3.2 Interactive Learning Environments:

Review of an Old Construct with a New Critical Twist

Mark Brown

Massey University, College of Education

Palmerston North, New Zealand

M.E.Brown@massey.ac.nz

Abstract: This chapter reviews the domain of “interactive learning environments” in light of the growth of new digital technologies and recent developments in the understanding of the learning and teaching process. It traces the origin and some of the design assumptions that underpin this concept and illustrates how interactive learning environments are broadly defined in the literature. Indeed, the concept of interactivity can incorporate a raft of pedagogies and technologies from both a techno-centric and human-centric perspective. While there are some common assumptions about instructional design, such broad interpretations of the domain potentially hide a number of competing and coexisting perspectives in which new developments in learning theory have been borrowed for different ends.

Key words: interactive learning environments; constructivism, mind tools; knowledge acquisition; knowledge participation; knowledge creation.

Introduction

There is no real consensus or agreed conception of what the domain of interactive

learning environments encompasses. To clean up this messy construct an overarching

framework is proposed for understanding the competing dimensions and inter-connecting

metaphors of human cognition. This new twist of an old construct argues that it is dangerous

to adopt single metaphor solutions of learning and naive to assign interactive potential to the

features of new digital technology without a deeper consideration of pedagogy. In this regard,

the chapter is extended by a critical pedagogical approach that goes beyond narrow

psychological conceptions of technology and the learning process. At a deeper level, the

case is made for a more enduring interactive digital culture aimed at producing critical

thinkers, critical consumers and critical citizens.

1

Origin of Interactive Learning Environments

The precise origin of the domain of interactive learning environments is difficult to

trace. While the notion of interactivity tends to evoke images of new digital technology, the

concept of interactive learning stretches back into the roots of human civilization. Thus, we

need to think beyond the latest enthusiasm for interactive whiteboards, as there is more to

this concept than the touch of an electronic screen.

Arata (1999) makes the point that Aristotle first introduced the concept of interactivity.

More recently, John Dewey was a strong advocate of “learning by doing” where students

develop understandings through active experience. In contrast to the dominant theory of

behaviorism, the progressive movement believed that learning was about interactive

participation rather than passive transmission of information to mere spectators (Dewey,

1938). This movement was the early seeds of the theory of constructivism where learning is

an active process of knowledge construction. There are many different faces of

constructivism, but in a broad sense this theory claims that learning is an active and

meaningful process, preceding by and through conversations (Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen,

Peck & Wilson, 1999). A socio-cultural blend of constructivism goes even further by claiming

learning is mediated by the use of language, tools and the production of external artifacts

leading to the construction of new understandings (Crook, 1994).

The computer is an important learning tool in the mediation process. In the context of

computers, the concept of interactivity has been commonly associated with hypertext. That

is, the term Theodor Nelson coined in the 1960s to refer to non-sequential writing allowing

choices to the reader (Grabe & Grabe, 1998). With the advent of multimedia in the 1990s,

the idea of hypertext became known as hypermedia when dynamic hot links could be read

and explored off an interactive screen. Multimedia first through the increased capacity of CD-

Roms and later the rapid growth of the World-Wide-Web (WWW) created many new

2

possibilities for human-computer interaction.

The concept of interactivity is also linked closely with the emergence of the field of

artificial intelligence (AI). In the 1970s, new ideas about human-machine interactions began

to influence how software tools could be used to support the learning process. Through the

incorporation of AI techniques, a number of tools were developed as partners to extend

human intelligence (Salomon, Perkins & Globerson, 1991). For example, the development of

Logo™ arose out of the work of Papert and colleagues associated with the Artificial

Intelligence Lab at MIT. The basic premise of Logo™ was that young children could develop

advanced cognitive and metacognitive skills by learning how to program. This was a new

kind of interaction where in learning how to teach a turtle how to think, children embarked on

an exploration of how they themselves think (Papert, 1980).

While Logo™ did not transform the learning environment as Papert envisaged, the

theory of constructionism (Harel & Papert, 1990), a subtle and original variation of Piaget’s

version of constructivism, became a central metaphor. In short, constructionism is the idea of

“learning by making”, but Harel and Papert (1991) stress the point that the theory is richer,

deeper and more multifaceted than conveyed by this popular catechism. They explain that

constructionism—the N word rather than the V word—adds ‘the idea the learner is

consciously engaged in constructing a public entity’ (Harel & Papert, 1991, p.1).

In this sense, the difference between instructionism and constructionism was more

than a binary split in the way of thinking about learning, but a fundamental difference in the

nature of knowledge and the nature of knowing. It represented a major change in

understanding the nature of interactivity and how people could learn with technology.

What is the Domain of Interactive Learning Environments?

A brief account of the origin of the concept does not answer the question: What is the

3

domain of interactive learning environments? This is not an easy question to answer, as the

domain is still an ill-defined field of study. The increased computational power of new digital

technologies, coupled with contemporary developments in learning theory, have created

even further branches to the original concept. Indeed, the domain has refaced and become

increasing fragmented in the new digital landscape with many different guises. In short,

interactions can be of many types. The forms of interactivity tend to be as diverse as working

through an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) to new distributed forms of learning using a

learning management system (LMS). What the growth of new digital technology has done is

expand the focus of the domain beyond some of the pioneering work.

The truth is that there is no singularly agreed definition of the domain of interactive

learning environments. In the subcategory of “technology” under on the “eLearning Reviews”

website an interactive learning environment is defined as software for educational purposes,

for supporting the learning process where the focus is on learning through the interaction

with the computer (The Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning, 2006). Notably, the terms

“interactive learning environment” and “educational software” are used interchangeably.

In this definition, the importance of human-human interaction is understated and the

concept of interactivity does not extend to distributed and virtual worlds. Rather the so-called

“object world” is described by traditional synonyms such as: computer assisted instruction,

computer assisted learning, computer based learning, computer based training, computer

supported learning, and educational software.

Arguably, a fuller description of the domain, inclusive of both object and virtual worlds,

is found in the academic journals within the field. For example, The Journal of Interactive

Learning Research [ISSN 1093-023X] published by the Association for the Advancement of

Computing in Education claims to accept papers related to the underlying theory, design,

implementation, and so on, of the following interactive learning environments:

4

[A]uthoring systems, cognitive tools for learning, computer-assisted language learning, computer-based assessment systems, computer-based training, computer-mediated communications, computer-supported collaborative learning, distributed learning environments, electronic performance support systems, interactive learning environments, interactive multimedia systems, interactive simulations and games, intelligent agents on the Internet, intelligent tutoring systems, micro worlds, virtual reality based learning systems (Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 2005, p.2).

In describing the scope of the journal, each of the terms in the title are carefully

explained with the term “interactive” referring to the key presence of a computer within the

learning environment. More specifically Reeves’ (1999) explains that a learning environment

is “interactive” in that a person can navigate through it, complete challenging tasks, and

collaborate with others.

In terms of learning, Reeves (1999) states this concept has evolved over the last

century and the journal adopts an inclusive definition ranging from the development of mental

states and abilities to problem-solving and higher-order outcomes such as intellectual

curiosity, and lifelong habits of learning.

However, even this all-encompassing definition is open to critique. In the above

quote, strong emphasis is placed on individual cognition at the expensive of networked

learning where attention is given to the connections between learners. The concept of

‘networked learning’ is an example of a recent branch of the root domain of interactive

learning environments, which recognizes the socio-cultural nature of the learning process

(Steeples & Jones, 2001). Since the development of the Internet this concept has

established a strong foothold in the literature and networked learning focuses on connections

with people and information and collaborations that support one another’s learning

(Wikipedia, 2007)

When taken as whole, the domain of interactive learning environments is evolving

and wide ranging, as it encompasses a number of sub-domains of learning and technology.

5

Some of these sub-domains are still emerging whereas others have become virtually

obsolete. It is noteworthy, for example, no entry exists in Wikipedia for the term ‘interactive

learning environments’. The key point is that many people are using different terms to

describe the broader domain and there is no real consensus in the literature. As the recent

example of networked learning illustrates, new sub-domains now rival and challenge

traditional definitions of interactive learning environments. Indeed, the term ‘environment’ has

taken new meaning with the growth of virtual learning communities and some of these sub-

domains arguably compete as domains in their own right.

While this linguistic analysis has its limits, and should not distract from the bigger

picture of interactive learning, the final word is left to the journal of the same name. Founded

in 1990, Interactive Learning Environments [ISSN1049-4820] is a peer review journal that

publishes articles on all aspects of the design and use of interactive learning environments in

the broadest sense. In describing the relevant domains of application from learning theory to

all kinds of electronic teaching, four specific themes are identified: individual learning, group

activity, social and organizational issues, and courseware. While each of these themes is

elaborated on under the aims and scope of the journal, the publisher acknowledges that ‘the

field of interactive learning environments is developing and evolving rapidly’ (Taylor &

Francis Group, 2006, p.1).

Thus, the question of ‘what is the domain of interactive learning environments?’ is

likely to always be difficult to answer as studying the field of technology and the learning

process is like learning to fly a plane whilst still being built (Strudler, 2003). However, like

aviation the domain of interactive learning environments has a long history and as knowledge

of learning and the application of technology for educational purposes has expanded, so too

has the conception of this domain. The common theme is that both the plane and new digital

technology share an interest in flying toward the horizon.

6

What Assumptions Underpin Instructional Design?

While the idea of interactive learning environments is useful, it is problematic to

present a concise and widely accepted definition of the domain. Instead, it is more fruitful to

understand some of the core assumptions that underpin the principles of instructional design.

In this context, the term “instructional design” refers to the process used to intentionally plan

learning experiences that are appropriate to learners (Norton & Wiburg, 1998). Although

there is a danger of oversimplification, assumptions about the instructional design of

interactive learning environments fall within two main theoretical schools of thought: a

techno-centric and human-centric perspective.

A techno-centric perspective focuses on structural elements of software and the

design of computer systems that contribute to different kinds of human-computer interaction.

These tend to be highly specialized applications giving students greater interactive support.

Richards (2006) describes this techno-centric viewpoint as tending to focus on the design of

technology-mediated repositories for content, for learning objects or for basic drill and

practice. Although this interpretation does not recognize the full breadth of interactive

technology, such as micro worlds, intelligent agents and virtual reality, the basic premise is

that designers adopt abstract and theoretical principles of instructional design with little

consideration of the context in which their solutions will be used. For instance, those

developing new instant response systems popularly known as “clicker technology” may have

little understanding of the needs and requirements of teachers in integrating these devices

into the learning environment. Put another way, the gap in the instructional design process is

the failure to take into account how teachers intentionally plan and students respond to

different learning experiences.

In contrast, a human-centric perspective takes more account of the social context of

learning. It recognizes that the whole culture of the learning environment can affect learning

in important ways (Salomon & Perkins, 1996). Thus, this perspective addresses some of the

7

contextual factors rarely envisaged by the system developers. Though often sophisticated,

the designers of such systems usually give insufficient consideration of the ‘wider modes of

use and classroom support and the changing styles of teaching/learning that might ensue’

(Akpinar & Hartley, 1998, p.51). A human-centric view is grounded, therefore, within the

realities of pedagogy rather than the theoretical design of technology per se. In the case of

clicker technology, teachers have to plan how to manage a set of remote devices in a busy

classroom and anticipate how students might choose to use them to subvert the learning

intentions. For instance, a disruptive student can attain even greater attention by selecting

inappropriate responses to an item bank of questions on a large screen. Such contextual

factors can rightly lead to pedagogical decisions not to employ certain technology.

The key point is that a tension exists between those who adopt relatively narrow

conceptions of design focused on technological systems, architecture and human-computer

interface, as opposed to those who gravitate more towards the role and implementation of

computer tools in educational contexts (Richards, 2006). Although these two perspectives

are often treated polemically, appearing at different ends of a design continuum, they are not

mutually exclusive. After all, new interactive technology, such as ‘clickers’, affects the design

of the learning environment by creating opportunities for learning not possible by other

means. However, equally the way people decide to employ clicker technology affects how it

is used for educational purposes.

Such polarization is unhelpful. Instead a dialogical framework is required in answering

the basic design questions of (a) deciding on the foundations of learning, (b) choosing

appropriate contents, (c) choosing appropriate tools and (d) choosing appropriate activities

and related assessment tasks (Norton & Wiburg, 1998). A framework that promotes

reciprocity and steers a delicate balance between these two perspectives is one of the major

challenges still facing the domain of interactive learning environments.

8

While reconciling the competing instructional design perspectives may be an

ambitious goal, Merill (2002) asks the question: Do these design theories and models have

fundamental underlying principles in common? In analyzing a number of approaches to

design, he draws on Reigeluth’s (1999; cited in Merill, 2002) distinction between two kinds of

instructional methods: basic methods and variable methods. Merill prefers to call basic

methods ‘first principles’ of instruction. His premise is that a set of first principles is evident in

most instructional design theories and models and even though the language used to

describe them might differ between theorists, most would agree that these principles are

necessary for effective learning (Merill, 2002). There are five first principles:

Principle 1—Problem-centered: Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in

solving real-world problems.

Principle 2—Activation: Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as

a foundation for new knowledge.

Principle 3—Demonstration: Learning is promoted when the instruction demonstrates

what is to be learned and when new knowledge is demonstrated to the

learner.

Principle 4—Application: Learning is promoted when learners are required to apply

their new knowledge or skill to solve problems.

Principle 5—Integration: Learning is promoted when learners are encouraged to

integrate (transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their everyday life.

According to Merril (2002), problem-centered instruction is common to most of the

theories and models. This reflects much of the current work in cognitive psychology where it

9

is claimed that students learn more effectively when engaged in solving problems (Mayer,

1992; cited in Merril, 2002). The idea of problem-centered instruction is well represented in

the literature, as evidenced by Jonassen’s (2004) influential work on the different kinds of

problems for designing interactive learning environments. He argues that learning to solve

problems is the most important life skill and ‘problem-based learning may be the most

significant innovation in the history of education’ (Jonassen, 2004, p. xxii).

Figure 1

Domain of interactive learning environments

Cutting across these spheres are two broad perspectives of instructional design—the

techno-centric and human-centric—that have yet to form a truly dialogical relationship.

Although Figure 1 shows the gap that exists between the perspectives, they are anchored

within a set of common principles, which revolve around problem-centered learning and in

particular the theoretical tradition known as constructivism (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, &

Marra, 2003). This tradition is built upon the central metaphors of the old idea of learning by

doing and the new concept of learning by making, and even more recently learning by

sharing, which is in stark contrast to learning by telling—that is, the instructionism of

traditional behaviorism.

10

Object World Human-centric

Techno-centric Virtual World

Making Doing

Telling Sharing

Core

Principles

Digging a Little Deeper

On the surface, the above synthesis of the literature is useful. However, the

conceptual elegance of Figure 1 does not tell the full story. There is a false dualism between

behaviorism and constructivism as no single comprehensive theory exists that covers the

four key dimensions of human cognition: (a) the individual nature of cognition, (b) the social

nature of cognition, (c) the situated nature of cognition, and (d) the distributed nature of

cognition. Indeed, it could be argued, depending on your epistemological point of view, there

is unlikely to be one constructed or agreed upon learning theory. Even Jonassen (2003),

possibly the staunchest proponent of constructivism, acknowledges this point.

The current ascendancy of constructivism, irrespective of the particular variation, in

the design of interactive learning environments should not be accepted at face value. While

the 8 key principles of cognition and learning proposed by Salomon and Perkins (1996) and

the 14 principles of a learner-centered framework for e-learning offered by McCombs and

Vakili (2005) show there is convergence of a large part on the basic tenets that form the

constructivist tradition, we do not have absolute answers. Moreover, the consequences of

constructivism for teaching and the use of technology are not clear-cut and there is

considerable debate as to how they should be implemented in both object and virtual

educational settings (Dalgarno, 2001).

In a broad sense, the divergence of opinion falls into two schools of thought: social

constructivism and psychological constructivism (Richardson, 2003). The first is concerned

with epistemology and the second focuses on development and learning theory. However, it

is difficult to separate the two types and Dalgarno (2001) describes three pedagogical and

epistemological interpretations of constructivism that overlap these categories. Radical or

naïve constructivists emphasize the individual nature of each learner’s knowledge

construction processes and suggest that knowledge can only be known by the individual.

11

Moderate constructivists more willingly accept that knowledge exists independent of the

individual and situated context but instruction should engage learners in problem solving

activities that allow them to construct knowledge they can apply to personally meaningful

tasks. A third view argues that learning occurs through meaningful problem solving, but that

learners require scaffolding provided by teachers, experts in the field and by collaboration

with peers. This latter view of constructivism is often closely associated with a socio-cultural

learning perspective—although this perspective and the idea of learning by sharing have

their own well-developed body of literature.

In a similar taxonomy, Moshman (1982; cited in Dalgarno, 2001) describes the

different interpretations of constructivism as ‘endogenous’, ‘exogenous’ and ‘dialectical’ and

all three of these categories exist within the techno-centric and human-centric conceptions of

interactive learning environments.

Despite this finer level of analysis, there is more to this story. On last count, Phillips

(1995) identified over 30 blends or variations of constructivism. Put bluntly, constructivist

theory is a messy construct. It attracts a collection of different viewpoints under the one

umbrella that has rightly been subject to serious criticism (Bowers, 2005). There is a

fundamental problem of what people really mean when they talk about constructivism.

Despite this, the academic debate over constructivism has struggled to dislodge

many of the popular catechisms within the discourse of the teaching profession. Indeed,

psycho-pedagogy—pedagogical approaches based on popular ideas—has increasingly

become part of the rhetoric as evidenced by the current personalized learning movement

(Burton, 2007). According to Burton (2007) insufficient skepticism and a superficial reading of

psychological ideas has led to psycho-pedagogic approaches becoming dangerously self-

referential.

12

In reality, constructivist methods are very time consuming, there is no guarantee that

students will discover what you want them to find out, and rather than help learners construct

new knowledge, the teacher often needs to deconstruct existing knowledge (Richardson,

2003; Wen & Tsai, 2003; Winn, 2003). Moreover, constructivism is not the only cognitive

perspective demanding a place in the sun. Add the growth of interest around metacognition,

brain functioning, learning styles and multiple forms of intelligence, along with the literature

on communities of practice (CoP), and the ground becomes very shaky indeed. For people

trying to understand the domain of interactive learning environments it seems like an

incomprehensible jigsaw of competing metaphors, contradictions, and paradigm shifts.

Connecting the Metaphors

This section attempts to connect and fit together the different learning metaphors.

Sfard (1998) argues that a clearer view of learning is possible by “digging” out the root

metaphors that underlie both popular conceptions and scientific theorizing of human

cognition. By concentrating on the root metaphors, rather than on specific theories, Sfard

contends that light can be shed on the fundamental assumptions underlying our theorizing of

learning. Such an approach has merit in helping to clean up the ill-defined and messy nature

of the literature surrounding the domain of interactive learning environments.

A quick analysis of the current discourse on learning, Sfard (1998) continues, is

enough to realize that contemporary thinking is caught between the “acquisition metaphor”

and the “participation metaphor”. While the metaphors are not equivalent to any single

theoretical conception of learning, Sfard argues that any theory may be classified as

acquisition-orientated or participation-orientated if it discloses a clear preference for one of

the metaphorical ingredients over the other. For example, any learning theory—behavioral,

cognitive or constructivist—that focuses on the acquisition of knowledge and development of

concepts, by either passive reception or an active and constructive process, can be

conceptualized in terms of the acquisition metaphor (Sfard 1998). This view of learning

13

embodies the idea that knowledge is a property of the mind and the individual is the basic

unit of knowing (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004). Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005)

explain this approach views the mind as a container of knowledge but learning can still be

seen as an active process that fills the container.

In contrast, the participation metaphor views learning as a process of participation in

shared learning and cultural practices rather than something that merely happens inside the

head. The learner becomes a member of a community by gradually moving from peripheral

to full participation, and in so doing acquires the skills to communicate and act according to

its socially negotiated norms (Sfard, 1998). This view of learning focuses on knowing and not

so much on knowledge in the traditional sense (Paavola, Lipponen & Hakkarainen, 2004).

Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005) explain that knowledge is an aspect of participation in

cultural practices and thinking and knowing are distributed over both individuals and their

environments. Within the participation metaphor, learning is located in networks of distributed

activities and is a social process of knowledge construction and enculturation.

To summarize, the acquisition metaphor represents a monological view of learning

where important things happen within the human mind, whereas the participation metaphor

represents a dialogical view where the emphasis is on interaction with culture, other people

and the surrounding environment (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004). The latter view

embodies a number of different perspectives on the nature of the dialogical relationship

between culture, people and environment.

The key point that Sfard (1998) emphasizes is in order to make progress in

understanding learning, with or without technology, familiarity and appreciation is required of

both metaphors. Each has something to offer that the other cannot provide and relinquishing

either may have grave consequences. Sfard (1998) argues that educational practices have a

propensity for extreme recipes and the trendy mix of constructivist approaches has often

14

translated into a total banishment of teaching by telling. The truth is that no two students

have the same needs and because teachers arrive at their best performance in different

ways, ‘theoretical exclusivity and didactic single-mindedness can be trusted to make even

the best educational ideas fail’ (Sfard, 1998, p.11).

The lesson is that one metaphor is not enough. The idea of a plurality of metaphors is

reflected in the work of a number of writers (Dede, 2008; Mayer, 2004; Roblyer, Edwards, &

Havriluk, 2003). Sfard makes a case for viewing the acquisition metaphor and the

participation metaphor as mutually complementing discourses. According to Sfard (1998) we

need to accept the fact that while the metaphors we use are good enough to describe sub

fields and small projects, none of them suffice to cover the entire field. By analogy, Roblyer,

Edwards and Havriluk (2003) note, ‘like the blind man [person] trying to describe the

elephant each focuses on a different part of the problem and each is correct in limited

observations’ (p.54). A strong case exists for connecting the metaphors to better understand

the full range of possibilities that technology affords.

However, another metaphor can be added to the mix. Paavola, Lipponen and

Hakkarainen (2004) argue that there is a need to include a “knowledge creation” metaphor.

This metaphor proposes a trialogical approach where learning is a process of knowledge

creation by which common objects of activity are developed collaboratively through mediated

processes (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). In this sense, learning focuses on interactions

through these objects of activity—not just between people or within the mind. According to

Paavola, Lipponen and Hakkarainen (2004) a good example of the knowledge creation

metaphor is the Knowledge Forum where there is a deliberate effort to advance communal

knowledge and restructure schools as knowledge-building communities (Scardamalia &

Bereiter, 1994). Bigum (2003) promotes a similar view in claiming that new digital technology

needs to be located in knowledge producing schools. In sum, a trialogical approach goes

beyond the emphasis on individuals and the need to acquire knowledge, or on community

15

and the need to do or know something, by concentrating on solving problems, producing new

thoughts and objects, and advancing communal knowledge through collaborative inquiry.

Cleaning Up a Messy Construct

To summarize the discussion thus far, the domain of interactive learning

environments is broadly defined and open to many interpretations. Some common principles

emerging from the literature on the design of interactive learning do not tell the full story; the

study of human cognition remains open to conjecture and learning is a messy construct.

Moreover, constructivist theory suggests that there is a single metaphor solution to the

problem of learning when one metaphor is not enough to explain the complexity of human

cognition. Although research has given rise to some consensus of what we know about

learning and the learning process, the synthesis of evidence provides no recipe (Bransford,

Brown & Cocking, 1999). A more complete understanding of the learning process requires a

dialogical (and trialogical) approach in which the acquisition, participation, and knowledge

creation metaphors are viewed as both competing and mutually complementing discourses.

This form of border crossing fits neatly Bransford, Brown and Cocking’s (1999) major

synthesis of the literature in which they argue that much of what has been learned about

human cognition can be accommodated and melded together by designing learning

environments which feature four perspectives—that is, environments which are “student-

centered”, “knowledge-centered”, “assessment-centered” and “community-centered”.

They argue environments that are learner-centered are consistent with the evidence

suggesting that students use their current knowledge to construct new knowledge and that

what they know and believe affects how they interpret new information. They add, however,

that effective learning environments must also be knowledge-centered (Bransford, Brown &

Cocking, 1999). Attempts to teach thinking skills without a strong base of factual knowledge

does not promote problem-solving ability or support transfer to new situations. Rather the

16

ability to think and solve problems requires well-organized knowledge that is accessible in

appropriate contexts. They also argue that learning environments must be assessment-

centered (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999). Feedback is fundamental to learning. Along

with summative assessment, formative feedback is needed to provide students opportunities

to revise and improve the quality of their thinking and learning. Finally, Bransford, Brown and

Cocking (1999) argue that learning environments must promote a sense of community in

which people learn from one another and continually attempt to improve. They extend the

notion of community to the broader community outside of the school and include connections

to families, content area experts, and so on. Ultimately, they argue these perspectives must

be conceptualized as a system of interconnected components that mutually support each

other.

The point to be made is that rather than arguing one learning perspective, one

teaching approach, one instructional design model, or one metaphor is better than another,

there is growing recognition that a variety of methods and perspectives are appropriate

(Sfard, 1998). Indeed, the implication is that each has an important place, which contributes

to the interconnectedness of the whole. In this sense, rather than the perspectives being in

competition their differences become complimentary. Thus, the relationship between the

different learning theories and perspectives cannot be encapsulated on a simple linear

dichotomy from behaviorism (teacher-centered instruction) to constructivism to socio-cultural

theory (learner-centered instruction).

With this in mind, an overarching framework is proposed to synthesize the literature

on instructional design and clean up the messy construct of learning in the context of new

digital technologies. This new twist of an old construct aims to weave together the

commonalities and make explicit the tensions between the different learning perspectives. It

does not see them on a linear axis but rather seeks to understand the nuances of each

perspective and locate these within a larger dialogical framework. In this sense, a dialogical

17

approach recognizes that theories are not stable or fixed, impervious to change, and that true

insight occurs in the tension and interface between voices in a dialogue (Wegerif, 2006).

The framework is anchored within the Acquisition, Participation, and Knowledge

Creation metaphors that underpin a more eclectic understanding of learning. Figure 2

illustrates how the three root metaphors interact and connect with a number of other theories

and perspectives. At the core of learning is Bransford, Brown and Cocking’s (1999) four

interlocking student-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered and community-

centered perspectives. The four key dimensions of human cognition—individual, social,

situated and distributed—surround these perspectives and operate on a rotating pinwheel

that can revolve according to the tools, teaching techniques and specific learning

experiences.

Figure 2

Spinning the metaphors of learning

18

Acquisition Participation

Knowledge Creation

Inquiry

Community

Instruction Construction

Telling Doing

Social

Distributed

Making Sharing

Individual SituatedCore

Perspectives

On the outer layers of the inner circle, a dialogical relationship is recognized between

techno-centric and human-centric models of instructional design as illustrated by the dynamic

between learning by telling, doing, making and sharing. Finally, using Jonassen’s (2000)

concept of ‘mind tool’ these four approaches to learning, are overlaid within a new framework

incorporating four categories of technology use across both object and virtual worlds: (a)

mind tools for instruction, (b) mind tools for construction, (c) mind tools for inquiry, and (d)

mind tools for community. Like the approaches to learning, these categories sit on an

independent pinwheel that can spin freely depending on the nature of the task and

pedagogical assumptions. A real strength of the Instruction, Construction, Inquiry and

Community (ICIC) taxonomy is that each mindset can be spun and repositioned to align with

the appropriate metaphor. Together these dynamic and interdependent pinwheels, set within

a larger framework of the root metaphors, offer a combination of possibilities when

researching, thinking about and designing instruction within the domain of interactive learning

environments.

Mind Tools for Instruction

The use of mind tools for instruction embodies a number of possibilities. On the one

hand, the focus may be on the acquisition of knowledge by the individual through passive

forms of electronic instruction. This might involve students working on their own through an

integrated learning system or using a new learning object to understand an important

concept. Thus, when used in this manner the mind tool helps to promote individual cognition

within a knowledge-centered and/or assessment-centered perspective that best fits the

acquisition metaphor. On the other hand, teachers may use the same software for very

different purposes, a point not acknowledged in many existing taxonomies of technology. For

example, a group of students may be exploring a digital learning object in preparation for a

hands on activity in which they need to build an electrical circuit. In learning by doing, the

students are participating around the mind tool with an emphasis on social cognition from a

student-centered perspective. The key point is that mind tools for instruction can support an

19

“information banking” conception of learning but can also lay the foundation for problem-

centered learning consistent with Merril’s principles of instructional design.

Mind Tools for Construction

The use of mind tools for construction is where students build their own knowledge by

engaging in meaningful problem-solving activities. This might involve a project approach

following the principles of a “hyper composition design model” (Grabe & Grabe, 1998) where

small teams produce a digital video on a local issue. This kind of learning by making

probably fits the participation metaphor and promotes both social and situated cognition

within a student-centered perspective. Yet, the same type of mind tool construction activity

can be used in accordance with the acquisition metaphor. Students may be required to do a

multimedia project on a class theme and share their results using PowerPoint™. Even

though students personally construct the information from a number of sources, this kind of

task may be very knowledge-centered with an emphasis on individual cognition. The lesson

is that the pedagogical context defines whether the mind tool activity aligns with the

acquisition, participation or knowledge creation metaphor.

Mind Tools for Inquiry

The use of mind tools for inquiry might involve students conducting critical internet-

based investigations. They could use the Web to research a genuine problem or

controversial issue and then publish their findings for a wider audience. In the process, they

might debate the issue, reflect upon the evidence and consider which strategies are best for

getting specific information. Conflicting information from a variety of sources will require

students to determine which ones are not only factual, but also trustworthy. Thus, the

emphasis is on knowing as opposed to the acquisition of factual knowledge. It follows that

this kind of activity falls under the participation metaphor but potentially from a knowledge-

centered perspective, as there are elements of individual and situated cognition. In contrast,

as a mind tool for inquiry the Web can be used for very different types of investigations.

20

Teachers can use Webquests for narrow investigations of topics in which the focus is on

students acquiring a set of facts. While these basic facts may be crucial for a more

demanding activity still to come, this example fits the acquisition metaphor from an individual

cognition and assessment-centered perspective. Once again, the pedagogical context of the

activity shapes which metaphor best describes the nature of the learning.

Mind Tools for Community

The use of mind tools for community affords opportunities for distributed relationships

where students can learn from other people without geographical constraints. For example, a

class might join an online environmental education network as they study their local river

system in the wider context of pollution and global warming. In so doing, the students may

form intellectual partnerships with experts in the field where in discussing their results in a

wider community, they engage in thinking processes not possible through conventional

methods. This type of networked learning recognizes that human intelligence is distributed

across culture and expertise is rarely the preserve of single individuals. It follows that the

activity fits under the knowledge creation metaphor and community-centered perspective in

which the emphasis is on social and distributed forms of cognition. At the same time, using

mind tools for community can take on a very different meaning if students merely participate

in “keypal” activities. Although the Internet opens up a new world of connectivity for the

exchange of ideas between people, such activities may do little to foster genuine

communities of practice. In other words, online learning activities beyond the classroom may

still come under the acquisition metaphor if the main emphasis is on enhancing individual

cognition--even though there is a strong community perspective.

In summary, this overarching dialogical framework helps to provide a more complete

map of the unstable terrain of human cognition. It illustrates the messy nature of learning and

highlights the inadequacies of single metaphor solutions in the context of new digital

technologies. This is the major contribution of the framework for teachers, teacher educators

21

and researchers currently locked in a narrow constructivist view of learning where direct

instruction has become unfashionable. The proposed ICIC taxonomy, pinned and revolving

around a much larger conceptual framework, serves to explain the raft of learning

opportunities afforded by technology. While the framework does not offer an easy roadmap

for learning, this new twist of an old construct provides a useful dialogical way of thinking

about the domain of interactive learning environments, steeped in deep thinking and rich

understandings of the learning process.

Interaction for What Kind of Future

Putting a different spin on learning has its limits, as a critical twist still needs to be

added to the mix. At a far deeper level, different interest groups and stakeholders to

legitimize the use of technology for very different ends have borrowed the language of the

so-called new ways of learning. The popular catechisms of learning have arguably become

code words and a discourse of persuasion for competing economic and vocation rationales,

linked to the rhetoric of the new knowledge economy. As President Bill Clinton once stated:

Frankly, all the computers and software and Internet connections in the world won’t do much good if young people don’t understand that access to new technology means… access to the new economy (cited in Cuban, 2001, p.18).

Codd (2005, p. xv) writes, economic objectives appear to have replaced citizenship

as the primary political purpose of public education. The lesson is that the domain of

interactive learning environments is now infected by the ideological language of a kind of

“enterprise pedagogy”—that is, the celebration of innovation, entrepreneurship and learning

for the real (unjust) world (Brown, 2005a). More sophisticated psychological frameworks that

go beyond single metaphor solutions do not take into account the moral, ethical and political

dimensions of pedagogy that underpins teachers’ work. As Bruner (1973) minds us, a theory

of instruction is a political theory and those who formulate pedagogy without regard to the

wider educational context merit being ignored.

22

The key point is that considerations of learning need to go beyond self-referential

psychology by taking into account the political economy of knowledge (Burton, 2007). In

other words, teaching is inherently political work involving individual and collective judgments

about what is worth teaching, why and how (Brown 2005b). Thus, the missing question in the

literature is: What type of interactive learning environment for what kind of future?

This question recognizes that participation in knowledge creation communities may

do little to produce critical thinkers, critical consumers and critical citizens. After all,

communities of practice can be very conforming and may simply encourage groupthink. A

more critical interactive digital culture is required that moves thinking away from future

technological innovations to future generations. An emphasis on the type of digital culture

that we might want to create for our children, their children, and so on, is the missing link if

education for critical citizenship is to be brought to the forefront of discussion.

Conclusion

This chapter attempts to persuade readers that the domain of interactive learning

environments is far more complex than typically understood. It has a long history and the

concept of interactivity can incorporate a raft of perspectives with different assumptions that

lead to different ends. Although the theory of constructivism has been particularly influential,

it has not been entirely helpful and remains a messy construct. To clean up the domain of

interactive learning environments an overarching dialogical framework was proposed for

understanding the competing metaphors of human cognition, along with the learning

possibilities afforded by new digital technologies. In moving beyond single metaphor

solutions of learning the framework provides a way forward with a much richer and deeper

appreciation of the interconnected nature of pedagogy. For this reason a further critical twist

was added by locating the domain of interactive learning environments in the bigger picture

of educational reform. The objective was to expose a further gap in the literature by showing

that designs for learning are designs for the future. The real question is whose future. On this

23

note, the final word is given to Alvin Toffler:

All education springs from images of the future and all education creates images of the future. Thus all education, whether so intended or not, is a preparation for the future. Unless we understand the future for which we are preparing we may do tragic damage to those we teach (Toffler, 1974, cover).

References

Akpinar, Y., & Hartley, J. (1998). Designing interactive learning environments. In J.

Hirschbuhl, & D. Bishop (Eds.), Computers in education: Annual editions (8th ed.) (pp.50-

57). Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill.

Arata. (1999). Reflections on interactivity. MIT Communications Forum. Retrieved 12 August,

2006 from http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/arata.html

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. (2005). Journal of Interactive

Learning Research (JILR). Retrieved 28 May, 2006, from http://www.aace.org/pubs/jilr/

Bigum, C. (2003). The knowledge-producing school: Moving away from the work of finding

educational problems for which computers are solutions. Computers in New Zealand

Schools, 15(2), 22-26.

Bowers, C. A. (2005). The false promises of constructivist theories of learning: A global and

ecological critique. New York : P. Lang.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,

and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, Commission on

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Brown, M. (2005a). The growth of enterprise pedagogy: How ICT policy is infected by neo-

liberal ideology. Australian Journal of Educational Computing, 20(2), 16-23.

Brown, M. (2005b). Telling tales out of school: The political nature of the digital landscape. In

K-W. Lai (Ed.), e-Learning communities: Teaching and learning with the Web (pp. 23-

38). Dunedin: Otago University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1973). The relevance of education. New York: Norton.

Burton, D. (2007). Psycho-pedagogy and personalised learning. Journal of Education for

24

Teaching, 33(1), 5-17.

Codd, J. (2005). Education policy and the challenges of globalisation: Commercialisation or

citizenship? In J. Codd (Ed.), Education policy directions in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp.

4-17). Southbank, Victoria: Thomson Dunmore Press.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London:

Routledge.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer

assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194.

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of Information Technology in

teaching and learning. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of

information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. xxx-xxx). New York:

Springer.

Dewy, J. (1938). Education & experience. New York: Collier Books.

Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (1998). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (2nd ed.). New

York: Houghton Mifflin.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Westport, Conn: Ablex Publishing

Corporation.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive

Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-32.

Jonassen, D. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Jonassen, D. (2003). The vain quest for a unified theory of learning. Educational Technology,

43(4), 5-8.

Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mind tools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merill.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with

25

technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist

perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

McCombs, B., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers

College Record, 107, 1582-1600.

Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The

case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 1-9.

Merill, D. (2002). Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Norton, P., & Wiburg, K. (1998). Teaching with technology. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace

& Company.

Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor: An emergent

epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535-557.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge

communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4),

557-576.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms children, computers, and powerful ideas. Brighton: Harvester.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.

Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Reeves, (1999). The scope and standards of the Journal of Interactive Learning Research.

Retrieved 28 May, 2006, from http://www.aace.org/pubs/jilr/scope.html

Richards, C. (2006). Towards an integrated framework for designing effective ICT-supported

learning environments: The challenge to better link technology and pedagogy.

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 239-255.

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-

1640.

Roblyer, M., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. (2003). Integrating educational technology into

teaching (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Salomon, D., & Perkins, D. (1996). Learning in wonderland: What do computers really offer

26

education? In S. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling (pp. 111-127).

Chicago: The University Press of Chicago Press.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human

intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building

communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-284.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.

Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

Steeples, C., & Jones, C (Eds.). (2001). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. New

York : Springer.

Strudler, N. (2003). Answering the call: A response to Roblyer and Knezek. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 72-75.

Taylor & Francis Group. (2006). Journal details – Interactive learning environments.

Retrieved 24 May, 2006, from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10494820.asp

The Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning. (2006). eLearning-reviews. Retrieved 12 May,

2006, from http://www.elearningreviews.org/topics/technology/interactive-environments/

Toffler, A. (1974). Learning for tomorrow: The role of the future in education. New York:

Random House.

Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching

thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1),

143-157.

Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2003). Misconceptions and misuses of constructivism. Educational

Practice and Theory, 25(1), 77-83.

Wikipedia. (2007). Networked learning. Retrieved 27 April 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Networked_learning

Winn, W. (2003). Beyond constructivism: A return to science-based research and practice in

educational technology. Educational Technology, 43(6), 5-13.

27