The first article, Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking (Jonassen, Carr, Yueh, 1998), was used to start thinking about how we use the different software applications that are available for learning. In my own words, software applications can be divided into two categories. The first was software applications in which aided a specific learning activity. An examples that comes to mind would be a word processor. A word processor is most of the time used to produce a document for presentation. The content or the activity done to obtain the content is where most of the learning has taken place. The word processor aids the learner by being able to organize, edit or compile the data for presentation purposes. But the bulk of the learning does not come from the fact that the learner is using a word processor.
I commented on many posts this week that dealt with the use of information technology as tools. Many peers commented that they did not share my particular view and that software applications such as word processors could not only enhance learning, but becoming the learning tools themselves. One example of this that someone brought to my attention would be writing portfolio. I still view it as a stretch (you don't need a computer to complete a portfolio), I could see how the same task may not be able to be accomplished the same with way without the word processor. Therefore, even though I'm still a little skeptical, it allowed me to think a little more openly about the use of technology in the classroom.
The second category, in which I enjoyed reading about immensely, was the use of computers for mindtools. In my own words, mindtools are tools that create learning activities and experiences. My favourite example of this, which I also posted on the discussion, was the use of the phet simulations from the University of Colorado. These simulations for science allow the user to enter into worlds and change variables that they wouldn't normally be able to change or even see in real life. Through the components of the simulation, the learner can build learning experiences and hopefully meet the objective set forth by the instructor. Personally, I use these all of the time for teaching physics. They not only allow me to perform functions that I can't in class, but they have a comedic component sometimes which engages the students.
 |
| Mindtools. Digital Image. Apple. Web. June 24, 2013 |
The second article this week was Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext (Spiro et al, 1995). I'd be lying if I didn't say that this was one of the hardest and most confusing articles I've come across in a long time. I attempted to do some additional reading on cognitive flexibility, but my response to this reading will be short because I didn't really find myself reflecting on the content of the article a great deal. The one aspect that maybe resonating with me a little was the concept the ill-structured domains. These are domains that are constantly changing for the learner, allowing them to apply what they know to a different situation. The example of changing the domain for the training of medical students came up a few times when I was doing some extra reading on the topic. This application made sense because doctors have to use their knowledge in such a wide variety of contexts, that during the learning process, the experiences should have a wide range of domains. I've tried to stretch this to my own students in my classroom, but truthfully I'm not sure that this article had much relevance to teaching at the public school level.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32
Spiro et al. (1995). Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism and Hypertext. Institute for Learning Technologies.
Culatta, R. (2013). Cognitive Flexibility Theory. http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-flexibility.html
