Reflection on Mindtools Article

Jonassen, D., et al (1998) stated that – “technologies should not support learning by attempting to instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with, not from. In this way, learners function as designers, and computers function as Mindtools for interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge.” Have we seen a super computer without operating system software? Is it possible to carry a title of an engineer without the ability to imagine, be creative, and inventive? A seasoned engineer has some if not all of these characteristics. Think about the bridges, airplanes, roads, and greenhouse etcetera; they were inventions in the mind of the inventors made available to us today employing engineering, resources, and tools. The engineer conveys his ideas effectively using tools; thereby making an airplane a reality.

Instructional Technologists have the responsibilities of using computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. According to Jonassen (1998), “mindtools scaffold different forms of reasoning about content. That is, they require students to think about what they know in different, meaningful ways.” All the beautiful architectural works of Rome, Athens - Greece are representations of human creative minds. The ideas sprung from critical thinking and great minds. It goes to show that we all have some gifts that can be transformed using technology. To implement a technology, someone also has to critically think and apply information in ways that bring results. All of these are knowledge construction ultimately resulting in constructing things. Computers have a place in our life; it is not that of replacing human thinking ability. Rather, it is that of intellectual partnership. Humans have can enhance computer capabilities, and computer can enhance thinking and learning resulting in a great partnership. As specialists, we do not want to be controlled by the tool, neither should computers control learning. Jonassen, D., et al (1998) concluded that “computers should be used as tools that help learners to build knowledge.” They also stated that “that there is the possibility of qualitatively upgrading the performance of the joint system of learner plus technology.” We can conclude that a “symbiotic” interaction between learners and mindtools should be the goal of an instructional technologist.

A successful “marriage” of these will empower the technologist. Computers effectively support meaningful learning and knowledge construction; it should be a cognitive amplification tool for reflecting on what students know and what they are learning. Rather than using the power of computer technologies to disseminate information, they should be used in all subject domains as tools for engaging learners in reflective, critical thinking about the ideas they are studying (Jonassen, D., et al 1998). The process will make obsolete, the traditional methods of computer-based instruction now available. Learning is an active, constructive, and social process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information already stored in memory (Shuell, 1988). I agree with Papert when he said “when learners function as designers of objects, they learn more about those objects than they would from studying about them.”

References:
Carr, C., Jonassen, D., H., & Yueh, H., (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. Techtrends, 43(2), 24-32.
Papert, S., (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer (pp. 82-103).
Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media and method. The media influence debate: Read the fine print, but don't lose sight of the big picture. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 7-10.

Reflection on Papert's Article

Be all you can be! The sky is the limit! I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky. These are no exaggerations. Seymour Papert’s article on “The Children’s Machine” (Rethinking school in the age of the computer), is a masterpiece. According to Papert (1993), “my learning had hit a critical level, in the sense of critical- mass phenomenon of a nuclear reaction or the explosion of a population when conditions favor both birth rate and survival. The simple moral is that learning explodes when you stay with it”. Papert demonstrated we can be all we want to be. We have to be able to recognize that time when conditions favor both birth rate and survival. If we do, then we may be able to conclude as Papert, “the deeper I got into my “affair” with flowers, the more connections were made; and more connections meant I was drawn in all the more strongly, that the new connections supported one another more effectively, and that they were more and more likely to be long lasting”.

Have you ever generated a fatal error message when you try learning something new? You are no doubt familiar with that same error message with a computer system. Sometime you get the blue screen or memory dump error. Did you panic, restart your computer or called for technical support? Our creator (so perfect) ensured we have none of the memory error. Human brains have no limit to the amount of information it can process and or store throughout lifetime. Why limit yourself or “short-change” yourself in life’s endeavors? Why conclude you can never be good in mathematics when you have not even tried?

Why reinvent the wheel? In Papert’s article, is good example of why. We all seem to continue to wholly embrace preparation of individuals to become teachers. To this area there seem to be no more want in pedagogy, learning theories, and all the likes. Papert (1993), stated that “everyone understands that the method of importance in education are those of teaching – these courses supply what is thought to be needed to become a skilled teacher. But what about methods of learning? What courses are offered for those who want to become skilled learners?” What an injustice to all the generations past and present.

We spent so much money and time developing courses for teachers to become skilled but neglect the students? It sounds to me like we started building the house from the roof down to foundation instead of vice-versa. It took thirty seven years before Peck learned how to fix things (Papert, 1993). It is not too late to undo all the injustice to the present and future generations. I have a dream! Let us meticulously facilitate developing courses on how to become a skilled learner. Result will bring untold success to our society. If there’s no student, then there will be no need for the teachers. In this sense, educational reform, Papert style will indeed require a revolution- a revolution in thinking (Murphy, M., 1996).

References:
Papert, S., (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer (pp. 82-103).
Murphy, M., (1996). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer by Seymour Papert, 1993 Basic Books, New York. Retrieved 22 October, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/papert.html

Tarlow & Spangler article

Information highway, gigahertz, megabytes, zoom, clock cycle are a few of the prevalent words on our mouth today as we navigate through the 21st century. To think or not to think, devote time or not to devote time are some common questions that we have to answer. Our forefathers did a great job telling a detailed event from memory; they had amazing memories for land forms or for stories and songs. The problem with that is when they die, details are lost or we totally have no knowledge of events they never told to us simply because it was never written down but passed from generation to generation by mouth. Now the terabytes and gigabytes are here. With modern technology, we add rapid, easy access to that information. We can do things with computer that are beyond imagining (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001). They observed we have access, theoretically, to all knowledge through our literacy. Are we prepared to give up all that proved to be our backbone? Now more than ever, we are asking the question – “will high-tech kids still think deeply?

Technology came and it is taking over our life in ways that we least expected. It will be very beneficial if we stop to take a stock and reflect on whether technology is actually influencing our life in the way we really want it to or has it become a cancer in our life. We cannot discard the building blocks that literacy gave us many years before technology arrived. No doubt these blocks have proven the cornerstone for many generations. Is it time to reject the cornerstones simply for technology? As observed by Tarlow & Spangler (2001), we must learn what we can from children. But we must also redouble our efforts to be sure that they still get the benefits of our oral and literate traditions through plenty of physical activity, singing, making things with the hands, listening to and reading literature, drawing pictures with crayons and paints, sending and receiving letters and pretending.

According to Tarlow & Spangler (2001) we do well to examine literacy, technology, and thinking also consider whether the changes that have naturally occurred because of our available technologies are the direction in which we would want our society to drift. Unlike in the military, we do not want to just obey the last command. Let us employ our thinking to make value judgments, to examine where our technologies have taken us and where they might take us in the future – and whether this is a direction that is good for us. Through literacy we are able to connect and construct meaning. Working hard at a goal and perseverance pays us dividends and benefit others. We should start to utilize our thinking and coordinate that expansion of our thinking modes with ever changing technology. Let us all deep think and make technology a machine - that makes work easier. Our kids are not to become robots coded with programs without which they are no good.

References:
Tarlow, M. & Spangler, K.L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67(3), 23-27.

http://www.fno.org/mar97/deep.html