by Brad Ryder

for

MCTE 625, Survey of Courseware
Prof. George Fornshell
School of Computer and Information Sciences
Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

E. Summary

1. Rationale for Using Mindtools

Computers can be used to learn from, learn about, or learn with. This last use of computers is where Mindtools come into play. The word "play" applies in more than loose terms, since often it is fun to learn using Mindtools, whereas learning from and about computers using drill and practice, tutorials, and other computer-assisted instruction (CAI) techniques tends to be rote. Teachers now recognize the need for promoting critical thinking regardless of content, allowing students to acquire, evaluate, and apply knowledge, rather than just memorize [Tener, 1995].

With Mindtools such as databases, spreadsheets, semantic networks, and other computer applications, students actually build their knowledge base, contributing from information gleaned by research and structured in whatever way the task group has determined.

For this reason, Mindtools are an excellent learning tool, for the best way to learn is to teach. By building their databases and spreadsheets, students are creating something from which other will be able to obtain information. So the student is in effect a teacher. This is constructive learning.

1. Constructive Learning

Broken into its basic components, constructive learning is 1) active, 2) cumulative, 3) integrative, 4) reflective, and 5) goal-directed and intentional.

The active learning process means students process the information in a meaningful way; they must gather their data but then construct a format for representing it so it’s more than just a collection of facts. How do the facts relate to each other? As with all learning, it’s cumulative, meaning the new learning is based on what has previously been learned. It’s integrative, meaning students relate their new knowledge to what they already know. This depends a lot on what they’ve already experienced in life and the beliefs they’ve developed.

The fear has been that since students are allowed and encouraged to construct their own knowledge that they will somehow build their own sets of beliefs. But Mindtools can actually facilitate social agreement on meaning, that is, before building a knowledge base, the group must agree on a negotiated meaning, otherwise the knowledge representation will be meaningless.

Constructive learning is reflective, in that learners deliberate on what they know and need to know, making more sense of the information. Students cannot just absorb information, as from a lecture or textbook; they must reflect on its meaning, and this is where Mindtools contribute greatly.

Finally, constructive learning is goal-directed and intentional, meaning learners have a goal in mind in their creation of a representation.

2. Educational Reasons for Using Mindtools

Mindtools can be thought of as cognitive processing tools. They require the student to be more involved in the actual learning process, to take more responsibility for their education. Instead of sitting back and listening to a lecture, the student must become more self-reliant. Mindtools, in that they necessitate research, organization of data, and a meaningful representation of this data, remove students from the passive activity of learning and thrust them into action.

Students should learn with computers since a computer is an unintelligent tool, although there are those who believe a computer can do anything the human brain can do [Stewart, 1994]. The planning and learning are the student’s responsibility. Mindtools don’t allow the computer to do all the work, the prompting for responses, the processing – the student has to be the intelligent one.

Computers can function as cognitive partners that do the things that humans cannot do well, such as memorizing and recalling information. This allows the human to do those things humans do well, such as presenting information and judging responses. Mindtools such as databases and spreadsheets are uniquely well-suited to assist in the cognitive partnership.

3. Practical Reasons For Using Mindtools

There’s a scarcity of traditional instructional software. Much of what’s out there is merely drill-and-practice and tutorial software, which leads to rote learning. Mindtools are, by definition, easily found. They are also inexpensive, typically costing less that $100. Often a shareware program is available, meaning you can evaluate it and then pay if you decide to use the program. Mindtools are efficient. Since the learner builds a knowledge representation, what matters is the form of the representation, not the content. The student will supply the content. The Mindtool needs to provide only a way to represent it.

2. Using Mindtools for Collaborative Learning

When people collaborate to learn or construct something, the result is often more meaningful. Since we are discussing "constructive learning," the analogy to actual building is a cogent one. Aside from the "auteurs" such as Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein, there are few independent creators. Even Edison had his Dickson, as well as whole staffs to assist him in that 90% perspiration that was required once he had his 10% inspiration [Whetmore, 1995]. The same applies to using Mindtools.

Constructivists, those who emphasize constructionism (or constructivism) over instructionism as a learning technique, say that social negotiation of knowledge arises from collaboration. The use of Mindtools essentially necessitates cooperation.

1. Cooperation

There must be four elements present for a group to cooperate: positive interdependence; face-to-face interaction; individual accountability; and interpersonal skills.

1. Positive Interdependence

The group succeeds or fails together. This is difficult for many students, for each wants to succeed. To rest your fate on the participation of other members of the group requires that all the other elements of cooperation are also sustained. When I taught mass communication courses, I divided the class into groups of three or four. If the project received a poor grade, it was likely all the group members’ grades would reflect this.

2. Face-to-face interaction

Class time may be given over to the construction of the database, or whatever Mindtool is being used. But the group needs to arrange to meet outside of classes as well.

3. Individual Accountability

In my mass communication courses, after the presentation of a project, each member of a group would fill out a peer evaluation, rating the other group members as well as himself or herself. The total percentage awarded had to equal 100 percent. This was virtually a foolproof system, although this method of evaluation did not account for the "takeover" member, the one who intimidated others and insisted on doing everything.

4. Interpersonal Skills

Each member must be able to communicate, assume leadership, and deal with controversy. When a group was taken over by one or two strong members, this was often due to the remaining members’ lack of interpersonal skills: communicating ideas and feelings; negotiating meaning of a message; and accepting, sharing, and supporting the needs and wants of other members of the group.

2. Collaborative Use of Mindtools

Since many students may not yet be familiar with using databases, spreadsheets, semantic networks, and other computer applications as Mindtools, it’s reasonable to create groups in an effort to provide the students with peer support. Also, having the students work with others will give each a different perspective on the task to be accomplished. Another reason for collaboration is to spread out the work; constructing a large database or spreadsheets requires lots of time and research.

Therefore, put learners in groups and let them learn and construct together. The groups can be arranged heterogeneously (members have different abilities); homogeneously (similar abilities); randomly (run down the roll sheet); or by interest. There’s also grouping by cognitive controls; that is, by learner traits: whether a student uses a given structure or imposes his own, is factually or conceptually oriented, is sensory or intuitive, etc.

For Mindtools, it’s recommended that groups be arranged heterogeneously, mixing global and analytic learners. They think differently so the learning experience is likely to be more fulfilling for both types of learner.

Unfortunately, the kind of collaboration an instructor seeks is not always possible. In my courses I had two exceptionally bright and motivated students (who are now in Los Angeles perilously close to achieving some kind of success in the entertainment field). In spite of their protests, I placed them in separate groups since they would intimidate others. Usually, though, they ended up performing in their respective groups as well as helping in each other’s group.

Exceptions aside, collaboration is not only desirable but typically required when using Mindtools, since they require learners to think in new ways.

3. Criteria for Evaluating Mindtools

The criteria for assessing Mindtools are both practical and pedagogical.

1. Practical

The practical criteria are as follows:

1. Computer-based

By definition, the Mindtools as discussed in the text must be computer applications. This should not be a difficult determination to make. If it’s not a computer program, it cannot be a Mindtool. But then the standard gets a little fuzzy: If it is a computer program, is it always a Mindtool? The answer to this is no. Many computer programs are drill and practice, tutorial, and other CAI programs that do not fulfill the other criteria for being a Mindtool. In any case, rule out the possibility that your child’s flash cards are Mindtools, at least as far as "Computers in the Classroom" is concerned.

2. Available applications

Much discussion arises from the question of where to get the program, who makes it, who sells it, and for how much. In any of the dozens of computer catalogs that appear in my mailbox, I can see that numerous spreadsheets, databases, communication programs, contact managers, calendar creators, and other applications are for sale. One good place to find software is on the Internet [Pelter & Neff, 1995]. Much of it is shareware, meaning it can be used and tested for a limited time. If you like the program, then a fee is requested.

3. Affordable

Even if the program is available, if it costs too much it is not a Mindtool. By definition, Mindtools cost about $100 or less. Personally, I can’t recall ever seeing a shareware program whose developer requested more than $100 to register it.

2. Pedagogical

The following are the pedagogical criteria:

1. Knowledge representation

The Mindtool must be able to represent knowledge. That is, someone who looks at the program once it has been developed should be able to see information presented in some meaningful form; certain data will relate to other data so that the user gets an understanding for its meaning. An example would be a list of countries, in columns that can be assorted based on each country’s language, population, or area [Fornshell, 1996].

2. Generalizable

Practically any content area can be represented in a valid Mindtool. Some Mindtools, such as spreadsheets, are more functional for pure statistics, while a database is useful for textual content. Programs such as a calendar creator or world atlas might come in handy for the learning of history or geography, but are not full-blown Mindtools due to their inherent limitations.

3. Critical thinking

The learner engages in critical thinking, which is more meaningful than memorizing and paraphrasing. As mentioned earlier, the best way to learn is to teach. The students might even think of themselves as teachers, in that their assignment is to construct a tool which other students can use as a resource. They will be concerned so much about whether other students will be able to learn from it that they won’t realize how much they themselves have learned.

4. Transferable learning

Skills developed while creating Mindtools can be applied to other disciplines. This is true in every aspect of life, but critical thinking is far more intense while using Mindtools.

The other criteria are:

5. Simple, powerful formalism

The student needs to organize data carefully to conform to the demands of the Mindtool; and

6. Easily learnable

Students should be able to learn the Mindtool in a few hours. If it takes longer the advantages it offers will be outweighed by the stress of learning to use it. Many programs now have online help, if help is needed, so students don’t need to pore over manuals anymore. And it’s often the case that help is needed only for some of the most complex functions of the program. Typically, especially with some of the shareware programs, the instructions are available in the opening menu, the examples are clear, and the operation of the program is straightforward. (However, I have seen a shareware program or two that is difficult to understand, and after a reasonable amount of time trying to make sense of it, I’ve deleted the entire program from my system.)

Any discussion of Mindtools, in the context of this course, should be restricted to programs that fulfill most of the criteria above. Even though not carved in stone, they help us to understanding what Mindtools should be. From there, we can negotiate.

4.  Intellectual and Social Uses of Mindtools

Educators are starting to place more emphasis on critical thinking. As opposed to rote, robotic methods in which memorization is stressed, students are being encouraged and directed toward higher thought processes. In critical thinking, they acquire, evaluate, and apply their knowledge [Tener, 1995]. Toward this purpose, educators can turn to Mindtools.

1. Multiple Intelligences

This approach could be in response to some of the recent theories or conceptions of thinking, Gardner’s "multiple intelligences." This theory proposes seven different kinds of intelligence: 1) logico-mathematical (logic and numbers), 2) linguistic (sounds, language), 3) musical (rhythm, pitch, melody), 4) spatial (perception of visual objects), 5) body-kinesthetic (body control), 6) interpersonal (relating to others), and 7) intrapersonal (understanding one’s own behavior).

When learning, we may use any and all of these intelligences to some extent. In complex thinking we use them in combination with one another. When using Mindtools, then, a learner is pretty much forced into this pattern of thinking. However, many teachers are not using the full potential of Mindtools. There are a couple of reasons for this.

For one, Mindtools – as we have agreed – are computer programs. Since their arrival on the educational scene has been comparatively recent, teachers have not had the time and opportunity to implement them fully into the curriculum. Also, teachers, in preparing for classes, have not emphasized research, analysis, and evaluation of learning. They need to invest more time in planning in order to apply qualitative, not just quantitative, learning [Tener, 1995].

So how do teachers invest their time? The first step would be to understand what’s involved in complex thinking – made up of content/basic thinking, critical thinking, and creative thinking. While the use of Mindtools will require the student to employ all of these areas, there are certain tasks that put more emphasis on one than the others, as we shall see.

2. Critical Thinking

As already discussed, educators are becoming aware that critical thinking leads to deeper understanding of what is learned. Where critical thinking is put into effect is in the reorganizing of the knowledge gained, as broken into three categories: evaluating, analyzing, and connecting.

1. Evaluating

Of the seven "multiple intelligences," evaluating probably requires the application of logico-mathematical thinking, although linguistics may be used as well. Criteria, that is, a set of standards by which to judge information, must be created and recognized. This helps a data gatherer know whether information is relevant and valid, as well as how to prioritize it.

As applied to Mindtools, evaluating might arise when developing a database on, say, the worst disasters in history. As students gather information from various sources, they are likely to get answers such as "the Exxon Valdez" and "Roe vs. Wade." Of course this ambiguity could be solved by clarifying the purpose of this representation, that is, natural or human disasters as opposed to controversial decisions and their implications. Clearly the release of 10 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sounds cannot be considered controversial, although we may never fully understand the long-term environmental effects of the incident [Golub & Brus, 1990]. Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, has fairly even contingencies both in favor and against.

2. Analyzing

Students can understand the underlying organization of ideas by separating a whole entity into its meaningful parts and understanding the various relationships. In analyzing, the students recognizes patterns, classified objects, and identifies themes. This process is used when developing a representation using a Mindtool, because the information gathered needs to be placed somewhere.

A database is comprised of separate records, each with a number of fields. Each record is a unique moment or event or item, and the fields tell the specifics of the record. A student may gather an enormous amount of information about the Exxon Valdez from an encyclopedia. But what to do with it? It must be analyzed and put into categories, such as major details, spill response, plan for cleanup, and environmental effects. By identifying themes and patterns, the students begins to fill in the blank fields and creates a representation of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

However, each field in a database must be general to the whole database. So if there are other disasters, a field such as "plan for cleanup" would not be appropriate. How would the developers of this database take all this information that is specific to the oil spill and apply it to every record? Perhaps it would become "corrective action" or something to that effect.

In any case, the developers would need to study each record and all the details of each to come up with a plan for the fields to be included in the records. This involves analyzing.

3. Connecting

Then there are relationships not just between the details of one incident, but between the wholes that are being analyzed, that is, between each record. There will be other disasters in this database: Chernobyl, the Hindenburg, the Titanic, etc. Connecting involves comparing and contrasting these events, looking for cause-effect relationships, and predicting possible effects.

This may lead to a subtheme of the representation, in which the records could be sorted by possible cause, expected environmental effect, legislative response, social implications, or any kind of relationship the students could determine among the various entries.

3. Creative Thinking

The major feature of creative thinking is this: something new. The thinking skills may be similar to critical thinking, but the key difference is that new knowledge is generated. Creative thinking requires personal and subjective knowledge. The major components of creative thinking are synthesizing, imagining, and elaborating.

1. Synthesizing

My favorite teachers, ministers, coaches, and other leaders have been those who could take information, process it, and share it with me in an interesting and meaningful way. These people were synthesizing, that is, creating metaphors to make the information more understandable.

This kind of thinking is important when using Mindtools. Obviously it won’t be possible, nor even desirable, to develop a representation of the world’s disasters merely by including the entire text from the encyclopedia. The developer must synthesize the information, summarize it in his own words, to make it fit in the database.

Synthesizing is also useful in the actual process of deciding how the database should look, since the creators will want to hypothesize about the relationships of the events, and will need to anticipate how the users of their database will want to search for information. This requires a planning process, probably including a step-by-step procedure for designing the database.

2. Imagining

Teachers can use imagining, or mental imagery, to effectively communicate with students or parents. This involves generating ideas, predicting events, solving "what if" questions, visualizing, and intuition. The student developing the database, like the teacher, should picture the possibilities beforehand. What might the database look like? How will people use it? The student would picture himself gathering information, providing information to the group, generating ideas and solutions. The result can lead to success, just as the imaging of negative outcomes or failure, could lead to the very failure imagined [Neck & Barnard, 1996].

3. Elaborating on information

A student can add personal meaning to the information, relating it to personal experiences. This information may or may not be included in the actual content (unless, as in the disaster database, the group decides to include a personal account or perhaps the individual fears, concerns, and epiphanies of the group members), but it could aid in the creation of the database.

When elaborating, the student adds details and examples to the information; modifies or refines the ideas; and assumes different points of view to get a new perspective on things. In our disaster database, for example, it might be useful if the group members brainstormed on what the principal figures in each disaster may have been thinking or doing at the time. Where was Joseph Hazelwood when the Valdez ran aground on the reef? Could he have avoided this disaster? What about the captain of the Titanic? Was he too busy partying?

Although likely to cause strained brains, this kind of elaboration may lead to the creation of a field in each record called, perhaps, "personal accountability." Or lack thereof?

4. Complex Thinking

Finally, there are complex thinking skills. This is more or less the integration of all the other thinking skills into a process that emphasizes action. For the real test of a student’s competence is not the possession of a skill, but performance in a real situation [Tener, 1995]. It’s through complex thinking skills that a determination is made whether, when and where to use Mindtools. Complex thinking involves problem solving, designing, and decision making.

1. Problem solving

We use our problem-solving skills frequently to sense, research, and formulate the problem, then to find alternatives, choose a solution, and build acceptance. Many problems can arise when using Mindtools to create some kind of knowledge representation. Such as, the information you need is not easily obtainable, another group is creating a similar representation, the administration or a parents group disapproves of your choice of content ("The most common street drugs and how to obtain them"; or "Really good bombs you can build right your own basement" ).

2. Designing

This skill is put into effect when it’s time to create the representation, for most databases, spreadsheets, and other Mindtools can be constructed in a variety of ways. So the group needs to imagine the goal of and formulate the database, invent and assess the product, and revise it. Fortunately, this can be an ongoing process. Most databases will allow revision even after all the content has been input.

3. Decision making

There are always alternatives in any endeavor. When the group has several to choose from, then they need to engage in decision making. This means identifying the issue, generating alternatives, assessing consequences, making a choice, and evaluating the choice.

5. Summary

If students are to effectively use their critical thinking skills, the teacher must provide the relevant and appropriate elements. As we’ve seen, Mindtools require students to exercise their higher thought processes. Many factors must be considered: teachers, pupils, objectives, content, and goal. Whether Mindtools are used or not, teachers must be aware of the abilities of students and be proficient in promoting such skills as analysis and creating thinking [Tener, 1995].

Mindtools are just that, tools. The important thing is to stimulate critical thinking over rote implementation. In this way, whatever they have learned, the students will remember it longer.

Fornshell, G. (1996). Central America, Databases and Spreadsheet Mindtools, Oracle Media Objects file, Nova Southeastern University.

Golub, R. and Brus, E. (1990). The Almanac of Science and Technology: What’s New and What’s Known. Boston, Mass.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. A Simon & Schuster Company.

Neck, C. & Barnard, A. (1996). Managing your mind: What are you telling yourself? Educational Leadership, 53, 6, pp. 24-27.

Pelter, M. & Neff, G. (1995). Computer simulation of vinyl polymerization: Exercises in critical thinking using SOLVE. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 9, pp. 808-812.

Stewart, D. (1994). Interview: Herbert A. Simon. Omni, 16, 9, pp. 70-75+.

Tener, N. (1995). Information is not knowledge. Childhood Education, 72, 2, p. 100.

Whetmore, Edward J. (1995). Mediamerica, Mediaworld: Form, Content and Consequence of Mass Communication. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.