Week 2 Response

1. Using your experiences with one or more software applications, support or refute the statement: "...when students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning" (p.31). 

         
The article, “Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking” discusses various categories of “Mindtools” that can be used by learners to construct and enhance their own personal knowledge.  The authors describe that Mindtools are not tools to simply provide instruction, but programs that require input and manipulation of data by the user.  In this article, the authors argue that technology should not support learning by providing instruction for students to learn from, but by presenting supporting tools for students to learn with. The authors state“…when students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning” (Jonassen, Carr, and Yueh, 1998, p. 31).  While I do not have a lot of experience with use of software applications for supporting student learning in the classroom, I have some experience that supports this statement.

The software that I use most frequently in my classroom with students are Microsoft PowerPoint and Audacity. I find that many students enjoy these programs because they give students freedom to construct their projects and allow them to express creativity in doing so.  Students enjoy using Microsoft Powerpoint because most of them are familiar with the software and they are able to easily research a topic and create their presentation.  By using the computer to research information and develop their project, students can make great use of the technology that is available to them.  When I introduce students to Audacity for assignments, many are shy to record their voices and have their projects and opinions heard. However, I have found students are often more comfortable recording their projects than presenting to their classmates. When giving assignments that require research on topics, I often provide students with options on how they will construct their knowledge and present their understanding.  

I have made use of other software, such as Sunburst’s Virtual Labs for light and electricity related outcomes, and Geometer’s Sketchpad for comparing graphs and equations of linear and non-linear equations.  The Sunburst software allows you to simulate virtual optics and electricity labs that would otherwise be near impossible to conduct.  While the software may be somewhat unappealing for students who are used to the interface of Facebook, Pinterest, and Instagram, it is an alternative method for engaging them in curriculum and making connections with concepts in a format other than traditional methods.  I have found that students are usually open and excited to try new things that involve technology.  My experience has taught me that it is often helpful to guide students through the software in a “trial run” by use of the LCD projector, to avoid mass confusion and having students “controlled by computer technologies”. 

Several years ago, I made use of Data Studio software for covering Science 10 motion concepts.  Students completed activities in groups with software that involved using science probes to investigate and illustrate their understanding of displacement.  Using this software, students collected and graphed data, as well as, attempted to physically match a graph of motion by walking away, stopping, and walking towards sensors.  The use of this software was helpful for many students, but I found it especially helpful for students who need that “real world” connection. While this software was helpful, I must say the preparation time was substantial.  The materials are expensive and the hardware is often updated.  Also, with this activity, I found that students could easily become lost and frustrated.  Again, it was important that students were given a baseline of information for using the technology to aid in successful use. 

   

2. These authors discuss constructivism here. Is there a place for direct instruction in these software applications? 

           
As mentioned in question 1, I agree that there is a place for direct instruction in using many software applications.  Many of these applications will require students be provided with step-by-step instructions and modeling of their use.  While many of the software programs are excellent tools for constructive learning, it is easy to become frustrated and controlled by them.  The students that we work with are a generation of “I want it now”. They expect immediate results and when things don’t go as planned, they often want to give up.  I will use my example of science students using Data Studio for the displacement lab: when a teacher is responsible for conducting several groups of students with several software programs running, it is critical that students understand how the program functions.  I believe that direct instruction is an easy and effective method for introducing an entire class to the software in preparation for its use.  Other software may allow for “tinkering” to “learn as you go” but when your results rely on your knowledge of the program, I feel that it is appropriate that students are given straight forward, direct instructions.  

3. Briefly summarize the learning theory of "Cognitive Flexibility" and describe how, if it does, relate to Jonassen's "Mindtools".

              
Cognitive Flexibility Theory is a constructivist theory of learning and instruction that suggests that, through the use of scaffolding and multiple representations, previous knowledge can be restructured and adapted for new learning to occur.  The authors of this article suggest that for learners to develop cognitively flexible processing skills, they must be provided with “flexible learning environments which permit the same items of knowledge to be presented and learned in a variety of different ways and for a variety of different purposes” (Spiro, et al, 1995, p. 26). The authors of this article suggest that the computer is ideal for fostering cognitive flexibility, specifically through the use of hypertext computer programs, which promote the transfer of problem-solving skills to other applications.  The theory of Cognitive Flexibility relates to Jonassen’s “Mindtools” because it requires learners to engage in their learning and construct their understanding in various ways. In both articles, the authors stress the importance of constructed knowledge, and discuss the use of computers to develop problem solving skills and a higher level of thinking.