Milennium Lab.doc

Learning Through Technology In The Millennium Laboratory

 * Vicki E. Bennett
 * Master of Arts, Communication Studies
 * West Virginia University
 * PhD Student, CU, Boulder
 * bennettv@Colorado.edu

Abstract For almost two months, I observed a technology-based high school class during the spring semester of 2008. This class used computers almost exclusively for projects and assignments. The goal was to observe the type of influence (if any) technology-use might have on the students’ learning and their classroom environment. Throughout this observational period, the most striking occurrence was how the technology-use interacted with the students, their teacher, the classroom environment and the curriculum to create a classroom climate and social context that fostered real world learning. More specifically, through the use of technology in the context of their classroom, these students were able to develop strategic thinking, as well as participate in several activities that could prepare them for membership in a professional community of practice. The technology made all the difference in the learning experienced by these students.

1. Introduction

For seven weeks I observed a technology-based drafting class. The instructor, Dennis (all names are pseudonyms), has a relaxed and casual teaching style. All the students have an assigned computer. Dennis calls the class together to give assignments, but most of the time, the students work individually. If a student needs help, they can either ask another student close by, or raise their hand and Dennis will be by to help out. The students call Dennis by either his first or last name, no mister attached. They are also allowed to leave their seats and walk around the classroom to socialize with other students. In fact the only hard and fast rule Dennis expects the students to follow, is not to leave the room without permission. In the Drafting class, the students were in the process of learning a new program, SOLIDWORKS, when I first started my observations. So my focus for this class was how their learning and understanding of drafting was augmented or detracted from by the technology in use, specifically their computers and software. The students usually remained at their desks for the duration of the period, although they were free to get up and talk to other students. My observations of these two classes suggest the developmental task of strategic thinking, and the cultural context in which it is developed. I attempt to explore the embeddedness of developmental task with its context, as well as relate them to my observations at a Western High School. The questions driving this project are as follows: 1.	How does the context of computer-use (technology) inform learning and knowledge acquisition, especially in regards to the developmental task of strategic thinking? 2.	How does the context of computer-use (technology) inform the social and cultural aspects of a classroom community? 3.	Could a classroom context be a applicable representative of a valid community of practice? My purpose informed by the above questions, is to add to the knowledge and understanding of how the development of strategic thinking takes place within a technologically advanced class. With this in mind, the concepts that appear to interact with the technology in the creation of drafting knowledge are strategic thinking, Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, and the community of practice.

2. Method

I used a very simple method for this project. I attended the Drafting class every Thursday (1pm to 2pm). I walked around the classroom observing the students and taking notes on a small pad. When I had a question, I would ask the individual student. My questions in the Drafting class were mostly limited to asking them about how well the program, SOLIDWORKS, was working for them, as well as their understanding of its use and potential. (I also admired their designs) Whereas in the Architecture class I wrote most of my observations about the interactions, taking place between the different students. Only during the last class, did I ask them to tell me what their opinions of the learning tasks and social interactions were. 3. Strategic Thinking

Strategic thinking, being able to plan out the sequence of one’s actions in a worthwhile manner, is basic to a human being’s general management of their life. Without strategic thinking, individuals would not be able to plan a beneficial sequence of events to accomplish goals and objectives. Learning strategic thinking is an essential developmental task in the achievement of adulthood. Physically; human beings become capable of developing strategic thinking from early adolescence to the late teens. According to Larson and Hansen (2004), strategic thinking in adolescence, can be fostered through real world experiences. “These reports, then, suggest that youth learned strategic thinking through a cycle of self-initiated action, feedback, and learning … These analyses suggested that the adults helped scaffold the youth’s learning, first by structuring training sessions that provided practice experience; second and most importantly, by shepherding along the social action campaigns which provided real-life cycles of learning; and third, by providing a culture and community of strategic action.” (p. 15) Since this time frame (age) is when adolescents become capable of developing new cognitive tools, Larson and Hansen hypothesize that these cognitive tools may potentially be a factor in the development of strategic thinking. They also believe that the development of strategic thinking is a three stage or mode process: seeking strategic information; strategic communication; and sequential and contingent thinking. Within many youth programs, the youth are able to recognize that information was needed for effective action (seeking strategic information). They also learned that when trying to gain support for a problem’s solution, it is those most involved with or affected by that problem that are the best people to seek support from (strategic communication). And finally the last mode of thinking (sequential & contingent thinking) revolves around the correct order of steps to be taken in order to achieve the sought after goal. So, Larson and Hansen showed that all three of the modes that comprise strategic thinking could be learned through the real world experiences in the classroom and/or participation in youth activism groups.

4. Zone of Proximal Development

The zone of proximal development states that the actual developmental level of a child can be shown by what that child is capable of accomplishing on his own without any help. However the child’s current potential or mental development can be more accurately estimated by giving that same child a task, letting a competent adult assist the child in accomplishing the task, and then determining the approximate space between these two levels. Although it is just one among many developmental frameworks for understanding learning and development, the zone of proximal development most closely resembles Dennis’ teaching style. Additionally, the knowledge being learned is socially or culturally embedded because within the learning environment, the people who offer that crucial help to the learner are already culturally embedded themselves. Vygotsky claimed “… that individual mental processes have their origin in social interaction …” (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995, p. 86) Cole and Wertsch (1997) believe that Vygotsky’s assumptions about the interaction between an active individual and an active environment leads to a complementary or co-constructionist view. Within this developmental view the “meaning of an action and of a context are not specifically independent of each other.” (Cole & Wertsch, 1997, p. 3) Cole and Wertsch (1997) even go so far as to state, “Society is the bearer of cultural heritage without which the development of the mind is impossible.” (p. 4) Language, artifacts, and community are the generally conceived mediums of most societal development, which (according to Vygotsky, 1978) in turn leads to learning (and the perpetuation of society).

5. Community of Practice

Communities of practice are the building blocks of any current society. A community of practice is a group of people who share the knowledge and use of certain artifacts, language, and ways of thinking about the world. Each specialized occupation can be conceived of as a community of practice, although other types of communities of practice exist. “Of course, different communities of practice have different ways of thinking and acting.” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson & Gee, 2005, p. 8) Specific knowledge, skills, and ways of behavior usually characterize the members of a practice community. This description could apply to almost all cultural, social and business communities. Although most people are members of many different communities of practice, every unique context dictates behavior and traditional social mores (Wenger, 1998). Social behavior reflects the context an individual occupies at a given moment. Contextual behavior is almost automatic for most adults because it is learned within a cultural context. Education and knowledge acquisition are the usual ways of becoming part of any community of practice. Part of identity formation is learning what part you will play in your chosen societal community of practice. As Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee (2005, p. 8) state, “If a community of practice is a group with a local culture, then the epistemic frame is the grammar of the culture: the ways of thinking and acting that individuals learn when they become part of that culture.” Gee (2008) speaks of the new type of communities of practice and the new look of the classroom community within this new system. He is referring to the influence of technology on the educational process, the ways we teach those who are striving to become members of our chosen community. Gee states (p. 521), “In turn, it is reshaping classrooms, where things like communities of practice become popular forms of school reform.” The new communities of practice in classrooms will be reflective of the desires of businesses. In a sense the classroom will be more focused on real world tasks, which could make learning easier as well as the transition from classroom to boardroom.

6. Drafting Class Analysis

In the Drafting class, I observed the students in the process of learning a new computer program, SOLIDWORKS. During my first observation the students commented on the difficulty of using all the complex features of the program. During the first few classes many hands were raised to request Dennis’ help. As the students progressed on their first assignment (chess set), less and less hands were raised for help. When the students began working on their second assignment (wheel design), more hands were raised for help. Again as more time passed in the design process, less hands were raised for help. “So far the students appear to be learning the design of solid types of mechanical and non-mechanical pieces and how they fit together.” (Appendix A) For each facet of the design process a cycle appeared to evolve. The students would seek out the appropriate (strategic) information that they needed for the specific piece of their design. As some of the students forged ahead of the others, another stage evolved. Besides the more general program knowledge, every student knew some unique feature of the program (some difficult feature unique to their specific design). No one knew all the features. Consequently, the students began to share information about the program. The students would ask each other about how to accomplish design features within the program before raising their hand to ask Dennis. “Some are having a bit more trouble getting the software to what they want it to do. When this occurs, the student will get another student nearest him/her to help with the problem.” (Appendix A) They would also critique each other’s designs and make suggestions. By critiquing, and making suggestions to each other, the students were engaging in a form of strategic communication. In other words, the students attempting to complete the assignment were the people who were most involved, consequently when the students communicated with each other about the assignment, they were engaging in strategic communication. By my last observation, most of the students believed that they could use the program without any help for most projects. In other words, the students felt that they were capable of designing some object in the correct, sequential order from beginning to end, without any help. These activities represent sequential and contingent thinking, because the task of completing an entire design on SOLIDWORKS means thinking about where to start, and which tasks need to be done in what order. The program does not let the user design objects in inaccurate sequence. So it could be extrapolated that the drafting students were learning strategic thinking at the same time they were learning to design objects within the software program, SOLIDWORKS. “(I’m) much faster now than in the beginning. (I’ll) keep using it. Using it really helps to remember the different tools. (I) could probably do a project on my own!” (Appendix B) “A fun program. You can do a lot with it. (I) could most likely do a project on my alone … as long as you do the tutorials.” (Appendix A) Throughout the seven weeks of my observations, through the medium of the computer program, SOLIDWORKS, most of the students demonstrated some form of strategic thinking as defined by Larson and Hansen (2005). On the last day of my observations, the students felt confident and capable in the use of this computer program. I observed these students using SOLIDWORKS with ease. Since strategic thinking is required to complete a project without help (a design must be “drawn” in the correct sequence), and the students appeared to be able to achieve this standard on their own, the obvious conclusion is that the drafting students had learned some form of strategic thinking through their work with SOLIDWORKS. “(I) can create anything. (I) could do a project on my own. (It took) lots of effort to learn the program, but it was worth it, especially in terms of design and creation.” (Appendix A) Although casual, the cultural context of the Drafting class still maintained social norms and mores. The students usually remained in their seats, but that did not stop them from conversing with each other about the current project. The noise level in the Drafting class was far from quiet. And certain norms and traditions could be observed during class time. The most used tradition was the one of raising one’s hand to receive help. The underlying expectation was that once the initial project assignment instructions were over, that you would seek help from your closest classmates before you raised your hand to receive help from Dennis. “Jeremy, Mark and Alan usually discuss, critique and offer suggestions of each other’s work.” (Appendix A) One of the norms of this class was that although you could be inspired by your closest classmate’s design, you never copied that design. You did your own work. The Drafting class was learning drafting skills through the complex program of SOLIDWORKS. As they learned, the students began to share a common focus centered in the skills they were learning. Through this drafting focus, the class appeared to comprise a community of practice within the definitional framework of Shaffer et al (2005). The common community focus is demonstrated through the students’ interactions with each other over the course of my observations. “They also help each other out when any of them has a problem with the program.” (Appendix A) The general understanding is that a community of practice is a community where specific knowledge, skills, and ways of behavior characterize the members of the community. From some of the students’ comments, this is obvious (Shaffer et al, 2005). “They also seem to enjoy designing the projects and helping each other.” (Appendix A) Besides the above traditions and norms, this class could be designated as a cultural context from the use of artifacts (computers, software, SOLIDWORKS) and the distinct language that evolved from the use of this program. Within the definition of cultural context attributed to Vygotsky by Penuel and Wertsch (1998), as the use of artifacts (computers), tools (software), and signs (distinct language) the Drafting class constitutes a cultural context. And within this context, Dennis applies Vygotsky’s views on adolescent development through his unique teaching style. By encouraging the students to work individually, but only asking for help when they need it, he is putting Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development to work in his classroom. The students go as far as they can on their own without help (actual developmental level), and can then get help from Dennis by just raising a hand. Dennis coaches and offers suggestions, but in most cases, the student actually performs the task, therefore, helping the student to increase his zone of proximal development. “Dennis still needs to answer questions and give individual help on occasion …” (Appendix A)

7. Discussion

Although the computers and the technology in this classroom has been relegated to a secondary position in this paper, the use of technology has powerful advantages. Students who have learned drafting or architecture without the use of computers and the appropriate software could not hope to participate at such an early age in the same “real-world” way that Dennis’ students have been able to. The use of technology has directly facilitated the learning of strategic thinking. The technology has also increased the degree to which these students have been exposed to the norms and mores of the drafting community of practice. The experience of community in this class gives the students a true experience of what membership in this specific community of practice could be like. It is certainly a closer experience than what they would have experienced without the technology that uses the same software, which actual draftspersons use. As Shaffer, Squire, Halverson and Gee (2005, p. 3) state, “Computers are already changing the way we learn …” And though Shaffer, et al are speaking primarily of video games, the software that Dennis’ students are using is virtually the same as state industry standards. So I would conclude that the technology has made a very large and powerful difference in the way that these students are able to learn, as well as the experiences that they will take away with them when they graduate.

8. Final Conclusions

Using SOLIDWORKS was a first step in initiating these students into the Drafting community of practice. The program is an artifact of this community, and through it the students learned the language of drafting, and from the language, and the software, the students learned to think as draftspersons. The computer program, SOLIDWORKS, was the medium that gave the students the “real-world” experience of designing as “real-world” draftspeople. Finally, the students appreciated the relaxed and casual atmosphere and teaching style that Dennis provided. Whether conscious or unconscious, Dennis’ use of the zone of proximal development supports Vygotsky’s developmental framework in conjunction with technology (computers). This combination produced a unique atmosphere where students learned and created inspiring designs, and learned strategic thinking. Comments from the students about Dennis support this conclusion. Their comments range from, “Dennis is awesome!” to “Dennis really rocks!”

9. References

[1] R. Larson and D. Hansen, “The Development of Strategic Thinking: Learning to Impact Human Systems in a Youth Activism Program, Human Development, Vol. 48, 2005, pp. 327-349. [2] L. S. Vygotsky, “Interaction between Learning and Development”, Mind in Society (pp. 79-91), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978. [3] W. R. Penuel and J. V. Wertsch, “Vygotsky and Identity Formation: A Sociocultural Approach”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 30 (2), 1998, pp. 83-92. [4] M. Cole, and J. V. Wertsch, “Beyond the Individual-Social Antimony in Discussion of Piaget and Vygotsky”, Human Development, Vol. 39, 1997, pp. 250-256. [5] D. W. Shaffer, K. R. Squire, R. Halverson, and J. P. Gee, Video Games and the Future of Learning, Academic Madison Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory, Madison, WI, 2005. [6] Wenger, E., Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. [7] J. P. Gee, “Communities of Practice in the New Capitalism”, Journal of Learning Sciences, Vol. 9, 2005, pp. 515-523.