These levels are generally
thought to occur in a linear fashion from identity to seriation, gradually
elevating the individual towards the formal operational stage. As Woolfolk
(1995) illustrates, however, even with the successful development of
all the levels of the concrete operational stage, this system of thinking
is still tied to physical reality (p. 38). The logic is based on concrete
situations that can be organized, classified, or manipulated. Thus,
children at this stage [concrete operational] can imagine several different
arrangements for the furniture in their rooms before they act. They
do not have to solve the problem strictly through trial and error by
actually making the arrangements. But the concrete-operational child
is not yet able to reason about hypothetical, abstract problems that
involve the coordination of many factors at once.
This becomes a very significant
point when considering when, how, and what types of technologies should
be introduced. Furthermore, with learner characteristics (e.g. age,
stage of development, learning styles) and instructional content (e.g.
more concrete vs more abstract concepts) considered, an appropriate
instructional vehicle is needed to help transport the student through
a transitional period between concrete and formal operational stages.
A scaffolding strategy facilitates such a journey.
Matching Technology
With Learning Needs
The role the teacher assumes
defines the learning possibilities in the classroom. For this reason,
teacher choice regarding instructional strategies, goals and objectives,
and instructional tools becomes a paramount decision. Reform-minded
teachers are more likely to employ instructional strategies like inquiry,
problem-based learning, and cooperative learning which, in the absence
of supportive structures (scaffolding), are likely to prove insufficient
in moving a student from concrete to formal operations. A scaffolded
approach, where in teachers facilitate the construction of better understanding
by offering students support when and how they need it (Wood, Bruner,
& Ross, 1976), is desirable according to research on how children
learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Some suggest that technology
serves as a very useful tool in this regard (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 1999), strongly implying an ability to enhance student achievement,
while others argue that it has a propensity to undermine learning (Olson
& Clough, 2001; Postman, 1985; Postman, 1995). The key to effective
scaffolding is to correctly identify and appropriately address students'
learning needs within the context of a particular lesson. And context
is everything. The divide in attitudes towards technology mentioned
above is at least partially rooted in contextual differences and each
bares a valid point in a given situation.
Clearly defined lesson goals
and objectives help build context by providing a reference for every
other aspect of instructional planning. Consideration of technology
should in no way influence the development of learning goals, except
of course when technologies comprise the content (e.g. learning about
a compass). Otherwise, teachers run the risk of their "lessons"
serving as entertainment rather than educational opportunities. This
is not to suggest that students should not enjoy learning; they should.
It is part of the teacher's responsibilities to motivate students by
any ethically sound means, which presumably entails students enjoying
the learning process to some degree and at some point. Without the student
experiencing some enjoyment, the teacher has failed in producing a positive
intrinsic motivation towards learning, which is essential to the development
of a scientifically literate individual. The difference between goals
and objectives that focus on technologies (e.g. compass) and those that
focus on other content (e.g. interpreting maps) are profound and contain
inherent differences.
The effective teaching of
skills requires instructional strategies that stress repetition and
didactic instruction, whereas effective teaching of concepts requires
instructional strategies that stress metacognition and inquiry. For
example, when teaching students the skill of reading a graduated cylinder,
it is generally more effective to tell and/or show the student precisely
how to do it and let them practice over and over again. The student's
proficiency at reading a graduated cylinder is not diminished because
he or she does not understand the "why" behind the water's
action. Most students will, however, want to know why (Bransford, Brown,
& Cocking, 1999). So by addressing the "why" question
and teaching students about the concept of the capillary action of water,
an inquiry process has already begun that requires the learner to examine
his or her own notions about the characteristics of water. The teacher
may tell the student over and over again why the water acts the way
it does in the cylinder, but that certainly does not ensure that the
student will understand the concept. Doing and understanding are separate
entities that share a relationship with one another that mirrors the
relationship between technology-focused goals and content-focused goals
(Table 3).
