Schome

Does ICT change how we learn?

PeterT — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:24:03 +0000

In this post I attempt (somewhat tentatively) to address the question of whether or not ICT changes how we learn. This follows on from my previous post in which I asked about what role ICT should play in compulsory education.

We use terms such as eLearning, which at the very least imply that ICT changes learning. However, I think we are being sloppy in our thinking when we do this …

It seems obvious that ICT provides some new ways of teaching – or at the very least some new tools that teachers can use, and thus potentially impacts on pedagogy (the art of teaching) – eTeaching perhaps. However, pedagogy is not the same as mathetics (the art of learning [1]). Furthermore I think we need to distinguish between mathetics and the underlying processes that learning entails. These learning processes are what I am interested in here. Indeed you could reframe the question ‘Does ICT change how we learn?’ to ‘Does ICT change learning theory?’.

‘Learning theories’

In order to explore this question we need to examine ‘learning theory’ and see how ICT might impact on it. Whilst I am danger of over-simplyfying I am going to set out what I would argue are the three dominant ‘learning theories’: behaviourism (following Skinner); individual constructivism (following Piaget); and socio-cultural theory (following Vygotsky). For each I will summariese their view of the following key dimensions: knowledge, language; learning and the learner; the role of ‘others’; curriculum; and assessment. I will then identify whether or not ICT changes our view of any one of these dimensions – if it does then it may well change our understanding of learning theory – i.e. the answer to my question ‘Does ICT change how we learn?’ would be ‘Yes’.

View of knowledge

Behaviourism

Individual constructivism

Socio-cultural theory

Knowledge exists in its own right (facts / objective reality).Therefore knowledge: is discovered rather than created; can be passed on or transferred from one person to another.

Knowledge is constructed in the head of the individual (subjective reality) on the basis of each individual’s prior knowledge (prior mental model). Therefore knowledge cannot be transferred and the order in which you construct new knowledge (learn) is important (because it has to be build on your existing mental models).

Knowledge is constructed through the interactions between individuals within a cultural context (is a social construct). Therefore knowledge cannot be transferred. Social interaction is vital to learning; learning is a process of enculturation – taking on, or appropriating, shared understandings of the world through interaction with ‘more knowledgeable’ others (adults or peers).

NB As my context is always socially defined even when working on my own I am in a social context. Therefore an ‘individual activity’ such as reading a book is a form of social interaction.

View of language

Behaviourism	Individual constructivism	Socio-cultural theory
Language has no special place within Behaviourism. It is a mechanism for the transfer of knowledge.	Language is one system (but not the only one) for representing the world. There is a clear distinction between language and thought and therefore learning can take place without language playing any part in it.	Language is viewed as being a form of thought. It provides us with a mechanism for consciously controlling our thoughts and actions (metacognition). As such language plays a fundamentally important role in learning.

View of learning and the learner

Behaviourism	Individual constructivism	Socio-cultural theory
The learner is seen as a passive receiver of knowledge. The extent to which learning takes place is determined by the innate ability (the IQ) of the learner and the clarity of the presentation of knowledge.	Learning is viewed as an active process involving the learner in making sense of the world. What a child can learn is dependent upon her existing mental models (schema), and hence on her prior experiences. Every child moves through a series of stage in the same order. The stage that a child is at determines (limits) what the child is capable of understanding.	Learning is viewed as an active process in which the learner is making sense of the world. The learner works in partnership with others to develop understandings, which the learner then takes on board (appropriates) and makes their own. The limits of what a learner is able to learn at any point in time is determined by the combined competence of the people involved in the interaction (hence the zone of proximal development or ZPD).

View of the role of ‘others’

Behaviourism	Individual constructivism	Socio-cultural theory
‘Others’ (‘teachers’) are always seen as being more knowledgeable than the learner, structuring the learning and presenting it to the learner.	The focus is clearly on the learner (the developing child). However, ‘others’ can create cognitive conflict (i.e. dis-equilibrium). Learning is more likely to take place during interactions in which both parties have equal power (symmetrical relationships) because where this is not the case there is a danger that the learner (less powerful party) adopts the view that they are being told about something without fitting it into their mental model.	Social interaction plays a vital role in learning (though see NB above under View of Knowledge). ‘More knowledgeable’ others are fundamentally important because learning involves the co-construction of meaning, and a more knowledgeable other extends the boundaries of what a learner can co-construct.

View of the curriculum

Behaviourism	Individual constructivism	Socio-cultural theory
The curriculum should be defined in advance by more knowledgeable others. It inevitably involves a logical sequence or progression and should be clearly specified in terms of measurable outcomes that indicate what an individual child should know or be able to do.	There is a logical sequence and structure to the expectations of what can be learnt (that is dependent upon the age/stage of the learner). Thus the curriculum should specify ‘important areas’ and what progression through them should look like. However, there needs to be differentiation within that overall logical sequence, in order that the curriculum (what is offered or planned) builds upon the prior experiences of each individual child; the focus should be on the individual learner’s progress in relation to the ‘important areas’.	It is inappropriate to specify in advance what needs to be learnt, because this will depend upon the learner and the context within which they are operating. Thus there is not one logical sequence in which learning can take place.

View of assessment

Behaviourism	Individual constructivism	Socio-cultural theory
Assessment should focus on observable ‘behaviour’ (e.g. what the child does and says) of the individual child. Assessment enables an individual child’s ability (intelligence) to be determined.	Assessment should be focused on what the individual learner knows, understands and can do. Assessment enable us to make comparisons between the current level of competence of the learner and the expected ‘norm’ for a child of that age.	Focusing on what an individual learner can achieve in isolation may not be appropriate (because what a learner can do in isolation will not be the same as what they can do in other contexts).

Does ICT change any of these dimensions?

I don’t think that ICT changes (provides an alternative view of) any of these key dimensions of ‘learning theories’. This is because where the sorts of changes that ICT may bring about relate to these key dimensions at all they opereate at a different level of description. For example, whilst ICT does impact on how information can be represented and processed and hence on views of knowledge it does not impact at the epistimological level – it doesn’t provide an alternative view of knowledge to it having an objective reality or being an individual or social construct.

If this analysis is correct then ICT does NOT change how we learn …

However, I am somewhat tentative about this response – in part because of my lack of confidence in my understanding of ‘learning theories’ (not to mention my oversimplification of the range of theories which I have condenced). I’d love to hear your views both on my description of learning theories (is my analysis of them correct) and on my view of how ICT interacts with them.

References

[1] Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books.

What role should ICT play in compulsory education in the 21st century?

PeterT — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:18:52 +0000

Over the last 20+ years there has been a great deal of hype about the potential of ICT to transform schooling and substantial investment in ‘educational’ ICT [1]. Whilst there is evidence that ICT can have a positive impact on learning [2] it is also widely acknowledged that it does not necessarily do so. The scale of impact that ICT has had on schooling does not correspond with the rhetoric [3] or level of financial investment [4]. At best we have a picture of improving performance, but with patchy implementation and variable impact across schools and colleges [5].

In the current financial climate and a context in which headteachers are going to have greater responsibility for spending decisions [6] then future investments in ICT will have to justify themselves in terms of cost effectiveness relative to other ‘educational’ expenditures. The challenge is how to weigh up the relative benefits of different ‘educational’ investments.

This post sets out some questions which might help headteachers (and others) to make decisions about whether further investments in ‘educational’ ICT are justified and asks for feedback on those questions. In future posts I will explore answers to these questions – informed by your contributions and the wider literature.

Clearly, any consideration of ‘educational benefits’ depend upon ones view of what education is for and hence what the appropriate measures of educational effectiveness should be. Is education about preparing students to become productive employees, or about enhancing students’ long-term happiness, or indeed about the collective well-being of the community/society? The ‘value’ one places on particular investments will be tied to one’s educational philosophy. However, irrespective of your view of education, there are certain circumstances in which one could reasonably conclude that investing in ICT in schools was not only justified but necessary. Namely if the answer to any of the following questions was a clear ‘yes’:

1. Does ICT change how we learn?
The focus here is on our understanding of ‘learning theory’ – the question is about the extent to which ICT changes the underlying processes that learning entails.

2. Does ICT change how we (ought to) teach?
The focus here is on pedagogy – some might want to rephrase the question in terms of the extent to which ICT provides us with alternative and more effective strategies/approaches to support learning.

3. Does ICT change what we (ought to) teach?
The focus here is on the curriculum – it is about the extent to which ICT changes the nature of ‘subjects’. I think this entails exploration of three sub-questions:

a. Does ICT change the information that is viewed as being important?
b. Does ICT change ways of processing and/or representing information?
c. Does ICT change the beliefs, values or norms within a discipline?

4. Does ICT provide other significant educational benefits that could not be achieved in any other way?
The focus here is on other roles that ICT might play within education, not covered in questions 1 to 3.

I’d be interested to hear your views on whether you think I have identified ‘the right questions’ and/or your thoughts about possible answers – please use the comments facility below to tell me what you think …

References
[1] Watson (2010) Impact of ICT in Schools. Montrose42′s blog 13-Feb-2010. http://tinyurl.com/3xwsmka (accessed 3-Dec-2010)
[2] e.g. Becta (2010) in relation to English
Becta (2010) The Impact of Technology on Children’s Attainment in English: A Review of the Literature. Coventry: Becta. http://tinyurl.com/268wmol (accessed 3-Dec-2010)
[3] Trend, R., N. Davis, et al. (1999). Information and Communications Technology. London, Letts Educational.
[4] DCSF (2009) Securing our future. Report DCSF-01097-2009. November 2009. Nottingham: DCSF Publications. http://tinyurl.com/28vql3o (accessed 2-Dec-2010)
[5] Becta (2009) Harnessing Technology Review. BEC1-15782. November 2009. Coventry: Becta. http://tinyurl.com/ygkltwl (accessed 2-Dec-2010)
[6] DfE (2010) The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Norwich: The Stationary Office. http://tinyurl.com/35rzwyt (accessed 3-Dec-2010)

The first Schome podcasts are unveiled….

Gaea SParker — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:34:59 +0000

Two Schome-related podcasts were recorded in June and September about the work of the Schome space experiment team. The podcasts were recorded as part of the OU Blast “takeaway science” series hosted by the OU/BBC Rough Science presenter Mike Bullivant. The first is an interview with Gaea SParker [Becca Wilson] regarding background information about the Schome Park Programme and the space experiment team. The second was a snippet from an interview with the space experiment team on their first meeting with each other in real life during a visit to Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd back in June.

If any SParker /Schomer wants a copy of the original unedited podcast recording for research purposes or otherwise….send me a PM and I shall sort something out.

Relive08 – Closing comments from Roo Reynolds

Amba SParker — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:43:05 +0000

Roo Reynolds, portfolio executive for Social Media at the BBC, presented a most thoughtful and insightful closing keynote to ReLIVE08. In it, he quoted Kieron and Peter, and I did a fantastic job of communicating the essence of Schome to a great many people (watch the webcast).

More details are available on the Schome Park Bliki, thanks to Rebecca.

Roo’s ideas and insights will be extremely valuable as we develop our plans for future Phases of the Schome Park Programme and wider Schome research.

Schome Symposium at ReLIVE08

Amba SParker — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:25:10 +0000

Schome Staff enjoyed a rare opportunity to meet and present some of their work together at the ReLIVE08 conference at the Open University, Milton Keynes on the 20th November 2008.

Our symposium session included the following presentations:

Paper: The Schome Park Programme – Exploring Educational Alternatives.
Peter Twining and Shri Footring
Presentation: The Schome Park Programme – The Space Satellite Competition
Becca Wilson
Presentation: Learning and research in the Schome Park Programme: A range of adult perspectives
Kieron Sheehy, Rebecca Ferguson, Britta Pollmuller, Julia Gillen, Anna Peachy, Chris Pim, Shri Footring.

We missed everyone who couldn’t be there in person, particularly PeterT, but here is a picture of those who made it on the day.