Asmt. #1, Mod.2/2.1, EDPT 576

Byron V. Delgado
University of Southern California
M.S. Ed. Curriculum Teaching and Special Education
School of Education (RSOE)

Forcier's, "The Computer as an Educational Tool, Productivity and Problem Solving" views the computer and its various input and output modalities and multimedia offering as a way for the leaner to build knowledge and understanding. Stemming from the concepts purported by the Behaviorists and Constructivists he gleams what was present in earlier types (linearity) of software and what was offered in later programs (cross-hatching of overlapping knowledge bases) that put more responsibility on the learners' choice of what input would be most representative and effective in a problem solving task. Essentially, the behaviorist model would be present in drill-type exercises, such that user interaction was limited to correct and incorrect answers, and higher scores was the ultimate aim of the software. More constructivistic applications that increased problem solving productivity were embedded with full sensorial stimulation that would provide a rich context in the problem-solving process to scaffold or build understanding (knowledge). He was aware that students were variable in the sense every student had a penchant for one or a combination of several intelligences that made each learner unique. Therefore, each learner, interacting with a particular subject matter, brought something different to the problem solving experience.

Appropriate software would be viable enough to create an a overlap of knowledge (The Schramm revision of the Shannon-Weaver model) that would provide a facilitating opportunity unique to learner-users in their knowledge building process, such that the mode of problem solving was the vehicle for understanding.

Jonassen's "Mindtools for Critical Thinking, Mindtools for Critical Thinking", parallels what the above articles stresses but some computer application become mindtools (cognitive tools) that assist the user in gaining abstract knowledge in constructing learning. This personal creation/construction of knowledge goes one step further than the "Constructivists" approach to Learning Theory. In this negotiated reflective thinking the leaner is necessarily actively negotiating meaning. The computer and its applications is a cognitive partner that is absorbing the burden of collecting, categorizing and calculating numerical answers that it does well. The learner is left with cognitive load of the scaffolding of knowledge and the construction of meaning.

Mindtools are available within the public domain as database software, which can be utilized across the curriculum, and are currently in use in schools. These mindtools are available, cost effective and efficient. The tools are meant to enhance thinking and assist students in thinking in novel ways. The author has specific criteria for evaluating mindtools and this seems to be implicitly embedded in the necessary overlapping that occurs in the problem solving approach mentioned above. Mindtools manifests this specifically through criteria (Computer-based, etc.) that avails itself of the knowledge representation (applications) that engages the learner in thinking critically and differently about finding meaning via formalistic representations of knowledge.

My current areas of interest are language learning at the high school and college levels. Problem solving alacrity and utilization of Mindtools in these settings is appropriate pedagogically and in the context of formal and informal learning. Theory and practice has much to embrace in terms of the teacher, mode of instruction and effective and affective factors that multi-intelligent learners bring to the learning table. I would embed problem solving within the context of Mindtools. The more approaches or contexts available to emerging language learners the more the languages in question are acquired.

These cognitive tools would be there to stimulate problem solving within a language context where negotiated meaning will always be evolving. For example, as a language teacher to native and non-native speakers of Spanish at the high school level and as college tutor to the same audience, I have found students are constantly moving through a linguistic-cultural-affective continuum that challenges and sometimes suppresses their language learning attempts. I have seen that the instructor that provides the most interactive avenues, be they multimedia, software database applications and a mix of traditional and communicative competence, contextualized to decontextualized learning leading to more intellectual discovery learning is quite beneficial to the teacher-students interactions.

Students can avail themselves of their peers that are moving along that continuum more quickly and that has the informal-residual and positive effect of bringing the rest of a class forward on that learning wake. The better students feel about the learning experience the more they will want to contribute to their own learning. The approaches previously discussed sees the learner as an active one, problem solver and intellectual partner that needs to be responsible and interactive in their engagement with any subject matter.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: May 2002 / Updated: Friday, 17 May 2002