Blog # 5: A level playing field

Does use of “Mindtools” really level the educational playing field?

Educators are constantly searching for technologies (tools of the trade) that enable students to develop higher levels of understanding, application and creativity. Computers and their applications, it is hypothesized if used correctly, provide learning venues which promote the ability to visualize abstract concepts, develop sophisticated expressions of knowledge and create unique methods to categorize, analyze and interpret newly acquired information. Jonassen (1998) categorized a variety of software and Internet based applications as Mindtools (semantic organization, dynamic modeling, information interpretation, knowledge construction, conversation, and collaboration) implying use of these tools engage students in advanced critical thinking as they work to present their knowledge (Jonassen, 1996).

Elimination of the need to conduct traditional processing methods in mathematics or the dangers of experimentation are examples of benefits often sited by proponents of Mindtools. Expert systems and modeling tools enable students to simulate real world situations by designing or collecting datum to be incorporated in the package’s processing through editing programs. Through these virtual worlds and those programmed into video microworlds students can control and manipulate variables to create visualizations of abstract concepts or phenomena not accessible to most students. Additional Mindtool bonuses include the potential for increased communications, community reach, and potentially creative collaboration efforts. In theory use of these technologies should be providing opportunity for visualization and conceptual awareness that may have been lost in the “process” as students become overwhelmed with methods instead of concept application.

At the surface this appears all well and good, but since we are discussing critical thinking we must investigate the quality of learning through computer-supported efforts. Are we supporting the development of deep or surface learning by skipping the basic techniques when we move quickly past prerequisite skills right to creative and critical problem solving efforts? Are we indeed providing the necessary interaction with the information involved in the decision process (Newman, 1997)? By assuming the artificial intelligence found in microworlds, simulations and expert systems provide the “best” analysis methods and representations of information could we be digging holes in our critical thinking field? Are we disabling students’ ability to develop their own concepts webs in their personal language or forcing them to use the accepted form of expression?
Kayuga and Sweller’s (2004) discussion of expertise reversal effect serves to place greater divots and mounds on our playing field. Ironically use of technologies and multimedia and to reduce cognitive load on working memory creates positive, efficient learning in learners with less initial knowledge while knowledgeable learners find it more difficult to process the “canned” information if it does not conform with their schema for the content area.

Suddenly our level field is not as easy to negotiate as Jonassen and other proponents of Mindtools may lead us to believe. As with most educational trends any misuse or unawareness of pitfalls, can lead instructors and their students right off the edge of the cliff like lemmings. Critical thinking development should not merely be a goal of educators for their students but also for themselves as they are introduced to new technologies and movements.



References

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H-P. (1988). Computers as Mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24- 33.

Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 558-568. Retrieved from Research Library database. (Document ID: 737347421).

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., Cochrane, C. (1997) Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co-operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (6), 484-495

Walker, S. (2005), Role of Education and Training in Agricultural Meteorology to Reduce Vulnerability to Climate Variability, Climatic Change, 70 (1 – 2), 311 - 318