Pea tells educators that technology can have positive effect on learning

Roy Pea is trying to make sure learning doesn’t get left in technology’s wake.

Pea, the director of the Center for Technology in Learning at SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif., spoke last Friday at a symposium on the UW campus. The symposium was sponsored by the UW’s Program for Educational Transformation through Technology (PETT), a UIF-funded program intended to help faculty by creating a campus-wide framework for the exploration of next-generation technologies and strategies for teaching and learning. Part of Pea’s work involves trying to help create a seamless network between advances in technology, knowledge and learning.

That’s a mighty task during these times of dizzying technological advancements, he told the HUB auditorium crowd.

Changes in how we think about learning have significantly altered education too, he said. In the late 1980s, educators began to shift from strict cognitive models to more social models, that took into account the students and their contextual and cultural influences.

The combination of technological advancements and a more social understanding of the learning process has virtually undone linear theories of education. Pea said that research findings don’t directly translate to classroom practice. Likewise, he said the knowledge transfer through simple dissemination doesn’t work.

“A broad division of social practices creates a real challenge for teachers trying to engage students,” Pea said. Specifically, the consulting Stanford University professor said educators need to rethink what is taught, how it’s taught and how it’s appropriately assessed.

Technological advancements figure prominently in Pea’s prescription. He said computer-based learning allows for multiple representations, for example, of a single concept. This may make it easier for more people from divergent backgrounds to learn more effectively.

Pea described one example of computer-based learning, the Knowledge Interaction Environment project, which was designed to promote coherent and pragmatic knowledge understanding in the sciences.

Working in a Web environment with scientists, students in the project could compare and contrast scientific theories, design science projects and critique projects. The study concluded that students could be encouraged to integrate knowledge through simple prompts and that students can develop their own well-formulated scientific arguments.

But Pea acknowledged the intricacies that must be planned for when considering new approaches to teaching and learning. For one thing, he said buying wholly into new teaching methods can be difficult for teachers who are uniquely aware of the specific contextual needs of their classroom.

“Educators are designers,” Pea said. “They don’t just read the book, they tailor learning activities to fit their context.”

On the other hand, the teachers can’t be expected to have a deep understanding of a broad range of knowledge. That deep understanding, Pea said, is the responsibility of the researchers who focus their energies in a specific content area. Therefore, there needs to be a general acknowledgment of the reciprocal influences of theory and practice. A partnership model that pairs the experts with the real world situations is also needed. And finally, something has to tie the process together.

Pea suggested a Networked Improvement Community (NIC), which he described as a coalition of organizations engaged in a similar improvement process. These Web-based learning communities, he said, break down boundaries and allow students to interact with students, teachers and scientists in various remote sites.

“That’s just not possible in a nonvirtual environment,” Peak said. “Individual educators and researchers are partnering with people they’ve never partnered with before. Then they’re going on to do significant work.” ¶