Harel, I, & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment.
Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1P32.

This summary was written by Brent Wilson.
(also includes a summary of Lippert's work with expert systems).
-----------------------------------------

Learning Through Design Activities: Computer Tools

Harel and Papert (1990) and Lippert (1988, 1990) have examined the effect of
learning a content domain while simultaneously learning other domains,
particularly software design.

Instructional Software Design Project.  

Harel and Papert (1990) created a "total learning environment" in which
fourth-graders simultaneously learned fractions and Logo programming; the
students' goal was to design and develop a Logo program to teach something
about fractions.  "The 'experimental treatment' integrated the experimental
children's learning of fractions and Logo with the designing and programming
of instructional software" (Harel & Papert, p. 7), four hours a week during a
15-week semester.  The students in the first control group spent the same
amount of time learning Logo, but with a different purpose.  The second
control group programmed only once a week.  Each group completed a two-month
unit on fractions as part of the regular math curriculum.

The experimental treatment purposely cultivated a sense of meaningful
activity, collegiality, and metacognitive awareness.  The students had
primary control over the task of designing and developing individual programs
to "'explain something about fractions' to some intended audience" (Harel &
Papert, p. 3).  Initially Harel guided the students and teacher in a
discussion of instructional design and educational software; she also
provided models of designs, flowcharts and screens from her previous projects
and shared notes and excerpts from programs developed by "real" designers and
engineers.  As needed, the teacher and Harel led discussions on issues
related to understanding and teaching fractions, as well as on specific Logo
programming skills.  

On each day that the students worked on the project, they initially spent 5-7
minutes writing designs and plans in special notebooks and 45-55 minutes
working on their computers, and then wrote about the problems they had
encountered and changes they had made; occasionally they also included
designs for the next session's activity.  "The only two requirements were:
(1) that they write in their Designer Notebooks before and after each working
session; and (2) that they spend a specific amount of time at the computer
each day" (Harel & Papert, p. 4) in order to fit the project into the
schedule.  

In many respects the students, teacher and researcher were like a community
of scholars jointly in pursuit of knowledge, or a community of craft
apprentices.  At all times students had access to "experts" and to continual
evaluation; they could compare their work with each others' work and to the
work of experts (all representing various stages of expertise).  

By the end of the study, not only did the experimental group significantly
exceed both control groups in mastery of fractions, but on some items the
students scored twice as high as sixth- to eighth-graders.  The students were
also more persistent than students in both control groups in trying to solve
various Logo programming problems, and developed more metacognitive
sophistication.  They could find problems, develop plans, discard or revise
inefficient plans, and control distractions and anxiety.  

Harel and Papert hypothesize that no single factor alone contributed to the
students' achievements.  Instead they conclude that several factors
interrelated in a holistic approach which may include but is not limited to:

the affective side of cognition and learning; the children's process of
personal appropriation of knowledge; the children's use of LogoWriter; the
children's constructivist involvement with the deep structure of fractions
knowledge; the integrated-learning principle; the learning-by-teaching
principle; and the power of design as a learning activity.  (Harel & Papert,
p. 30)

Expert Systems.  

Lippert (1988, 1990) describes the way in which an expert system shell can be
used as both an instructional and a learning strategy to "facilitate the
acquisition of procedural knowledge and problem-solving skills in difficult
topics" (1988, p. 22).  Again, students learn by designing: developing an
expert system individually or in groups, on their own or under the guidance
of a teacher.  According to Lippert, the strategy can be used with students
as young as grade 6 and in any domain whose knowledge base can be expressed
in productions.  

Like the Harel and Papert approach, developing an expert system forces
students to construct a meaningful representation of the domain.  Most expert
systems are systems which reduce a content domain to a set of IF-THEN rules. 
According to Lippert's scheme, the knowledge base is the key component and
includes four parts: decisions which define the domain; questions which
extract information (answers) from the user; rules that relate the answers to
the decisions; and explanations (of questions or rules), which require the
developer to understand the relationships among the various elements of the
domainQthe learner must understand "why" and "when," not merely "what."  The
developer constructs the knowledge base which the system then evaluates; if
the system finds inconsistencies or redundancies, the developer must revise
the knowledge base.  In doing so, the learner must be reflective and
articulate his or her implicit knowledge.  Developing such a system helps
students confront their misconceptions of the content.

In designing the system, students can experiment, trying out ideas and
revising them as necessary until they are satisfied with their representation
of the domain.  They can initially restrict their system to one component of
a domain and expand it to accommodate their expanding knowledge base.  As in
Harel and Papert's Logo environment, when students work in groups, they are
exposed to and stimulated by different representations of the domain.  And
like the students in the Logo environment, students who design an expert
system learn much incidental information and often become enthusiastic about
learning the content.

Several issues remain unresolved with respect to learning through design
activities.  Like many prototype programs, factors contributing to the
success of the programs are largely embedded within the expertise of the
researchers and teachers.  The critical factors in the instructional design
need to be further explicated; this will allow the approach to be more easily
identified and exported to different settings.  A key issue is the question
of efficiency: Can learning through design make more efficient use of time
and resources, or does a design-oriented approach require extra time and
resources?  Theoretically, learning through design represents a fundamental
alternative to traditional instructional designs, and deserves, therefore,
continued attention among ID theorists.

Lippert, R. C. (1988, March), An expert system shell to teach problem
solving.  TechTrends, 22-26.

Lippert, R. (1990). Teaching problem solving in mathematics and science with
expert systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1(3), 27-40.