet, at the stage where every classroom enjoys the luxury of its own computer (never mind one connected to the Internet). The situation is improving, however, as the government realises the importance of the information age we now find ourselves in.
Although more schools are going "online," the numbers are still tiny compared to the total number of schools. The Web66 registry of schools attempts to track the numbers, but such demographics are hard to collect. For example, one could say that every Virginia K-12 educator is online because every one has, or at least is entitled to, an account on Virginia's Public Education Network (VAPEN). This account gives them access to e-mail, Usenet, gopher, interactive talk, telnet, ftp, and the WWW (via lynx) through a simple menu-driven text-based interface (though SLIP connections are also supported via The Internet Adapter software). However, just because everybody is signed up does not mean that all can use the system on a daily basis in the classroom, or even choose to do so.
Let us look at the differences that exist between the worlds of typical computer scientists and educators, as summarised in the table given earlier. The first thing to bear in mind is that computer scientists are familiar and comfortable with technology, whereas educators typically have relatively little or no formal technology training, especially that pertaining to curriculum and instruction. A typical response, therefore, is for educators to adopt avoidance strategies to deal with the introduction of computer technology into their environment (Evans-Andris, 1995). Even colleges of education place little emphasis in their teacher training on the seamless integration of technology into the classroom and curriculum, and typically turn out student teachers that are more like their predecessors who graduated decades earlier than they are like today's children (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992).
Allied to this, computer scientists usually enjoy a much better technological infrastructure than educators. Not only is this in terms of physical support, but also it is more likely that they can obtain help for technological problems from their immediate colleagues. Educators do not enjoy such luxuries, and may feel isolated, technologically speaking, from their peers. We should bear in mind that educators who integrate technology into their curriculum are more like lone pioneers; it is not part of their everyday lives, unlike the computer scientist.
Another difference is in the level of Internet connectivity. Computer scientists typically enjoy fast, permanent connections, usually at ethernet speed or above. Although more schools are being hooked up with T1 or ISDN connections, Internet connections are usually much slower than that. Obsolete hardware is part of the problem. If an Apple IIe, say, does not have an ethernet card, but has only a 2400-baud modem fitted instead, it matters little if the school has a T1 line to the Internet.
Modem lines may present a problem due to a limited number of school telephone lines. For this reason, even if a computer is available, it may only be able to connect to the Internet for short bursts to avoid "tying up" the phone line. In overcrowded schools that use mobile units to provide extra classroom space, these satellite classes may not even have telephone connections at all. (This may also be a problem in older schools. In fact, re-wiring for the information age is a problem afflicting many schools.)
Connectivity also applies to physical access. Often, computers are concentrated together in labs, for example in the library under the supervision of the school's media specialist. Such labs may be massively oversubscribed, with many classes vying for class time in it. These labs may be inconvenient to use because of intermittent access or physical separation from the regular classroom. We should be aware, therefore, that educators may only enjoy limited or sporadic access both to computer hardware and the Internet, and should design our educational technology to reflect this.
Like textbooks, computer equipment in our schools usually lags behind the state of the art. With limited budgets, longevity is a must in the school setting. This goes against the prevailing ethos of the rapidly evolving computer industry, which exhorts its users to upgrade continually in terms of hardware and software. This creates a disparity between the educational environment and that of the computer scientist. Many schools still have old or obsolete computers, often with limited graphical capabilities. Donated computers are often donated because they are being replaced by their donors with newer models capable of keeping up with current applications. Much of the hardware in public schools may be unable to support the heavy demands made by resource-hungry WWW browsers such as Netscape and Internet Explorer in vogue today. Many computers may be unable even to support graphical WWW browsers because they are text-only systems. It is incumbent upon computer scientists, therefore, to design educational technology not with the leading-edge, but with more modest technology in mind, so as to create systems that are usable in the classroom setting. (Commercial computer game designers are well aware of this truism, and design their game software comfortably behind the leading-edge, so as not to limit their potential market. Educational technology should be no different.)
Finally, an educator's access to the Internet may be restricted compared to that of a computer scientist. It may be restricted on several levels. Apart from the speed and availability restrictions mentioned above, other limitations may be imposed by various political and in loco parentis considerations. These may manifest themselves in terms of being only able to access, e.g., a subset of the Usenet newsgroups; certain sites or domains; or content filtered according to PICS ratings (World Wide Web Consortium, 1995; Resnick and Miller, 1996). Restricted access may also extend to the fact that educators may not be able to install custom software, and may only be able to use a predetermined set of programs and applications with which to access the Internet (e.g. via the VAPEN menu system). If an educator's Internet Service Provider (ISP) does not allow shell access, then developing applications that require this is obviously not a realistic proposal. Once again, computer scientists need to be familiar with the educator's milieu in order to develop effective educational technology. In the next section, we shall also see that familiarity with effective teaching methodologies is the final key to understanding the educator's world. As well as being appropriate to the educator's environment, effective educational technology should adhere to an appropriate pedagogical model. We shall look at two such models next.
Education is a difficult application area to step into because, it seems, everybody thinks he or she is an expert, having "been there, done that." However, it is fair to say that most have seen the process from only one side of the desk, so to speak, and are largely ignorant of the view from the teacher's point of view. Worse still, it is likely that most have been exposed only to a very limited range of pedagogical styles, and are unaware of other, perhaps much more appropriate, approaches.
Most people are familiar with the didactic style of teaching, even if they don't know it by this name. This approach, described below, is the dominant instructional technique in use in schools today. It has a considerable heritage. However, it is in many ways incongruous to the computer and information technology available today. In fact, the reliance on the didactic approach may be a major contributing factor to the phenomenon of technology refusal affecting contemporary education. (Hodas, 1993)
An alternative approach, posited by many authors as being a more natural partner for integrating educational technology is the constructivist paradigm. (Fosnot, 1996; Vygotskii, 1994) This approach is not as widely used as didacticism, but dates back at least to the turn of the century where it was advocated by John Dewey (Dewey, 1938), amongst others, and is once again coming to the fore.
Constructivism is primarily a locus of control issue. It addresses the question of who is in control of the learning process. It advocates that students become self-directed information managers, not information regurgitators. Constructivism focuses on knowledge construction, not knowledge reproduction. It also holds as an axiom that one constructs knowledge from ones experiences, mental structures, and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events, and that, accordingly, learning environments should support multiple perspectives or interpretations of reality, knowledge construction, context-rich, experience-based activities. (Jonassen, 1991) An immediate consequence of this is the notion that there is no "right" way or sequence to learn anything; the "right" way will differ from student to student.
The table below highlights some of the salient features of the didactic and constructivist teaching methodologies.
Didactic | Constructivist |
---|---|
Passive | Active |
Linear | Non-linear |
Teacher as sage | Teacher as guide |
Little or no student choice | Significant student choice |
Part-to-whole | Whole-to-part |
Skills taught in isolation | Skills taught in a relevant context |
In the didactic approach, learning is passive, with students receiving an incremental, ostensibly authoritative, predetermined linear sequence of facts from a teacher acting in the role of sage. Passive learning often involves memorisation, rote, or delivery of material via lecture, slideshow, handouts, etc. Active learning, on the other hand, is learning by doing.
The notion of teacher as a guide does not imply the teacher has no control or is not in an active role. Actually, the teacher must be able to exercise great finesse in creating and controlling the learning environment. In the constructivist approach, the teacher often acts in the role of facilitator, as opposed to an ultimate authoritative dispenser of knowledge. The didactic and constructivist approach can be summed up in this respect by the analogy "the sage on the stage versus the guide on the side."
Similarly, student choice does not imply a free-for-all. A definite learning objective is held in mind; the choice refers to exactly how this is to be achieved in terms of form and precise content. Student choice may be from a predetermined list or "menu" on offer: it may relate to how the information is presented (presentation, oral discussion, written article, hypercard stack, etc.), or it may be student-devised to fit into an overall theme or topic.
Learning in the didactic approach is linear and part-to-whole. Skills are taught in a sequence decided upon by the teacher, and not necessarily taught in the order in which they may be needed. A consequence of this is that skills are often taught in isolation, without a relevant context to ground them in. As a result, their potential for retention is lessened, because of the lack of a meaningful context.
Although we may not realise it, almost everyone applies a constructivist approach to learning computer software, for example. When learning how to wordprocess, or how to use an editor, we typically do not learn all the commands such as how to underline, centre, make bold, cut and paste, and so on, before starting up the wordprocessor; we do not read the manual cover to cover before using the application. Instead, we learn functions in a demand-driven fashion. We get an overview of the capabilities of the package, and then, when we need to know how to achieve some needed task, such as underlining, we learn the keystrokes or menu navigations required to do this. Thus, we proceed in a whole-to-part, contextual manner. We learn things as we need them, when they are relevant and meaningful to us, making the learning process less abstract.
In the whole-to-part approach we start by looking at the "big picture" and then "zoom in" on specific parts or aspects as they become interesting or relevant to us. In part-to-whole we learn about each of the specific parts (usually in some arbitrary sequence), and then, at the end, we automagically integrate these disparate parts into a coherent whole. Thus, if we were learning how to play the guitar in a didactic fashion, then we might proceed by first learning about musical notation and how to read sheet music. We might then learn which musical notes correspond to which fret positions on the neck of the guitar. From there, we might learn about scales and harmonics and how to form chords and progressions. When we have learned that, we might then be handed a classical acoustic guitar with the musical score to some classical piece like "Greensleeves" and told to play it in a certain scale. We are expected to integrate all the abstract theory we have been fed up to now and apply it by playing a rendition on the guitar. Never mind that we may be far more interested in playing high-volume blues/rock on an electric guitar instead; all the disparate theory is now supposed to make sense.
Of course, in practice, people are more likely to adopt a constructivist approach to learning the guitar. They start by learning the chords to a few songs of interest to them, then maybe a solo or two, progressively adding more finesse and theory to their repertoire as their skill improves. All the time, learning is non-linear, self-directed, and in a relevant context.
The great advantage of the didactic approach, and the likely reason for its entrenched success, is its scaleability. It can work for relatively large numbers of students. Because all students have to conform to one set pattern of learning dictated by the teacher, all students are treated essentially alike. Their individualism is largely ignored, as all must fit into the "round hole" devised by the teacher. It matters little if the didactic approach is applied to five or five hundred students at a time, since the same delivery and assessment mechanism will be used for all.
Because constructivism is child-centred, scaleability is much more of a problem. Smaller class sizes and higher teacher/student ratios are preferred for effective deployment of this technique. (Coincidentally, these attributes are also advocated by educators for improved achievement even in the didactic arena.) This is not to say that constructivism cannot be applied in the average classroom. It can, but it is more demanding of a teacher. The rewards, however, are much greater, both for students and teachers. In addition, constructivism incorporates the notion of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983; Gardner, 1993) naturally into its paradigm, resulting in more students achieving their potential. The didactic approach typically caters mainly to visual and auditory learners. Although constructivism may be harder for the teacher to deploy than didacticism, we must judge the two approaches based upon their results. In those terms, constructivism becomes much more favourable, being more in-tune with the real world outside the classroom.
Constructivism is also a very natural partner for the computer technology that exists in the information age we find ourselves in. In particular, the anarchy of the Internet, with its non-linear hypermedia, is a natural proving ground for constructivism. Hyperlinked documents within a WWW page defeat almost instantly the notion of the linear, evenly-paced approach of didacticism. Getting a lab full of eager students all to follow the same sequence of links, instead of exploring according to their own interests, is not only highly unnatural but functionally almost impossible. This extends also to the very open-ended nature of computer applications, which provide a fertile vehicle for expressing individual intentions and interests. Like constructivism, the computer can be seen as an excellent processor and manager of information, not simply a tool for storing and regurgitating it. It is likely, therefore, that constructivism will come more to the fore as educational technology is deployed centrally within the curriculum. The current position of educational technology at the periphery of the curriculum owes more to the poor supporting framework offered by didacticism than lack of resources or desire on the part of teachers. Constructivism offers a way of integrating eductional technology into the heart of the curriculum, as a natural tool in the learning process. (Collins, 1991; Campoy, 1992)
Copyright © 1996 Paul Mather, All Rights Reserved
Paul Mather
<paul@cs.vt.edu>
Last modified: Sun Nov 24 23:18:59 1996