Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Contributions of instructional innovation to understand learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reviewed by Terry McFarlane.

Brown and Campione suggest that the study of innovative learning settings fruitfully contributes to the development of learning theories. The paper's purpose is to describe the theoretical bases of one such setting: Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL).

The FCL system involves learners in a logical sequence of (1) research, in order to (2) share information, in order to (3) perform a consequential task. This three-step cycle is coordinated with self-conscious reflection by community members and is based on the idea that participants are trying to understand deep disciplinary content. The authors define numerous activities appropriate for each cycle. Research activities include reciprocal teaching and research seminars, several kinds of consultation, guided writing, and children teaching children. Sharing information activities include jigsaw, crosstalk, and majoring. The consequential task includes tests, projects, interviews, assessments, transfer tests and thought experiments.

Although the three-step cycle is essential to FCL, there is flexibility in implementation bearing in mind the learning principles. The authors present seven principles derived from research in cognitive science that form the basis of the FCL implementations:

1. Systems and cycles. FCL is a system of purposeful activities occurring in research-share-perform cycles.

2. A metacognitive environment. FCL is "a metacognitive environment in which effort after meaning (Bartlett, 1932), comprehension monitoring, and an atmosphere of wondering and querying knowledge form part of reflective learning practices.

3. The centrality of discourse. FCL adheres to the principle that "any true understanding is dialogic in nature" (Bakhtin, 1986). Through ongoing negotiation, appropriation, transformation, and definition of ideas and concepts by participants, the community of learners adopts a common voice and knowledge base, a shared system of meaning, beliefs, and activities (Wertsch, 1991; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Lave & Wenger, 1991;Vygotsky, 1978).

4. Deep content knowledge. Children's intuitive theories (Carey & Gelman, 1991) should be mapped to the deep principles of a discipline. Immediate goals and levels of abstraction (White, 1993) should be carefully specified. Content should be demanding and intellectually honest (Bruner, 1963) to support deep inquiry and sharing.

5. Distributed expertise. Expertise spreads throughout the community by appropriation and negotiation (Brown et al., 1993).

6. Instruction and assessment. FCL favors guided practice and guided participation. Assessment should be transparent and authentic, with students sharing part of the responsibility for their own evaluation.

7. Community of practice. FCL classrooms encourage a community of discourse characterized by knowledge seeking and inquiry. They link students, teachers, researchers as a community with shared values that extends beyond the classroom.

This paper is comprehensive and, except for some redundancies, well-written. The authors have created and tried out an instructional program that addresses the weakness identified in several writings that instructional design does not integrate learning principles. Of the community of learners programs I have read about so far, FCL is the most explicit and detailed. I do not think that the authors take an all-or-nothing stand regarding implementing the myriad of activities described for each step in the cycle. Rather, they recommend that each learning principle identified be rooted in a community of learners program.

After I read the article, I wondered if FCLs created for educational purposes will be as useful to students and educators as the authors' FCL research prototypes have been. By this I mean that the success of this program may partially be attributed to a Hawthorne effect.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.),(translated by V. W. McGee). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carey, S., & Gelman, R. (1991). The epigenesis of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Edwards, P., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Open University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices in the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.

Clancey, W.J. (1993) Guidon-Manage revisited: A socio-technical systems approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 4 91), 5 - 34. Reviewed by Jackie Dobrovolny.

Purpose of the article is to:

1. Clarify the influence of (a) situated cognition, (b) socio-technical systems approach and (c) participatory design on the use of intelligent tutoring systems.

2. Compare and contrast the difference between the basic design process, which Clancey calls Tool Design Space, and the applied design process, which Clancey calls Everyday Life.

3. Describe how the applied design process would be used if Clancey were to develop Guidon-Manage today. Guidon-Manage is an expert system designed to help students reflect on reasoning processes in medical diagnosis. It focused on teaching metacognitive skills.

The seven changes Clancey would make were he developing Guidon-Manage a second time are:

--Use multidisciplinary, participatory teams.

--Adopt a global view of the context in which the system will be used.

--Look for cost-effective solutions for real problems.

--Emphasize facilitating conversations between students.

--Conceptualize representations as a medium for communication within a community of practice.

--Relate models to everyday practice.

--Consider the target group to be a psychological unit.

The tone of this article is almost confessional. Clancey says at the beginning of the article "After more than a decade, I felt that I could no longer continue saying that I was developing instructional programs for medicine because not a single program I worked on was in routine use" (p. 7).

At the end of the section on the seven recommended changes Clancey says "Without these considerations, we cannot complain if our programs are not used or people fight our very involvement in their lives" (p. 26).

Collins, A. (1991, September). The role of computer in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 28-36. Reviewed by Beatrice Awoniyi.

Collins argues that we need to change our beliefs about the roles of teachers and students in schools, and that technology can help us do that. He presents two opposing views--didactic and constructivist--which have been at "war for centuries" (p. 29). He reviews research showing eight major ways that technology can help teachers move from a didactic to a more constructivist orientation.

Computer technology is in the classroom to stay, despite criticisms and pessimistic views of some researchers. With the technology comes a different view of the role of schools, teachers, and assessments. No longer should we look at teachers as those whose jobs are "to impart expertise to students" (p. 31), rather, teachers will function more as "observers" and ones to provide directions and "guides". Their job will become more of making sure appropriate interaction occur between the students and the technology (p. 29).

Collins offers an optimistic view of the use of computer technology and the positive impact it promises to make in the learning process. He shows why people resist technology in the classroom and why they need to re-examine their views.

Collins did a good job of supporting his arguments and providing opposing views. Despite his optimistic view of schools and technology, however, Collins has fallen in the same trap as those before him. Many of his proposed solutions for perceived problems are too idealistic, run counter to our democratic ideologies, and undermine important movements such as inclusion. I am for technology but at the same time, I believe technology is here to enhance not to take over as Collins portrays.

Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (1994). Leadership for transition: Moving from the special project to systemwide integration. Educational technology: Leadership perspectives (pp. 113-135). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Reviewed by Sue Chandler.

Collis and Moonen define three steps or stages of experience with computers in education:

Step 1. Individual Initiatives. At this level, individual projects are initiated by anyone with a vision or excitement about computers in education.

Step 2. Special Project. A special project is initiated that involves extraordinary time, money and support, with the ultimate goal of systemwide diffusion. A typical strategy is to bring a strong collection of players together and give them extra time and resources to work out their ideas. A goal might be to provide a certain amount of computer-related teacher training to a certain group of teachers (Collis & Carleer, 1992). Eventually this would be a value through the whole system. Collis and Moonen give examples of these projects at the national, regional, school, and individual level. The leadership philosophy needs to be attuned to experimentation and innovation with personnel and evaluation skills.

Transition between Special Project and Systemwide Integration: The problems of transition between these two steps are numerous. For example, the teachers have various skills and emotions about adopting the program, a possible lack of funding, and lack of training and support for the organization and teachers. Leaders need to bridge the transition period.

Step 3. Systemwide Integration. At this level, technology is integrated into the daily routine of the teacher and into all levels of the organizational support system. The diffusion process almost never makes it to this stage (White, 1990; Fullan, 1982). Leadership at this level requires finding strategies to informally evaluate the effective integration of technology within and between different departments, stimulating new ideas related to new technologies, and identifying new leadership roles.

This three-step process can repeat itself on a smaller scale. A case study in the Netherlands follows. Their innovation project was called Informatics Stimulation Plan (INSP). To avoid potential leadership problems, the government circumvented its own Ministry and educational support system, and developed many teams who did not have "special interests" in the project. They were hired for their leadership skills. A substantial amount of resources and money were available for the introduction of "information technology into the schools". As the project developed a new team was formed: PRINT (Project for the Implementation of New Technologies). They were the transition between steps 2 and 3. This leadership team strengthened its own position instead of thinking about the interests of the schools. Consequently PRINT lost a subproject that dealt with vocational education. PRESTO was created and took over the leadership for that area. Was the lack of clear success for the PRINT project the result of the lack of adequate leadership? The government has made the move to give the schools what is considered to be a reasonable budget and let them decide how to use it. The school principal becomes a central figure in the integration phase of the special project .

To me this article has validity. The model they developed is typical of other models in professional development. The authors discuss how difficult it is to have successful transition between the steps and how effective leadership can facilitate this process. The conclusion of the case study supports the schools and teachers in adopting and integrating the initiatives (after they spent all the money!). I believe for successful adoption of technology it has to start in the school and be a part of their goals for at least three to five years. The case study was still a view of a top-down "grass roots" movement. The literature does not support these types of initiatives.

Collis, B. & Carleer, G. (1992). Technology-enriched Schools: Nine case studies with reflections. Eugene OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

White, G. (1990). Implementing change in schools: From research to practice. Planning and Changing, 21 (4), 207-224.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press.

Cowan, D. (1995) . Rhythms of learning: Patterns that bridge individuals and organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry 4, 222-246. Reviewed by Katherine Goff.

This article explores the epistemological foundations that underlie the current, mainstream views of the relationship between individual and organizational learning. Cowan identifies four keystones of learning in current theoretical development based on an exhaustive literature review. These keystones are

1. the separation of improvement from practice;

2. a convergent path from novice to expert;

3. the predominance of variation reduction; and

4. that information, knowledge, and wisdom are discontinuous aspects of learning (p. 232).

He offers a contrasting model based on the Native American medicine wheel "to provide alternative conceptions that may enhance discussion and broaden the focus of those who study and practice in this area" (p. 223).

Cowan offers four rhythms of learning to replace the rigid keystones that he describes as deriving from dichotomous, linear, cross-sectional, and compartmental thinking. These rhythms are

1. that learning underlies every relationship in an organization;

2. a circular path that includes novice and expert;

3. the continuous oscillation between variation reduction and amplification; and

4. that development spirals from information to knowledge to wisdom (p. 234).

Rather than dismissing the keystones as incorrect, Cowan adds movement, interrelationships, and multi-directionality. His goal "calls for a higher tolerance both for ambiguity and for uncertainty" (p. 236).

This paper is written in a non-linear style that not only allows Cowan's multifarious, circular, longitudinal, and integrative model to emerge in a manner best suited to such ideas, but also provides a model of how to learn using the rhythms he proposes. It provides an unusual example of recursive thinking in both its form and content.

Dwyer, D. (1994, April). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What we've learned. Educational Leadership, 4-10.

David Dwyer is a reseach scientist who has been with Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) since its inception in 1986. The purpose of his article is to give an overview of what kinds of changes occurred over eight years as a result ACOT's infusion of learning technologies into member schools. Dwyer looks at the changes in ACOT schools at the two, four, and eight-year intervals of the project.

After two years, the results seemed to disprove some of the more pernicious myths about what happens when you introduce computer technology into schools. Teachers personally appropriated many of the technologies; students interacted more than before, not less; student use of technology did not decrease as the novelty faded, and the limited software available only forced more creative adaptations of existing applications.

These positive trends, however, were taking place against the backdrop of teachers struggling, often subconsciously, about their changing role amidst the computers.

By four years, many of teachers, were using the technology for personal productivity, and this increasing comfort level was reflected in their classroom management styles. Dwyer describes the style as collegial among both teachers and students and a notices a decrease in the angst felt by teachers concerning their role as authorities. Ironically, the problem now facing the teachers was how to evaluate the progress in students that couldn't be measured by normal assessment.

At the time of publishing, Dwyer had found that the technology had become a relatively seemless extension of the school environment. Teachers used these tools to encourage interdisciplinary project-based instruction and a there was a decrease in traditional recitation lessons. The students themselves seemed to become more adept at utilizing various media in their construction of knowledge and showed an increased cognitive flexibility (Spiro, 1988).

That's the good news. The bad news is that despite such successes the teachers and their schools continued to find difficulty producing evaluation methods that showed student successes in these fuzzy domains. Often, teachers would resort to traditional practices when the district henchmen would come by for a visit. Dwyer found this to be the single biggest hurdle to successful implementation of ACOT technologies.

Because of his rather vested interest, it is not altogether surprising that Dwyer speaks in glittering generalities about the successes that were accomplished in the ACOT schools. In his defense, however, he does document some impressive test score increases (even though he against such tests in principle) and cites studies which seem to support many of his claims. It is also important to remember that this publication is meant for the lay reader and does not attempt any heavy theorizing.

I'm confident that these successes are real and could be replicated in other schools, but the real variable is the long-term funding and committment that demanded that this project succeed. This is a luxury that blesses a very few schools and districts. It'll happen eventually, but there are some important economic obstacles that must be overcome first.

References

Spiro, R. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge

acquisition in ill-structured domains. Paper presented at the Tenth

Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

Hlynka, D. and A. R. J. Yeaman (1992). Postmodern educational technology. Eric Digest No. EDO-IR-92-5.

The purpose of this article is to both explain and demonstrate postmodernism. The central message is that educational technology originally developed out of modernist attempts to control behavior and thinking, while being percieved as neutral. However, the need to produce information in a postmodern society and instruction by those involved in postmodern thought has brought postmodern perspectives to educational technology.

Postmodern thinking questions and deconstructs the traditional models, including systematic design of instruction and linear progress. This article demonstrates one possibility for postmodern educational technology by dividing the page into two columns of text, leaving the reader to choose what to read and when, and perhaps "participate in the message."

This article states that the characteristics of postmodern educational technology are the belief that (1) "[t]here is no one best technology of communication in education," (2) educational technology should be criticized rather than evaluated, and (3) we should constantly rethink and deconstruct "our beliefs, tools and technology." As a result, "[e]ducational technology can no longer be perceived as neutral or as leading inevitably to progress."

The density of this article required me to read it twice slowly, but having done so, I found it effective in explaining postmodernism, analyzing its effect on educational technology, and demonstrating an application of postmodern theory. The layout did indeed challenge me to decide what to read first, second, third (notice I could not find a way around my own traditional linear style of reading). But on the second reading, I found that each column of text contributed to my understanding of the other and the different writing styles and content served as welcome break at times when my concentration might have otherwise have been challenged.

The criticism that educational technology "seeks to manipulate thinking" as well behavior seems paradoxical. The authors appear to have themselves had a goal of manipulating thinking. Is and the production of information in a postmodern society fully without the intent of manipulating others' points of view? (I suppose that depends in part on one's definition of "manipulate" and whether it carries negative connotations or is merely "to influence by artful skill" (Random House Dictionary).

Hunt, William T. Shared understanding: Implications for computer supported cooperative work. [Online] Available

http://www.dgp.utoronto.ca/people/WilliamHunt/qualifier.html, April 1, 1995. Reviewed by Michael S. Batty.

This monograph, written as part of a doctoral qualifying exam, is about Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW), which involves people, artifacts and the way they interact.

Introduction

The introduction discusses cognition, providing first a historical perspective of the development of the study of cognition. Hunt leads the reader from viewing cognition as occurring solely in a person's head to viewing cognition as a social process. A key to Hunt's paper is the view of cognition as situated in artifacts. Certain properties of artifacts seem to call out to us with the function of the artifact. A baseball, for example, is of the right size, shape, and weight to throw, while a chair is of the right size and shape for sitting. One would not think of sitting on the baseball nor would one think of throwing the chair-which is not to say that chairs have not been thrown or that baseballs have not been sat upon.

Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) is collaborative work activity between people, supported by computers. In the CSCW model, person-to-person activities, such as e-mail or video conferencing, are supported by the computer. If, for example, two engineers in separate cities want to share a hand-drawn sketch one engineer can scan in the image and a computer can display, or even print, it for the other engineer.

Shared Understanding

For CSCW to be successful the participants must have a shared understanding. Hunt defines shared understanding using dictionary definitions of the words 'share,' 'understanding,' and 'meaning.' He then discusses shared understanding in terms of three approaches; conversational, social sciences, and computer systems.

Conversational Approaches to Shared Understanding

In conversational approaches to shared understanding, Hunt discusses grounding, conversation analysis, and computational linguistics. Grounding is, in essence, the process people go through in establishing a common ground for understanding. Grounding is not a one-time event; participants are constantly seeking common ground during a conversation. Without constantly re-grounding, people involved in the conversation soon find they are not talking about the same thing, they no longer have a shared understanding. Conversation Analysis (CA) is a tool used by social scientists and anthropologists to measure and describe human conversation. If there are problems with a conversation, a repair process is undertaken. If the repair process is successful then shared understanding is attainable; otherwise conversation breaks down. Using CA, sociologists and anthropologists can track a conversation and determine where it breaks down. Computational linguistics is viewed in terms of two models: Peter Heeman's model that views language as goal-directed behavior and David Traum's model which uses CA as a method of creating a process of acknowledgment and repair to establish a common ground.

Conversational Approaches to Shared Understanding

Hunt moves on to the social sciences approach to shared understanding. Hunt discusses views of socially shared understanding such as: Resnick's (1991) view of thinking as a social practice; Levine and Morelang's (1991) view of culturally shared understanding in work groups; Krauss and Fussell's (1991) view of how speakers shape their communication based on the listener's expected hypothesis; Hastie and Pennington's (1991) view of understanding in common and distributed understanding in the jury decision-making process; Perret-Clermont's (et al.) (1991) view of the social interaction between individuals. Leave's (1991) view of social cognition being ultimately internalized by individuals; Wertch's (1991) view of analyzing the social language; and Damon's (1991) caution to not lose sight of the individual in looking at socially shared understanding.

Computer Systems Approach to Shared Understanding

In the computer systems approach, or Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW), shared understanding is often connected with communication or culture issues. In CSCW people spend time finding a common ground. In one example (Tartar, Foster, et al., 1991), communication between people was not interactive; that is, there was often a delay in the communication and items could be processed in any manner. This led to a breakdown, or loss of grounding, in the communication process. The problem was corrected by allowing people to communicate interactively. In another example (Whittaker, Brennan, et al., 1991), researchers discovered that certain artifacts help communication, in particular, artifacts that allow storage of shared data structures.

An electronic whiteboard is an example of an artifact that can hold shared data structures such as tables or lists. Winograd's (1988) approach is to force a structure in the communication process. That is, participants are forced to decline, counter, or lead a request to promise. Bowres and Churcher (1988) argue against Winograd's model by saying that while it is okay to analyze conversation using Winograd's model it is not okay to change the conversation by forcing a structure upon it. Finally, Scardamalia and Bereiter's (1991) Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) tool is discussed. Using CSILE, students build their shared understanding by building a database of shared knowledge. In addition to grounding, CSCW is tied to culture. Both Eveland and Bikson (1988) and Sproull and Kiesler (1991) discuss the importance of the social view of a corporation through electronic contact, either in formal groups or through the use of e-mail systems.

Distributed Understanding

In the next section of his paper, Hunt discusses distributed understanding and its three components: distributed cognition, socially shared cognition, and distributed artificial intelligence.

Distributed cognition views knowledge from a systems viewpoint. Knowledge is within people and artifacts and between people and artifacts. Socially shared cognition views knowledge from a social viewpoint. Knowledge is within social systems and different social systems interact with each other by creating and using boundary objects. These boundary objects allow each social system to adapt to a local problem or issue without changing the global structure of their social systems. Distributed artificial intelligence systems use natural and artificial agents build common understanding at local levels without control from the global system or without knowledge of the global system.

Research Directions

In the final section of the paper, Hunt proposes future directions for CSCW research, such as: how does CSCW help improve communication? Hunt also proposes a study of CSILE to see how changing an existing CSILE system, by adding new features, affects student understanding.

Summary

While there is a lot of information in the article it appears to be a review of research with brief discussion of some topics. Given that the paper a qualifying exam paper, available on-line, it serves a good purpose. The structure of the paper is in itself an attempt to create shared understanding by building on definitions, from simple to complex. The paper provides information about CSCW and proposes some future directions for research.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 179-211. Reviewed by John Higgs.

In 1983 Richard Clark fired the opening salvo and started the current debate concerning the relationship between media and learning. Clark (1983, p. 445) stated that "...media do not influence learning under any conditions," but merely serve as delivery vehicles for instruction. Furthermore, unless a novel theory is proffered, researchers should refrain from further study of the relationship between media and learning (Clark, 1983). The present article represents Kozma's acceptance of Clark's challenge. Kozma (1991) believes that medium and method do indeed interact to influence learning. Kozma characterizes learning as an active process in which the learner takes in information from the environment and integrates it with existing knowledge to create new knowledge. This review examines how the learner and media (books, television, computers, and multimedia) interact to influence learning.

Kozma defines media in terms of its technology, symbol systems, and processing capabilities. Technology primarily influences the symbol systems a medium employs and the processes that it performs. Symbol systems, "modes of appearance," not only distinguish one medium from another, but different types of symbol system requires different mental skills to process. Processing capability (e.g., through computers), also is a distinguishing feature of media and influences the learning process. Kozma uses these defining traits to analyze how books, television, computers, and multimedia affect the learning process.

Learning With Books

The symbol system of books consists of text and pictures arranged in a very stable format. Kozma reviews several studies comparing strategies for comprehending text-only books and books consisting of text and pictures. Poor readers use the stability of the text to slow their rate of progression or even regress to aid comprehension. In comparison, readers with highly developed skills and in-depth domain knowledge, use the stability of the symbol system and elaborate memory structures to aid comprehension while processing large amounts text. Adding pictures to the text increases retention for both poor and good readers. Good readers initially look at the pictures and rarely refer back once they begin reading, whereas poor readers move back and forth between the text and the pictures. In each case the pictures serve to supplement the text.

Learning With Television

Although television employs pictures and text, as well as other symbol systems, television's technology is transient. Kozma postulates that "the symbol systems used and their transient nature affects the mental representations created with television" (p. 189). The reviews of research on television indicate that:

1. viewers maintain low levels of engagment affected by various audio and visual cues;

2. content with an intermediate level of difficulty works best to increase comprehension;

3. the purpose for watching affects processing and comprehension;

4. recall from combined visual-audio presentations is greater than recall from either symbol system alone;

5. the transient nature of television may create comprehension problems, but research is lacking in this area.

Learning With Computers

Kozma reviews research relating to the processing capability of the computer. The computer's transformation capabilities makes the connection between symbols and the real world direct and immediate. Computers can also help novices in a domain build mental models similar to those of experts within the domain. These findings indicate that computers can influence the mental and cognitive processes of learners.

Learning With Multimedia

Kozma begins by addressing the speculative nature of the research in this relatively new area; however, he believes that multimedia combines the advantages of books, television, and computers into a single medium to facilitate learning. Kozma cites several studies of interactive videodisc and hypermedia environments and concludes that they hold great potential to help learners construct knowledge.

This article is well-written and comprehensive; however, in my opinion, Kozma does not address the issue Clark raises. Clark believes that method influences learning, not media; Kozma only reviews research on learning with media. If instructing students to watch a program for educational purposes can be construed as method, then Kozma makes Clark's case. For example, he cites the Krendl and Watkins study in which students told to watch a program for educational purposes (versus entertainment), developed a deeper level of understanding of the content (p. 190). Clark would contend that cognitive flexibility theory, reciprocal teaching, problem-based learning, etc., can be used effectively with a variety of media and I agree.

For more information on this debate, see Educational Technology Theory and Development, 1994, Volume 42. This issue contains articles from Clark and Kozma, as well as articles from Jonassen, Campbell, and Davidson; Morrison; Reiser; and Shrock.

Lowry, M. (1993, June 14). Preliminary Qualifying Exam. Reviewed by Jackie Dobrovolny.

The purpose of this doctoral qualifying exam was to:

1. apply the Rogers model of Diffusion of Innovations to the math department of a suburban high school, who was in the process of adopting a new student-centered approach to teaching.

2. extend Rogers' model in order to formulate a more pluralistic intervention strategy.

Lowry's study produced two conclusions:

1. The Rogers' model was very accurate in representing the problems the math department was experiencing. Further, it fit the situation "both intuitively and logically" (p. 7).

2. The Rogers' model assumes a top-down, authoritarian structure and therefore, needs to be updated to reflect a team structure that is more prevalent in the '90s. This approach may slow down the diffusion process but "it is pay me now or pay me later." That is, Lowry feels that spending the time up front to involve all participants in the innovation may take extra time but it will "promote the diffusion of the best possible innovation" (p. 10).

One of the most interesting parts of this article was how the Characteristics of the Diffusion Process, as defined by Rogers, defined the math department. The five characteristics are:

1. Relative advantage

2. Observability

3. Compatibility

4. Complexity

5. Trialability

"According to Rogers' model, the more abundantly these characteristics are present during an innovation, the more likely the innovation will be adopted" (p. 7). Interestingly, Lowry found that "none of the characteristics was abundantly present and some were seriously absent" (p. 6).

I believe this article is relevant and important to anyone who is involved in introducing a new concept, new methodology or new technology into an existing organization. Its lessons apply to small businesses, international corporations, public schools, private schools, universities and even volunteer organizations. The only criticism is that Rogers' model not only needs to be updated to reflect a team structure, as noted by Lowry, but it also needs to be updated to eliminate the value judgments that are reflected in some of the adopter categories. For example, those who are the last to adopt an innovation are labeled "laggards," which is certainly not a value-free word and does not provide for the possibility that the innovation is ill-conceived or inappropriate.

Pea, R. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 285-299. Reviewed by Xeturah Woodley-Tillman.

In this article, Pea considers the ways in which distributed multimedia learning environments become collective learning communities by adopting a transformative communications approach.

Pea begins by presenting the distinctive qualities and working definitions of computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Based upon these distinctions, Pea seeks to "highlight a constructive orientation on the processes and products affiliated with collective learning--emphasizing that a central activity of learning is the construction and refinement by learners of documents, problem interpretations, models, analyses, and so on, in the context of their goal-related activities" (p. 285). Collective learning takes place in a learning community replete with not only text references, but also models, graphic displays, and data which reflect the objectives of the group.

To further examine the communicative context of these collective learning environments, Pea evaluates two prevailing concepts of communication: transmission and ritual (see Carey, 1989). Neither concept alone, however, captures communicative processes within learning environments. He proposes that a third concept, transformative communication, be adopted to better encompass the sociocultural content of communication. In transformative communication, the initiate engages in new ways of thinking and knowing, and is transformed by the process. But so, too, is the other (whether teacher or peer) transformed by what is learned about the unique voice and understanding of the initiate (p. 288). Transformative communication, then, involves both transmission and ritualistic communication in a sociocultural context which allows the initiate the opportunity to also become a contributor to the learning environment, thus making the environment truly collaborative in nature. Everyone participates, learns and is transformed by the communication process.

Pea suggests three developments that must occur in order for the creation of an interactive learning environment utilizing computer-based technologies to embody both learner and teacher meanings:

1. A greater elucidation of the concepts of communities and cultures (p. 292).

2. The meeting of two currently distinct bodies of research - on conceptual change and on conversational analysis (p.293).

3. The addressing of technical and design issues needed to achieve these objectives (p.296).

It is within these three areas of development that a more inclusive form of understanding and practice will arise.

Pea concludes with a general statement about the need to be conscious of CSCL models, suggesting that the implementation of such models can change "the realities possible for it" (p. 297). It is Pea's belief that implementation of such a system will change, not only the system of communication within a given classroom, but also the underlying theoretical foundations of collaborative learning.

Pea's article was very insightful. The strengths of the article included his definition of key terms and concepts, as well as his detailed comparative analysis of the two major views of communication. His transformative theory embodied the essence of collective/collaborative learning by included an active/ interactive relationship between not only the student and teacher, but also the student and her environment. Overall, it was a well structured and informative article which added to my base of knowledge about computer-based technologies and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).

Carey, J. W. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ryder, M. (1995). Production and consumption of meaning: The interplay between subject and object in open hypertext representation. Paper presented at the meeting of Semiotics as a Bridge between the Humanities and the Sciences, Victoria College, University of Toronto. Reviewed by Terry McFarlane.

In this paper, Ryder describes his view of the future. First, he defines two of Karl Marx's concepts: consumption and production. He relates these concepts to the spoken and written word. He calls speech orality and writing literacy. He briefly discusses a progression from oral traditions, to papyrus and sheepskins, to the printing press, to computers. He indicates that it is technically feasible to store the entire written history of mankind on computers and to allow access to anyone via among other things, the World Wide Web. He identifies two potential problems with this and proposes solutions. He completes his paper by describing how the roles of author and reader might change as a result of having complete electronic access to everything written.

Ryder applies Marx's ideas of production and consumption to the information age. "Every act of production consumes the means of production and involves the expenditure of labor (Marx, 1858/1973 p. 93)." Writing is an act of production, producing words, ideas, meanings. It requires the consumption of the means of production, which means a writer reads and understands the words, ideas, and meanings of other writers. It involves an expenditure of labor, which means that writing is work. Ryder also shows that "consumption is immediately production," (Marx, p. 90). A reader takes apart what s/he reads and selects that which combines with existing cognitive structures (Jonassen, Beissner, & Yacci, 1993, p. 4). What we read and appropriate becomes a part of who we are.

Ryder describes orality and the move to the written word. He identifies the printing press as a major change in the way we communicated ideas. Computer technology, also, has changed the way we communicate. Because computers have given us enormous storage capacity, Ryder expects that nearly all of humankind's written word will be digitized by the turn of the century. He expects unlimited electronic access to it. The two problems he sees in this process are defining intellectual property and who will pay to convert the material. He expects that both problems can be resolved in time.

Ryder believes that on-line hypertext will replace books as the primary artifact of knowledge. Because there is so much information available, he believes that the cross-linked, web- like structure of on-line text will become more useful. He suggests that the roles of author and reader will change as a result. The structure of writing will change. There will be more freedom of expression. There will be less control over what is written. Writing will be more fully collaborative. Writing will include works in-progress. Readers will actively select knowledge from a decentered hypertext. Readers will use abductive logic. Abduction is a way inquiring. It is gathering information the way a detective gathers information. Readers will create their own meaning from the assumptions they make and the instruments they use. Readers consume and produce their own knowledge.

Ryder is a thought-provoking, constructivist author. Brief and full of interesting ideas, his paper demonstrates the ideas he discusses by providing hyper-links to other text. Almost half of his references are on-line, although I found that most of his links connected me back to his own paper. His predictions are believable; however, I expect that it will be a long time before they are realized. Generally, I am concerned about the meaning that will be constructed by on-line browsers. Will meaning we construct by abducting information electronically be qualitatively different than the meaning we derive from printed materials?

Jonassen, D., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marx, Karl (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy, trans. M. Nicholas. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd. to become available online:

http://csf.Colorado. edu/psn/marx/Archive/1857-Grun/

Seymour, S. R. (1994). Operative computer learning with cooperative task and reward structures. Journal of Technology Education [On-line serial], 5 (2). Available FTP: Yahoo: Directory: Education/Instructional Technology and Training/Journals/Journal of Technology Education File: ejournals/JTE/jte-v5n2/seymour.jte-v5n2.html. Reviewed by John Higgs.

The author begins by addressing the issue of financial barriers to technology integration into schools. She states, "These financial barriers are most noticeable in the regional inequities between suburban and rural schools and are manifested in the lack of computer equipment in schools, or outdated equipment not being replaced" (p. 1). This creates a dilemma for educators: how to educate more students with limited computer resources? Further, can educators accomplish this goal "without sacrificing student aptitude or enjoyment of the learning event" (p. 1)? Cooperative learning appears to provide a plausible answer.

In this study Seymour attempts to determine if cooperative learning structures affect academic achievement or satisfaction. She proposes to analyze the difference in achievement and satisfaction between three groups of college students enrolled in a computer graphics course under three different treatments: cooperative task and reward, individualistic task and reward, and a combination of task and reward structures.

Seymour provides a very limited literature review that discusses the concept and purpose of cooperative learning as well as the research findings in the areas of student achievement and satisfaction. Although acknowledging and providing evidence of the "well documented" positive effects cooperative learning has on student achievement and satisfaction (principally studies by Slavin and Johnson & Johnson), Seymour provides other evidence (studies by Okebukola; Rich, Amir, & Slavin; Hyun-an Oh) indicating that cooperative learning has no significant positive effects on achievement. She does not cite any conflicting references concerning student satisfaction levels.

Three sections of the computer graphics course, consisting of 14, 21, and 22 students, participated in the study. The author assessed student performance levels by pretest scores and grade point averages and then randomly assigned students to four-member teams consisting of mixed performance levels (Seymour does not address how she grouped the leftover students since four does not divide into 14, 21, or 22 evenly!). Each student experienced each of the three treatments (cooperative task and reward, individualistic task and reward, and a combination of cooperative and individualistic task and reward). The author used this counterbalanced design to eliminate threats to internal validity.

Seymour used a posttest, an attitude survey, three quizzes, and three drawing assignments to assess level of achievement for each treatment. She ran analysis of variance tests on each measure and found no significant differences between treatments. Based on the lack of significance she accepted the null hypotheses that no significant differences exist in achievement levels or satisfaction levels between cooperative learning structures and individualistic learning structures.

Even though cooperative learning did not show increased student achievement, Seymour concludes that coupling cooperative learning structures with computers "allows twice the number of students to use equipment" (p. 7). This increases efficiency and effectiveness. Although the statistics show no positive correlation, she states that "Cooperative learning sparked camaraderie throughout the semester and it appeared that most students enjoyed working together" (p. 8). She (p. 8) reports that students working cooperatively spent more time on task and asked less questions of their instructor. Also students were hesitant to work alone on the computer, preferring to work with a partner instead.

Despite the fact that her study showed no significance (results which run counter to the preponderance of research indicating that cooperative learning is more effective than individualistic learning) Seymour reaches what I consider a pragmatic conclusion--pragmatic in the sense that, like it or not, technology will continue to infiltrate classroom practice and cooperative learning represents one method to ensure students receive the maximum benefit. Her unofficial observation data suggests that students preferred the constructivist approach over the traditional, individual learning environment. I am a proponent of technology integration into classroom practice, therefore I agree that technology, coupled with the right teaching strategy, enhances the learning environment.

Tripp, Steven (1994, February). Reverse engineering the "stone canoe" (Learning from successful designs). Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville. Reviewed by Michael S. Batty.

Tripp uses the education of Pacific Islanders in the art of navigation to show how scientific theory can be developed by closely examining master instructional artifacts. According to Tripp, scientific theory follows technology, and reverse engineering master instructional artifacts will lead to an understanding of instructional design. Once the master instructional artifact is understood, theories of instructional design can be developed. To illustrate the process, Tripp studies a master instructional artifact (navigational learning aids), reverse engineers it, and finally creates a theory of instructional design.

Tripp's account of Pacific Island navigators is based upon the writings of David Lewis, who Tripp says is the greatest researcher of Pacific navigation.

Tripp describes the complexity of navigating in the open ocean. Navigators, for example, must learn to read patterns in ocean swells, understand bird behavior, read patterns in the sky, and understand the meaning of the color of the ocean. In addition to signs in the ocean and sky, navigators must learn to use the stars to navigate at night.

Tripp looks at two master instructional artifacts, the Mattang stick chart and the stone canoe. The Mattang stick chart is not a chart used at sea. The Mattang stick chart is an instructional aid that uses sticks arranged to represent ocean swells as they are refracted by islands. The second instructional aid, the stone canoe, is the focus of Tripp's research.

The most important skill of a navigator in the pacific islands is the ability to use the stars for navigation at night. Tripp provides the reader with an understanding of the complexity of reading star patterns. Navigators have to memorize 178 stars and constellations in case some of the stars are not visible due to cloud covers. Navigators have to know which star will lead them to a particular island. Further, each island has a zenith star that is directly over the island at meridian passage. So, not only do the navigators have to know which star is the zenith star of a particular island, they have to know when that zenith star is at meridian passage.

After discussing the complexity and importance of navigating at night, Tripp turns his attention to the master instructional artifacts used to teach navigation skills. In particular, Tripp focuses on the stone canoes used by the Gilbertese. Stone canoes, located in the training lodge or maneaba, are used to teach wave patterns and star navigation. Tripp provides a detailed explanation of a typical stone canoe and how it is used to teach navigation skills. As an example of the effectiveness of the training of Pacific Islander navigators, Tripp recounts Lewis' description of the training of Piailug, a pacific island navigator who guided a Hawaiian voyaging canoe through waters he had never sailed.

After analyzing stone canoes and training programs, and gaining an understanding of the master instructional artifacts, Tripp develops a theory of instructional design. Tripp looks as six key points in the master instructional artifacts and develops a principle for each point. The first key point, for example, says "In all cases, formal classroom training followed, it did not precede, actual on-sea experience. The on-sea experience does not include the complexities of celestial navigation in a forma way, but may introduce the technique in a simplified form." From this key point Tripp develops the first principle: "Begin instruction with applied knowledge, in a simplified form. If there is a complex skill to be taught, teach it in a formal way afterwards. (This resembles Reigeluth's Elaboration Theory.)" Tripp repeats this process for the remaining five key points.

This article is a good example of how to use Tripp's method of reverse engineering master instructional artifacts to develop a theory of instructional design, for two reasons. First, Tripp provides clear, easy to understand examples of master instructional artifacts. Second, Tripp reverse engineers the master instructional artifacts by analyzing them and by providing examples of how the artifacts are used. After reverse engineering the master instructional artifacts, Tripp develops a theory of instructional design based on his analysis.

This is a good article for anyone interested in instructional artifacts, instruction design, instructional theory, and analysis techniques.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster. Reviewed by Katherine Goff.

Turkle provides a thick description of how people use computers as objects-to-think-with. Continuing a study that began more than ten years ago, this book focuses on how the construction of identity is influenced by our familiarity with computers. As a postmodern psychologist, Turkle provides many examples of how diverse American individuals have appropriated computer science language and models to describe their sense of self. Elementary students, computer programmers, artists, poets, and many others talk about their experiences with computers, especially on the Internet and in virtual reality. Through field research and clinical observations, Turkle explores what it means to be human and what it means to be an artificial intelligence, a virtual person, or an avatar or role-playing personae.

Turkle traces the history of computer use, first as a tool, then as a mirror of human psychology, and currently "as a gateway to a world through the looking glass of the screen" (p. 267). A concise history of artificial intelligence, artificial life, and cognitive science provides a framework for her interpretations. "In contact with the objects of A-life now deployed in the culture, people are redefining what it means to call something alive" (p. 157). From a constructivist perspective, Turkle illuminates how we have constructed and reconstructed the boundaries between humanity and the computer. She also portrays the computer as providing us with new ways to think about the postmodern, decentralized concept of identity.

Although she identifies herself as an ethnographer, Turkle does not honor the anthropological tradition of a non-intrusive, non-participant observer. She provides examples of her own reactions to virtual reality and how she has used the computer as a model for thinking about her own identity. As a clinical psychologist, she has assisted clients whose lives have been disrupted by their use of the computer, especially as an escape from RL (real life). As a professor at MIT, she has led her students in discussions on the ethical and psychological implications of using computer therapy to replace a human therapist. Some readers will have difficulty with the personal tone and first person plural language of this study.

I thought that this was a fine example of a qualitative study. The narrative was smooth and created a unified whole. The interpretations were based on many years of observations and interviews. I appreciated that Turkle not only participated in several MUDs (multiple user dungeons), but observed and reported on her own experiences. She was open and honest about her motivations and methodology and she invited me, as the reader, to construct what meaning I would from her story. I was enlightened and found myself often agreeing with her interpretations. I felt as if we dialogued together to understand what computers and the Internet have come to mean to us.

Yeaman, A. R. J. (1993). The mythical anxieties of computerization: A Barthesian analysis of a technolocial myth. In R. Muffoletto & N. Nelson Knupfer (Eds.), Computers in educatioin: Social, political, and historical perspectives (pp. 105-128). Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press. Reviewed by Stu Klugler.

Yeaman believes that too much of the blame for not using the computer (as a tool) has been assigned to computer anxiety. More emphasis needs to be on proper equipment, proper design, and realizing the computer is just a tool.

Yeaman supports his argument by using a scientific approach. Yeaman reviews the impact of the computer market on the consumer. Decreased costs have led to greater availability; advertising persuades people that everyone needs a computer.

Next, the author discusses seven computer anxiety myths in education (p. 116):

1) Computer anxiety is the biggest obstacle encountered when learn about computers.

2) People have computer anxiety because effectively using computers demands high math ability.

3) Computers are viewed as a single entity with a human capacity to create fear:THE COMPUTER.

4) People are afraid of breaking computers.

5) Computer stress is caused by the keyboarding skills prerequisite to computer use.

6) Fear of computers is greater among women than among men.

7) People can be educated out of being computer anxious.

He clearly points out that educators need to be aware of these myths, so they do not draw themselves nor their students into these traps.

In his next section, Discussion of the Barthesian Analysis, his position on an educator's role is to be critical regarding the usefulness of a computer. Criticism will uncover the computer's importance.

Finally, Yeaman believes that (eventually) computers will be treated and incorporated (diffused) like other tools.

Personally, I like the approach Yeaman used. He gave me a good starting point, realizing the impact technology/marketing has played, dispelling myths, doing analysis, and coming up with a conclusion. However, I could use some examples or success stories on how some educators have properly "diffused" this tool. Additionally, I do not agree with his comment about the seventh myth - People can be educated out of being computer anxious. On page 120, Yeaman gives an argument that "computer educators lack the knowledge of physics and electronics to accurately explain to learners how computers work." Keeping with other educators, he could have explained that Driver Education Instructors do not have to explain the inner workings of a car. Someone teaching a child to ride a bike does not have to know how a bike in constructed. A computer educator needs to focus at the work at hand, which is properly using the computer as a tool.