Overview

Course Description

Cybsys Method

Quantitative Results

Qualitative Observations

Comments

Another perspective: Using technology to help students construct new ways of thinking

There is a trend in education toward so-called discovery learning, which contrasts with the lecture/information delivery model of the traditional lecture-based classroom.

In the traditional model, the focus is on "teaching"—the activities of the instructor as a provider of information. Evaluation of the instructor is based on the clarity and quality of the information delivery, how well organized the presentation is and how knowledgeable the instructor is in the subject area. One weakness in this model is that the student can, at best, learn only as much information as is presented, is not encouraged or assisted in broader or more personalized learning. The focus is on the teaching, not the learning.

In the discovery learning model, the focus is on the student’s construction of his/her own learning. The emphasis is on providing access to resources that the student can explore or experiment with, resulting in some learning experience. In the most naïve form of this model, the provision of the materials and unstructured environment is considered not only adequate, but preferable to having guidance or requirements imposed by the teacher or learning facilitator, who instead provides only positive emotional support and facilitation. In this model, the student learns not only what interests him/her, but probably things which the instructor could not think to teach—the student may go beyond the instructor’s knowledge.

These models have also been applied to learning using new technologies—particularly computing technology.

• Programmed learning or computer based instruction is one end of the spectrum—closed-ended, adaptation of written and lecture materials, with the emphasis on delivery (and receipt) of information. Closely parallel is the text-based training with canned assignments, to be performed on the computer according to instructions.
• At the other end is the discovery method applied to computer technology, where students are given access to technology, and some basic introductory skills, but no significant focus or direction –akin to turning a person loose in a library or art studio. No question but that the inquiring mind will learn something, if only to not be idle. In fact, for some students, can become an enormously liberating experience. But is it the best way to enable student learning? Is there a middle ground, or a better way to ensure that all students can make the most of a learning opportunity?

On the other side of this equation are the challenges facing teachers in traditional learning environments? Problems typically faced in a classroom, which must be overcome in order to provide a reliably positive learning experience for most students, include: Management of variety in the classroom (learning styles, experience levels, learning needs); evaluation of student performance, and calculation of grades; student expectations and desires (certainty and comfort level); encouraging outstanding levels of learning, challenge; and helping students to exceed the limits of the instructor’s knowledge. The following material is focused on the mature learner, in a post-secondary school environment, and may or may not apply to the primary through secondary school age group. Here, I report on a course designed to meet computer literacy and computer based quantitative reasoning requirements at the undergraduate level of a major university.

The course in question, "Computer Fundamentals," was taught each semester from Fall 1985-Spring 1988 at a State University. Ten sections of 25 undergraduate students participated each term in this class which was designed to fulfill both the General Education quantitative reasoning requirement, and new computer literacy requirements. Students from every school and department in the university were enrolled: Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Fine Arts, Education, and Applied Arts and Sciences. The nominal strategy of the course, Cybernetics 005 was to teach basic microcomputer operations, spreadsheet, database and rudimentary procedural programming skills.

The course was taught by instructors from several departments from both the Social Sciences and Education Schools. People using the "discovery" method approach taught at least 2-3 courses each term, and 5-6 sections were taught by using the "traditional information delivery" approach. The remaining two sections were taught using the design described below, and was based on principles of cybernetic systems (CybSys). This approach has come to be called the San Jose Method.

All classes used the same textbooks, equipment (a combination of IBM-PCs and Apple computers), the same software options, and the same classroom and lab facilities and lab tutorial support. For three out of the six semesters this course was run, the sections also used a common final exam, designed to test (in a traditional written manner) the material that all the instructors agreed was essential for students to have gained proficiency in. These finals were graded according to a common key, and the grades and distributions reported by class section. The section numbers and instructor identification was removed, and the results for each section were tabulated and reported back to all instructors, so an anonymous comparison of class performance could be made.

Create an active environment and infrastructure in course policies, procedures, and evaluation which encourages the behaviors which support maximum learning and high baseline performance under conditions of high variety. The essentials: Eliminate rewards for competition; encourage cooperation. Use problem based projects (so they incorporate new ways of thinking along with skills development), with encouragement for students to apply their learning to personally or professionally important content. Use mistakes as a learning opportunity, and do not penalize less than perfect performance. Do not reward the failure to take risks. Use criterion-based evaluation, and set performance expectations high. Allow students a variety of opportunities to learn--lecture presentations, working sessions, and individual sessions using peer assistance where possible.

The method addresses the problems of classroom learning in the following ways:

• Remove barriers to students helping each other (win-win means NO grading curve—grade on absolute scale)
• Encourage student use of (i.e. value) peer resources—first day introductions and background
• Allow people to "test out" of sections of the course where they could demonstrate proficiency

• Criterion based evaluation - Clear, shared goals (understand) and objectives (be able to do)

• No penalty for errors. Sharing questions, errors and lessons learned is explicitly valued and rewarded.
• Absolute grading scale
• Iterated assignments (learning becomes a conversation—no penalty for missing the mark the first time—especially critical for brand-new areas of endeavor where understanding is ‘revolutionary’ rather than incremental)
• Individualized (original) content
• Teaching to the "detect"—no guessing about credit, rules for grading.

• Shared explicitly the meta-level goal of mastery of learning to learn, using the computer
• Problem-focused, and analysis approach—learning to frame, and then using technology to solve problems
• Encourage application to situations of interest to students, and related to their real needs
• Set the bar "high"—canned assignments worth a "C", and had to be perfect for any credit at all

• "A" level assignments require an original problem, data, and application, and contain higher level technology application criteria
• "B" level assignments require original data and applied to a standard application (i.e. for spreadsheets, do a budget using a customized problem statement)

• Criterion based evaluation, specific criteria for iterations/evaluation of redone material
• Utilization of peer assistance (sharing assignments, learning, examples)

• Out of the 10 section, each of three terms where the common final was used, the CybSys method sections consistently and significantly outperformed all other sections. Average grades on the common final were consistently between 92% and 95%, with variance of less than 18 points.
• Original projects at comparable evaluation criteria averaged 5-10% in non-CybSys method courses and averaged 70-90% in CybSys method courses.
• Surprising results: The "discovery learning" method, used in various forms by at least 3 different instructors, were consistently toward the bottom of the performance level, showing comparable to below the traditionally taught courses in both quality of projects and quantitative performance on the common final.
• The best teaching evaluations (and generally second-best section performance) went to one of the traditional method instructors. However the "Would you recommend this instructor/course to a friend" ratings were comparable and very high between the top traditional instructor and the CybSys method instructor.

• Midterms in CybSys were more difficult than most other sections, yet students performed better than other sections.
• Mutual support for students was routine. (73-yr old retired postal worker routinely assisted and supported by other students—his "B+" grade was a shared triumph, felt by a community of students)
• Students went from being computer-phobic to programming business utility applications in databases, for instance.
• Students who were truly peers in initial experience routinely shared lessons learned and became support for each other when having problems.
• Student mutual aid was not easily abused, and students helping others did not "do" the work for them, but supported them in problem solving.
• Students in the CybSys method routinely incorporated their learning into their everyday life and work.
• Some students from the discovery learning session arranged to retake course (not for credit) in CybSys section.

• Technology does not teach itself to the general student, although with exposure, people will certainly learn something about how to use technology
• Just using technology is not as good as using technology to solve problems, or find new ways of learning, knowing, organizing. These abilities can be actively developed.
• By consciously and actively designing/creating the context for learning (based on Cybernetic and constructivist principles), competence can be dramatically increased, and "play" and discovery encouraged.

Back to Papers and Briefings Ahead to Technology is not enough Briefing Charts  

Email me