The Points of Viewing Theory for Engaged Learning with ...The Points of Viewing Theory is the foundation upon which this chapter on computers, the Internet, social media, embodied

The Points of Viewing Theory for Engaged Learning

with Digital Media

RickiGoldman

NewYorkUniversity

JohnBlack

ColumbiaUniversity

JohnW.Maxwell

SimonFraserUniversity

JanJ.L.Plass

NewYorkUniversity

MarkJ.Keitges

UniversityofIllinois,UrbanaChampaign

- 1 -

Introduction

Theories are dangerous things. All the same we must risk making one this afternoon since we are going to discuss modern tendencies. Directly we speak of tendencies or movements we commit to, the belief that there is some force, influence, outer pressure that is strong enough to stamp itself upon a whole group of different writers so that all their writing has a certain common likeness. — Virginia Woolff, The Leaning Tower, lecture delivered to the Workers' Educational Association, Brighton (May 1940).

With full acknowledgement of the warning from the 1940 lecture by Virginia Woolf, this chapter begins by presenting a theory of mind, knowing only too well, that “a whole group of different” learning theorists cannot find adequate coverage under one umbrella. Nor should they. However, there is a movement occurring, a form of social activism created by the affordances of social media, an infrastructure that was built incrementally during two to three decades of hard scholarly research that brought us to this historic time and place. To honor the convergence of theories and technologies, this paper proposes the Points of Viewing Theory to provide researchers, teachers, and the public with an opportunity to discuss and perhaps change the epistemology of education from its formal structures to more do-it-yourself learning environments that dig deeper and better into content knowledge. As the saying goes, we live in interesting times. Let’s not make this saying a curse. Let’s “deschool” society as Ivan Illich suggested in 1971 and design more equitable systems of learning across mediated platforms. The Points of Viewing Theory is the foundation upon which this chapter on computers, the Internet, social media, embodied cognition and interactive digital media learning environments, including games for learning, is constructed. According to this theory developed by one of the authors, Ricki Goldman, formerly Ricki Goldman-Segall, learners actively layer their viewpoints and their interpretations to elicit patterns, themes, and groupings of ideas that lead to a deep understanding of the content under investigation and to reach agreements—if only partial (Goldman, 2007; Goldman-Segall 1996a & 1998a). The Points of Viewing Theory (POV-T) is not limited to making meaning with from a solitary standpoint. Indeed, the purpose of applying POV-T is to enable learners to learn from one another by seeing each other’s viewpoints through perspective-taking and for learners to be able to see their own changing perspectives on a subject in diverse contexts and settings. As Rowland points out: Wecometoknowthroughinterpretation,dialog,andnegotiationofmeaningwith…others,throughaconversationwithmanipulationofthematerialsofasituation(Rowland,2004,p.43)Thetheoryalsostrengthenscontentknowledgebylayeringtheideasofparticipantsandstakeholdersinasharedlearningenvironmentusingarangeofmethods,tools,and“documents.”POV-Talsoprovidesaframeworkforfindingunderlyingpatternsthatleadtoagreements.Toolsthatmakeevidentthistheoryarecalledperspectivitytechnologiesbecausetheyprovideaplatformformultiloguing(Goldman-Segall,1994),aplaceandspaceforbuildingculturesorcommunitiesofpracticewhereone“catchessight”oftheotherwhileparticipatinginlearning. Given the problematics of living in a complex global society facing enormous cultural, social, environmental, and economic differences of opinion, this theory is critical for communicating with each other and reaching what Ivan Illich calls conviviality (1972), Clifford Geertz calls commensurability (1973), and Goldman-Segall (1995) calls configurational validity—a form of thick

- 2 -

communication which emerges from using media tools to layer views and perspectives into agreements. POV-T incorporates how each person at different times and contexts will understand the same content whether it be a process, event, document in any media, or action “with new eyes.” Research on what Black (2010) calls the embodied/grounded cognitive perspective takes advantage not only of our visual perceptual systems for learning, but also our entire full body perceptual systems. Recent brain scanning research has shown that many cognitive tasks that were thought to be purely symbolic actually involved a multisensory perceptual simulation. The best preparation for such task requires a fully embodied learning experience. The use of computer game-like learning environments (such as the Wii and Kinect™) will continue to open the doors for exploration into how the social mind makes sense of experiences. Moreover, given the rise of social media and games for learning, as well as the recent findings on the plasticity of mental interpretations, the brain’s capacity for mental mirroring, and the intimate relationship between emotion and social intelligence that shows how minds can be reconfigured with changes to embodied experiences, the Points of Viewing Theory, a foundational theory of minds presented in this chapter, is the one that can move forward our understanding of learning with computers from the advent of early instructionist approaches to more recent constructionist and socio-constructionist applications. Inthischapter,theauthorsexplorearangeofconceptsandtoolsthathavebeendesignedforlearning.Theauthorsexpectthatreaderswillcreatenewconfigurationsastheyreadthetext.Indeed,thatistheideabehindthetheory—tolearnfrombothalayeringofeachother’sideasaswellasfromthediverseperspectiveseachofus,assolitaryreaders(ifthereissuchathing)canmakemeaningofdifferentcontextstobuildknowledge,together.Mantra:Makemeaning,notwar! ContextsandIntellectualHistory

WestartbyunfoldinghowthePointsofViewingTheoryprovidesuswithalensfromwhichto

betterconnectthewritingsofpastandpresentleadingtheorists.Ourgoalistoenvisionfuture

directions,and,simultaneously,teaseoutsomeofthestickywebsthathaveconfuseddecision

makersandacademicians.Theunderlyingthemerunningthroughthischapteristhatmany

routescombiningavastarrayofperspectivesareneededtoshapeaneducationally-sound

approachtolearningandteachingwithdigitalmediatechnologies.Thereisnoonefix,noone

solution.Ratheranopennesstoappreciatediversityandalayeringofpointsofviewing.To

openthisjourney,wefirstdiscussthethelegacyoftheEnlightenmentmagnifiedtheage-old

debatebetweenempiricismandidealism.

Intheearlypartofthe20thcentury,thisdebateshifted:sciencecouldbeusedtonotonly

observetheexternalworldwithmicroscopesandtelescopes,buttochange,condition,and

- 3 -

controlbehavior.RussianphysiologistIvanPavlovexperimentedwithdogs,callinghistheory

conditioning.Dogs“learned”tosalivatetothesoundofabellthathadpreviouslyaccompanied

theireating,evenwithoutreceivingthefood.Pavlov'stheoryofconditioningplayedacentral

roleininspiringJohnB.Watson,whoisoftcitedasthefounderofBehavioristpsychology.As

earlyas1913,Watson,whilecontinuingtoworkwithanimals,appliedPavlov’stheoriesto

children,believingthatpeopleactaccordingtothestimulationoftheirnervoussystemandcan

justaseasilyasdogsbeconditionedtolearn.Aturbulentpersonalturnofevents—leadingto

hisdismissalfromJohnsHopkinsUniversity—extendedWatson’sbehavioristapproachinto

thedomainofmarketing.Helandedajobasvice-presidentofJ.WalterThompson,oneofthe

largestUSadvertisingcompanies,andhelpedchangethecourseofadvertisingforever(Daniels,

2000).Asmedia,education,andbusinessenteraconvergentcourseinthe21stcenturyand

newtoolsforlearningarebeingdesigned,behavioristtheoriesarestillastrongsilentpartner

inthenewknowledgeeconomy.

Anearlybehaviorist,EdwardThorndike,withhis1899articleon“AnimalIntelligence”and

subsequentbookcalledEducationalPsychologyin1903,isoftencalledthefounderofthefield

ofeducationalpsychology.Curiously,hiseducationalpsychologybookmaderecommendations

forteachingstudents,buttheywerebasedonhisresearchonanimals(theLawofEffectand

theLawofExercisethatestablishconnectionsbetweenstimuliandresponses)–buthiswas

typicalforthefirsthalfofthe20thCentury.(Hedidlaterconductmanystudieswithstudents

usingthissamebasicframework.)Anothernotedbehavioristintheeducationaldomain,

BurrhusFrederic(B.F.)Skinner,contributedtheideaofoperantconditioning—howpositive

andnegativereinforcement(rewardandpunishment)canbeusedasstimulitoshapehow

humansrespond.Withthisvariation,thetheoryofbehaviormodificationwasborn.Allhuman

- 4 -

actionsareseentobeshaped(caused)bythestimulusoftheexternalworldonthebody.In

short,thereisnomindcreatingreality,merelyahard-wiredsystemthatrespondstowhatit

experiencesfromexternalsources.Infamousfordesigningtheglass“AirCrib”whichhis

daughter—observed,measuredand“taught”howtobehave—spenttimelivingin,Skinnernot

onlypracticedwhathepreachedbutledthewayforevenmoreelaborateexperimentsto

provehoweducatorscouldshape,reinforce,andmanipulatehumansthroughrepeateddrills.

WhatissalientintheBehavioristapproachisthattheproponentsaddressedtheroleof

externalstimuli—thatourbodiessendmessagestothebrainthatcanbeinterpreted.What

wasmisssedwasselectivityofthebrainandnowperceptionsaffect,notonlybehavior,but

createnewperspectives.However,itistheinteractionbetweenwhatisfeltinthebodyand

whatisinterpretedthatisparamounttolearning.Inshort,evenwiththeadventofnewman-

machinestudiesinthepost-WorldWarIIperiod,perceptionwasmissingthecrucial

connectionwithperspectivity,theroleofinterpretationasthemind’sgreatestfunction.

Withtheadventofthecomputer,intrepidbehavioralscientistsdesignedanduseddrill-and-

practicemethodstoimprovememorizationtasks(e.g.,Suppes,1966).Theyturnedtoan

examinationoftheroleandefficacyofcomputersandtechnologyineducation,asubject

understoodinabehavioristresearchagendathatvaluedmeasurableresultsandformal

experimentalmethods,asKoschmann(1996,pp.5-6)notesinhiscritiqueoftheperiod.

Accordingly,alargeamountoflearningresearchinthe1960s,1970s,and1980saskedhow

thecomputer(anexternalstimulus)affects(modifies)theindividual(ahard-wiredlearning

system).Researchquestionsfocusedonhowtheprocessoflearningcouldbeimprovedby

usingthecomputer,appliedasenhancementorsupplementtoanotherwiseunchanged

learningenvironment.

- 5 -

Weseetheseclassicdebatesbetweenempiricismandidealismasbeingconnectedwith

bifurcationanddualism.Itwasnotpossibleatthetimetounderstandhowtheworkingofthe

brain,anetworkofperceptions,couldbeconnectedwithperspectives,theinterpretationsthat

peopleasindividualsandasasociety,make.Inshort,anembodiednotionofhowlearningis

notinternallynorexternallly“located.”Awholisticviewoftheworlddidnotseempossible,

andformanyscholars,unfortunately,itstillis.

Itisclearthatanyapproachonetakestousingtechnologiesinthelearningsettingisrootedin

one’sconceptofthemind.Themindasasiteofresearch(andnotjustidealizationor

speculation)hasitsmodernrootsintheworkofJeanPiaget(b.1896),anaturalscientist

trainedinzoologybutmostrenownedforhisworkasadevelopmentalpsychologistand

epistemologist.Afterbecomingdisillusionedwithstandardizedtestingmethodologyatthe

SorbonneinFrance,PiagetreturnedtoGenevain1921todedicatetherestofhisacademiclife

tostudyingthechild’sconceptionoftime(Piaget1969),space(Piaget&Inhelder,1956),

number(Piaget1952)andtheworld(Piaget,1930).Althoughtheideathatchildrencoulddo

thingsatoneagethattheycouldnotdoatanotherwasnotnew,itwasPiagetwhowasableto

layoutablueprintforchildren’sconceptualdevelopmentatdifferentstagesoftheirlives.For

example,theclassictheoryofconservationeludestheyoungchild:atallglasscontainsmore

waterthanashortoneeveniftheyoungchildpoursthesamewaterfromoneglassintothe

other.UntilPiaget,noonehadconductedabodyofexperimentsaskingchildrentothinkabout

thesephenomenaandthenmappedthediverseviewsthatchildrenusetosolveproblemsinto

categories.Bycloselyobserving,recordinghisobservations,andapplyingthesetoanemerging

developmentaltheoryofmind,PiagetandhisteamofresearchersinGenevadevelopedthe

famoushierarchyofthinkingstages:sensori-motor,pre-operational,concrete,andformal.

- 6 -

Piagetdidnotlimitallthinkingintothesefourrigidcategoriesbutratherusedthemasaway

todeependiscussiononhowchildrenlearn.

WhatisfundamentallydifferentinPiaget’sconceptionofmindisthatunlikethebehaviorist

viewthattheexternalworldaffectstheindividual—auni-directionalapproachwithnoinput

fromtheindividual—theprocessofconstructivistlearningoccursinthemindofthechild

encountering,exploring,andtheorizingabouttheworldastheworldisencounteredasit

movedthroughpre-setstagesoflife.Thechild’smindassimilatesneweventsintoexisting

cognitivestructuresandthecognitivestructuresaccommodatethenewevent,changingthe

existingstructuresinacontinuallyinteractiveprocess.Schemaareformedasthechild

assimilatesneweventsandmovesfromastateofdisequilibriumtoequilibrium,astateonlyto

beputbackintodisequilibriumeverytimethechildmeetsnewexperienceswhichcannotfit

theexistingschema.Beers(2001)hascalledtheassimilation/accommodationprocessa

dialecticalinter-actionamongperson,objectsofcreation(artifacts),andthecurricularworld

inwhichtheartifactsarecreated.

However,Piagetalsobelievedthatlearningisaspontaneous,individualcognitiveprocess,

distinctfromthesortofsocializedandnon-spontaneousinstructiononemightfindinformal

education,andthatthesetwoareinasomewhatantagonisticrelationship.CritiquingPiaget’s

Constructivism,thegreatSovietpsychologistL.S.Vygotskywrote:

Webelievethatthetwoprocesses—thedevelopmentofspontaneousandofnonspontaneous

concepts—arerelatedandconstantlyinfluenceeachother.Theyarepartsofasingleprocess:

thedevelopmentofconceptformation,whichisaffectedbyvaryingexternalandinternal

conditionsbutisessentiallyaunitaryprocess,notaconflictofantagonistic,mutuallyexclusive

formsofmentation.(Vygotsky1962,p.85)

- 7 -

Vygotskyheraldedadeparturefromindividualmindtosocialmind,and,asunderhisinfluence,

educationaltheorizingmovedawayfromitsindividual-focusedoriginsandtowardmore

sociallyorculturallysituatedperspectives.Theparadigmaticapproachesofkeytheoristsin

learningtechnologyreflectthischangeascontributionsfromanthropologyandsocial

psychologygainedmomentumthroughoutthesocialsciences.TheworksofVygotskyandthe

Sovietcultural-historicalschool(notablyA.R.LuriaandA.N.Leontiev),whentranslatedinto

English,begantohaveamajorinfluence,especiallythroughtheinterpretationsand

stewardshipofeducationalpsychologistslikeSylviaScribner,JeromeBruner,andMichaelCole

(Scribner&Cole,1981;Bruner1990;Cole&Engeström,1993;Cole&Wertsch,1996).

Vygotskyfocusedontheroleofsocialcontextandmediatingtools(language,writing,etc.)in

thedevelopmentoftheindividual,andarguedthatonecannotstudythemindofachild

withoutexaminingthe“socialmilieu,bothinstitutionalandinterpersonal”inwhichshefinds

herself(Katz&Lesgold,1993).Vygotsky’sinfluence,alongwiththatofpragmatistphilosopher

JohnDewey’sseminalDemocracyinEducation(1916),openedupthestudyoftechnologyin

learningbeyondindividualcognition,therebyrevealingitsroleinfosteringsocialinteraction

andthebettermentofadiverse,interconnectedsociety.Thegroundinthelastdecadeofthe

twentiethcenturythusbecamefertileforagrowingrangeofnewmediaandcomputational

environmentsforlearning,teaching,andresearchbasedonnewadvancesinbrain-based

cognitivesciencecoupledwithasocially-mediatedanddistributedapproachtotheacqusition

ofknowledge(Pea&Bransfordetal.,2000).Thiscriticaldichotomybetweenpost-positivism

andinterpretivismwouldprovidethephilosophicalinspirationforlearningsciencesresearch

ontechnologyinthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcentury.Butthepathtosocial

- 8 -

constructionismattheendofthetwentiethcenturyfirsttookacircuitousroutethroughwhat

wasknownasCAI—Computer-AidedInstruction.

InstructionalTechnology:CAIBeginnings

Anexaminationofthetheoreticalrootsofcomputersineducationexposesitsbehaviorist

beginnings:thecomputercouldreinforceactivitiesthatwouldbringaboutmoreefficient

learning.Forsome,thismeant“cheaper,”forothers,“faster,”andforyetothers,itmeant

withoutneedingateacher(seeBromley1998foradiscussion).Theoldestsuchtraditionof

computingineducationisComputer-AidedInstruction,orCAI.Thisapproachdatesbacktothe

early1960s,notablyintworesearchprojects,atStanfordunderPatrickSuppes(1966),and

thePLATOprojectattheUniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-ChampaignunderDonaldBitzerand

DanAlpert(1970).Bothprojectsutilizedthethen-new“time-sharing”computersystemsto

createlearningopportunitiesforindividualstudents.Thepotentialexistedforatime-sharing

systemtoservehundredsoreventhousandsofstudentssimultaneously,andthiseconomyof

scalewasoneofthemaindriversofearlyCAIresearch.Alearnercouldsitataterminaland

engageinatextualdialoguewiththecomputersystem:questionandanswer.Assuch,CAIcan

besituatedmostlywithinthebehavioralparadigm(Koschmann,1996,p.6),thoughits

researchisalsoinformedbycognitivescience(e.g.,Suppesappliednewcognitivelearningand

memorytheoriestoguidetheinteractionswithstudents).

TheStanfordCAIprojectexploredelementaryschoolmathematicsandscienceeducation,and

theresearchersworkedwithlocalschoolstoproduceaformidableamountofresearchdata

(Suppes,Jerman,&Brian,1968;Suppes&Morningstar,1972).Suppesbeganwithtutorial

instructionasthekeymodel,andsawthatthecomputercouldprovideindividualizedtutoring

- 9 -

onafargreaterscalethanwaseconomicallypossiblebefore.Suppesenvisionedcomputer

tutoringonthreelevels:thesimplestisdrill-and-practicework,inwhichthecomputer

administersaquestionandanswersessionwiththestudent,judgingresponsescorrector

incorrect,andkeepingtrackofdatafromthesessions.Thesecondlevelwasamoredirect

instructionalapproach:thecomputerwouldgiveinformationtothestudent,andthenquizthe

studentontheinformation,possiblyallowingfordifferentconstructionsorexpressionsofthe

sameinformation.Inthissense,thecomputeractsmuchlikeatextbook.Thethirdlevelwasto

bemoresophisticateddialogicsystems,inwhichamoretraditionaltutor-tuteerelationship

couldbeemulated(Suppes,1966).Clearly,thesimpledrill-and-practicemodelistheeasiestto

actuallyimplement,andassuchthebulkoftheearlyStanfordresearchusesthismodel,

especiallyinthecontextofelementaryschoolarithmetic(Suppes,Jerman,&Brian,1968).

TheresearchresultsfromtheStanfordexperimentsarenotsurprising:studentsdotendto

improveovertimewithpractice.Forthetime(the1960s),however,tobeabletoautomatethe

processwasasignificantachievement.Moreinterestingfromourperspectivearethe

reflectionsSuppesoffers,regardingthedesignofthehuman-computerinterface:Howand

whenshouldfeedbackbegiven?Howcanthesystembetailoredtodifferentcognitivestyles?

Howbesttoleveragetheunprecedentedamountofquantitativedatathesystemcollected

abouteachstudent’sperformanceandprogress?(Suppes,1966).Thesequestionsstillformthe

cornerstoneofmucheducationaltechnologyresearch.

ThePLATO(ProgrammedLogicforAutomatedTeachingOperations)projectatUIUChada

somewhatdifferentfocus(Alpert&Bitzer,1970).OverseveralincarnationsofthePLATO

systemthroughthe1960s,Bitzer,Alpert,andtheirteamworkedattheproblemsofintegrating

CAIintouniversityteachingonalargescale,asindeeditbegantobefromthelate1960s.The

- 10 -

taskoftakingwhatwasthenenormouslyexpensiveequipmentandsystemsandmakingit

economicallyviableinordertohaveindividualizedtutoringforstudentsdrovethe

developmentofthesystems,andledPLATOtoaverylongcareerinCAI—infact,thedirect

descendantsoftheoriginalPLATOsystemarestillbeingusedanddeveloped.ThePLATO

projectintroducedsomeofthefirstinstancesofcomputer-basedmanipulables,student-to-

studentconferencing,andcomputer-based“distance”education(Woolley,1994).

Fromthesebeginnings,CAIandthemodelsitprovidesforeducationaltechnologyarenowthe

oldesttraditionineducationalcomputing.Whileonlypartlyintegratedintheschoolsystem,

CAIiswidelyusedincorporatetrainingenvironments,inremedialprograms,andhashad

somethingofaresurgencewiththeadventoftheWorld-WideWebasonlinetraininghas

becomepopular.ItisworthnotingthatthecompanySuppesstartedwithRichardAtkinsonat

Stanfordin1967,ComputerCurriculumCorporation,andNovaNet,aPLATOdescendantspun

offfromUIUCin1993werebothrecentlyacquiredbyPearsonEducation,theworld’slargest

educationalpublisher(PearsonEducation,2000).

CognitiveScienceandAIResearch

Inordertohistoricallysituatethedevelopmentoflearningtechnology,itisalsoimportantto

appreciatetheimpactofthe“cognitiverevolution”(Gardner,1985)onbotheducationand

technology.

Forourpurposes,thecontributionofcognitivescienceistwofold.First,theadventofthe

digitalcomputerinthe1940sledquicklytoresearchonartificialintelligence(AI).Bythe

1950s,AIwasalreadyasubstantialresearchprogramatuniversitieslikeHarvard,MIT,and

Stanford.AndwhileAIresearchhasnotyet—nor,webelieve,islikelyto—producedan

- 11 -

artificialmind,thelegacyofAIresearchhashadanenormousinfluenceonourpresent-day

computingparadigms,frominformationmanagementtofeedbackandcontrolsystemsand

frompersonalcomputingtothenotionofprogramminglanguages.Allderiveinlargepartfrom

afullhalf-centuryofresearchinAI.

Second,cognitivescience—specificallythecontributionsofPiagetiandevelopmental

psychologyandAIresearch—gavetheworldthefirstpracticalmodelsofmind,thinking,and

learning.Priortothecognitiverevolution,ourunderstandingofthinkingwasorientedeither

psychoanalyticallyorphilosophically,outofthewesterntraditionsofmetaphysicsand

epistemology,orempirically,viabehaviorism.Inthelattercase,asmentionedearlier,

cognitionwasregardedasablackboxbetweenstimulusandresponse.Sincenoempirical

studyofthecontentsofthisboxwaspossible,speculationastowhatwentoninsidewasboth

discouragedandignored.

Cognitivescience,especiallybywayofAIresearch,openedthebox.Forthefirsttime,

researcherscouldworkfromamodelofmindandmentalprocesses.In1957,AIpioneer

HerbertSimonwentsofarastopredictthatAIwouldsoonprovidethesubstantivemodelfor

psychologicaltheory,inthesamewaythatNewton’scalculushadoncedoneforphysics

(Turkle,1984,p.244).DespitethesubsequenthumblingofAI'searlyenthusiasm,theeffect

thisthinkinghashadonresearchinpsychologyandeducationandeventhepopular

imagination(considerthecommonplacenotionofone’s“shorttermmemory”)isvast.

ThemostsignificantthreadorthrustofearlyAIresearchwasAllenNewellandHerbert

Simon's“informationprocessing”modelatCarnegie-MellonUniversity.Thisresearchsought

todevelopageneralizedproblem-solvingmechanism,basedontheideathatproblemsinthe

worldcouldberepresentedasinternalstatesinamachineandoperatedonalgorithmically.

- 12 -

NewellandSimonsawthemindasa“physicalsymbolsystem”or“informationprocessing

system”(Simon1981[1969],p.27),andbelievedthatsuchasystemisthe“necessaryand

sufficientmeans”forintelligence(p.28).Oneofthevenerabletraditionsofthismodelisthe

chess-playingcomputer,longbandiedasexemplaryofintelligence.Ironically,worldchess

masterGaryKasparov'shistoricdefeattoIBM's“DeepBlue”supercomputerin1997hadfar

lessrhetoricalpunchthanAIcritic(andchessnovice)HubertDreyfus’defeatin1965,butthe

legacyoftheinformation-processingapproachcannotbeunderestimated.

YetitwouldbeunfairtoequateallofclassicalAIresearchwithNewellandSimon'sapproach.

Significantly,researchprogramsatStanfordandMIT,thoughperhapslowerprofile,made

significantcontributionstothefield.Twothreadsinparticularareworthyofcommenthere.

Onewasthedevelopmentof“expertsystems,”concernedwiththeproblemofknowledge

representation—forexampleEdwardFeigenbaum'sDENDRAL,asystemwhichcontained

largeamountsofdomain-specificinformationinbiology.AnotherwasTerryWinograd's1970

program,SHRDLU,whichfirsttackledtheissueofindexicalityandreferenceinanartificial

microworld(Gardner,1985).AsGardner(1985)pointsout,thesedevelopmentsdemonstrated

thatNewellandSimon's“generalized”problem-solvingapproachwouldgivewaytomore

situated,domain-specificapproaches.

TheculminationofthisapproacharetheCognitiveTutorsoutofCarnegieMellonUniversity.

Thesearebothasuccessfulproductwidelyusedinschools(www.carnegielearning.com)and

anactiveongoingresearchproject(coordinatedthroughthePittsburghScienceofLearning

Center–www.learnlab.org).TheCognitiveTutorsapplyJohnAnderson’sACTR(Anderon,

1993)cognitivearchitecture(whichisdescendedfromNewellandSimon’s)torepresentthe

knowledgetobetaught(mostlyIf-Thenproductionrules)thenthisknowledgeisrepresented

- 13 -

inthetutorsothatitcanunderstandwhatthestudentisdoingwhensolvingproblemsand

provide“intelligence”feedback(AndersonCorbet,Koedinger&Pelletier,1995).Thesetutors

showimpressiveresultsintestscomapredtoclassroomintructionandwhencomparedto

traditionalCAI(liketheSuppeskind):theydoaroundoneeffectsize(onestandarddeviation)

betterthanclassroominstruction–traditionCAIdoes0.3effectsizebetterthanclassroom

instructionsotheCognitiveTutorsare3timesaseffectiveastraditionalCAI(Kulik&Kulik,

1991).However,whattheseCognitiveTutorsaresoeffectiveatisteachinghowtosolve

problemsinareaslikehighschoolAlgebraandGeometry;thereissomequestionremaining

whethertheycanalsoteachanunderstandofwhythesesolutionmethodswork.

AtMITinthe1980s,MarvinMinsky'sworkledtoatheoryofthe“societyofminds”—that,

ratherthanintelligencebeingconstitutedinastraightforwardrepresentationaland

algorithmicway,intelligenceisseenastheemergentpropertyofacomplexofsubsystems

workingindependently(Minsky,1986).ThenotionofemergentAI,morerecentlyexplored

throughmassivelyparallelcomputers,haswiththeavailabilityofgreatercomputingpowerin

the1980sand1990sbecomethemainstreamofAIresearch(Turkle,1995,pp.126-127).

Interestingly,Gardner(1985)pointsoutthatthemajorityofcomputing—andthereforeAI—

researchhasbeenlocatedwithintheparadigmdefinedbyCharlesBabbage,AdaLovelace,and

GeorgeBooleinthe19thcentury.BabbageandLovelacearecommonlycreditedwiththebasic

ideaoftheprogrammablecomputer;LadyAdaLovelace’sfamousquoteneatlysumsitup:

“Theanalyticalenginehasnopretensionswhatevertooriginateanything.Itcandowhatever

weknowhowtoorderittoperform.”GeorgeBoole’scontributionwasthenotionthatasystem

ofbinarystates(0and1)couldsufficefortherepresentationandtransformationoflogical

propositions.Butcomputingresearchbegantofindandtranscendthelimitsofthisapproach.

- 14 -

TheriseofemergentAIwascharacterizedas“wakingupfromtheBooleandream”(Douglas

Hofstadter,quotedinTurkle1995,p,135).Inthismodel,intelligenceisseenasaproperty

emergentfrom,oratleastobservablein,systemsofsufficientcomplexity.Intelligenceisthus

notdefinedbyprogrammedrules,butbyadaptivebehaviorwithinanenvironment.

From Internal Representation to Situated Action. The idea of taking contextual factors seriously

became important outside of pure AI research as well. A notable example was the reception given to

Joseph Weizenbaum’s famous program, ELIZA. When it first appeared in 1966, ELIZA was not

intended as serious AI; it was an experiment in creating a simple conversational interface to the

computer—outputting canned statements in response to certain “trigger” phrases inputted by a user.

But ELIZA, with ‘her’ reflective responses sounding a bit like a Rogerian analyst, became

something of a celebrity—much to Weizenbaum’s horror (Turkle 1995, 105). The popular press and

even some psychiatrists took ELIZA quite seriously. Weizenbaum argued against ELIZA’s use as a

psychiatric tool, and against mixing up human beings and computers in general, but ELIZA’s fame

has endured. The interface and relationship that ELIZA demonstrates has proved significant in and

of itself, regardless of what computational sophistication may or may not lie behind it.

AnothercontextualistefforttookplaceatXerox’PaloAltoResearchCenter(PARC)inthe

1970s,whereateamledbyAlanKaydevelopedthefoundationforthe“personalcomputing”

paradigmweknowtoday.Kay’steamismostfamousfordevelopingthemouse-and-windows

interface—whichBrendaLaurel(1990)latercalledthe“directmanipulation”interface.

However,atamorefundamentallevel,theXeroxPARCresearchersdefinedamodelof

computingthatbranchedawayfromaformalist,rules-drivenapproach,andtowardanotionof

thecomputerascurriculum:anenvironmentfordesigning,creating,andusingdigitaltools.

- 15 -

Thisapproachpartlycamefromexplicitlythinkingofchildrenasthedesignersofcomputing

technology.Kaywrote:

Wewerethinkingaboutlearningasbeingoneofthemaineffectswewantedtohavehappen.

Earlyon,thisledtoa90-degreerotationofthepurposeoftheuserinterfacefrom‘accessto

functionality’to‘environmentinwhichuserslearnbydoing.’Thisnewstancecouldnow

respondtotheechoesofMontessoriandDewey,particularlytheformer,andgotme,on

rereadingJeromeBruner,tothinkbeyondthechildren'scurriculumtoa‘curriculumofuser

interface.’(Kay,1996,p.552)

Inthelate1980s,TerryWinogradandFernandoFlores’UnderstandingComputersand

Cognition:ANewFoundationforDesign(1986)heraldedanewdirectioninAIandintelligent

systemsdesign.Insteadofarationalist,computationalmodelofmind,WinogradandFlores

describedtheemergenceofade-centeredandsituatedapproach.Thebookdrewonthe

phenomenologicalthinkingofMartinHeidegger,thebiologyofperceptionworkofHumberto

MaturanaandFranciscoVarela,andthespeech-acttheoryofJohnAustinandJohnSearleto

callforasituatedmodelofmind-in-the-world,capableof(ordependentupon)commitment

andintentionalityinrealrelationships.WinogradandFlores’workraisedsignificantquestions

abouttheassumptionsofafunctionalist,representationalmodelofcognition,arguingthat

suchaviewisbasedonhighlyquestionableassumptionsaboutthenatureofhumanthought

andaction.

Inshort,thequestionofhowtheseAIandcognitivesciencedevelopmentshaveaffectedthe

roleoftechnologyintheeducationalarenacanbesummedupintheongoingdebatebetween

instructionist“tutoring”systemsandconstructivist“toolkits.”Whiletheearliestapplicationsof

AItoinstructionalsystemsattemptedtooperatebycreatingamodelofknowledgeora

- 16 -

problemdomainandthenmanagingastudent’sprogressintermsofdeviationfromthat

model(Suppes,1966;Wenger,1987),laterandarguablymoresophisticatedconstruction

systemslookedmoreliketoolkitsforexploringandreflectingonone’sthinkinginaparticular

realm(Brown&Burton,1978;Papert,1980).

KindsofDigitalMediaLearning

Whentheorizingabouttheroleofdigitalmedialearningenvironmentsinlearning,the

tendencyisoftentouseaninstrumentalistandinstructionistapproach—thecomputer,for

example,isausefultoolforgatheringorpresentinginformation(whichisoftenand

incorrectlyequatedwithknowledge).Evenwithintheconstructionistparadigm,thesocial

dimensionofthelearningexperienceisforgotten,focusingonlyontheindividualchild.And,

evenwhenweremembertheVygotskianzoneofproximaldevelopment(ZPD)withits

emphasisonthesocially-mediatedcontextoflearning,wetendtooverlookthedifferencesthat

individualsthemselveshaveintheirlearningstyleswhentheyapproachthelearningexpe-

rience.Andevenwhenweconsidergroupandindividualdifferences,wefailtoexaminethat

individualsthemselvestryoutmanystylesdependingontheknowledgedomainbeingstudied

andthecontextwithinwhichtheyareparticipating.And,mostimportantly,evenwhenthe

ideathatindividualshavediversepointsofviewingtheworldisacknowledged,technologists

andnewmediadesignersoftendolittletoconstructlearningenvironmentsthattruly

encouragesocialconstructionandknowledgecreation.

Designingandbuildingtoolsasperspectivitytechnologies,weargue,enableslearnersto

participateasmembersofcommunitiesexperiencingandcreatingnewworldsfromthepoints

ofviewingoftheirdiversepersonalidentitieswhilecontributingtothepublicgoodofthe

digitalcommons.Usingperspectivitytechnologies,learners—likestarsinaconstellation—are

- 17 -

connectedtoeachotherwithinaforcethatenablesthemtochangetheirpositionand

viewpointyetstaylinkedwithinthelargerandalsomoveableconstructofthetotal

configurationofmanyconstellations,galaxies,anduniverses.Itiswithintheelastictension

amongalltheplayersinthecommunity—thelearner,theteacher,thecontent,theartifacts

created,andmostimportantlythecontextoftheforceswithinwhichtheycommunicate—that

newknowledgein,around,andabouttheworldiscreated.

Thenextsectionhasbeenorganizedlesschronologicallyandmorefunctionally,examining

technologiesfromavarietyofperspectives:asinformationsources,curricularareas,

communicationsmedia,tools,environments,partners,scaffolds,andfinally,asperspectivity

toolkits.WealsoreturntotheimportanceofusingthePointsofViewingTheoryasa

frameworkfordesigningnewmediaapplicationsandtools.Theseassortedtechnology

approachesarenotintendedtobemutuallyexclusive;theyareheadersthatoftenillustrate

oneaspectofatechnologyfromaparticularangle.Howatechnologyshouldbecharacterized

dependsonhowitusedinsitu.Alearningtechnologymaybedesignedinamonological

fashionwhileinthecontextofuseitbecomesdialogicalwiththepresenceofhumanactors

(Bakhtin,1981;Wegerif,2007).Andviceversa—technologiesdesignedfromasocial

constructionistframeworkmayfindtheirpromisebetrayedifusedtoserveinstructionist

goalsandasingleprevailingworldview.Withtheexplosionofubiquitouslearningwith

handhelddevicesinrecentyears,erodingthetraditionaldistinctionbetweenformaland

informallearning,thepotentialforcomplex,meaningful,dialogicallyrichlearningisgreater

thanithaseverbeen(Burbules,2009).Withinthiscontext,itisessentialtoconsiderhow

perspectivitytechnologiescanbetteraccomodatethesechangesandprovideaguidinglightfor

futureresearchanddevelopment.

- 18 -

DigitalMediaforInformation

Whenweinvestigatehowmeaningismade,wecannolongerassumethatactualsocial

meanings,materiallymade,consistonlyintheverbal-semanticandlinguisticcontextualiza-

tions(paradigmatic,syntagmatic,intertextual)bywhichwehavepreviouslydefinedthem.We

mustnowconsiderthatmeaning-in-useorganizes,orients,andpresents,directlyorimplicitly,

throughtheresourcesofmultiplesemioticsystems.(Lemke,1998)

Accesstoinformationhasbeenthedominantmythologyofcomputersineducationformany

educators.Nottakingthetimetoconsiderhownewmediatextsbringwiththemnewwaysof

understandingthem,educatorsandeducationaltechnologistshaveoftentriedtoadd

computerstolearningasonewouldaddsalttoameal.Theideaoftechnologyasinformation

sourcehascapturedtheimaginationofschooladministrators,teachers,andparentshoping

thatproblemsofeducationcouldbesolvedbyprovidingeachstudentwithaccesstothemost

currentknowledge(Graves,1999).Itisnodifferentthesedays:legislatorsandpolicymakers

arestilltryingtobridgethe“digitaldivide.”Asof2012,thestateofMaineistheonlystatein

theUSwithanInternet-connectedcomputeroneverydesktop.

Whileagrowingnumberofpostmoderntheoristsandsemioticiansseecomputersandnew

mediatechnologiesastextstodeconstruct(Lemke,2001;Landow,1992),itismorecommon

toseecomputersviewedastextbooks.InspiteofLemke’sreminderthatthesenewmediatexts

requiretranslationandnotonlydigestion,thecomputeriscommonlyseenasmerelyamore

efficientmethodofprovidinginstructionandtraining,withinformationequatedwith

knowledge.Learnersworkingwithcoursewarearepresentedwithinformationandthentested

orquestionedonit,muchastheywouldusingtraditionaltextbooks.Thecomputercan

automaticallymarkstudentresponsestoquestionsandgovernwhetherornotthestudent

- 19 -

movesontothenextsection,freeingtheteacherfromthistask—aneconomicadvantagenoted

bymanyeducationaltechnologythinkers.

Inthelate1980s,multimedia—audio,graphics,andvideo—dominatedtheeducational

landscape.Curriculumandlearningresources,firstdistributedastextbookandaccompanying

floppy-disc,begantobedistributedonvideodiscorCD-ROM,mediaformatsabletohandle

largeamountsofmultiplemediainformation.Inthebestcases,multimediaresources

employedhypertextorhypermedia(Landow,1992;Swan,1994)navigationschemes,

encouragingnon-lineartraversalofcontent.Hypermedia,assuch,representedasignificant

breakwithtraditional,linearinstructionaldesignmodels,encouraginguserstoexplore

resourcesbyfollowinglinksbetweendiscretechunksofinformationratherthansimply

followingaprogrammedcourse.OneofthebestearlyexemplarswasAppleComputer’sclassic

VisualAlmanac:AnInteractiveMultimediaKit(1989),whichenabledstudentstoexplorerich

multimediavignettesaboutinterestingnaturalphenomenaaswellaseventsfromhistoryand

thearts.

TheriseofInternetandsearchenginessuchasGoogle,hasstimulatedtheproductionof

computer-basedcurriculumresourcesonceagain.Asasortofuniversalmultimediaplatform,

theweb’sabilitytoreachahugeaudienceveryinexpensivelyhasledtoitswidespread

adoptioninschools,trainingcenters,corporations,and,significantly,thehome.Morethan

packagedcurriculum,however,theuseoftheInternetandWorldWideWebasanopen-ended

researchtoolhashadanenormousimpactonclassrooms.Sincethesoftwareforbrowsingthe

webisfree(ornearlyfree)andthetechnologyandskillsrequiredtouseitaresowidespread,

thecostsofusingthewebasaresearchtoolarelargelylimitedtothecostsofhardwareand

connectivity.Thismakesitanobviouschoiceforteachersandadministratorsoftenunsureof

- 20 -

howtobestallocatetechnologyfunds.Thepopularreputationofthewebasauniversallibrary

orasaccesstotheworld’sinformation(muchmoresothatitsreputationasadenof

pornographersandpedophiles)hasledtoapopularmythologyofchildrenreaching“beyond

theclassroomwalls”totapdirectlyintorichinformationsources,communicatewithscientists

andexperts,andexpandtheirhorizonstoaglobalview.Ofcourse,suchdiscourseneedstobe

examinedinthelightofday:thewebisasourceofbadinformationaswellasgood,andwe

mustalsorememberthatdownloadingisnotequivalenttolearning.Asearlyas2000,Roger

Schankobservedthat

“accesstotheWebisoftencitedasbeingveryimportanttoeducation,forexample,butisit?

Theproblemintheschoolsisnotthatthelibrariesareinsufficient.TheWebis,atitsbest,an

improvementoninformationaccess.Itprovidesabetterlibraryforkids,butthelibrarywasn’t

whatwasbroken(Schank,2000).Indeedhemadeagoodpointthattheproblemiselsewhere,

yetwithinashortdecadethe“possibility”ofbetteruseoftheaccesstoauniverseofmaterials

hasarrived.

Inasimilarvein,“correspondenceschools”—bothuniversity-basedandprivatebusinesses

datingbacktothe19thcentury—aremirroredintoday’scropofonlinedistancelearning

providers(Noble1999).Intheclassicdistanceeducationmodel,astudentenrolls,receives

curriculummaterialsinthemail,worksthroughthematerialandsubmitsassignmentstoan

“instructor”or“tutor”bymail.Hopefully,thestudentcompleteseverythingsuccessfullyand

receivesaccreditation.Addingcomputersandnetworkstothismodelchangesverylittle,

exceptforloweringthecostsofdeliveryandmanagementsubstantially(considerthecost

savingsofreplacinghumantutor/markerswithanAIsystem).Again,inonedecadeisnot

uncommonforleadinguniversitiestoofferhighqualityonlinedegrees.Mostprogramshave

- 21 -

somecoursesthatareavailabletostudentsandthe“push-back”fromresistantfacultywho

associatedDo-It-Yourself(DIY)learninghasallbutdisappeared.AnyaKamenetz’s2010DIYU:

Edupunks,Edupreneurs,andtheComingTransformationofHigherEducationbecameaninstant

readacrosshighereducationwithblogsandtweetsthatraisedfearthroughouttheacademic

establishment.ThetitleofaMay3,2010articleintheChronicleofHigherEducationbySeth

GodinwasTheComingMeltdowninHigherEducation(asSeenbyaMarketer).JayCrossand

colleaguesfromtheInternetTimeAlliance,createdthe2010versionofhis“unbook,”whichhe

andhisfriendscall“WorkingSmarter:InformalLearningintheCloud.”Updatestotheunbook

canbefoundregularlybyCrossandfriendsathttp://www.internettime.com.

Despitethiscurrentgroundswell,thebasicpedagogicalquestionsabouteducationremain:to

whatextentdolearnersinisolationactuallylearn?Theintroductionofelectronic

communicationandconferencingsystemsintodistanceeducationenvironmentshasnodoubt

beshowntoimprovestudent’sexperiences(Hiltz&Goldman,2004),andthishascertainly

beenawidespreaddevelopment,buttheeconomicandeducationalchallengesdrivingonline

learningstillmakeitanabivalentchoiceforbothstudentsandeducatorsconcernedwiththe

learningprocessandaccreditation.Itwilltakeanewsystemofevaluationofcredentialsbefore

institutuionalbricksandmortarwillbecomeevenclosetoobsolete.Aftetrtwodecadesof

knowingintroducingtechnologiesintoday-to-dayworkandstudy,

institutionsofhighereducationarefinallyrespondingwithfullforcetocreatenewkindsof

learningenvironmentsthatincludeformalandinformallearning(ateliersandopen

communitylabs)aswellasonlinemixedwithface-to-face(f2f)classroomlearning.Thenext

majorhurdlewillbeaddressinggloballearning,asubjectthatNewYorkUniversity,for

example,hasmovedintowithfullforcewithbranchesinAbuDhabiandShanghai,notto

- 22 -

mentionsateliteprogramsandinfrastructureinBuenosAires,Paris,London,Florence,Acra,

Singapore,Prague,London,TelAviv,andmorerecently,Madrid.

DigitalMediaforLiteracyinSTEM

EconomicurgencyandachroniclaborshortageinIT(InformationTechologies)andSTEM

(Science,Technology,Engineering,andMathematics)professionsandtheincreasingly

changingneedsforupdatingcomputersandnetworksintheworkplacecontinuetodrivethe

demandsforgainingdesignandcompuationalliteracy.Learninginbothformalandinformal

settings,includingbusinessesandschools,requiresaccesstoinformationandpeoplewhocan

design,built,andcreatecurricularlearningenvironmentsindisciplinaryandcross-

disciplinaryareas.AlthoughthefieldofTechnologyStudiesasaprogramareahasexistedin

highschoolsanduniversitiessincethe1970s,itisinterestingtonotehowmuchvariation

thereisinthecurriculum,acrossgradelevels,fromregiontoregion,andfromschoolto

school—perhapsincreasinglysoasyearsgoby.ApartfromtheUSCollegeBoard’sAdvanced

Placement(AP)ComputerScienceCurriculum,whichisfocusedonprofessionalcomputer

programming,whatoneschoolorteacherimplementsasthe“computerscience”or

“informationtechnology”curriculumishighlyvaried,andprobablyverydependentupon

individualteachers’notionsandattitudestowardwhatisimportant.Therangeincludes

straightforwardcomputerprogramming(asintheAPcurriculum),multimediaproduction

(Roschelleet.al.1998),technologymanagement(Wolfson&Willinsky,1998),exploratory

learning(Harel&Papert,1991),textbooklearningaboutbitsandbytes,andsoon.Standards

arehardtocomeby,ofcourse,becausethefieldissovariedandchanging.

- 23 -

Amoststraightforwardconclusiononemaydrawfromlookingatoureconomy,workplace,

andprospectsforthefutureisthatcomputer-basedtechnologiesareincreasinglypartofhow

wework.Itfollowssimplythatknowinghowtoeffectivelyusecomputersisarequirementfor

manyjobsorcareers.Thisbasicideadrivesthe“jobskills”approachtocomputersin

education.Inthismodel,computerhardwareandsoftware,particularlyofficeproductivityand

dataprocessingsoftwarearethecornerstoneoftechnologycurriculum,sinceskillwiththese

applicationsiswhat“employersarelookingfor.”Onecanfindthismodelatworkinmosthigh

schoolsanditisdominantinre-trainingandeconomicdevelopmentprograms.Andwhileits

simplelogiciseasytograsp,perhapsthismodelisareminderthatsimpleideascanbelimiting.

Heedingthisdilemna,SeymourPapert,invokingcurriculumtheoristPaoloFreire,writes

If“computerskill”isinterpretedinthenarrowsenseoftechnicalknowledgeaboutcomputers,

thereisnothingthechildrencanlearnnowthatisworthbanking.Bythetimetheygrowup,

thecomputerskillsrequiredintheworkplacewillhaveevolvedintosomethingfundamentally

different.Butwhatmakestheargumenttrulyridiculousisthattheveryideaofbanking

computerknowledgeforuseonedayintheworkplaceunderminestheonlyreallyimportant

“computerskill”:theskillandhabitofusingthecomputerindoingwhateveroneisdoing.

(Papert,1992,p.51)

Papert’scritiqueofcomputerskillsleadstoadiscussionof“computerliteracy,”atermalmost

asoldascomputersthemselves,andonethatisnotoriouslyelusive.Asfarbackas1985,

DouglasNoblenotedthatnooneissurewhatexactlycomputerliteracyis,buteveryoneseems

toagreethatitisgoodforus(Noble,1985,p.64).

SharonDerryandDanielZalles(2011)gobeyondatheoryofliteracytoexploringhowliteracy

isimportantforscientificcivicreasoning.Theypropose“thatactive,collectivecitizenship

- 24 -

throughresponsiblecivicreasoning,empoweredbytoolsofscienceandtechnology,isan

importanteducationalgoalofourtime.”Theychallengethepublictoexploretheconnection

betweensocietalphenomenomanddiscipline-basedscience,usingasixstepapproach:1)

seekingconsensusaroundwhatisworthstudying;2.leveragingthepowerstructuresto

ensureadequatefunding;3.Operationalizingsystematicresearch;4.employinga“cultureof

principled,unbiased,constructivecriticaldiscourse;”5.findingevidenceforsettingpolicyand

takingcivicaction;and6.evaluatingeffectiveness.Inshort,theyarguethatacivilsociety

requiresthatchildrenbeliterate/fluentwithbothcivicsandtechnologies.

Takeadifferentperspective,wenotethatthetwobooksbyJohnWillinsky,TheNewLiteracy

(1990)andTheAccessPrinciple:TheCaseofOpenAccesstoResearchandScholarship(2006)

expandupontheideathatoneneedstobe“literateinliteracy”(p.236),aphrasewenow

changetoliterateindigitalliteracies.Willinsky’sTheNewLiteracyemergesfromtherootsof

popularculture,theProgressiveEducationMovementandevenfurtherbacktotheRomantics.

Itisgroundedinthecriticalandyetinspirationalworkthatcanbereachedthroughthe

thoughtfulinquiryofteachersandstudentsworkingtogethertoredefineanewkindofplace

forthemselves.Inessence,theschoolbecomesthelanguageofthisnewliteracy.Fifteenyears

laterinTheAccessPrinciple,Willinskyfocusesmoreonhowwecometoknowandsharewhat

weknowinopenaccessdigitalenvironments.Pointingtoalonghistorytomakeknowledge

public,Willinskyencouragesthemovementofcloisteredknowledgesheldinmostpartby

institutionalrepositoriestowardthedemocratizationofknowledge.

“…[A]nopenaccesstoscholarlypublishingisnotsimplyasideissues,amatterof

bussinessplansanddeliverysystems,inthepursuitoftruth….Rather,thepotential

expansioninthecirculationofideasismuchaboutthequalityoftruthpursuedinsuch

- 25 -

settings.Iwouldagruethattheglobalscaleofknowledge’scirculationiscriticaltoits

veryclaimasknowledge.(2006,p.34).

Certainly,WillinskycouldnothavepredictedwhatcametobecalledtheArabSpringin2011.

Inthistimeofprotestagainsttheexistingregimesinindividualcountries(Tunesia,Egypt,

Syria,etc.)thatareembodiedinthefightforgreaterfreedomacrossstheArabworld,wecan

seehoweasytouseandaccessiblemobiletechnologiesaswellassocialmediasoftwaresuch

asTwitter™andFacebook™gaveaccesstoinformationthatledtocommunitiessharingtheir

perspectivesandcritiquingexistingtraditionsoftruththroughamorenegotiated

understandingofwhatwasfeltandunderstoodontheground.Althoughitisunclearhowthe

qualityoftruthcaneverbereached,perhaps,whatcanbefoundinthesecontestedspacesis

incrementalagreementsthatbringaboutverisimilitudeandamoregeneralacceptancethat

differencesofexperiencesandunderstandingscanbereachedthroughaccesstoknowledge,

resources,andpowertomakechangesforthegoodofsociety.IfMichelFoucault’sbook

Knowledge/Power(1980)everneededarereading,itisintimesofnotonlyaliteracyexplosion,

butalsoonethatisseepedinissuestodowithwhodecideswhatthebestwayofinterpreting

informationtobuildamorejustsystem.

Still,wemustask,whatisthenatureofliteracyinSTEMlearning?Earlyattemptstodefineit

comefromsuchinfluentialfiguresasJ.C.R.Licklider,oneofthefoundersofwhatisnowthe

Internet,andwhosenotionofcomputerliteracydrewmuchonJohnDewey’sideasabouta

democraticpopulusofinformedcitizens.Ascomputersbecamealmostubiquitousinthefirst

decadeofthe21stCentury,peoplebeganwhatnowseemslikealifelongexplorationto

understandtheroleofthesenewtechnologiesintheirlives.Theinevitablereductionof

“computerliteracy”toalaundrylistofknowledgeandskills(comparewithE.D.Hirsch’s

- 26 -

controversialCulturalLiteracy)promptedPaperttorespondwithappealstotherichnessof

what“literacy”means:

Whenwesay“Xisaveryliterateperson,”wedonotmeanthatXishighlyskilledatdeci-

pheringphonics.Attheleast,weimplythatXknowsliterature,butbeyondthiswemeanthatX

hascertainwaysofunderstandingtheworldthatderivefromanacquaintancewithliterary

culture.Inthesameway,thetermcomputerliteracyshouldrefertothekindsofknowingthat

derivefromcomputerculture.(1992,p.52)italicsadded

Othercontributionstothenotionofdigitalliteracyremainrootedintheparticular

perspectivesoftheircontributors.AlanKay(1996)wroteofan“authoringliteracy.”Journalist

PaulGilster(2000)talkedabout“digitalliteracy.”AndreadiSessa(2000),creatoroftheBoxer

environment,wroteextensivelyon“computationalliteracy,”anotionhehopeswillriseabove

thebanalityofearlierconceptions.

Clearly,bycomputationalliteracyIdonotmeanacasualfamiliaritywithamachinethat

computes.Inretrospect,Ifinditremarkablethatsocietyhasallowedsuchashamefuldebasing

ofthetermliteracyinitsconventionaluseinconnectionwithcomputers.(diSessa2000,p.5)

RandSpiroandcolleagues(2007&2001),aneducationalpioneerofhowlearningchanges

withhypermedia,multimedia,andnowweb-baseinteractivemedia,explainedhowlearners

becomeliterateusingtheglobalandwell-knownapproachcalledCognitiveFlexibilityTheory

(CFT).Usingthefollowinganalogyof“criss-crossinglandscapes,”theyweaveawayfor

learnerstogain“deeplearning”inknowledgedomainsthatare“ill-structured.”

Whenonecriss-crosseslandscapesofknowledgeinmanydirections(themaininstructional

metaphorofCFT,drawnfromWittgenstein,arevisitingisnotarepeating.Theresultis

knowledgerepresentationswhosestrengthisdeterminednotbyasingleconceptualthread

- 27 -

runningthroughallormostpartsofthedomain’srepresentation,butratherfromthe

overlappingofmanyshorterconceptual“fibers”(Wittgenstein,1953),asbefitsanill-

structureddomain.(Spiro,Collins,&Ramchandran,2007,p.96).

Thedifficultyofcomingtotermswithcomputerordigitalliteracyinanystraightforwardway

hasledMaryBrysontoidentifythe“miracleworker”discoursethatresults,inwhich“experts”

arecalledupontostepintoasituationandimplementthewondersthattechnologypromises.

[W]ehearthatwhatisessentialfortheimplementationandintegrationoftechnologyinthe

classroomisthatteachersshouldbecome“comfortable”usingit...wehaveamastercode

capableofutilizinginoneplatformwhatfortheentirehistoryofourspeciesthusfarhasbeen

irreduciblydifferentkindsofthings...everyconceivableformofinformationcannowbe

cominedwitheveryotherkindtocreateadifferentformofcommunication,andwhatweseekis

comfortandfamiliarity?(deCastell,Bryson,&Jenson,2000)italicsadded

Familiarityandcomfort,indeed!Bringontheaffordances,theyareproposing!

Howeverdifficulttodefine,somesenseof“literacy”isgoingtobeaninescapablepartof

thinkingaboutdigitaltechnologyandlearning.Ifwemovebeyondasimpleinstrumentalview

ofthecomputerandwhatitcando,andtakeseriouslyhowitchangesthewaysinwhichwe

relatetoourworld,thentheissueofhowwerelatetosuchtechnologies,inthecomplexsense

ofaliteracy,willremaincrucial.

DigitalMediaasThinkingTools

DavidJonassenisperhapsbestknownintheeducationaltechnologydomainastheeducator

connectedwithbringingtoprominencetheideaofcomputerasmindtool(2005;1996).

Breakingrankwithhispreviousinstructionistapproachdetailingwhathetermedframesfor

- 28 -

instruction(Duffy&Jonassen1992),Jonassen’slaterworkreflectstheinspirationofleading

constructionistthinkerslikeSeymourPapert.Oneoftheclassicquotationsontheuseofthe

computerasatoolfromPapert’slandmarkbook,Mindstorms:Children,Computers,and

PowerfulIdeas(1980),is:

Forme,thephrase“computeraspencil”evokesthekindofusesIimaginechildrenofthe

futuremakingofcomputers.Pencilsareusedforscribblingaswellaswriting,doodlingaswell

asdrawing,forillicitnotesaswellasforofficialassignments(Papert,210).

Whileitiseasytothinkofthecomputerasasimpletool—atechnologicaldevicewhichweuse

toaccomplishacertaintaskasweuseapen,abacus,canvas,ledgerbook,filecabinet,andso

on—atoolcanbemuchmorethanjustabetterpencil.Itcanbeavehicleforinteractingwith

ourintelligence—athinkingtoolandacreativetool.Forexample,apopularnotionisthat

learningmathematicsfacilitatesabstractandanalyticthinking.Thisdoesnotmeanthat

mathematicscanbeequatedwithabstractthinking.Thecomputerasatoolenableslearnersof

mathematicstoplaywiththeelementsthatcreatethestructuresofthediscipline.Touse

Papert’sexample,childrenusingtheLogoprogramminglanguageexploremathematicsand

geometrybymanipulatingavirtual“turtle”onthescreentoactoutmovementsthatform

geometricentities(Papert,1980).ChildrenprogramminginLogothinkdifferentlyabouttheir

thinking,becomingepistemologists.AsPapertwouldsay,Logoisnotjustabetterpencilfor

doingmathematicsbutatoolforthinkingmoredeeplyaboutmathematics,bycreatingpro-

ceduresandprograms,structureswithinstructures,constructed,deconstructed,and

reconstructedintolargerwholes.

Papertledagroundbreakingseriesofresearchprojectsthatbroughtcomputingtechnologyto

school-childrenusingLogo.InMindstorms,PapertexplainedthatLogoputschildrenincharge

- 29 -

ofcreatingcomputationalobjects—originally,byprogrammingamechanical“turtle”(a1.5

footroundobjectthatcouldbeprogramedtomoveonthefloorandcoulddrawalineonpaper

asitmovedaround),andthenlatera“virtual”turtlethatmovedonthecomputerscreen.

AprotégéofJeanPiaget,Papertwasconcernedwiththedifficulttransitionfrom“concrete”to

“formal”thinking.Papertsawthecomputerasthetoolthatcouldmaketheabstractconcrete:

Statedmostsimply,myconjectureisthatthecomputercanconcretize(andpersonalize)the

formal.Seeninthislight,itisnotjustanotherpowerfuleducationaltool.Itisuniqueinpro-

vidinguswiththemeansforaddressingwhatPiagetandmanyothersseeastheobstacle

whichisovercomeinthepassagefromchildtoadultthinking(Papert,1980,p.21).

BeyondPiaget’snotionofconstructivism,thetheoryofconstructionismfocuseditslenslesson

thestagesofthoughtproductionandmoreontheartifactsthatlearnersbuildascreative

expressionsoftheirunderstanding.Papertunderstoodthecomputerasnotmerelybeinga

tool(inthesenseofahammer)butasanobject-to-think-withthatfacilitatesnovelwaysof

thinking.

Constructionism—theNwordasopposedtotheVword—sharesconstructivism’sconnotation

oflearningasbuildingknowledgestructuresirrespectiveofthecircumstancesofthelearning.

Itthenaddstheideathatthishappensespeciallyfelicitouslyinacontextwherethelearneris

consciouslyengagedinconstructingapublicentity,whetherit’sasandcastleonthebeachora

theoryoftheuniverse(Papert,1991,p.1).

Bythelate1980s,theresearchconductedbytheLearningandEpistemologyResearchGroup

atMITwasoneofthemostinfluentialforcesinlearningtechnology.Alarge-scaleintensive

researchprojectcalledProjectHeadlightwasconductedattheHenniganSchoolinBoston,

studyingallmannerofphenomenaaroundtheexperienceofschool-childrenandLogo-

- 30 -

equippedcomputers.Asnapshotofthisresearchisfoundintheeditedvolume,

Constructionism(Harel&Papert,1991),whichcoverstheperspectivesofsixteenresearchers.

Forexample,AaronFalbelandRickiGoldman-SegallsituatedtheirresearchinIvanIllich’s

theoryofconvivialityasdescribedinToolsforConviviality(Illich,1973)—atheorythat,inits

simplestform,recommendstoolsbesimpletouse,accessibletoall,andbeneficialfor

humankind.Falbelworkedwithchildrentocreateanimationfromoriginaldrawingsandto

thinkofthemselvesasconviviallearners.Goldman-Segallconductedathree-yearvideo

ethnographyofchildren’sthinkingstylesincomputer-richlearningculturesandcreateda

computer-basedvideoanalysistoolcalledLearningConstellationstoanalyzehervideocases.

InJudySachter’swork,childrenexploredtheirunderstandingof3-Drotationandcomputer

graphics,leadingthewayforunderstandinghowchildrenunderstandgaming.Atthesame

time,MitchellResnick,SteveOcko,andFredMartindesignedsmartLEGO™brickscontrolled

byLogo.TheseLEGO™objectscouldbeprogrammedtomoveaccordingtoLogocommands

(Resnick&Ocko,1991;Martin&Resnick,1993).ResearcherNiraGranottaskedadultlearners

todeconstructhowandwhytheseLegoroboticcreaturesmovedinthewaytheydid.Hergoal

wastounderstandtheconstructionofinternalcognitivestructuresthatallowaninteractive

relationshipbetweencreatoranduser(Granott,1991).

Granott’stheoryofhowdiverseindividualsunderstandthecomplexmovementsof

Lego™/Logo“creatures”waswovenintoanewfabricwhichResnick—workingwith

Lego/Logorobots—calleddistributedconstructionism(Resnick,1991&1994).UriWilensky,

withResnick,deepenedthetheoreticalframeworkaroundthebehaviorofcomplexsystems,

introducinga“levels”framework(Resnick&Wilensky,1998;Wilensky&Resnick,1999;

Wilensky&Reisman,2006).).Tomodel,describe,predictandexplainemergentphenomenain

- 31 -

complexsystems,ResnickandWilenskydesignedStarLogo™;Wilenskyhasmorerecently

designedthemorewidelyusedsuccessor,NetLogo™(Wilensky,1999)whichalsoincludesa

moduleforconductingparticipatorysimulations(Wilensky&Stroup,1999).Wilensky,a

mathematicianconcernedwithexpandingmathematicseducation,connecteditmoreto

scienceeducationandtoprobability(Wilensky,1993),isoftcitedforhisaskingasimple

questiontoyoungpeople:Howdogeeseflyinformation?Theanswersthatyoungpeoplegive

showhowinterestingyetdifficultemergentphenomenaaretodescribe.

MathematicswasanimportantframeformuchoftheresearchconductedinProjectHeadlight.

Paperthimselfwasanotedmathematician.InonestudyattheHenniganSchool,Harelworked

withgroupsofchildrencreatinggamesinLogoforotherchildrentouseinlearningabout

fractions.Theideathatchildrencouldbedesignersoftheirowrnlearningenvironmentswas

developedfurtherbyYasminKafaiwhointroducedcomputerdesigntounderstandhowgirls

andboysthinkwhenplayinganddesigninggames,atopicofgreatinteresttovideogame

designers(Kafai,1993;1996).Kafaihasspentmorethanadecadecreatingarangeofvideo

gameenvironmentsforgirlsandboystodesignenvironmentsforlearning.Inshort,Kafai

connectedtheworldofplayinganddesigningtothelifeoftheclassroominanumberof

studiesinthe1990sandearly2000s.HerecurrentworkattheUniversityofPennsylvania

focusesontopicsconnectedwiththeLearningSciences,Constructionism,games,virtual

worlds,andgender.

ContinuingtoexpandPapert’slegacywithanewgenerationofgraduatestudents,Kafai(then)

atUCLA,ResnickattheMITMediaLab,GranottattheUniversityofTexasinDallas,Ricki

GoldmanatNewYorkUniversity,andWilenskyatNorthwesternUniversity,continueto

explorethenotionofcomputerdeviceasathinkingtoolfromtheconstructionistperspective.

- 32 -

Constructionismisnowmoresocial,distributed,andcomplexanapproachandhasalsobeen

re-interpretedwithamoresituatedandecologicalperspectivethaninthemid-1980s.Tobe

expectedgiventhetechnologicalchanges.

DigitalMediaforScaffolding

Thecomputerasscaffoldisyetanotheralternativetotool,environment,orpartner.This

versionmakesreferencetoVygotsky’sconstructofthezoneofproximaldevelopment(ZPD),

definedas

...thedistancebetweentheactualdevelopmentallevelasdeterminedbyindependentproblem

solvingandthelevelofpotentialdevelopmentasdeterminedthroughproblemsolvingunder

adultguidanceorincollaborationwithmorecapablepeers.(Vygotsky,1978,p.86)

Thescaffoldmetaphororiginallyreferredtotheroleoftheteacher,embodyingthe

characteristicsofprovidingsupport,providingasupportivetool,extendingthelearner’srange,

allowingthelearnertoaccomplishtasksnototherwisepossible,andbeingselectivelyusable

(Greenfield,1984,p.118).

Vygotsky’sconstructhasbeenpickedupbydesignersofeducationalsoftware,inparticularthe

CSILEprojectattheOntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation(OISE).AtOISE,Marlene

ScardamaliaandCarlBereiterworkedtowarddevelopingacollaborativeknowledge-building

environmentandaskedhowlearners(children)couldbegivenrelativelymorecontrolover

theZPDthroughdirectingthekindsofquestionsthatdriveeducationalinquiry(Scardamalia&

Bereiter,1991).TheCSILEenvironmentprovidedascaffoldedconferencingandnote-taking

environmentinwhichlearnersthemselvescouldbeinchargeofthequestioningandinquiryof

collaborativework—somethingmoretraditionallycontrolledbytheteacher—insuchaway

thatkepttheendeavourfromdegeneratingintochaos.

- 33 -

AnotherexampleoftechnologicalscaffoldingcomesfromGeorgeLandow’sresearchintousing

hypertextandhypermedia—non-linear,reader-driventextandmedia—inthestudyofEnglish

literature(Landow&Delany,1993).InLandow’sresearch,astudentcouldgainmore

informationaboutsomeaspectofShakespeare,forexample,byfollowinganynumberoflinks

presentedinanelectronicdocument.AmajorcomponentofLandow'sworkwashisbeliefin

providingstudentswiththecontextofthesubjectmatter.Thetechnologicalscaffolding

providesawayofmanagingthatcontext—sothatitisnotsolarge,orcomplicated,ordaunting

thatitpreventslearnersfromexploring,butflexibleandinvitingenoughtoencourage

explorationbeyondtheoriginaltext.Thequestionfacingfutureresearchersofthesenon-

linearandalternatelystructurestechnologiesmaybethis:canthecomputerenvironment

createaplaceinwhichthecontextortheculture,asanthropologistCliffordGeertz(1973)

wouldsay,isfelt,understood,andcanbecommunicatedtoothers?Morecontroversially,per-

haps,canthesetechnologiesbedesignedandguidedbythelearnersthemselveswithoutlosing

therichnessthatdirectengagementwithexpertsandteacherscanofferthem?

DigitalMediaforCognitivePartnering

Somewhereamidconceivingofcomputingtechnologyasartificialmindandconceivingofitas

communicationsmediumisthenotionofcomputeraspartner.Thissomewhatmore

romanticizedversionof“technologyastool”putsmoreemphasisonthecommunicativeand

interactiveaspectsofcomputing.Acomputerismorethanatoollikethepencilthatonewrites

withbecause,insomesense,itwritesback.Andwhilethisideahassurelyexistedsinceearly

AIandITSresearch,itwasn’tuntilanimportantarticleintheearly1990s(Salomon,Perkins,&

Globerson,1991)thattheideaofcomputersas“partnersincognition”wastrulyelaborated.

- 34 -

Asearlyasthe1970s,GavrielSalomonhadbeenexploringtheuseofmedia(televisionin

particular)anditseffectuponchildhoodcognition(Salomon1979).WellversedinMarshall

McLuhan’s(1964)adage,themediumisthemessage,latertobecomethemediumisthe

massage,Salomonhasbuiltabridgebetweenthosewhoproposeaninstrumentalistviewof

media(mediaeffectstheory)andthosewhounderstandmediatobeaculturalartifactinand

ofitself.Alongtheselines,in1991,Salomon,DavidPerkins,andTamarGlobersondrewavery

importantdistinction:

Effectswithtechnologyobtainedduringpartnershipwithit,andeffectsofitintermsofthe

transferablecognitiveresiduethatthispartnershipleavesbehindintheformofbettermastery

ofskillsandstrategies”(Salomon,Perkins,&Globerson,1991,p2).

Theirarticlecameatatimewhentheeffectsofcomputersonlearnerswerebeingroundly

criticized(Sloan1985;Pea&Kurland,1987),andhelpedbreaknewgroundtowardamore

distributedviewofknowledgeandlearning(Brown,Collins,&Duguid,1996[1989];Pea,

1993).Toconceiveofthecomputerasapartnerincognition—orlearning,orwork—isto

admititintotheculturalmilieu,toforegroundtheideathatthemachine,insomewayhas

agencyoratleastinfluenceinourthinking.

Ifweascribeagencytothemachine,wearegoingsomewaytowardanthropomorphizingit,a

topicSherryTurklehaswrittenaboutextensively(Turkle,1984;1995).Goldman-Segallwrites

ofherpartnershipwithdigitalresearchtoolsas“apartnershipofintimacyandimmediacy”

(1998a,p.33).MITinterfacetheoristAndrewLippmandefinedinteractivityasmutualactivity

andinterruptibility(Brand,1987),andAlluquereRosanneStonegoesfurther,referringtothe

partnershipwithmachinesas“aprostheticdevice”forconstructingdesire(Stone,1995).

Computersare,asAlanKayenvisionedintheearly1970s,personalmachines.

- 35 -

Thenotionofcomputersascognitivepartnersisfurtherexemplifiedinresearchconductedby

anthropologistLucySuchmanatXerox.Suchman’sPlansandSituatedActions:TheProblemof

Human-MachineCommunicationexploredthedifferencebetweenrational,purposiveplans,

andcircumstantial,negotiated,situatedactions.Ratherthanactionsbeingimperfectcopiesof

rationalplans,Suchmanshowedhow“plans”areidealizedrepresentationsofreal-world

actions.Withthisinmind,Suchmanarguedthat,ratherthanworkingtowardmoreandmore

elaboratecomputationalmodelsofpurposiveaction,researchersgiveprioritytothe

contextualsituatednessofpractice:

Abasicresearchgoalforstudiesofsituatedaction,therefore,istoexplicatetherelationship

betweenstructuresofactionandtheresourcesandconstraintsaffordedbyphysicalandsocial

circumstances.(Suchman,1987,p.179)

Suchman’scolleaguesatXeroxPARCinthe1980sdesignedtoolsasstructureswithinworking

contexts;innovativetechnologiessuchascollaborativedesignboards,real-timevirtual

meetingspaces,andvideoconferencingbetweenco-workerswereafewoftheenvironments

atPARCwherepeoplecouldscaffoldtheirexistingpractices.

MediaforSocialConstructionism

Historically,constructivistlearningtheorieswererootedintheepistemologiesofsocial

constructivistphilosopherJohnDewey,socialpsychologistLevVygotsky,developmentaland

cognitivepsychologistJeromeBruner.Knowledgeoftheworldisseentobeconstructed

throughexperience;theroleofeducationistoguidethelearnerthroughexperiencesthat

provideopportunitiestoconstructknowledgeabouttheworld.InPiaget’sversion,thisprocess

isstructuredbythesequenceofdevelopmentalstages.InVygostsky’scultural-historical

version,theprocessismediatedbythetoolsandcontextsofthechild’ssociocultural

- 36 -

environment.AsaresultoftheinfluenceofVygotsky’swork,researchersinavarietyof

institutionsviewthecomputerandnewmediatechnologiesasenvironments,drawingonthe

notionthatlearninghappensbestforchildrenwhentheyareengagedincreatingpersonally

meaningfuldigitalmediaartifactsandsharingthempublicly.LearningandEpistemology

Group,theCenterforChildrenandTechnology,Vanderbilt’sCognitionandTechnologyGroup,

TERC,theConcordConsortiuminBoston,GeorgiaTech,andSRIarejustafewofthe

exemplaryresearchsettingsinvolvedintheexplorationoflearningandteachingusing

technologiesaslearningenvironmentsduringthe1990s.Severalofthesecommunities(SRI

International,Stanford,Berkeley,andtheConcordConsortium)formedanassociationcalled

CILT,theCenterforInnovationinLearningandTeachingwhichbecameahubforresearchers

frommanyinstitutions.Morerecently,aNationalScienceFoundationScienceofLearning

CentercalledLIFE(LearninginInformalandFormalEnvironments),wasestablished.Itis

hostedattheUniversityofWashingtoninpartnershipwithStanfordUniversityandSRI

International.

Therangeofmethodologicalperspectivesemployedinthesevariousresearchinstitutions,

however,isasdiverseasmightbeexpected.Moreover,thediscussionaboutwhatconstitutes

goodresearchvariedfromcommunitytocommunitywithsomeusingmostlyqualitative

methodsandothersusingquantitativemeasuresandmethods.Qualitativeresearchmethods,

withtheiremphasisoncasestudiesandin-depthanalyses,bestdescribetheconclusionsofa

studythatisconstructionistbydesign.Constructioniststendtobeinterestedindiggingaround

inthecomplexityofasmallsetofeventswhileinstructioniststendtofocusontheorganization

ofalargersetofvariables.Aninstructionisttendstofirstlookatawholesystemandthen

breakthewholeintosmallerunitstobelearnedorprocessed;constructionistsbuildup.They

- 37 -

puttogethersmallunitsandcombinemicro-proceduresintotheelements—orchunks—of

largerstructuresandwholes.Thisdoesnotmeanthatconstructionistsdon’thaveplansasthey

tinkerorplaywithcomputationalobjects.Farfromit;constructionistshaveplanswhicharein

continualfluxasthepartsofanywholeprogramarebuilt,assembled,andintegrated

(Suchman,1987).Eventhesmallestchangeinaprocedurecandramaticallyaltertheoutcome

ofaprogram.Thedesigner/constructionist“tweaks”codeatbothtopandbottomlevelsinthe

infiniterefinementofanartifact.

Whenindividualsandgroupscreatedigitalmediaartifacts,thoseartifactstheninhabitthe

learningenvironment,creatinganecologythatwesharewithoneanotherandwithourmedia

constructions.Technologycanbeseenasanexpressivetoolthatallowslearnerstomanipulate

objects-to-think-withandthroughexplorationandreflectiontocometomoreformal

understandingsofsystemsandrelationships.Technologyisthusnotjustaninstrumentweuse

withinanenvironment,butispartofthesocialandecologicalenvironmentitself.

DigitalMediaforCollaborativeandDistanceLearning

Themostsignificantadvancementofcollaborativelearningwithcomputersisthe

developmentoftheComputer-SupportedCollaborativeLearning(CSCL)communitywhich

hostsabi-annualconferenceandajournalcalledtheInternationalJournalofComputer-

SupportedCollaborativeLearning.Ina1996article,TimothyKoschmannsuggestedthatthe

majoreducationaltechnologyparadigmofthelate1990swouldbeCSCL,acloserelativeofthe

emergingfieldofcomputer-supportedcollaborativework(CSCW).Educationaltechnology,

Koschmannpointedout,isnowconcernedwithcollaborativeactivities,largelyusingnetworks

andcomputerconferencingfacilities.WhetherornotCSCLconstitutesaparadigmshiftisa

questionthatisyettobeanswered,butKoschmann'sidentificationofthetrendiswellnoted.

- 38 -

Twooft-citedresearchpapersbyMargaretRiel(andcolleagues)intothiscategory:Margaret

Riel,JamesLevin,andcolleagueson“teleprenticeship”(Levin,Riel,Miyake,&Cohen,1987)

and“learningcircles”(Riel,1993;1996).Learningcirclesconnectedmanystudentsatgreat

distances—classroomtoclassroomasmuchasstudenttostudent—inlarge-scalecollaborative

learning.

HiltzandTuroff'sNetworkNation(1978),althoughoriginallyconcernedmostlywithbusiness

communicationsandmanagementscience,exploredteachingandlearningwithnetwork

technologies,applyingtheirinsightstopracticalproblemsofteachingandlearningonline.

Ingeneral,themorethecourseisorientedtoteachingbasicskills(suchasderivingmathe-

maticalproofs),themorethelectureisneededinsomeformasanefficientmeansofdelivering

illustrationsofskills.However,themorethecourseinvolvespragmatics,suchas

interpretationsofcasestudies,themorevaluableistheCMC[ComputerMediated

Communication]modeofdelivery.(Hiltz&Turoff,1993[1978]p.471)

(Lookingabitfurtherbackintime,oneneedstoreflectforamomentontheearliest

beginningsofthisresearch.ItisoftencreditedtotheworkofDouglasEngelbartatSRIinthe

1960s(BootstrapInstitute,1994).Englebart'sworkcenteredaroundtheoNLineSystem(NLS),

acombinationofhardwareandsoftwarethatfacilitatedthefirstnetworkedcollaborative

computing,settingthestageforworkgroupcomputing,documentmanagementsystems,

electronicmail,andthefieldofcomputer-supportedcollaborativework(CSCW).)

Thefirstcomputerconferencemanagementinformationsystem,EMISARI,wascreatedby

MurrayTuroffwhileworkingintheUSOfficeofEmergencyPreparednessinthelate1960sand

wasusedformonitoringdisruptionsandmanagingcrises.Turoffcontinueddeveloping

networked,collaborativecomputingattheNewJerseyInstituteofTechnology(NJIT)inthe

- 39 -

1970sworkingwithStarrRoxanneHiltz.TuroffandHiltzfoundedthefieldofcomputer-

mediatedcommunication(CMC)withtheirlandmarkbook,TheNetworkNation(1993[1978]).

Thebookdescribesanewworldofcomputerconferencingandcommunications,andistothis

dayimpressiveinitscomprehensiveinsightfulness.HiltzandTuroff'sworkinspireda

generationofcomputermediatedcommunicationresearchers,notablyincludingtechnology

theoristAndrewFeenberg(1987;1993)atSanDiegoStateUniversity,andVirtual-Ufounder

LindaHarasim(1990;1993)atSimonFraserUniversity.

ParalleltotheearlydevelopmentofCMC,researchinCAI(ComputerAssistedLearning)began

totakeseriouslythepossibilitiesofconnectingstudentsovernetworks.Asmentionedearlier,

thePLATOsystemattheUniversityofIllinoiswasprobablythefirstlargescaledistributedCAI

system.PLATOwasalargetimesharingsystem,designed(andindeedeconomicallyrequired)

tosupportthousandsofusersconnectingfromnetworkedterminals.Inthe1970s,PLATO

begantoofferpeer-to-peerconferencingfeatures,makingitoneofthefirstonlineeducational

communities(Woolley,1994).

DistanceeducationresearcherswereinterestedinCMCtoo,asanadjuncttoorreplacement

formoretraditionalmodesofcommunication,suchasaudioteleconferencingandthepostal

service.TheBritishOpenUniversitywasanearlytestbedofonlineconferencing.Researchers

likeA.W.Bates(1988),andAlexanderRomiszowskiandJohandeHaas(1989)werelooking

intotheopportunitiespresentedbycomputerconferencingandthechallengesofconducting

groupsinthesetext-onlyenvironments.Morerecently,Bateshaswrittenextensivelyaboutthe

managementandplanningoftechnology-baseddistanceeducation,drawingontwodecades

ofexperiencebuilding“openlearning”systemsintheUKandCanada(Bates,1995).

- 40 -

Inthe1990s,HiltzwroteextensivelyaboutComputerMediatedCommunication(CMC)and

education.Her1994book,TheVirtualClassroom,elaboratesamethodologyforconducting

educationincomputer-mediatedenvironmentsemphasizingtheimportanceofassignments

usinggroupcollaborationtoimprovemotivation.Hiltzhopedthatstudentswouldsharetheir

assignmentswiththecommunityratherthanbeing“mailed”totheinstructor.Hiltzwassurely

onamajorplayerinthelate1980sandearly1990sasresearchersaroundtheworldbeganto

realizethepromiseof“anyplace,anytime”learning(Harasim,1993)andstudythedynamicsof

teachersandlearnersinonline,asynchronousconferencingsystems.

Hilz&Goldman(2004),inacollaboratedonaneditedbookcalledLearningTogetherOnline:

ResearchonAsynchronousLearningNetworksdiscussthepast,present,andfutureeducational

researchonAsynchronousNetworkedLearning(ALN)communityAhostofauthorswith

theoreticalandpracticalexperienceinrunningALNscontributedtothebook.Inthefinal

chapterbyGoldman&Hilz(2010),theresearchersremindusthatbeingpartofasocial

networkdoesnothavetomean“wastingtime;”itisaboutgrowingacultureoflearners.Using

theexampleofjazzplayers,theynotethat…

…whilesomeartistssaytheyfindthattherequiredsocialnetworkingkeepsthemawayfromtheirrealpassion,creatingtheirworks,manymaintainthatthecontinualpushandpullwith…thesocialworldoftheirartistryenablesthemtoseethingswithagreaterperspectivewhenreturningtotheirwork.Whatwearedescribingisaculturewherethelearnersdrivetocreateisappreciated,theartifactsthatarecreatedhaveapublicspheretobeshownin,andthesystemissupportedbecauseitoffersimportantvaluestothehealthfulnessofsociety.Inshort,culturesarecreatedsupportingmembers’activitiesandtheseculturesthenproducesub-cultureswhileaffectingchangestotheoverallculture.

Intheearly1990s,students,teachers,andresearchersaroundtheworldbegantoengagein

networkedcollaborativeprojects.AttheInstitutefortheLearningSciences(ILS)at

NorthwesternUniversity,theCollaborativeVisualization(Co-Vis)projectinvolvedgroupsof

- 41 -

youngpeopleindifferentschoolsconductingexperimentsandgatheringscientificdataon

weatherpatterns(Edelson,Pea,andGomez1996).ResearchattheMultimediaEthnographic

ResearchLab(MERLin)attheUniversityofBritishColumbiafocusedonhowyoungpeople,

teachers,andresearchersconductedethnographicinvestigationsonacomplexenvironmental

crisisatClayoquotSoundonthewestcoastofVancouverIsland(Goldman-Segall,1994),with

theaimofcommunicatingwithotheryoungpeopleindiverselocations.TheGlobalForest

projectwascenteredaroundaCD-ROMdatabaseofvideobutusedtheWorld-WideWebto

allowparticipantsfromaroundtheworldtosharediversepointsofviewingandinterpretation

ofthevideodata.

AttheTERCresearchcenter,large-scalecollaborativeprojectsweredesignedinconjunction

withtheNationalGeographicSocietyKidsNetwork(Tinker,1996;Feldman,Konold,and

Coulter,2000).TheTERCprojectwasconcernedwith“networkscience”andaswithRiel's

learningcircles,multipleclassroomscollaboratedtogether,inthiscasegathering

environmentalsciencedataandsharinginitsanalysis.

Forexample,intheNGSKidsNetworkAcidRainunit,studentscollectdataaboutacidrainin

theirowncommunities,submitthesedatatothecentraldatabase,andretrievethefullsetof

datacollectedbyhundredsofschools.Whenexaminedbystudents,thefullsetofdatamay

revealpatternsofacidityinrainfallthatnoindividualclassisablediscoverbyitselfbasedon

itsowndata.Overtime,thegridofstudentmeasurementswouldhavethepotentialtobemuch

morefinelygrainedthananythingavailabletoscientists,andthiswouldbecomeapotential

resourceforscientiststouse.(Feldman,Konold,&Coulter,2000p.7)

OneofthemostinterestingdevelopmentsinCMCsincetheadventoftheInternetisimmersive

virtualrealityenvironments—particularlyMUDsandMOOs—withinwhichlearnerscanmeet,

- 42 -

interact,andcollaborativelyworkonresearchorconstructedartifacts(Dede,1994;Haynes

andHolmevik,1998;Bruckman,1998).Virtualenvironments,alongwiththepopularbutless

interesting“chat”systemsontheInternet,addsynchronouscommunicationstothe

asynchronousmodessoextensivelyresearchedandwrittenaboutsinceHiltzandTuroff's

earlywork.Onecouldpositiontheseimmersive,virtualenvironmentsasperspectivity

technologiesastheycreatespacesforparticipantstocreateandsharetheirworlds.

Thereweremanywhopredictedthecultural,social,economic,andeducationalimpactofthe

Internetasasiteforcollaboration.Indeed,fromthestandpointofthe21stCentury,mostnon-

materialcollaborationsandworkscreatedcollaboratively,insomeway,involvetheInternet.

Theresultisthatalleducationcomputingisacommunicationssystem,involvingdistributed

systems,peer-to-peercommunication,telementoring,orsomesimilarconstruct—quiteas

RoxanneStarHiltzandMurrayTuroffpredictedinthe1970s.Alongwith“socialmedia”asa

commonactivity,perspectivitytechnologies(technologieswhichenable,encourage,and

expandusers’pointsofviewing)canbedesignedtocreatemoredemocratic,interactive,

convivial,andcontextualcommunicationthatinvolvestakeholders’decisions.(Goldman-

Segall,2000).

TheInternethasclearlyopenedupenormouspossibilitiesforsharedlearning.Theemergence

ofbroadstandardsforInternetsoftwarehaslentastabilityandrelativesimplicitytolearning

software.Moreover,thecurrentwidespreadavailabilityanduseofInternettechnologiescould

besaidtomarktheendofCMCasaresearchfielduntoitself,asitpracticallymergesCMCwith

allmannerofotherconceptualizationsofnewmediatechnologicaldevices:CAI,intelligent

tutoringsystems,simulations,robotics,smartboards,wirelesscommunications,wearable

technologies,pervasivetechnologies,andevensmartappliances.

- 43 -

Digital Media as Perspectivity-Sharing

OnecouldtracethefirstglimmerofperspectivitytechnologiestoXerox’PARCinthe1970s.

There,AlanKaywasinventingwhatwenowrecognizeasthe“personalcomputer,”asmall,

customizabledevicewithsubstantialcomputingpower,massstorage,andtheabilitytohandle

multiplemediaformats.Kay’sadvances,whilesimplypedestriantoday,wereatthetime

revolutionary.Kay’svisionofsmall,self-containedpersonalcomputerswaswithout

precendent,aswashisvisionofhowtheywouldbeused:aspersonalizedmediaconstruction

toolkitsthatwouldusherinanewkindofliteracy.Withthisliteracywouldstartthediscourse

betweentechnologyasscientifictoolandtechnologyaspersonalexpression.

Theparticularaimof[Xerox’LearningResearchGroup]wastofindtheequivalentofwriting—

thatis,learningandthinkingbydoinginamedium—ournew“pocketuniverse.”(Kay,1996,p.

552)

AtBankStreetCollegeinthe1980s,avideoandvideodiscprojectcalledTheVoyageofthe

MimiimmersedlearnersinscientificexplorationofwhalesandMayancultures.Learners

identifiedstronglywiththestudentcharactersinthevideostories.Similarly,theCognitionand

TechnologyGroupatVanderbilt(CTGV)wereworkingonvideo-basedunitsinanattemptto

involvestudentsinscientificinquiry(Martin1987).TheAdventuresofJasperWoodburywasa

seriesofvideodisc-basedadventureswhichprovidestudentswithengagingcontentand

contextsforsolvingmysteriesandmathematicalproblems(VanderbiltLearningTechnology

Centerwebsite).Whilebothoftheseenvironmentswereoutstandingexemplarsofstudents

usingvariousmediaformstogettoknowthepeopleandtheculturewithinthestory

structures,thelastingcontributionisnotonlyoneofenhancedmathematicalorsocialstudies

understanding,butratheraconnectiontopeoplewhoareengagedinreallifeinquiry.

- 44 -

WithanAIorientation,computerscientist,inventor,andeducatorElliotSolowayatthe

UniversityofMichiganbuilttoolstoenablelearnerstocreatepersonalhypermediadocuments,

reminiscentofKay’spersonalizedmediaconstructiontoolkits.Inhismorecurrentworkwith

JoeKrajcik,PhyllisBlumenfeld,andRonMarx,Solowayparticipateswithcommunitiesof

studentsandteachersastheyexploreproject-basedsciencethroughthedesignof

sophisticatedtechnologiesdevelopedfordistributedknowledgeconstruction(Soloway,

Krajcik,Blumenfeld,&Marx,1996).Similarly,atBerkeley,MarciaLinnanalyzedthecognition

ofstudentswhowroteprogramsinthecomputerlanguageLISP,andAndreadiSessaworked

withstudentswhowerelearningphysicsusinghisprogramcalledBoxer.FordiSessa,physics

dealswith

...aratherlargenumberoffragmentsratherthanoneorevenanysmallnumberofintegrated

structuresonemightcall‘theories.’Manyofthesefragmentscanbeunderstoodassimple

abstractionsfromcommonexperiencesthataretakenasrelativelyprimitiveinthesensethat

theygenerallyneednoexplanation;theysimplyhappen.(diSessa,1988,p.52)

AndreadiSessa’stheoryofphysicsresonatesstronglywiththenotionofbricolage,atermfirst

usedbytheFrenchstructuralanthropologistClaudeLévi-Strauss(1968)todescribeaperson

whobuildsfrompiecesanddoesnothaveaspecificplanattheonsetoftheproject.Lévi-

Strausswasoftenusedasapointofdepartureforcognitivescientistsinterestedintheanalysis

offragmentsratherthaninbuildingbroadgeneralizationsfromtop-downrationalist

structures.Bythe1990s,Frenchsocialtheoryhasindeedinfiltratedthecognitiveparadigm,

legitimizingculturalanalysis.

Howeverinfluencedbythenotionofbricolage,onemightaskifthesetechnologyresearchers

wereawareofthefactthattheyhaddesignedperspectivityplatformsforinterationsbetween

- 45 -

individualsandcommunities?Perhapsnot,yetweproposethattheseenvironmentsbe

re/viewedthroughtheperspectivitylenstounderstandhowlearnerscometobuild

consensualtheoriesaroundcomplexhuman-technologyinteractions.Notsurprisingly,

Goldman’spreviousdigitalethnographiesofchildren’sthinking(1990;1991;1998)andher

currentoneinNewYorkCitywithgirlsdesigninggames(Kwah,Milne,Goldman&Plass,

submitted)areexemplarsinperspectivitytheory.Goldman-Segallestablishedunique

partnershipsamongviewer,author,andmediatexts;asetofpartnershipsthatrevolves

around,andisrevolvedaround,theconstantrecognitionofculturalconnectionsascore

factorsinusingnew-mediatechnologies(2008&2003).Situatingherdigitalethnographic

workinCliffordGeertz’snotionofthethickdescription,shecontinuestoexplorethetenuous,

slippery,andoftenpermeablerelationsbetweencreator,user,andmediaartifactthroughan

onlineenvironmentforvideoanalysis(1989;1998;2007).Avideosegment,forexample,isthe

representationofamomentinthemakingofcultures.Avideoobjectisaculturalobjectand

alsoa“personalsubject-tothink-with,”somethingtoturnaroundandreshapetogether.And,

justaswechangeitthroughourmanipulation,soitchangesbothourculturalpossibilitiesand

us.AfullerdescriptionofthisfieldcanbefoundinVideoResearchintheLearningSciences

(2007),publishedwithsixty-sevenlearningsciencevideoresearchers.Anothergoodexample

ofaperspectivitytechnologyisdescribedinthedoctoralworkofMaggieBeerswhoexplored

howpre-serviceteacherslearningmodernlanguagesbuildandcritiquedigitalartifacts

connectingselfandother(Beers2001;Beers&Goldman-Segall,2001).Beershasshownhow

groupsofpre-serviceteacherscreatevideoartifactsasrepresentationsoftheirvarious

culturesinordertoshareandunderstandeachothers’perspectivesasanintegralpartof

- 46 -

learningaforeignlanguage.Theselfbecomesastrongreferencepointforunderstanding

otherswhileengagedinmanycon/textswithmediatoolsandartifacts.

AnotherexemplaryapplicationofperspectivitytheoryisdemonstratedbyGerryStahl.Stahl

hasbeenworkingontheideaofperspectiveandtechnologyattheUniversityofColoradofor

morethanadecade.HisWebGuideformsthetechnicalfoundationintoaninvestigationofthe

roleofartifactsincollaborativeknowledgebuildingfordeepeningperspective.Drawingon

Vygotsky’stheoriesofculturalmediation,Stahl’sworkdevelopsmodelsofcollaborative

knowledgebuilding,andtheroleofsharedculturalartifacts—andparticularlydigitalmedia

artifacts—inthatprocess(Stahl1999).

Insum,perspectivitytechnologiesenhance,motivate,andprovidenewopportunitiesfor

learning,teaching,andresearchbecausetheyaddresshowthepersonalpointofviewconnects

withevolvingdiscoursecommunities.Perspectivitythinkingtoolsenableknowledge-based

culturestogrow,creatingbothrealandvirtualcommunitieswithinthelearningenvironment

toshareinformation,toaltertheself/otherrelationship,andtoopenthedoortoadeeper,

richerpartnershipwithourtechnologiesandoneanother.Justasalanguagechangesas

speakersaltertheoriginalform,sowillthenatureofdiscoursecommunitieschangeas

culturesspreadandvariationsareconstructed.

Inconclusion,perspectivitytechnologiesarewhatmakesarangeofsocialmediaand

interactivevideoandcomputergamessocompelling:learners/participantsbecome

collaborators,creators,andbuildersoftheirownlearningcommunitiesandhavethe

opportunitytobecomeconnectedwitheachotherinwaysthatenablecommensureability.

Digital Media for Playing and Learning with Games

- 47 -

Videoandcomputergamesarepopularandmotivatingenvironments,andtherehavebeen

callstousethemasawaytogetstudentsmoreengagedineducationandtousethemasvery

effectiveenvironmentsforlearning(e.g.,Prensky,2007).JamesGee(2007)makesthecase

thatvideogameshavemanyofthecharacteristicsthatlearningscienceresearchersoften

recommendforthedesignofeffectivelearningenvironments.Whenwell-designeddigital

gamesrepresentconceptualplayspacesinwhichlearners/playerscanworkinteamsorby

themselvestocreativelysolveproblems,developandtesthypotheses,andinvestigatethe

gamesystemanditsrules(Barab,Sadler,Heiselt,Hickey&Zuiker,2007;Shaffer,2006),

learnerscanplayattheirownpace,settheirowngoals,andregulatetheirownexploration

behaviorsinanenvironmentthatalsoengagesthemonbehavioral,cognitive,andemotional

levels(Domagk,Schwartz,&Plass,2010).However,theresultsfromstudiesofhowpeople

learncontentfromandwithvideogamesaremixed.Thissuggeststhatcarefulresearchis

neededtoshowunderwhatconditionsgamesareeffectiveforlearning.

Whatwedoknowatthistimeisthatexperimentalresearchhasshownstrongimprovements

ofbasicperceptualandcognitiveprocessesasaresultofplayingcertainvideogames.Several

studieshaveshownthatactiongames,i.e.,videogamesthatrequireplayerstodividetheir

attentionovermultipletargets(e.g.,Halo),resultinsignificantincreasesinplayers’contrast

sensitivity,aswellasintheplayers’abilitytododividedattentiontasks,whichisabasic

attentioncognitiveskill(Greenfield,etal,1994;Green&Bavelier,2003).Playofvideogames

usingvisualandspatialskills(e.g.,Tetris)alsoincreasesthosebasiccognitiveprocesses

(Subrahmanyam&Greenfield,1994);and,playofactionvideogames(e.g.,Unreal

Tournament)resultsinincreasedspatialresolutionandvisualacuity(Green&Bavelier,

2007).

- 48 -

Tounderstandthebenefitofusingvideogamesinalearningcontext,oneneedstoexamine

theirpotentialfuturefunctioninthelearningprocess.Heuristicsofexistinggamessuggest

foursuchfunctions:(1)prepareforfuturelearning,(2)teachnewknowledgeorskills,(3)

automateexistingknowledgeorskills,and(4)acquire21stCenturySkills(Plass,Perlin,&

Isbister,2010).

PreparationforFutureLearning.Gamestoprepareforfuturelearningdonotaimto

teachspecificknowledgeorskills,buttoprovidelearnerswithasharedexperiencebasedon

whichcontentcanbetaught.Gamegenrestypicallyusedforsuchgamesthereforeinclude

adventuregames,open-endedsimulationgames,androle-playinggameswherestudentshave

anopportunitytotakeondifferentperspectivesthroughroleplaying.ResearchbyHammer

andBlack(2009)suggeststhatthebestuseofvideogamesincontent(andperhapsother)

learningmightbeinprovidingexperiencewiththesubjectmatterthatwillleadtobetter

futurelearningofrelatedmaterialfromamoreformallearningsetting.Inonestudy,Hammer

andBlacklookedatexpertplayersoftheCivilizationhistorysimulationgameandfoundthat

theseexpertplayersdidnotknowanymoreaboutthehistoricalcontentcontainedinthegame

thanexpertplayersofanotherunrelatedgame(SimCity)did.Sofar,thisisconsistentwiththe

comparisonresearchoncontentlearningwithvideogames.However,thisstudyalso

examinedhowmuchtheexpertCivilizationplayerswouldlearnfromreadingacollege

textbookchapteronrelatedhistoricalcontent,andfoundthattheCivilizationplayerslearned

muchmorefromreadingthechapterthantheexpertplayersoftheSimCitycomparison

game.Thus,havingtheexperienceofgrapplingwithhistoricalissuesinthegamemayhave

providedtheplayerswithasetofexperiences,asJohnDewey(1938)said,thatbetter

preparedthemforfuturelearningfromamoreformallearningapproach(Bransfordand

- 49 -

Schwartz,2001).

ArelatedapproachistheTeachableAgentsprojectbySchwarz,Biswasandcolleagues(in

press).UsingtheTeachableAgentssystem,studentslearnbycreatingaconceptmapfora

topic(e.g.,riverecology)thatthenbecomeswhattheironlineagent(avatar)knowsaboutthe

topic.Thesystemthenputsquestionstotheagentandthestudentscanseehowwellthey

knowthetopicbyhowwelltheagentdoes(andrevisetheirandtheiragentsknowledgeby

changingtheconceptmapandtryingagain).Thereisevenaversionwherestudents’agents

can“play”againsteachotherinasimulatedTVquizshow,sothatthestudentscanseewhich

conceptmapsworkthebest.Experimentalresearchstudiesshowedthatstudentslearning

withTeachableAgentslearnedbetter(especiallycausalchains)thanalternativeapproaches

likestandardclassroominstructionandusingconceptmaps.

TeachNewKnowledgeandSkills.Astrongcasecanbemadethatmostifnotallgamesteachthe

learnernewknowledgeorskills(Gee,2007).However,theeffectivenessorefficacyofgames

forlearningatalargescalehasnotyetbeensufficientlyinvestigated.Disagreementamong

researchersexistswhethertheveryfeaturesthatmakegamesmotivatingandengaging—the

useofnarrativestoprovidecontextandrelevance,thedesignofemotionalexperiences,

opportunitiesfordiscoveryandexploration,andtheuseofcompellingvisual

representations—facilitatelearningorwhethertheyintroduceextraneouscognitive

processingdemandsonworkingmemorythatsuppresslearning(Kirschneretal2006).

Studiesthathavecomparedlearningacademiccontent(asopposedtoattentionandvisual-

spatialcognitiveskills)haveshownnegativeresultsforlearningfromvideogames.For

example,Egenfeldt-Nielsen(2005)comparedlearningaboutEuropeanhistoryfromplayinga

- 50 -

historysimulationgametolearningthesamecontentinaclassroom,andfoundthatstudents

learnedmorefromtheclassroom.Similarly,Mayer,MacNamaraandAdams(2011)foundthat

studentslearnedmoreaboutecologybymerelygoingthroughPowerpointslidesthantheydid

fromplayinganecologysimulationgame.

Ontheotherhand,qualitativeandobservationalstudieshaveshowedstudentlearningfrom

videogames(Squire,2004;Barab,Zuiker,Warren,Hickey,Ingram-Goble,Kwon,Kouper&

Herring,2007.Theseresultssuggestthatmoresophisticatedresearchmethodshavetobe

employedthatusebothqualitativeandquantitativedatainaninterwovenway,suchas

throughtheadoptionofPOV-T(1998),toinvestigatetheeffectivenessofgamesforthe

acquisitionofnewknowledgeandskills.

Thegame-plusapproachisdefinedentailsgamelearninginconjunctionwithotheractivities.

Consistentwiththisgames-plusapproach,SteinkuehlerandDuncan’s(2009)foundthat

playersofMassivelyMultiplayerOnlineGameslikeWorldofWarcraftshowinformalscientific

reasoningskillsinonlinediscussionforumsthataresupplementstothegamesandwhere

playerssharetheirexperiences.AnotherstudyconsistentwiththisapproachisAhn(2007)

andBlack(2011)wholookedatcollegeundergraduateslearningfromanentrepreneurship

simulationgame(fromHarvardBusinessSchool)aspartofanentrepreneurshipcollege

course.Thestudyfoundthatstudentslearnedmuchmorefromplayingthegame(multiple

times)whentheyalsoreflectedonandarticulatedtheirbusinessandgame-playingstrategies,

andrelatedthemtobackgroundreadingsintextbooksforthecourse(thisislikethecollege

textbookreadingintheHammerandBlackstudy).Theydidnotlearnnearlyasmuchfromthe

gameplayiftheydidnotreflectonhowitrelatestothisbackgroundreading.

- 51 -

Allofthevideogamestudiescoveredsofarinvolvestudentslearningfromplayingvideo

games.However,adifferent,buteffective,approachtovideogamesandlearningistohave

studentslearnbycreatingvideogamesthemselves.EarlystudiesbyHarel(1991)andKafai

(1995)showedthatstudentslearnedmoreaboutbothfractionsandcomputerprogramming

(theLogoprogramminglanguagedesignedforkids)iftheycreatededucationalsoftwareor

computergamestoteachotherstudentsaboutfractionsthantheydidiftheylearnedabout

fractionsandcomputerprogrammingseparately.Buildingonthiswork,Harel(nowHarel

Caperton)hasestablishedanonlinesocialnetworkingenvironmentcalledWorldWide

Workshopforkidstolearnbycreatingonlinegames

(http://www.worldwideworkshop.org/).Inrelatedmorerecentwork,FadjoandBlack(2011)

havefoundthathavingstudentsactoutwhattheywanttheirvideogameavatarstodo,then

programmingasimplevideogameinwhichtheavatarsperformtheseactions(seediscussion

ofembodiedcognitioninthischapter),isamoreeffectivewayforstudentstolearnthe

programmingandmathskillsthanhavingthemlearninalternativeways.

InagamesandgenderstudyinvolvingthegameRapunsel,designedtoteachmiddleschool

girlshowtoprogrambyusingaJava-likelanguagetocustomizetheavatarsinthegame,the

strongestimpactofthegamewasnotoncognitivelearningoutcomes.Afterusingthegamefor

onlyfoursessions,students’generalself-efficacy,programming-relatedself-efficacy,andself-

esteemincreasedsignificantly,suggestingthatgamesareabletoimpactlearners’identity

formationinawaythatpositivelychangestheirattitudestowardtheirabilitytoperform

science-relatedtasks(Plass,Goldman,Flanagan&Perlin,2009).

Automateexistingknowledgeorskills.Themajorityofgamesusedforlearningdonotaimto

- 52 -

teachsignificantnewknowledgeorskills,butaredesignedtohelpthelearnerautomate

existingskills,suchasbasicarithmetic,algebra,Newtonianmechanics,History,orothers.

Gamegenresusedforsuchgamesthereforetypicallyincludepuzzlegames,platformers,

labyrinthgames,andracegames,oftenimplementedasrelativelyshortminigames.Research

hasshownthatsuchgamesprovideavenueforplayerstousetheirknowledgeofbiological

andphysicalsciencetopics,suchasthewatercycle(Lim,Nonis&Hedberg,2006)and

principlesofelectromagnetism(Squire,Barnett,Grant,Higginbotham,2004),aswellasmath

topics,suchasmeasurement,wholenumbers,equations,andgraphing(Ke&Grabowski,

2007).Childrenasyoungassixyearsofagehavebeenfoundtodevelopstrongernumeracy

skillsafterplayingcomputergamesthatprovidepracticeinnumbersenseandcounting

(Rasanen,Salminen,Wilson,Aunio,&Dehaene,2009).Atthehighschoollevel,videogames

havebeenfoundtobeeffectivetoolsforthereinforcementofalgebraskillsinanimmersive3D

environment(Kebritchi,Hirumi&Bai,2010)aswellascomputerscienceconceptsintegrated

intoalabyrinthgame(Papastergiou,2009).

Acquire21stCenturySkills.Manygamesdonotaimtoteachacademicknowledgeorskills,orto

automateexistingknowledgeorskills,butratherfocusonthedevelopmentofskillsthathas

collectivelyhavecometobeknownas21stCenturySkills,althoughmostofthemhavebeen

recognizedformanydecades,ifnotcenturies,tobeimportantpredictorsofsuccessinlife.

Theseskillsincludecreativeproblemsolving,communicationskills,teamcollaboration,

emotionalintelligence,andmanyothers.Gamegenrestypicallyusedforsuchgamesinclude

adventuregamesandrole-playinggameswithlargenumbersofplayers,whichareknownas

MMOs(MassiveMultiplayerGames).Studieshaveshownthatsuchgamesfacilitatethe

acquisitionofsystemsbasedreasoningandsocialknowledgeconstruction(Steinkuehler&

- 53 -

Duncan,2009),collaborativeproblemsolving(Squire,2004),andcivicthinking(Bagley&

Shaffer,2009).

Allofthestudiescitedaboveassumethatthegamesusedintheinvestigationswerewell

designedtofacilitatelearning.However,asPlass,Homer,andHayward(2009)haveshown,

thedesignofgamesforlearningisahighlycomplexanddifficultprocessforwhichverylittle

theorybased,empiricallyvalidatedguidancefordesignersexist.Anotherlineofresearchhas

thereforebeenconcernedwiththeidentificationofdesignpatternsforeffectivegamesfor

learning.Thisresearch,whichisinpartbasedonresearchofthedesignofeffective

simulations,hasshownthaticonsareeffectivevisualrepresentationsofkeyinformation,

especiallyforyoungerlearnersandlearnerswithlowpriorknowledgeinthesubjectmatter

(Plass,Homer,Milne,Jordan,Kalyuga,Kim&Lee2009;Homer&PlassChang,Frye,Kaczetow,

Isbister&Perlin,2011).

Otherresearchhasinvestigatedthemodeofplayforgamesteachingmathskills,comparing

collaborativeplayandcompetitiveplaytoasingleplayerversionofagame.Resultsindicate

thatplayersenjoyplayingwithothersmore(incollaborativeorcompetitivemode)andsolve

moreproblemsinthecompetitivemode,butthattheyacquireahighermathfluency,an

expressionoftheacquiredmathskills,whenplayingbythemselves.

Afinalstudyinvestigatedtheuseofdifferentlearningmechanicsinagametoteachmiddle

schoolgeometry.Playerswereaskedtosolvemissinganglesinordertoclearthepathfortheir

avatartofreeapeerfromimprisonment.Onemechanicwasdesignedtorequiretheplayerto

computethecorrectvalueofthemissingangleandenterthisnumberasresponse,whereas

anothermechanicaskedlearnerstoidentifywhichrule(e.g.,complementaryanglesrule,

- 54 -

supplementaryanglesrule,oppositeanglesrule,orthelike)theywouldapplytosolvethe

problem.Resultssuggestthatcomputingthecorrectanglesvaluewasmoresituationally

interestingthanidentifyingthecorrectrule.However,participantsintheruleconditionwere

foundtoperformbetterinthegamethanthoseinthenumbercondition.Resultsfurther

suggestthatinthenumbercondition,butnottherulecondition,playingmorelevelsinthe

gamediminishesthegainfrompretesttoposttest(Plass,Homer,Haywardetal.,2011).

Gamesareanemergingmediumforlearningthatrequiresresearchconcerningbothits

effectivenessforlearningandrelateddesignpatterns.Thisresearchtopicwouldbenefitfrom

mixedmethods,orwhatGoldmanandcolleaguescallQuisitiveResearch(Goldmanetal2004;

Goldman-Segall1996).Inquisitiveresearchperspectivesfromafullerrangeofstakeholders

usebothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchmethodsalongwithemergingdigitaltextand

videotoolsfordataanalysisinordertoinvestigatethistopicfurther.

Emotion,Empathy,AffectiveComputing,andPespective-Taking

ThehistoryofemotionalandsociallearningcanbesaidtodatebacktotheworksbyJohn

Dewey’sExperienceinEducation.Itbecamea“mantra”oftheCivilRightsMovementaswellas

theprogressive,cooperative,andthewholechildmovementsofthe1960sand1970s.

Currently,theclusteroftermsbeingusedincludes:socialandemotional,empatheticlearning,

affectivecomputing,andperpective-takinglearning.AccordingtoZinsandElias(20XX):

…[S]ocialandemotionallearning(SEL)isthecapacitytorecognizeandmanage

emotions,solveproblemseffectively,andestablishpositiverelationshipswithothers…

SEListheprocessofacquiringandeffectivelyapplyingtheknowledge,attitudes,and

skillsnecessarytorecognizeandmanageemotions;developingcaringandconcernfor

- 55 -

others;makingresponsibledecisions;establishingpositiverelationships;andhandling

challengingsituationscapably.

Aseriesofresearchprojectsundercomputerscientist,RosalindPicard,areaimedat

investigatingtheemotionalandenvironmentalaspectsofdigitaltechnologies.Thisworkon

“affectivecomputing”(Picard,2010&1997)resarchesareasthatincludecomputerrecognition

ofhumanaffect,computersynthesisofaffect,wearablecomputers,andaffectiveinteraction

withcomputers.(Seehttp://www.media.mit.edu/affect/).

Needlesstoadd,emotionallearninghasbeenofinterestintheuseofpersuasivetechnologiesin

politicalandproductadvertisingcampaigns,asIanBogust(2007)pointsout.Ineducational

researchongaming,interestintheemotionalaspectofdesigninggamesforsocialgoodandas

wellasondevelopinghistorialempathyarecurentlyattheforefrontofrenewedinterestin

emotionsandlearning.

Belman&Flanagan(2010)arguethat“gamesareparticularlywell-suitedtosupporting

educationaloractivistprogramsinwhichthefosteringofempathyisakeymethodorgoal.As

wediscussedintheprevioussection,thereaisgrowinginterestinharnessingthepowerof

gamesforeducation.BelmanandFlanaganask:whynotdesigngamestoadvanceempathyand

socialactivism?Somesoftwareinteractiondesignersandacademicshaveproposedthat

engagingplayersontheemotionallevelisakeyelementoftheiruse.SashaBarabandhis

colleagues(2005)designedQuestAtlantis,forexample,promoteschildren’seducationaland

activistpursuitsbyengagingthemwithafantasythatresonatesatanemotionallymeta-level

ofcogntion.BelmanandFlanagan(2010)suggestthatactivistdesignerswouldfinditusefulto

encourageempatheticplay,amodeofplayinwhich“playersintentionallytrytoinferthe

thoughtsandfeelingsofpeopleorgroupsrepresentedinthegame,and/ortheyprepare

- 56 -

themselvesforanemotionalresponse,forexamplebylookingforsimilaritiesbetween

themselvesandcharactersinthegame.”

Takingacurricularandepistemologicalperspective,JamesDiamond,asks:Howdoesgame

playinahistoryvideogameinfluencestudents’achievementofhistoricalempathy?Although

historicalempathyisaconstructthatconnotes“perspectivetaking-in-historical-context,

Diamondincludestheoryofmindintheconstruct.Usingthevideogame,MissionUS,he

describesnotonly“ifplayers’abilitiestoachievehistoricalempathychangeinthecourseof

gameplay,buthowstudentsplayandiftheirplayingcaninformfuturedesignsofgames

constructedtohelpstudentscontextualizeotherpeople’sthinkingandbehaviors.

Preliminaryresearchhasrevealedfourareasthatinfluencedthewaysinwhichthese

studentscametothinkabouthistoricalcharacters’diverseperspectives:role-play;

gameplaystrategies;priorknowledge;and,thinkingaboutgameplayinnarrative

terms.Thesefindingsareinlinewiththe“pointsofviewingtheory(Goldman-Segall,

2008)”Students’own,real-lifeperspectivesareconsideredinthesamerelationshipto

thelearningasthecharacterperspectivesthatstudentstry-onthroughrole-playto

inferothers’motives.Inthisstudy,thestudentsbegintocatchsightofthehistorical

characters,therebycrossingthebridgeofhistoricaltime.(Diamond&Goldman,

submitted)

ThisisafindingthatAshby&Lee(1987),whoareoftencitedasthepioneersofworkon

empathyinhistoryeducaion,wouldbepleasedtolearn.

Theauthorsofthispaperconsideremotionallearningamajorthematicforthefutureof

educationalresearchwithdigitalmediaenvironments.Moreover,emotionallearningalong

- 57 -

withsociallearningusingsocialmedia,andemdodiedlearningusinginteractiveWiiand

Kinect-likeenvironmentsconstitutetheconvergenceof,notonlynewdigitalmedia

technologies,butalsoanewparadigmoflearningthatdependsuponthewillingnessof

learnerstoshareviewpointsandknowledgewitheachother.AsPicard(2010),inanarticle

calledEmotionResearchbythePeople,forthePeopleasks,howdoweremindourselvesas

researchersthatthepublicaswellmustbecomepartofthescholarlydiscourse,andthat

togetherweexplorethisnewdomaincalledemotionallearningandperspective-taking.

TodaywhenachildteachesadistinguishedscientisttouploadvideoontheInternet,

whennon-researcherscanparticipateinscientificlabelingfromhome,andwhen

gatheringautonomicnervoussystemdata24/7isaseasyasslippingonasweatband,

emotionresearchisreadyforamajorleapforward.Ordinarypeoplecangatherdata,

uploadit,comparetheirpatterns,sharewhattheylearn,andiftheywish,shareitwith

scientistsforemotionresearch.Researchcanbedonebythepeople,forthepeople.Of

coursescientistsstillhavetobeinvolved:thereisnosubstitutefordeepscholarlystudy

acrossexperimentsandfortherigorousdevelopmentandtestofnewhypothesesand

theories.Atthesametime,thereisnolongeranyexcuseforleavingpeopleoutof

findings.Emotionresearchcanbenefitallitsparticipants,scientistsandlaypeople,

insteadofbecomingacademicinthemoderndefinition.(Picard,2010,italicsadded)

Digital Media for Embodied Cogntion / Learning

Someofthecurrentcriticismsoftraditionalformallearningsuggestthat:learningcanbe

fragileandlackingindepth;learningdoesnotbecomeapartofthewaythestudentthinks

aboutandinteractswiththeeverydayworld;andstudentstoooftenforgetwhattheyhave

learnedaftertheendofthelearningeventsifitdoesnotgetappliedtorelevantsituations

- 58 -

outsidethelearningsetting.Inthe2010s,asnewtechnologicalenvironmentssuchasWiisand

Kinect™allowforamorephysicalinteraction,thistechnologyalongwithanembodied

cognitionapproachmayprovideanewappoachonwhatitmeanstolearn.Alongwiththe

increasedinterestinemotions,thenervoussystem,neurobiology,aswellastoolsforleaving

tracesofouractivitiesandemotionalresponses,cognitivesciencehasalsotakenonthisterm

touseGibbs'(2006)statementthat“conceptualsystemsandthoughtprocessesareshapedby

body-basedinteractionsandexperiencesintheworld”(Kwah,Milne,Goldman&Plass

(submittedfor2012).Inthissamepaper,theyaddthatemotionalexperiencesinfluence

cognitionandmustplayaroleinengagementinlearning.AsGibbs(2006)soaptlywrote:“The

brainiscertainlypartofanintegrateddynamicsystemdevotedtothemoment-by-moment

embodieddynamicofeverydaylife(p.9).”Hegoesontoclaimthat“theregularitiesin

people’skinesthetic-tactileexperiencenotonlyconstitutesthecoreoftheirself-conceptionsas

persons,butformthefoundationforhigher-ordercogntion(p.15).

Weemphasizethatanembodiedapproachcanprovideguidanceforthedesignofnewkindsof

learningenvironmentsthatcanmakeknowledgemoreaccessible,useable,andbeneficialfor

society,inaccordancewiththethreetenetsofIvanIllich’definitionofconvivialtools(1973).

Forthepurposeofthispaperontheadvancesofdigitalmediaandhowtheyaffectlearning,it

meanthatembodieddigitalmediatoolsandenvironmentscanprovideanalternativetothe

scenarioofdesigniglearningforthesolitarypersonsittinginfrontofamonitor.

Oneincreasinglyprominentapproachtocognitioniscalledembodiedorperceptually-grounded

learningapproach.Thisapproachproposesthatafullunderstandingofsomethinginvolves

beingabletocreateamentalperceptualsimulationofitwhenretrievingtheinformationor

reasoningaboutit(Barsalou,2008,Glenberg,1997).Bothbehaviorandneuroimagingresults

- 59 -

haveshownthatmanypsychologicalphenomenathatwerethoughttobepurelysymbolic

showperceptualeffects.Forexample,propertyverification(e.g.,retrievingthefactthata

horsehasamane)wasthoughttoinvolveasearchfromaconceptnode(horse)toaproperty

node(mane)inasymbolicpropositionalnetworkandthusthetimetoansweranderrorswas

determinedbyhowmanynetworklinksneededtobesearchedandhowmanyother

distractinglinkswerepresent.However,embodiedcognitionresearchshowsthatperceptual

variableslikesize(e.g.,moreimportantpropertyiesareretrievedfaster)affectverification

timesanderrors.Also,neuroimagingresults(e.g.,fMRI)showthatperceptualareasofthe

brain(involvingshape,color,size,soundandtouch)alsobecomeactiveduringthistask,not

justthesymbolicareas.Thus,ifoneisfamiliarwithhorsesandmanesthendoingeventhis

simplepropertyverificationinvolvesaperceptualsimulation.

Glenberg,Gutierrez,Levin,Japuntich,&Kaschak(2004)discussteachreadingcomprehension

usingagroundedcognitionapproach.Thesestudiesfoundthathaving2ndgradestudentsact

outstoriesaboutfarmsusingtoyfarmers,workers,animalsandobjectsincreasedtheir

understandingandmemoryofthestorytheyread.Further,ifthestudentsalsoimaginedthese

actionsforanotherrelatedstoryafteractingitoutwiththetoys,theyseemedtoacquirethe

skillofformingtheimaginaryworldofthestory(Black,2007)whenreadingotherstories,and

thisincreasedtheirunderstandingandmemoryofthesestories.Thus,thisgroundedcognition

approachincreasedthestudentsreadingcomprehension.Thesestudiesalsoseemtoindicate

thattherearethreestepsinvolvedinagroundedcognitionapproachtolearningsomething:

haveanembodiedexperience;learntoimaginethatembodiedexperience,andimaginethe

experiencewhenlearningfromsymbolicmaterials.Interestingly,ithasalsobeenshownthat

- 60 -

movingobjectscorrespondingtostorycharactersonacompuerscreenworksjustaswellas

movingtoyobjectsinthephysicalenvironment(Glenberg,GoldbergandZhu,2009).

Anexampleofusinganembodiedcognitionapproachtodesigninglearningenvironmentsand

thelearningadvantagesofdoingsoisprovidedbythegraphiccomputersimulationswith

movementandanimationthatHan&Black(inpress)usedinperceptuallyenhancingthe

learningexperience.Chan&Black(2006)foundthatgraphiccomputersimulationsinvolving

movementandanimationwereagoodwaytolearnfunctionalrelationsbetweensystem

entities.HanandBlack(inpress)haveenhancedthemovementpartoftheseinteractive

graphicsimulationsbyaddinghapticforcefeedbacktothemovementusinggraphicandsound

simulations.Herethestudentmovesthegearsshowninthescreenbymovingajoystick,and

thenbargraphicsonthescreenshowtheinputandoutputforcelevelsforthetwogears.

Allowingthestudenttodirectlymanipulatethegearsenhancesthestudents’learning,and

enrichingthemovementexperiencebyaddingforcefeedbackincreasesthestudents’

performanceevenmore.Thustherichertheperceptualexperience,andthereforethemental

perceptualsimulationacquired,thebetterthestudentlearningandunderstanding.

Black,Segal,Vitale&Fadjo(inpress)reportedonanumberofembodiedcognitiontechnology

learningenvironmentprojectsandconcludedthattherichertheperceptualenvironmentusing

multiple sensory modalities (e.g., usng visuals, voiceovers, and movement) during initial

learning thebetter thestudent learning.Secondly, they found thatutilizingmovements (e.g.,

gestures)thatareconceptuallycongruentwiththeknowledgebeinglearnedincreasesstudent

performance, learning,understanding,andmotivation.Athirdfindingwasthatstudentswho

directly experience a phenomenon through activities like acting it out bymoving their own

bodies, learn about the topic in a more general way which also increases learning,

- 61 -

understanding, and motivation as does, fourthly, embodying their understanding in

surrogates and then observing the surrogate behavior through activities like programming

video-game-likevirtualenvironmentswithavatarsurrogates(withtheScratchprogramming

environment) and programming robot surrogates like the LEGO NXT. Other recent

technological developments, such as theWii, offer mathematics-education researchers new

waysofinvestigatingdeepcognitiveandepistemologicalquestionspertainingtothenatureof

knowing,learning,andteaching.Forexample,inGerofsky’sstudyofsecondaryschoolstudents’

learning about the features of graphs, such as roots, extrema, symmetries, asymptotes,

reflections over certain lines, domain and range, she found that embodiedwork appears to

contribute to secondary school students’ mathematical engagement and understanding

(Gerofsky,2011).Shenotesthat:

Anintegratedpedagogythatmovesbackandforthamongexplicitteachingofnew

concepts,embodiedexplorationofthe‘feel’and‘sound’ofmathematicalgraphs,and

sessionsofmathematicalinquiryandproblemsolvingwouldappeartobeanidealkind

ofbalancedprogramtopromotemathematicalunderstanding…”

AnotherincreasinglyprominentapproachtoembodiedcognitionhasbeenproposedbyDor

Abrahamson,directorofEmbodiedDesignResearchLabatUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.

TheEDRLresearchgroupusesdesign-basedresearchandvideoanalysistostudyembodied

mathematicslearning,alongwithagrowinggroupofresearchersinavarietyofresearch

universitiesandlabs(Antle,Corness,&Droumeva,2009;Cress,Fischer,Moeller,Sauter,&

Nuerk,2010;Dam,2011;Howison,Trninic,Reinholz,&Abrahamson,2011;Leong&Horn,

2011;andKwah&Goldman,2011;Nemirovsky,Tierney,&Wright,1998;Goldmanetal.,

- 62 -

2011).Abrahamson’sresearchgroupcreatesusefulempiricalsettingstopursuethe

(somewhatcontroversial)grounded-cognitionconjecturethatmathematicalreasoningisnot

encodedandprocessedinthemindintheformofamodalsymbols,butratherisenactedand

evokedasembodied,dynamical,multimodalschemes.Thisconjecturecanbetracedbackto

theworkofphenomenologyphilosophers(Heidegger,1962;Merleau-Ponty,1958/2005),yet

itisconvergingwithperspectivesandempiricalfindingsfromthecognitiveandlearning

sciences(Barsalou,2010;Bruner,Oliver,&Greenfield,1966;Dourish,2001;Goldin,1987;

Hommel,Müsseler,Aschersleben,&Prinz,2001;Núñez,Edwards,&Matos,1999;Piaget&

Inhelder,1969;Skemp,1983).

Inonetypeofembodied-interactiondesignthatisbeinginvestigatedbyAbrahamsonand

collaborators(Abrahamson,Trninic,Gutiérrez,Huth,&Lee,2011;Petrick&Martin,2011),

studentsinteractwiththeMathematicalImageryTrainerforProportion(hence,“MIT-P”).The

MIT-Pisanembodied-interactionsystemdesignedtofosterthedevelopmentof

perceptuomotorschemasgroundingnotionsofproportion.Participantsusebothhandsto

remote-controlapairofvirtualobjectsonacomputerdisplaymonitor,oneobjectpereach

hand,inattemptsto“makethescreengreen.”Thescreenwillbegreenonlyifthehandsrise

proportionately,inaccordancewithanunknownratiosetontheinstructor’sconsole.Once

studentsdeterminequalitativeinteractionprinciples,suchasthat“thehigheryougo,youneed

abiggerdistancebetweenthehands,”mathematicalinstrumentsareinterpolatedontothe

screen,suchasaCartesiangridandnumerals.Studentsdevelopthecognitivefoundationsof

proportionsviaobjectifyingandarticulatingtheiramathematicalsolutionstrategiesusingthe

availablesemioticresources(Bamberger&diSessa,2003;BartoliniBussi&Mariotti,2008;

Radford,2003).

- 63 -

Assuch,Abrahamson’sMITtasksaredefinedintermsofaspecifiedgoalstateofaninteractive

system,whichthestudentistoeffect,thatis,atargetphenomenalinvariancethatthestudent

istogenerate.Asalearningactivity,thistaskisdramaticallydifferentfromtraditional

schoolwork,becausethesolutionmethodisunknowntothechild.Moreover,thistaskis

differentfromwhatmathematiciansdo,becausethereisnotheoremtoprove.Rather,thistask

isclosesttoformsofinquirythatscientistsengage,forexampleabotanistwhofirstencounters

aspecimenofanunknownspeciesandistryingtounderstanditsproperties,orachemistwho

hasdiscoveredanewelementandisattemptingtodetermineitsreactionstovarious

agitations.Butthenagain,scientistswhodiscoveranundocumentedphenomenonormaterial

donotknowaprioriitspotentialbehaviorsthattheyhaveyettowitness(e.g.,green),sothat

theirinteractionswiththephenomenonarenotorientedtowardgeneratinganyspecifiedgoal

state.Assuch,theMITtaskisratherunique.

Inadditiontoanalysesofstudentunmediateddiscovery(Abrahamsonetal.,2011),

researchershaveexaminedthedesignfromtheperspectivesofhumancomputerinteraction

(Howisonetal.,2011),designheuristics(Abrahamson&Trninic,2011),anddesignprocess

(Trninic,Reinholz,Howison,&Abrahamson,2010).

Yetanotherapproachtounderstandingembodiedlearningincludesacloselookatclassroom

gestures,perspectivity,and“cubistcompositions”(Nemirovsky,Tierney,&Wright,1992;

Goldman&Maxwell,2003.)Nemirovsky,whowasinfluencedbyhisworkwithSeymour

Papert’snotionofbecomingtheturtlewhenlearningprogramming,alongwithFerrara

proposethatmathematicalreasoningproceedsthroughaprocessofimaginingasituationfrom

variousviewpoints,throughaformof“cubistcomposition”enroutetoarticulatingtherules

- 64 -

andprinciplesthatunifyknowledgeofthewhole.Intheirstudies,theyfoundthatgestures

wereanessentialmodalityforcomposingthesepartialperspectivesofthewhole.

Theperspectiveofthegesturehasreceivedlittleattentioninstudiesofgesturesinclassroom

learningwiththeexceptionofstudiesbyCrowderandcolleagues(Crowder&Warburton,

1995;Crowder,1996).Crowder’sstudiesindicatedthatfirstandthirdpersonperspectivesin

gesturereflecteddifferentknowledgeorientationswithasubjective,exploratoryapproachto

knowingreflectedinfirst-personperspectives,andasummativeapproachreflectedinthe

third-person.Manyrepresentationalgesturesconveyasenseofbeingperformedfromafirst

orthirdpersonperspective,whathasbeentermedthe“characterviewpoint”(McNeill,1992).

Goldman,alsoworkingcloselywithSeymourPapertduringthesameperiodasNemirovsky,

takesasimilarviewontheneedforsubjective,first-personperspectiveasawaytoreach

configurationalvalidity(1995)—multipleviewpointsthatbecomerobustby“lookingthrough

layers”ofinterpretation(1996).GoldmancallsthisthePerspectivityFramework(Goldman-

Segall&Maxwell,2003).Theframeworkmapsouthowstudentslearningtoprogrambuild

physicalartifactsthatrepresentafirst-personembodiedobject/subject-to-think-with.

Enablingchildrentonotonlycreatetheirfirst-personviewpoints,buttocriticallysharetheir

collectiveviewpoints(orwhatshecoined,pointsofviewing(1998),buildsthickinterpretation

(Goldman-Segall,1998;Goldman,2008,p.24).Forexample,demonstratingtheembodied

understandingofchildrenlearningtomakecirclesintheLogoprogramminglanguage,

Goldman’sfilmcalledTheGrowthofaCulture(1988)showsagroupofgirlsmakingacircle

withtheirbodies.WhenaskedtomakeacircleastheLogoturtlewould,Tnishadidnotturn

360degreesfromonestandpoint,butratherwalkedaroundthecircleastheturtleiconin

Logowouldhavedone:forward50,rightangle90degrees,overandoveragain.Atthesame

- 65 -

time,shelookedintothecamerasayingthatthecircleis“righthere,”whileshegentlypounded

herleftchestwithherrightpalmofherhand.PapertinafilmedconversationwithGoldman

(1990),saidthatyoungchildrenlearntoprogramandtothinkmathematicallythrough

becomingtheturtle.Clearly,Papertwaspointingtowardwhatwearecalling,empathic

embodiments.

Inamorerecentexploratorycasestudyinajuniorhighschoolprogrammingclass,Kwah&

Goldman(2010)observed,interviewed,andvideotapedteachergesturesduringinstructionas

wellasbothteacherandstudentgesturesduringproblem-solvinginteractions.Theyfound

that“ateacher’sgesturesareflexibleconstructionsthatenableprogrammingconceptstobe

visiblymodeledfrommultipleperspectives.”(p.1)Moreinteresting,giventhatgesturesare

visibleactions,studentsshared(mirrored),asartifactsofembodiedimagery,theteacher’s

gestureswhileexplainingthesameideastotheirpeers.WhileKwahandGoldmansarenot,

fromthisexploratorystudy,generalizingthatstudentsmirroringofteacherguestures

increaseslearning,thisresearchdoes,attheveryleast,indicatethatgesturescanserveasan

aidforteacherstoexplaincomplexideasofprogrammingnotasaccessibletolearnersinmore

abstractways.Inshort,understandingwhichgesturescanpromoteunderstandingcould

becomepartofacognitivetoolkitforteachersthatwouldbenefitstudentlearning.

Inconclusion,althoughembodiedinteractionisthekeystoneactivityinamulti-billiondollar

gamingindustry,sometimescalledBodyMovement-ControlledVideoGames(BMCVGs),itis

stilllittleunderstoodfromalearning-sciencesperspective,yetappearstopromiserewarding

design-basedresearchintothenatureofknowing,teaching,andlearning.

- 66 -

PioneeringLearningEnvironments

InthisageofGoogle™,Facebook™,Twitter™andahostofothersocialmediaenvironments,

gamesforlearningenvironments,andhandheldsmartdevicetoaugmentlearningandcreate

communities,itisdifficulttoselecttheeducationaltoolsanddecidewhichwerethemost

pioneeringonesthatactaullyledtothekindsoftoolsandenvironmetnsweuseeveryday.

Handheldcomputationaldevicesarenowubiquitousandcontinuallychangingwitheachnew

“App”.Peopleofalmosteveryage,socio-economicandethnicbackground,country,andgender

aretexting,tweeting,andsharingprivatephotosandvideos.Websitesandonlinetoolsare

usedcontinuiouslytoshare,promote,andflame.Theyhavebecomepartofthemediated

realitywithinwhichwork,study,andplayaremediated.Onbuses,subways,trains,planes,and

whilecrossingcityintersections,peopleareconnectingwitheachother.Ifthereisonething

theArabSpringthatfirsteruptedinTunisiaonJanuary9,2011—withprotestersconfronting

theregimeofthepresidentZineelAbidineBenAli—taughtus,itisthatpeoplehaveaccessto

mobilehandhelddevicesthatarenotonlyphones,buthavethecapacitytocommunicate

instantly,creategroups,shareimagesandtext,andwhateverelsecanbefoundsomewherthe

webinseconds,engaginginanewformofpublic-centricjournalismandcuratorialship.The

averagepersonwitheffortcanbecomeaknowledgemaker,atrend-setter,aninvestigator,and

anexpertwhohascuratorialpower,ifonlyovercertaindomains.Acompellingpersonal

narrativeorstoryhasbecomethevehicleforpower,evenpoliticalpowerasitisplayedout

everyday,notonlybypresidentialhopefuls,butbyleadersofrepressiveandviolentgroups.

Atthistime,thequalityoflearningwiththesesocialmediadevicesisnoteasytoevaluate—the

majorcritiquebeingthatthenetworkedpopulationisdistractingitselftodeath,aplayonthe

titleofNeilPostman’sbookin1985,AmusingOurselvestoDeath:PublicDiscourseintheAgeof

- 67 -

ShowBusiness.Othercritiquesarethatmulti-tasking,themethodofmovingaroundthevarious

applicationswithdifferentpurposes,leadstoshallowconcentationandlackoffocus.Ofcourse,

othersarguethatthehumanmindiscapableandreadyforthiskindofactivity.Thatboredom

istherealvillainoflearning.Othersarguethatsocialmedia,games,andsurfingtheweb

expandourabilitytolearn,helpuskeepintouchwithcommunitiesandindividuals,and

promotenewwaystosocialize,findpartnersandselectfriendrecommendedhotels,run

businesses,andshop.Thereissometruthtobothsidesofeachofthesearguments,asone

mightexpect.Earlyadoptersareenthusiasticaboutwhatiscomingdownthepipeandfallinto

eachnewdevicewithfewcomplaints.Ludditesrefusetogiveuptheirvinalalbumsandenjoy

thetimeandspacethatthelackofconstantlylearningthenextapplicatonaffords.Addedto

thoseextremes,thereiseveryshadebetweenthetwopoles.Moreandmore,parents,teachers,

anduserscreatemethodstocontroltimeonlineandkeepbalanceinthelivesoftheirchildren

andtheirownlives.Inshort,thejuryisstilloutabouttheeffectivenessofusingsocialmediaas

alearnngdeviceinspiteofthefactthatitseemslikeaseductiveaugmentationtoolfor

accessinganinfiniteamountofinformationandfun.

Theauthorsofthischapternowfocusonthehistoricalrootsofthesecurrentdigitalmedia

environments,makingthecasethattheearliersoftwarewerepercursorstosocialmediaand

gamesforlearning.Thisnextsectionisaselectionofsomeofthepioneeringandperspectival

technologicalsystemsdevelopedtoaid,enhance,andinspirelearningandresearchusingone

ormoreelementsofthePointsofViewingTheory.Thismontageisanauthorialselection,nota

representationofallpioneeringsystemsforlearning.Itprovidesthereaderwithasnapshotof

precursortoolsrootedintheroleoflearnerstobuildtheirownenvironmentsandbecome

partnersinthelearningandresearchprocess.

- 68 -

LOGO

Stager.orgDreamtimeLogoProject

Logo,oneoftheoldestandmostinfluentialeducationaltechnologyendeavours,datesbackto

1967.LogoisadialectoftheAIresearchlanguageLISP,andwasdevelopedbyWallyFeurzig's

teamatBBN,workingwithPapert.Thisprogrammadecomputerprogrammingaccessibleto

children,notthroughdumbingdowncomputerscience,butbycarefullymanagingthe

relationshipbetweenabstractandconcrete.Logogavechildrenthemeanstoconcretize

mathematicsandgeometryviathecomputer,whichmadethemintoexplorersinthefieldof

math.Asmentionedbefore,PapertbelievedthatifthebestwaytolearnFrenchisnottogoto

Frenchclass,butrathertospendtimeinFrance,thenthebestwaytolearnmathematicswould

beinsomesortof“Mathland”(Papert.1980,p.6).Logoprovidedamicroworldoperatingin

termsofmathematicalandgeometricideas.Byexperimentingwithcontrollinga

programmable“turtle,”childrenhaddirect,concreteexperienceofhowmathematicaland

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

- 69 -

geometricconstructswork.Throughreflectionontheirexperiments,theywouldthencometo

moreformalizedunderstandingsoftheseconstructs.Childrenbecameepistemologiststhinking

abouttheirthinkingaboutmathematicsbylivinginandcreatingcomputercultures.

Withthegrowingavailabilityofpersonalcomputersinthelate1970sand1980s,theLogo

turtlewasmovedonscreen,andthenotionoftheturtleinitsabstractworldcalleda

“microworld,”anotionthathasbeenthelastinglegacyoftheLogoresearch(Papert,1980).

TheLogomovementwaspopularinschoolsinthe1980s,andversionsofthelanguagewere

developedfordifferentcomputersystems.SomeimplementationsofLogodepartedfrom

geometrymicroworlds,andweredesignedtoaddressothergoals,suchastheteachingof

computerprogramming(Harvey,1997).ImplementationsofLogoarefreelydistributedonthe

Internet.Seehttp://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/logo.html.TheLogoFoundationat

http://el.www.media.mit.edu/groups/logo-foundation/hascontinuedtoexpandthecultureof

Logoovertheyears.

Squeak

- 70 -

TheSqueakenvironmentshowingMidiScoreplayer(audio),WebBrowser,and

Documentation.TheSqueak3.9Desktop

SqueakisthedirectdescendantofAlanKay’sDynabookresearchatXeroxPARC;theDynabook

wasbuiltthe1970s.Squeakisamulti-mediapersonalcomputingenvironmentbasedonthe

SmallTalkobject-orientedprogramminglanguagewhichformedthebasisofKay’s

investigationsinto“personal”computing(Kay,1996).Itisnotableinthatitisfreely

distributedontheInternet,runsonalmosteveryconceivablecomputingplatform,andis

entirelydecomposable—whileonecancreatenewmediatoolsandpresentationsaswithother

environments,onecanalsotinkerwiththeunderlyingoperationofthesystem—how

windowsappear,orhownetworkingprotocolsareimplemented.Asmallbutenthusiasticuser

communitysupportsandextendstheSqueakenvironment,creatingsuchtoolsasweb

browsers,musicsynthesizers,3Dgraphicstoolkits,andsoonentirelywithinSqueak.See

http://www.squeak.org

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

- 71 -

Boxer

TheBoxerenvironmentshowinginteractiveprogrammingoffractals.

Boxerisa“computationalmedium”—acombinationofaprogramminglanguage,amicroworld

environment,andasetoflibrariesandtoolsforbuildingtoolsforexploringproblemsolving

withcomputers.DevelopedbydiSessa,BoxerblendstheLogoworkofPapert(1980)andthe

“mutablemedium”notionofKay(1996)inaflexiblecomputingtoolkit.diSessa'sworkhas

beenongoingsincethe1980s,whenheconceivedofanenvironmenttoextendtheLogo

- 72 -

researchintoamorerobustandflexibleenvironmentinwhichtoexplorephysicsconcepts

(diSessa2000).BoxerisfreelydistributedontheInternet.

HyperCard

Itisimportanttorememberthatin1987AppleComputerwasexploringmultimediaasthe

fundamentalrationaleforpeoplewantingMacintoshcomputers.But,astherewasverylittle

multimediasoftwareavailableinthelate1980s,Appledecidedtobundleamultimedia

authoringtoolkitwitheveryMacintoshcomputer.ThistoolkitwasHyperCard,anditprovedto

beanenormouslypopularwithawidevarietyofusers,andespeciallyinschools.HyperCard

emulatesasortofmagicalstackof3x5indexcards,anditsmultimediadocumentswerethus

called“stacks.”Anauthorcouldaddtext,images,audio,andevenvideocomponentstocards

andthenuseasimpleandelegantscriptinglanguagetotiethesecardstogetherorperform

certainbehaviors.TwobroadcategoriesofuseemergedinHyperCard:thefirstwascollecting

andenjoyingpre-designed“stacks”;thesecondwasauthoringone’sown.Intheonlinebulletin

boardsystemsoftheearly1990s,HyperCardauthorsexchangedgreatvolumesof“stackware.”

Educatorsweresomeofthemostenthusiasticusers,eithercreatingcontentforstudents(a

stellarexampleofthisisApple’sVisualAlmanac,whichmarriedvideodisc-basedcontentwith

aHyperCardcontrolinterface)orencouragingstudentstocreatetheirown.Othersused

HyperCardtocreatescaffoldsandtoolsforlearnerstouseintheirownmediaconstruction.A

goodsnapshotofthisHyperCardauthoringcultureisdescribedinAmbronandHooper’s

LearningwithInteractiveMultimedia(1990).HyperCarddevelopmentatApplelanguishedin

themid-1990sanddisappearedinthe2000s.

Constellations/WebConstellations/Orion1.0/Orion2.0

- 73 -

Constellations2.6(circa1993)showingStarvideonodeandcollaborativeranking/annotation

interface.

BuildingontheHyperCardplatform,LearningConstellations(Goldman-Segall,1989)wasa

collaborativevideoannotationtoolthatbuildsonthemetaphorofstars(videochunks)and

constellations(collections).Starvideochunkscouldbecombinedtomakeconstellations,but

differentusersmayplacethesamestarindifferentcontexts,dependingontheirunderstanding

byviewingdatafromvariousperspectives.LearningConstellationswasadata-sharingsystem,

promotingGoldman-Segall’snotionofconfigurationalvaliditybyallowingdifferentusersto

compareandexchangeviewsonhowtheycontextualizethesameinformationdifferentlyin

ordertoreachvalidconclusionsaboutthedata.Italsofeaturescollaborativerankingand

annotationofdatanodes.Whileothervideoanalysistoolsweredevelopedinthe1980sand

early1990s,(Kennedy1989;Mackay1989;Roschelle,Pea,&Trigg,1990;Harrison&Baecker,

- 74 -

1992),LearningConstellations(akaConstellations)wasthefirstvideodateanalysistoolto

analyzearobustvideoethnographicdata(Goldman-Segall,1989&1990).

ContinuingtousetheHyperCardplaftorm,Goldman-Segalldevelopedaupdatedversionof

LearningConstellationsasastand-aloneapplicationin1993.Sheaddedasignificancemeasure

tolayerdescriptionsand“rateattributes”thethemesandkeywords(Goldman-Segall,1993).

In1998,thetoolwentonlineasaweb-basedcollaborativevideoanalysistoolcalled

WebConstellations(Goldman-Segall,1998c&1999).Everymediatype—websitepage,text

document,videochunk,orphotocouldbecomeastarchunkandcouldbetagged,rated,and

juxatposedforcomparativeanalysis.Themostrecentversion,Orion2.0returnedbacktoits

originalfunctionalityofbeingatoolonlyvideochunking,sorting,analysis,ethnographic

theory-buildingandstory-making.Asaperspectivitytechnology,individualsenterintoOrion,

creatingtheirownhomepageandinvitingotherstojoinintheanalysis.Takingaleadin

featuredevelopment,by2007eachusercouldhaveanumberofsimultaneousprojectswith

diverseresearchcommunities,insomewhatthesamewaythatsocialmedianowenables

groupstowork.

- 75 -

Orion2.0WelcomePage:http://www.videoresearch.org

Adventures of Jasper Woodbury

JasperWoodburyisthenameofacharacterinaseriesofadventurestoriesthattheCognition

andTechnologyGroupatVanderbiltUniversity(CTGV)useasthebasisfor“anchored

instruction”.Thestories,presentedonvideodiscorCD-ROMarecarefullycraftedmysteries

thatpresentproblemstobesolvedbygroupsoflearners.Sincethevideocanberandomly

accessed,learnersareencouragedtore-explorepartsofthestoryinordertogathercluesand

developtheoriesabouttheproblemtobesolved.TheJasperseriesfirstappearedinthe1980s

andtherearenow12stories(CTGV1997).

CSILE/KnowledgeForum

- 76 -

CSILE—ComputerSupportedIntentionalLearningEnvironment—wasdevelopedbyMarlene

ScardamaliaandCarlBereiterattheOntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation(OISE)inthe

1980s.CSILEisacollaborative,problem-based,knowledge-buildingenvironment.Learners

cancollaborateondatacollection,analysisoffindings,constructingandpresenting

conclusionsbyexchangingstructured“notes,”andattachingfurtherquestions,contributions,

andsoontopre-existingnotes.CSILEwasoriginallyconceivedtoprovideadynamicscaffold

forknowledgeconstruction—onethatwouldletthelearnersthemselvesdirecttheinquiry

process(Scardamalia&Bereiter,1991).CSILEisnowcommerciallydevelopedandlicensedas

KnowledgeForum.See

StarLogo&NetLogo

- 77 -

StarLogoandNetLogoareparallel-computingversionsofLogo.Bymanipulatingmultiple

(thousands),distributed“turtles,”learnerscanworkwithinteractivemodelsofcomplex

interactions,populationdynamics,andotherdecentralizedsystems.DevelopedbyMitchel

Resnick,UriWilenskyandateamofresearchersatMIT,StarLogowasconceivedasatoolto

movelearners'thinking“beyondthecentralizedmindset”andtostudyhowpeoplemakesense

ofcomplexsystems(Resnick1991;1994;Wilensky&Resnick,1999).NetLogo—an

environmentdevelopedbyWilenskyattheCenterforConnectedLearningandComputer-

BasedModelingatNorthwesternUniversityisinwidespreadusebothineducationand

research.Bothofthesearefreelyavailableontheinternet.See

http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/andhttp://www.media.mit.edu/starlogo.

- 78 -

MaMaMedia/WorldWideWorkshop

TheWorldWideWorkshopisaglobalfoundationfordevelopingopen-source

applicationsofsocialmediatechnologyandgameproduction,toenhancelearning,

innovation,entrepreneurship,andanunderstandingoftheworldineconomically

disadvantagedandtechnologicallyunder-servedcommunities.

(http://www.worldwideworkshop.org)

Anorganizationfoundedin2004byMITMediaLabgraduateandentrepreneurIditHarel,

WorldWideWorkshopaddressestheproblemofclosingthedigitaldivideandtransforming

educationbyreachinglowsocio-economicyouthinlow-performingschoolswithlearning

networksandbytakingasystemicapproachtoeducationinnovationandreform.In2006,the

WorldWideWorkshoplaunchedtheGlobaloriaLearningNetworkwww.Globaloria.org).The

GlobaloriaLearningNetwork(www.Globaloria.org)isa“blendedlearninglab”thatprovidesa

year-longdigitalcurriculum,tools,resources,studentandeducatordatatracking,and

professionaldevelopmentforeducatorstoengage,motivateandadvancestudents’STEM

learningthroughgamedesign.Youngpeopleinmiddleschoolandhighschoolagesare

immersedinblendedlearning(combiningonlineandonsite),becominggamedesignersand

masteringcreativecomputationalskillsandcorecontentknowledge.Academicresearchers

fromseveralcountriesworkwiththeWorldWideWorkshoptostudyconstructionistdigital

literacy,motivationandengagement,andhownewtechnologyinnovationcaninform,engage

andtransformstudents,teachers,schoolsandcommunities.

TheunderlyingconstructionistdigitalliteracyapproachstemsfromherMITMediaLab

- 79 -

researchandwasalsopresentinanearliercompanyHarelfoundedinthe90’scalled

MaMaMedia.TherationaleofMaMaMediawastoenablekidsandtheirparentstoparticipate

inwebexperiencesthatarecreative,safe,constructionistbynature,andeducational.Harel’s

book,ChildrenDesigners(Harel1991),laysthefoundationforMaMaMedia,andforresearchin

understandinghowchildreninrichonlineenvironmentsconstructsoftwareanddesignmath

gameswithrepresentationsoftheirthinking.MaMaMediaenabledgirlsandboystobeonline

playinggames,learninghowparticipateinthevastMaMaMediacommunity.

MOOSECrossing

TheMacMOOSEclientinterfaceshowingediting,browsing,andmaininteractionwindows.

- 80 -

GeorgiaTechresearcherAmyBruckmancreatedMOOSECrossingaspartofherdoctoralwork

attheMITMediaLab.MOOSECrossingcanbecharacterizedasanbreak-throughcombination

ofPapert’sLogo/microworlds,the“mutablemedia”notionsofAlanKay(Kay1996),anda

MOO(HaynesandHolmevik1998)—areal-time,collaborative,immersivevirtualenvironment.

MOOSECrossingisamicroworldthatlearnerscanthemselvesenter,designingand

programmingthevirtualenvironmentfromwithin.Itbecomesalived-intextthatoneshares

withotherreaders/writers/designers.Bruckman(1998)statedthatthisearlyinnovation,

MOOSECrossing,was“communitysupportforconstructionistlearning.”Indeed,itwas.

Callingasoftwaresystemaplacegivesusersaradicallydifferentsetofexpectations.People

arefamiliarwithawidevarietyoftypesofplaces,andhaveasenseofwhattodothere...

InsteadofaskingWhatdoIdowiththissoftware?,peopleaskthemselves,WhatdoIdointhis

place?Thesecondquestionhasaverydifferentsetofanswersthanthefirst.(Bruckman,1998

p.49)

Bruckman’sthesisisthatcommunityandconstructionistlearninggohandinhand.Her

ethnographicaccountsoflearnersinsidetheenvironmentrevealsveryclose,verypersonal

bondsemergingbetweenchildrenintheprocessofdesigningandbuildingtheirworldin

MOOSECrossing.“Theemotionalsupport,”shewrites,“isinseparablefromthetechnical

support.Receivinghelpfromsomeoneyouwouldtellyoursecretnicknametoisclearlyvery

differentfromreceivinghelpfromacomputerprogramoraschoolteacher”(p.128).

SimCalc

- 81 -

SimCalc’sfeaturesanimationandreal-timegraphs.

SimCalc'stag-lineis“DemocratizingAccesstotheMathematicsofChange,”andthegoalisto

maketheunderstandingofchangeaccessibletomorelearnersthanthesmallminoritywho

takecalculusclasses.SimCalc,aprojectattheUniversityofMassachusettsunderJamesKaput

workingwithJeremyRoschelle,andRicardoNemirovky,isasimulationandvisualization

systemforlearnerstoexplorecalculusconceptsinaproblem-basedmodel,onethatavoids

traditionalproblemswithmathematicalrepresentation(Kaput,Roschelle,&Stroup,1998).

Thecoresoftware,calledMathWorlds(echoingPapert’s“Mathland”idea)allowslearnersto

manipulatevariablesandseeresultsviareal-timevisualizationswithbothanimated

- 82 -

charactersandmoretraditionalgraphs.SimCalcisfreelyavailableontheInternet.See

http://www.simcalc.umassd.edu/

ParticipatorySims

ParticipatorySims,aprojectoverseenbyUriWilenskyandWalterStroupatNorthwestern

University,isadistributedcomputingenvironmentbuiltonthefoundationsofLOGOthat

encourageslearnerstocollaborativelyexplorecomplexsimulations.TheParticipatorySims

projectcentresaroundHubNet,a“Classroom-basedNetworkofHandheldDevicesandUp-

frontComputer”whichallowslearnerstoparticipateinmodelsofdynamicsystems(Resnick

1996)inalive,classroomenvironment.“Theemergentbehavior(seeFigure1)ofthesystem

anditsrelationtoindividualparticipantactionsandstrategiescanthenbecometheobjectof

collectivediscussionandanalysis.”(Wilensky&Stroup,1999)See

http://www.ccl.sesp.northwestern.edu/ps/index.html

CoVis

CoVis—”CollaborativeVisualization”—aprojectthatranfromNorthwesternUniversityinthe

1990s,wasclearlyastrongpredictorofwhatwastofollowineducation.Itfocusedonscience

learningthroughprojectsusingatelecommunicationsinfrastructure,scientificvisualization

tools,andsoftwaretosupportcollaborationbetweendiverseschoolsindistributedlocations

(Edelson,Pea,&Gomez,1996).Muchoflearners'investigationcentredonatmosphericand

environmentalstudies,allowingwide-scale(acrosstheUSA)datasharing.Learnerscouldthen

usesophisticateddataanalysistoolstovisualizeanddrawconclusions.CoVismadeuseofa

varietyofnetworkedsoftware:collaborative“notebooks,”distributeddatabases,system

visualizationtools,aswellastheWWWandelectronicmail.ThegoalintheCoVisprojectwas

foryoungpeopletostudytopicsinmuchthesamewayasprofessionalscientistsdo.

- 83 -

National Geographic Kids Network

Anotherexampleofanearlyperspectivityenvironmentinthelate1980sand1990swasthe

NationalGeographicKidsNetwork.Anumberofverylarge-scaleresearchprojectsexplored

thepossibilitiesofconnectingmultipleclassroomsacrosstheUnitedStatesfordatasharing

andcollaborativeinquiry(Feldman,Konold,&Coulter,2000).ProgramslikeNational

GeographicKidsNetwork(NGKNet),anNSF-fundedcollaborationbetweentheNational

GeographicSocietyandeducationaltechnologyresearchcenterTERCreachedthousandsof

classroomsandtensofthousandsofstudents(p.30).TERC’sNGKNetprovidedcurriculum

plansandresourcesaroundissueslikeacidrain,andtoolswhichfacilitatedlarge-scaledata

collection,sharing,andanalysisofresults.Otherprojects,likeClassroomBirdWatchand

EnergyNetfocusedonissueswithcomparableglobalsignificanceandlocalimplications,

turninglargenumbersoflearnersintoacommunityofpracticedoingdistributedscientific

investigation.Feldman,Konold,andCoulternotethattheselargescaleprojectsquestionthe

notionoftheindividualchildasscientist,pointinginsteadtowardinterestingmodelsof

collaborativeengagementinscience,technology,andsocietyissues(pp.142–143).Needlessto

saythisworkstillcontinuestoimpress.Seehttp://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/

TappedIn

- 84 -

The“TAPestry”interfacetotheTappedInenvironment.

TappedInwasaMulti-userOnlineEducationalWorkspace(MEOW)forteachersandeducation

professionals.TheTappedInproject,ledbyMarkSchlageratSRI,beganinthelate1990sasa

MOO(textualVR)environmentforsynchronouscollaborationandhassincegrownintoa

sophisticated(Web+MOO)multimediaenvironmentforbothsynchronousandasynchronous

work,withalargeandveryactiveuserpopulation(Schlager1997).TappedInusessimilar

technologicalinfrastructuretoMOOSECrossing,buthasadifferentkindofcommunityof

practiceatworkwithinit;TappedInfunctionsmorelikeanongoingteachingconference,with

- 85 -

manyweeklyormonthlyevents,workshops,andhappenings.TappedInisanexemplarymodel

ofamulti-modecollaborativeenvironment.Seehttp://www.tappedin.sri.com/

CoWeb

AtGeorgiaTech,MarkGuzdialandcolleaguesattheCollaborativeSoftwareLaboratory(CSL)

createdavarietyofsoftwareenvironmentsbuildingontheoriginaleducationalcomputing

visionofAlanKayinthe1970s(Kay1996);thecomputercanbeatoolforcomposingand

experiencingdynamicmedia.GrowingfromGuzdial'spreviousworkontheCaMILEproject

(Guzdial1997)—aweb-based“anchoredcollaboration”environment,CSL'sCoWebproject

explorespossibilitiesindesigningandusingcollaborativemediatoolsonline(Guzdial1999).

CoWebandotherCSLworkislargelybasedontheSqueakenvironment,adirectdescendantof

AlanKay'sresearchatXeroxPARCinthe1970s.

WebGuide

WebGuide,aweb-based,collaborativeknowledge-constructiontool,wascreatedbyGerryStahl

andcolleaguesattheUniversityofColorado(Stahl1999).WebGuideisdesignedtofacilitate

personalandcollaborativeunderstandingthroughmediatingperspectivityviacultural

artifacts.WebGuideactsasascaffoldforgroupunderstanding.WebGuideisastructured

conferencingsystemsupportingrichinterlinkingandinformationre-use/re-contextualization,

aswellasmultipleviewsonthestructureoftheinformationset.Learnerscontribute

informationfromindividualperspectives,butthisinformationcanlaterbenegotiatedandre-

collectedinmultiplecontextsconstruct.

ChallengingQuestions

ModelsofMindorCultureCreation?

- 86 -

Fromthevantagepointofthemid-1990s,JeromeBrunerlookedbackonthecognitive

revolutionofthelate1950s,whichhehelpedtoshape,andreflectedonalostopportunity.

Brunerhadimaginedthatthenewcognitiveparadigmwouldbringthesearchformeaningto

thefore,distinguishingitfromthebehaviorismthatprecededit(Bruner1990,p.2).Andyet,

Brunerwrites,therevolutionwentawry,notbecauseitfailed,butbecauseitsucceeded:

Veryearlyon,forexample,emphasisbeganshiftingfrom“meaning”to“information,”fromthe

constructionofmeaningtotheprocessingofinformation.Theseareprofoundlydifferent

matters.Thekeyfactorintheshiftwastheintroductionofcomputationastherulingmetaphor

andcomputabilityasanecessarycriterionofagoodtheoreticalmodel.(p.4)

Theinformationprocessingmodelofcognitionbecamesodominant,Brunerargues,andthe

roleofmeaningandmeaning-makingendedupasmuchindisfavorasithadbeenin

behaviorism.“Inplaceofstimuliandresponses,therewasinputandoutput,”andhard

empiricismruledagain,withanewvocabulary,butwiththesamedisdainformentalism(p.7).

Bruner’scareerasatheoristisitselfinstructive.HeraldedbyGardnerandothersasoneofthe

leadinglightsof1950scognitivism,Brunerhassincethe1980sbeenoneofasmallbutvocal

groupcallingforareturntotheroleofcultureinunderstandingthemind.Thismovementhas

beentangledupcloselywiththeevolutionofeducationaltechnologyoverthesameperiod,

perhapsilluminatedinapairoftitlesthatbookendoneresearcher’sdecade-longtrajectory:

EtienneWenger’s(1987)ArtificialIntelligenceandTutoringSystems:Computationaland

CognitiveApproachestotheCommunicationofKnowledgeandhis(1998)Communitiesof

Practice:Learning,Meaning,andIdentity.

ParadigmShiftwithDigitalMediaorIncrementalChanges?

- 87 -

Inhis1996article,“ParadigmShiftsandInstructionalTechnology:AnIntroduction,”Timothy

Koschmannbeganbyidentifyingfourdefiningparadigmsoftechnologyineducation.In

roughlychronological(butcertainlyoverlapping)order,theseare:Computer-Aided

Instruction(CAI),characterizedbydrill-and-practiceandprogrammedinstructionsystems;

IntelligentTutoringSystems(ITS),whichdrewonartificialintelligence(AI)researchinorder

tocreateautomatedsystemswhichcouldevaluatealearner’sprogressandtailorinstruction

accordingly;theLogo-as-Latinparadigm,ledbySeymourPapert’s“microworld”andchildren-

as-programmersefforts;andfinally,Computer-SupportedCollaborativeLearning(CSCL),a

“socially-oriented,constructivist”approachthatfocusesonlearnersinpractice,ingroups.

KoschmanninvokedThomasKuhn’s(1996)controversialnotionoftheincommensurabilityof

competingparadigms:

Kuhnheldthattheeffectofaparadigmshiftistoproduceadividedcommunityofresearchers

nolongerabletodebatetheirrespectivepositions,owingtofundamentaldifferencesin

terminology,conceptualframeworks,andviewsonwhatconstitutesthelegitimatequestions

ofscience.(Koschmann1996,p.2)

Koschmann’sanalysismaywellbeaccurate.Theliteraturesurroundingtheeffectslearning

technologyproducescertainlydisplaysexamplesofthisincommensurability,evenwithinthe

writingsofindividualtheorists.

AcounterperspectivetoKuhn’sviewofparadigmaticshiftsinscientificunderstandingwas

offeredbyStephenToulmin(1972),whoarguedthatconceptualchangemustnotbe

understoodasagloballyunified,systematicshiftinattitudesinbeliefsaboutscience;rather,it

wasafragmentedprocesswhichwashighlycontextualizedanddependentuponlocalscientific

practices.AccordingtoToulmin,knowledgedevelopsinamorepiecemealfashionratherthan

- 88 -

throughseismicleaps;‘competing’paradigmscontinuetoexertconsiderableinfluenceonour

understanding.AndreadiSessa(2006),arguingforareappraisalToulmin’sneglectedworkon

conceptualchange,appliedittohowthe“intuitiveideas”whichyounglearnersbroughttoa

physicslessonwerecrucialresourcesfordeveloping“knowledgeinpieces,”ortheweavingof

variousthreadsofideasintoa“different,stronger,andmorenormativeconceptualfabric”

(diSessa,2006,p.273).Theapplicationoftheseideastolearningtechnologiescastsdoubt

uponthenotionsofinternalcoherenceofindividualparadigmsandtheirrepresentative

designers,aswellastheirimpermeabilitytoeachother.

Asmentionedearlier,Papert’sworkwithteachingchildrentoprograminLogowasoriginally

concernedwithbridgingthegapbetweenPiaget’sconcreteandformalthinkingstages,

particularlywithrespecttomathematicsandgeometry.Butovertime,Papert’sworkwith

childrenandLogobegantobetalkedaboutas“computercultures”(Papert1980,p.22–23):

Logogaveitspractitionersavocabulary,aframework,andasetoftoolsforaparticularkindof

learningthroughexploration.Papertenvisagedacomputerculturewherechildrencould

expressthemselvesasepistemologists,challengingthenatureofestablishedknowledge.But

whilePapert’sideasandthepracticeofLogolearninginclassroomscontributedsignificantly

totheespritdetempsofthe1980s,itwasdifficultformanymainstreameducational

researchersandpractitionerstoadoptthemindsethebelievedwouldrevolutionizelearning.

AlargescaleresearchprojecttoevaluatetheclaimsofLogoinclassroomswasundertakenby

researcherRoyPea(whenhewasatBankStreetCollege)andhiscolleaguesinthemid-1980s.

TheBankStreetstudiescametosomecriticalconclusionsabouttheworkPapertandhis

colleaguesweredoing(PeaandKurland1987[1984];Pea,Kurland,andHawkins1987).

Basically,theBankStreetstudiesconcludedwithacautiousnote:theyconcludedthatno

- 89 -

significanteffectsoncognitivedevelopmentcouldbeconfirmed,andcalledformuchmore

extensiveandrigorousresearchamidtheexcitementandhype.ThewidereffectoftheBank

StreetpublicationsfedintosomethingofapopularbacklashagainstLogointheschools.A

1984articleinthemagazine,PopularPsychologysummarizedtheBankStreetstudies,and

suggestedbluntlythatLogohadn’tdeliveredonPapert’spromises.

Papertrespondedtothiscritique(Papert1987[1985]),arguingthattheframingofresearch

questionswasoverlysimplistic.Papertchidedhiscriticsforlookingforcognitiveeffectsby

isolatingvariablesasifclassroomswere“treatment”studies.Ratherthanasking

“technocentric”questionslike“WhatisTHEeffectofTHEcomputer?”(p23),Papertcalledfor

anexaminationoftheculture-buildingimplicationsofLogopractice,andforsomethinghe

called“computercriticism,”whichheproposedasakintoliterarycriticism.

Peaandothersresponded(Pea1987b),claimingthatPaperthadunfairlycharacterizedthe

BankStreetresearch(PaperthadrespondedonlytothePsychologyTodayarticle,nottothe

originalliterature),andarguingthatasresearcherstheyhadaresponsibilitytoadhereto

acceptedscientificmethodsforevaluatingtheclaimsofnewtechnology.Theeffectofthis

exchangewastoilluminatethevastlydifferentperspectivesoftheseresearchers.Where

Papertwastalkingabouttheopen-endedpromiseofcomputercultures,Peaandhiscolleagues,

developmentalpsychologists,wereevaluatingtheworkfromthestandpointofdemonstrable

changesincognition(PeaandKurland1987[1984]).WhilePapertaccusedhiscriticsof

reductionism,Davy(1985)likenedPaperttotheproverbialmanwholooksforhiskeysunder

thestreetlight“becausethelightisbetterthere.”

GavrielSalomonandHowardGardnerrespondedtothisdebatewithanarticlethatsearched

formiddleground(SalomonandGardner1986):ananalogy,theypointedout,couldbedrawn

- 90 -

fromresearchintotelevisionandmassmedia,amucholderpursuitthaneducational

computing,andoneinwhichSalomonwasanacclaimedscholar.SalomonandGardnerargued

thatonecouldnotsearchforindependentvariablesinsuchacomplexarea;instead,they

calledforamoreholistic,exploratoryresearchprogram,onethattookmorethantheovert

effectsofthetechnologyintoaccount.

Indeed,in1991,SalomonandcolleaguesDavidPerkinsandTamarGlobersonpublisheda

groundbreakingarticlethatshedmorelightontheissue(Salomon,Perkins,andGloberson

1991).Toconsiderthe“effectsof”atechnology,onehadtoconsiderwhatwaschangedaftera

learnerhadusedatechnology—butintheabsenceofit.Thequestionsthatarisefromthisare

whetherthereisany“cognitiveresidue”fromthepriorexperience,andwhetherthereis

transferbetweentasks.Thisisadifferentsetofquestionsthanarisefrominvestigatingthe

“effectswith”technology,whichdemandamoredecentered,system-wideapproach,lookingat

thelearnerinpartnershipwithtechnology.

Whileitcontributedimportantnewconstructsandvocabularytotheissue,theSalomon,

Perkins,andGlobersonarticleisstilldeeplyrootedinatraditionalcognitivescience

perspective,likemuchofPea’sresearch,takingfirstandforemosttheindividualmindasthe

siteofcognition.Salomon,Perkins,andGloberson,alltrainedincognitivepsychology,warn

againsttakingthe“effectswith”approachtoofar,notingthatcomputersineducationarestill

farfromubiquitous,andthatthesearchforthe“effectsof”isstillkey.Fromtheperspectiveof

today’subiquitouscomputingtechnologies,whichhavetakenthe“effectswith”studyof

technology“outofthelab,”andintocountlessinformalsettings,alessrigidcognitive

orientationisnowthenormforunderstandingtechnology’sdiffuse,yetconstitutiveeffectson

- 91 -

humaninteractionandcommunitybuilding.Themostvisibleexampleistherevolutionin

onlinesocialnetworks,onlinegameplay,andsocialmediaingeneral.

Ina1993article,PearespondedtoSalomonet.al,fromyetadifferentangle.Pea,nowDeanat

NorthwesternandworkingcloselywithhisLearningSciencescolleagues,wroteon

“distributedintelligence,”andarguedagainsttakingtheindividualmindasthelocusof

cognition,criticizingSalomonandcolleagues’individualistnotionsofcognitiveresidue:

ThelanguageusedbySalomonetal.(1991)tocharacterizetheconceptsinvolvedinhowthey

thinkaboutdistributedintelligenceis,bycontrast,entity-oriented—alanguageofcontainers

holdingthings.(Pea1993,p.79)

Pea,reviewingrecentliteratureonsituatedlearninganddistributedcognition(Winogradand

Flores1986;Lave1988;Brown,Collins,andDuguid1996[1989]),hadchangedhis

individualistframeworkofcognitivescienceforamore“situativeperspective”(Greeno1997)

whileSalomon(1993)arguedthatcognitionstillmustresideintheindividualmind.

Interestingly,neitherSalomonnorPeainthisexchangeseemedcompletelycomfortableatthis

pointwiththenotionofculture-makingbeyonditsinfluenceasa“contributingfactor”tomind,

artifacts,andsuchempiricallyidentifiableconstructs.

Thequestionneedstobeasked,aretheseadvancesmadewiththeintroductionofdigital

mediatechnologiesrepresentativeofaparadigmshiftoraretheymerelyaconversation

amongdifferingpointsofviewing,basedondifferentmeasuresandmethodsofstudyingthe

problem.Indeed,itseemsthattheproofisinthepudding.Aculturalshifthasocccurred.The

nextstepittoharnessthescholarshiptocreateavisionforseriouslychanginghowlearning

canbere-createdwithmoreengagementandinvolvementwithallthestakeholders.Tobeable

- 92 -

tofindthepatternsincurrentresearchsothatlesstimeisspentondebatesandmoreon

reachingagreements.

Developmental or Narrative Appoaches to Learning Theory?

Understandingthenatureoftechnology-basedlearningsystemsgreatlydependsuponone’s

conceptualizationofhowlearningoccurs;islearninglinearanddevelopmental,oramorefluid

andevenrandom“system”ofmakingmeaningofexperience?

Proponentsofstagetheoryhavetriedtoshowhowmaturationtakesplaceinlogicalcausal

sequencesorstagesaccordingtoobservablestagesingrowthpatterns—thefinalstagebeing

thehighestandmostcoveted.Developmentaltheories,suchasFreud’soral,analandgenital

(Freud,1952),Erikson’seightstagesofpsychologicalgrowthfrombasictrusttogenerativity

(Erikson,1950),orPiaget’sstagesfromsensori-motortoformaloperationalthinking(see

GrubnerandVoneche1977),arebasedonthebeliefthatthehumanorganismmustpass

throughthesestagesatcriticalperiodsinitsdevelopmentinordertoreachfullhealthy

integratedmaturation,beitpsychological,physical,spiritual,orintellectual.

Strictadherencetodevelopmentalism,andparticularlyitsunidirectionalconception,hasbeen

significantlychallengedbyGilligan(1982),Gardner(1985),FoxKeller(1985),Papert(1986),

andIllichandSanders(1989)—nottomentionawaveofpostmoderntheorists—proposing

theorieswhichaddressthefundamentalissuesunderlyinghowwecometotermswith

understandingourthinking.Onesuchchallenge,raisedbyIvanIllichandBarrySanders(1989),

reflectsupontheprehistoricalsignificanceofthenarrativevoice.Thinkingaboutthinkingas

essentiallyevolvingstagesofdevelopmentrequiresthekindofcalibrationonlypossibleina

worldofstaticrulesanduniversaltruths.IllichandSanderspointoutthatnarrativethinkingis

- 93 -

ratheraweavingofdifferentlayersorversionsofstorieswhichareneverfixedintimeorplace.

Beforethewrittenwordand

[p]riortohistory...thereisanarrativethatunfolds,notinaccordancewiththerulesofartand

knowledge,butoutofdivineenthusiasmanddeepemotion.Correspondingtothispriortimeis

adifferenttruth—namely,myth.Inthistrulyoralculture,beforephoneticwriting,therecanbe

nowordsandthereforenotext,nooriginal,towhichtraditioncanrefer,nosubjectmatterthat

canbepassedon.Anewrenderingisneverjustanewversion,butalwaysanewsong.(Illich

andSanders1984,p.4.)

IllichandSanderscontendthattheprehistoricmodeofthinkingwasarelativisticexperience;

thatwhatwasexpressedatanygivenmomentintimechangedfromtheprevioustimeitwas

expressed.Therecouldbenofixedrecall,nor“truth.”aswedefineittoday.Thisconceptof

knowledgeasacontinuallychangingtruth,dependentuponbothcommunalinterpretationand

storytellers’innovation,dramaticallychangedwiththeintroductionofwriting.Themomenta

storycouldbewrittendown,itcouldbereferredto.Memorychangedfrombeinganimageofa

formerindivisibletimetobeingamethodofretrievingafixed,repeatablepieceorsectionof

anexperience.

Thedevelopmentofprehistoricthinking(withimageandimagination)throughhistorical

thinking(withwritingandconceptualschemes)hasalsobeencalledposthistoricalthinking

(Flusser2004).Beginningwithphotographyandonthroughnetworkedcomputingdevices,

newimage-basedmedia,whileborninconceptualthought,hasenabledlearnerstotapinto

their“imaginalcapacity”toreflectontheirownlearningprocessesandredefinetheworld

throughmultiplerepresentationsofknowledge,alsochangingthenotionofafixedtruth.

- 94 -

AnothernotiontoIllichandSandersemergesinCarolGilligan’sresearchongenderandmoral

development(1982).Gilliganmakesthecasethatthe“differentvoice”womenbringincludes

anethicofcare,atiebetweenrelationshipandresponsibility(1982,p.173).Gilligansetthe

stageforanewmodeofresearchwhichincludesintimacyandrelationshipratherthan

separationandobjectivity,thetenetsofoftraditionalempiricism.

EvelynFoxKeller,aleadingcriticofthemasculinizationofscience,heraldedtherelational

modelasalegitimatealternativefordoingscience.Shepointedoutthatscienceisadeeply

personalaswellasasocialactivity(1985),historicallypreferentialtoamaleandobjectivist

mannerofthinking.CombiningThomasKuhn’sideasaboutthenatureofscientificthinking

withFreud’sanalysisofthedifferentrelationshipbetweenyoungboysandtheirmothersand

betweengirlsandtheirmothers,FoxKelleranalyzedunderlyingreasonsforscientific

objectivism.Sheclaimedthatboysareencouragedtoseparatefromtheirmothers,and,girlsto

maintainattachments,influencingthemannerinwhichthetwogendersrelatetophysical

objects.Theyoungboy,incompetitionwithhisfatherforhismother’sattentions,learnsto

competeinordertosucceed.Girls,nothavingtoseparatefromtheirmothers,findthat

becomingpersonallyinvolved—gettingafeelingfortheorganism,asBarbaraMcClintock(Fox

Keller1985)wouldsay—isapreferredmodeofmakingsenseoftheirrelationshipwiththe

physicalworld.Asaresult,girlsmaydoscienceinamoreconnectedstyle,seekingrelation-

shipswith,ratherthandissecting,whattheyinvestigate.Girlsseektounderstandmeaning

throughthesepersonalattachments.

Justasscienceisnotthepurelycognitiveendeavorweoncethoughtit,neitherisitasimper-

sonalaswethought:scienceisadeeplypersonalaswellasasocialactivity.(1985,p.7)

- 95 -

Obviously,wewillneverknowifascientificdisciplinewouldreallybedifferentifithadbeen

drivenbymorerelationalornarrativeinfluences.Yetwemaywanttoaskhowpeoplewitha

tendencytowardrelationalornarrativethinkingcanbebothinvitedintothestudyofthe

sciencesandbeencouragedtocontributetoitstheoreticalfoundations.And,wemaywantto

askhownewmediaandtechnologiesexpandhowwestudywhatwestudy,therebyinvitinga

rangeofepistemologicallydiversethinkersintothemainstreamofintellectualpursuits.

BricolageandtheEcologyofDigitalMediaTechnologiesor

Inherfirstbook,TheSecondSelf:ComputersandtheHumanSpirit(1984),SherryTurkle

exploredthedifferentstylesofmasterythatsheobservedinboysandgirlsinLogoclassrooms.

Returningtothistopic,TurkleandPapert,intheir1991article,“EpistemologicalPluralismand

theRevaluationoftheConcrete,”outlinetwopolesoftechnologicalmastery:hardandsoft.

Hardmastery,identifiedwithtop-down,rationalistthinking,wasobservedinamajorityof

boys.Softmastery,identifiedwithrelationalthinkingandClaudeLévi-Strauss’snotionof

bricolage,wasobservedinamajorityofgirlsworkingwithcomputersinaBostonelementary

school(TurkleandPapert1991,pp.167-168).Theidentificationofsoftmasteryandbricolage

inprogrammingwasaturningpointwhichledtoadeeperexaminationof“theconcrete,”a

subjectwoefullyundervaluedincontemporarylife,andespeciallyinmathandscience

education.

Stanfordscholar,BrigidBarron(2006)foundthat“learnersusestrategiesconsistentwiththe

bricoleurimagedescribedbyTurkle,buildingontheconceptintroducedbyLevi-Strauss

[1966]whereinformationisflexiblygatheredandputtogetherfornewpurposes.”Barron

revisitedtheroleofthebricoleurtoexpanduponwhatNardi&O’Day(1999)callinformation

ecologies.Notonlyareinformationecologiesaproductofbothrelationalandmaterial

- 96 -

resourcesasNardiandODaysuggest,butalso,accordingtoBarron,dynamiclearningsystems

includearangeofmultipleinfluencesthataredovetailwellwithunderstandinglearningin

formalandinformallearningsettings.Sheconcludeswithacallforchanges.

Thereportsfromtheyounglearnersshared…suggestthatweshouldexpectinterestin

learningtooriginatewithinandoutsideschoolandthatadolescentshaveasignificant

roletoplayinsustainingtheirowndevelopment.Asresearchersinterestedinhuman

development,weareinavitalpositiontohelpenvisionwhatself-sustaininglearning

ecologiesmightlooklikeandinvestigatehowresourcefulnessmightbenurtured.

(Barron,2006,p.221)

TurkleandPapert’susethetermsbricoleurandthenotionofhardandsofttoexplaindifferent

approachestocomputation,extendstootherimportantdomains:ecologicalstances,feminism,

andethnographyofscienceandcomputation(1991,p.372).Theyproposethathardandsoft

stylesofcreatingknowledgeandunderstandingsystemsasequallysignificanttoconcrete

thinkingwillgainrespectabilityinthescientificcommunitybyattendingmoretothesofter

concretewayofthinking.

Thedevelopmentofanewcomputerculturewouldrequiremorethantechnological

progressandmorethanenvironmentswherethereispermissiontoworkwithhighly

personalapproaches.Itwouldrequireanewandsofterconstructionofthe

technological,withanewsetofintellectualandemotionalvaluesmorelikethosewe

applytoharpsichordsthanhammers.(Ibid,p.184)

Goldman-Segallofferedadynamicandflexibleconceptualizationofdiversityofthinkingcalled

thinkingattitudes(Goldman-Segall,2008).Theseattitudesimplypositionalityandorientation,

andaresituatedintimeandplace.Shedefinedthinkingattitudesasatransitionalpositionheld

- 97 -

forashorterperiodoftime,onethatisfluidandflexible(Ibid.,p.245)Thisnotionofthinking

attitudesincludes:meta/physical,historical,ethicalandpedagogicalattitudes.Meta/physical

attitudesaddressthequestion,“What’sthestory?”Theyexplorehowchildrenaddress

causality,intention,existence,andtruth.Themeta/physicalattitudesinadolescentsare

turningpoints,referringtotheworldsofinventionandimagination—attitudesthatare

rootedinthephysicalsituatednessoftheirinteractionswiththeworld.Historicalattitudes

addresshowthingsbegan.Theyencompasslearningfromthepastandmakingsenseofit.

Ethicalattitudesincludeouractionsinrelationtodesireandexternalnorms.Balancingright

andwrongisparticularlychallenging.Theseattitudesaddressquestionssuchas:“Whatisfair?”

Toagreatextent,pedagogical(oractivist)attitudesoverlapwithethicalattitudes.Pedagogical

attitudesareconcernedwithsuchquestionsas“Whatcanwedo?Howdowechange?Howdo

weteachotherstolearnfromwhatwedid?”Videoexcerptsavailableontheweb:

http://www.pointsofviewing.com.

Thisdynamicepistemologicaltheoryoflearningledtowaysofknowingthatinclude

genderflexing:boysmaytakeonthinkingattitudesthataretraditionallyassociatedwiththose

ofgirls,andviceversa(Goldman-Segall,1996b&1998b).Theunderlyingthemehereisthe

primacyofsituatedpointsofviewing,ratherthanessentialqualities.Learnersbecome

ethnographers,observingandengagingwiththeculturalenvironmentsinwhichthey

participate.Shealsorecommendsknowledgeframing(1998).Framingisrootedinseveral

diversebutinterwovencontexts:Frames—incontrasttothemoreessentialistnotionof

styles—includethecontextsetbytheframer,whatisframed,aswellaswhatisleftoutofthe

frame.Inotherwords,forlearning,itismoreimportanttohaveflexiblethinkingattitudes

aboutthecontentknowledgesothattheframesthatareappliedtothatclusterofknowledge

- 98 -

areappropriateandusefulinunderstandingthedomainunderinvestigation.Relatedusesof

framingcanbefoundintheworkbyMarvinMinsky’sonartificialintelligence(1986),Howard

Gardneronmultipleintelligences(1985b),ErvingGoffmanoneverydaysociology(1986),and

TrinhMinhT.Haoncinematography(1992).

DistributedCognitionandSituatedLearning

Inthe1990s,thefocushadalreadychangedfromunderstandingthemindofonechildto

understandingthesituatedmindsoflearnersincollaborativeteams.Simultaneously,learning

movedfromlearningmodules,toopen-endedconstructionism,toproblem-basedlearning

(PBL)environmentsandrich-mediacasesofteachingpractices.

Ourmemoriesareinfamiliesandlibrariesaswellasinsideourskins;ourperceptionsare

extendedandfragmentedbytechnologiesofeverysort.–SusanLeighStar

The1989articlebyJohnSeelyBrown,AlanCollins,andPaulDuguidcalled“SituatedCognition

andtheCultureofLearning”(1996[1989])isgenerallycreditedwithintroducingtheconcepts

andvocabularyofsituatedcognitiontotheeducationalcommunity.Thisinfluentialarticle,

drawingonresearchatXeroxPARCandattheInstituteforResearchonLearning(IRL),

expressedtheauthors’concernwiththelimitstowhichconceptualknowledgecanbe

abstractedfromthesituationsinwhichitissituatedandlearned(p.19),asiscommonpractice

inclassrooms.BuildingupontheexperientialemphasisofpragmatistthinkerslikeJohnDewey

andonthesocialcontextsoflearningofRussianactivitytheoristslikeVygotskyandLeontiev,

Brownandhiscolleaguesproposedthenotionofcognitiveapprenticeship.Inacognitive

apprenticeshipmodel,knowledgeandlearningareseenassituatedinpractice:“Situations

mightbesaidtoco-produceknowledgethroughactivity.Learningandcognition,itisnow

- 99 -

possibletoargue,arefundamentallysituated(p.20).”Thisideaiscarriedforwardtoan

examinationoftoolsandthewayinwhichtheyarelearnedandused:

Learninghowtouseatoolinvolvesfarmorethancanbeaccountedforinanysetofexplicit

rules.Theoccasionsandconditionsforusearisedirectlyoutofthecontextofactivitiesofeach

communitythatusesthetool,framedbythewaymembersofeachcommunityseetheworld.

Thecommunityanditsviewpoint,quiteasmuchasthetoolitself,determinehowatoolisused.

(Brown,etal,p.23)

TheworkthatbringsthesituatedperspectivefirmlyhometothelearningenvironmentisJean

LaveandEtienneWenger’sSituatedLearning:LegitimatePeripheralParticipation(1991),

whichgoessignificantlybeyondBrown’scognitiveapprenticeshipmodel.CoretoLaveand

Wenger’sworkistheideaofknowledgeasdistributedorstretchedacrossacommunityof

practice—whatSalomonlatercalledthe“radicalsituatedperspective”(Salomon1993).

Inourview,learningisnotmerelysituatedinpractice—asifitweresomeindependentlyrei-

fiableprocessthatjusthappenedtobelocatedsomewhere;learningisanintegralpartof

generativesocialpracticeinthelived-inworld...Legitimateperipheralparticipationispro-

posedasadescriptorofengagementinsocialpracticethatentailslearningasanintegral

constituent(LaveandWenger1991,p.35).

Thisperspectiveflipstheargumentover:itisnotthatlearninghappensbestwhenitis

situated(asiftherewerelearningsettingsthataren’tsituated),butrather,learningisan

integralpartofallsituatedpractice.So,ratherthanasking—asBransfordandcolleaguesat

Vanderbilthad—“howcanwecreateauthenticlearningsituations?”theyask“whatisthe

natureofcommunitiesofpractice?”and“howdonewcomersandold-timersrelateand

interactwithincommunitiesofpractice?”LaveandWengeranswerthesequestionsthrough

- 100 -

elaboratingthenatureofcommunitiesofpracticeinwhattheytermlegitimateperipheral

participation.

Bythiswemeantodrawattentiontothepointthatlearnersinevitablyparticipateincommu-

nitiesofpractitionersandthatmasteryofknowledgeandskillrequiresnewcomerstomove

towardfullparticipationinthesocioculturalpracticesofacommunity.(p.29)

LaveandWengeralsoelaborateontheinvolvementofculturalartifactsandtechnologies

withincommunitiesofpractice.Asknowledgeisstretchedoveracommunityofpractice,itis

alsoembodiedinthematerialcultureofthatcommunity,bothinthemechanismsofpractice

andinthesharedhistoryofthecommunity:

Participationinvolvingtechnologyisespeciallysignificantbecausetheartifactsusedwithina

culturalpracticecarryasubstantialportionofthatpracticesheritage...Thus,understanding

thetechnologyofpracticeismorethanlearningtousetools;itisawaytoconnectwiththe

historyofthepracticeandtoparticipatemoredirectlyinculturallife.(p.101)

Artifactsandtechnologyarenotjustinstrumentalinembodyingpractice;theyalsohelp

constitutethestructureofthecommunity.AsGoldman-Segall(1998)remindsus,

Theyarenotjusttoolsusedbyourculture;theyaretoolsusedformakingculture.Theyare

partnersthathavetheirowncontributiontomakewithregardtohowwebuildacultural

understandingoftheworldaroundus.(pp.268-269)

Situatedcognition,then,becomesperspectivalknowledge,andthetoolsandartifactswe

createbecomewhatGoldmancoined“perspectivitytechnologies:”viewpoints,frames,lenses,

andfilters;reflectionsofselveswithothers.Tounderstandthesignificanceofperspectivityin

theroleoflearning,onehastoturntorecentstudiesontheothersideofthecoin—perception.

- 101 -

Thisrenewedinterestinperceptually-groundedresearch,oremodiment,encompassesthe

continuallyinteractingpartsofmakingmeaning.

Conclusion

Inthischapter,thePointsofViewingTheorywasappliedtoanalreadyrichunderstandingof

theuseofcomputers,theInternet,anddigitalmedia.Therangeofpossiblecontributorswasso

broadthatwedecidedtofocusonlyonthosetheoriesandtoolswhichweredirectlyconnected

withthenotionofperspectivalknowledgeconstructionandperspectivitytechnologies.To

thoseresearcherswhoseworkisnotdescribedinthischapter,weregretthatwedidnotfind

theopportunitytoincludeyourwork.

Perspectivitytechnologies(Goldman,2007)representthenextphaseofthinkingwithour

technologypartners.Notonlywillwebuildthem,shapethem,andusethem.Theywillalso

affect,influence,andshapeus.Theywillbecome,ifsomeresearchershavetheirway,partof

ourbodies,notonlyaugmentingourrelationshipsbutbecomingmembersintheirownright.

Asroboticobjectsbecomeroboticsubjects,wewillhavetoconsiderhowStevenSpielberg’s

robotinthemovieAIfeltwheninteractingwithhumans—andhopefullywewillbekinderto

ourselvesandtoourrobots.

Thus,aperspectivitytechnologyisnotonlyatechnologywhichenablesustobetterseeeach

other’sviewpointsandmakedecisionsbasedonmultiplepointsofviewing.Itisalso

concernedwiththecreationanddesignoftechnologiesthataddperspectives.Technologies

havebuilt-infilters.Toexplainthisbriefly,oneneedonlythinkofhowrecordinganeventwith

penandpaper,anaudio-taperecorder,andadigitalvideorecordereachprovidedifferent

perspectivesofthesameevent.Thetechnologyprovidesanimportantfilterorlens.A

- 102 -

viewpoint,onecouldsay.Andwhilethatviewpointisdeeplyinfluencedbywhothefilmmaker

is,orwhothereporteris,thereisaperspectivethatiscontributedbythetechnology.Acamera

tellsadifferentstorythantheaudioortexttool.

Asweusenewmediaascommunicationdevices,theyaffecthowwecommunicate;they

participatebybeingwhattheyare,havingacapacitytoshapethestory.Beyondthemediais

themessagethemeofMarshallMcLuhan(1964),wearenowdeeplyentrenchedina

participatoryrelationshipwithournewmediatechnologiesbecausetheyhavebecomepartof

ourperspective,ourconsciousnes,andourwayoflife.Thelevelofinteractionwithourvirtual

creatures(technologies)transformsourrelationships.Wearenevercompletelyalone.Weare

connectedthroughmediadevicesevenifwecan’tseethem.Theyseeus.

Thatsaid,whathaschangedinlearning?Itmightseemwehavemovedalongwayfrom

believingthatlearningisputtingcertaincurriculuminsideofstudents’headsandthentesting

themforhowwelltheyhavelearnedthatmaterial.Yet,instructionismisstillaliveandwell.

Fromkindergartentohighereducation,studentsarestillbeingtrainedtobeabletopasstests

thatwillprovidethemwithentranceintohighereducation.Inspiteoflearningtheories

movingfrombehaviorismtocognitivismtodistributedandsituatedcogntion,educatorsare

caughtinthequagmireofpreparingstudentsfortheirfutureeducationinsteadoftryingto

makethepresenteducational,engaging,andchallengingfun.Teachersarecaughtinan

entangledwebofuncertaintyastheyscrambletolearnthenewtoolsofthetrade(theInternet,

distancelearningenvironments,etc),learnthecontenttheyhavetoteach,andthenorganize

thelearningintomodulesthatwillfitintothenextsetoflearningmodules.

Theironyisthatwhenwethinkofwhoourbestteacherswere,theyweretheteacherswho

wereabletoelicitsomethingwithinusandhelpusconnectourlivestoothers’lives.Nota

- 103 -

technologything!Thelivesofpoets,mathematicians,physicists,andthefisherdownatthe

docks.Theseteacherscreatedasenseofcommunityintheclassroom.Webecamepartofa

discoveryprocessthathadnoend.OakeshotthereItwasnotknowledgethatwasalready

knownthatwecraved.Itwasputtingideastogetherthathadnotyetbeenputtogether—at

leastinourownminds.Wefeltweinventedsomethingnew.Andindeedweandotherswithin

theselearningenvironmentsdidinventnewideasinourminds.Yet,peoplesaythatthis

cannothappentomoststudentsinmostclassesandthebestwecandoistoteachthe

curriculum,provideasafelearningenvironment,andtestpeopleforwhatwewantedthemto

learn.Thisisnotgoodenough.Andifstudentsdonotbecomepartnersintheirlearningnow,

technologieswillcreateislandsofdespairasmoreandmorestudentsstoplearninghowtobe

creativecitizensinterestedineachother,indifference,andinunderstandingcomplexity.And

technologycouldopenupagulfbetweenpeopleaswellaslackofboundariesbetweenwork

andplay.InSherryTurkle’sbook,AloneTogether(2011)sheexplorestheseproblematicsof

computeruseremindingusaboutaseriousproblemfacingatechnologicallyseducedsociety.

Shearguesthatwearelosingoursenseofcommunity,thatbeingtogetherinonline

environments,suchasFacebook™forexample,cancreatemorealoneness.

Connectivitytechnologiesoncepromisedtogiveusmoreboundariesbetweenwork

andleisure.Butasthecellphoneandsmartphoneerodedthebounndariesbetween

workandleisure,allthetimeintheworldwasnotenough.Evenwhenwearenot“at

work,”weexperienceourselves“oncall”;presssed,wewanttoeditoutcomplexityand

“cuttothechase.”(Turkle,2001,p.12)

- 104 -

Thesecommenthaveraisedsomeonlinereadersto“push-back,”touseacommonvernacular.

Inanonlinediscussion,WłodzimierzSobkowiak,aprofessorofEnglishphilologyattheAdam

MickiewiczUniversityinPolandasks:

Whyshouldcommunitiesofnecessitybe'constitutedbyphysicalproximity'onlyis

beyondme,frankly,soI'llnoteventrytoanalyzethisclaim.…Icanassurethereader

thatthesharedconcerns,realconsequences,andcommonresponsibilities'presentin

thoseenvironmentsarefeltasnotabitlessrealthanintheso-calledRealLife.

(RetrievedonAugust15,2011fromhttp://grou.ps/zajek/blogs/item/sherry-turkle-

alone-together)

Whiletechnologieshavebecomemanythingsformanypeople,theycanbedesignedforthe

creativesharingofperspectivesandviewpointsthatleadtobuildingbettercommunitiesof

practiceinourschoolsandinoursocieties.

SincetheattackontheWorldTradeCentermorethanadecadeagoonSeptember11,2001,we

havecometorealizethattheworldisnotwhatwethoughtitwas.Weknowsolittleabouteach

other.Weknowsolittleabouttheworld.Oureducationallenseshavefocusedtoolongon

educationalgoalswhichactedasblinderstotheworldaroundus.Wethoughtwedidn’tneed

tounderstandeachotherandoutdiverseperspectivesontheworld.Thatoneviewof

knowledgewasenough.Yet,whatweknowandwhatwemakeisalwaysareflectionofour

beliefsandassumptionsabouttheworld.Andweneedtobuildnewbridgesinasocially

constructedinterconnectedworldwherepeoplehaveaccesstoeachother’scustoms,

languages,andworldviews.And,wemustrelyonourtechnologiestobuildconnectionswith

peopleswedonotknowsothatthegulfbetweenuslessens.

- 105 -

Perspectivalknowledge,theabilitytostandupandviewunknownterritory,enablesstudents,

educators,andthepublicatlargetotakeasecondandthirdlookatthemanylenseswhich

makeupthehumanexperience,eveniffromadistance.Thepurposeisnottoalwaysapprove

ofwhatwesee,buttolearnhowtoputdifferentworldviewsintoanewconfigurationand

uncoverpathswemightnotyetsee.Andwemight,ifwearebraveenough,respectstudents

notonlyforwhathasbeentaughtthemaftertheyhavetakenprescribedcoursesand

completedassignments,butalsorespectthemthemomenttheywalkthroughthedoor—or

throughtheonlineportalastheyengageintheformalorinformallearninghabitat.

- 106 -

References

Abrahamson,D.,&Howison,M.(2010,May).Embodiedartifacts:coordinatedactionasan

object-to-think-with.InD.L.Holton(Organizer&Chair)&J.P.Gee(Discussant),Embodiedand

enactiveapproachestoinstruction:implicationsandinnovations.Paperpresentedatthe

AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.

Abrahamson,D.,&Trninic,D.(2011).Towardanembodied-interactiondesignframeworkfor

mathematicalconcepts.InP.Blikstein&P.Marshall(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe10thAnnual

InteractionDesignandChildrenConference(IDC2011),pp.1-10).AnnArbor,MI:IDC.

Abrahamson,D.,Trninic,D.,Gutiérrez,J.F.,Huth,J.,&Lee,R.G.(2011).Hooksandshifts:a

dialecticalstudyofmediateddiscovery.Technology,Knowledge,andLearning,16(1),

55-85.

Ahn,J.(2007).Applicationofexperientiallearningcycleinlearningfromabusiness

simulationgame.UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation.TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,

NewYork,NewYork.

Alpert,D.,&Bitzer,D.L.(1970).Advancesincomputer-basededucation.Science,167,1582-

1590.

Ambron,S.,&Hooper,K.(1990).LearningwithInteractiveMultimedia.Redmond,WA:

MicrosoftPress.

Anderson,J.R.(1993).RulesoftheMind.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Anderson,J.R.,Corbett,A.T.,Koedinger,K.,&Pelletier,R.(1995).Cognitivetutors:Lessons

learned.TheJournalofLearningSciences,4,167-207.

Antle,A.N.,Corness,G.,&Droumeva,M.(2009).Whatthebodyknows:exploringthebenefits

ofembodiedmetaphorsinhybridphysicaldigitalenvironments.InRamduny-Ellis,D.,

- 107 -

Dix,A.J.,Gill,S.,&Hare,J.(Eds.),PhysicalityandInteraction[Specialissue].

InteractingwithComputers21(1&2),66-75.

Ashby, R., & Lee, P. (1987). Children’s concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In C.

Portal (Ed.), The History Curriculum for Teachers (pp. 62–99). London: Falmer Press.

Bamberger,J.,&diSessa,A.A.(2003).Musicasembodiedmathematics:astudyofamutually

informingaffinity.InternationalJournalofComputersforMathematicalLearning,8(2),

123-160.

Barab,S.A.,Zuiker,S.,Warren,S.,Hickey,D.,Ingram-Goble,A.,Kwon,E-J.,Kouper,I.,&Herring,

S.C.(2007).SituationallyEmbodiedCurriculum:RelatingFormalismsandContexts.Science

Education,91(5),750-782.

Barab,S.,Thomas,M.,Dodge,T.,Carteaux,R.&Tuzun,H.(2005).Makinglearningfun:Quest

Atlantis,AGameWithoutGuns,”EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment.53I(1),

86–107.

BarronB.(2006)Interestandself-sustainedlearningascatalystsofdevelopment:Alearning

ecologyperspective.HumanDevelopment,49,193-224.

Barab,S.A.,Sadler,T.D.,Heiselt,C.,Hickey,D.,&Zuiker,S.(2007).Relatingnarrative,inquiry,

andinscriptions:Supportingconsequentialplay.JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,

16,59-82.

Barsalou,L.W.(2008).Groundedcognition.AnnualReviewofPsychology.59,617-645.

Barsalou,L.W.(2010).Groundedcognition:past,present,andfuture.TopicsinCognitive

Science,2(4),716-724.

BartoliniBussi,M.G.,&Mariotti,M.A.(2008).Semioticmediationinthemathematics

classroom:artefactsandsignsafteraVygotskianperspective.InL.D.English,M.G.

- 108 -

BartoliniBussi,G.A.Jones,R.Lesh&D.Tirosh(Eds.),HandbookofInternational

ResearchinMathematicsEducation,2ndrevisededition(pp.720-749).Mahwah,NG:

LEA.

Bates,A.W.(1988).Technologyfordistanceeducation:A10-yearprospective.OpenLearning,

3(3).

Bates,A.W.(1995).Technology:OpenLearningandDistanceEducation.London:Routledge.

Beers,M.(2001).Subjects-ininteractionversion3.0:Anintellectualsystemformodernlanguage

studentteacherstoappropriatemultiliteraciesasdesignersandinterpretersofdigitalmedia

texts.UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation,UniversityofBritishColumbia.

Beers,M.,&Goldman-Segall,R.(2001).Newrolesforstudentteachersbecomingexperts:

Creating,viewing,andcritiquingdigitalvideotexts.PaperpresentedattheAmerican

EducationalResearchAssociationAnnualMeeting,2001.

Belman, J. & Flanagan,M. (2010). Designing games to foster empathy.CognitiveTechnology,

14(2).

Black, J.B. (2007) ImaginaryWorlds. In.M.A. Gluck, J.R. Anderson and S.M. Kosslyn (Eds.)

MemoryandMind.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Black,J.B.(2010).Anembodied/groundedcognitionperspectiveoneducationaltechnology.In

M.S.Khine& I. Saleh (Ed.)Newscienceoflearning:Cognition,ComputersandCollaborationin

Education.NewYork:Springer.

Black,J.B.(2011)Videogamesasperceptuallygroundingexperiencestoenhanceformal

learning.InF.C.Blumberg(Ed.)LearningbyPlaying:FrontiersofVideoGaminginEducation.

NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

- 109 -

Black,J.B.,Segal,A.,Vitale,J.&Fadjo,C.(2011).Embodiedcognitionandlearningenvironment

design. InD. Jonassen&S.Lamb (Eds.)TheoreticalFoundationsofStudent-centeredLearning

Environments.NewYork:Routledge.

Blair,K.,Schwartz,D.L.,Biswas,G.,&Leelawong,K.(2007).Pedagogicalagentsforlearningby

teaching:TeachableAgents.EducationalTechnology,47,56-61.

Bogost,I.(2007).PersuasiveGames:TheExpressivePowerofVideoGames.Cambridge,MA:MIT

Press.

BootstrapInstitute.(1994).Biographicalsketch:DouglasC.Engelbart.Available:http://

www.bootstrap.org/dce-bio.htm.

Brand,S.(1987).TheMediaLab:InventingthefutureatMIT.NewYork:Viking.

Bransford,J.D.&Schwartz,D.L.(2001).Rethinkingtransfer:Asimpleproposalwithmultiple

implications.InIran-Nejad,A.&Pearson,P.D.,(Eds).ReviewofResearchinEducation24,61-

100:AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.

Bransford,J.,Sherwood,R.,&Hasselbring,T.(1988).Thevideorevolutionanditseffectson

development:Someinitialthoughts.InG.Forman&P.B.Pufall(Eds.),Constructivisminthe

ComputerAge.Hillsdale,NJ:LEA.

Bromley,H.(1998).Introduction:Data-drivendemocracy?Socialassessmentofeducational

computing.InH.Bromley&M.W.Apple(Eds.),Education,Technology,Power:Educational

ComputingasaSocialPractice(pp.1-27).Albany:StateUniversityofNewYork.

Brown,J.S.,&Burton,R.R.(1978).Aparadigmaticexampleofanartificiallyintelligent

instructionalsystem.InternationalJournalofMan-MachineStudies,10(3),323-339.

- 110 -

Brown,J.S.,Collins,A.,&Duguid,P.(1996[1989]).Situatedcognitionandthecultureof

learning.InH.McLellan(Ed.),Situatedlearningperspectives.:EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Educational

TechnologyPublications.

Brown,J.S.,&Duguid,P.(2000).TheSocialLifeofInformation.Boston:HarvardBusiness

SchoolPress.

Bruckman,A.(1998).Communitysupportforconstructionistlearning.CSCW,7,47-86.

Available:http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/papers/bruckman/cscw-bruckman.pdf

Bruckman,A.S.(1997).MooseCrossing:Construction,community,andlearninginanetworked

virtualworldforkids.UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation,MIT.Available:http://

www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/thesis

Bruner,J.(1990).ActsofMeaning.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Bruner,J.(1996).TheCultureofEducation.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Bruner,J.S.,Oliver,R.R.,&Greenfield,P.M.(1966).StudiesinCognitiveGrowth:A

CollaborationattheCenterforCognitiveStudies.NewYork:Wiley&Sons.

Bryson,M.,&Castell,S.d.(1998).Tellingtalesoutofschool:Modernist,critical,and"true

stories"abouteducationalcomputing.InH.Bromley&M.W.Apple(Eds.),Education,

Technology,Power:EducationalComputingasaSocialPractice(pp.65-84).Albany:State

UniversityofNewYork.

Chan,M.S.&Black,J.B.(2006)Direct-manipulationanimation:Incorporatingthehaptic

channelinthelearningprocesstosupportmiddleschoolstudentsinsciencelearningand

mentalmodelacquisition.ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceoftheLearningSciences.

Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

- 111 -

Chin,D.B.,Dohmen,I.M.,Cheng,B.H.,Oppezzo,M.A.,Chase,C.C.,&SchwartzD.L.(inpress)

PreparingstudentsforfuturelearningwithTeachableAgents.EducationalTechnology

Research&Development,58,649-669.

CognitionandTechnologyGroupatVanderbilt.(1997).TheJasperProject:Lessonsin

Curriculum,Instruction,AssessmentandProfessionalDevelopment.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Cole,M.(1996).CulturalPsychology:AOnceandFutureDiscipline.Cambridge:Harvard

UniversityPress.

Cole,M.,&Engeström,Y.(1993).Acultural-historicalapproachtodistributedcognition.InG.

Salomon(Ed.),DistributedCognitions:PsychologicalandEducationalConsiderations.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cole,M.,&Griffin,P.(1980).Culturalamplifiersreconsidered.InD.R.Olson(Ed.),Social

foundationsoflanguageandthought:EssaysinhonorofJeromeS.Bruner(pp.343-364).New

YorkandLondon:W.W.NortonandCompany.

Cole,M.,&Wertsch,J.V.(1996).Beyondtheindividual-socialantinomyindiscussionsofPiaget

andVygotsky.HumanDevelopment,39(5),250-256.

Collis,B.(1996).Tele-learninginaDigitalWorld.London:ThomsonComputerPress.

Cress,U.,Fischer,U.,Moeller,K.,Sauter,C.,&Nuerk,H.-C.(2010).Theuseofadigitaldancemat

fortrainingkindergartenchildreninamagnitudecomparisontask.InK.Gomez,L.

Lyons&J.Radinsky(Eds.),LearningintheDisciplines:Proceedingsofthe9th

InternationalConferenceoftheLearningSciences(ICLS2010)(Vol.1[FullPapers],pp.

105-112).InternationalSocietyoftheLearningSciences:ChicagoIL.

Cross,J.&friends(2010).WorkingSmarter:InformalLearningintheCloud.Downloaded

August8,2011fromhttp://www.internettime.com

- 112 -

Cuban,L.(1993).Computersmeetclassroom:Classroomwins.TeachersCollegeRecord,95(2),

185-210.

Daniels,V.(2000).LectureonJohnB.Watson.Available:

http://www.sonoma.edu/people/daniels/Watson.html.

Davy,J.(1985).Mindstormsinthelamplight.InD.Sloan(Ed.),TheComputerinEducation:A

CriticalPerspsective.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

deCastell,S.,M.Bryson,&J.Jenson.(2000).ObjectLessons:Criticalvisionsofeducational

technology.PaperpresentedatAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationAnnualMeeting,

2000.

Dede,C.(1990).Theevolutionofdistancelearning:Technology-mediatedinteractivelearning.

JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation,22(3),247-264.

Dede,C.(1994).Theevolutionofconstructivistlearningenvironments:Immersionin

distributed,virtualworlds.EducationalTechnology,35(5),46-52.

Dede,C.(Ed.).(1998).ACSDYearbook1998:Learningwithtechnology.Alexandria,Virginia:

AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment.

Derry,S.&Zalles,D.(2011).Designresearchexploringtransformativeframeworksfor

learningandeducation.PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducational

ResearchAssociation,NewOrleans,LA.

Dewey,J.(1938).ExperienceinEducation.NewYork:Touchstone.

Dewey,J.(1961[1916]).DemocracyandEducation:AnIntroductiontothePhilosophyof

Education.NewYork:Macmillan.

Diamond,J.P.(forthcomng).

- 113 -

Diamond,J.&Goldman,R.(submitted).Howperspective-takingbuildshistoricalempathyina

digitalhistorygame.ProceedingsoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.(2012)

Vancouver,BC.

diSessa,A.A.(1988).Knowledgeinpieces.InG.Forman&P.B.Pufall(Eds.),Constructivismin

theComputerAge.Hillsdale,NJ:LEA.

diSessa,A.A.(2000).Changingminds:Computers,Learning,andLiteracy.Cambridge:MITPress.

Dam,G.(2011).Amovementgameforlearningaboutdecisiontheory.Paperpresentedatthe

AnnualMeetingoftheJeanPiagetSociety,June2-4.,Berkeley,CA.

Davis,O.L.,Jr.,Yeager,E.A.&Foster,S.J.(Eds.)(2001).HistoricalEmpathyandPerspective

TakingintheSocialStudies.Lanham,MD:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.

Domagk,S.,Schwartz,R.,&Plass,J.L.(2010).Defininginteractivityinmultimedialearning.

ComputersinHumanBehavior,26,1024–1033.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.003

Dourish,P.(2001).Wheretheactionis:thefoundationsofembodiedinteraction.Cambridge,

MA:M.I.T.Press.

Duffy,T.M.&Jonassen,D.(1992).ConstructivismandtheTechnologyofInstruction:A

converstation.Hillsdale,NJ:LEA.

Edelson,D.,Pea,R.,&Gomez,L.(1996).Constructivisminthecollaboratory.InB.G.Wilson

(Ed.),Constructivistlearningenvironments:Casestudiesininstructionaldesign.Englewood

Cliffs,NJ:EducationalTechnologyPublications.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen,S.(2005).Beyondedutainment:Exploringtheeducationalpotentialof

computergames.UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation,IT-UniversityofCopenhagen.

Fajo,C.L.&Black,J.B.(2011)MovingtowardtherightStatement:Effectsofgrounded

embodiedcognitiononcomputationalthinking.InL.Carlson,C.HoelsherandT.Shipley(Eds.)

- 114 -

Proceedingsofthe33rdAnnualConferenceoftheCognitiveScienceSociety.Austin,TX:Cognitive

ScienceSociety.

Feenberg,A.(1989).Thewrittenworld:Onthetheoryandpracticeofcomputerconferencing.

InMason,R.,&Kaye,A.Mindweave:Communication,Computers,andDistanceEducation.

Oxford:PergamonPress.

Feldman,A.,Konold,C.,&Coulter,B.(2000).NetworkScience,ADecadeLater:TheInternetand

ClassroomLearning.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Foucault,M.(1977).Power/Knowledge:Selectedinterviewsandotherwritings.C.Gordon,(Ed.).

NewYork:HarvesterPress.

FoxKeller,E.(1983).AFeelingfortheOrganism:TheLifeandWorkofBarbaraMcClintock.San

Francisco:W.H.Freeman.

Gardner,H.(1985).TheMind'sNewScience:AHistoryoftheCognitiveRevolution.NewYork:

BasicBooks.

Gardner,H.(1983).FramesofMind:TheTheoryofMultipleIntelligences.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Gee,J.P.(2007).WhatVideogamesHavetoTeachUsaboutLearningandLiteracy.2ndEdition.

NewYork:PalgraveMacMillan.

Geier,R.,Blumenfeld,P.,Marx,R.,Krajcik,J.,Fishman,B.,&Soloway,E.(2006).Standardized

TestOutcomesforStudentsEngagedinInquiry-BasedScienceCurriculumintheContextof

UrbanReform.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,45,922-939.

Gerofsky,S.(2011).Bringingthegraphinclosertothebody:Integratinggestural/kinesthetic

andsoniccognitiveresourcesintheteachingofpolynomialfunctionsinsecondary

Mathematics.ProceedingspaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducational

ResearchAssociation(SIGAdvancedTechnologiesforLearning).NewOrleans,LA.

- 115 -

Gibbs,R.(2006).EmbodimentandCognitiveScience.Cambridge;NewYork:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Gilster,P.(2000).Digitalliteracy,TheJossey-BassreaderonTechnologyandLearning.San

Francisco:Jossey-BassInc.

Glenberg,A.M.(1987)Whatmemoryisfor.TheBehavioralandBrainSciences,20,1-55.

Glenberg,A.M.,Goldberg,A.,Zhu,X.(2009).Improvingearlyreadingcomprehensionusing

embodiedCAI.InstructionalScience,39,27-39

Glenberg,A.M.,Gutierrez,T,Levin,J.R.,Japuntich,S.,&Kaschak,M.P.(2004).Activityand

imaginedactivitycanenhanceyoungchildren'sreadingcomprehension.Journalof

EducationalPsychology,96,424-436.

Goffman,E.(1986).FrameAnalysis:AnEssayontheOrganizationofExperience.Boston:

NortheasternUnivesityPress.

Goldin,G.A.(1987).Levelsoflanguageinmathematicalproblemsolving.InC.Janvier(Ed.),

Problemsofrepresentationintheteachingandlearningofmathematics(pp.59-65).

Hillsdale,NJ:LEA.

Goldman,R.(2007).VideoRepresentationsandthePerspectivityFramework:Epistemology,

Ethnography,Evaluation,andEthics.InGoldman,R.,Pea,R.D.,Barron,B.&Derry,S.(Eds.)

VideoResearchintheLearningSciences.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Goldman,R.,Pea,R.D.,Barron,B.&Derry,S.(Eds.)(2007).VideoResearchintheLearning

Sciences.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Kwah,H.,Milne,C.,Goldman,R.&Plass,J.(submitted).Emotions,engagement,andthe

developmentofanafterschoolgamedesigncurriculum.AnnualMeetingofthe2012American

EducationalResearchAssociation.Vancouver,BC,Canada.

- 116 -

Kwah,H.&Goldman,R.(2011)Diagrams,perspectivityandempatheticembodimentsin

teachergestures.ProceedingspaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmerican

EducationalResearchAssociation(SIGAdvancedTechnologiesforLearning).NewOrleans,LA.

Goldman,R.(Chair),H.Kwah&D.Abrahamson(Organizers),&R.P.Hall(Discussant).(2011).

Diverseperspectivesonembodiedlearning:what’ssohardtograsp?Symposium

presentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation(SIG

AdvancedTechnologiesforLearning).NewOrleans,LA.

Goldman,R.,Crosby,M.,Swan,K.&Shea,P.(2004).IntroducingQuisitiveResearch:Expanding

qualitativemethodsfordescribinglearninginALN.InStarrHiltz,R.&Goldman,R.(Eds).

LearningTogetherOnline:ResearchonAsynchronousLearningNetworks.Mahwah,NewJersey:

LEA.

Goldman,R.,&Dong,C.(2009).LinkingthePOV-ingtheorytomultimediarepresentationsof

teaching,learning,andresearchintheageofsocialnetworking.InL.Moller(Ed).Visionsofthe

future:Learningandinstructionaltechnologiesforthe21stcentury.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1989).Thickdescription:Atoolfordesigningethnographicinteractive

videodisks.SIGCHIBulletin,21(2),118-122.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1990).LearningConstellations:Amultimediaethnographicresearch

environmentusingvideotechnologytoexplorechildren’sthinking.UnpublishedDoctoral

Dissertation,MIT,Cambridge,MA.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1991).Threechildren,threestyles:Acallforopeningthecurriculum.InI.

Harel&S.Papert(Eds.),Constructionism.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1993).Interpretingvideodata:Introducinga“significancemeasure”to

layerdescriptions.JournalforEducationalMultimediaandHypermedia,2(3),261-282.

- 117 -

Goldman-Segall,R.(1994).VirtualClayoquot:TheBaysideMiddleSchoolimplementsa

multimediastudyofaCanadianrainforest.ProceedingsofEd-Media'94,Associationforthe

AdvancementofComputinginEducation,603-609.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1995).Configurationalvalidity:Aproposalforanalyzingethnographic

multimedianarratives.JournalofEducationalMultimediaandHypermedia,4(2/3),163-182.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1996a).Lookingthroughlayers:Reflectingupondigitalethnography.JCT:

AnInterdisciplinaryJournalforCurriculumStudies,13(1).

Goldman-Segall,R.(199b).Challengesfacingresearchersusingmultimediatools.Computer

GraphicsQuarterly28(1),pp.48-52.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1996c).Genderflexing:Atheoryofgenderandsocio-scientificthinking,

ProceedingsfortheInternationalConferenceontheLearningSciences.Chicago,Illinois.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1998a).Pointsofviewingchildren'sthinking:Adigitalethnographer’s

journey.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.Interactivevideocasesavailableat:

http://www.pointsofviewing.com/

Goldman-Segall,R.(1998b).Genderanddigitalmediainthecontextofamiddleschoolscience

project.MERIDIAN,AMiddleSchoolGenderandTechnologyElectronicJournal1(1),Debut

Edition.Available:http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/

Goldman-Segall,R.&Rao,C.(1998c)WebConstellations:Acollaborativeonlinedigitaldata

toolforcreatinglivingnarrativesinorganizationalknowledgesystems.Proceedingsforthe

31stHawaiiInternationalConferenceforSystemsSciences,IEEE,194–200.

Goldman-Segall,R.(1999).Usingvideotosupportprofessionaldevelopment&improve

practice.WhitePaperpresentedtotheBoardonInternationalComparativeStudiesinEducation

(BICSE)InvitationalConsortiumonUsesofVideoinInternationalStudies,Washington,DC.

- 118 -

Goldman-Segall,R.(2000)Videocases:DesigningConstellations,aperspectivitydigitalvideo

dataanalysistool.PaperpresentedatCILT2000.Available:

http://kn.cilt.org/cilt2000/abstracts/2053.html

Goleman,D.(2006).SocialIntelligence.BantamBooks.

Grannott,N.(1991).Puzzledmindsandweirdcreatures:Thespontaneousprocessof

knowledgeconstruction.InI.Harel&S.Papert(Eds.),Constructionism.Cambridge,MA:MIT

Press.

Graves,W.H.(1999).Theinstructionalmanagementsystemscooperative:Convertingrandom

actsofprogressintoglobalprogress.EducomReview,34(6).Available:

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/erm9966.html

Green,C.S.,&Bavelier,D.(2003).Actionvideogamemodifiesvisualselectiveattention.Nature,

423,534–537.

Green,C.S.&Bavelier,D.(2007).Action-video-gameexperiencealtersthespatialresolutionof

vision.PsychologicalScience,18,88-94.

Greenfield,P.M.(1984).Atheoryoftheteracherinthelearningactivitiesofeverydaylife.InB.

Rogoff&J.Lave(Eds.),EverydayCognition:ItsDevelopmentinSocialContext.Cambridge:

HarvardUniversityPress.

Greenfield,P.M.,deWinstanley,P.,Kilpatrick,H.,&Kaye,D.(1994).Actionvideogamesand

informaleducation:Effectsonstrategiesfordividingvisualattention.JournalofApplied

DevelopmentalPsychology,15,105–123.

Greeno,J.G.(1997).Onclaimsthatanswerthewrongquestions.EducationalResearcher,26(1),

5-17.

- 119 -

Guzdial,M.(1997).Informationecologyofcollaborationsineducationalsettings:Influenceof

tool.PaperpresentedattheComputer-SupportedCollaborativeLearning1997.Available:

http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/papers/infoecol/

Guzdial,M.(1999).Teacherandstudentauthoringonthewebforshiftingagency.Paper

presentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationAnnualMeeting,1999.Available:

http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/papers/aera99/

Han,I.&Black,J.B.(2011)Incorporatinghapticfeedbackinsimulationforlearning

physics.ComputersandEducation,57,2281-2290.

Hammer,J.&Black,J.B.(2009)Gamesand(preparationforfuture)learning.Educational

Technology,49,29-34.

Han,I.&Black,J.(2011)Incorporatinghapticfeedbackinsimulationsforlearningphysics.

ComputersandEducation.

Harasim,L.M.(1993).Networlds:Networksassocialspace.InL.M.Harasim(Ed.),Global

networks:Computersandinternationalcommunication.Cambridge:MITPress.

Harel,I.(1991).Childrendesigners:Interdisciplinaryconstructionsforlearningandknowing

mathematicsinacomputer-richschool.Westport,Conn.:Ablex.

Harel,I.,&Papert,S.(Eds.).(1991).Constructionism.Norwood,NJ:AblexPublishing.

Harrison,B.,&Baecker,R.(1992).Designingvideoannotationandanalysissystems.Paper

presentedattheProceedingsofCHI'92.

Heidegger,M.(1962).Beingandtime(J.Macquarrie&E.Robinson,Trans.).NewYork:Harper

&Row.(Originalworkpublished1927).

Harvey,B.(1997).ComputerscienceLogostyle(SecondEdition).Cambridge:MITPress.

- 120 -

Haynes,C.,&Holmevik,J.R.(Eds.).(1998).High-wired:Onthedesign,use,andtheoryof

educationalMOOs.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Hiltz,S.R.&Goldman,R.(Eds).LearningTogetherOnline:ResearchonAsynchronousLearning

Networks.Mahwah,NewJersey:LEA.

Hiltz,S.R.(1994).TheVirtualClassroom:LearningWithoutLimitsViaComputerNetworks.

Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Hiltz,S.R.,&Turoff,M.(1993[1978]).TheNetworkNation:HumanCommunicationVia

Computer(RevisedEdition.).Cambridge:MITPress.

Homer,B.D.,&Plass,J.L.(Submittedforpublicationin2011).Theeffectoflevelofguidance

andexecutivefunctionsonlearningfromhighschoolchemistrysimulations.

Hommel,B.,Müsseler,J.,Aschersleben,G.,&Prinz,W.(2001).Thetheoryofeventcoding

(TEC):Aframeworkforperceptionandactionplanning.BehavioralandBrain

Sciences,24,849-878.

Howison,M.,Trninic,D.,Reinholz,D.,&Abrahamson,D.(2011).TheMathematicalImagery

Trainer:fromembodiedinteractiontoconceptuallearning.InG.Fitzpatrick,C.

Gutwin,B.Begole,W.A.Kellogg&D.Tan(Eds.),Proceedingsoftheannualmeetingof

CHI:ACMConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems(CHI2011),Vancouver,

May7-12,2011,(pp.1989-1998).ACM:CHI(CDROM).

Illich,I.(1972).DeschoolingSociety.NewYork:HarrowBooks.

Illich,I.(1973).ToolsforConviviality.NewYork:MarionBoyars.

Jonassen,D.H.&Land,S.(2000).TheoreticalFoundationsofLearningEnvironments.LEA,

Publishers.

- 121 -

JonassenD.H.(2005).ModelingwithTechnology:MindtoolsforConceptualChange(3rdEdition).

PrenticeHall.

Jonassen,D.H.(1996).ComputersintheClassroom:MindtoolsforCriticalThinking.Englewood

Cliffs,NJ:Merrill.

Kafai,Y.(1993).MindsinPlay:ComputerGameDesignasaContextforChildren'sLearning.

UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation,GraduateSchoolofEducationofHarvard,Cambridge,MA.

Kafai,Y.(1996).SoftwarebyKidsforKids.CommunicationsoftheACM,39(4),38-39.

Kamenetz,A.(2010).DIYU:Edupunks,Edupreneurs,andtheComingTransformationofHigher

Education.WhiteRiverJunction,VT:Chesea,GreenPublishing.

Kaput,J.,Roschelle,J.,&Stroup,W.(1998).SimCalc:Acceleratingstudents'engagementwith

themathematicsofchange.InM.Jacobson&R.Kozma(Eds.),EducationalTechnologyand

MathematicsandScienceforthe21stCentury.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Katz,S.,&Lesgold,A.(1993).Theroleofthetutorincomputer-basedcollaborativelearning

situations.InS.P.Lajoie&S.J.Derry(Eds.),ComputersasCognitiveTools.Hilldale,NJ:LEA.

Kay,A.C.(1996).TheearlyhistoryofSmallTalk.InJ.ThomasJ.Bergin&J.RichardG.Gibson

(Eds.),HistoryofProgrammingLanguages--II(pp.511-578).NewYork:ACMPress/Addison-

Wesley.

Ke,F.&Grabowski,B.(2007).Gameplayingformathslearning:cooperativeornot?British

JournalofEducationalTechnology(38)2,pp.249-259.

Kebritchi,M.,Hirumi,A.,&Bai,H.(2010).Theeffectsofmodernmathematicscomputergames

onmathematicsachievementandclassmotivation.Computers&Education,55(2),427-443.

Kennedy,S.(1989).UsingvideointheBNRutilitylab.SIGCHIBulletin,21(2),92-95

- 122 -

Koschmann,T.(1996).Paradigmshiftsandinstructionaltechnology:Anintroduction.InT.

Koschmann(Ed.),CSCL:TheoryandPracticeofanEmergingParadigm.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Kirschner,P.A.,Sweller,J.,&Clark,R.E.(2006).Whyminimalguidanceduringinstruction

doesnotwork:Ananalysisofthefailureofconstructivist,discovery,problem-based,

experiential,andinquiry-basedteaching.EducationalPsychologist,46(2),75-86.

Kuhn,T.(1996).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions(3rdEditioned.).Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress.

Kulik,J.&Kulik,C.(1991)Effectivenessofcomputer-basedinstruction:Anupdatedanalysis.

ComputersinHumanBehavior,(7)5-04.

Kwah,H.,Goldman,R.,(2011).Empatheticembodimentsanddiagrammaticgesturesfor

teachingrobotprogramming.ProceedingsoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.

NewOrleans,LA.

Kwah,H.,Milne,C.,Goldman,R.&Plass,J.L.(submittedin2011)Emotionalengagement,social

interactions,andthedevelopmentofanafterschoolgamedesigncurriculum.Proceedingsofthe

AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.Vancouver,Canada.

Lajoie,S.P.,&Derry,S.J.(1993).ComputersasCognitiveTools.Hillsdale,NJ:LEA.

Landow,G.P.(1992).Hypertext:TheConvergenceofContemporaryCriticalTheoryand

Technology.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Landow,G.P.(1994).What'sacritictodo?:Criticaltheoryintheageofhypertext,Hyper/Text/

Theory(pp.225-267).Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Landow,G.P.,&Delany,P.(1993).TheDigitalWord:Text-BasedComputingintheHumanities.

Cambridge:MITPress.

- 123 -

Laurel,B.,&Mountford,S.J.(Eds.).(1990).TheArtofHuman-ComputerInterfaceDesign.

Reading,MA.:Addison-Wesley.

Lave,J.(1988).CognitioninPractice:Mind,Mathematics,andCultureinEverydayLife.


Lave,J.,&Wenger,E.(1991).SituatedLearning:LegitimatePeripheralParticipation.:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lawler,R.(1985).ComputerExperienceandCognitiveDevelopment.NewYork:JohnWiley.

Lee,P.,&Ashby,R.(2001).Empathy,perspectivetaking,andrationalunderstanding.InO.L.

Davis,Jr.,E.A.Yeager,&S.J.Foster(Eds.),HistoricalEmpathyandPerspectiveTakinginthe

SocialStudies(pp.21–50).Lanham,MD:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.

Lemke,J.(1998).Multiplyingmeaning:Visualandverbalsemioticsinscientifictext.InMartin,

J.R.,&R.Veel(Eds.)ReadingScience.London:Routledge.

Leong,Z.A.,&Horn,M.S.(2011).Representingequality:atangiblebalancebeamforearly

algebraeducation.InP.Blikstein&P.Marshall(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe10thAnnual

InteractionDesignandChildrenConference(IDC2011)(pp.173-176).AnnArbor,MI:

IDC.

Lévi-Strauss,C.(1968).TheSavageMind.Chicago:UniversityofChicagePress.

Lim,C.P.,Nonis,D.,&Hedberg,J.(2006).Gamingina3Dmultiuservirtualenvironment:

engagingstudentsinsciencelessons.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,37,2,pp.211-

231.

Levin,J.,Riel,M.,Miyake,N.,&Cohen,E.(1987).Educationontheelectronicfrontier.

ContemporaryEducationalPsychology,12,254-260.

- 124 -

Mackay,W.(1989).EVA:Anexperimentalvideoannotatorforsymbolicanalysisofvideodata.

SIGCHIBulletin,21(2),68-71.

Martin,F.,&Resnick,M.(1993).Lego/Logoandelectronicbricks:Creatingasciencelandfor

children.InD.L.Ferguson(Ed.),AdvancedEducationalTechnologiesforMathematicsand

Science.BerlinHeidelberg:Springer-Verlag.

Martin,L.M.W.(1987).Teachers’adoptionofmultimediatechnologiesforscienceand

mathematicsinstruction.InR.D.Pea&K.Sheingold(Eds.),MirrorsofMinds:Patternsof

ExperienceinEducationalComputing.Norwood,NJ:AblexPublishing.

Mason,R.,&Kaye,A.(1989).Mindweave:Communication,ComputersandDistanceEducation.

Oxford:PergamonPress.

Mayer,R.E.,MacNamara,A.&Adams,D.M.(2011).Isthereanadvantagetolearningfrom

narrativecomputergames?Paperpresentedatthe2011AERAAnnualMeeting.NewOrleans,

LA.

Maxwell,J.W.,(2003)Re-SituatingConstructionism.UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation.

UniversityofBritishColumbia.Vancouver,BritishColumbia.

Merleau-Ponty,M.(1958/2005).Phenomenologyofperception(C.Smith,Trans.).NewYork:

Routledge.(Originalworkpublished1945).

Meares,C.A.,&JohnF.Sargent,J.(1999).TheDigitalWorkForce:BuildingInfotechSkillsatthe

SpeedofInnovation:USDepartmentofCommerce.Available:http://www.ta.doc.gov/reports/

itsw/Digital.pdf

McLuhan,M.(1964).UnderstandingMedia:TheExtensionsofMan.NewYork:McGrawHill.

Minsky,M.(1986).TheSocietyofMind.NewYork:SimonandSchuster.

- 125 -

Nardi,B.&O’Day,V.(1999).InformationEcology:UsingTechnologywithHeart.Cambridge:MIT

Press.

Nemirovsky,R.,Tierney,C.,&Wright,T.(1998).Bodymotionandgraphing.Cognitionand

Instruction,16(2),119-172.

Núñez,R.E.,Edwards,L.D.,&Matos,J.F.(1999).Embodiedcognitionasgroundingfor

situatednessandcontextinmathematicseducation.EducationalStudiesin

Mathematics,39,45-65.

Noble,D.(1985).Computerliteracyandideology.InD.Sloan(Ed.),TheComputerinEducation:A

CriticalPerspective.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Noble,D.(1999).DigitalDiplomaMillsPartIV:RehearsalfortheRevolution.Available:http://

communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ddm4.html.

Papastergiou,M.(2009).Digitalgame-basedlearninginhighschoolcomputerscience

education:Impactoneducationaleffectivenessandstudentmotivation.Computers&Education,

52(1),1-12.

Papert,S.(1980).Mindstorms:Children,Computers,andPowerfulIdeas.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Papert,S.(1987[1985]).Informationtechnologyandeducation:Computercriticismvs

technocentricthinking.EducationalResearcher,16(1),22-30

Papert,S.(1988).TheconservationofPiaget:Thecomputerasgristtotheconstructionistmill.

ConstructivismintheComputerAge.Hillsdale,NJ:LEA.

Papert,S.(1991).Situatingconstructionism.InI.Harel&S.Papert(Eds.),Constructionism.

Norwood,NJ:AblexPublishing.

Papert,S.(1992).TheChildren’sMachine.NewYork:BasicBooks.

- 126 -

Pea,R.(1985).Beyondamplification:Usingthecomputertore-organizementalfunctioning.

EducationalResearcher,20(4),167-182

Pea,R.(1987).Integratinghumanandcomputerintelligence.InR.Pea&K.Sheingold(Eds.),

MirrorsofMinds.NorwoodNJ:Ablex.

Pea,R.(1987).Theaimsofsoftwarecriticism:ReplytoProfessorPapert.Educational

Researcher,20(3),4-8

Pea,R.,&Kurland,D.M.(1987[1984]).Onthecognitiveeffectsoflearningcomputer

programming.InR.Pea&K.Sheingold(Eds.),MirrorsofMinds.NorwoodNJ:Ablex.

Pea,R.,Kurland,D.M.,&Hawkins,J.(1987).Logoandthedevelopmentofthinkingskills.InR.

Pea&K.Sheingold(Eds.),MirrorsofMinds.NorwoodNJ:Ablex.

Pea,R.D.(1993).Practicesofdistributedintelligenceanddesignsforeducation.InG.Salomon

(Ed.),Distributedcognitions:Psychologicalandeducationalconsiderations.Cambridge:


PearsonEducation.(2000).PearsonEducationHistory.Available:

http://www.pearsoned.com/history.htm.

Perkins,D.N.(1991).Technologyandconstructivism:Dotheymakeamarriage?Educational

Technology,31(5),18-23.

Petrosino,A.J.(2003).Commentary:AFrameworkforSupportingLearningandTeaching

aboutMathematicalandScientificModels.ContemporaryIssuesinTechnologyandTeacher

Education,3(3),288-299.

Petrick,C.,&Martin,T.(2011).Handsup,knowbodymove:learningmathematicsthrough

embodiedactions.Manuscriptinprogress(copyonfilewithauthor).

- 127 -

Petrosino,A.J.(2004).Integratingcurriculum,instruction,andassessmentinproject-based

instruction:Acasestudyofanexperiencedteacher.JournalofScienceEducationand

Technology,13(2),127-134.

Piaget,J.(1930).TheChild'sConceptionoftheWorld.London:NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,and

World.

Piaget,J.(1952).TheChild'sConceptionofNumber.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.

Piaget,J.(1969).TheChild'sConceptionofTime.London:Rutledge&KeganPaul.

Piaget,J.&Inhelder,B.(1956).TheChild'sConceptionofSpace.London:Routledge&Kegan

Paul.

Piaget,J.,&Inhelder,B.(1969).Thepsychologyofthechild(H.Weaver,Trans.).NY:BasicBooks

(Originalworkpublished1966).

Picard,R.W.(2010).Emotionresearchbythepeople,forthepeople.EmotionReview,(2)3.

Picard,R.(1997).AffectiveComputing.Cambridge:MITPress.

Plass,J.L.,Goldman,R.,Flanagan,M.,&Perlin,K.(2009).RAPUNSEL:Improvingself-efficacy

andself-esteemwithaneducationalcomputergame.InKong,etal(Eds.)Proceedingsofthe

17thInternationalConferenceonComputersinEducation[CDROM].HongKong:Asia-Pacific

SocietyforComputersinEducation.

Plass,J.L.,Homer,B.D.,Chang,Y.K.,Frye,J.,Kaczetow,W.,Isbister,K.,&Perlin,K.(2011).

MetricstoAssessLearningandMeasureLearnerVariablesinSimulationsandGames.InM.Seif

El-Nasr,A.Canossa,A.Drachen,&K.Isbister(Eds.),GameTelemetryandMetrics.Edited

Volume,UnderReview.

Plass,J.L.,Homer,B.D.,&Hayward,E.(2009).DesignFactorsforEducationallyEffective

AnimationsandSimulations.JournalofComputinginHigherEducation,21(1),31–61.

- 128 -

Plass,J.L.,Homer,B.D.,&Hayward,E.,Frye,J.,Huang,T.-T.,Biles,M.,Tsai,T.,Stein,M.,&Perlin,

K.(2011).AnExperimentalInvestigationoftheEffectofLearningMechanicsDesignon

LearningOutcomesinaComputer-BasedGeometryGame.Submittedforpublication.

Plass,J.L.,Homer,B.D.,Milne,C.,Jordan,T.,Kalyuga,S.,Kim,M.,&Lee,H.J.(2009).Design

factorsforeffectivesciencesimulations:Representationofinformation.InternationalJournal

ofGamingandComputer-MediatedSimulations,1(1),16–35.

Plass,J.L.,Perlin,K.,&Isbister,K.(2010).TheGamesforLearningInstitute:Researchon

DesignPatternsforEffectiveEducationalGames.PaperpresentedattheGameDevelopers

Conference,SanFrancisco,March9-13,2010.

Postman,N.(1985).AmusingOurselvestoDeath:PublicDiscourseintheAgeofShowBusiness.

NewYork,NY:Viking.

Prensky,M.(2007)DigitalGame-BasedLearning.NewYork:ParagonHouse.

Radford,L.(2003).Gestures,speech,andthesproutingofsigns:Asemiotic-culturalapproach

tostudents'typesofgeneralization.MathematicalThinkingandLearning,5(1),37-70.

Rasanen,P.,Salminen,J.,Wilson,A.J.,Aunio,P.,&Dehaene,S.(2009).Computer-assisted

interventionforchildrenwithlownumeracyskills.CognitiveDevelopment,24(4),450-472.

Resnick,M.(1991).Overcomingthecentralizedmindset:Towardsanunderstandingof

emergentphenomena.InI.Harel&S.Papert(Eds.),Constructionism.Norwood,NJ:Ablex

Publishing.

Resnick,M.(1994).Turtles,Termites,TrafficJams:ExplorationsinMassivelyParallel

Microworlds.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Resnick,M.,&Ocko,S.(1991).Lego/Logo:Learningthroughandaboutdesign.InI.Harel&S.

Papert(Eds.),Constructionism.Norwood:NJ:AblexPublishing.

- 129 -

Resnick,M.,&Wilensky,U.(1998).Divingintocomplexity:Developingprobabilistic

decentralizedthinkingthroughrole-playingactivities.JournalofLearningSciences,7(2).

Available:http://ccl.sesp.northwestern.edu/cm/papers/starpeople/

Riel,M.(1993).Globaleducationthroughlearningcircles.InL.M.Harasim(Ed.),Global

networks:Computersandinternationalcommunication.Cambridge:MITPress.

Riel,M.(1996).Cross-classroomcollaboration:Communicationandeducation.InT.

Koschmann(Ed.),CSCL:TheoryandPracticeofanEmergingParadigm.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Roblyer,M.D.,&Edwards,J.(2000).IntegratingEducationalTechnologyintoTeaching(Second

Edition).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill.

Romiszowski,A.J.,&deHaas,J.A.(1993).Computermediatedcommunicationforinstruction:

Usinge-mailasaseminar.EducationalTechnology,29(10)

Roschelle,J.(1994).Collaborativeinquiry:ReflectionsonDeweyandlearningtechnology.

ComputingTeacher,21(8),6-8

Roschelle,J.,Kaput,J.,Stroup,W.,&Kahn,T.M.(1998).Scaleableintegrationofeducational

software:Exploringthepromiseofcomponentarchitectures.JournalofInteractiveMediain

Education,98(6).Available:http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/98/6

Roschelle,J.,Pea,R.,&Trigg,R.(1990).VideoNoter:Atoolforexploratoryvideoanalysis(IRL

TechnicalReportIRL90-0021):IRL.

Salomon,G.(1979).InteractionofMedia,Cognition,andLearning.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Salomon,G.(1993).Nodistributionwithoutindividuals’cognition:Adynamicinteractional

view.InG.Salomon(Ed.),Distributedcognitions:Psychologicalandeducationalconsiderations.


- 130 -

Salomon,G.,&Gardner,H.(1986).Thecomputeraseducator:Lessonsfromtelevisionresearch.

EducationalResearcher,15(1),13-19.

Salomon,G.,&Perkins,D.N.(1998).Individualandsocialaspectsoflearning.InP.D.Pearson

&A.Iran-Nejad(Eds.),ReviewofResearchinEducation(Vol.23).WashingtonDC.

Salomon,G.,Perkins,D.N.,&Globerson,T.(1991).Partnersincognition:Extendinghuman

intelligencewithintelligenttechnologies.EducationalResearcher,20(3),2-9.

Scardamalia,M.,&Bereiter,C.(1991).Higherlevelsofagencyforchildreninknowledge

building:Achallengeforthedesignofnewknowledgemedia.JournaloftheLearningSciences,

1(1),37-68

Schank,R.C.(2000,7/11/00).Educationaloutrage:Arecomputersthebadguysineducation?

Available:http://movietone.ils.nwu.edu/edoutrage/edoutrage11.html.

Schank,R.C.,&Jona,M.Y.(1991).Empoweringthestudent:Newperspectivesonthedeisgnof

teachingsystems.JournaloftheLearningSciences,1(1),7-35

Schlager,M.,&Schank,P.(1997).TappedIn:Anewon-lineteachercommunityconceptforthe

nextgenerationofInternettechnology.PaperpresentedattheComputer-Supported

CollaborativeLearning1997.Available:http://www.tappedin.sri.com/info/papers/cscl97/

Schofield,J.W.(1995).ComputersandClassroomCulture.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Schrum,L.,&Berenfeld,B.(1997).TeachingandLearningintheInformationAge:AGuideto

EducationalTelecommunications.Boston:AllynandBacon.

Scribner,S.,&Cole,M.(1981).ThePsychologyofLiteracy.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Shaffer,D.W.(2006).HowComputerGamesHelpChildrenLearn.NewYork,N.Y.:Palgrave

Macmillan.

- 131 -

Silberman,S.(1997,Mar.12,1997).Platofesttocelebratefirstonlinecommunity.WIREDNews.

Available:http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,2518,00.html

Simon,H.A.(1981[1969]).TheSciencesoftheArtificial.Cambridge:MITPress.

Sloan,D.(Ed.).(1985).TheComputerinEducation:ACriticalPerspective.NewYork:Teachers

CollegePress.

Skemp,R.R.(1983).Thesilentmusicofmathematics.MathematicsTeaching,102(58),287-288.

Solomon,C.(1986).ComputerEnvironmentsforChildren:AReflectiononTheoriesofLearning

andEducation.Cambridge:MITPress.

Spiro,R.J.,Collins,B.P.,&AparnaRamchandran,A.(2007).ReflectionsonaPost-Gutenberg

epistemologyforvideouseinill-structureddomains:Fosteringcomplexlearningandcognitive

flexibility.InGoldman,R.,Pea,R.D.,Barron,B.&Derry,S.(Eds.)VideoResearchintheLearning

Sciences.Mahwah,NJ:LEA.

Spiro,R.J.,Feltovich,P.J.,Jacobson,M.J.,&Coulson,R.L.(1991).Cognitiveflexibility,

constructivism,andhypertext:Randomaccessinstructionforadvancedknowledgeacqusition

inill-structureddomains.EducationalTechnology,31(5),24-33.

Squire,K.,Barnett,M.,Grant,J.M.,&Higginbotham,T.(2004).Electromagnetism

supercharged!:Learningphysicswithdigitalsimulationgames.Proceedingsofthe6th

InternationalConferenceonLearningSciences,SantaMonica,CA.

Squire,K.(2004)ReplayingHistory:LearningWorldHistorythroughplayingCivilization

III.UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.

Stahl,G.(1999).WebGuide:Guidingcollaborativelearningonthewebwithperspectives.Paper

presentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation1999.Available:http://

www.cs.colorado.edu/~gerry/publications/conferences/1999/aera99/

- 132 -

Steinkuehler,C.&Duncan,S.(2009).Informalscientificreasoninginonlinevirtualworlds.

JournalofScienceEducation&Technology,(17)6,530-543.

Stone,A.R.(1995).TheWarBetweenDesireandTechnologyattheEndoftheMechanicalAge.

Cambridge:MITPress.

Subrahmanyam,K.&Greenfield,P.(1994)Effectsofvideogamepracticeonspatialskillsin

girlsandboys.JournalofAppliedDevelopmentalPsychology,15,13-32.

Suchman,L.A.(1987).Plansandsituatedactions:Theproblemofhuman-machine

communication.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Suppes,P.(1966).Theusesofcomputersineducation.ScientificAmerican,215(3),206-220.

Suppes,P.,Jerman,M.,&Brian,D.(1968).Computer-assistedinstruction:Stanford's1965–66

arithmeticprogram.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Suppes,P.,&Morningstar,M.(1972).Computer-assistedinstructionatStanford,1966–68:Data,

models,andevaluationofthearithmeticprograms.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Swan,K.(1994)History,hypermedia,andcriss-crossedconceptuallandscapes.Journalof

EducationalMultimediaandHypermedia,3(2),120-139.

Tapscott,D.(2000).Thedigitaldivide,TheJossey-Bassreaderontechnologyandlearning.San

Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Thorndike,E.L.(1899).Animalintelligence.PsychologicalReview,7,105-124.

Thorndike,E.L.(1903)EducationalPsychology.NewYork:TeachersCollege,Columbia

University.

Tinker,R.F.(1996).Telecomputingasaprogressiveforceineducation(Report):TheConcord

Consortium.Available:http://www.concord.org/library/pdf/telecomputing.pdf

Trinh,M.-h.(1992).Framer-framed.NewYork:Routledge.

- 133 -

Trninic,D.,&Abrahamson,D.(submitted).Embodiedinteractionasdesignedmediationof

conceptualperformance.InD.Martinovic&V.Freiman(Eds.),Visualmathematicsand

cyberlearning.

Trninic,D.,Reinholz,D.,Howison,M.,&Abrahamson,D.(2010).Designasanobject-to-think-

with:semioticpotentialemergesthroughcollaborativereflectiveconversationwith

material.InP.Brosnan,D.Erchick&L.Flevares(Eds.),ProceedingsoftheThirty-

SecondAnnualMeetingoftheNorth-AmericanChapteroftheInternationalGroupfor

thePsychologyofMathematicsEducation(PME-NA32)(Vol.VI,Ch.18:Technology,pp.

1523–1530).Columbus,OH:PME-NA.

Turkle,S.(1984).TheSecondSelf:ComputersandtheHumanSpirit.NewYork:Simonand

Schuster.

Turkle,S.(1988).Computationalreticence:Whywomenfeartheintimatemachine.InC.

Kramarae(Ed.),TechnologyandWomen'sVoices.NewYork:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.

Turkle,S.(1991).Romanticreactions:Paradoxicalresponsestothecomputerpresence.InJ.J.

Sheehan&M.Sosna(Eds.),TheBoundariesofHumanity:Humans,Machines,Animals.Berkeley:

UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Turkle,S.(1995).LifeontheScreen:IdentityintheAgeoftheInternet.NewYork:Simonand

Schuster.

Turkle,S.(2011).AloneTogether:WhyWeExpectMorefromTechnologyandLessfromEach

Other.BasicBooks.

Turkle,S.,&Papert,S.(1991).Epistemologicalpluralism:Stylesandvoiceswithinthe

computerculture.InI.Harel&S.Papert(Eds.),Constructionism.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

- 134 -

VanderbiltLearningTechnologyCenterwebsite.Available:

http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/ctrs/ltc/Research/jasper.html

Vygotsky,L.S.(1962).ThoughtandLanguage(E.Hanfmann&G.Vakar,Trans.).Cambridge:

MITPress.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).MindinSociety:TheDevelopmentofHigherPsychologicalProcesses.

Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Wenger,E.(1987).ArtificialIntelligenceandTutoringSystems:ComputationalandCognitive

ApproachestotheCommunicationofKnowledge.LosAltos:MorganKaufmannPublishers.

Wenger,E.(1998).CommunitiesofPractice:Learning,Meaning,andIdentity.Cambridge:


Wilensky,U.(1993).ConnectedMathematics:BuildingConcreteRelationshipswith

MathematicalKnowledge.UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation.MITMediaLab.

Wilensky,U.(1999).NetLogo[computersoftware].Evanston,IL:CenterforConnected

LearningandComputer-BasedModeling,NorthwesternUniversity.

http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.

Wilensky,U.(2001).Modelingnature'semergentpatternswithmulti-agentlanguages.

ProceedingsoftheEurologo2001Conference.

Wilensky,U.,&Reisman,K.(2006).Thinkinglikeawolf,asheeporafirefly:Learningbiology

throughconstructingandtestingcomputationaltheories.CognitionandInstruction,24(2),171-

209.

Wilensky,U.,&Resnick,M.(1999).Thinkinginlevels:Adynamicsystemsapproachtomaking

senseoftheworld.JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,8(1),3-19.

- 135 -

Wilensky,U.,&Stroup,W.(1999).Learningthroughparticipatorysimulations:Network-based

designforsystemslearninginclassrooms.ProceedingsoftheComputer-Supported

CollaborativeLearning1999.Available:http://ccl.northwestern.edu/cm/papers/

partsims/cscl/

Winograd,T.,&Flores,F.(1986).UnderstandingComputersandCognition:ANewFoundation

forDesign.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Wittgenstein,L.1953.Philosophicalinvestigations.(Anscombe,G.E.M.,trans.).Oxford:Basil

Blackwell.

Wolfson,L.,&Willinsky,J.(1998).Situatedlearninginhighschoolinformationtechnology

management.JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation,31(1).

Woolley,D.R.(1994).PLATO:Theemergenceofonlinecommunity.Computer-Mediated

CommunicationMagazine,1(3).Available:http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1994/jul/

plato.html

Documents

The Points of Viewing Theory for Engaged Learning with ...The Points of Viewing Theory is the foundation upon which this chapter on computers, the Internet, social media, embodied