IPL-SI Analysis 1a

From VMT

Return to Designing IPL Social Interaction

Contents 1 Instructions 2 Some issues to discuss 3 Notes 4 Comments on Group Analyses 5 Team 1 Statement 6 Team 2 Statement 7 Team 3 Statement 8 Team 4 Statement 9 Team 5 Statement

[edit] Instructions

1. Meet as a group in a VMT chat room and discuss the reading.
2. Discuss a group statement about the reading that everyone can agree represents your group's opinion.
3. Summarize your statement in the SUMMARY area of the chat room whiteboard.
4. Post your group's statement below.

Make sure that you are logged in. You can create a timestamp with your individual name by deleting the words "Date and Time of posting" and typing ~ ~ ~ ~ (a sequence of 4 tildes, with no spaces).

[edit] Some issues to discuss

1. The authors were experts on how children learn to read. Is it legitimate for them to generalize their observations to learners in different disciplines (like high school math or college HCI) and different age groups (from elementary school through graduate school)?
2. What is their critique of traditional schooling? How does this compare to other critiques?
3. What are their recommendations for a new approach to learning?
4. What is the role of technology -- computers, networks, etc.
5. This paper was written a decade ago. Since then, the authors and their colleagues put a great deal of research into building a system called "CSILE" or "Knowledge Forum". We also now have systems like "Blackboard", "WebCT" and "VMT". Do any of these systems accomplish what the authors call for?
6. What would it take for education to be transformed the way the authors suggest? At Drexel? In US public education? Globally?

[edit] Notes

• When I read this paper recently for at least the 10th time, I could not help but think about how it applied to our course. Is this course a knowledge-building course? All of it or some aspects? Compared to other IST courses? Do you experience (or expect or hope to experience) it differently from other courses you have taken? -- Gerry 20:25, 4 January 2008 (EST)

• Some people who read this paper think that the knowledge-building approach is more applicable to young children, who have not been regimented by teacher-centered schooling. Other groups think that it is more applicable to people who have already learned "the basics". Some think it is more for certain fields. How can we reconcile these different positions? The authors, who were originally experts on how children learn to read and write, have used CSILE mainly with young children, thinking that the exchange of ideas would motivate their reading and writing skills, just like wanting to communicate motivates infants to learn speech. On the other hand, some medical schools and whole universities or info science programs have adopted a problem-based learning knowledge-building pedagogy throughout their curricula for adults.

• If you are deeply interested in knowledge building on a particular topic, then you probably want to find other people who share your interest. This is where the idea of supporting social networking comes in. How do you find those people and start to build knowledge together? Think about how this is done in professional research communities: you look through journals and go to conferences to see who is working along the lines you are interested in and eventually you might try to collaborate with them or at least exchange ideas and papers. How can networked computer systems help this process -- both for professional experts and for people learning to become experts?

[edit] Comments on Group Analyses

I agree with what Team 3 is saying near the end of their statement. Technology is often used merely to assist in carrying out traditional teaching/learning methods.

I think the authors of the article were trying to show that technology can transform current methods instead of just carrying out existing ones. I don't know enough to say whether that has actually happened for education as it has in the workplace and elsewhere. MarkW 15:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Team 1 Statement

The focus of the article is to restructure schools to incorporate intentional learning and expertise with a focus on preserving a central role for students. The reason behind this is to promote problem solving and interactive learning, which mirrors the efforts and style of the course that we are taking now, INFO 608. The current style of education holds some drawbacks, given that it focuses much on formal knowledge and rote methods of learning. It does not offer the same level of interaction that a CSILE environment would. The current drawbacks can be seen by comparing knowledge-based communities and classroom. It limits knowledge since most high school students don't spend enough time to advance any topics because it's not required by the class work. Furthermore, expertise requires progressive problem solving, which isn't available in classroom due to time limits and topic limitations. Classroom-based learning is based in inquiry; hence, the upper limit in the knowledge flow is set by the teacher, as students can learn only as much as the teacher knows. Students don’t have access to the amount and quality of information that is provided by the CSILE environment. One of the other problems with classroom discussions is that only a select few are involved in the process since others are not as loud or are shy to put up a point. Students in a classroom are more focused on completing tasks rather than realizing the objective of the task. Exchange of ideas is limited in these group discussions. On the other hand in the CSILE system, identification of technology-based discourse patterns offers a solution to the typical classroom-bred education system. In a classroom there are typically 20 to 40 students, who take turns in answering questions, but using CSLIE all of those students can answer the questions in a way they think is appropriate. There is less pressure on students, since they can sit in the comfort of their home and work on problems or provide comments. It also stops the process of rediscovering problems solved by previous students, since all of published problems are saved in a database. And as there aren’t any age limits to use the CSLIE system, teachers also can participate if the students are getting off track or need extra assistance. The author portrays a vivid picture of what is happening in classroom-based learning. The author has rightly pointed out the means by which schools inhibit knowledge building. Issues such as schools focusing only on the visible aspect of knowledge rather than the implicit aspect, students’ attention being on completing tasks rather than knowing the objectives of the task, and no way of passing the teachers expertise on to the students are very well described. The current style of education holds some drawbacks, given that it focuses much on formal knowledge and rote methods of learning, and it does not offer the same level of interaction that a CSILE (computer-supported intentional learning environment) environment would. The author recommends a number of solutions to accomplishing the feat of establishing a knowledge-based community. One means of doing this is through a journal-publication process. Additionally, the author recommends that classrooms implement a communal database and focus on problem solving to add knowledge to that database. This is to be accomplished by the students and to be open to all forms of media. Ss674 21:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Team 2 Statement

In this first article, the authors propose the concept of a technology-based computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) as a means of transforming the traditional classroom educational construction to knowledge-building communities. Authors Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter stress the need for knowledge-building discourse that is considered more immediate and natural extensions of real world experiences.

Their idea of CSILE is founded on the theories of intentional learning, the process of expertise which is garnered through progressive problem solving, and the restructuring of schools with a second-order environment upon which adaptive learning will foster contributions towards collective knowledge. The authors point to the fact that the current teaching vehicles limit knowledge-building potential and progressive problem solving by: focusing on individual cognitive skills instead of communal knowledge, dealing with formal knowledge instead of developing tacit knowledge, invisible knowledge objectives that are only concentrated on the teacher and the underlying concept that the current system leaves out the majority of what is required to become a knowledge expert.

Using the development of scholastic journals in the field of science, the authors reinforce their argument for knowledge building through technology. Science often incorporates collective team building as the marketplace for ideas where the main objective is to produce and improve upon existing theories. Although imperfect and difficult to translate toward children educational development, the authors feel that this sort of discipline-based journal technique is the key to knowledge-building communities.

The authors continue their position by breaking knowledge-building discourse into three categories: focusing on problems and levels of understanding, decentralized, open knowledge-building environments, and productive interactions with knowledge-building communities. The CSILE concept sees the creation of a community database developed by students with public access for global collaboration giving the feel of a broad audience. CSILE focuses on activities that cater to all age groups and ability levels through specially designed discourse, such as note-writing exercises that promote open ideas and contributions. These CSILE classrooms support real-time dialogue, spontaneity and open conversation without fear of criticism and embarrassment while offering time for reflection, publication and review, progressive results and independent thought development.

The authors make a compelling argument for knowledge-building communities. While it is easy for students in a graduate level information systems course to realize these benefits, we do not see real proof of these benefits for all age groups and demographics. Computing has become ubiquitous by many standards, the authors assume that progressive problem solving will work throughout the educational spectrum and they do not offer much evidence that this is the case. We would like to see more studies indicating the likelihood of success for CSILE at various educational levels, as well as different segments of society and areas of the world. It seems that the authors are focused one type of traditional educational pattern, but for collaborative learning extending beyond the classroom, they should consider other traditional patterns as well.

In the ten years since this articles publication, it appears that many of the concepts that the authors speak of have come to fruition. For example, Drexel’s web-based Blackboard application provides a collaboratively driven platform for online education. Blackboard sets forth the idea of progressive problem solving through open and decentralized learning methods where teachers and students exchange ideas through discussion boards, lectures, chats, presentations and notes. The VMT Wiki is perhaps the best example of what the authors envisioned for students and it really caters to a grouped approach to learning with the tabs developed as components in the chat rooms.

We feel the general idea here is excellent. However, the implementation would be difficult as there are many hurdles that would need to be crossed. The authors point out that there is a psychological component involved to the education process and we feel this is the foundation for how many approach teaching in the classroom. Things such as a memorization through repetition do not require a collaborative effort and this is a great deal of what is learned in early childhood development. In addition, there would still be a need for face-to-face social development that exists in the classroom. So, in conclusion, if one were to combine a technology-enabled collaborative knowledge-building environment with the traditional classroom experience, education could see the best of both worlds. Ajg1005 16:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Team 3 Statement

Sathish, Tara Tara 11:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)

This article seeks to challenge the status quo in education by examining how students learn and designing new ways to build and share knowledge. Scardamalia and Bereiter believe that traditional school practices tend to emphasize and reward memorization and individual scores at the expense of actual growth in understanding. Scardamalia and Bereiter propose to effect change in the classroom by changing the structure and goals of teaching. The use of computer supported intentional learning environments (CSILE) technology is central to this effort.

Computer supported learning environments essentially provide forums for discussion and cooperation in a virtual environment. They are built on the ideas of intentional learning (setting out to achieve new knowledge), building expertise through discovery, and restructuring schools as cooperative learning environments. In the authors’ view, knowledge is a product of a collective body that works within itself to add and refine the existing information. CSILE technology helps to build knowledge within a community by allowing students to freely share information and direct their own inquiries into subject matter. According to Scardamalia and Bereiter, students will be able to access microcomputers that will allow them access to a local database. Students will be able to post their work in the database and also interact with the work of their peers. The authors believe that the elimination the traditional constraints in the classroom (taking turns, no time for reflection, everyone working on the same task at the same time) will ultimately result in a better understanding of the material for both individuals and the class/school/network as a whole.

This article was written in 1994, and subsequent examples of CSILE (such as Blackboard, VMT, etc) are currently in common use in education. However, they have mainly served the transform the way in which traditional tasks are carried out, without actually changing the goals behind educational practices. For example, students might use Blackboard to upload assignments, but they are still being graded on an individual basis, and everyone is still attempting the same task. In order for education to be truly transformed, the END result of the process must be changed first. In other words, as long as students are being graded on an individual and comparative/competitive basis, it will be quite difficult to change the daily practices of education to that of a cooperative community.

References: Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

[edit] Team 4 Statement

Alex, Johannes

Johannes 22:33, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Summary of our group discussion about the article "Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities" by Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter.

• The authors were experts on how children learn to read. This is not sufficient to generalize their ideas including groups of higher age. People change as older they get and develop different views of the world, problems, tasks, and how to learn.
• There probably isn't the perfect way to learn in school, but it should rather be a mix of a variety of learning methods. CSILE could definitely be integrated in today's school systems. The authors are therefore right to criticize the current school learning system, although they don't provide a completely sufficient alternative with their approach. An only knowledge-building system is not sufficient as preferred school system. Neither is a system without any aspects of knowledge-building.
• The suggestion that schools shouldn't just focus on individuals but rather on collaborative group work is justifiable. Collaborative group work could definitely improve the school's learning environment. Again, there should be a mix of different learning approaches and environments to make the most of school or higher education.
• In order to apply an environment such as the CSILE, not only the children would have to change their traditional way of learning, but especially teachers would need to re-think (and probably re-trained) their teaching methods.
• School follows the pattern of "reinventing the familiar with educational technology." While this is a drawback in some areas, it it necessary in other areas. There are skills and knowledge, which everybody should be taught without the need to build additional knowledge in this field of interest.
• Before knowledge can be built through a CSILE, a certain basis of knowledge has to be acquired. This is often not easily accomplishable through CSILE's but needs a skilled teacher in person. This again indicates a mixed solution as optimum.
• If all schools were knowledge building communities (addressing the same basic topics each year), there would very soon be a point were hardly new knowledge could be built anymore since the children/pupils would reach their limits in both, acquiring existing knowledge, as well as, in creating truly new knowledge.
• Depending on their interests and work areas, some people would surely benefit of a CSILE. For others, such as, people in rather practical jobs (e.g. technician, butcher) it probably wouldn't be a benefit.
• Depending on their social origins and/or education, not all people are willing to use new technologies, such as utilized in a CSILE. People working with computers every day would probably be all the more willing to learn via CSILE than people who do not, or only occasionally, work with computers.
• Collaborative learning and knowledge building should be taught for children and younger people in school. However, it shouldn't be the only teaching approach. Later, when working or studying in a more professional way, knowledge building systems should be applied in certain, not all, fields of higher education and work.
• Although the article is 14 years old, we see some aspects of the vision applied in our world today (Wiki's, Online Learning Platforms, Interactive Chats, etc.). With information being easily accessible, it becomes increasingly important to find, use, and build knowledge instead of just to learn it.
• Our course is a knowledge-building course with most aspects applied. However, due to our advanced study level and computer orientated field of study, it has to be evaluated differently than for example a high school course.

We think that, in general, the article had a reasonable vision at the time it was written. Although, not all of the aspects described in the article should be considered for implementation in our education system, some aspects definitely should. In our opinion a mixed education system, utilizing a variety of learning approaches, should be applied to provide the best and broadest learning experience. Therefore, we don't agree a 100% with the article's described approach, but we can imagine an increased adoption of knowledge-building and group collaboration approaches in the future.

[edit] Team 5 Statement

The main idea in this article is that educational technology should not simply re-implement old modes of learning. Instead the article suggests using technology to foster new educational modes. The article suggests a new mode called “knowledge building,” which the authors posit as a “third way” of education in addition to “didactic instuction” (rote learning) and “child centered” (exploratory and activity centered) instruction.

The authors of this article state what they believe a knowledge building community to be and how it works. As an example they cite research institutions and the process of publishing scholarly articles. The things that motivate scholars to publish (desire for recognition by peers, desire to advance knowledge, curiosity) are considered with respect to students’ motivations to learn in a classroom.

The authors specify knowledge building as: a) Focus on problems and depth of understanding. b) Decentralized open knowledge environments for collective understanding c) Productive interaction within broadly conceived knowledge building communities

Finally, the authors suggest how technology can bring about this change to a knowledge building community from more traditional classroom methods. The authors propose as an example a community database wholly created by students. The database aids knowledge building in many ways; for example, the database implements a “distributed model” where information “flows freely among participants, without having to flow through a central authority.” The community database is thus a decentralized environment that the authors propose for knowledge building. MarkW 19:32, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Return to Designing IPL Social Interaction