CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW

People do not learn from computers. It has been a traditional assumption behind many computer applications to function as though people do, but this is not so. Thinking and learning take place when students' minds are engaged by different learning activities. Selected computer application programs, which can be thought of as mindtools, should be used as cognitive tools which engage the students in such a way that they use critical thinking to represent what they know. This is the most appropriate function of computers in education. Like any tool, computers should be used to assemble and construct knowledge. The preferred use of computers in education should be learning with computers, rather than learning from or about computers.

Up until recently, the general practice has been to use computers to do drill and practice programs (which is rote learning) and to do tutorials, some of which are intelligent, to a limited degree. This is known as computer-assisted instruction (CAI). The educational principle behind this approach has been behaviourism, which neither accounts for nor fosters the complex thinking skills required for problem solving, originality, verbal learning or transference of problem-solving skills to new situations. Tutorials do not permit or encourage students to construct their own meaning. They just provide fixed alternatives that have to be programmed into the computer. However, it is not possible to account for every possible student response. This is a limitation of tutorials given on the computer. Tutorials can only provide preprogrammed feedback on student progress as well, so the personal touch of an instructor is lacking with tutorials.

As I am typing this the TV news is on and is reporting on how university courses are being done by computer over the Internet and what do I see on the computer screen shown on TV but a multiple choice question. It would appear to be a tutorial type course given on the Internet. The TV commentator is stating that there has been an explosion in the use of computers in this manner for education at the university level. There is, however, no discussion of the actual manner in which the computer is used. One of the main concerns expressed in the newscast is the lack of personal contact that the use of the computer in this manner engenders. One professor asserts that there is just as much personal interaction over the computer by email in these courses as there is when students are on campus. I find this to be a dubious claim but that is not the main focus of the present discussion.

Learning about computers is another approach that has been taken in education as well. However, the issue of computer literacy has subsided in importance in the schools due to the growing use of computers in society in general, whether in or out of school. It has been discovered that it is not necessary for students to learn how the computer works in order to make productive use of it. This becomes even more the case as computer application programs become more sophisticated and user friendly. This was also de-emphasized when educators realized that this approach did not meet the educational goals of schools. As tools the computers were not fulfilling their function when used in this manner. Knowledge of a tool is most effectively acquired when it is used in the context for which it was intended. If one is to learn how to use a computer this should be done in context doing an activity that actively involves the student in a manner that is useful, meaningful and which engages the student's intellect. Mindtools may not make the student's learning any easier. In fact, they may just require even more concentrated thinking because students are generating their own understanding rather than being passive recipients of received wisdom in presentation form.

Finally, we arrive at centre stage. The type of learning being advocated here is constructivist, in which learners construct their own knowledge and understanding. Some of the things which enable learners to do this are, the knowledge that they already have, the kinds of experiences that they have had, how they have arranged those experiences into knowledge structures and the beliefs that they use to interpret objects and events they experience in the world. The purpose of mindtools is to help learners arrange and represent what they know. Constructivist learning enables learners to construct their own knowledge. To counter suggestions that this will result in everyone having different interpretations of the world, constructivist learning advocates assert that what we do is use social negotiation to arrive at shared meaning. We all know what a stop sign means because stop signs have a socially negotiated meaning. The function of computers in constructivist learning should be to perform calculations and to store and retrieve information. Learners should be the ones recognizing and judging patterns of information and then organizing it. This is the reverse of usual practice, whereby the functions of learner and computer are mutually exchanged.

Instructional programs that have been made available up until now are expensive and cover only a fraction of the school curricula. However, the programs required for mindtools are cheap and many are already readily available in the public domain. Mindtools can also be used across curricula - in the sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Mindtools should be distinguished from productivity tools, which only enhance productivity. Productivity tools would include word processing programs, graphics and paint programs and computer-assisted design (CAD) programs. Such programs may make learners more productive and efficient at what they do but they do not necessarily make them better at it, at least not significantly better.

However, some productivity tools, such as databases and spreadsheets, can be used as mindtools. They can function as cognitive tools that enhance, extend, amplify and restructure the way learners think about content when they are studying. Mindtools are programs that should be able to be used to represent knowledge or content in different areas or subjects. These programs can also include semantic networks, expert systems, computer conferencing, multimedia and hypermedia, programming and microworlds. These mindtool programs should engage learners in critical thinking about their subject. This critical thinking should foster the growth of generalizable, transferable skills that can be used in various fields. The mental effort required to use the software should be such that it does not exceed the effort required to solve the problem without the mindtool.

Just as the context that words are used in is important to the understanding of the meaning of words, so the context of knowledge is just as important as the knowledge itself. Knowledge cannot be understood apart from the context in which it is used. In just the same way, if we are to use tools, then we must use them in the context in which they are normally used. Mindtools are no different. If we are to make use of mindtools then we must make use of them in their proper context. Tools can only be fully understood through using them in context. When this takes place then tool users adopt the beliefs and values of the culture that they are used in, thus changing the user's view of the world. Students are often asked to make use of the tools of a discipline without having learned the culture of the discipline. What needs to take place is for students, like apprentices, to learn the culture of a community or discipline that they are learning about. Learning is a process of enculturation. Students can better learn if they are given an opportunity to observe members of a culture in their own environment. I am using the term "culture" here to refer to disciplines, i.e., the disciplines of science, math, history or literature. Each of these disciplines has its own culture. Entering into that culture enables one to absorb its beliefs, practices and jargon. Too often what students learn is not the culture of the discipline they are studying, but rather, the culture of the school itself, which may be quite unlike the culture of the discipline. And the culture of the school may not serve any useful purpose in light of the needs of a particular discipline. Students may be unable to make use of the tools of a discipline despite having studied that discipline. To give an example, learning about history is not the same thing as learning to do history. It may not be necessary for students to learn to become professional historians, but they should be able to use the analytical tools of the historian. Merely learning knowledge about history does not prepare students to use the analytical tools of historians.

Success in the school culture does not necessarily translate into success in the realms that students study about. The way students learn in school caters to the style of learning in school culture, which may be quite removed from the approaches undertaken in authentic activities that take place in the domains that students study about. When we look at how people solve problems in daily life situations, we can see that the process of solving the problems takes into account very much the context of the problems. Solving problems in school, however, is often done out of context. Problems are approached in an abstract manner. But problems should be solved within the framework of the context that they were created in or that created them if students are to truly understand the problem-solving process. If students learn to solve problems in an environment dependent upon school-based cues then they will not learn to effectively solve problems.

When people carry on face to face conversations they use indexical words such as I, now, here, there, etc. and they communicate using facial expressions. When trying to replicate such discussions on paper the communication of ideas becomes more problematical. The use of indexical words becomes inadequate. The words "here" and "there" lose their meaning that they had in the face to face conversations and facial expressions have no function whatsoever. Descriptions must become more elaborate, to the point that if they become too elaborate they can obscure the message they were originally intended to convey. If you consult a manual on how to operate a complex piece of machinery it can be quite difficult to understand how the piece of machinery functions without actually seeing the piece of machinery. However, if you can observe the piece of machinery and the manual at the same time there is a sense in which the piece of machinery explains the manual. Being able to view the piece of machinery makes the manual that much easier to understand. The point is that the perceptions that result from actions are a central component of learning and activity. Knowledge is indexical too. Knowledge is connected to the activity and environment in which it developed. Both knowledge and learning are situated. It is essential that learning methods are acquired in authentic situations. Learning should take place by cognitive apprenticeship methods that engage learners in the culture in which the methods of a discipline are practised. This is a method similar to that of craft apprenticeship. Cognitive apprenticeship enables students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in activities that are authentic for the domain in which they are being applied.

Another important component of cognitive apprenticeship is that it take place in a collaborative learning environment. Enculturation into a domain is at least partly supported by social interaction, just as it is in craft apprenticeship. Collective problem solving in cognitive apprenticeship facilitates insights and solutions that would not happen individually. The playing of different roles in collaborative learning is also representative of authentic domain practices and this practice can also help root out ineffective strategies and misconceptions. It is also important to learn how to work collaboratively because this is the usual condition of the workplace.

This constructivist view provides a radically different approach to education. If we are to make effective use of computers in the classroom we need to adopt effective teaching strategies and philosophies. There is a sense in which the approach that has just been described is not really radical at all. Craft apprenticeships have been around for centuries. What is new here is the application. Putting this centuries old practice into effect in the classroom is new. So is using it with computers. Using mindtools is somewhat new, in the sense that we now have computers to function as mindtools, whereas just a few short years ago such tools were unavailable. It is time we put these mindtools to use.