HIGH-POWERED LEARNING COMMUNITIES: A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE
Erik DE CORTE
Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology (CIP&T)
University of Leuven, Belgium
Keynote address presented at the
ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme, First Annual Conference - University
of Leicester, November 2000
Address for correspondence:
Erik De Corte, Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology (CIP&T), Department of Educational Sciences,
University of Leuven, Vesaliusstraat 2, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Phone: +32-16-326248, Fax: +32-16-326274, E-mail: erik.decorte@ped.kuleuven.ac.be
URL: http://www.kuleuven.ac.be/~p1486000/
1
HIGH-POWERED LEARNING COMMUNITIES: A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE
Erik DE CORTE
Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology (CIP&T)
University of Leuven, Belgium
Introduction
Although educational research in general and research on learning and instruction have
developed tremendously over the past decades, and although investigators often claim that they
intend to contribute to the improvement of education, complaints about the deep gap between
theory and research, on the one hand, and educational practices, on the other, are still the order of
the day. Researchers themselves are quite well aware of this situation. For instance, in her
Presidential Address to the 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, the late Ann Brown argued:
"* Enormous advances have been made in this century in our understanding of learning and
development.
* School practices in the main have not changed to reflect these advances." (p.4)
Ann Brown's assessment of the situation is echoed in the standpoint that Weinert and De Corte
(1996) have stated in the International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology:
"After 100 years of systematic research in the fields of education and educational psychology, there
is, in the early 1990s, still no agreement about whether, how, and under what conditions research can
improve educational practice. Although research and educational practice have changed
substantially since the beginning of the twentieth century, the question of how science can actually
contribute to the solution of real educational problems continues to be controversial." (p.43)
2
Taking this into account the following somewhat sceptical assertion of Anderson (Glaser,
Lieberman, & Anderson, 1997) involves a major challenge for educational research in the coming
period:
"One continuing dilemma for educational research as we move toward and into the 21st century will
be how the research and scholarship that we do are ever going to find their way into practice. We've
had various models of the proper relationship between research and practice. None of the models
work very well." (p. 25)
The significance of this challenge is stressed by the fact that there is a growing need to reform
education in order to keep pace with the ongoing fast developments in today's society. For
instance, in a report of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) (1995) entitled
Education for Europeans. Towards the learning society, a cry of alarm was raised to alert society
to the so-called educational gap, i.e. the fact that – due to its slowness in responding to changes in
society – there is “an ever-widening gap between the education that people need for today’s
complex world and the education they receive” (ERT, 1995, p.6). This problem is even
increasing because recently the pace of societal developments has accelerated dramatically due,
among others, to the exponential knowledge explosion, to the phenomenon of globalization in
many domains of society, esp. economics and politics, and to the large-scale introduction of the
new information and communication technologies.
The same report (ERT, 1996, p. 15) puts forward the following characteristics of a learning
society which represent a rather good synthesis of the advances in our understanding of learning
referred to by Brown in the quote above:
“-
learning is accepted as a continuous activity throughout life;
-
learners assume responsibility for their own progress;
-
assessment is designed to confirm progress rather than to sanction failure;
-
personal competence and shared values and team spirit are recognized equally with the
pursuit of knowledge;
-
learning is a partnership between students, teachers, parents, employers, and the community
working together.”
3
One approach that has been put forward as a potential lever to overcome the theory-practice gap
consists in the conduct of so-called design experiments that aim at the development of a design
science of education that can guide the development and the implementation of novel powerful
learning environments (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992). In this presentation I will first briefly discuss
the use of design experiments as lever for the simultaneous pursuit of theory building and practice
innovation. Then, as an illustation two related recent design experiments in the domain of learning
and teaching problem solving in mathematics will be described. A short discussion section,
involving some future perspectives, will conclude the presentation.
Design experiments: A lever for the joint pursuit of theory building and practice innovation
According to Collins (1992), a design science of education, elaborated on the basis of design
experiments,
"must determine how different designs of learning environments contribute to learning, cooperation,
motivation, etc." (p. 15)
As a result a design theory should emerge that can guide the implementation of educational
innovations by identifying the variables influencing their success or failure. In view of bridging the
research-practice gap, this intervention approach has a twofold goal: it intends to advance theory
building about learning from instruction, while at the same contributing to the fundamental
innovation of classroom education. The underlying idea is that an effective way at better
understanding the processes of learning - and thus at advancing theory - consists in the design of
powerful learning environments that can elicit and keep going in students the intended processes of
knowledge and skill acquisition. As argued by Brown (1994), theory building is crucial for
conceptual understanding as well as for practical dissemination.
This intervention approach to research on learning and instruction is not at all new, albeit that
different labels have been used. In Russian educational psychology this kind of inquiry has always
been usual. For instance, Kalmykova (1966) distinguished between ascertaining and teaching or
formative experiments. While ascertaining experiments aim mainly at describing how learning
occurs under given conditions of instruction, teaching experiments are characterized by an
intervention of the researcher: starting from a hypothesis concerning the optimal course of a learning
4
process a teaching-learning environment is developed and implemented that intends to elicit this
kind of learning; analysis of the learning activities and the learning outcomes of the students leads to
conclusions relating to the degree of confirmation or falsification of the initial hypothesis, possibly
followed by its revision as a starting point for continued intervention research. It is important to
remark that both types of experiments are complementary: findings and observations of ascertaining
studies contribute to formulating the hypotheses that constitute the starting point of formative
investigations; the outcomes of the latter studies can lead to new ascertaining experiments.
In the Netherlands and Flanders systematic teaching experiments have become the vogue in the
1970s when the Utrecht school of activity theory under the leadership of Carel van Parreren
dominated research on learning and instruction in the so-called Low Countries (Van Parreren &
Carpay, 1972). But also in the U.S.A. Glaser made already in 1976 a plea to conceive instructional
psychology as a science of design aiming at the development of more efficient educational programs
and teaching methods.
However, this kind of research has at the time fallen into disuse, a major reason being the dominance
in the U.S.A. in the late 1970s and the 1980s of cognitive psychology. Indeed, in the early days of
cognitive instructional psychology the focus of the research was on the knowledge structures and the
processes underlying human competence; as a consequence the study of the learning processes
necessary to acquire competence was pushed to the background (see e.g., Glaser & Bassok, 1991).
This trend has also been very influential in Western Europe. Of great significance in this respect has
been the NATO International Conference on Cognitive Psychology and Instruction, held in
Amsterdam in 1977 (Lesgold, Pellegrino, Fokkema, & Glaser, 1978). Meanwhile the situation has
gradually changed: the substantial progress made in our understanding of the knowledge structures,
the skills, and the processes underlying expert performance, has induced the reemergence of interest
in the learning processes that are required to acquire such competence, and consequently in the
instructional arrangements that can support and facilitate acquisition. This interest has also been
fostered by the emergence and growing impact since the late 1980s of the situated cognition and
learning paradigm in reaction to cognitive psychology's mentalistic and individualistic approach to
cognition and learning.
5
But, the important question that has to be answered now is: How and under what conditions should
design experiments be carried out in view of achieving the combined effect of contributing to
relevant theory building as well as to significant improvement of educational practices? In this
respect I have argued elsewhere that the design of powerful learning environments should take into
account our present research-based knowledge of the characteristics of productive learning as a
constructive, cumulative, self-regulated, goal-oriented, situated and collaborative, and individually
different process of knowledge building and meaning construction. However, in order to make a
reasonable chance of being successful in making psychological theory applicable to education one
should develop a strategy for conducting design experiments that combines and integrates the
following basic features (De Corte, 2000; see also National Research Council, 1999b):

a holistic (as opposed to a partial and reductionist) approach to the teaching-learning
environment, i.e. all relevant learner and teacher variables, but also the important aspects of the
environment should be addressed;

good reciprocal communication with practitioners based on a translation of the goals,
approaches, and outcomes of research in such a format that they become accessible, palatable,
and usable for the teachers;

induction of a fundamental change of teachers' beliefs systems and value orientations with
respect to the goals of education and to good teaching and productive learning (in line with the
conception described in the previous section).
Taking all this into account a promising strategy for design experiments as a lever for the
simultaneous pursuit of theory building and practice innovation, consists of the creation and
evaluation in real classrooms of complex instructional interventions that reflect and embody our
present understanding of effective learning processes and high-powered learning environments.
Such attempts at fundamentally changing the classroom environment and culture should be
undertaken in partnership between researchers and educational professionals. This partnership is
necessary for several reasons. It is an essential condition to promote mutual good understanding, but
also in view of modifying and reshaping teachers' beliefs about education, learning, and teaching.
But in addition, it is important to keep in mind that in the perspective of further dissemination of the
intended kind of innovative learning environments, they should be feasible in existing classrooms.
Therefore, the idea of partnership between researchers and practitioners is also crucial in view of the
6
necessary research-practice reciprocity. Whereas practitioners can help in translating theory into
practice, and, thus, in making classroom teaching more research-based, their partner role can also
contribute to make research more practice-driven (De Corte, 2000).
As an illustration of the proposed design approach to research on learning and instruction, the next
section will review two related studies carried out in the Leuven CIP&T that address children’s
mathematics word problem solving. In a first intervention study with upper primary school pupils,
an innovative, constructivist, and collaborative learning environment focusing at the development
of a mindful, strategic, and self-regulated approach toward mathematical problem solving, was
designed and evaluated. In a second study this learning environment was technologically
enriched by embedding in it "Knowledge Forum", a software tool designed to facilitate and foster
a "research team" approach to learning that supports collaborative inquiry and knowledge
building.
Study 1: Designing a high-powered learning community for mathematical problem solving
In the Flemish part of Belgium new standards for primary education became operational in the
school year 1998-1999 (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 1997). With respect to
mathematics - and in line with other recent reform documents such as the Curriculum and
evaluation standards for school mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989)
in the U.S.A. - these new standards stress more than was hitherto the case the importance of
mathematical reasoning and problem-solving skills and their applicability to real-life situations, as
well as the development of more positive attitudes and beliefs toward mathematics. As a
contribution to the implementation of those new standards we carried out a research project –
commissioned by the Department of Education of the Flemish government - aiming at the design
and evaluation of a powerful learning environment, that can elicit in upper primary school children
the appropriate learning processes for acquiring the intended competence in mathematical problem
solving as well as positive mathematics-related beliefs.
In line with the strategy described in the previous section the learning environment in the classroom
was fundamentally changed, and its design, implementation, and evaluation were done in narrow
7
cooperation with the teachers of the four participating experimental classrooms and their principals.
The learning environment consisted of a series of 20 lessons that were taught by the regular
classroom teachers (for a more detailed report about this study see Verschaffel, De Corte, Lasure,
Van Vaerenbergh, Bogaerts, & Ratinckx, 1999; Verschaffel, De Corte, Van Vaerenbergh, Lasure,
Bogaerts, & Ratinckx, 1998).
The learning environment in the four participating experimental classes was fundamentally
changed with respect to the following components: the content of learning and teaching, the nature
of the problems, the instructional techniques, and the classroom culture.
First, in terms of content the learning environment focused on the acquisition by the pupils of an
overall metacognitive strategy for solving mathematical application problems consisting of five
stages, and embedding a set of eight heuristic strategies which are especially valuable in the first two
stages of that strategy (see Table 1). Acquiring this problem-solving strategy involves: (1) becoming
aware of the different phases of a competent problem-solving process (awareness training); (2)
becoming able to monitor and evaluate one's actions during the different phases of the solution
process (self-regulation training); and (3) gaining mastery of the eight heuristic strategies (heuristic
strategy training).
-----------------------Insert Table 1 here
------------------------
Second, a varied set of carefully designed realistic (or authentic), complex, and open problems were
used that differ substantially from the traditional textbook tasks. Moreover, these problems were
presented in different formats: a text, a newspaper article, a brochure, a comic strip, a table, or a
combination of several of these formats. An example is given in Figure 1.
------------------------Insert Figure 1 here
-------------------------
8
Third, a learning communitiy was created through the application of a varied set of activating and
interactive instructional techniques. The basic instructional model for each lesson period consisted of
the following sequence of classroom activities: (1) a short whole-class introduction; (2) two group
assignments solved in fixed heterogeneous groups of three to four pupils, each of which was
followed by a whole-class discussion; (3) an individual task also with a subsequent whole-class
discussion. Throughout the whole lesson the teacher's role was to encourage and scaffold pupils to
engage in, and to reflect upon, the kinds of cognitive and metacognitive activities involved in the
model of skilled problem solving. These instructional supports were gradually faded out as pupils
became more competent in and aware of their problem-solving activity, and, thus, took more
responsibility for their own learning and problem-solving processes.
Fourth, an innovative classroom culture was created through the establishment of new sociomathematical norms about learning and teaching problem solving, and aiming at fostering positive
mathematics-related attitudes and beliefs in children, but in teachers as well. Typical aspects of this
classroom culture are: (1) stimulating pupils to articulate and reflect upon their solution strategies,
(mis-)conceptions, beliefs, and feelings relating to mathematical problem solving; (2) discussing
about what counts as a good problem, a good response, and a good solution procedure (e.g., "there
are often different ways to solve a problem"; "for some problems a rough estimate is a better answer
than an exact number"): (3) reconsidering the role of the teacher and the pupils in the mathematics
classroom (e.g., "the class as a whole will decide which of the generated solutions is the optimal one
after an evaluation of the pros and cons of the different alternatives").
In line with the standpoint taken above this learning environment was elaborated in partnership with
the teachers of the participating experimental classes and their principals. Before, during and after
the intervention in the classes a series of meetings was attended by all members of the research team
and by the four teachers and their principals.The model of teacher development adopted emphasized
the creation of a social context wherein teachers and researchers learn from each other through
continuous discussion and reflection on the basic principles of the learning environment, the learning
materials developed, and the teachers' practices during the lessons.
9
In view of contributing to theory building, the effects of the learning environment on pupils were
evaluated in an experiment with a pretest-posttest-retention test design with an experimental group
and a comparable control group, using thereby a wide variety of data-gathering and analysis
techniques. The results can be summarized as follows. According to the scores on a self-made
written word problem pretest and a parallel posttest and retention test, the intervention had - in
comparison with the control group - a significant and stable positive effect on the experimental
pupils' skill in solving mathematical application problems. The learning environment had also a
significant, albeit small positive impact on children's pleasure and persistence in solving
mathematics problems, and on their mathematics-related beliefs and attitudes, as measured by a selfmade Likert-type questionnaire. The results on a standard achievement test showed that the extra
attention during the mathematics lessons for cognitive and metacognitive strategies, beliefs, and
attitudes in the experimental classes did not have a negative influence on the learning outcomes for
other, more traditional parts of the mathematics curriculum. To the contrary, there was even a
significant positive transfer effect; indeed, the experimental classes performed significantly better
than the control classes on this standard achievement test. The analysis of pupils' written notes on
their response sheets of the word problem test showed that the better results of the experimental
children were paralleled by a very substantial increase in the spontaneous use of the heuristic
strategies taught in the learning environment; this finding was confirmed by a qualitative analysis of
videotapes of the problem-solving processes of three groups of two children from each experimental
class before and after the intervention. Finally, we found that not only the high and the medium
ability pupils, but also those of low ability benefited significantly - albeit to a smaller degree - from
the intervention in all aspects just mentioned. In theoretical perspective these results show that a
substantially modified learning environment, combining a set of carefully designed word problems
with highly interactive teaching methods and the introduction of new socio-mathematical classroom
norms, can lead to the creation of high-powered learning communities which significantly boost
pupils cognitive and metacognitive competency in solving mathematical word problem.
In the perspective of contributing to the innovation of classroom practice, it is first of all
important to report that all four experimental teachers implemented the learning environment in a
satisfactory way, although clear differences among them were observed on the distinct
components of an implementation profile. In addition the following conclusions derived from an
10
extensive interview with the four experimental teachers after the intervention but before they
knew children's results, are promising. First, they considered the five-step competent problemsolving model as appropriate and attainable for fifth graders. Second, they evaluated the content
and the organization of the learning environment very positively, and were greatly satisfied with
the support and help during the implementation of the intervention. Finally, they were very
enthusiastic about their active involvement and participation in the project; that this meant more
than just a momentary feeling is shown by the fact that three of them were immediately willing
to participate in a subsequent similar, and again very demanding design experiment with respect
to reading comprehension, and that they and - in the schools were there is one or more parallel
fifth grade - even their colleagues continue to apply the basic principles of the learning
environment in their mathematics teaching. In between the lesson materials have been revised
and transformed in a format that makes them appropriate for use in classroom practice and in
teacher training (Verschaffel, De Corte, Lasure, & Van Vaerenbergh, 1999), conditional,
however, on being accompanied by substantial teacher guidance and support. Indeed, as observed
by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997), the changes that we are asking the
teachers to make are "much too complex to be communicated succinctly in a workshop and then
enacted in isolation once the teachers returned to their schools" (p. 116).
Study 2: Networking minds in a high-powered mathematics learning community
These results of the previous study encouraged us, to combine in a second investigation the
theoretical ideas and principles relating to socio-constructivist mathematics learning and to
teachers’ professional development with a second strand of theory and research focusing on the
(meta)-cognitive aspects of computer-supported collaborative knowledge construction and skill
building. Taking into account the available empirical evidence showing that computer-supported
collaborative learning (CSCL) is a promising lever for the improvement of learning and
instruction (Lehtinen, Hakkarainen, Lipponen, Rahikainen, & Muukkonen, 1999), we assumed
that the learning environment designed in the previous study could be made more powerful by
enriching it with a CSCL component, namely “Knowledge Forum”.
11
This study was part of the more comprehensive CL-Net project (Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning Networks in Primary and Secondary Education) funded by the European
Union. The overall aim of the CL-Net project was to examine how knowledge construction and
skill building can be fostered in primary and secondary school pupils by immersing them under the
guidance of a teacher in computer-supported collaborative learning networks (CLNs). CLNs can be
characterized as powerful learning environments in which technology-based cognitive tools are
embedded as means and resources that can elicit and mediate in a community of networked learners
active and progressively more self-regulated processes of collaborative knowledge acquisition,
meaning construction, and problem solving. The project combined the relevant expertise available
in eight research centers spread over five European countries. The shared expertise related to such
aspects as software development, teacher preparation for the implemention of CLNs, design
principles for technology-supported powerful learning environments, and the construction of
assessment instruments.
Within this broader framework of the CL-Net project the present investigation aimed at the design,
implementation, and evaluation of a CSCL environment that facilitates the distributed learning of
solving and posing complex mathematical application problems in upper primary school children.
As in the previous study the learning environment focused on the acquisition in pupils of the fivestep metacognitive strategy and the embedded heuristics for solving problems, as well as on
affecting positively their beliefs and attitudes toward mathematical problem solving. In addition the
CSCL environment aimed at fostering in pupils communication and collaboration skills relating to
problem solving and problem posing, on the one hand, and computer skills, on the other, especially
proficiency in working, learning, and communicating with CSCL software. The basic hypothesis of
the present investigation was that the technological enrichment of the learning environment from
the preceding intervention study by embedding in it the cognitive technological tools that
constitute a CLN, would lead to a significant improvement in the quality of upper primary school
pupils’ problem-solving and communication processes and skills, and, by doing so, would result
in greater learning effects. In addition the study intended to explore and elaborate an effective
strategy to guide and support teachers in the embedded appropriate use of cognitive technological
tools in their teaching of mathematical problem solving (for a more detailed report of the study
see Verschaffel, De Corte, Lowyck, Dhert, & Vandeput, 2000).
12
The same basic design principles as in Study 1 were used in developing the CSCL environment:
1. Use of a varied set of (non-traditional) complex, realistic, and challenging word problems that
elicit and enhance the application of heuristic and metacognitive strategies (an example is given
in Figure 2);
2. Application of highly interactive and collaborative instructional techniques. i.e. small-group
activities followed by whole-class discussions;
3. Creation of a fundamentally changed classroom culture and climate based on new social and
socio-mathematical norms established through negotiation in the community of learners in the
class.
-------------------------Insert Figure 2 here
-------------------------However, this environment was enriched by embedding in it “Knowledge Forum” (KF), a software
tool which - like its predecessor CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment,
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1992) - is designed to foster a networked “research team” approach to
learning that supports knowledge building, collaboration, and progressive inquiry. Key features
in “Knowledge” Forum are a series of cognitive tools for constructing and storing notes, for
sharing notes and exchanging comments on them, and for scaffolding students in their acquisition
of
specific cognitive operations and particular concepts (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1998).
Whereas in most other studies the communication through KF is entirely open and unstructured,
pupils' use of KF in our CSCL environment was initially quite restricted and teacher-regulated;
more intensive and self-regulated involvement with KF increased gradually as pupils became
more familiar with the expert five-step model of solving mathematical application problems and
with the software.
For the teachers the introduction of the CLN-approach amounted to the adoption and
implementation of a fundamentally new role and pedagogy based on a technology-supported,
collaborative, and self-regulated perspective on learning. Therefore, substantial attention was paid
13
to the cooperation with and the guidance of the teachers. Taking also here as a starting point that the
intended fundamental change of the classroom environment and culture should be undertaken in
partnership between the researchers and the participating teachers (De Corte, 2000), the preparation
of the teaching materials was done by the researchers in consultation with the teachers. However,
the lessons were taught by the regular classroom teachers, who were also responsible for the
coaching of the pupils during the small-group activities and for the leadership of the whole-class
discussion. In that perspective a substantial part of the teacher preparation was realized by
simulating the new computer-supported approach to learning and teaching problem solving in the
format of an interaction between the researchers and the teachers, both groups taking turns in acting
as teachers and as pupils.
The designed learning environment was implemented in two fifth-grade and two sixth-grade
classes of a Flemish primary school from January to May 1999. A computer was available in
each classroom; in addition, teachers and pupils had access to a classroom with a large number of
computers all networked to a common server.. Each of the participating classes spent about two
hours a week in the learning environment over a period of 17 weeks. The series of lessons can be
divided in five phases.
Phase 1 (2 weeks): Introduction by the teacher and exploration by the pupils of the five-step
problem-solving strategy and the software tool Knowledge Forum.
Phase 2 (3 weeks): In the beginning of each week the children solved in groups of three a
problem presented in KF by a comic-strip character called FIXIT. Initially they could use
scaffolds provided by FIXIT in the form of KF-notes with strategic help for solving the problem
in a mindful way. Taking turns they imported their solution but also their solution strategy in KF,
on which the teacher - through FIXIT - made comments in KF before the second lesson at the end
of the week. During that lesson a whole-class discussion was organized about the solution and
solution strategies of the different groups taking into account the teacher's comments (presented
by FIXIT), and about the role and use of KF in problem solving.
Phase 3 (6 weeks): Pupils continued to work on complex application problems (two weeks per
problem) presented by FIXIT through KF. However, in this phase the scaffolds were gradually
withdrawn as the pupils made progress, and they were encouraged to read the work of the other
14
groups and to comment on it in KF before the whole-class discussion at the end of the second
week.
Phase 4 (4 weeks): In the beginning of each of two two-week periods the groups had to pose an
interesting mathematics application problem themselves which they imported in KF; also they
had to solve at least one problem posed by another group. Each group acted as "coach" for the
other groups with respect to their own problem. The products of that work (problems posed ,
solutions given by the groups, and possible comments, all imported in KF) were again the object
of whole-class discussion and reflection at the end of the two-week period.
Phase 5 (2 weeks): All four particpating classes got involved in an international two-week
exchange project with pupils from an elementary school in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, during
which pairs of Flemish and Dutch groups of pupils exchanged problems and problem solution in
a similar way as in Phase 4.
A large variety of instruments – a word problem test, several questionnaires, logfiles analysis,
classroom observations using videoregistration , and interviews with pupils and teachers - was
used to collect quantitative data before and after the intervention about the cognitive,
metacognitive, and affective effects of the learning environment on the participating pupils, as
well as qualitative data about its implemention and about the changes in the pupils’ and the
teachers’ mathematical thinking and communication processes in reaction to the CLN-based
environment. The findings that derived from the analysis of all these data, can be summarized as
folows.
The cognitive, metacognitive, and affective effects of the CLN-environment on the pupils were
mixed. According to the results of the word problem pretest and posttest, the learning
environment has a significant positive effect on the problem-solving competency of the sixth
graders, but not of the fifth graders. Contrary to what was observed in the previous technologylean study (Verschaffel et al., 1999), questionnaire data revealed no significant positive impact of
the intervention on children’s pleasure and persistence in solving mathematical application
problems, nor on their beliefs about and attitudes toward learning and teaching mathematical
problem solving. However, the CLN-environment yielded a significant positive influence on
pupils’ beliefs about and attitudes toward (collaborative) learning in general. Finally, a significant
15
effect of the intervention was also found on children’s beliefs about and attitudes toward
computers in general and computer-supported learning in particular.
The study has shown that it is possible to create a high-powered computer-supported learning
community for teaching and learning mathematical problem solving in the upper primary school.
From the data of the teacher evaluation forms administered throughout the intervention and the
answers during the final interviews, we can derive that the teachers were very enthusiastic about
their participation and involvement in the investigation. Their positive appreciation of the
learning environment related to both, the approach to the teaching of problem solving as well as
the use of KF as a supporting tool for learning; for instance, they reported several positive
developments observed in their pupils such as a more mindful and reflective approach to word
problems. Furthermore the implementation profiles, based on the analyses of videotaped lessons
of the two sixth-grade teachers, indicated a high degree of fidelity of implementation of the
learning environment.
Finally, the CLN-environment was also enthusiastically received by most of the pupils.
Throughout the lessons and in reaction to FIXIT’s farewell note at the end of the intervention,
they expressed that they liked this way of doing word problems much more than the traditional
approach. Many of the children also reported to have learned something new, both about
information technology and about mathematical problem solving.
Discussion and implications
The two design experiments presented in the previous sections were carried out with a twofold
goal: to contribute to innovation and improvement of educational practices in line with a new
conception of the goals of mathematics education, on the one hand, and to advance theory
building about learning higher-order cognitive and metacognitive skills for mathematics problem
solving from instruction, on the other. The results of the two intervention studies support the
standpoint that our present understanding of productive learning as an active, constructive,
collaborative and progressively more self-regulated process can guide the design of novel, but
also practically applicable learning environments that are high-powered in view of boosting
children’s competence in an important domain like mathematical problem solving. We have
obtained similar findings in a recent investigation in which a powerful learning environment for
16
strategic reading comprehension in fifth graders was designed (De Corte, Verschaffel, & Van de
Ven, in press), but also in a project aimed at improving metacognitive knowledge and selfregulatory skills in university freshmen in business economy (Masui & De Corte, 1999). While
these findings are very promising, we should also be aware that their contribution to our twofold
goal just mentioned is still rather modest.
From the perspective of innovating classroom practice, the outcomes of the two design
experiments should not be overrated. In this regard it is interesting to consider the two studies
from the perspective put forward by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996)
concerning the interplay between theories of learning and educational practice. More specifically,
the Group has elaborated an interesting framework for looking at the research on educational
technology in the context of learning theory and educational practice (see Figure 3). Their LTC
(Looking at Technology in Context) framework consists of two dimensions:
- research contexts ranging from in vitro laboratory settings over individual classrooms to connected
sets of classrooms and schools;
- theoretical contexts ranging from the transmission model of learning over constructivist models
applied during a part of the school day to constructivist approaches used during all of schooling.
---------------------Insert Figure 3 here
----------------------
The challenge, not only for educational technology research but for research on learning and
instruction in general, is to move toward the second and even third rows of the LTC framework.
The interventions designed and implemented in the studies presented above fit in cell 5 of the
LTC framework which refers to innovative, constructivist-oriented learning environments relating to
only a part of schooling. This is still far remote from covering the whole curriculum in line with the
approach underlying the basic principles of the intended high-powered learning communities.
Moreover, we should realize that effective implementation of learning environments as the ones
developed in our design experiments, puts extremely high demands on the teachers and requires
drastic changes in their role and teaching practices. Instead of being the main, if not the only source
17
of information - as is often still the case in average educational practice - the teacher becomes a
"privileged" member of the knowledge building community, who creates an intellectually
stimulating climate, models learning and problem-solving activities, asks provoking questions,
provides support to learners through coaching and guidance, and fosters students' agency over and
responsibility for their own learning. Disseminating this new perspective on learning and teaching
widely in practice will take a long time and much effort in partnership between researchers and
professionals. Indeed, it is not just a matter of acquiring a set of new instructional techniques, but it
calls for a fundamental and profound change in teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and mentality. Such an
endeavour transcends the field of research on learning and instruction, and constitutes a challenge
for collaboration among educational researchers with a variety of expertise; for instance, it is
indispensable to take into account the contextual, social, and organizational dimensions of
classrooms and schools wherein reforms are induced (Stokes, Sato, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1997).
Let us now turn to the second goal of the design approach to research, namely contributing to the
elaboration of a theory of learning from instruction In this respect some methodological
considerations are in order. Due to the quasi-experimental design of both experiments, the
complexity of the learning environments, and the rather small experimental groups, it is
impossible to establish the relative importance of the different components of the interventions in
producing the positive effects on the use and transfer of the cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. From an analytical perspective this is often considered as a methodological weakness
of design experiments. Here one is confronted with the well-known tension between what
Fenstermacher and Richardson (1994) have called the disciplinary versus the educational
orientation in educational psychology. Because the disciplinary orientation has dominated for a
large part of the twentieth century, the prevailing type of research consited for a long time of studies
in what was above "in vitro laboratory settings" characterized by a great concern for internal
validity, and, thus, including a high degree of experimental precision. According to Salomon (1996)
this approach to research has led to the study of psychological processes and variables in isolation,
and of individual learners independent from their social and cultural environment. This way of
conducting research easily overlooks educationally important aspects, and, therefore, lacks
classroom relevance or ecological validity. Therefore, the more systemic approach of the studies
reported in the preceding sections is perfectly appropriate and defensible when the focus of
18
interest is to evaluate the quality and the effectiveness of a multicomponential intervention as
represented by our powerful collaborative learning environments (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter,
& Schuder, 1996). In fact, it is plausible to assume that it is the combination of different aspects
of the design, the content, and the implementation of the environments that is responsible for the
learning gains. All this in not to say that the systemic approach cannot be beneficially
complemented by more analytic research, such as studies in which different versions of complex
learning environments are systematically contrasted and compared in view of the identification of
those aspects which contribute especially to their high power and success. In addition, involving
larger numbers of experimental classes in future investigations will allow to derive more reliable
and generalizable conclusions about the effectiveness of the learning environments, but at the
same time to study more systematically the relationship between the teachers’ implementation of
those interventions, on the one hand, and their pupils’ learning outcomes, on the other.
References
Ausubel, D.P., & Robinson, F.G. (1969). School learning: An introduction to educational
psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Berliner, D.C., & Calfee, R.C. (Eds.). (1996a). Afterword. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp.1020-1022). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Berliner, D.C., & Calfee, R.C. (Eds.). (1996b). Handbook of educational psychology. New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
Brown, A.L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 28(8), 4-12.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1996) Psychological theory and the design of innovative
learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, L., & Glaser, R.
(Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruer, J.T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, MIT Press.
19
Carpenter, T.P., & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively Guided Instruction: Building on the
knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 17, 457-470.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A
framework for understanding technology and education research. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807-840). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New
directions in educational technology (NATO-ASI Series F: Computers and Systems Sciences, Vol.
96, pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
De Corte, E. (1995a). Designing powerful teaching-learning environments conducive to the
acquisition of cognitive skills. In R. Olechowski & G. Khan-Svik (Eds.), Experimental research
on teaching and learning (pp. 67-82). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
De Corte, E. (1995b). Fostering cognitive development: A perspective from research on
mathematics learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 30, 37-46.
De Corte, E. (1996). Changing views of computer-supported learning environments for the
acquisition of knowledge and thinking skills. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl
(Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp.
129-145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D.C.
Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491-549). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Fenstermacher, G.D., & Richardson, V. (1994). Promoting confusion in educational psychology:
How is it done? Educational Psychologist, 29, 49-55.
Glaser, R., Lieberman, A., & Anderson, R. (1997). "The vision thing": Educational research and
AERA in the 21st century. Part 3: Perspectives on the research-practice relationship. Educational
Researcher, 26(7), 24-25.
Glaser, R., & Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, testing, and instruction. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.),
Review of research in education. Volume 20 (pp. 393-419). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
20
Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner &
R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York, NY: Macmillan
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American
Educational Research Journal, 26, 160-189.
Kaput, J.J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kennedy, M.M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher,
26(7), 4-12.
Lesh, R., & Lamon, S.J. (Eds.) (1992). Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics.
Washington, DC: AAAS.
Lester, F.K., Lambdin, D.V., & Preston, R.V. (1997). A new vision of the nature and purposes of
assessment in the mathematics classroom. In G.D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment:
Learning, adjustment, and achievement (pp. 287-319). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (1997). Gewoon basisonderwijs: Ontwikkelings-doelen en
eindtermen. Besluit van mei ‘97 en decreet van juli ‘97 [Educational standards for the elementary
school]. Brussel: Departement Onderwijs, Centrum voor Informatie en Documentatie.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Techers of Mathematics.
National Research Council. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. (1999a). How
people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. (1999b).
How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine. Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York:
Basic Books.
Phillips, D.C. (Ed.). (1994). Epistimological perspectives on educational psychology. (Special
issue). Educational Psychologist, 29, 1-55.
Romberg, T.A. (Ed.). (1995). Reform in school mathematics and authentic assessment. Albany,
NY: State University of New York.
21
Salomon, G. (1996). Unorthodox thoughts on the nature and mission of contemporary
educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 397-417.
Schauble, L., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1996). Innovations in learning: New environments for
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shulman, L.S. (1970). Reconstruction of educational research. Review of Educational Research, 40,
371-396.
Stokes, L.M., Sato, N.E., McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (1997). Theory-based reform and
problems of change: Contexts that matter for teachers' learning and community. Stanford, CA:
Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Teaching, School of Education, Stanford
University
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., & Van Vaerenbergh, G. (1999). Leren oplossen van
vraagstukken. Een lessenreeks voor leerlingen uit de hoogste klassen van de basisschool [Learning
to solve word problems: A series of lessons for pupils in the upper primary school]. Diegem,
België: Kluwer..
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., Van Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E.
(1999). Learning to solve mathematical application problems: A design experiment with fifth
graders. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Van Vaerenbergh, G., Lasure, S., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E.
(1998). Leren oplossen van wiskundige contextproblemen in de bovenbouw van de basisschool
[Learning to solve mathematical context problems in the upper primary school].(Studia
Paedagogica, 22). Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
Weinert, F.E., & De Corte, E. (1996). Translating research into practice. In E. De Corte & F.E.
Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Wittrock, M.C., & Farley, F. (Eds.). (1989). The future of educational psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in m
22
Table 1. The competent problem-solving model underlying the learning environment
STEP 1: BUILD A MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
Heuristics:
Draw a picture
Make a list, a scheme or a table
Distinguish relevant from irrelevant data
Use your real-world knowledge
STEP 2: DECIDE HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
Heuristics : Make a flowchart
Guess and check
Look for a pattern
Simplify the numbers
STEP 3: EXECUTE THE NECESSARY CALCULATIONS
STEP 4: INTERPRET THE OUTCOME AND FORMULATE AN ANSWER
STEP 5: EVALUATE THE SOLUTION
23
Figure 1. Example of a word problem used in the lesson about the heuristic ‘Use your real-world
knowledge’ (step 1)
Wim would like to make a swing at a branch of a big old tree. The branch has a height of 5 meter.
Wim has already made a suitable wooden seat for his swing. Now Wim is going to buy some rope.
How many meters of rope will Wim have to buy?
24
Figure 2. The Traffic Jam problem
25
Figure 3: LTC (Looking at Technology in Context) Framework
(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1996)
26