A professor in my department recommended an article to me by Dr. Andrew Dillon about hypertext. As you may guess by the topic, this is not a recent article; in fact, it was written in 1996. However, much of what Dillon talks about in this piece is very much aligned with the issues I've been wrestling with as I've been reading the virtual world literature, writing my qualifying exam paper, and beginning to outline a proposal for my dissertation research.
Dillon begins this piece by discussing the three sides of a triangle that scholars fall into when debating the integration of technology into the curriculum. First, according to Dillon, are the educationalists who prefer a technological approach to education and who advocate a virtual, networked, and non-linear learning environment. Next are those who hold a counter viewpoint and dismiss the educational potential of technology. And finally, there are those who view the technologies as a tool that can be a powerful learning aid when used correctly, and nothing more than plastic and electronic circuits when not. Dillon falls in the third category and wants to see evidence of the impact of technology on education.
Dillon highlights a definition of acceptable technology that was put forth by Shackel (1991). Based on Shackel's definition, a technology must satisfy specific criteria in terms of functionality, usability, and cost. Dillon also notes that the physical world can be an important shaper of theory. Further, he contends that just because a learning has replicated the instructor's representation of knowledge does not mean that a meaningful learning experience occurred. To me, this calls into question the value of Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development in that just because a learner can accomplish tasks with assistance from a more knowledgeable individual (e.g., instructor, more experienced peer) - ones that the learner could not complete alone - does not mean that this individual actually had a meaningful learning experience.
One of the myths Dillon points out is that that paper, as opposed to hypertext, is constricting for the learning. While on this surface this notion appears to have nothing to do with virtual worlds, Dillon's follow-up statement does: that it's not the technology that frees us from the constrictions of the physical world, but rather the methods. (Sounds a bit like Clark's 1983 position on technology, doesn't it?) Dillon continues by suggesting that as the arguments for technology move from advocating that these environments are liberating for the typical learner to one that claims that they are good for beginning learners, which may not be the case.
Much of the literature "pretends" that technology will solve all our current educational problems. This, as Dillon rightly notes, is aligned with technological determinism. Dillon concludes that educators need to view learning at the task level. In other words, how do learners complete tasks in the physical world. By moving to the task level, educators can conceptualize the technology as a supplement, and not a replacement, to the learning process.
Showing posts with label Clark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clark. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Students and guidance
Virtual worlds and constructivist theory are typically linked. According to educational technology proponents, virtual worlds are attractive because they enable students to create their own knowledge (among many other things such as become immersed in an authentic environment that allows them to explore - exploring is a very popular educational approach at the moment). For those following the Clark-Kozma debate that has spanned at least 20 years, however, there are questions as to the effectiveness of technology in improving student outcomes. Put simply, they disagree on whether it is the medium (Kozma) or the method (Clark) that impacts student learning.
In an article by Kirchner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) on guidance and the failure of constructivist teaching methods (as well as other minimally guided approaches - discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based learning), the authors examine cognitive load and how minimally guided efforts thwart the constructivist approach to learning. Kirchner and his colleagues argue that learners rely heavily on their long-term memory and draw extensively from past experience. This based experience serves as the learners' knowledge based from which they can build upon. Ultimately, the goal is to create a learning experience that places the newly acquired knowledge firmly in the long-term memory bank.
Many scholars who support a constructivist approach also suggest that learning must be situated within an authentic context. Or, as Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) would argue, learning occurs through a combinaton of the activity, context, and culture. To learn scientific practices, for example, the model should be based on the way the experts learn in their field. However, Kirchner argues in his earlier work (1991, 1992) that experts do not learn about their fields in the same manner in which they carry out their work activities. Kirchner and his colleagues (2006) continue the confusion surrounding the concept of the expert by referring to Hurd's (1969) rationale of the scientist. They also argue, "The practice of a profession is not hte same as learning to practice the profession" (p. 83).
The authors of the current article continue by discussing the research on guided and unguided instruction. In terms of their review of the unguided instruction literature, the group led by Kirchner conclude that this approach did not work. However, the authors also note that teachers who attempted to create a constructivist environment provided a considerable amount of guidance and scaffolding to students. Students in these situations who did not receive guidance were lost, frustrated, and confused. The authors believe this suggests that the students "lack proper schemas to investigate new information with their prior knowledge" (p. 80). It is worth noting that students who are exposed to the unguided approach report that they like it even though the learn less from the process.
In the conclusion, the authors question why unguided instruction is so popular when it is a "failed approach." Why are educators readily adopting methods that are not the most effective? Today, virtual worlds - spaces that support a constructivist model and encourage unguided learning - are viewed as the latest educational utopia, or at least an alternative to textbooks and labs (e.g., Steinkuehler & Duncan, in press). But why? Where's the evidence? While some scholars claim that the move into these virtual spaces for teaching and learning purposes is done on "leeps of faith," the tech-savvy students may not be following. According to the latest Pew report on teens and video games, only 10% of teens are frequenting virtual worlds. This is in contrast to the 74% of teens who play racing games.
Some scholars claim that educators are appropriating unguided approaches and spaces to satisfy the demands of today's students. But, the students aren't visiting some of these sites during their free time. Instead, the popular locations are more guided and rule-based (racing and puzzle games are two of the favorites). So, going back to the question raised by Kirchner and his colleagues, "Why are educators emphasizing an unguided approach?"
In an article by Kirchner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) on guidance and the failure of constructivist teaching methods (as well as other minimally guided approaches - discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based learning), the authors examine cognitive load and how minimally guided efforts thwart the constructivist approach to learning. Kirchner and his colleagues argue that learners rely heavily on their long-term memory and draw extensively from past experience. This based experience serves as the learners' knowledge based from which they can build upon. Ultimately, the goal is to create a learning experience that places the newly acquired knowledge firmly in the long-term memory bank.
Many scholars who support a constructivist approach also suggest that learning must be situated within an authentic context. Or, as Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) would argue, learning occurs through a combinaton of the activity, context, and culture. To learn scientific practices, for example, the model should be based on the way the experts learn in their field. However, Kirchner argues in his earlier work (1991, 1992) that experts do not learn about their fields in the same manner in which they carry out their work activities. Kirchner and his colleagues (2006) continue the confusion surrounding the concept of the expert by referring to Hurd's (1969) rationale of the scientist. They also argue, "The practice of a profession is not hte same as learning to practice the profession" (p. 83).
The authors of the current article continue by discussing the research on guided and unguided instruction. In terms of their review of the unguided instruction literature, the group led by Kirchner conclude that this approach did not work. However, the authors also note that teachers who attempted to create a constructivist environment provided a considerable amount of guidance and scaffolding to students. Students in these situations who did not receive guidance were lost, frustrated, and confused. The authors believe this suggests that the students "lack proper schemas to investigate new information with their prior knowledge" (p. 80). It is worth noting that students who are exposed to the unguided approach report that they like it even though the learn less from the process.
In the conclusion, the authors question why unguided instruction is so popular when it is a "failed approach." Why are educators readily adopting methods that are not the most effective? Today, virtual worlds - spaces that support a constructivist model and encourage unguided learning - are viewed as the latest educational utopia, or at least an alternative to textbooks and labs (e.g., Steinkuehler & Duncan, in press). But why? Where's the evidence? While some scholars claim that the move into these virtual spaces for teaching and learning purposes is done on "leeps of faith," the tech-savvy students may not be following. According to the latest Pew report on teens and video games, only 10% of teens are frequenting virtual worlds. This is in contrast to the 74% of teens who play racing games.
Some scholars claim that educators are appropriating unguided approaches and spaces to satisfy the demands of today's students. But, the students aren't visiting some of these sites during their free time. Instead, the popular locations are more guided and rule-based (racing and puzzle games are two of the favorites). So, going back to the question raised by Kirchner and his colleagues, "Why are educators emphasizing an unguided approach?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
