I feel as though I have been listening to the automobile designers in Detroit in the early 70's, pre-compact-car days. I believe that the discussion we've been enjoying is only slowly migrating towards where we desperately need to be as soon as possible--for the sake of our own survival as instructional professionals!!!
The beginnings of strongly integrating epistemology (the nature of knowledge) with the process of human cognition of that knowledge is best exemplified by the research and writings of developmental psychologist Jean Piagét (1896-1980). He emphasized cognition as primarily the product of continuous interaction between learner and environment. He noted that the learner tries to find equilibrium or stability between himself (herself) and his (her) environment by assimilation and then accommodation of the new information. Doesn't this sound like scaffolding out to or assimilating the new knowledge?
Piagét formulated and tested his cognitive development theories during 60 years at the University of Geneva studying children's intellectual development. Each cognitive structure was a single scheme, involving both motor behavior patterns and internal thought processes. There are two symbolic thought schemes that emerge: verbal and nonverbal. Verbal become part of the cultural norms of language and interpretation while nonverbal remain idiosyncratic and subjective. This perception can be compared to the left and right sides of the brain: left to cultural/language and right to patterns/creativity. We need to keep the structure of the learner's brain in mind as well as the structure of the knowledge to be gained!
Previous theories regarding the problem of readiness of the learner were resolved by Piagét recognizing that the readiness of the learner was achieved through actual organism-environment interaction, not through the maturity of the learner (Comenius) or the proper stimuli presented when the appropriate number of synaptic connections are reached (Thorndike). Piagét represented cognitive development in four stages or models: (1) sensory-motor, (2) pre-operational, (3) concrete operations, and (4) formal operations. All learners are capable of these stages through interaction.
Although Piagét did not address educational concerns directly, his work was brought to the attention of educators through the efforts of his student, H. Aebli, who produced interpretations of how to teach and what to teach based upon Piagét's writings. Two interesting aspects in these writings included problem-solving where the learner is free to do what he likes to resolve the problem (discovery) and another technique involves constructive analysis of a class of tasks and activities for their cognitive requirements (constructivism). Discovery is actually the enjoyment of constructivism--like navigating a well-constructed hypermedia program.
We must recognize that we are now in the age of computers, and as John Broughton, see computer literacy as confirmation of Piagét's thinking:
Piagét's theory is often invoked because of its claim that development moves naturally and inexorably toward the ultimate end point of systemic, logico-mathematical cognition. The supposition that the discovery and perfection of the microcomputer was itself achieved by means of this kind of thinking serves only to confirm its preeminence.
However, Piagét brings a much richer understanding of modern learning rather than just systemic, logico-mathematical cognition. Piagét's theory of human development has also become dominant in science education, because it is constructivist--dealing with the manner in which the learner builds up his own system of the world.
Paul Saettler, author of The Evolution of American Educational Technology, sees the future of this technology as a form of neuropsychology. With greater interdisciplinary collaboration, neuroscience will hold some of the most important implications for the future of educational technology. Consider that what we may be doing in the future is constructing learning models that mirror the structure of the brain's operations.
Another psychologist, Herbert Koplowitz of Canada, extends Piagét's stages into the future. He suggests a fifth state, system thinking, in which the individual understands that there are often simultaneous causes that cannot be separated. Further, he offers a sixth stage, unitary operational thought, where the way we perceive the external world is only one of many possible constructs--causality, which had been thought of as linear is now seen as pervading as the universe, connecting all events with each other. This connectivity of all things is holistic, going beyond rational linear thinking and can best be conveyed through context, metaphors, paradoxes, experience, even mysticism. Metaphor builds a bridge between the brain's hemispheres, symbolically carrying knowledge from the mute right brain so that it may be recognized by the left brain. Marilyn Ferguson (editor of Brain/Mind newsletter) noted that education is beginning to acknowledge that the interrelationship of what we know, the web of relevance, is more important than mere content. Synectics (Cambridge, Mass.) taught children how to think metaphorically, making these connections, and their first graders showed a 363 percent increase in knowledge of letters and sounds, a 286 percent increase in aural comprehension, a 1,038 percent increase in word reading.
Creating relationships where there seems to be none will be an art of the hypermedia designer, won't it? Not linear but holistic thinking is where the web is going. Why are we arguing the old arguments when the Internet is being built without our input, our understanding of the learner and the structure of knowledge. We will be left behind as TV and Nintendo went about teaching without us? And as they merge with the Internet, will that webbed product also be formed without our input?
My plea to you is to discuss the best design methods for the web--that is today's question. It does not ignore our prior discussion but rather builds upon it. Educators and instructors must become more aggressive and involved in the technological world by discussing current and future models of web design and mentoring learners who have already left us and are at this moment on the web learning without us.
Learners are not doing as well as they could if we were to help structure the connections, the directions, the intents, the treatments, the tracking, the recording. They are not doing as well as they could if we were to help mentor the learners about objectives, analysis, comparisons, matricing, conflicts, dead-ends--the list is endless and so inviting!!
The hype you hear lately about the web emphasizes the fact that it's a whole new web world and nobody's sure where we're going, but instructional designers are sorely needed to lead the way. We need to confirm our viewpoints on WEB DESIGN and LEARNER MENTORING issues. I hope you'll agree by discussing your visions of these two items. What are your thoughts?