UPDATING
OUR MENTAL MODELS TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MODERN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
TO PROMOTE COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
Szabo, M. (1997). Updating our mental models to take advantage of modern communication technology to promote CMC. In Berge, Z. & Collins, M. (eds.). Wired Together: The Online Classroom in K-12, Volume I. Peekskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER
MENTAL MODELS: WHAT ARE THEY?
Mental Models and Constructivist Learning Theory
The Care and Feeding of Mental Models
CMC and the Need to Rethink Our Mental
Models of Learning and Instruction
Work in the Information Society.'
Improved Instruction Through CMC.
Wider Access to Education.
Cost Control
A SAMPLING OF MENTAL MODELS HELD BY EDUCATORS
Subject Matter Specialization
Involvement of Students in the Goals and Outcomes of Implementing CMC
Monopolistic
If It Is Technology, It Must Be Good
Socialization
CMC and Equality
Teaching and Learning is (Exclusively) Human Activity
Education is Doing an Adequate Job at Disseminating Information
New and Renewed Emphasis on Learning
CMC is an Innovation
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
This chapter reflects what I have come to understand as a significant, inhibitory issue in the use of CMC and other innovations for educational purposes. While on the surface, the complexity of learning how to use the technology effectively and access to it are certainly inhibitors. But a deeper problem exists with respect to how educators view teaching and learning with Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Over the years, we have built up belief systems and ways of knowing about this and other aspects of our real world. In this chapter, I refer to these as mental models.
I believe many of our mental models are stagnant and need to be rethought and re-evaluated. In this chapter I discuss the concepts of mental models from the point of view of constructivism (don't let the term scare you) and why they should be reviewed. At the end of the chapter, I have selected several topics which relate to mental models possessed by educators based upon my years of work with CMC at university, college, high school and training levels. These topics were chosen because they have particular import to the use of CMC.
If by reading this you come to review, re-think and update your mental models of learning with CMC, I will have met my goal in preparing this document.
I will use the definition of Computer Mediated Communication provided by Santoro in another chapter of this book. Data is used to refer to isolated bits of information which by themselves mean little or nothing. Data becomes information when, in the mind of the receiver, they have relevance or a relationship to some concept, principle, or model. For example, data may indicate that a car is travelling at 50 miles per hour. When it becomes evident that this car is heading for a stop sign and the road is icy, the data become important and perhaps life-saving information!
Education is about knowing and ways of knowing. It has been estimated that the mammalian eye can receive information at the rate of 10 billion bits per second! This volume of information would quickly build and overpower the most sophisticated computer networks available today. In addition to the many natural protective devices we possess to protect from information overload (perception, restricted field of vision, short term memory and sleeping during class) we also actively limit volumes of information by categorizing that which doesn't get discarded and forming principles or ideas which explain or help us make sense of the world we live in. These entities are referred to as mental models and have much to say about how we come to know.
Mental models are fluid constructs which explain how things work or exist in the form they do. We create them and have built them up over long periods of time through activities such as reading and through interacting with people and things and ideas and facts. We are limited in our model formation by many complex factors, such as perceptions which influence how we interpret facts and new information and color our thinking, inferences which we make during learning and store along with information learned, and the current state of our mental models.
While there may be one true picture of the way the world "really is", there are probably as many different mental models of the world as there are people. As educated human beings, we hope and trust that there exists a high degree of congruence between the way the world "really is" and our mental model(s) of the world. As professional educators
High Correspondence Between Low Correspondence Between the "Real World" and Our the "Real World" and Our Mental Model of the World Mental Model of the World in the information age we are particularly concerned with those mental models we hold that help us understand how our students learn and of the activities we have created to enable that learning to take place.
Mental Models and Constructivist Learning Theory
Constructivism is an idea which has been around for centuries and is being reborn in expanded form with great vigor, often bordering on a "secular religious" following (Phillips, 1995). Constructivism has a direct bearing on the formation of mental models. In general it proposes that perfect knowledge of the world is impossible. An example from everyday experience suggests it is impossible to perfectly know the length of the shoreline of an island. An example from theoretical physics states it is impossible to know precisely both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle (electron) at any given time. The latter concept apparently gave Albert Einstein some difficulty, causing him to exclaim that God does not play at dice.
Since perfect and complete understanding and knowledge about our world is not obtainable, according to the constructivist viewpoint (von Glasersfeld, 1988), a person's mental model of how the world works is more important than incomplete knowledge gleaned from other sources. Thus the constructivist argues that our best knowledge of the world is not absorbed or assimilated, it is actively constructed by the learner, showing up in the form of mental models. That is, knowing is not a spectator sport but one in which each individual must become actively and perhaps aggressively involved. As educators, we must lead our students into the process as well.
Although the evidence for constructivism is not strongly convincing, and there are major problems with its implementation and assessment, the idea is spreading and becoming so overwhelmingly popular it appears to be developing a life of its own. That is not to say that someday the research will confirm the validity of the constructivist model.
The predominant literature focusses heavily on the creation of mental models as a way of knowing our world and those selected aspects of our world which we may have an intrinsic or other compelling interest to explore. Often constructivist literature takes a negative view of some forms of instruction, such as review and practice, objectives-driven curricula, and so forth. Rarely, however does it promote the idea that mental models can be quickly outdated and become erroneous. The chief implication of this shortcoming is the need to continuously review and revise our current and key mental models, while at the same time creating or shaping new ones. The purpose of this chapter is to inspire you to begin a never- ending process of explicating your mental models about the role of CMC in instruction and learning and then revise those models with the latest evidence you can find or create.
The Care and Feeding of Mental Models
Initially we rely on common sense, supplemented by limited experience and internal and external controls to know our world and all that is in it. As we move into university, we are impressed with the rational, scientific, logical and empirical approach to the study of the world and begin to adopt it, while questioning our previous reliance on common sense which was limited by lack of experience. Finally, we move to the intuitive approach which combines both into the intuitive and the rational into an integrated composite, elevating the common sense to its previously high position but supplementing it with extensive scientific and logical analysis. Each iteration of this process tends to 'reject' the previous models but implicitly builds upon them.
In the ideal situation, we continuously seek new data, extract its information content and test the results against our extant models. If the information we receive and our mental models are in agreement, we incorporate that information into our models. Otherwise we may reject new information or file it away for further processing, either conscious or unconscious, or we may question the validity of our models. At times the new information is so compelling that we are forced to rethink and revise our models of various components of the world. It is this process that Piaget must have been talking about when the terms "assimilation" and "accommodation" were used. We assimilate information by reconciling it with our current model and incorporating, or accommodating it into that model to expand upon and hopefully render our views of the world more accurate than before.
Consider for example the receipt of mounting evidence linking health problems with smoking by the smoker whose model of the act of smoking that is makes him or her look sophisticated or calms nerves, or maintains a certain level of body weight. This new information about health risks may cause the smoker to expand his/her mental model of smoking to include health effects and their importance relative to the previously mentioned benefits within that model. Another issue beyond the scope of this chapter is the change in behavior, if any, of the smoker as a result of the changed mental model. Often our behaviors are not consistent with our mental models.
Often models are formed so naturally and inconspicuously that their presence is rarely obvious, much like the ring on your finger of which you take no conscious notice the vast majority of the time. Furthermore, our actions are strongly influenced by these 'invisible' models. Some models are highly important and used frequently. For example, our model of what causes students to learn (or fail) is a staple in the models of professional educators. Other models are remote and very rarely used. The former are the main concern in this chapter.
One problem with models is that we are unaware of the models we may possess even though they strongly influence our actions. Another problem is that we rarely coherently reconstruct how we arrived at our models (e.g., where did you form your model of how students learn or fail?). This act of reconstruction could lead to a validity check on the model formation process and its results. It is also possible that we consciously or unconsciously avoid seeking new information to test our models, or alternatively fail to relate the information we do perceive to our models. In the worst case, we may bend our interpretation of contradictory facts and information to fit our model of the world (e.g., students fail because they aren't motivated). We may lose touch with reality in order to stay in touch with our faulty world models. Of such a person it might be said "His/her narrow waist and broad mind have reversed positions!"
Mental models should not be confused with attitudes. The latter consist of beliefs or feelings which are not supported by data and information. Mental models on the other hand are supported by sound and valid evidence.
The lack of testing and refinement of personal mental models is detrimental for us as educators in the best of times but is made worse in times when significant and rapid changes that will effect our profession are occurring. Information technology and CMC are being swept along in the headlong plunge in which society is being transformed from the industrial age to the information age. As you read this, what is your model's voice saying to you? "I've heard it all before but nothing significant every happened in the past" or "Where is the evidence that all this new stuff is effective?" or "How can kids learn anything these days from sound bite, rapid fire, superficial presentations of information? That's not how I learned" If your model is speaking to you, whatever its message, you have begun to re- assess it. Read on.
CMC and the Need to Rethink Our Mental Models of Learning and Instruction
Society and governments may still hold strong feelings about inadequacies of school reform. In the face of global competition, there is a widespread willingness to pursue improved efficiency and effectiveness of education at all costs. Those who do not have ready access to CMC are making their voices heard. In the late 1980s in the province of Alberta, a prominent government official became concerned that students in distant reaches of the province were unable to access quality high school mathematics training. As a result, all of the high school math courses in the four western provinces will be available in computer based instruction format, deliverable on CD-ROM by 1996.
There are four major factors which should compel educators and other decision makers to re-examine and perhaps re-formulate our mental models of the way people learn. These factors are heavily driven by CMC and include work in the information society, improved learning, wider access to education and cost control.
Work in the Information Society.'
The nature of work was relatively stable during the Industrial Society and since the end of World War II. The nature of work in the Information Society is predicted to be radically different from that of the Industrial Society. There are numerous predictions of how that difference will be manifested; many of these differences are already prominent or visible. First there will be different organizational patterns as people, things and technology interact. The industrial assembly line where each person completes one task repetitively has already been radically altered by the use of robots, causing workers' jobs to be radically altered. Even an assembly line which cannot be changed easily to accommodate new product variations is outmoded. More often than not an assembly line worker employs some form of computer to assist in the work, and workers interact more and more with one another to resolve problems, maintain and improve production, and so forth. Some have argued that the conventional classroom with rows of seats, rigid curriculum and limited intercommunication does a better job of preparing students for the Industrial than the Information Society.
For some time there has been a trend toward corporate down-sizing in which middle level managerial positions are eliminated in favor of having lower level employees take more authority and assume greater and greater responsibilities for decisions. The remaining employees now have to make more decisions in addition to being craftspersons in their chosen field.
To assist in them in this process, employees have access to a wider range of data than just what the supervisor wanted them to know in the past. They need to know production run data, customer order information and inventory, and have access to a host of data and how to transform those data into useful information. Modern telecommunications and computer equipment are providing these data and in many cases the analytical tools to assist in the decision-making process.
Beyond that, the Information Society employee will be expected to develop and use new ways of finding, evaluating, and processing information as well as communicating ideas and concepts. A major difference from the Industrial Model is that the multimedia computer will require communication skills with more than just text; it will expand to include communicating with audio, video, animation, graphics and a whole host of new technologies which are just being developed (e.g., virtual reality) or are just beginning to appear in somebody's mental models (e.g., the data communication suit; Tiffin & Rajasingham, 1995). In the decade of the 1980s, technology has contributed to the escalating wage gap between skilled and unskilled workers. It is unlikely that trend will magically come to a grinding halt overnight.
A more recent and for some, disturbing trend is beginning to appear. The trend is away from lifelong employment with one organization to several career changes. Some have even suggested that many 'jobs' (career positions) will disappear and workers will be hired on a temporary basis to perform certain tasks or functions for an organization. People will continuously have to upgrade their skill set and move from organization to organization without benefit of health care insurance, pension plans, and other fringe benefits currently afforded to many.
A convincing argument can be made that schools should do more than simply prepare individuals for the world of work. A key word in that sentence is 'more than' because it suggests it is important for schools to prepare students to work in an information society.
Improved Instruction Through CMC.
CMC has been with us for nearly four decades. Early ventures to use computers to teach, called computer based instruction began in the early 1960s. Since that time, two major trends have developed. First, the effect of CMC has been heavily evaluated more than any other form of instruction. Second, while evaluation has taken place, the technologies of CMC have changed so dramatically that evaluation must be continuously updated.
The research on the effectiveness of computer based instruction (CBI), one component of CMC, strongly supports the conclusion that CBI results in consistently and moderately better achievement gains when compared with convention instruction. Furthermore, the effects on the efficiency of learning suggest CBI learning is accomplished in anywhere from 10 to 30% less time than conventional instruction. While some would argue that the medium, that is the computer, is not responsible for the improvement (e.g., Clark, 1983), others contend that the superiority of CBI has been established and that further research should be aimed at finding out why it is superior rather than on comparing CBI with conventional instruction.
This line of reasoning should cause us to rethink the power of our present models of how people learn. And the finding that students can learn faster using technology has implications for our models of school and curriculum organization.
While the quality of the mass education systems of North America is questioned when compared with those systems which selectively educate the more elite, no system of mass education is as good as the North American. Indeed there have been stronger cries to make education more widely accessible than it is now; accessible to those who are disabled, geographically dispersed, unable to accommodate a rigid time schedule or are otherwise unable to partake of high quality education. In this arena there is ample evidence that CMC is successfully permitting such access.
While one could argue that the present telecommunications facilities are hardly in any shape to foster high quality and widely accessible instruction to the far flung corners of the earth, we have historical evidence that such instructional delivery can make a difference (Szabo, 1994). And when our rapidly developing, loose affiliation of CMC networks such as the world wide web become capable of supporting a wide range of effective instructional alternatives, we should have developed mental models capable of dealing with the new opportunities.
A related matter revolves around the alleged failure of CMC to make a significant impact on education and on its delivery. Critics are quick to point out that the 'promises' haven't been fulfilled and therefore we should forget CMC and go on about our business. I would like to remind these individuals that there is a natural time lag between the time something is initially discovered and when it becomes widely used. The industrial revolution, which started with the invention of a simple engine to pump water out of mines, has had a far reaching effect on society, but we often forget that it took 150 years for that effect to become widespread.
On the whole, technology takes about 20 years from discovery to widespread application (e.g., the mouse appeared in about 1964 but did not become widely used until the Macintosh computers of 1984). Educational innovations take about 50 years to become widely adopted in the classroom. Given that CMC may be viewed as a hybrid educational and technological breakthrough, one might predict that widespread acceptance and use might occur between 20 and 50 years after it appeared. Since its appearance in the form of CBI occurred in the early 1960s, one might predict widespread acceptance no earlier than 1980 and probably more like 2010. By this reasoning, we are still well within the time period characterized by learning and exploration of CMC and have not yet reached the optimum time for wide usage.
It is clear that education is expensive when measured in terms of outlay of money. Most would argue that it is money well spent, that it pays solid returns on the investment. This sentiment is expressed in a popular bumper sticker of the 1980s which read "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance". Unfortunately the return on investment is hard to demonstrate but outlay of money looms large when governments come to the simple realization that they cannot continue to spend more than they earn. Beginning in the middle of the 1980s, many governments around the world began to recognize this fact and began to do something about it. Of course the item that accounted for the largest portion of the already high education expenses (expenses, not return on investment, mind you) is salaries, and salaries have been targeted through cutbacks and increased student-teacher ratios. Interestingly enough, the budgets for CMC hardware, software and telecommunications are also subject to severe restrictions.
In summary, the task we are facing is to provide more relevant preparation for work in the information society, provide better and more efficient instruction and make it more widely accessible to all members of society while keeping costs under control. Many segments of society have seen significant gains in productivity which can be attributed in large part to technology and it is only natural for society to assume that some form of technology (CMC) will enable similar gains in educational productivity. While some of these benefits have been demonstrated in numerous educational research environments, there is not yet a widespread successful demonstration of such hoped-for gains that we can point to and say "This is the future".
Nevertheless there is the explicit assumption that these goals can only be reached through massive reliance on CMC. While there is a clear danger of knowingly or unknowingly sacrificing some things of value in a move to more CMC (Postman, 1992), resistance is not the answer and will be swept aside. A more prudent course of action is to begin a careful reassessment of our individual and collective mental models of education with respect to, among other things, CMC.
A SAMPLING OF MENTAL MODELS HELD BY EDUCATORS
This chapter was designed to set the stage to initiate in educators and administrators a personal investigation of the mental models which you may have formed regarding how we gain knowledge and cause others to gain knowledge, and the role of CMC in knowing. It is the authors assumption that numerous mental models held by some educators prohibit or inhibit rather than advance open dialogue and honest experimentation in the use of CMC.
As you examine these mental models, reflect on the corresponding models you may hold about how we come to know and impart knowledge to others and how they were formed. What evidence, assumptions, and conflicts led you to formulate the particular models that you hold? And then consider what kinds of evidence of information you would need in order to critically examine, validate, and modify or discard each model.
Note that this collection of mental models is only a starting point. Undoubtedly you will think of many more which might have been included. Furthermore, time and space do not permit an in-depth treatment of each model, nor should it happen, if the constructivist position is valid. Hopefully there is a sufficient amount of detail about each model to stimulate your personal consideration of the ones you hold as well as the ones you may never have thought about or perhaps have thought about in a somewhat different light, viewpoint or time. The mental model topics that will be described now include subject matter specialization, monopolies, technology is inherently good, socialization, equality, teaching as a human activity, speed of disseminating information, emphasis on learning, and innovation.
Is your view of the use of CMC influenced by the effect of the culture of your subject matter specialty on your mental model of teaching and learning? I have frequently heard educators state that they see how CMC could be used in some subject fields, but not theirs and then be unable to explain why. There is research to indicate that strong subject matter subcultures exist in both secondary schools (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995) and universities (Clark, 1987). These subcultures affect the work of educators and their response to reform and innovation efforts (e.g., CMC).
Take a hypothetical group of teachers whose subject matter specialty seems to have relatively higher status, is perceived or inherently sequential, and is drawn from narrow rather than diverse disciplinary backgrounds (for example, mathematics or foreign language teachers). Such teachers may be resistant to multi-ability grouping on the grounds their subject matter wouldn't allow it (Ball, 1981) and more often believe in the transmission perspective of learning rather than the interpretation perspective (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). If CMC applications were perceived to promote multi-ability grouping and sequential transmission of basic factual or conceptual data, one might see how members of a subject subculture could accept or reject "disengage from" CMC opportunities. To put it another way, instructional policy is usually mediated through individual teacher's mental models (Cohen, 1990).
Involvement of Students in the Goals and Outcomes of Implementing CMC
In your mental model which considers changing to instruction which utilizes more CMC, what is the role of the student in implementing CMC? Will students adjust to change in the way they function? Fullan (1991) observed
When adults do think of students, they think of them as the potential beneficiaries of change. They think of achievement results, skills, attitudes and jobs. They rarely think of students as participants in the process of change and organizational life. (p.170)
Alternatively should students "...have the opportunity to anticipate and to experiment with the role changes before they are expected to demonstrate the results of having made the change"? (Corbett & Wilson, 1995, p. 13).
Of what consequence is the involvement or lack of involvement of students in the implementation of CMC? First, many students are far more comfortable and capable with CMC than are their teachers. Second, there may be a discrepancy between the old and new roles which students can help identify and satisfy. For example, if a student is to be instructed to use CMC to search for data which can be turned into information and integrated into personal mental models, but that student is subsequently examined and evaluated based on memorization of information and replication of standard problem solutions, there is a contradiction which many students will recognize. Corbett & Wilson (1995) argued that the issue is not whether students know how to do what they are expected to do but whether they view those expectations as valuable and appropriate.
Given that adults are expert in pretending that reform is taking place without vesting any ownership in the process, especially when there are sanctions for not changing (Rossman, Corbett & Firestone, 1988), would not students also give the 'appearance of reform' and misuse or not use CMC?
Do educators, in the broadest sense of the profession perceive they have a monopoly over the process of instruction and learning? Is it a growing or weakening monopoly? If the role of educator is strongly oriented toward the dispensing of information, where will the advantage be when (if) the day comes that students can access all the information in the world via CMC and telecommunication?
Instructing and coaching students to access data, sort out the credible information from the erroneous, and apply the results to solving problems may provide a role for educators which will allow them to work hand in hand with CMC and maintain a monopoly or at least provide a unique function in education.
Several efforts to break the monopoly have been tried but have not met with great success. Home schooling and private schools seem to have made some inroads as have for-profit technology providers. How would we restructure and reform schools if we thought the monopoly might be threatened? Do we take comfort in knowing that education represents one of the largest organized labor bodies in the world and is therefore unassailable? Will the day come when students will earn credit for competencies, rather than courses; competencies which can be obtained through CMC, independent of organized educational systems?
If It Is Technology, It Must Be Good
At the risk of being labelled a Luddite, is it fair to ask what CMC can and cannot do in relation to the accepted goals of education? Have we come to understand something of the powers and limits of CMC? Education has a long history of limiting or restricting information flow (Postman, 1992) as a major activity. For example, do we not wish to restrict access to information which may be generally accepted as pornographic or information which has not been validated or authenticated? Much information of these types is already available through existing CMC providers and it will grow. Will the MTVsound bite, rapid-fire, topic jumping form of communication used in the broadcast industry set a standard which results in rapid assimilation of incomplete information without depth of processing, reflection or construction of defensible mental models?
Is CMC limited to review and practice applications that can often be boring and unmotivating to students? Or can the computer
"...offer students the possibility of becoming inquisitive, the possibility of exploration, and the possibility of recovery from failure that is free from embarrassment. Computer systems can free schools to follow the course prescribed by the process of natural learning. Schools are hampered in their ability to leverage natural learning because of the amount of individual attention it requires. The shortcuts schools take are partially a result of how learning is accomplished but more the result of economic necessity." (Bracco, Petersen, & Dill, 1990, p 57).
Is there a danger that the act of facing the often daunting task of learning how to use the technology will crowd out asking the more important question what should be the goals of education and can technology assist (and how do we know)? Proponents of technology would have us believe it will increase our standards of living and position in the highly competitive global economy. Is that our reason for existing?
Finally, we must constantly change and update our mental model of technology. Computer technology began with large single user machines and moved to large multiple user machines. At that point CMC made an early and serious appearance on the scene (Szabo, 1994). Along came the microprocessor and the stand alone desk top computer with built in memory appeared. That machine soon evolved into the linked network machine and more recently reappeared as a multimedia device, complete with audio, CD-ROM, high resolution graphics and color. We are now witnessing the further transformation into a personal communication device which will be able to put us in contact with anyone else in the world in an instant. What will technology mean in 3 years from now? in 5 years? in 15 years? We can say with equal certainty that we don't know but that it will be different from what it is today.
Postman (1992) warned against technopoly, the subversion of culture and worthwhile goals to the demands of technology. He argued technopoly controls in several ways. First it is non-neutral; people are used by technology and not vice versa. Second it creates its own imperatives and wide-ranging social systems to reinforce them. Finally it redefines what professionals are, where they focus their attention, and how they reconceptualize their clients.
Might we be served well by considering the analogy of the archer when planning to use technology? With one hand, the archer pulls toward himself and with the other hand, pushes away. If only one hand is used, it fails. There needs to be a natural tension put in place. So too, we must embrace technology, find out as much as we can about it but at the same time find out what it cannot or should not do and above all not bend our purpose and goals in life to enable technology to fit in.
Does CMC use conjure up images of students working alone in cubicles, cut off from the interaction needed to develop communication and other important socialization skills? Adams & Hamm (1990) report that computers have been found to increase socialization among kids and software that provides for social interaction are among the most popular. It has also been observed that insufficient numbers of computers (more than one student per computer) has led to the practice of having several students share computers. This indirectly forces them into cooperative learning and increased social interaction, and the research on cooperative learning strongly suggests better learning and socialization.
Nespor (1994) argued that learning and knowledge are largely the products of our participation in social activity, such as family life, work, course work, academic programs, apprenticeships and peer associations. These activities are largely carried out in a face-to-face environment but can the effects be obtained over distances. Knowledge can be spread throughout computer networks spread across time and space. Individuals learn and change as they move across these networks as well as in the local settings. (Eisenhart, 1995).
Students may have to develop new or different communication skills as they deal with individual peers rather than a classroom of peers. CMC changes communication in many ways, including changing or removing the visual cues and body language components of communication. It also presents the opportunity to employ graphics, audio, video, and animation into receiving and producing communication. The predicted appearance of full motion videoconferencing implies yet another set of communication skills that may be needed for success in schools and employment. Teachers may have to identify and provide instruction in these new skills.
Teachers may require new communication skills as they find themselves in charge of dozens of students who are located at several different physical locations.
Does CMC reduce or increase equality? And what do we mean by equality? Is access to CMC now unequal across groups and can nothing be done to change that? Some data from the decade of the 1980s has information to challenge our mental models on computer use and equality. Becker & Sterling (1987) used data from a 85-86 National Assessment of Educational Progress study and found that at the high school level, 89% of Whites, 81% of African-Americans, and 80% of Hispanics had used a computer. The percentage spread was wider for elementary level students.
Sutton (1991) concluded that evidence on computer use during the 1980s "...maintained and exaggerated existing inequalities in education in input, processes of computer learning, and output." (p. 494). She also observed that teachers held attitudes (mental models?) which hindered access, believing that better behaved students deserved computer time and the primary benefit for low achievers was mastery of basic skills. The finding that minority, poor, female or low-achieving students were likely to be further behind after introduction of computers into schools was corroborated in the USA, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
There was a high degree of variation in equality of computer usage across schools, suggesting an examination of why some schools are successful while others are not when it comes to achieving equality. Edwards (1990) concluded that special teacher intervention resulted in gains in computer literacy and problem solving among poor and African American middle school students. The intervention was accompanied by special training and technical support.
Teaching and Learning is (Exclusively) Human Activity
Often implied in this statement is the caveat that learning which doesn't take place at a single location with face-to-face contact is less than adequate. Do you hold this model of teaching/learning and if so what is the basis or evidence for it?
Presently teachers come to one location for educational and social and work experiences in which direct contact with students constitutes a significant portion of activities. Compare this with a model of the future hinted at by Tiffin and Rajasingham (1995). In this vision, teachers work from home or anywhere with computer, modem and internet access to school servers. In the transition, there will be banks of terminal rooms in the old school buildings to bridge the gap.
Administrators who currently oversee the operation, set policy, manage space, register students and oversee safety, parking and library materials will choose and keep the servers and telecommunications operational. They will market and expand their service to the community, control their budgets and become more entrepreneurial in function, perhaps like the school district in northern Canada which is considering selling advertising space on its school buses.
Education is Doing an Adequate Job at Disseminating Information
Society is clamoring for more data and information to maintain its progress and freedoms. Coombs (1985) saw the biggest problem in education as the slow trickle down of new knowledge through the system. New information takes a long time to get into the curriculum through the conventional process of publishing, and it is now cheaper to disseminate information electronically than by the printed word. Faltis and DeVillar (1990) concluded that between 6,000 and 7,000 scientific articles are written every day, and information doubles every five and one half years.
Can placing this new knowledge on the information highway servers increase the trickle down to a torrent? And at what costs? How do people now effectively search out the information, validate its accuracy and authenticity, and apply it to improving our quality of life in its broadest sense (Postman, 1992)? What new roles does placing information on the highway imply for educators?
New and Renewed Emphasis on Learning
Are different learning practices that are made possible by CMC? Swan and Mitrani (1993) found that teaching and learning in computer-based classrooms is significantly more student centred and individualized than teaching and learning in conventional classrooms. On the other hand, Finkel (1991) observed that some believe teachers are the center of the teaching-learning system and because of their teaching style are reluctant to use much of the teaching resources available to them.
Are students passive receptors of information, complaining along the way? Or are they apprentices in learning and learning how to learn, with teachers who model, coach, scaffold, help students articulate, discuss and reflect on what they know and what they are knowing? (Jonassen, 1996). Data and information on the role and effectiveness of CMC in bringing about changes like these are scarce at present but will grow dramatically in the next few years and must be consulted to validate our mental models.
Do students learn best by being homogeneously grouped and taught in a competitive environment, as opposed to heterogeneous grouping from different age, cultural, linguistic social or geographic groups? Which model better prepares for the work world of the next century? Can the latter arrangements be accomplished without CMC?
At what point has a learner acquired sufficient data to be able to begin critically interpreting and creatively applying information? What are the appropriate and complementary roles of the teacher and CMC in these different endeavors?
Nobel scientist Polanyi (1994) painted a bright picture of a possible consequence of using CMC wisely.
The fact that the necessary information comes to the student on demand, rather than as part of a forced diet, will have the consequence that it is more keenly desired. In addition, the flow of information will be matched to the capability and appetite of the student. Further, there can be an open invitation to the student to apply newly encountered principles at an early stage, without fear of ridicule. Even partial success in this game of simulating understanding can be counted on to reinforce the learning process in a spectacular way. Taken together, these developments present an unparalleled opportunity for education. (page 33).
CMC clearly is an innovation which appeared in the 1960s in the instructional system known as PLATO (Szabo, 1994). Do educators handle innovation well? Clearly most educators speak positively and glowingly about the need to continue to innovate and move forward, leaving the old behind and improving teaching and learning. We feel an innovation can be integrated easily with little or no preparation, training, lead time, or buy-in by those affected. If you are confident about the innovative aspects of CMC, check your mental model of innovation and change.
Scholars of change point to the fact that innovations rarely become integrated into systems, whether they are education, manufacturing, government, or other systems. The reasons that have been identified in the literature are too numerous to list. A few examples will suffice. Administrators have every reason to praise innovation verbally and every reason to do all they can to avoid disruption to a smoothly functioning system. Innovations inherently carry risks of failure that can cause serious disruptions.
Educators are neither trained nor expected to identify and overcome the major sources of resistance to change (Fullan, 1991). Resistance is a natural reaction or defense mechanism which always arises when one's situation and routine is changed or change is proposed. It is my contention that successful adoption of CMC will require a solid knowledge of the factors that resist change and a good plan to overcome or bypass those factors.
This chapter has been an attempt to address a real but hidden problem which stands in the way of implementation of CMC; the mental models which educators have developed from the industrial society and their lack of applicability to the information society. Through a discussion of mental models and their formation plus the current situation with respect to the rapid change being experienced by all aspects of society, it is hoped that we will carefully but quickly re-think our mental models. And the further hope is that we will take decisive actions to update and operationalize our mental models, particularly where emerging forms of CMC are involved.
Adams, D. M. & Hamm, M. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and collaboration across the curriculum. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Ball, S. (1981). Beachside comprehensive: A case study of secondary schooling. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, H. J., & Sterling, C. W. (1987). Equity in school computer use: National data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 289-311.
Bracco, J., Petersen, P., & Dill, W. (1990). Engines for learning. Evanston IL: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Clark, R. E. (1983, Winter). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 327-345.
Coombs, P. W. (1985). The world crisis in education: The view from the eighties. New York: Oxford University Press.
Corbett, D. & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher, 24, 12-17.
Dupagne, M. & Krendl, K. A. (1992). Teachers' attitudes toward computers: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 42~429.
Edwards, C. (1990, April). Assessing success in analytical thinking skills: PROJECT MICRO and schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Eisenhart, M. (1995). Learning as movement in networks of knowledge and power. Educational Researcher, 24, 35-36.
Faltis, C. J., & DeVillar R. A. (Eds). (1990). Language, minority students and computers New York: Haworth Press.
Finkel, L. (1991). Technology tools in the information age classroom. Wilsonville, OR: Franklin, Beedle & Associates.
Fullan, M. (with S. Stiegelbauer). (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L. & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24, 5-11.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nespor, J. (1994). Knowledge in motion: Space, time and curriculum in undergraduate physics and management. Washington: Falmer Press.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24, 5-12.
Polanyi, J. C. (1994). Education in the Information Age. Northern Telecom 1994 Annual Report: A World of Networks, p. 32-33.
Postman,N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rossman, G., Corbett, D., & Firestone, W. (1988). Change and effectiveness in schools: A cultural perspective. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sadker, M. P., & Sadker, D. M. (1994). Teachers, schools and society (3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61, 47S-503.
Swan, K., & Mitrani, M. (1993). The changing nature of teaching and learning in computer-based classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 40-54.
Szabo, M. (1994). Enhancing the interactive classroom through computer-based instruction: Some examples from PLATO. In Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (Eds.) Computer-mediated communications and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 165-192.
Tiffin, J. & Rajasingham, L. (1995). In search of the virtual class: Education in an information society. London: Routledge.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). The construction of knowledge: Contributions to conceptual semantics. Seaside CA: Intersystems.
Michael Szabo, Ph.D. is Professor of Educational Psychology and Technology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. He has been professionally involved with CMC since 1970 at the education as well as commercial and government training levels. He has published over 150 articles, directed several CMC projects and systems, and is active in several professional societies. His present responsibility is to direct the graduate program in Instructional Technology at the University of Alberta.
[top]