MICROWORLDS

Microworlds are one type of constructivist learning. Learners generate their own problems in microworlds. Advocates assert that these problems are inherently interesting. One microworld program which has been around for a long time is Logo. Although simple, it is nonetheless powerful. It makes use of simple commands to move a turtle. This is computer programming at a very basic level. The commands are simple but the priniciples that are learned in using the commands lay a strong foundation for learners to capitalize on. Commands can be combined to make complex movements. Logo does have some pedagogical limitations, however. The range of exploratory skills developed with it is limited and these skills are not very generalizable either. Were learners to create their own microworlds with Logo rather than just using the ones provided the generalizability of the skills learned in this program would be enhanced. The drawback to this is that it would take several months to adequately learn how to do this.

Looking at microworlds in general, ideally they should make the learner forget about the computer, in the sense that the learner should become focused on the learning and not be caught up with the fact that the computer is mediating in the learning process. It is not even necessary for computers to be used to create microworlds. A child's chemistry set can be a microworld. As long as students are practising skills that can be used in a real-world environment then a microworld can be said to be in operation. The development of skills should proceed from simple to complex in any microworld learning environment. The interest of the learner should be engaged in the microworld and the ideas learned should be both useful and related to the learner's prior knowledge and experience as well. Microworlds should be easily understood by the learner and learning should take place experientially. Doing is essential to the learning process. This is one of the motivating factors in microworlds.

One type of microworld learning program is called Interactive Physics. I wish I had been able to use this program when I was learning physics. It enables learners to manipulate variables on the computer to test what happens when variables in physical problems are altered. One such problem demonstrates a car crash. Students can manipulate such variables as gravity, air resistance and elasticity of bodies to determine scientific principles. I always had difficulty conceptualizing abstract concepts in physics and a program such as this would probably have made it much easier for me to envision what these things were. Perhaps I would not have struggled so much to understand physics as I did had I been able to use such a program as this.

Another microworld program is called Bubble Dialogue. I am less impressed with this one. It enables learners to do role playing, dialogue playing and reflective analysis of the dialogue. One interesting feature of it is that it allows learners to insert what characters are thinking, not just saying, into the dialogue boxes. One of my complaints about this program is, why are computers needed to do this? It would seem to me that pen and paper would do nicely, thank you please. I also wonder if it tends to facilitate a loss of personal contact. Students are having vicarious conversations mediated by computers. The real world is not like this, or at least has not been like this. Perhaps it is becoming like this, what with the use of email and chat lines. People are carrying on conversations more and more with people they have never met or seen. You could say that people have done this when they had penpals, but it seems to be becoming more of a regular part of life nowadays. True social interaction is not taking place in these vicarious meetings. I just spoke with a new friend of mine who informs me that she carried on correspondence with a man she met on a penpal site on the Internet. This took place for a couple of years. They exchanged pictures of each other and spoke on the telephone during this period. After a couple of years they finally met and she said that he was nothing at all like she had imagined. She was not disappointed, but she was surprised. But I digress.

Another aspect of microworlds is that they are very much in the constructivist vein, as already stated. Learners learn at their own pace and are supposed to develop critical analytical thinking skills. Learners should set their own goals. However, this presupposes motivated students and it presupposes that microworld programs are so inherently interesting that students will want to set their own learning goals. While this is laudable, it may not not be realistic. Students may just want to drift off into playtime without learning any appreciable skills. This is a very real possibility that cannot be discounted. It may be necessary for teachers to lay down some rules and structures in order for learning to take place. Learners are also supposed to work collaboratively on microworld programs. However, if this requires learners to work together on the same computer I see the possibility of learners with dominant personalities trying to control the use of the computer. In conclusion, I would like to say that, despite my criticisms of microworlds I really like the idea that they promote experiential learning, which I think is one of the most motivating factors in any learning situation.