A Workshop on Learning with Technologies

Resume

        The shift from teaching to learning paradigm is presented in this paper by a brief review of existing research on paradigm change, teaching and learning. The need of experimental and theoretical research design to unite the studies on students' personality, cognitive aspects of learning, knowledge management, and development of some aspect of cooperative learning is used to inform the design, development and implementation of a four-phase workshop to provide data for developmental research on adaptive learning systems. Some original results and application, supporting the experiment with multipurpose workshop, are presented and briefly discussed.

Introduction

This paper presents a multipurpose, long-running, technology-based workshop guided by the discoveries of modern physics and learning. The change of educational paradigm resembles phase transition, for example, in an overcooled liquid: the school may be equipped with technology and still to be into the old industrial paradigm.

      Figure 1 Three major phases of the impact of computers application into the learning process.  This figure is designed with assumption that with the time, the computer infrastructure is improving.

Figure 1 presents the three distinguishable phases of computer integration into the system of education.  The expectation that technology integration into the learning process will increase the learning outcome requires careful analysis and innovative changes. The long-term workshops used in the pilot project integrate technology in the traditional curriculum with educational support (experiment in Central Arizona College) or without educational support (experiment in Sofia University, Bulgaria).  

Change of Learning Paradigm

In the most popular book on scientific revolutions [1], Thomas Kuhn provides comprehensive analysis on the change of underlying beliefs of different intellectual groups in the previous centuries and how the change of the belief system (paradigm) leads to revolutions in the science and technologies. The goal of changing the educational paradigm is to provide opportunities for learners and educators to learn how to participate in a new learning society.  Implementing a new learning paradigm [2] means many changes. Teachers will design and innovate, will research and experiment with new learning approaches. The entire learning system will take the responsibility for students' learning by integration of the efforts of different departments. This paper considers all changes from a pragmatic point of view: how to design an infrastructure for a new learning paradigm. Along with the shift of leadership to the learners comes the need of a meaningful and comprehensive knowledge of how human learn. Papert [3] pointed out the fact that there is no even word for a discipline or subject matter on learning how to learn. Wrongfully, sometimes the change of learning paradigm is expected to be determined by the researchers and educators and applied on learners. This is a contradiction in terms of learning paradigm, which means that learners will have decision-making, executive and leading functions in the learning process.

Technology integration provides opportunities to monitor simultaneously macro- and micro-learning needs as a distribution for a system of individuals. The workshops are designed to test the opportunities for blended learning by providing resources and modality to fit the learning diversity. One way to make the new learning paradigm meaningful for the learner is to use self-directed learning with constant perturbation of the old system of beliefs with classroom or out of the classroom practices in which learners assume more control and the instructor facilitate and takes care for misconceptions. In the study presented in this paper, the participants will discover what is true and valid for them about adaptive learning system; however, the curriculum will not be changed until they are ready to take more responsibility about their learning.

Research Method

Technology integration into the system of education provides opportunity for action research. Action research is developed by Kurt Lewin [4]. The goal of this research is controllable and intentional transition from single loop learning to double loop learning [5].  In single loop learning, as it is described by Kuhn [1], the research is in the old paradigm. Through action research, the team overcomes the old paradigm and enters into the double loop learning.  This is the transition from habitual action, to planning for a change by naming and evaluating the tacit underlying knowledge, overcoming the traditional methods by reflection, act to new paradigm. In terms of classroom practices, one simple example is the prejudice that standardized homework for all students is productive. It is more than obvious that this is not true, but we all hide this tacit knowledge “not to rock the boat.” You may here a lot of criticism about standardized tests. Have you ever heard any complain about standardized homework?

In the supported workshop, to avoid any turbulence, action research method is used before, during or after the workshop. Before the workshop, action research is used to identify learning orientations and learning needs of the students enrolled in identical classes as the one for which the workshop is designed. This research is described in [6], and after careful re-design of the workshop, according to the finding of the preliminary research, provides time for instructor to analyze, facilitate, and evaluate without need of routine teaching. An ongoing professional self-development is one of the many goals of this project.  During the workshop, instructor has the opportunity to freely contact individual students and to get to know their needs without any obligation to “cover” at the same time. The instructor in the supported workshop is more like tutor and observer. This freedom to observe students without need to “broadcast” information provides time for the instructor to develop better understanding about his or hers classroom in the process.  The data is collected by surveys, students’ artifacts, observations. Students’ artifacts are published online [7]

Both workshops are designed to provide data and observations on educational needs in the rime of change from teaching to learning paradigm without damages of accomplishments of the old educational system before the new one is even created. The data of one workshop is used immediately in the next workshop to adjust the learning process and to provide support as needed. With a limited change of the traditional curriculum, the workshop's designer conducts careful observations on students' responses and develop new services to provide sufficient help and care for all complications inserted on the students and educators due to the change.

Workshop Methods

The workshop conducted with learning support has four phases:

      Phase I is developed to build a collaboration for the workshop between tutors and instructors.

      In Phase II, the educational support specialist works as a guest speaker. The presenter uses technologies to present the content material as information processing.

      Phase III takes at least a month or even longer. In this phase a learning environment enriched with specifically developed for the workshop services provides computers, software, tutors and a place for cooperative learning. Students use this environment or work independently at home to produce artifacts for Phase IV.

      In Phase IV of this workshop, students present their artifacts.

Observations

        The observations of two experimental workshops are presented in the first column of Table 1. The variable for comparing the differences between traditional classroom (column 2) and a classroom with educational and technical support (column 2) provided for a “decomposition” of the change from teaching to learning are grouped and presented. One crucial difference between the two workshops is the dependence of the traditional workshop of the enthusiasm and overload of the instructor. The change in traditional classroom can happen if the instructor is willing to make change: however, there are obstacles to this approach. Those problems does not concern good instructors, they are related to issues like what is fair and just. The observations summed in Table 1 show that a change from teaching to learning needs a center of crystallization of the over-ready for change educational system.

      We are discussing the phase transition between phase I in which the "technology is used for optimization through design" to phase II, III, and IV, in which "technology is changing the way we learn.” The education has to move from enthusiasm to professionalism of changing the paradigm - from broadcasting the lesson and measuring the impact as grade, to using technologies as a catalyst for change from teaching to learning.

      Table 1: Observable Variables.

References

[1]       Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

 [2]     Boggs, G. R. "Accepting Responsibility for Student Learning." On the Horizon, 1998, 6(1), 1, 5-6.

 [3]       Papert, Y. (1996). A Word for Learning. In Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital world (pp. 9-24). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

[4]       Lewin K. (1946), Jurnal of Social Issues, Action Research and Minorities Problems.

[5]       Fuller T. (2005), Learning Demand, Students Learning Demand and Learning Orientations, Retrieved April 18, 2006 from http://www.learningdemand.com/LoLd.htm

[6]        Fuller T. (2005), Learning Demand, Students’ Learning Demand and the Zone of Proximal Development; Retrieved April 18, 2006 from http://www.learningdemand.com/final_reflection.htm

[7]       Fuller T., Learning Demand, Workshop on Learning, Technologies and Modern Physics: Artifacts; Retrieved April 18, 2006 from

            http://www.learningdemand.com/DANA/DANA/TaskStream/My%20TaskStream%20Work/folios/Results.htm