Reflection on Computers as Mindtools

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32.

I remember I had a hard time drawing flow charts for my Instructional Design class last year. At first I tried to draw the charts with Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, or Photoshop. They didn't work so well. Then I started using Inspiration. I felt so happy that Inspiration had provided me with a handy tool that allowed me to visualize and connect all the ideas for the project. In addition, it also allowed me to hyperlink those ideas with related resources.

Another example is the use of MSN and Skype to communicate with my family and friends back in my home country. Making international phonecall is so expensive and inconvenient. Online chatting (text, voice, and video) saved me a lot of money and made the communication simple and effective.

According to Jonassen, technologies should not simply become tools that the learners learn from. Rather, they should engage the learners in a process of knowledge construction. The concept of "Computers as Mindtools" provides me an in-depth understanding of meaningful learning and critical thinking supported by computerized technologies that occurs in our daily life.

When drawing a flow chart with Inspiration for my Instructional Design class, the software helped me to analyze and organize what I know and what I was learning. Accompanying the use of technology were the high-order thinking skills, as my work was to develop a concept map that connected a large number of ideas to each other via links. This process is what Jonassen called "Semantic Networking." And the Inspiration software I used belongs to the semantic organization tool category, one important member of the Mindtool family.

When chatting with my friends and family online through MSN or Skype, I was engaged in a meaningful conversation with one or a group of people. Those conversation tools helped me to interpret or visualize the message (e.g., a smiley face icon, webcam) and sometimes provided me a community-like environment(multi-user chatting, NetMeeting) which promoted socially co-constructed learning and communication. And best of all, they are totally free and user-friendly!

Highlights from the article:

I. Technologies should not support learning by attempting to instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with, not from (p. 24).

II. Classification of Mindtools

1. Semantic Organization Tools (analyzing & organizing; represent semantic relationships among ideas)
1.1 Databases: computerized record keeping systems; analyzing and organizing subject matter (e.g., MS Access, Filemaker, dBase, MySQL)
1.2 Semantic Networking (concept mapping): represent the structural relationships of knowledge; reflect the process of knowledge construction (e.g., SemNet, Learning Tool, Inspiration, Mind Mapper)

2. Dynamic Modeling Tools (describe the dynamic relationships among ideas)
2.1 Spreadsheets: computerized, numerical record keeping system, amplifying mental functioning; requires abstract reasoning, supports problem-solving activities, higher order reasoning (e.g., Excel. Representing, reflecting on, and calculating quantitative information)
2.2 Expert Systems: program that simulates the way human experts solve problems; an artificial decision maker; problem-solving: (e.g., PyKe, MQL 4, CLIPS)
2.3 Systems Modeling Tools: building simulations of dynamic systems and processes (e.g., Stella, Model-It)
2.4 Microworlds: exploratory learning environments or discovery spaces in which learners can navigate, manipulate or create objects, and test their effects on one another; ultimate example of active learning environments, because the users can exercise so much control over the environment (e.g., Sims, Math Worlds, SimCalc)

3. Information Interpretation Tools (access and process the info; e.g., search engines scanning info resources like WWW, and locating relevant resources for learners)
3.1 Visualization Tools: represent and convey mental images (e.g. MacSpartan)

4. Knowledge Construction Tools: When learners function as designers of objects they learn more about them than they would from studying about them (e.g., Logo; Papert's constructionism)

5. Hypermedia: designing multimedia presentations requires project manage skills, research skills, organization and representation skills, presentation skills, and reflection skills (e.g., Flash, DreamWeaver, HTML)

6. Conversation Tools (socially co-constructed learning)
6.1 Online Telecommunications (sychronous: Chats, MOOs, MUDs, videoconferencing; asychronous: email, Listservs, bulletin boards, computer conferences)

III. Rationales for using technology as mindtools

• Learners as designers
  
  • the quickest way to learn about sth. is to have to teach it; learners are teaching the computer;
    
  • Mindtools require learner to think harder about the subject matter, constructing their own realities by designing their own knowledge base
• Knowledge construction, not reproduction (a constructivist use of tech)
  
  • Mindtools function as formalisms for guiding learners in organization and representation of what they know
    
  • Learners are actively engaged in interpreting the external world and reflecting on their interpretations (participate and interact with the environments - mindtools)
    
• Learning with technology
  
  • The effects of technology vs. the effect with technology
  • Learning w/ tech: the learner enters an intellectual partnership with the tech
  • Qualitatively upgrading the performance of the joint system of learner plus tech (mutual enhancement between the computer capabilities and the learner's thinking and learning); The whole of learning becomes greater than the sum of its parts
    
• (Un)intelligent tools
  
  • The appropriate role for a computer system is not that of a teacher/expert, but rather, that of a mind-extension cognitive tool
  • Planning, decision-making, and self-regulation of learning are the responsibility of the learner, not the computer
  • Computer system can serve as powerful catalysts for facilitating these skills
    
• Distributing cognitive processing
  
  • The learner and the computer should do the part they do best
    
  • Learners should be responsible for recognizing and judging patterns of information and then organizing it
  • The computer system should perform calculations, store, and retrieve information
    
• Cost and effort beneficial
  
  • software readily available & affordable
  • easy to learn
    
  
  

Integrating Sims in High School Science Classroom - Rationale

Rationale

For the past two decades, educational technologists have been arguing that real-world simulations would have a great impact on education (Thomas & Hooper, 1991; Dede, 1992; Hardin & Ziebarth, 2000). However, integrating simulations into modern classrooms is no easy task as technology integration in education stands at the intersection between educational change and technological development. In order to use simulations effectively, teachers not only have to learn the technology, but must also change the way they teach. Like science experiments and many other computer-mediated learning activities, simulations work best when students are functioning in hands-on and problem-based inquiry mode, interacting with the simulation and peers. In this way, technologies are used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998).

Although a large number of studies indicate that learner-centered activities are the most effective approach to authentic learning, currently few teachers are conducting their classrooms in a student-centered manner, and in addition, a low percentage of teachers even feel comfortable managing a student-centered classroom activity (Kain, 2003; King, 2003). However, with the call to “put the children and their learning needs within the center of every educational program and resource decision” (ASCD, 2007), it is essential for teachers to change their way of teaching in line with the educational change and technological development.

In this context, I plan to develop a lesson plan that integrates educational computer simulation modules in a high school science classroom. The goal of this project is to help high school science teachers shift to a more inquiry-based teaching style by providing them with learning tools that support a more student-centered approach. In addition, I hope to help students develop a greater understanding of, and interest in content areas such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics through educational simulations. This project will employ educational simulation modules based on inquiry-based constructivist pedagogy, such as a collaborative, problem-based, and learner-directed of instruction (Koschmann, 2001) – it is my belief that students learn more when they are involved in inquiry based learning activities and when they gather, analyze and interpret data, providing them an opportunity to draw conclusions and report their findings. The lesson plan will be aligned with the Indiana science standards and to the National Science Education Standards (NSES), as well as the textbook used in high school science classrooms.

The learning goals of the lesson plan is to assist students:

• Develop deeper and more personal ways of thinking about science.
• Engage in interactive, inquiry-based methods of learning about science.
• Obtain a greater understanding of science content.
• Address misconceptions they may have regarding science.

One of the inspiring educational websites that have contributed to this project is the official site of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Education Division. As clearly stated on the site, the NASA is dedicated to engaging students, educators and families in NASA-related activities at the elementary and secondary education levels thus to inspire and motivate the students to pursue higher levels of study in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (NASA, 2007). The site includes wonderful technology-based educational resources such as computer simulations, games, videos, and many other multimedia instructional materials that can be used for K-12 science classrooms. Among those affluent resources, I decided to use a simulation program named Rocket Modeler II because it is an excellent tool for students to learn the basics of forces and the response of an object to external forces, and understand physics concepts such as velocity, ballistic flight, and Galileo’s principle (NASA, 2007). Players will need to design a rocket properly to ensure its successful launch. Through learning by design and problem solving, students will be expected to build higher order skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in the fields of STEM. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) will be connected to the integration of this simulation module in high school science classroom.

References

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2007). The whole child. A report by ASCD Commission on the Whole Child.

Dede, C. (1992). The future of multimedia: Bridging to virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 32 (5), 54-60.

Hardin, J., & Ziebarth, J. (2000). Digital technology and its impact on education. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures /hardin.html

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32.

Kain, D. (2003). Teacher centered versus student centered: balancing constraint and theory in the composition Classroom. Pedagogy, 3 (1), 104-108.

Koschmann, T. (2001, March). Dewey’s contribution to a standard of problem-based learning practice. Paper presented at First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative (EuroCSCL), Maastricht, Netherlands.

King, I. C. (2003). Examining middle school inclusion classrooms through the lens of learner-centered principles. Theory into Practice, 42 (2), 151-158.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2007). A message from the Director of Elementary & Secondary Education. Retrieved on November 18, 2007 from http://education.nasa.gov/divisions/eleandsec/overview/index.html

Thomas, R., & Hooper, E. (1991). Simulations: An opportunity we are missing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23 (4).

Problem-Based Learning

Duch, B. (1996). Problems: A key factor in PBL. Retrieved on August 19, 2007 from http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/spr96-phys.html

Duch argues that good problems are a key factor in PBL that motivates, focuses, and initiates student learning. Characteristics of good problems include 1) engaging students' interest and motivate them to probe for deeper understanding of concepts, 2) requiring students to make infomation-based decisions or judgments, 3) Collaborative work with group members; 4) open-ended initial questions that are connected to previous learned knowledge or connected to controversial issues; and 5) incorporation of content objectives. In addition, good problems should challenge students to achieve higher-level critical thinking. The author then identifies 3 levels of problems which place questioning at different cognative levels ranging from Bloom's Knowledge to Evaluation, with several problem exmaples designed for Physics and Biology classes that demonstrate the application of the three levels. I enjoyed reading this article because it has not only presented a clear definition of what constitute a good problem but also provided exellent exmaples around the three levels based on Bloom's Taxonomy.

Question #1. Are you using PBL in your teaching? If so, describe. If not (or even if you are) why is PBL hard to "do" in your teaching?

I have to admit that it is hard for me to answer this question because of my lack of teaching experience.The only teaching position I have had before I entered this program was an English tutor at a weekend foreign language school back in China. However, exactly like what my classmate Diana said about her teaching, "the time period and frequency that I have with the children does not lend itself to this type of indepth activity. " Fortuately I was assigned as a grad assistant to assist the instructor of EDTEC120 class this fall. In the first two weeks I've already seen some PBL activities. For example, the instructor let the students who are new Mac users to solve technology problems through PBL -- these future teachers need to be self-sufficient with computers and the best way to do this is to convert everyday challenges as opportunities to learn. They are asked to pose and answer questions on an user-driven discussion boards. If answers and questions are indexed and searchable, the resulting knowledge base can be a valuable resource for the next challenge. So hopefully when in service, they will be able to use this same knowledge-building model with their students on any other topics.

Question #2. What might some relationships between Inquiry, PBL, and computing be? Can you give an example beyond those provided from your own school?

Usually inquiry is the first and basic step to implement a PBL activity, as learners must engage in inquiry to get information about the problem. That's why Problem-Based Learning can also be called Inquiry-Based Learning. If supported by the computer technology, PBL can be put into maximum use. Mindtools are a good example to illustrate the positive relationships between computing and PBL. Collaborative distance learning environments, simulations in the classroom, and many other computer-mediated approaches can all count toward this effort.

http://www.udel.edu/pbl/