Maximising the language and learning link in ... - Wiley Online Library

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 29 No 2 1998

125–136

Maximising the language and learning link in computer learning environments

Catherine McLoughlin and Ron Oliver Catherine McLoughlin is an instructional designer and teacher educator currently researching communication patterns and discourse processes in technology supported learning environments. Ron Oliver is a senior lecturer in educational technology and multimedia design at Edith Cowan University. Address for correspondence: School of Library and Information Science, Edith Cowan University, Mt Lawley WA 6050, Western Australia.

Abstract In studies on the implementation and educational uses of computers there are reports of changes in students’ behaviour as a result of working with computers (Rowe, 1993; Crook, 1994). Social, collaborative and dialogic exchanges have been observed as students engage in tasks around computers. This research provides evidence that the computer is a social facilitator in the sense that it provides opportunities for collaboration, group work and interaction which fosters cognitive change (Wild, 1995). This article recognises the social role of the computer, and supports the view that computers can be used to facilitate learning through language. There is growing awareness that if we are to realise the full potential of computers in education, consideration must be given to their role as catalysts in the learning process, rather than technological tools (Hawkridge, 1990). Computer assisted learning has progressed through many phases, and through investigation of underlying theoretical frameworks it is possible to recognise the change of focus from individual accounts of learning to social perspectives. Theoretical frameworks which emphasise the social dimensions of learning (Vygotsky, 1978) legitimise the link between computers, language use and learning and indicate that computers must be integrated into the social life of classrooms if their pedagogical benefits are to be realised.

Perspectives on computer use in education As educational technology is used to support teaching, it will also embody a theory of learning. Computer assisted learning is characterised by a number of theoretical perspectives, which have influenced the role it plays in relation to patterns of teaching and learning. © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

126


Vol 29 No 2 1998

Until the 1980s the success of computer assisted learning was attributed to its capacity to individualise instruction (Säljö, 1994). Computer software of the drill and practice variety is designed according to the behaviourist principle that learning is best achieved by an individual practising tasks in a repetitive manner until mastery is achieved. The computer is regarded as a teacher, giving immediate feedback on responses and enabling further practice. Such software (eg, spelling tests) can achieve high levels of task engagement, at least for short intervals, and free up the teacher’s time which would otherwise be spent grading and preparing routine tasks for practice. While there is a place for this type of software in the classroom, it is limited in terms of engaging students in higher level cognitive processes such as comprehension, hypothesis formation and reflection. It is also driven by a behaviourist paradigm which sees skilled behaviour resulting from repeated individual practice and feedback. Computer tasks of this nature also limit educational goals to the attainment of lower order skills such as remembering, reciting or producing isolated segments of information. Other perspectives on the relationship of theory to computer use in schools emphasise a constructivist view (Knight and Knight, 1995) whereby children learn by discovery and experiential learning. One of the best known applications of constructivism is the work of Papert (1990) with LOGO environments. Papert’s work is driven by a vision of children controlling computers, of creating microworlds as settings where learners can apply knowledge in a creative way. This perspective treats the computer as a tool; through programming the learner is able to control the technology and generate responses. Turtle Logo is an example of a microworld environment where children can issue instructions that cause the turtle to move, thus creating patterns. The rationale is that by issuing programming commands, learners can acquire a toolkit of general problem-solving skills. Programming is a special form of problem-solving, and it demands mastery of a family of subskills such as rigorous thinking, explicit instructions, debugging an imperfect solution and awareness of problem-solving skills. Papert’s conception of constructivist learning closely followed Piaget’s (1970, 715) view that “each time we prematurely teach a child something he (sic) would have discovered himself, the child is kept from investigating it and consequently from understanding it completely.” Premature teaching is pre-empted by the constructivist approach: indirect support of learning through provision of objects to think with (hardware) is envisaged as sufficient to enable learners to attain higher levels of thinking. The constructivist view of learning does not fully take into account how social processes, such as peer interaction, collaboration and language use contribute to learning. The emphasis of constructivism is on individual development through the use of resources, and accommodation of new experiences to existing understanding. In LOGO environments where children work together, social interaction is almost certain to occur, yet the benefits of dialogue and communication are regarded as incidental rather than central to cognitive progress.

© National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.


127

The role of the teacher in a constructivist learning environment is to facilitate learning through provision of programming tasks and to support individual development by creating microworlds. By providing contexts for learning, the teacher merely activates the learner’s latent understanding. There is no specific place for language, dialogue and communication in developing cognition, whereas these processes are now recognised as important to learning (Barnes, 1992). In reality, environments which utilise technology are usually collaborative as students have to share resources. In addition, much educational use of computers takes place in schools which are social venues where language use and interaction are prevalent. Theoretical support for the collaborative and social aspects of computer use is essential if pedagogical approaches are to be developed for technology supported learning environments. It is suggested that a communicative framework based on Vygotskyan sociocultural theory (1978) is the most relevant for understanding how learners work towards achieving higher order learning outcomes using computers. Learning as a communicative, social process Essentially, socio-cultural theory provides a context-based communicative perspective on teaching and learning. Learning is culturally influenced and a social rather than an individual process. Vygotsky believed that “human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (1978, 89). Language plays a vital role in enabling the learner to participate, interact with others and solve problems, and is therefore essential to learning. Observation of children working with computers (Nastasi and Clements, 1993) and an increased interest in Vygotskyan ideas has led to a shift in thinking about the role of computers in education. Evidence from classroom observational studies (Hoyles, Healy and Pozzi, 1994) indicates that there are positive effects on motivation, learning and problem-solving behaviours as a result of collaborative work around computers. The social dimension of learning has gained increased prominence and computers are recognised to be part of the social context of classrooms, where the products of students’ work are a focus for discussion and exchange of views (Crook, 1994). Support for a communicative theory of computer use may be due partly to a reaction to fears that computers exercise an unwanted antisocial influence on children. The preoccupation with the computer as a sinister, compelling addiction may not have substantial empirical evidence to support it, but nevertheless there have been warnings of its antisocial impact. Cuban (1986, 89) states that “in the fervent quest for precise rationality and technical efficiency, introducing to each classroom enough computers to tutor and drill children can dry up emotional life, resulting in withered and uncertain relationships.” In fact, computers have been shown to achieve the opposite effect, and there are many empirical studies which attest to close collaborative work on computers and the growth of cooperative ventures (Light, 1993).


128


Theory

Activities

Learning Processes

Vol 29 No 2 1998

Behaviourist

Constructivist

Socio-cultural

Drill and practice tutorials

LOGO programming, micro worlds

Collaborative learning situated learning

Individual instructions and feedback; drill and practice

Individual, discovery based, generalisable skills

Social, scaffolded, interactive, reflective

Figure 1: Cognitive Theory and Computer Use

One reason why teachers are likely to endorse a communicative theory of computer use is that interpersonal dimensions of learning and an emphasis on social encounters between students and teachers have always been at the forefront of learning in classrooms (Bruner, 1966; Cazden, 1988). Socio-cognitive theory supports these values. For teachers, computers may also present a paradox: if the technology is to be used effectively how can it do so without usurping their roles? The drill and practice approach of behaviourism makes the teacher role redundant, while the constructivist approach reinstates learning by discovery, leaving the teacher in, at best, a supervisory capacity. Socio-cultural theory reinstates the teacher in the learning process.

Social cultural theory At the heart of the Vygotskyan approach there is a concern with social processes and their relationship to development. (Figure 1 depicts three contrasting theoretical perspectives on computer use in education.) In socio-cultural theory the learner is regarded as an apprentice in a culturally defined, socially organised world. Intrinsic to this notion of apprenticeship is the recognition that asymmetric relationships are beneficial to the child’s development. Adult-child interaction scaffolds or assists the emerging competencies of the learner. Learning therefore becomes a form of assisted performance. Vygotsky’s theory gives substance to the teaching-learning process, which is clearly expressed as learning in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Brown and Ferrara, 1985). The ZPD is a metaphorical distance between what the learner can achieve independently and what can be achieved with the assistance of a more skilled partner. Learning therefore becomes a co-ordinated activity with both participants, expert and novice, responsible for solving the problem. Within the ZPD, the teacher may scaffold the learner’s understanding to enable higher levels of cognition. Language serves three enabling functions in this process. First, scaffolding necessitates dialogue between teacher and learner, as language mediates thought and is the means of communication. Second, through language a shared conception of the task is reached; and © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.


129

third, the expression of thought in language enables the learner to internalise the experience. The socio-cultural model offers a theory of teaching and learning and it recognises a significant role for the teacher. Vygotsky reaffirmed the social and interpersonal dimensions of learning, emphasising qualities in the educational experience that educators and researchers value ie, that learners need assistance or scaffolding to progress. Of paramount importance however, is the centrality of communication processes in learning and problem-solving, the communicative exchanges that teachers and learners engage in as they construct understandings. Learning is facilitated through purposeful dialogic exchange, verbalisation of thought processes, reciprocal understanding and negotiation of meaning, all of which are mediated by social interaction and language. Empirical studies of learners working around computers have shown that computers have the potential to enhance collaborative work and lead to productive language use (Hoyles, Healy and Sutherland, 1991). Interaction and learning Students working in groups and dyads at computers interact and share ideas in ways that support cognition and thinking processes (Bennett and Dunne, 1991). Such task related verbal interaction promotes social harmony and effective working relationships (Nastasi and Clements, 1992). Inter-pupil discussion serves a scaffolding role as learners work towards mathematical generalisations (Hoyles, Healy and Sutherland, 1991). Research on learning in collaborative settings indicates that students who verbalise their thinking are more likely to learn and demonstrate understanding (Webb and Farivar, 1994; Webb, Troper and Fall, 1995). Students working together enjoy peer support and increased verbal exchange leading to higher levels of task involvement and problem solving behaviours. Not only are these behaviours positively related to improved learning outcomes, but they also lead to increased motivation (Nastasi and Clements, 1992). These findings lead to the conclusion that social interaction and peer presence are important predictors of task related interaction and higher order learning. If we accept that this is the case, how can verbal interaction relate to learning with computers? It has been proposed that a socio-cultural theory of learning is most appropriate for technology supported learning environments as it: • endorses the fact that learning takes place in a social context; • recognises that language use is fundamental to learning; • acknowledges that learners need support and assistance to learn. All of these elements are integrated in socio-cultural theory, which provides the basis for maximising learning in technology supported environments. Didactic or communicative pedagogy? Within Vygotskyan theory, instruction is more than just didactic teaching, with a teacher explaining and demonstrating through language. Effective forms of teaching require learners to take an active role in the learning process. Scaffolded instruction © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.

130


Vol 29 No 2 1998

Reflection

Interaction

Effective learning and conceptual change

Adaptation

Discussion

Figure 2: Dimensions of the conversational framework (Laurillard, 1993)

does not mean teacher initiated discourse and learner dependency. Higher order learning (problem solving, evaluation, synthesis) are skills which require the learner to be self-regulated, and to demonstrate initiative and independent thought. In the context of tertiary learning, these issues have been addressed by Laurillard (1993) who proposes a conversational framework to account for learning. Drawing on Vygotskyan theory that reflective thought is social conversation internalised, Laurillard suggests that participants (teacher and learners) must engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas for cognitive change to occur. Four essential activities comprise the learning transaction, accomplished through language. Discussion: The learner and teacher must exchange understandings so that interpretations of the task are jointly reached; Adaptation: The teacher can, where appropriate adapt the student’s perception and enable her/him to experience it from different perspectives; Interaction: Learners should be actively engaged in interaction throughout the learning experience; Reflection: Students should be given opportunities to reflect on their experiences and to internalise them. These are all essential components of the learning process and should be present in an educational encounter if learning is to take place. Clearly, the conversational framework is not a didactic view of teaching whereby the teacher imposes meaning or dominates. The conversation requires reciprocity and mutual understanding and this is achieved through talk, discussion, and negotiation. Computer assisted learning can support interaction, dialogue, reflection and conversation if learning tasks are structured appropriately.



131

Social interaction and higher order learning Research on computer based learning environments shows that group work around computers offers opportunities for language use and enhanced learning outcomes. For example, groupwork with computers has been found to provide support for: • relatively autonomous learning on the part of the students (Laurillard, 1991); • increased collaboration and negotiation (Light and Mevarech, 1992; Repman, 1992); • a higher quality of “exploratory talk” and cognitive discourse (Mercer, 1994); • greater problem solving competencies and higher order thinking (Nastasi and Clements, 1992); • development of writing skills and literary uses of language (McMahon and O’Neill, 1993). Apart from facilitating language use, what can communicative, dialogic processes around computers contribute to the development of higher order cognition? The potential benefits of discourse and learning are well documented in the literature. Many studies regard talk as a window on children’s thought processes (Salomon, 1983; Chi et al., 1989). Learners’ acquisition of new knowledge structures and cognitive strategies is facilitated by peer interaction where verbalisation and dialogue are mediating forces. In groups, for example, students can learn from each other by giving and receiving help. By recognising inconsistencies between their own and other people’s perspectives, they can create mental models of problems. By observing and participating in problem solving approaches that have been the product of joint effort, students increase their own repertoire of skills (Webb, Troper and Fall, 1995; King, 1992). In addition, exchanging ideas through verbal interaction promotes higher levels of thinking, such as question generation, explanation and elaboration (King, 1994; Webb and Farivar, 1994; Chi et al., 1994). Interpersonal discussion of ideas to resolve conflict and reach agreement is a further benefit of collaborative work with peers and computers (De Corte, 1993; Pea, 1992). Overall, there is compelling evidence of the benefits of verbal interaction and communicative task-related talk in producing higher order learning within computer mediated learning environments. Facilitating learning around computers Overwhelmingly, the research conducted in classrooms signals that judicious use of computers has the potential to create conditions conducive to collaborative learning, and sustain interactions leading to higher order learning (Light, 1993; Fisher, 1993). An example provided by Hoyles, Healy and Sutherland (1990) describes interaction in groups as “distancing”. Through talk, the process of representing one’s thoughts for others occurs, so that normally covert processes are made overt through language and dialogue. In classrooms where computers are used to support group work, articulation of thought processes enables metacognitive processes to become conscious, thereby developing awareness in students of their own thinking approaches. A further example of the potential of collaborative work around computers in supporting cognition and © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.

132


Vol 29 No 2 1998

communication is provided by Mercer (1994) who has nominated three categories of talk emerging from children’s interactions in these settings: disputational talk: This kind of talk is usually characterised by disagreement and individualised decision making. cumulative talk: Speakers build on each other’s utterances, and there are instances of elaboration and clarification. exploratory talk: Partners engage with each other, and reciprocal exchanges and challenges are common. Of these categories, exploratory talk is most likely to lead to cognitive change, as it is distinguished by reasoning processes and exchanges where learners explain, defend and argue for a case or point of view. Building on this research Wegerif (1996) suggests that it is possible to plan for, and build exploratory talk within a teaching program using directive software. Exploratory talk can be achieved by changing the normally asymmetric patterns of interaction which characterises the classroom, resulting in predominantly teacher initiated discourse. The typical pattern of classroom discourse has been described in the literature (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Mehan, 1979) as an “I-R-F” pattern, or three part exchange where the teacher initiates an exchange, a student responds, and the teacher gives feedback on this response. This communicative pattern allows little scope for student feedback or commentary on the discourse event or matter under discussion, and may well short-circuit higher order thinking processes and critical thinking. This asymmetry needs to be balanced by student discussion, which can be achieved by encouraging students to engage with the software, to discuss and evaluate their perceptions of working with a particular software package. Equally, the discussion element could be introduced into other classroom interactions, transforming the “I-R-F” structure into an “IRFD” exchange, where “D” represents learner discussion of the event (Wegerif, 1996). Other ways of supporting exploratory talk in technology supported environments need to recognise the role of the teacher in creating an appropriate context for learning through language. Teacher action to maximise the language dimension In creating opportunities for learning, the empirical research on computer-supported learning environments points to the necessity of social and interactive frameworks to support discourse and higher order learning processes (Light, 1993). Collaboration involves discussion, mutual engagement and joint decision making. Tasks should therefore be set to provide conditions for social collaboration. However, the term “collaboration” is a term used rather loosely to mean situations where more than one person is involved. It is often confused with the term “cooperation”, meaning that participants share the task by allocating responsibility for parts to each individual within a group. This division of labour does not necessarily lead to exchange of ideas, as each party is independent of the others once the task has been divided up. In true collaboration, all © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.


133

participants are engaged in a joint effort to solve the problem together, and they have to negotiate problem solving actions and evaluate solutions (Roschelle and Teasley, 1992). Learning with computers can be planned to ensure true collaboration and negotiation of information between participants, and as a medium where teachers and students can share thoughts and ideas. Teacher roles in the process need to be reconsidered. As peer collaboration is conducive to learning, social feedback from peers may be more helpful than direct corrective feedback from a teacher. Several strategies may be helpful to teachers in fostering meaningful learning through language, assuming that the teacher’s role will be supportive and discursive rather than didactic and managerial. The teacher can create a context for learning around the computer by: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

modelling and teaching appropriate communication habits; clarifying expectations about language use and communication; providing opportunities for students to explain their decision making processes; encouraging groups to evaluate alternative solutions; promoting verbal expression of different perspectives; creating activities where meaning negotiation is combined with spatial and diagrammatic representation; establishing collaborative problem solving tasks; encouraging competing solutions and approaches; requiring learners to repair and self-correct their explanations and elaborations; supporting students in posing questions and offering criticism to each other; structuring activities through which students can challenge each other’s productions; enabling students to account for, and justify their approaches and solutions to problems; facilitating diverse interpretations of problems.

All of these strategies involve using language to find, resolve and agree on problem solving procedures, and to justify approaches adopted. Learning around computers therefore entails new discourse roles for teachers and students, as they engage in discussion, interaction, reflection and adaptation of ideas. These processes are depicted in Figure 3. Conclusion: computer assisted learning through dialogue Learning around computers is a social activity where learners share resources, talk, discuss ideas and collaborate. In view of the social context in which computers are used, and the acknowledgement that collaborative learning can lead to higher level cognition, we need a theory of computer supported learning to help teachers promote learning in their classrooms. Theories of learning which have influenced computer assisted learning have evolved from individualised behaviourist perspectives to social accounts of learning, where © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.

134


Discussion, change of perspective

Vol 29 No 2 1998

Group interaction/evaluation and feedback

Social and Communicative Processes

Generalisation of different solutions

Externalisation of thought processes through language

Group and collaborative tasks

BJET 28:4

Figure 3: Integration of communicative interaction into computer tasks

communication between learners is essential to cognitive development. Socio-cultural theory, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) communicative theory of learning, recognises the social dimensions of learning with technology, and emphasises language as essential to teaching and learning. In computer assisted learning, the computer should be regarded as a resource that offers opportunities for dialogue and communication between teachers and learners. Changes have been observed to occur in learning environments where computers are employed: there is increased emphasis on students learning by collaboration rather than by competition. This pedagogical setting offers opportunities for language use and social interaction which lead to learning. Teachers in schools can therefore maximise learning by incorporating discussion, evaluation of ideas and language activities among students which focus and extend collaborative work using computers. In conclusion, the quality of learning around computers is not entirely dependent upon the interface between learners and the technology. Instead, it is related to the whole social climate of the classroom and the opportunities created for interaction and exploratory talk between participants in the learning process. References Barnes D (1992) The role of talk in learning in Norman K (ed) Thinking Voices: The National Oracy Project Croom Helm, London. Bennett N and Dunne E (1991) The nature and quality of talk in cooperative classroom groups Learning and Instruction 1 103–118. Bruner J S (1966) On Cognitive Growth in Bruner J S and Olver R R (eds) Studies in Cognitive Growth Wiley, New York. Brown A L and Ferrara R A (1985) Diagnosing zones of proximal development in Wertsch J V (ed) Culture, communication and cognition Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 273–305. Cazden C (1988) Classroom Discourse Heinemann, Portsmouth. Chi M, Bossack M, Lewis M, Reimann P and Glaser R (1989) Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems Cognitive Science 13 145–182. © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.


135

Chi M T H, Leeuw N D, Chiu M-H and Lavancher C (1994) Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding Cognitive Science 18 439–477. Crook C (1994) Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning Routledge, London. Cuban L (1986) Teachers and machines Teachers College Press, New York. Fisher E (1993) Distinctive features of pupil-pupil talk and their relationship to learning Language and Education 7 (4) 187–215. Hawkridge D (1990) Computers in Third World Schools: an example of China British Journal of Educational Technology 21 (1) 4–20. Hoyles C, Healy L and Pozzi S (1994) Groupwork with computers: an overview of findings. Journal of computer assisted learning 10 202–215. Hoyles C, Healy L and Sutherland R (1991) Patterns of discussion between pupil pairs in computers and non-computer environments Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7 210–228. Knight B A and Knight A C (1995) Cognitive theory and the use of computers in the primary classroom British Journal of Educational Technology 26 (1) 141–148. Laurillard D (1991) Computers and the emancipation of students: giving control to the learners in Boyd-Barrett O and Scanlon E (eds) Computers and learning Addison Wesley, Wokingham, 64–80. Laurillard D (1993) Rethinking University Teaching Routledge, London. Light P H and Maverech R (1992) Cooperative learning with computers Learning and Instruction 2 155–159. Light P (1993) Collaborative learning with computers in Scrimshaw P (ed) Language, Classrooms and Computers Routledge, London, 40–56. McMahon H and O’Neill W (1993) Computer mediated zones of engagement in learning in Duffy T M, Lowyck J, Jonassen D H and Welsh T M (eds) Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, 37–57. Mehan H (1979) Learning Lessons: Social organisation in the classroom Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Mercer N (1994) The quality of talk in children’s joint activity at the computer Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 10 24–32. Nastasi B K and Clements D H (1992) Social-cognitive behaviours and higher order thinking in educational computer environments Learning and Instruction 2 215–238. Nastasi B K and Clements D H (1993) Motivational and social outcomes of cooperative computer education environments Journal of Computing in Childhood Education 4 (1) 15–43. Papert S (1990) Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas Harvester Press, Brighton. Pea R D (1992) Augmenting the discourse of learning with computer-based learning environments in De Corte E (ed) Computer-Based Environments and Problem Solving Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 313–343. Piaget J (1970) Piaget’s theory in Mussen P (ed) Carmichael’s manual of child psychology Wiley, New York. Repman J (1992) Collaborative, computer-based learning; cognitive and affective outcomes Journal of Educational Computing Research 9 (2) 149–163. Roschelle J and Teasley S D (1992) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving in O’Malley C (ed) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Springer Verlag, Berlin, 69–100. Rowe H A H (1993) Learning with Personal Computers ACER, Victoria. Säljö R (1994) Adult practices and children’s learning: Communication and the appropriation of cultural tools European Journal of Psychology of Education 9 (2) 87–91. Salomon G (1983) Learning about energy: how pupils think in two domains European Journal of Science Education 5 (1) 49–59. Sinclair J and Coulthard M (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse Oxford University Press, London. Vygotsky L S (1978) Mind in Society Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Webb N, Troper J D and Fall R (1995) Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups Journal of Educational Psychology 87 (3) 406–423. © National Council for Educational Technology, 1998.

136


Vol 29 No 2 1998

Webb N M and Farivar S (1994) Promoting helping behaviour in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics American Educational Research Journal 31 (2) 369–395. Wegerif R (1996) Collaborative learning and directive software Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 10 24–32. Wild M (1995) Analysing children’s talk in computer-based cooperative groups Issues in Educational Research 5 (1) 85–104.
