Ummm ... the meddler in the middle?

Brain: It proved that radio was a powerful tool. And now, Pinky, the advance of technology  has brought us an even more powerful tool. Do you know what that is?
Pinky: Ummm... the rubber band?

Bott’s asks an interesting question in trying to rescue the Blue(e) Fairy from Artichoke’s  deceit.

What point is there in understanding the pedagogy if i don't understand the use of the tool? and ultimately, the use of the tool is the easy bit.

The pedagogy/tool sequence thing is a chicken/egg kind of argument and may never be resolved - but I reckon the use of the “tool analogy” is worthy of unpacking again. 

In New Zealand our MoE is rather keen on the “tool” analogy, referring to ICT as “only a tool” in several MoE publications.

Nevertheless evidence is currently emerging from studies in the UK and elsewhere that  indicates improved outcomes for learners in schools where ICT is used as a tool for  cognitive development in curriculum areas. (Ministry of Education, 2003, p.8)

Analogy always interests me – in that it can both clarify and obscure understanding. In this case  when we talk about ICT as a tool I think we limit our imaginings and understanding of how  students might learn through ICT. 

I reckon we would be better served retreating to Taylor’s rather dated tutor, tool, tutee  classification of how “learning through ICT” happens in schools, (Taylor 1980). 

1. Computer in tutor mode (Computer as “sage on the stage”) :Computer assisted instruction enhances individual student learning outcomes. Behaviourist understandings of the learning process,
2. Computer in tutee mode (Computer as “guide on the side”)    Students develop metacognitive and critical thinking strategies and skills through “teaching” the computer or software to fulfil certain  desired outcomes,    Constructionist understanding of the learning process.
3. Computer in tool mode (Computer as a "streamliner")The computers’ facility to manipulate, store, create and distribute  “information surfaces” (Manovich 2001) streamlines student learning processes making them  more efficient. 

But even this 3T's analogy limits our understanding.  We need to improve on this tutor/tutee/tool analogy given  that it still  doesn’t capture Bott’s “digital native” allusion to how many students are  thinking and learning with ICT - when they have grown up with technology. 

I suspect a possible solution lies in McWilliam’s (2005) metaphor for pedagogical supply and demand in  the learning process, the “meddler in the middle”. She describes a process for teaching and  learning when teacher and student are mutually involved as co-creators of learning value. 

McWilliam uses IKEA furnishings and Scion cars as examples of this phenomenon of  collaboration between a company and the users. 

When learning is portrayed as a form of co-creation (McWilliam 2005) or “collaborative authorship”, (Manovich 2001), it  immediately implicates the unique facility of ICT for enhancing the multiplicity of  variation and information surfaces available for meddling in. The student and ICT are mutually involved as co-creators of learning value.

It is not too hard to find examples of meddling in the middle.  Bott’s ICT proficient students are already meddling with examples of collaborative  authorship in sampling, remixing as in the music/video industry and in open source software.

This is especially obvious when you look at the computer game industries support for  creating mods/avatars/and patches.  For example, The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion RPG supports  a free download of The Elder Scrolls Construction Set and access to the Elder Scrolls  Construction Set Wiki.  This allows

… extensive expansion of the game and includes all of the basic world building tools used by  the designers, giving users many of the same opportunities to create original game content  as the designers.  The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion 

ICT is not a tutor, a tutee or a tool. ICT is a co-conspirator in "meddling in the middle".

Comments

[Tony Forster]

The Victorian Essential Learning standards (VELS)talks a lot of ICT tools. http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/essential/interdisciplinary/ict/index.html
Three strands are identified
* ICT for visualising thinking
* ICT for creating
* ICT for communicating.

ICT is seen largely as a communication tool. Even in their talk of "non-linguistic representations... to help structure their thinking processes and assist in constructing knowledge" they are largely thinking of communication tools like concept maps.

What is missing is the idea of Papert's "Microworld". A giant sandpit or constructor set where kids ability to create is only limited by their imagination.

I think curricula are written by teachers, who are communicators by nature and largely verbal thinkers. (I'm an engineer a visual thinker, the blog is not my natural element.) The VELS overlooks the power of the "Microworld".

Teachers and students should immerse themselves in this "Microworld".

“there is such a thing as becoming a good learner and therefore … teachers should do a lot of learning in the presence of the children and in collaboration with them.”

What is Logo? Who Needs It? by Seymour Papert Logo Philosophy and Implementation© Logo Computer Systems Inc. 1999

[Bill Kerr]

Yes, the tool analogy is hopeless but that doesn't stop School from attempting to lobotomise the computer, dumb it down to the extent that it starts to look like a mere tool. That is the sociological drama going on in School. Curriculum is the vehicle through which Departments attempt to control teachers.

Papert actually conceptualised the computer as a rival to the curriculum, in his book, 'The Childrens Machine'.

Extract from an essay I wrote about this a long time ago:
"Non logical metaphors of the computer create a tension between the computer and the curriculum whereby the computer becomes the medium that carries the quality and the curriculum becomes the technical instrument. The computers becomes an evocative, flexible medium that invites immersion. Computer games are addictive and fun (as the neo-Luddites point out). It needs to be added, however, that some of the best computing software is an invitation to immerse yourself into a microworld where significant learning is likely to occur, provided you have a teacher who understands how the software is meant to be used. Counterposed to the neo-Luddite critique of mindless play is the constructionist idea of hard play."

"Meddler in the middle" slogan reminds me of "Technology as Trickster" in an essay by Jermey Price.

The fundamental question is, "What is technology". I discuss this here.

Extract:
"My point is that you have to ask the more fundamental, structural question, "What is technology?" first in order to answer the sociologists question, "Is technology progressive?" The latter question is the wrong question because it immediately encourages people to separate humans from technology whereas in reality we are just two different variants of an evolutionary process."

[Artichoke]

Tony,
I like the sandpit analogy - the whole immersion in a microworld - kind of awash in technology.

Your comments on teachers as communicators and verbal thinkers made me smile. Have just been feigning understanding whilst one of my kids tries to walk me through an "optimised pipelined datapath" question in his softeng363 paper. It is all visual spatial thinking and so clear to him, but I was totally bamboozled before he got to the top input of multiplexers. However, asking him to write a blog post as an answer would represent a cruel and unusual punishment.