PERSPECTIVES ON THE LEARNING PROCESS
Tom Morgan
Augsburg College
Joan Roca
Mankato State University
The Learning Process is at the center of New Designs. It structures the time and effort of learners and specifies how learning is to be connected to the college and its environment. In "Designing Down", we have moved from the Learning Context through Learning Signature to the Learning Outcomes of most value to learners. These steps provide a foundation for the work of the college and a vision of its future.
The learning models outlined in this paper are founded on current practices in post-secondary institutions. However, they are "future driven" in that they show how teaching and learning can be transformed to better meet the needs of students and the challenges they will face in work, community and family life.
Learning processes now in place in post-secondary institutions are largely discipline-driven. They are drawn from a compartmentalized view of knowledge which holds that each set of ideas and evidence is unique - history has its own specialized structure and only historians know how it is to be learned. The masters of the disciplines have raised walls at the boundaries of their domains and created political systems to ensure autonomy and survival. For the student, the result is a puzzling array of options where special languages rule. Furthermore, students have no way of assessing the costs and benefits associated with the choices they face.
As knowledge enters an era of explosive growth, it also begins to manifest increasing complexity. Old disciplinary boundaries can no longer contain a knowledge dynamic that transcends the historical experience of the academy. This means that students can no longer sit at the feet of master teachers who know all of the destinations on the roadmap of their subject. Clearly, a new learning process is called for; one that is free from disciplinary constraints and open to the informed choice of students.
It is the thesis of this paper that learning must shift from instruction of students to the construction of meaning by the learner. In effect, teaching becomes a matter of facilitation of student choice that is informed by direct interaction with a dynamic knowledge base. Students, too, must change in response to the knowledge explosion. They can not survive - let alone prosper - unless they take responsibility for their learning experiences and hone the skills that will make them life long learners. (Seidman and Ramsey, 1996)
The argument we offer in support of this thesis is one that deviates from the traditional perspectives on teaching and learning. Instead, it drawn heavily on individual life in learning organizations and the skills needed to be involved in ever-changing institutions and communities. We take the position that it is the cognitive sciences and the sociology of knowledge in learning organizations that, together, offer us the insights needed to reform the learning processes in post-secondary education. (Thomas, Johnson, and Anderson, 1992)
At the same time, there are important issues and developments that affect the future of post-secondary education. Rapid changes in knowledge, work and social life require a "just in time" response from educational institutions; responses which must conform to the concern for quality that permeates organizational thought. Global communities require learning on a similar scale; parochial ideas and practices are already obsolete and must give way to international perspectives. And, the learning process of the future will surely be positioned between diverse demands and limited resources.
As we begin our journey in search of new learning processes, it
is important to review our starting point. One way of putting
it is that we are beginning from a static and settled view
of knowledge and learning to one that is ever more dynamic.
To understand our journey, we need to see clearly how our institutions
and our own experiences determine the pathways we might select.
There can be little disagreement with the observation that our colleges are organized around a static perspective on both knowledge and the student. Every new college we develop and, unfortunately, most new and revised programs of study, has the familiar academic landscape of the subject matters. The very foundations of instruction can be found in the relationship between knowledge and the academy. Historically, the academy has been the sole generator of knowledge - for all practical purposes, the owner of the subject matters. In this context, the professor is the necessary mentor of those who want access to knowledge. He/she has both the power and the skills needed to instruct.
There is much of the monastic metaphor at work in the traditional college. There are high priests in each subject matter who are served by earnest monks. They, in turn, are the instructors of the novices who are called to the intellectual apostolate. And, all too often, what these people do is not of the world. Rather, it is disconnected from the mundane world of work, family and community.
Like the church, there are canon laws which make higher education every bit as resistant to change. The Carnegie Unit, student credit hours, and full time equivalents are permanent features of the academy to which any new program or approach must conform. When one considers the convoluted bureaucracies that have grown up around the subject matters, it is little wonder that higher education is characterized by tradition and not innovation.
The traditional academy is now threatened by the knowledge explosion. (Sterman, 1985) As more and more highly trained people work outside the academy, there are new sources of knowledge - sources that are much more closely linked to the world of practice. Corporations, human service agencies and governments are all populated by persons with the capacity to produce useful knowledge and the resources to communicate ideas outside the academy. And, the sources of support for its traditional work have eroded to the point where whole disciplines are without the resources needed to be vital players in the business of knowledge generation. (Sommer, 1995)
The shift in knowledge production and distribution away from the academy has been documented by several writers.(Nonaka and Tageuchi, 1995) The "invisible colleges" identified by Crane (1972) have been found to be extended beyond the boundaries of the academy. (McCain, 1990) These "colleges" are constantly changing groups of knowledge workers who follow - and contribute to - the development of subject matters according to their interests. (Mulkay, 1991) All of this has been facilitated by two factors: the exponential growth of telecommunications (Dordick and Wang, 1993: Tapscott and Caston, 1993) and the increased value of knowledge in the marketplace (Drucker, 1993).
There is a growing "electronic community" which opens access to knowledge and allows increasing numbers of interested parties to exchange their ideas and issues. (Ammentorp, et.al., 1993) Construction is precisely what goes on in these communities. Knowledge is produced and valued for its contribution to economic and social development. In sum, "(the new mode of) .. knowledge production is characterized by closer interaction between scientific, technological and industrial modes of knowledge production, by the weakening of disciplinary and institutional boundaries, by the emergence of more or less transient clusters of experts, often grouped around large project of various kinds, and by broadening of the criteria of quality control and by enhanced social accountability. " (Gibbons, et.al., 1994, p. 68) The traditional academy is now but a player in a larger arena of knowledge production and use - an arena in which both teacher and student are obliged to construct their own perspectives.
We can visualize construction in action by thinking of
students and teachers wandering on an "infoscape" like
that shown in Figure I. (Roca, et.al., 1995)
Figure I: Topological Model of the Infoscape
Each dimension of the "infoscape" reflects a critical attribute of knowledge as seen from the user's point of view. Accessibility refers to the extent to which the "common speech" of users can lead them to information of interest to them. Connectedness speaks of links among clusters of knowledge which enables users to construct information in appropriate configurations. And Relevance is a measure of the value of information to a community of users. As these measures are applied to a particular knowledge base, the result is a grouping of media in "islands" on the landscape. It is the task of teacher and learner to navigate this landscape to discover the "peaks of relevance". When they ascend a particular "peak", they have the capacity to add to relevance - to make that collection of knowledge even more valuable through their own constructions .
Accessing knowledge continues to be dependent upon understanding the language of those who create and store information. In the past, this was largely in the hands of librarians and authors. Today, it is the electronic network and its many users which defines the common speech of the subject matters. Each Internet server creates its own roadmap to the Infoscape and those drawn to that site add to accessibility by refining the ways information is addressed. (Heylighen, 1995)
Knowledge is created when information is connected. We see this clearly in electronic data bases where "pointers" create networks of connected information and the user can navigate according to his/her interests.
Relevance comes about through user experience in discovering knowledge that addresses important problems. In the Infoscape, knowledge is not simple propositions narrowly applied to single fields. Instead, it is made up of a variety of media that can be brought to bear on the issue at hand. As information media are increasingly enriched, they provide for the features of the Infoscape. "Multimedia technologies can provide the three-dimensional landscape of mountains instead of the two-dimensional flatland of current presentations." (Anderson, 1992: p. 118)
Finding one's way around the Infoscape is a challenging assignment.
To wander without a guide or, at least, a map runs the risk of
missing the relevant "peaks" needed to be functional
in work and community settings. Building a roadmap to the Infoscape
is what the learning process is about. In Figure II, we show the
sub-systems which constitute the learning process in post-secondary
institutions.
Figure II is the minimal collection of systems required to treat the totality of the learning process. We cannot, for instance, proceed without a perspective on the state of knowledge, how it is accessed and developed; in other words, we need a thorough understanding of the Infoscape. Similarly, our constructivist approach demands an explication of constructive behaviors in learning settings. And, such behaviors do not take place without the engagement and involvement of learners. To make the matter even more complex, we must also pay attention to the interactions among these systems. For it is in the "cracks" between the systems where creative management can come into its own and new designs can be tested.
Figure II: Learning Process Sub-Systems
Each box in this drawing contains a model which details the dynamics of the learning process. In the paragraphs below, we develop each model and show how they are linked in typical educational settings.
If we de-emphasize instruction in favor of construction,
what is it that students "construct"? How do they build
a view of knowledge that can accommodate rapid change? And, how
do they keep track of information that is of value to them? These
questions are at the core of a learning process that emphasizes
the development of paradigms and models by each
student - unified perspectives that can themselves evolve in pace
with changes in what is known and how it is put to use.(Richardson,
et. al., 1994)
Paradigms and models are critically important to an information- driven world. They determine how information becomes knowledge and how individuals navigate the Infoscape. In fact, we can use a model of the Infoscape to illustrate this point.
Figure III: Dynamic Infoscape Model
In this model, the driving force comes from the environment as complexity. Family, community and work are all increasingly complex and neither individuals nor organizations can cope with their demands without access to equally complex information.(Vacas, 1990)
The construction of new knowledge (products) has two principal resultants: contributions and model power. These variables serve to link students, teachers and knowledge workers into the network of information. Contributions add to the knowledge base and to the connectedness of information. In this way, information becomes knowledge and can be applied to problem solving and design activities. Contributions are imbedded in conversation as people talk about knowledge and put it to use. Because knowledge is becoming more and more "social", it is increasingly cast in what Zadeh calls "commonsense" or linguistic forms. (1987) Knowledge is framed by the concepts and heuristics of everyday community and work life and shaped by what we might label as an "ecology of complexity".
However, knowledge is not merely conversation. Those who produce and use knowledge take on over-arching perspectives or paradigms which enable them to visualize knowledge of interest to them and to discourse about it. Such paradigms are what Kuhn had in mind; ways of putting knowledge in order so that it can facilitate problem solving.(1972)
Learning in an Infoscape dominated by paradigms and models is
a matter of construction, engagement and involvement.
Construction means that students and teachers collaborate
to produce knowledge as well as tangible products of knowledge.
Engagement speaks to the learner's relationship to knowledge
and the processes whereby it is developed and acquired. Involvement
deals with the social aspects of knowledge use. Together, these
attributes define a learning process quite different from historical
experience and the traditions of today.
The idea of construction is probably best captured by Papert when he says, "..(construction) ..happens in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it's a sand castle or a theory of the universe." (1993, p.1) The key ideas in this definition are engagement - the learner is actively involved in working with knowledge and not a passive receptor of information - and product - there is a result to learning that can be shared with other.
We now have three dimensions which define the learning process;
construction, engagement, and involvement.
Let's look at these to see how they might shape the activities
of teachers and students in post-secondary institutions.
Figure IV: The Dynamics of Construction
Through construction learners acquire expertise in a field of study. This is a matter of solving the problems posed by complexity in work, family and community. As problems are transformed into products learners reduce their uncertainties concerning major issues and tasks. This places the learner in the sort of environment envisioned by Newell and Simon (1972). From this perspective, learning is a matter of constructing an internal representation of the task environment faced by the student. Construction , however, goes a step beyond internalization of a task or problem. It generally involves creation of specific products which represent the learner's capacity to integrate the knowledge and skills appropriate to the task at hand. Thus, we can see the results of learning in the "public entities" produced by students.
The central place of problem solving in this view of the learning process is especially important for post-secondary educators. The vast range of backgrounds and objectives of learners puts severe limitations on the utility of traditional curricula. There is literally no way that pre-set content or experiences can guarantee student access to the knowledge and skills required by their personal circumstances and future plans. They are creatures of their task environments where their capacity to function is determined by their ability to use knowledge in the problem solving process.
This drawing also shows that construction is even more complex than Papert suggests. Once we place construction in a social environment and add faculty to the "mix", we have a set of relationships which, acting together, determine the course of knowledge production and learning. By tracing the linking of "circles, boxes and pipes" in this schema, we can see how construction might work in a typical school or work setting. To do this, we focus on the two "sub-models" - engagement and involvement and their relationships.
Learners cannot solve problems nor construct products unless they
are engaged in the use of information and the tools for manipulating
and transforming knowledge, energy and materials. Engagement
refers to the motivational state where the learner's attention
to directed primarily to the task at hand. (Gettinger, 1986) It
is more than a passive reception of information offered by teachers;
it is active search and discovery which may well range far beyond
the bounds of any curricular design.
Figure V: The Dynamics of Engagement
Engagement is linked to construction through the three variables at the top of this Figure (products, relevant knowledge and teamwork). These define the inputs and outputs of engagement. Products determine the development of both learner engagement and faculty expertise. Relevant knowledge is not only augmented by engagement , it "feeds back" to effect changes in engagement (through the echange variable). At the same time, engagement affects teamwork, the central variable in our view of construction dynamics. This variable, too, is involved in "feedback" to help determine changes in both learner involvement and faculty expertise.
The model reflects the key role to be played by faculty in the learning process. Faculty are the navigators who assist students in discovering and applying relevant knowledge to the problems at hand.(Fischer, et.al., 1991) In other words, there are no "textbook" solutions to modern problems - only a landscape of evidence that may or may not be relevant - hence, navigational support is the key to productive engagement. By helping learners find productive connections in evidence , navigators assist in producing the models and paradigms that shape opportunity for learners. (Checkland and Scholes, 1991) Faculty also evaluate learner products through assessment. This brings faculty expertise to bear on learner outcomes and helps to determine how learners will be engaged in the future.
There is another critical "feedback loop" involved in engagement. This has to do with the building of faculty expertise. What this "loop" does is value the products of learning for faculty and makes possible the further development of their personal models and paradigms (expertise). As Figure V shows, teamwork is a central variable in this process. Faculty are no longer aloof from the learning process - they are themselves engaged and become the beneficiaries of cooperative work.
All of this takes place in a context of learning opportunities. These are jointly created by learners (learner direction), faculty (expertise) and the institution (organizational support). Here, our learning process deviates widely from the conventional practices of higher education. In place of rigidly scheduled classes, seminars and laboratories, we have the whole range of human problem solving settings reflective of life in work, family and community. Because these opportunities are jointly created, they are valued by all stakeholders and are relevant to the best of the abilities of those involved.
Involvement is what makes learning "social".
It is like engagement in that it expresses a motivational
condition; however, the motivating force here is social. Learners
are involved in social exchanges where they find reference points
for learning. But, more importantly, involvement provides
opportunities for developing social skills and value clarification
that transfers to work, family and community life. (Tinto, 1989)
Learning is not merely an interaction between students and subject matters. It is a process which is made more effective by teamwork. This is quite different from the learning activities that characterize the traditional classroom. Teamwork involves assisting learners in navigating the Infoscape. Experts (faculty) are the navigators who add value to the learning process by forging links between knowledge and social construction. But they do it in cooperation with learners - all are members of a team. This brings the learning process into line with the kind of organizational life facing students outside the school.
To see how these factors help to structure the learning process, we must look more closely at learner involvement in post-secondary institutions. In Figure VI, we show involvement at the center of a cluster of four social variables.
Figure VI: The Dynamics of Involvement
What makes involvement possible are the involvement options in the learning environment and the involvement potential of learners. In fact, it is the social side of learning that gives the educational institution its reason for being. If there were no need for social construction, there would be no need for schools and colleges. This aspect of the learning process may be the most challenging for those designing new educational environments. The wide ranges in age, the variety of objectives and the diversity of learner groups mirror the realities of modern social life. As such they define new forms of social life which transcend the boundaries of convention. Thus, the involvement options of an effective learning environment must be configured to help learners acquire the skills which will enable them to function in a turbulent social milieu.(Astin, 1984)
But options alone do not define social behavior. Values play a critical role in setting the conditions under which choices are made. We reflect this fact in the above drawing by recognizing that there is pro-social behavior that draws people together and fosters involvement. Over time, such behavior builds into a pro social culture which can accommodate the diversity of contemporary student populations. This is not to say that the institution forces a value perspective on learners - instead, it is a forum for discussion of alternative values and an environment where the implications of varying beliefs can be tested. The pro-social culture also serves to support learning through involvement and teamwork. As learners become a part of the culture, they focus their energies through the social system of the organization and take advantage of the opportunities it provides. (Lipetzky and Ammentorp, 1991)
The principal "driver" for these dynamics is the commitment of faculty. To the extent that they see the benefit in social construction, they can themselves be motivated to become engaged and involved in the learning process. This means that designs must be directed at building relationships between students and faculty so that mutual benefits flow from the social construction of knowledge. And, it is organizational support that sets the conditions under which social life can develop.
If commitment is the "driver" of learning, technology
is the instrument whereby learning can take place.(Stuebing, 1992)
Investment in technology makes teamwork "go"
by enabling learners to access information and construct knowledge.
This is the hypertext environment where information
takes on life and becomes knowledge. In Barrett's words:
"Hypertext is an embodiment in a machine of the social construction of knowledge in the human domain of thought and language. Hypertext, hypermedia, multimedia support all of the functions that define social construction; the collection and classifying of texts, the review and deconstruction of these texts, the exchange of texts among peers, the empowerment of the individual through the ability to create marginalia (which may eventually take center stage). And computer media can do all of these things quickly, with fine or coarse-grained thoroughness, and with complete documentation of every interaction with a text or another individual." (1992, p. 9).
But technology alone will not suffice to shape the learning process. In our models, we have isolated several other Design Elements that can be used to organize and manage learning in post secondary institutions. Foremost among these is organizational support. Support ranges from resource supply to the organizational culture which may or may not nurture the social construction of knowledge. If new designs are to realize the potential inherent in the above systems, schools and colleges must themselves become learning organizations. (Senge, 1990) They must construct new social realities that reflect all aspects of the learning process.
The other key variable that cuts across our systems is that of faculty expertise and commitment. In the past, colleges have left this resource in the hands of individual faculty and paid little, if any, attention to its potential as a learning resource. This is no longer sensible; faculty are just as valuable to the college as players are to a professional sports team. They must be nurtured, developed and shaped to respond to the demands of complexity and diversity. Each faculty member must become what Schon calls a "reflective practitioner" - evaluating experience to help form the collegiate culture into a social milieu where construction is encouraged, informed and facilitated (1983)
To get a sense of the "well-constructed" student, consider
the attributes of a modern software "agent" - an alter-ego
who can probe the intricacies of electronic data bases. According
to Etzioni and Weld (1995, p. 45), such agents are:
These are, of course, precisely the attributes a well-educated student needs to be an effective player in an information-rich environment. They are also the characteristics of an effective performer in a modern learning organization. (Senge, 1990) When they are compared to current learner outcomes, we can see an overlapping of objectives that draws the learning process into the learning organization. (Krebsbach, 1995)
Although each new educational design must be unique, there are certain criteria which must be honored if the design is to be relevant. Foremost among these are:
* Networking: These environments must provide for flexible links between learners and information - and between learners. Teamwork as well as individual activity must be supported and dynamically configured. (Holton, 1995)
* Global: In both knowledge and delivery of learning opportunities, the environment must be truly global. Parochial views of knowledge must give way to international perspectives and to the critical examination of alternative field paradigms.(Riegle, 1995)
* Social: Learning can no longer be an individual matter; it must be framed in a social context and must address social issues. It is truly the "whole person" who is at the center of learning - with knowledge and environments in support of his/her development as a social being.
* Values: Learning is also about choice. As a person builds expertise, he/she selects information and constructs meaning. There is a larger sense of choice which comes into play when expertise is put to work. Choice and the values which shape its options cannot be ignored in design, but must have a central place in the conversations among learners, knowledge workers, and those who generate new knowledge.
The transition to a constructionist perspective on learning probably lies along a continuum like that shown below.
| Instruction | Work-Based Learning | Team Learning | Goal Directed Learning | Construction |
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Each point on this scale includes all those to its left - Team Learning includes both Work-Based Learning and Instruction. This scale pictures a range of learning alternatives that can accommodate many different student needs and styles as well as a variety of roles for teachers.
* Work-Based Learning: On the job training, apprenticeships and the like are used to give the student a "hands-on" learning experience. It is a key component of "school to work" models - an important step in "unfreezing" Instructional systems. (Bragg, et.al., 1995)
* Team Learning: Collaboration is an emerging theme in all aspects of organizational life. It is no less so in learning where team efforts have been shown to be highly effective in improving student engagement in the learning process and in connecting learning to the external environment.(Mathews, 1995)
* Goal Directed Learning: For the individual student to become adept at directing his/her own learning, each needs to develop a goal and a plan for its attainment. Goal Directed Learning articulates the goals of the student with the objectives the college offers. (Ram and Leake, 1995)
* Construction: All of the above learning modalities come together as students work in teams, pursuing their personal goals through collective construction of products and new knowledge. The shift in learning from Instruction to Construction is the fundamental change proposed in the New Designs model. (Harel and Papert, 1993)
Throughout this essay we have emphasized the social construction of knowledge. Individualized, academic control over knowledge production and distribution is rapidly giving way to a diffused social constructionism where all users of information - individual and organization - are involved in transforming understanding. This is the central dynamic which informs all new designs for post secondary education.
What we hope to leave with our students is, first of all, an appreciation of complexity; respect for the unknown along with the confidence to do something about it. Secondly, it is the task of educators to build the conversational foundations for understanding. Students must speak the languages of relevant subject matters and must be able to master new dialects as they appear. Finally, they need to possess useful mental models of the human and material worlds they inhabit so that they may construct knowledge and its useful products.
Adler, M. (1982) The Paideia proposal: an educational manifesto. New York : Macmillan.
American Physical Society (1991) "Report of the APS Task Force on Electronic Information Systems," Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 36(4): 1119-1151.
Ammentorp, B. (1993) "Paradigms and Educational Reform: Perspectives on the Future of the Two-Year College," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Vocational Association Meeting. Nashville, TN.
Ammentorp, W., Morgan, T. and Michels, D. (1994) The Electronic Community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. Philadelphia, PA.
Anderson, G. (1991) "Dimension, Context, and Freedom: The Library in the Social Creation of Knowledge," in Barrett, E. (ed) Sociomedia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ch. 6.
Astin, A. (1984) "Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education," Journal of College Student Personnel, 25:297-308.
Barrett, E. (1992) Sociomedia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bruer, J. (1993) Schools for thought : a science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1991) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester, GB: Wiley.
Crane, D. (1972) Invisible Colleges. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Copa, G. and Pease, V. (1992) New Designs for the Comprehensive High School. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Cox. B. (1994) Posting on AAHESGIT Listserv, December 1.
de Jong, T. and van Joolingen, W. (1994) "Instructional Use of Simulations, " Proceedings. East-West International Conference on Computer Technologies in Education. Crimea, Ukraine. pp. 119-124.
Dordick, H. and Wang, G. (1993) The Information Society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Drucker, P. (1993) Post-Capitalist Society. Oxford, GN: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Etzioni, O. and Weld, D. (1995) "Intelligent Agents on the Internet," IEEE Expert. 10(4): 42-49.
Fischer, G. et.al. (1991) "The Role of Critiquing in Cooperative Problem Solving," ACM Transaction in Information Systems 19(2): 123-151.
Gettinger, M. (1986) "Issues and Trends in Academic Engaged Time of Students," Special Services in the Schools 2(4): 1-17.
Gibbons, M., et.al. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harasim, L., et.al. (1995) Learning networks : a field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA. : MIT Press.
Harel, I. and Papert, S. (1993) Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Heylighen, F. (1995) "From World-Wide Web to Super-Brain," http://pespnc1.vub.ac.be.
Holton, W.C. (1995) "Classroom of the Future," Empire State Report. Sept.: 64-65.
Investor's Business Daily (1995) "Precision Farming," August 31, P. A6.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983) Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krebsbach, S. (1995) Learner Outcomes for Two-Year Colleges. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research on Vocational Education.
Kuhn, T. (1972) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. New York: Routledge.
Lipetzky, P. and Ammentorp, W. (1991) A Further Examination of Student Involvement in Community Colleges. Paper presented at Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum. San Francisco, CA.
McCain, K. (1990) "Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6): 433-443
McGilly, K. (1994) Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mulkay, M. (1991) The Sociology of Science. Bloomington, IND: University of Indiana Press.
Newell, A. and Simon, H. (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pocock, J. (1995) "Yield Maps Pinpoint Profit Potential," The Farmer 113(12); 8-11.
Ram, A. and Leake, D. (1995) Goal Driven Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richardson, G., et.al. (1995) "Foundations of Mental Model Research," Proceedings: 1994 International Systems Dynamics Conference. Cambridge, MA: Systems Dynamics Society. 181-192.
Riegle, R. (1995) Educational Paradigms. As of 14 October 1996, the hypertext document is available at: http://coe.ilstu.edu/rpriegle/eaf228/.
Roca, J., Ammentorp, B., and Morgan, T. (1995) The Global Electronic Community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Systems Dynamics Society. Tokyo, Japan.
Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Sommer, J.W. (1995) The Academy in Crisis: The Political Economy of Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Sterman, J. (1985) "The Growth of Knowledge: Testing a Theory of Scientific Revolutions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 28:93-122.
Stetten, G. (1995) 'Wireless Infrared Networking in the Duke Paperless Classroom,' T.H.E. Journal. 23:3 87-90.
Stuebing, S. (1992) Designing With Information Technology. In New Designs for the Comprehensive High School, Vol 1. Berkeley, CA: NCRVE.
Tapscott, D. and Caston, A. (1993) Paradigm Shift: The New Promise of Information Technology. New York : McGraw Hill.
Tinto, V. (1989) Leaving College. New York: Harper.
Vacas, F. (1990) "A Complexity Architecture for Information Technologies," Systems Practice 3(1):81-96.
White, B. and Frederiksen, J. (1990) "Causal Model Progressions as a Foundation for Learning Environments, Artificial Intelligence , 42:99-157.
Yacci, M. (1994) "A Grounded Theory of Student Choice in Information Rich Learning Environments," Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 3: 3/4.
Zadeh, L. (1987) "A Theory of Commonsense Knowledge," in Yager (et.al.) eds. Fuzzy Sets and Applications New York: J. Wiley.
New Designs Work Group Authors, 1996. The authors assigns to educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.
Back to New Designs Working Group Papers