This magazine chronicles the arts, environment, sciences and popular culture of the times. It is edited for modern, well-rounded individuals with diverse, general interests. Each subscription includes a membership to the Smithsonian Institution which provides special discounts at Smithsonian gift shops, world travel opportunities through Smithsonian study tours and information on all Smithsonian events in any area.

Customer Reviews

For the insatiably curious

I always find at least one article in every month's SMITHSONIAN that interests me. From art to history to the sciences, this magazine covers American life, both past and present. Unlike the Smithsonian museums themselves, this is not exclusively an exhibit journal since it takes its readers to unexpected places and topics. A real treat for the broadly curious.

With a subscription, you'll get a membership to the Smithsonian Institute, enabling you to get members' prices out of their catalog and gift shops. Support this uniquely American institution - and learn a lot in the process.

We are impressed with every issue

Every issue we get, we say the same thing: "WOW! This is the best issue ever!! Just look at this article, and this one...."

We took a visit to the Smithsonian in Washington, hosting some guests from Germany who had the treasures of the mineral exhibit on their "must see first time to the US" list of attractions. We were a bit nonplussed by this--we didn't know that foreigners would be interested in the Smithsonian Museum. We spent an entire day, seeing just a small percentage of the national treasures in this montsrous museum complex. While we were shopping in one of the gift shops, we were offered a membership. We signed up to support the Smithsonian and to get this magazine.

Recently, there was an article on Cambodia's huge temple complex Ankhor Wat (filmed in "Lara Croft"), an article on sled dogs and an article on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a key law that added to the tinder sparking the Civil War. And best of all, an article on Diane Arbus, the photographer who was famous for her portraits of seemingly ordinary people, somehow caught with an eye to freakishness or evil. Though I've been familiar with Arbus' work for year, this article had so much new information.

If you like magazines about nature, culture and history, this is the one to get. We get excited by every issue.

68 Year Old Stroke Victim - Tasered for Double Parking!!

Three weeks after the death of Robert Dziekanski, British Columbia RCMP again tasered a man twice under questionable circumstances. This time it was 68 year old John Peters, who had double-parked on a Kelowna street while waiting to pick up his wife.

A recent Canadian Press survey of taser deployments found 80% of victims were unarmed. Taser International claims its product actually saves lives, because it's better to be shot with a taser than with a bullet.

But stories like this one beg the question - In what percentage of taser deployments could deadly force have legitimately been used?

OTTAWA - The RCMP has repeatedly zapped people with Tasers in a steadily rising percentage of multiple-stun cases despite an internal policy that warns numerous jolts may be hazardous.A Canadian Press CBC-Radio-Canada investigation of more than 3,200 incidents in which Mounties fired the powerful stun guns in the last six years shows that officers used the Taser multiple times in almost 43 per cent of cases. In about one out of six incidents, the RCMP applied the stun gun three times.

In 31 cases, the suspect was zapped seven or more times.

The electronic devices can be fired from a distance and cycled repeatedly once steel probes puncture a suspect's skin or clothing. The guns can also be used multiple times in up-close stun mode, a sensation likened to leaning on a hot stove.

The findings, the most extensive public analysis of RCMP Taser use to date, come as the national police faces growing pressure to resort to the 50,000-volt weapons only when defusing serious clashes with truly violent or armed suspects.

Paul Kennedy, commissioner for complaints against the RCMP, will release a report Thursday expected to pointedly reiterate his interim call late last year for a much tighter rein on Mountie Taser use. An imminent Commons committee report is likely to echo the recommendation.

Kennedy's probe is among a flurry of investigations following public outrage over the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski, who died after being stunned twice with an RCMP Taser and pinned to the floor of the Vancouver International Airport.

Dziekanski was one of more than 1,375 people the Mounties zapped repeatedly in confrontations from 2002 through 2007, the analysis shows.

In almost two-thirds of these cases, the suspect was unarmed.

About a dozen red sores covered Curtis Wasylenko's back and buttocks after he was stunned by the Mounties several times - he lost count - one night in Kelowna, B.C.

A heated spat with cab company employees in November 2004 led to a parking lot confrontation. Wasylenko, then 21, says he was only defending himself from attack. When police showed up they demanded he stop struggling and threatened to Taser him.

Don't even think about it, Wasylenko told the RCMP officer.

"And the second I finished that sentence he shot me with the Taser," he recalls.

"The feeling of it, was I literally couldn't fight the shock anymore and I felt my heart boom boom, you know, all I could feel was my heart all of a sudden and it just started to slow down. It felt like I had the wind knocked right out of me, I couldn't breathe.

Wasylenko says the officer continued to Taser him as he wailed in pain. A second officer zapped him as he lay on the ground.

"I thought they were going to kill me."

The Canadian Press and CBC/Radio-Canada compiled figures from standard forms RCMP officers must file each time they pull a Taser out of its holster. Thousands of heavily censored pages - stripped of names and other identifying details - were obtained under the Access to Information Act.

The percentage of cases in which RCMP officers fired their Tasers more than once rose to a high of more than 45 per cent last year, up from 31 per cent in 2002. The pattern of increase continued even after a mid-2005 policy bulletin to Mounties that said multiple zaps from the electronic gun "may be hazardous to a subject."

Officers were advised not to cycle the Taser repeatedly against a person unless "situational factors dictate otherwise" under the force's overall policy on use of force.

The six-level police force continuum begins with officer presence and builds in intensity to verbal commands; empty-hand control techniques; use of pepper spray, batons or Tasers; less-lethal force such as weapons that fire bean bags or rubber bullets; and finally deadly force.

The RCMP had no comment on the force's increasing reliance on multiple stuns.

"At this point, there is nobody available to speak to this," said Sgt. Nathalie Deschenes, an RCMP spokeswoman.

A request last week to interview RCMP Commissioner William Elliott was refused.

In March, the force said it was confident that officers were using Tasers appropriately. The Mounties plan to issue quarterly statistical reports on stun gun firings, but have yet to do so.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International, said the latest findings should "be of real concern to the RCMP" due to the dangers of repeated stuns.

"We have very serious concerns, because it is multiple use of a Taser which is clearly going to have the greatest possibility of leading to death or serious injury of a suspect," Neve said.

"It is therefore quite shocking to see these numbers that demonstrate that Tasers are being used multiple times on numerous occasions."

Dr. Stanley Nattel, a cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute, questioned whether the repeated stuns were necessary.

"The longer the shocks continue the greater the direct risk of capturing the heart and causing irregular and dangerous heart rhythms," he said. "In addition, if there's an accumulation of toxic materials in the blood from the severe muscle contraction, that also can interfere with the heart's rhythm and cause problems."

Twenty people in Canada have died after being Tasered.

Manufacturer Taser International stresses that the weapons have never been directly blamed for a death, though they have been cited as contributing factors.

Dozens of Canadian police forces use the stun guns, touting them as a safer alternative to the lethal force of a conventional firearm. Critics have called for a moratorium on the electronic weapons until sufficient independent research has been completed.

Simmering controversy prompted Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to ask Kennedy, an independent watchdog over the force, to study the RCMP's Taser use.

In an interim report last December, Kennedy cited a pattern of "usage creep" and said Tasers should be deemed impact weapons, used only when suspects are "combative" or pose a risk of "death or grievous bodily harm."

The RCMP has resisted such restrictions.

Though the RCMP forms paint an unprecedented picture of Taser use in Canada, the many deletions - to shield the privacy of those stunned and protect details of police investigations - make it difficult to clearly assess many of the incidents.

The Canadian Press and CBC complained to Information Commissioner Robert Marleau about the censored forms in late February. Marleau, struggling with a large backlog of files, has not begun looking into the complaint.

In April, the RCMP yielded to pressure from critics and disclosed more details about Taser incidents.

However, the police force continues to withhold descriptive summaries of events, precise dates of firings, injuries suffered by those zapped and whether the person hit was experiencing a mental health crisis.

By Jim Bronskill And Sue Bailey, Canadian Press

House Committee Considers the "I" Word
thenation.com | July 25, 2008

Hearing Videos

Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2008-07-26 18:06.

Kucinich enters hearing to cheers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2MWTh0QF40

Rep. Robert Wexler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1ojrKhp6E

Rep. Steve King:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eZxCloEbQk

Rep. Jerrold Nadler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL7259BAP9s

Rep. Dennis Kucinich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRAcenaTVkQ

Bruce Fein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80IphtHrFzg

Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU

Bruce Fein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXyDK2-p4fU

Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q53p34yzZac

Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abu9a0xtNI

Rep. Baldwin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFNmanXtZ9o

More Videos here >>

Vivian H. Wright
University of Alabama

Cheryl W. Sundberg
Louisiana Tech University

Sondra Yarbrough
Jacksonville State University

Elizabeth Wilson
B. Joyce Stallworth
University of Alabama

Abstract
The study of preservice teachers' development of metaphors as personal conceptions of teaching and learning is important not only to the preservice teachers but also to teacher educators. Such metaphors may provide us with snapshots, or glimpses, of our future teachers and can provide information on how we, as teacher educators, can ensure that methodological theories and pedagogical principles become a part of the preservice teachers' experiences. This study presents an important framework for the development of teaching metaphors and presents data on four preservice teachers' development through a general methods course and their subsequent teaching field methods course. Specific uses of text and graphics are examined in the data analysis. Conclusions indicate that text and selection of visuals revealed either a teacher-centered philosophy or a learner-centered philosophy of teaching..

Rationale for Metaphor Examination

The research base supports classrooms that are learner-centered where knowledge is constructed through language-mediated interaction with peers and mentors and through interaction with the environment (Vygotsky, 1979, as cited in Moll, 1990.) Thus, the articulation of the conception of teaching and learning and subsequent sharing of this conception with peers and mentors are critical components of preservice teacher education. One assignment commonly used in many teacher education programs as a method for eliciting reflection on the process of teaching and learning is the metaphor. If a common purpose of this metaphor is to give the teacher educator an idea of what the preservice teacher is thinking about teaching and learning, the teacher educator may find a need to change instruction in order to better connect theory and practice as the metaphor develops and changes. With teacher education programs also searching for ways to effectively integrate technology to enhance teaching and learning for the preservice teacher, this study sought to determine if use of technology to construct the metaphor would enhance the preservice teachers’ construction of meaning and reflectivity.

Theoretical Framework

Metaphors can serve as a coherent and succinct way of “representing and organizing thoughts about particular subject matter, activities, or theories” (Knowles, 1994, p. 60). The metaphors of prospective teachers can be used to provide “glimpses” of the developing conceptions of teaching that are held by these individuals. The metaphors of prospective teachers are determined, at least in part, by their experiences and thus reflect elements of their personal histories.

One researcher noted the process of expression actually assists in cognition:

Finding an adequate articulation for what I want to say about these matters brings them into focus. To find a description in this case is to identify a feature of the matter at hand and thereby to grasp its contour, to get a proper view of it. (Taylor, C., 1985 as cited in Wertsch, 2000 p. 27)

The act of writing text is often reflective; Lotman postulated text acts as a “thinking device” and “a generator of meaning” (1988 as cited in Wells, 2000 p. 77). If writing aids in cognition, analysis of the text should provide a glimpse into the preservice teacher’s conceptualization of teaching and learning. In a study conducted by Surbeck, Han, and Moyer (1991), the researchers coded the dialogue of students’ journals for reflectivity and determined levels of reflectivity that included categories of reaction, elaboration, and contemplation based on how the students connected information back to theory. In a related study, Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) conducted a study of online students in a French course and categorized reflectivity based on whether conversations centered on French (classified as reflective) or centered on social aspects (identified as non-reflective). Thus, analysis of a teaching metaphor via PowerPoint should provide students with a mode for reflecting on the art and science of teaching and learning.

Metaphor as Means of Reflection

The use of analogies and metaphors can encourage reflection. Children’s analogies and metaphors “…often push the children’s thinking to new levels of sophistication and reasoning.” (Gallas, 1995 p. 46) Thus, when preservice teachers develop metaphors of teaching and learning, they, like children, may examine their current views and hopefully, consider carefully the type of teachers they wish to be and become.

A case study by Knowles (1994) revealed that the experiences in the classroom as a teacher are not necessarily congruent with the metaphors that are developed based on the personal history of an individual and experiences as a student. For example, individuals may be drawn to teaching as a result of their experienced success in school and have memories of teachers whose classrooms were conducive to learning and whose actions conveyed a deep sense of care and concern for students. These personal histories may generate teaching metaphors that are not easily maintained in beginning teachers’ classrooms. However, initial metaphors are likely to influence practices as these individuals enter the classroom. For this reason, Knowles suggested that examining an individual’s critical experiences might be a worthwhile task in teacher preparation courses.

The use of metaphors can enable teachers to represent their personal understanding of the teaching process, themselves as teachers, young adults as learners, and schools as systems in a way that can be beneficial in exploring the complexity of teaching (Earle, 1995). However, it is this complexity that makes the use of a single metaphor limiting in examining teacher’s understanding. Furthermore, teaching metaphors may give only the perspective of the teacher and fail to acknowledge the learner’s viewpoint.

Metaphor as Means of Change

One researcher insisted there should be a shift in the conceptualization of the classroom as a business to the view of the classroom as a new country to be explored, to “go where no one has gone before” as quoted in a popular television show. Wheatley (1991) indicated the “workplace metaphor was commonly used by teachers to describe the activity in classrooms and wrote, “Teachers can be heard saying, ‘My students don’t work hard enough’” (p. 13). Wheatley postulated a shift in the classroom metaphor from a “workplace” to a “learning place” would more closely describe a constructivist paradigm on learning. The students would be “explorers” and “inventors” rather than “workers.” Wheatley described learning as a “co-construction” through social interaction in the classroom. Thus, a shift in the metaphor could encourage preservice teachers to embrace the constructivist paradigm more closely.

Bullough and Stokes (1994) examined the metaphors of 22 secondary preservice teachers enrolled in a yearlong certification program. The authors established the need for the study by providing a rationale for metaphor analysis by examining the literature on: (a) images of self, (b) self-narratives, and (c) personal metaphors. Over this period the preservice teachers were asked to develop and refine their teaching metaphors. The researchers concluded that, initially, the preservice teachers' metaphors were similar, particularly in regard to their view of the "teacher as expert". Within the group, there were some who viewed teaching as nurturing as well. The researchers found that there were three themes that emerged from the data during the course of the study: change, loss of innocence, and rhythm. Within the group there appears to be individual differences which the researchers categorized as (a) never got it, (b) got it, but didn't like it, (c) went along, but didn’t work at it, and (d) got it and used it. The researchers noted that levels of critical reflection were achieved by some of the student teachers and concluded that metaphors should continue to be explored for use in teacher education while noting that limitations exist.

Earle (1995) found that there were differences in the metaphors of novice teachers and experienced teachers. While there were apparent differences in novice teachers’ metaphors they seemed to have the common attribute of focusing on managing the classroom. Experienced teachers, on the other hand, presented metaphors that focused on their approaches to instruction.
Metaphors can be used to conceptualize beliefs about the multiple roles of teachers. It has been suggested by Tobin (1990) that prospective teachers’ beliefs can change significantly in the process of becoming a teacher and that metaphors can be used to examine these changes. The use of teaching metaphors along with a reflective process can help inservice and preservice teachers identify conflicts between their beliefs and their roles as teachers. Because teachers often view themselves as having multiple roles or that they change roles according to the teaching context, teachers in Tobin’s study commonly used several metaphors to describe their roles.

Metaphor as Means of Visualization

The visualization of the metaphor via the selection of pictures and graphics in the production of a PowerPoint presentation may produce a more mature conceptualization of teaching and learning. For example, Einstein visualized Maxwell’s writings about light waves. He viewed himself riding on the motions of the gas molecules (John-Steiner & Meehan, 2000). The process of selecting pictures and graphics could, in fact, allow the preservice teacher to actually visualize the process of teaching and learning, much like Einstein rode the waves of the gas molecules in the development of his theory of relativity. Perhaps the visual aspects of the PowerPoint are important components in the development of the metaphor. Like a painting, the metaphor via PowerPoint might grow and develop as the preservice teachers “paint” a picture of the metaphor with the technology. In fact, if the use of PowerPoint indeed triggers the creativity of the preservice teacher, the metaphor should grow in the same way a painting grows and develops. Shahn noted: “Thus an idea rises to the surface, grows and changes as the painting grows and develops.” (as cited in John-Steiner & Meehan, 2000)

Technology’s Role in Metaphor Development

Can technology contribute to the process of constructing a teaching metaphor? How does the use of a media such as PowerPoint aid or inhibit the reflective conceptualization of teaching and learning? In a study of the graphing skills of 125 seventh and eighth grade students, Mokros, and Tinker (1987) concluded that use of the technology may be a “bridge between concrete and formal operations” (p. 381). In addition, the technology provides a multi-modal approach to learning thus, addressing learning style differences in students. Other researchers also concluded the use of technology aids in cognition (Auberry & Nakhleh, 1999; Beichner, 1990; Brasell, 1987; Friedler, Nachmias, & Linn, 1990; Nakhleh & Krajcik, 1991).

In previously cited studies, research revealed technology can act as a cognitive bridge. Traditionally, the metaphor assignment used text only. However, studies by Cuban (1993) and Harper (1994) indicated analysis of photographs of classrooms provides a glimpse into the teacher’s conception of teaching and learning. Cuban (1993) and Harper (1994) analyzed photographs of classrooms for evidence of constructivist teaching principles. A classroom was described as using a constructivist approach if there was evidence of approaches such as students working in cooperative groups, a variety of materials being used, and projects displaying a variety of media.

In other studies, researchers have found that the use of the computer to mediate communication encourages reflection. Bos, Krajacik, and Patrick (1995) indicated telecommunications provided a radical means for teachers to collaboratively reflect on practice and noted that “ . . . for most teachers, reflecting on their practice is a crucial step for enacting meaningful innovations” (p. 190).

Metaphors Into Practice

Rodriguez (1993) outlined the hazards of not discussing personal metaphors before practice teaching. Rodriguez supported more connection between theory and practice, and perhaps metaphors are one method to help bridge the chasm between the two. The researcher also stated that teacher education programs need to do a better job in discovering the students’ beliefs earlier in the program in order to help them find a connection between theory and practice.

Tobin (1990) found that teaching practices often correlate to teaching metaphors but in some instances a desired metaphor, such as teacher as facilitator, is not implemented in the classroom due to a variety of reasons. In other cases, teaching practices that are viewed as possibly constraining the learning process of students can be related to the teacher’s metaphor. A possible use of metaphors suggested by Tobin is that teacher change can be initiated by introducing different, more appropriate, metaphors.

Bullough (1992) used teaching metaphors to examine the struggle that beginning teachers had reconciling their personal metaphors with an established curriculum. The belief that a pre-determined curriculum and personal teaching metaphors were, at least at times, contradictory was a central focus of the study. While Bullough did find that the teachers in the study struggled to negotiate the conflicting ideas between their personal metaphors and the adopted curriculum, other factors such as classroom management, were not identified as being additional sources of conflict between actual classroom teaching and theories taught in teacher education courses. The cooperating teachers were also seen as influential in reconciling the differences between metaphors and classroom teaching by allowing (or not allowing) the individual to explore the implementation of their own ideas in the curriculum.

Studies such as Bullough’s serve as a reminder that the process of becoming a teacher is unique for each individual (Bullough, 1992). The personal dimensions of becoming a teacher need to be given more attention but need to be viewed within the context of classroom teaching and implementing an established curriculum

Research Design

The research focused on how technology mediates the development of a teaching metaphor. The researchers used psycholinguistic analysis and coded data for emerging trends (Patton, 1990) and compared the themes in this study with those articulated previously in the literature. The data sources consisted of the preservice teachers’ PowerPoint presentations of their metaphors. Triangulation was achieved from collecting data at two points in time and examining the text and the pictures of the PowerPoint presentations. In examining the data, the researchers looked for evidence of constructivist principles, reflectivity in the text and pictures, connections to theory, and a learner-centered focus (Surbeck, Han, & Moyer, 1991; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Cuban 1993; Harper, 1994).

Data were collected from two required teacher education courses at one southeastern research institution during two consecutive semesters. The first course is a required pre teacher education course that gives an overview of the teaching profession and requires 24 hours of field placement. The second course, which many students take the subsequent semester (although not required to do so), is the content methods course and requires 90 hours of clinical experiences. With the infusion of technology in this institution’s teacher education program, the course instructors implemented additional media to both of these courses, one of which was the required teaching metaphor to be developed using PowerPoint. The researchers collected the metaphors during the fall, 2001 and spring, 2002 semesters. Those students who completed the prerequisite and the methods course during two consecutive semesters determined the convenience sample. Four students were determined to have PowerPoint metaphors from both semesters and these metaphors were examined. Few studies in metaphor analysis have examined the role of technology in metaphor change and development. Therefore, this study provides an additional method for investigating metaphors in preservice teacher education.

Results

Of the four preservice teachers, two were male and two were female. To protect anonymity, pseudonyms are used in data presentation. Additionally, in the data presentation, many of the metaphors are stated in the form of a simile, which was allowed in the assignments.

Savannah’s metaphor in the pre-education class and the methods course was “teaching is like flying a kite.” The metaphor was teacher directed and the PowerPoint changed minimally between the two semesters. Savannah articulated in her first metaphor “a kite must have good structure and balance, as a teacher must also have in the classroom.” She re-worded this sentence in the second metaphor presentation to read, “the kite flyer must have knowledge of how to construct (sic) kite.” The pictures Savannah selected to visually represent her conception of teaching and learning consisted of single clip art images such as a singular kite flying or a singular teacher teaching (Appendix A).

Butch approached his metaphor development in the pre-education class as a baseball game and also articulated a very teacher centered approach. In the second metaphor Butch developed for the methods class, he re-defined his metaphor from a coaching perspective, but maintained the political aspects of playing the game. For example, in Butch’s first metaphor, he stated, “Teachers are just like baseball coaches in that they must motivate their students to learn each and every day.” In his second metaphor, Butch stated, “Teachers should always be in control in the classroom. Never let the students know that you feel uncomfortable. Further, he wrote: “A coach should be in control on the field. The players should never be allowed to tell the coach what type of scheme to use.” Throughout the first PowerPoint, Butch had references that teaching, much like playing baseball, should be fun. For example: “Teaching is like the game of baseball because it is a challenge, yet it is fun.” In his second metaphor, Butch appeared more serious: “As a coach, the fate of your team depends upon your preparation.” Butch did not use any pictures to illustrate his first metaphor, which might indicate that he could not visualize himself as a teacher. In the second metaphor, he selected one picture for his opening slide (Appendix A). The picture was a baseball player catching the ball which might indicate that Butch sees himself as omniscient and again very teacher centered.

William did not express a clear metaphor for the pre-education requirement, but he instead articulated his philosophy of teaching and grounded his approach with theory and briefly mentioned that teachers should be like “road maps.” In this first attempt, William stated, “Education is a process in which students gain knowledge of a subject, develop social skills, and learn problem-solving techniques.” For his second PowerPoint in the methods course, William articulated his metaphor as “Teachers are like road maps” and took a learner-centered approach. For example: “A teacher should offer a path to choose without choosing the path for the student.” He also made references that the teacher should not be the only source for information and should offer feedback throughout the learning process. William discussed that our job is to make the students life-long learners to teach them how to learn, “Teachers need to show the student how to function without a map available.” William did not have any images in his first metaphor but in his second, used a variety from clip art to web images. In each image, a sole person was showing how to learn (teacher illustrating the map) with the exception of the map image (Appendix A). While most images appeared teacher centered, the teacher is showing how to read the map, and the text indicated support that the teacher is showing the students how to learn, or in William’s words, “Teachers must also teach students how to use the MAPS effectively.”

April’s metaphors illustrated the most change between the first and second metaphor. In her first metaphor, April stated, “Teaching is like making stir fry” and was very teacher centered in her approach. She articulated that she was the one to decide the recipe, what ingredients to use, and how long to cook it and stated, “next, you need to chop up the ingredients just like you need to chop up the information you are going to teach your students.” Further, she wrote, “All the food you have prepared should be served together.” And, “All of the information you have given your students should be put together for a test.” It appeared that April, in her first metaphor, also believed that testing drives the curriculum. “Eat and enjoy your finished product just like you will grade and enjoy seeing all of the information your students have learned.” Images used in April’s first PowerPoint did not articulate her metaphor in many cases and focused on singular items. In April’s second metaphor, she re-focused and designed a new metaphor, “Teaching is like growing flowers.” She stated, “Students, just like flowers, are delicate subjects. They require preparation, care, nurturing, determination, and dedication to grow in strength and knowledge.” Themes relating to learning as a process, multiculturalism, and using multiple strategies were evident. In analyzing the pictures in the second metaphor, April used a picture of herself to introduce the PowerPoint, which might indicate she views herself as a teacher. Her pictures of flowers varied from singular flowers to gardens, possibly indicating more of a student view of teaching and learning. The text supported this, such as “All flowers, like students, come in different sizes, colors, and types. This requires that teachers have multiple strategies to help all students learn.”

Discussion and Recommendations

The research base supports the use of analysis of text and photographs to reveal a glimpse into the teacher’s conceptualization of teaching and learning. However, caution must be used in drawing conclusions about the extent to which the metaphor actually represents the views of the preservice teacher on teaching and learning. The selection of clip art, for example, may have been based simply on available resources and not on how the preservice teacher views teaching and learning. In a similar manner, the text may be the result of an Internet search for teaching metaphors. Thus, the preservice teachers used little or no reflection in completing the assignment. On the other hand, this research and previous research indicates the metaphor is useful in providing some information about how the preservice teacher visualizes teaching and learning.

The questions for future research are:

1. What insights does the analysis of the metaphor offer the teacher educator into how the preservice teacher conceives teaching and learning?
2. What types of remediation activities should be considered for preservice teachers that “just don’t get it.”(Bullough & Stokes, 1994)
3. Previous research in teaching metaphors used analysis of text only. How does the selection of clip art and photographs reveal the thinking about teaching and learning?
4. In what manner does the technology act as a cognitive bridge in the development of a metaphor?

In conclusion, we found the use of PowerPoint for the production of a metaphor offered a unique view into how preservice teachers conceive teaching and learning. Both the text and selection of visuals revealed either a teacher-centered philosophy or a learner-centered philosophy of teaching. What is not clear is how closely aligned the metaphor is to the preservice teacher’s conceptualization of teaching and learning. As noted by Knowles (1994), the metaphors of preservice teachers can provide a glimpse to the developing conceptions of teaching. These glimpses should not be ignored, but examined closely, in order to help teacher education programs discover students’ beliefs earlier in a program find connections between theory and practice.

Vivian H. Wright, is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology in the College of Education at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. She works with teacher educators on innovative ways to infuse technology in the curriculum to enhance teaching and learning and has helped initiate and develop projects such as Electronic Portfolios for the Preservice Teacher, Master Technology Teacher, and Technology on Wheels. Her research interests include asynchronous education, specifically Internet and E-Learning, and K-12 technology integration.
Cheryl W. Sundberg, Assistant Professor, Louisiana Tech University

Sondra Yarbrough, Assistant Professor, Jacksonville State University

Elizabeth Wilson, Associate Professor, University of Alabama

B. Joyce Stallworth, Associate Professor, The University of Alabama

References

Auberry, D., & Nakhleh, M. (1999, March). Microcomputer-based labs: A study from the students' perspective. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Beichner, R. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 803-815.

Bos, N., Krajcik, J., & Patrick, H. (1995). Telecommunications for teachers: Supporting reflection and collaboration. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,14(1/2), 187-202.

Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 385-395.

Bullough, R.V. (1991)Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 43-51.

Bullough, R.V., & Stokes, D.K. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 197-224.

Bullough, R. V. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision-making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3),239-252.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1880-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College press.

Earle, R. S. (1995). Teacher imagery and metaphors: Windows to teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 35(4), 52-59.

Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 173-191.

Gallas, K. (1995). Talking Their Way Into Science: Hearing Children's Questions and Theories, Responding with Curricula. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Harper, D. (1994). On the authority of the image: Visual methods at the crossroads. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 403-412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

John-Steiner, V., & Meehan, T. (2000). Creativity and collaboration in knowledge construction. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Knowles, J. G. (1994). Metaphors as windows on a personal history: A beginning teacher’s experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 37-66.

Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999, January). “Reflective conversations” in the virtual classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 43-61. Retrieved July 23, 2002, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2/

Mokros, J., & Tinker, R. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383.

Moll, L. (1990). (Ed.). Vgotsky and Education: Instructional Implications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nakhleh, M., & Krajcik, J. (1991). The effect of level of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 347 062).

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Rodriquez, A. (1993). A dose of reality: Understanding the origin of the theory/practice dichotomy in teacher education from the students’ point of view. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), p213-22.

Surbeck, E., Han, E., & Moyer, J. (1991). Assessing reflective responses in journals. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 25-27.

Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: A master switch for teaching? Theory into Practice, 29(2), 122-127.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (2000). Vygotsky's two minds on the nature of meaning. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wheatley, G. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9-21.

Copyright for articles published in this site is retained by the authors. By virtue of their appearance in this site, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Please report any problems you may have with the site to the webmaster via email. Don't forget to include "The Digital Enquirer Problem" in the subject so we can response to it as soon as possible.

Aloka Nanjappa
Michael M. Grant
University of Memphis

Abstract
A complementary relationship exists between technology and constructivism, the implementation of each one benefiting the other. Constructivism is a doctrine stating that learning takes place in contexts, while technology refers to the designs and environments that engage learners. Recent attempts to integrate technology in the classroom have been within the context of a constructivist framework (e.g., Richards, 1998). The purpose of this paper is to examine the interrelationship between constructivism and technology as revealed by empirical research. The cases include a variety of studies in a variety of settings – teacher education, online learning, and K-12 education; constructivist strategies include collaborative and cooperative learning methods, engaging in critical and reflective thinking, evaluation through electronic portfolios, and a critical look at emerging teacher roles within constructivist paradigms. Success has been reported in the development of constructivist course modules using technology as cognitive tools, benefiting both students and faculty. However, many teachers do not use constructivist practices, and those who do are not judicious in their selection of technology use (Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999). Technology needs to be viewed in a three-dimensional perspective: semiotic, epistemic, and pragmatic, enabling the “construction of knowledge” by learners through a process of acculturation.

Introduction

“Once knowing is no longer understood as the search for an iconic representation of ontological reality, but, instead, as a search for fitting ways of behaving and thinking, the traditional problem disappears. Knowledge can now be seen as something that the organism builds up in the attempt to order the as such amorphous flow of experience…”
von Glasersfeld (1984, p. 39)

The use of computer technology to support learning has been difficult to document and quantify (Clark, 1994; Russell, 1999), leaving the role of computers in the classroom precarious. In the past decade, a sudden resurgence of interest was markedly observed in the classroom use of technological innovations, along with the increased use of the Internet and other digital technologies (Reiser, 2002). The field of Instructional Design and Technology, too, saw the evolution and emergence of alternative approaches, such as cognitive and constructivist theories, that deviated sharply from traditional practices, such as behavioral models. New emphases, like electronic performance support systems, web-based instruction, and knowledge management systems, not only shook the knowledge base of the field, but also widened its horizon across business and industry, the military, health care and education, worldwide (Reiser, 2002). Initiatives, such as situated learning theory and constructivism presented fresh approaches to bring about reforms in the domains of public education and higher education (Anderson, Reder & Simon, 1996; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Jonassen, 1999; Reiser, 2002).

To understand the potential of technology implementation in enhancing the teaching-learning process, the impact of constructivism on classroom practices has been studied by many researchers (e.g., Black & McClintock, 1995; Richards, 1998; Brush & Saye, 2000). Other researchers have suggested that constructivist strategies exploit technologies for greatest impact in learning (e.g., Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). A complementary relationship appears to exist between computer technologies and constructivism, the implementation of each one benefiting the other.

Constructivism, derived mainly from the works of Piaget (1970), Bruner (1962, 1979), Vygotsky (1962, 1978), and Papert (1980, 1983), is both a philosophical and psychological approach based on social cognitivism that assumes that persons, behaviors and environments interact in reciprocal fashion (Schunk, 2000). Constructivism is a doctrine stating that learning takes place in contexts, and that learners form or construct much of what they learn and understand as a function of their experiences in situation (Schunk, 2000). More recently, researchers (e.g., Lave, 1990; Saxe, Guberman & Gearheart, 1987) have presented more qualitative documentation of learning in context.

Technology, according to Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) refers to “the designs and environments that engage learners” (p. 12). The focus of both constructivism and technology are then on the creation of learning environments. Likewise, Hannfin and Hill (2002) depict these learning environments as contexts:

in which knowledge-building tools (affordances) and the means to create and manipulate artifacts of understanding are provided, not one in which concepts are explicitly taught… a place where learners work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and learning resources in their pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities (p.77).

The purpose of this paper is to review the research on the integration of technology in the classroom, highlighting the connection between constructivism and technology. The focus is on the constructivist view of learning as an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and instruction as a process that supports construction rather than communicating knowledge. The review is followed by a series of case studies, emphasizing constructivism and technology’s relationship. Finally, implications for teachers and teacher educators are presented.

Review of Related Literature

In order to understand learning within a constructivist framework, as an activity in context, the whole learning environment must be examined. However, the wide diversity of constructivist views makes the task very complex and beyond the scope of this paper. These views commonly emphasize the role of the teacher, the student, and the cultural embeddedness of learning (see e.g., Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Honebein, Duffy, & Fishman, 1993; Simons, 1993). Using these commonalities as guidelines, this review outlines the relationship of constructivism with technology by looking at (a) technology as cognitive tools, (b) constructive view of the thinking process, and (c) the role of the teacher in technology enhanced environments.

Technology as Cognitive Tools

A central assumption of constructivism is that learning is mediated by tools and signs (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Ezell & O'Keeffe, 1994). “Culture creates the tool, but the tool changes the culture. Participants in the culture appropriate these tools from their culture to meet their goals, and thereby transform their participation in the culture” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 180). The computer is an exemplar of mediational means that has aspects of both tool and sign. The computer’s role in education has been largely viewed as an instructional tool and for providing a richer and more exciting learning environment (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Taylor, 1980). However, by focusing on the learner, the role of technology can support new understandings and capabilities, thus, offering a cognitive tool to support cognitive and metacognitive processes. For example, an electronic exchange program between students of a class in the U.S. with a similar classroom in Northern Ireland shared multiple cultural perspectives through pictures, stories, letters and multimedia programs (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). The experience was enriching, increasing their understanding.

Further, clarifying the role of technology in learning, Duffy and Cunningham (1996) state:

Technology is seen as an integral part of the cognitive activity….This view of distributed cognition significantly impacts how we think of the role of technology in education and training, the focus is not on the individual in isolation and what he or she knows, but on the activity in the environment. It is the activity – focused and contextualized- that is central... The process of construction is directed towards creating a world that makes sense to us, that is adequate for our everyday functioning (pp. 187-188).

Thus, the task of the learner is seen as dynamic, and the computer makes available new learning opportunities.

The view of technology as cognitive tools is also shared by other researchers (e.g., Jonassen, 1994; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Lajoie, 2000). The traditional view of instructional technologies of instruction as conveyors of information and communicators of knowledge is supplanted with active role the learner plays in learning with technology. Technologies, primarily computers, help build knowledge bases, which will “engage the learners more and result in more meaningful and transferable knowledge… Learners function as designers using the technology as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others” (Jonassen, 1994, p. 2). Technological tools such as spreadsheets, databases, expert systems, video conferencing and others can be used by students to analyze subject matter, develop representative mental models, and then transcribe them into knowledge bases (Jonassen, 1994; Jonassen & Carr, 2000; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996).

An illustration is the development of simulated microworlds and games by children using Logo programming. Logo programming has evolved since the early text-based medium conceived by Seymour Papert and his team at MIT in the 1970’s, to a considerably easy, digitized format. Kafai, Ching, and Marshall (1997) gave an introductory training program to fifth and sixth grade students one week before the design projects. The Logo version included support for modern computer features like multimedia, sprite animation, sounds, movies, and paint tools. According to Kafai and her colleagues (1997), the multimedia software proved to be a good context for students to learn through collaboration and project management. The interaction between team members, the flow of ideas and loud thinking encouraged the children to experiment and find alternative ways for designing and solving problems. For example, the students worked on different characters individually, but then worked together to integrate all the characters, and in debugging (Kafai et al., 1997).

Cognitive tools do not preclude the use of computers to increase productivity for learning. Off-loading repetitive tasks and lower order tasks to cognitive tools frees cognitive resources for deeper thinking (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen, 1999) and reduces errors. According to Swain and Pearson (2001), teachers and students must be educated to use the computer as a productivity tool, as well as a tool for learning, research, networking, collaboration, telecommunications, and problem-solving. Using computers as a productivity tool is one of the six National Educational Technological Standards (NETS) (http://cnets.iste.org/) for teachers which states that teachers will “use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practices” (Morrison, Lowther, & DeMeulle, 1999).

Constructive view of “Thinking”

The process of thinking in constructivist paradigms requires higher-order skills, delving deeper and harder into content and context (Black & McClintock, 1995; Jonassen, n.d.; Manzo, 1998; Swain & Pearson, 2001). Traditional schooling, according to Manzo (1998), actually discourages constructive thinking with goals of transmitting existing knowledge that conflicts with any real attempt to generate new understanding. “Constructivist thinking combines both the critical and creative intellectual processes. It can be practiced by encouraging critical analysis in activities. Schools, teachers and students can be conditioned to veer away from traditional schooling regimen to encourage constructive thinking” (Manzo, 1998, p. 287). Cognitive tools, along with constructivist learning environments, guide and activate cognitive learning strategies and critical thinking (Jonassen, 1994). Cognitive tools help in knowledge construction and not knowledge reproduction. The knowledge constructed by the learners reflects their comprehension and conception of the information. To illustrate, when students build knowledge bases with databases, they need to analyze the content domain and engage in critical thinking.

Black and McClintok (1999) stress the importance of interpretation as being central to cognition and learning. Their design of Study Supported Environments (SSEs) based on constructivist design principles called Interpretation Construction Design (ICON) focused mainly on the interpretive construction of authentic artifacts in the context of rich background materials, and spanning across different fields of study. Their study showed that in addition to learning specific content, students were able to acquire generalizable interpretation and argumentation skills.

For example, in teaching sixth grade ancient history, a program called Archaeotype © was used that presented students with a graphic simulation of an archaeological site. Students who worked collaboratively in groups, had to dig up artifacts through simulation, observe and measure them in simulated laboratories, and finally through a process of interpretation and argumentation, arrived at the understanding of general principles behind what they were doing. In a follow-up evaluation study, it was found that there were significant gains in the interpretative and argumentation skills of students who had participated in the study against a control group (Black & McClintock, 1999).

Reflective thinking, that requires careful deliberation, is also encouraged by constructivists (e.g., Kafai et al., 1997; Swain & Pearson, 2001; Walker, 2000). Metacognition, or the self-monitoring and self-control of the learning process, is emphasized. New knowledge which is composed is added to previous representations, modifying them in the process. This usually requires external scaffolding in the form of people, books, or technologies such as computers. Swain and Pearson (2001) advocate the practice of reflective thinking by teachers to evaluate their technology use. They stress the importance of documentation of reflective thoughts to determine the extent and quality of personal versus instructional uses of technology, organization and implementation of environments and activities. Jonassen (1994) describes technological tools as “intellectual partners” and “powerful catalysts” in the process of learning, “scaffolding the all-important processes of articulation and reflection, which are the foundations of knowledge construction” (p. 5).

The Role of the Teacher in Technology Enhanced Environments

The role of the teacher as a facilitator is seen as most important in a constructivist context (Witfelt, 2000; Richards, 1998). Within a constructivist classroom, the teacher engenders social and intellectual climates, where collaborative and cooperative learning methods are supported. In parallel, technology-enhanced classrooms tap constructivist strategies (Jonassen, 1999), arranging problem-based projects where students actively construct knowledge, linking knew knowledge with previous knowledge.

In non-traditional classrooms such as the open/global classroom (Walker, 2000; Witfelt, 2000), the role and responsibilities of the teacher have changed. The teacher, as an agent, has to constantly update information and technology for making learning authentic and relevant. For example, while developing a course module for teachers and taxonomy for teacher competencies in the use of educational multimedia, Witfelt (2000) observed that it was important to combine several theories such as constructivism, postmodernism, situated intelligence and multiple intelligences. However, the theoretical framework would be constructivist in nature with the teacher assuming the role of the facilitator, providing an environment for spontaneous research, understanding the social and collaborative nature of learning, helping children construct knowledge and initiate problem-based, project-oriented work. With this transition in roles and responsibilities, Witfelt (2000) listed new teacher competencies in constructivist contexts that include supervisor qualifications, supporter and facilitator of students’ work, advisor and subject-matter expert, inspirer and encourager, arbiter at group discussions, critic in mobilizing greater effort when objectives are not being met, and evaluator to improve general learning capacities of students.

Case Studies

After examining the literature on technology integration and constructivist principles, a complementary relationship between technology and learning within a constructivist framework seems sound and advantageous to teachers and learners. To illustrate these principles discretely, exemplary cases are presented that reflect the philosophy established above.

Teacher-trainees at Winthrop University in South Carolina undertook a meaningful technology-based activity to accomplish literacy goals (Richards, 1998). They developed an electronic portfolio around a literacy-related topic, including data, reflections and critical responses, which they shared with their peers and other educators. The infusion of technology was helped by implementing constructivist-based activities, such as collaboration and cooperation in a group, engaging in problem solving and constructing potential solutions to societal dilemmas, and communicating the deeper processing of content and the critical development of literacy skills and strategies (Richards, 1998). Student perceptions were determined through formative and summative assessment methods. Students responded positively toward accomplishment of cooperative and collaborative learning, the technology component functions and the relevance of the activities to future careers in schools. However, they recommended that more time be provided for processing ideas and synthesizing them in the portfolio.

Research conducted at the Open University, U.K. also demonstrated a positive relationship between constructivism and technology integration (Walker, 2000). A distance-learning course was developed keeping in mind the experiential and constructivist perspectives of learning. The purpose was to help students in a distance-learning course learn in better and more effective ways, to be active learners, constructing their own understanding. Assignments and assessments were also oriented towards constructivist goals. Their efforts culminated in a new paradigm of course development. A survey of all the students who completed the course and took the examination revealed that the majority felt that they had improved their learning skills to a considerable extent.

A follow-up survey was undertaken the following year. These findings revealed a high proportion of positive responses to questions regarding the continued use of reflection to improve assignments, based on instructors’ feedback and evaluation criteria. However, students were less positive about their use of reflection in general. These students like those described above (Richards, 1998) struggled with maintaining and using reflection effectively.
Students were not the only beneficiaries of the mixture of constructivist strategies with technology tools. According to Richards (1998) and Walker (2000), the development of course modules based on constructivist practices and the integration of technology were also beneficial to the faculty, as they had to plan and retool to integrate technology so that students could be helped to become more capable and mature learners.

Implications for Practice

These cases have significant implications for teacher educators and teachers. In the area of teacher education, Kim and Sharp (2000) observed that the planning of teachers consistent with constructivist practices was highly variable with most preservice teachers knowing very little about the effective integration of technology in education. Since teachers tend to teach as they were taught, it is essential that both preservice and inservice teachers must be exposed to constructivist-based instruction, which would then facilitate the development of teaching strategies consistent with recent reform movements (Kim & Sharp, 2000). An exposure to constructivist teaching methods and simultaneous multimedia learning experiences influenced the planning of constructivist behaviors and infusion of technology (Kim & Sharp, 2000).

Technology may also influence teacher practice to incorporate constructivist principles. Rakes, Flowers, Casey and Santana (1999) report that as the amount of technology available, the level of technology skills of the teachers, and the use of technology increased, the use of constructivist strategies in the classroom also appeared to increase. “Technology can provide the vehicle for accomplishing constructivist teaching practices” (Rakes et al., 1999, p. 3). So, increasing the skill levels of teachers with regard to computers and providing additional opportunities for teachers to integrate technology into lessons may encourage the use of constructivist behaviors.

Availability, skill level and use may not, however, guarantee purposeful use of technology nor constructivist principles. Rakes et al. (1999) reported many teachers concentrated on the drill and practice type of software, neglecting basic computer skills development, or dealt only with presentation skills and Internet resources. These researchers recommended focusing on staff development and training in technology use and constructivist practices that moved beyond literacy skills to address more thoroughly application and curriculum integration issues.

When addressing the role of the teacher in constructivist paradigms, there should be no misunderstanding regarding the importance of the teacher. Yet, many teachers feel uncomfortable with the lack of a well-defined content and the shift of locus of control to the learners (Brush & Saye, 2000; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Creating suitable contexts is not merely providing learners with resources and letting them discover things for themselves, but organizing resources in such a way to engender cognitive dissonances in the minds of the learners, inspiring them to learn how to learn through a process of collaboration and defensible understandings (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

As a facilitator of learning, the teacher is not ineffectual and on the sidelines. On the contrary, the teacher is free to use a variety of constructivist strategies, such as coaching, modeling, and scaffolding, to aid each learner (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1990). Scaffolding may include support from other individuals and artifacts, as well as the cultural context and history that the learners bring to the environment. Scaffolding, however, does not mean guiding and teaching a learner toward some well-defined goal but supporting the growth of the learner through cognitive and metacognitive activities (Hannafin, Hill & Land, 1997). Thus, the teacher assumes the role of a coach and ensures mutual understanding of the views of the learner. In using collaborative and cooperative groups, the teacher must be careful in ensuring that they are not just strategies for learning, but means to promote dialogical interchange and reflexivity (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

As Morrison, Lowther, and DeMeulle (1999) aptly suggest, “Technology and a constructivist approach need not be at odds with each other. If we change our view of computers from merely a means to deliver instruction to one of a tool to solve problems, then the reform movement can influence the use of technology, and technology can influence the reform of education” (p. 5).

Conclusion

Constructivist views assert that learning is the active process of constructing rather than passively acquiring knowledge, and instruction is the process of supporting the knowledge constructed by the learners rather than the mere communication of knowledge (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Honebein, Duffy & Fishman, 1993; Jonassen, 1999;). Truth is determined by the viability of the learners’ understanding in the real world, where viability is culturally determined. The constructivist framework seeks to understand multiple perspectives, and challenges the learners’ thinking (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen, Mayes & McAleese, 1993). It examines the social origins of constructions, whereby it acknowledges learning as a process of acculturation. Thus, the study of social and cultural processes and artifacts becomes a central issue. Context is a dynamic whole including the individual and sociohistorical aspects (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Ezell & O’Keefe, 1994). Thinking is always dialogic, connecting minds, either directly or indirectly. The indirect or semiotic means are the signs and tools appropriated from the sociocultural context (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

Within this shift in focus from the objectivist to the constructivist context domain, technology can play an integral part in the learning environment (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). “The richness of the technology permits us to provide a richer and more exciting (entertaining) learning environment… our concern is the new understandings and new capabilities that are possible through the use of technology” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 187). By integrating technology with constructivist methods, such as problem-based learning and project-based learning, learners are more responsible for and active in the learning process (Grant, 2002). Additionally, everyday applications, such as word processors and spreadsheets, become powerful instruments for authentic learning. Constructivism offers flexibility to teachers to individualize learning for each student while using technology tools to augment cognitive and metacognitive processes.

Aloka Nanjappa is currently a doctoral candidate, Instructional Design and Technology, Department of Instructional Curriculum and Leadership, University of Memphis, Tennessee. She was Assistant Professor in a college of education, affiliated to the University of Bombay, India, teaching Experimental Psychology, Educational Technology, and Methodology of teaching Mathematics. She has also taught in the K-10 and undergraduate level (Zoology) in India. Aloka was recently awarded the Outstanding ID&T Graduate Student Award by the University of Memphis, Tennessee. Her research interests lie in teacher education with a focus on technology integration in the classroom.

Michael M. Grant is an Assistant Professor at the University of Memphis in the Instructional Design and Technology program within the teacher education department. His most recent research has focused on accommodating individual differences and constructionism. He has worked with both preservice and inservice teachers on integrating technology.

References

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), pp. 5-11.

Black, J. B., & McClintock, R. O. (1995). An interpretation construction approach to constructivist design. Retrieved 10/31/02, 2002, from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/papers/ICON_print.html

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 32-42.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing; essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1979). On knowing : essays for the left hand (Expanded ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(3), 79-100.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser(pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 170-199). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Ezell, M. J., & O'Keeffe, K. O. (1994). Cultural artifacts and the production of meaning: The page, the image, and the body. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommedations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(Winter).

Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2002). Epistomology and the design of learning environments. In R. A. Reiser, & Dempsey, J. V. (Ed.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., & Land, S. M. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-97.

Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87-108). Berlin ; New York: Springer-Verlag.

Jonassen, D. H. (n.d.). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. Retrieved 10/31/02, 2002, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D. H., Mayes, J. T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology in higher education. In T. Duffy, D. Jonassen & J. Lowyck (Eds.), Designing constructivist learning environments. Heidelberg, FRG: Springer-Verlag.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Kafai, Y. B., Ching, C. C., & Marshall, S. (1997). Children as designers of educational multimedia software. Computers and Education, 29(2-3), 117-126.

Kim, M. K., & Sharp, J. (2000). Investigating and Measuring Preservice Elementary Mathematics Teachers' Decision about Lesson Planning after Experiencing Technologically-Enhanced Methods Instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(4), 317-338.

Lajoie, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools, volume two : No more walls :Theory change, paradigm shifts, and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lave, J. (1990). The culture of acquisition and the practice of learning. In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 259-286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Manzo, A. V. (1998). Teaching for creative outcomes: Why we don't, how we all can. The Clearing House, 71(5), 287-290.

Morrison, G. L., Lowther, D. L., & DeMeulle, L. (1999). Integrating computer technology into the classroom (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Papert, S. (1980). Computer-based microworlds as incuboators for powerful ideas. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 203-210). New York, NY: Teachers College.

Papert, S. (1983). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed) Carmichael's manal of child psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 703-732). New York: Wiley

Rakes, G. C., Flowers, B. F., Casey, H. B., & Santana, R. (1999). An analysis of instructional technology use and constructivist behaviors in K-12 teachers. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1-18.

Reiser, R. A. (2002). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser & Dempsey, J. V. (Ed.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Richards, R. T. (1998). Infusing technology and literacy into the undergraduate teacher education curriculum through the use of electronic portfolios. T.H.E. Journal, 25(9), 46-50.

Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant differences phenomenon. Retrieved November 27, 2001, from http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/
Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearheart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52(Serial No. 216).

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: an educational perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Simons, P. R.-J. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 291-313). Berlin ; New York: Springer-Verlag.

Swain, C., & Pearson, T. (2001). Bridging the digital divide: A building block for teachers. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(8).

Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzalawick (Ed.), The Invented Reality, (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, M. (2000). Learning how to learn in a technology course: A case study. Open Learning, 15(2), 173-189.

Witfelt, C. (2000). Educational multimedia and teachers' needs for new competencies to use educational multimedia. Education Media International, 37(4), 235-241.

Copyright for articles published in this site is retained by the authors. By virtue of their appearance in this site, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Please report any problems you may have with the site to the webmaster via email. Don't forget to include "The Digital Enquirer Problem" in the subject so we can response to it as soon as possible.

Ellen Lunts
University of Rochester

Abstract
Each year, a substantial portion of educational institutions' budgets are allocated to supporting the integration of computers into instruction under the assumption that computers benefit teaching and learning, and can improve student academic performance. Educational research and practice, however, demonstrate that different ways of integrating computer technology and the context in which computers are used have varied effects on student learning. This article explores computer-assisted instruction (CAI), a learning environment that supports a one-on-one interaction between a learner (or several learners) and a computer program. It also demonstrates how the two polar characteristics of CAI, which indicate whether the learner or the program has primary control over the content and direction of instruction--learner control (LC) and program control (PC)--affect instructional delivery and outcomes. While trying to explain the inconsistency of research findings, the article argues that LC theory needs a stronger theoretical framework in order for LC studies to yield more definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of LC and CAI in general.

The Nature of Learner Control

Concerned about the quality of American education, researchers and educators have evaluated existing educational practices and are interested in exploring new instructional methods. Technological advances and the relatively low cost of computers and software make computers a reality for many American classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). This technology "invasion" raises the issue of how to effectively apply the technological advances in teaching and instruction. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI), the focus of this article, is one of the most common forms of integrating computers into the instructional process. CAI is a learning environment that supports a one-on-one interaction between a learner (or several learners) and a computer program (Hoska, 1993). CAI is frequently used to remediate or advance student knowledge and skills (e.g., "self-learning" and encyclopedic programs; "drill-and-practice" and simulation software) or to entertain them (e.g., computer games) (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993).

Different types of educational software used in CAI vary, however, in the amount of learner control (LC), the characteristic of a computer program that allows learners to make instructional choices (Filipczak, 1996; Schnackenberg & Hilliard, 1998]. For instance, "drill-and-practice" software usually does not facilitate learners' initiative and creativity because learners have to do the same types of assignments repeatedly until a targeted skill is mastered. In contrast, some types of simulation software and other types of interactive programs provide a "rich" LC environment. Freedom to modify screen design and test density, to choose or omit specific topics (including control over the amount of instruction), to sequence material, to apply learner advisement strategy (taking a test immediately and omitting a topic review or reviewing first and then taking the test) are all instructional choices or LC options (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Large, 1996; Niemiec, Sikorski & Walberg, 1996). Thus, non-linearity and flexibility are distinctive characteristics of LC (Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998; Lawless & Brown, 1997).

While much research has been done to investigate the impact of LC on learning, very little is known about its nature (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Milheim & Martin, 1991). According to Zazelenchuk (1997), LC is one of the six ingredients or components of interactive multimedia [1], programmed web-based features that adequately respond to students' inquiries. Two other researchers, Lawless and Brown (1997), emphasize that LC is only one of the types of control in CAI. In particular, they distinguish two types of control--external (program control or PC) and internal (learner control or LC)--and refer to the former as the specific limits set by a multimedia computer program with which all users have to deal.

It is commonly accepted in the field that there are no completely intelligent computer programs (El-Tigi & Branch, 1997; Gilbert & Moore, 1998; James, 1998; Kirsh, 1997) or, in other words, none of the existing computer programs gives full LC to its users. All computer programs that are currently available on the market integrate elements of both LC and PC. Thus, computer programs differ only in the types and amount of LC they utilize (Hannafin, 1989; Reeves, 1993).

In this regard, it appears important to examine whether LC is beneficial for students, especially for their academic performance and motivation, and in what amount. To answer these questions, the researcher consulted an extensive number of resources devoted to LC. Because technological advances opened new horizons in LC and because "LC hardly seems a fixed or static idea" (Niemiec, Sikorski & Walberg, 1996, p. 157), this article relies on the most recent LC literature to examine the major attributes of the LC concept and LC research findings.

Analysis of Research Findings: Do Students Benefit from LC?

Formal research of LC started at the end of the 1950's and has generated a large body of work. Developmental and cognitive psychologists, instructional technologists, and educators have studied LC in a variety of learning environments such as presentation, collaborative and navigation settings (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992), and with different populations: secondary school students (Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998; Rubincam & Olivier, 1985), college students (Becker & Dwyer, 1994; Crooks, Klein, Jones & Dwyer, 1996; Murphy & Davidson, 1991; Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000) and adults (Shute, Gawlick & Gluck, 1998]. However, only some of these studies (e.g., Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Crooks et al., 1996; Friend & Cole, 1990; Milheim & Martin, 1991; Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000) controlled for specific LC components/variables (content, sequence, pacing, internal processing, advisory). In addition, a few other studies, including one by Cho (1995), merely focused on comparing LC instructional approaches with traditional teaching approaches.

Generally, research indicates that LC may be an excellent tool for adapting a learning environment to students' needs (e.g., Friend & Cole, 1990), that LC can empower learners (Schweier, 1993), and that students whose learning style preferences were matched by a computer or a teacher achieved higher test scores, had better understanding, retained their knowledge and skills longer and were highly motivated to succeed (Friend & Cole, 1990; Schnackenberg & Hilliard, 1998; Spoon & Shell, 1998]. These optimistic findings should, however, be interpreted with caution. LC is not uniform; its three major components--content, sequence and advisory control--vary in their effects on student performance and motivation.

Content Control

Content control may benefit students in multiple ways. For example, Chung and Reigeluth (1992) discern that content control enables students to set their own learning objectives. They emphasize that students with advanced knowledge or greater ability may be bored with repeating what they have already mastered, and that these students benefit more if they are allowed to choose content that is relatively new and appealing to them. Students who need some extra time to work on a topic or need to review previous topics can also find content control useful because it allows learners to establish better connections between relevant topics (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992). Thus, one of the major advantages of content control is that it supports on-demand, self-paced learning.

LC literature identifies two primary approaches to integrating content control in multimedia instruction: full-minus and lean-plus types of control. In the former approach, a computer program allows students to bypass some topics, while in the latter, a program initially offers few topics but learners have the opportunity to add some or all "optional" topics (Crooks et al., 1996). In Crooks et al.'s (1996) and Schnackenberg and Sullivan's (2000) studies, full-minus and lean-plus types of control were compared with regard to their effect on student test scores and task engagement (motivation).

In Crooks et al.'s study (1996), 128 undergraduate education major students were randomly assigned to one of the four groups based on a 2 x 2 cross-factorial design. The groups varied in instructional methods (cooperative and individual) and two approaches to LC (full-minus and lean-plus). The two major findings of that study were that lean-plus students utilized more LC than their full-minus counterparts (while lean-plus students selected 56% of the optional elements, full-minus participants bypassed only 17% of optional elements) and that full-minus learners performed significantly better on a practice test than lean-plus learners. However, students' post-test scores were not found to be statistically significantly different for either LC mode or instructional method. Also, the study did not discern which of the two LC approaches benefited students more in the long run.

Schnackenberg and Sullivan (2000) also used a randomized 2 x 2 factorial design with two conditions (LC, PC) and two instructional models (full, lean). In their study, 202 college students who used a full-minus program performed significantly better on the post-test than those who used a lean-plus program. Like Crooks et al. (1996), they found that LC promotes the exploration of more optional screens. In Schnackenberg and Sullivan's (2000) study, lean-plus learners explored 68% of the optional screens and full-minus learners viewed only 35% of them. Their study also revealed that students valued more LC than PC.

Sequence Control

Sequencing is a very common type of LC, especially for multimedia programs. Sequence control allows learners to navigate/choose in what order they prefer to study subtopics, and therefore it may be perceived as promoting flexible and inventive thinking and supportive of students' intrinsic interest for a subject they study (Cho, 1995). Empirical research provides, however, mixed findings with regard of sequence control affecting student learning. In Gray's (1988] study, for example, while learners who used multimedia with a high level of the sequence LC performed better than those who used more PC multimedia with a low level of sequencing, their knowledge retention was virtually the same. Furthermore, students from the LC group showed a more negative attitude toward CAI than those from a control group. In Burke, Etnier and Sullivan's (1998] research, study participants--89 5th grade students who were randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: navigation aids with LC, navigation aids without LC, LC without navigation aids and PC without navigation aids--also preferred moderate amounts of sequential control. More particularly, their study demonstrated that students favored more the program that enabled them with LC and provided navigation aid. The researchers did not find any statistically significant difference in post-test scores and the time spent for instruction for these four experimental groups.
These two studies demonstrate that student knowledge retention and time on task (in this case, time spent on using a computer program) are not affected by sequence LC, and that better post-test scores or attitudes toward CAI associate with modest amounts of sequence control in CAI.

Advisory Control

Two distinct approaches exist for defining advisory control. According to Niemic, Sikorski and Walberg (1996), advisory control means that a program advises students of their progress and suggests a course of action, which may be adopted or ignored by learners. Murphy and Davidson (1991) used this definition for their study in which 44 nursing students were randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: LC, adaptive LC strategy (in their paper, adaptive LC was defined as PC) and learner advisement strategy. The study indicated that students who used LC strategy spent less time to complete their instruction. However, no significant difference was found in the immediate recall, intermediate and long-term retention of the concepts that were studied by the students.

Rubincam and Olivier (1985) offered a different interpretation of the advisory control concept. They perceived advisory control as an option for learners to select learning objectives and to start from instruction or a test. For their study, Rubincam and Olivier chose six classes of high school students who were taking a mathematics course on coordinates and transformation. The results of the post-test did not provide evidence for LC improving student performance in CAI. However, students who were consistent in selecting the strategy scored significantly higher than other students.

Although both studies demonstrated that students who use advisory control needed less time to complete instruction, they did not confirm that students under advisory control performed better or have better retention. The personal characteristics of students may perhaps predict higher test scores better than LC conditions.

LC and Students' Academic Performance and Motivation: Is there any Effect?

Academic Performance

The dispute on the effectiveness of LC to improve academic performance (mainly test scores) has not been settled. Indeed, there is some evidence that CAI has a positive impact on students' academic performance. For example, Schacter (1999) disclosed the findings of Kulik's (1994) meta-analysis of 500 studies on CAI. Kulik found that the test scores of students who used CAI were at the 64th percentile compared to the 50th percentile for students who did not use computers in the classroom and that CAI allowed students to learn more in less time.

Since LC is only one of the many attributes associated with CAI, it is unjustified to conclude that LC has a positive impact on students' academic achievement. This conclusion can be warranted only if shown that LC consistently improves students' scores. The studies reviewed in this article do not show this consistency. While the studies conducted by Crooks et al. (1996), Burke, Etnier and Sullivan (1998], and Rubincam and Olivier (1985) did not find any influence on the post-test performance of students, Schnackenberg and Sullivan (2000) and Gray (1988] indicated students' post-test scores significantly improved. Thus, the impact of LC on students' academic performance is not as clear.

Motivation and Attitude toward Learning

In 1998, Silivan-Kachala used 219 research studies on CAI for a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that CAI improved students' attitudes toward learning and their self-conceptions (cited in Schacter, 1999). Again, this fact does not allow us to generalize that LC itself motivates students. Perhaps, the increase in motivation and the improvement of self-conception are caused by other factors associated with CAI, not with LC. Therefore, it is important to examine whether other studies were able to detect shifts in motivation and attitude toward learning in LC environments.

Becker and Dwyer's (1994) study investigated the impact of increased LC on students' intrinsic motivation for a learning task. The participants of the study, 44 students majoring in accounting, management, or in both completed two self-paced sessions in which they used two multimedia programs. The multimedia programs allowed learners to choose their own paths. The study found that students who used hypertext programs were more self-determined and their intrinsic motivation was higher than those students who used paper-based resources to study.

In contrast, Cho's (1995) study, in which 20 undergraduate students used a HyperCard environment, found no overall difference in cognitive processes between students in LC and PC groups. Moreover, it also confirmed the hypothesis that multimedia materials embedded with a high degree of LC could be inappropriate for low ability students.
Thus, the analysis signifies that there is no consistency in the way LC influences students' motivation and attitudes toward learning. Generally spoken, the studies can be divided into three groups: those that did not find any effect of LC on students' motivation and attitudes toward learning (e.g., Cho, 1995), those that found a positive effect (Becker & Dwyer, 1994), and those that found a negative effect (e.g., Gray, 1988].

One may argue that for this literature review, the author purposely chose controversial studies but, in reality, the studies that showed a positive effect of LC on all sorts of learning outcomes outnumber other studies. Indeed, many researchers who report their studies tend to review only those studies that show a positive effect of LC, but many of them then fail to replicate the results (e.g., Shute, Gawlick & Gluck, 1998]. In fact, in a meta-analysis Niemiec, Sikorski & Walberg (1996) summarized 24 studies of LC which had all of the necessary parameters reported. The studies were grouped according to subjects' gender, grade level, ability, type of LC (e.g., sequencing, pacing, reviewing, feedback, additional instruction and practice), and type of outcome (e.g., post-test, retention). However, neither of these categories had an overall positive significance at the .05 level. Thus, the research studies on LC fail to confirm or disconfirm anything. Consequently, there are no right answers on whether LC is beneficial for students and whether a higher degree of LC implied in a computer program improves instructional effectiveness.

Explaining the Inconsistency of LC Research Findings

Analysis of the literature has revealed that the theory of LC is unfinished (Large, 1996), and that research findings are controversial. Becker & Dwyer (1994, p. 169) discerned three possible explanations of why so many studies failed to find positive effects of LC. They stressed that LC is often presented to students improperly, and therefore is not helpful to them; that some students do not realize that they have LC available to them; and that students may not know how to take advantage of LC options. For instance, Chung & Reigeluth (1992) recognized that LC of content is unsuitable when all topics of instructional presentation are required in order to successfully pass the final test, or when the sequence in which material is learned is important to understanding the entire topic. They also did not recommend the use of sequence control for topics in which learners have no prior knowledge. As Large (1996, p. 104) stated, "while some students may gain educational benefit from this freedom, others may suffer as a consequence of being handed such control over their learning". Lawless and Brown (1997) also found student prior knowledge influencing the effectiveness of LC. They argued that "all students appear to benefit from LC opportunities, but those with higher content domain experience and/or ability may benefit the greater" (p. 120).

An excessive targeting of younger and inexperienced learners is one of the drawbacks of empirical studies on LC. Research suggests that the age of participants may relate with how LC affects instructional outcomes. In fact, slightly more research shows a negative effect of LC when it is utilized in teaching elementary students as opposed to older students and adults (Large, 1996). Perhaps younger learners cannot adequately respond to LC because their developmental level is not ready to comprehend LC features. Large (1996) referred to the study by Hannafin (1984) who reported that younger and inexperienced learners often lack focus and are distracted from learning objectives and that LC impedes rather than improves their learning outcomes.

Many studies on LC were done under the assumption that the positive effect of LC is so obvious and powerful that even a brief experience with LC in CAI will benefit learners. Reeves (1993) condemned researchers for designing studies in which students worked under LC conditions for less than an hour, and for choosing classrooms in which LC and CAI were not common attributes of instruction.

Another reason why LC research is so severely criticized in the literature (e.g., Reeves, 1993) is that LC theory has problems defining and measuring LC. Currently, no valid and reliable instruments exist to assess the quantity and quality of LC (Goforth, 1994). If researchers had such instruments, they would be able to create a scale of the effects associated with various levels and types of LC. Indeed, all existing studies on LC have failed to control for quantity of LC. As argued by Reeves (1993), learners are not ready to absorb any level of LC. In fact, he and others found anecdotal evidence indicating that the need for LC varied for novices and experts in the subject matter, for inexperienced and advanced computer users and for students with different learning potentials. It was also found that students' personalities also affect the amount of LC they are able to absorb and benefit from (Barnard, 1992-93; Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Friend & Cole, 1990; Goforth, 1994; Schwier, 1993).

As noted by Large (1996), learners are not homogeneous; their personal characteristics, prior knowledge, abilities, needs and goals are unique. Since the "effectiveness of LC in any study is particularly dependent on the profile of the learner population…." (Goforth, 1994, p. 1), "failure to match the learners' preferences with the type of LC which [students] were given" (Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998, p. 193) may explain the inability of LC research to validate the effectiveness of LC.

Implications for future research and practice

The analysis of the existing literature about LC does not confirm that LC is beneficial for students and that a higher degree of LC implied in a computer program improves instructional effectiveness. The research findings range from the strong positive effect of LC to no effect or even a negative effect on learning outcomes, students' academic achievement and motivation. Contradictory findings were found for all of the three components of LC that were examined: content, sequence, and advisory controls.

The large variability of conditions in which studies were conducted makes the research findings difficult to compare (Goforth, 1994; Schacter, 1999). Study design (e.g., the length of intervention, control of independent variables), personal characteristics of students (e.g., age, ability, computer expertise), the subject area and other specifics of CAI, and the most important, researchers' theoretical standpoints with respect to how they define LC and its components, are all factors that have to be considered when analyzing studies on LC and its effectiveness on student learning.

LC should certainly be investigated further, but a stronger theoretical framework is needed in order for LC research to yield more meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness of LC. Perhaps, LC is not as effective as we would like. Moreover, it is more costly to design and implement LC than PC (Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000). However, if we determine the ideal conditions for implementing LC, we can discover that LC is cost effective. Until then, implementing LC in CAI should be done with some caution, but not at the cost of limiting the use of LC to those unimportant components of instruction that have little effect on instructional outcomes (Schwier, 1993). As indicated by Chung and Reigeluth (1992), "all instruction involves some LC, [and] our challenge is NOT whether or not learner control should be used, BUT rather how to maximize the learner's ability to use the LC available and to decide what kinds of LC to make available" (p. 19, original emphasis).

While developing stronger theoretical grounds for LC and conducting other studies in this area may take some time, it is also understood that those who use CAI in their teaching need immediate advice on how to use LC more effectively. The literature on LC does not provide a magic formula for that, but gives several recommendations. Perhaps one of the major conditions for the successful integration of LC in CAI is to have instruction carefully pre-planned (Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998]. According to Hannafin (1984), several conditions should be present in order for LC to have a greater chance for success: "the learners are older; the learners are more able; the educational objective is to impart a higher order of skills rather than factual information; the content is familiar, advisement is provided to assist learners in making decisions; learner control is used consistently within a lesson; it is possible to switch unsuccessful learners from LC to PC; and LC is combined with evaluation to facilitate the re-design of the program based on the paths chosen by effective learners" (cited in Large, 1996, p. 103). Finally, educators should recognize that students need to be taught to take advantage of LC that is implemented systematically in conditions that are natural and friendly for learners, in order for LC to promote better instructional outcomes.

Ellen Lunts is a Ph. D. candidate in Teaching and Curriculum at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on telecommunication technology, secondary mathematics education and parental involvement. The dissertation she is completing is entitled "Math teachers' perceptions and practices of using their class web sites to support parental involvement and instruction." Ellen has also studied and taught mathematics and educational technology in Russia

References

Barnard, J. (1992-93). Video-based instruction: Issues of effectiveness, interaction, and learner control. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 21 (1), 45-50.

Becker, D. A., & Dwyer, M. M. (1994). Using hypermedia to provide learner control. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3 (2), 155-172.

Burke, P. A., Etnier, J. L., & Sullivan H. J. (1998]. Navigational aids and learner control in hypermedia instructional programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18 (2), 183-196.

Cho, Y. (1995). Learner control, cognitive processes, and hypertext learning environments. In Emerging Technologies, Lifelong learning, NECC 95. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 439).

Chung, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control. Educational Technology, 32 (10), 14-20.

Crooks, S. M., Klein, J. D., Jones, E. E. K., & Dwyer, H. (1996). Effects of cooperative learning and learner-control modes in computer-based instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29 (2), 109-123.

El-Tigi, M., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Designing for interaction, learner control, and feedback during web-based learning. Educational Technology, 37 (3), 23-29.

Filipczak, B. (1996). Engaged! The nature of computer interactivity. Training, 33 (11), 52-58.

Friend, C. L., & Cole, C. L. (1990). Learner control in computer-based instruction: A current literature review. Educational Technology, 20 (11), 47-49.

Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998]. Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38 (3), 29-35.

Goforth, D. (1994). Learner control = Decision making + Information: A model and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11 (1), 1-26.

Gray, S. H. (1988]. Sequence control menus and CAI: A follow-up study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15 (2), 13-22.

Hannafin, M. J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication (CJEC), 18 (3), 167-179.

Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner perspective. In V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.) Interactive instruction and feedback, (pp. 105-132). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

James, J. (1998, June). Practical issues in interactive multimedia design. In ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications: Proceedings. Freiburg, Germany. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 677).

Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25, 79-96.

Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Education for Information, 14 (2), 95-106.

Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25 (2), 117-131.

Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18 (3), 99-105.

Murphy, M. A., & Davidson, G. V. (1991). Computer-based adaptive instruction: Effects of learner control on concept learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18 (2), 51-56.

Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15 (2), 157-175.

Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20 (2), 39-46.

Rubincam, I., & Olivier, W. P. (1985, Summer). An investigation of limited learner-control options in a CAI mathematics course. AEDS Journal, 18, 211-226.

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of educational technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, Santa Monica, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 537).

Schnackenberg, H., & Hilliard, A. W. (1998, February). Learner ability and learner control: A 10 year literature review 1987-1997. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). St. Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 423 858].

Schnackenberg, H., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer-based instruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (2), 19-35.

Schwier, R. A. (1993). Learning environments and interaction for emerging technologies: Implications for learner control and practice. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 22 (3), 163-176.

Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Shute, V. J., Gawlick, L. A., & Gluck, K. A. (1998]. Effects of practice and learner control on short- and long-term gain and efficiency. Human Factors, 40 (2), 296-310.

Spoon, J., & Schell, J. W. (1998]. Aligning student learning styles with instructor teaching styles. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35 (2), 41-56.

U.S. Department of Education (2000). "Stats in brief." Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-99. Retrieved July 26, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000086.pdf

Zazelenchuk, T.W. (1997). Interactivity in multimedia: Reconsidering our perspective. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26 (2), 75-86.

Note

[1] The other five components of interactivity are active learning environment, feedback,
multiple media, learner response option, and adaptability.

Copyright for articles published in this site is retained by the authors. By virtue of their appearance in this site, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Please report any problems you may have with the site to the webmaster via email. Don't forget to include "The Digital Enquirer Problem" in the subject so we can response to it as soon as possible.

Gadgets and She-Tech Bags good gifts for tech-savvy lady's

Guess what’s on this time wishlist of tech-savvy women for Mother’s Day? No, not diamonds or gold; but gadgets, gadgets & more gadgets. But, even more desirable to tech-savvy women are stylish bags to carry those adorable gadgets. She-Tech, an Atlanta-based designer & retailer of laptop bags, once again offers women style, fashion, beauty and function with their new Spring/Summer collection of laptop computer totes and digital accessory bags, just in time for Mother’s Day.

She-Tech’s new Spring/Summer collection boasts the same signature styling of its previous collection with sleek lines and bold, new color combinations: Red & Camel, and Barbie Pink & Black. A new style: the Kick-Around Town digital accessory bag has been added to this season’s collection. This small accessory offers women a hands-free way of carrying their small digital accessories, and is perfect for traveling or shopping and also adds to her beauty.

Beauty and fashion has become a part of life for these tech savvy women. And many are taking this as a very important Beauty aspect.

Begining of Part 2.

Lets continue from where we left:

Just to summarize in short - Following are the means one can earn through websites:

1. Google Ads - The Google Adsense Program

2. Other Advertisements - From other advertisers.

3. Direct Revenue - Generated directly by a website.

4. Affiliate Revenue - Affiliate revenue means, you place other website's or products ads on your website and you are paid as per tasks acomplished. For eg. If you join Friend Finder or Adult Friend Finder Affiliate program, you are paid when a user clicks on the ads on your website and join's their site through your reference. Some sites pay PPC (Pay Per Click) , whereas others pay PPL (Pay Per Lead), ie. per email ID entered, and many even pay Percentage of sale. eg. Shaadi.com the matrimonial website in India.

I will be discussing each one of these in detail, in my blogs.

So if you ask me which one of the above means of revenue generating plan do I prefer?

I will say - why not try all of them !! Yes, you can try all of them and decide which one works best for you. This is because I earn from adsense more in some sites, whereas on some sites I earn from other means. So you should decide it on a website case - to - case basis, instead of applying a thumb rule.

Somebody at a forum asked me: Is it necessary to know HTML or register a domain and buy a hosting plan to earn money through websites?

The Answer is a Big NO. Not at all needed. Infact you can create websites with zero investment. There are many sites which provide free hosting plans. Or you can even start a blog like this one. You can go to www.blogger.com and create your own blogs in a two minutes time. Later if the content you made is rich, you can also post ads on it.

The obvious question you might be having in your mind now is: After making a website, how will I get traffic to my website?

The answer is: You need to Optimize your websites for search engines like Google. This is known as Search Engine Optimization.

I will discuss some best ways of optimizing websites in my future blogs to come.

That made me think - especially as I threw it on top of my 3-volume set of Denver area phonebooks. Why do I even have these things? I can't be alone in this idea. In this era of "go green" and "save the forests" legislation, why do I need 8000 pages of phonebook in my closet if their only purpose is to sit there for a year and be picked up for recycling?

I want to stump for the equivalent of a "do not call" list for the delivery of phone books. I look around my neighborhood and just imagine how much money, effort, energy, etc. can be saved by only giving people who want these things a copy of them.

In the Information Age - where 411 is being replaced by a free service on wireless ph