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
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