WORK IN PROGRESS

at the University of Minnesota:
Promising Approaches for Teaching Technology Skills

• Need to Ask About Teaching Practices
• Alternative Approaches for Teaching Technology Skills
• Why So Little Evidence of Minimalist Approaches?
• Two Types of Program Goals
• For More Information
• References

by Judith J. Lambrecht

Workers need to know how to use information technology well. Answering the question of what these workers need to know--what hardware and what software--is easier than answering the question of how technology skills should be taught. "Computer end users" overwhelmingly are using applications software (e.g., word processing, spreadsheets, and presentation software). Such software packages, used with divergent levels of expertise, are assumed to be part of the technology competencies currently required by at least 65% of the workforce. By the year 2000, less than a year away, 95% of all workers are projected to be using such software. Effective use of applications technology includes knowing: (1) how the technology operates, (2) business concepts being applied, and (3) expectations in a given work place.

This NCRVE project, "Developing Employment-Related Technology Skills," will develop guidelines for instructional programs, particularly those in office technology, based on the practices in schools already judged to be exemplary in their program design and teaching practices. The 1998 research describes teaching and learning practices in exemplary programs, primarily at the postsecondary level, from the view of students, teachers, and employers. These programs were judged exemplary by state- and national-level professional staff because of their reputations for responsiveness to current employment needs, innovative programs, comprehensive office technology programs, and consistent student employment placement.

Teachers, students and employers of program interns were interviewed in five technical/community colleges and one technical high school over the course of six months. It was easiest for teachers and students to think about challenging software aspects to teach/learn. When learning is progressing well, effective teaching practices may be transparent but when a software element is challenging, then both teachers and students find it natural to talk about what happens and what works well for them.

Need to Ask About Teaching Practices

Choosing course content is challenging in a field, such as technology, which changes so rapidly. Attention has been given to which software to teach, which version, and which platform. Less attention has been given to how to teach technology skills effectively for employment purposes. The most prominent approach is a systematic, step-by-step process that engages students in comprehensive software instruction. These teaching assumptions inherent to this approach are implied in most popular instructional materials. Teachers need to consider whether or not they agree with these assumptions.

An alternative, the minimalist approach to teaching software, has been suggested by research. We expected that this approach would be observed in exemplary school settings; however, it was conspicuously absent except for the most advanced levels of instruction.

Learners need to able to transfer their knowledge to business settings, and to continue to learn new software as versions and applications change. While teaching technology use is a dominant concern for business teachers, the literature does not probe the effectiveness of different instructional practices beyond general concerns about course structure and content selection. In the business education literature, asking what technology to teach is much more common than asking how to teach it.

Current teaching methods books (Lundgren, Lundgren & Mundrake, 1995; and Mundrake, 1998) for business computing teachers follow the pattern of providing a primary focus on teaching specific types of software. An unexamined assumption is that systematic, frequently student-paced, instructional practices are an appropriate choice. However, when problem solving is an important instructional outcome, the systematic, step-by-step approach to instruction can cause problems. Lundgren, Lundgren and Mundrake (1995) make this statement about teaching software using the systematic, step-by-step approach:

One of the major criticisms of self-paced material is the push-button nature of available resources. Students are told to press keys to perform functions at a given time. When students are confronted with "real-world" situations, they do not know what to do or why to do it. Tutorial and other self-paced materials may serve well as introduction lessons, but the test of students' abilities to adapt come from advanced applications that require critical thinking. (pp. 45-46)

The main goal of all instruction is transfer of software skills out of the classroom into the "real world." Furthermore, we are chiefly concerned about students' abilities to learn new software and deal with unexpected job requirements. It is important to ask what type of instruction is most likely to lead to these valued outcomes.

Alternative Approaches for Teaching Technology Skills

As suggested by the reference to "push button" versus "advanced" instruction, at least two different approaches exist for teaching computing; systematic and minimalist. Proponents of both approaches claim them to be appropriate for novice learners, but for different reasons. Each approach makes different assumptions about how people learn. As a result, the teaching strategies and instructional materials associated with each approach are quite different.[1]

Systematic Computing Instruction. The basic assumptions about learning that undergird the systematic approach can be traced to the influential work of Robert Gagne (1985) in the Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction and, more recently Gagne and Medsker (1996) The Conditions of Learning: Training Applications. Gagne's theory is based on a behaviorist or information processing view of learning.

To guide implementation of this model of learning, Gagne (1985) identified five types of learning and nine events of instruction to support the assumed internal learning processes, as listed in Table 1. (Critique of any current computing applications textbook will allow all nine of these events to be identified.) This model emphasizes the mental structure of knowledge to be acquired by the learner; therefore, the most prominent aspect of systematic instruction is the content to be learned. This leads to a strong dependence on pre-specified learning outcomes, identification of these outcomes by learning type, and subsequent hierarchical task analysis to support the sequencing of teaching modules. While the initial status of the learner is important (hence, the need for pre-assessment), and the needs and interests of students are hard to ignore, the primary focus is on what is to be learned and how this learning can be demonstrated by learner performance.

The chief benefits of the systematic approach for learning computing skills are comprehensive coverage of software features and the ability of students to work toward mastery independently in response to their current skill levels. The chief criticism of the systematic approach is lack of evidence for transfer of learning to new contexts, particularly contexts that require problem-solving skills. Problem solving is considered a higher-level skill that needs to be preceded by lower-level concept and skill development. Because problem solving may be postponed, some students may not reach this point, and, even more serious, might not acquire the deeper-level understandings and self-confidence needed to solve new problems. Response to these criticisms comes from the minimalist approach.

Minimalist Computing Instruction. The minimalist approach was developed through research conducted in the 1980s primarily with word processing software by John M. Carroll (1990, 1998) and publicized in the book The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill. This model is based on constructivist assumptions about learning and stems from attempts to deal with what Carroll identifies as the "paradox of learning:" in order to learn, the student must interact with the system; but in order to interact with the system, the student must learn. This immediately raises the question of where to start. The minimalist answer is with the needs and interests of the student rather than the features of the software.

Fundamental to the minimalist teaching approach is the assumption that learning is inevitably a construction of meaning by the learner in response to the learner's current understanding and expectations within a social context. It should be noticed that, like information-processing theory, constructivism is a theory (some would say a philosophy) about learning, not a theory about teaching. Constructivist assumptions are beginning to appear in the business education literature when the broad implications of technology on instruction are examined. Taylor and Jeffers (1994) have participated in this discussion by asking how technology is likely to change the teacher's role. They concluded that teachers will be in more learner-centered classrooms, encourage more active learning in teacher-guided environments, and generally work in more collaborative and cooperative teaching settings.

Research, generally in industry settings, has repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of minimalist instruction. Table 1 lists four principles for designing minimalist computing instructional settings. Prominent in this approach is concern for the complexity of software use. This means more attention is given to the social context of software learning and its subsequent use. Learning through error recovery is particularly prominent, given the great likelihood of computing problems. Errors or "breakdowns" while working are useful for calling learner's atttention to essential software rules and features. The minimalist approach gives considerable regard to the learner's perspective in the context of a work environment. The learner's or worker's perspective is inextricably linked with the social setting in which he or she participates. The institutional structures, tools and human participants are as important as the individual's mental processes.

Table 1: Comparison of Instructional Approaches

Why So Little Evidence of Minimalist Approaches?

Transfer of learning of computing skills from training site to employment setting has been shown in previous research to be a more likely outcome of minimalist instructional approaches than systematic skill instruction (Carroll, 1990 and 1998). However, current observations during 1998 in exemplary technical colleges have shown most programs to have primarily a systematic orientation in their instructional materials selection and instructional practices. Virtually all of the programs provided introductory and intermediate-level computer training using systematically-oriented instructional approaches.

The question to be raised is why initial software instruction in exemplary schools does not make earlier application of minimalist teaching practices. Two factors seem be key in explaining the preference for using systematic instructional materials and practices for teaching technology skills: level of software expertise and needs of the learner, and characteristics of the social environment.

Levels of Software Expertise. Certain learner characteristics may create the need by beginners for what may appear to be systematic instruction for using computing tools. As part of their critique of the goals of artificial intelligence research, Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) developed a five-stage model of skill acquisition that may be useful in understanding the effectiveness of office technology programs. Students enrolled in formal education to learn computing skills may best be characterized as being at the lower stages of development. The implication, if one accepts this model, is that systematic instruction might be more appropriate to their needs. However, if one also accepts the assumptions that few computer users progress beyond the first two stages (Hackos & Stevens, 1997), many instructional goals would remain unfulfilled. Awareness of these five levels may assist in interpreting the types of learners for whom different learning settings are more appropriate. These five stages are summarized in Figure 1.

If most learners in formal educational settings are likely to be at novice or advanced beginners states if computing skill, this may exert pressure to provide systematic, very supportive instruction. Equally important to the level of learner skill in influencing instructional choices is the school environment. As social structures, schools create expectations among both students and teachers about what their roles are and what their goals ought to be.

Contrasting Social Environments. The choice of systematic by office technology teachers is undoubtedly affected by their judgments about works best for their students. What works best must also work within a given school environment. Schools are distinctive in that course content needs to be "packaged" to fit within a calendar-based timeline. Further, it must be possible with large numbers of students to be able to account for what has been accomplished within the time-constraints of a single course or program. This means that the program outcomes cannot be ambiguous or given largely to the control of the student. Completing instruction directed toward pre-specified competencies or program outcomes, and doing so within a pre-specified time period, creates a school culture that may minimize the freedom that can be extended to novice software learners.

Figure 1: Five Stages of Development for Computer Users

1. Novice computer users:
   • have no previous experience
   • experience concern about their ability to succeed
   • don't want to learn, only accomplish a goal
   • don't know how to respond to mistakes
   • are vulnerable to confusion
2. Advanced beginner computer users:
   • try tasks on their own
   • have difficulty troubleshooting
   • want information fast
3. Competent computer users:
   • develop conceptual models
   • troubleshoot problems on their own[2]
   • seek out expert user advice
4. Proficient computer users:
   • want to understand the larger conceptual framework
   • frustrated by oversimplified information
   • correct previous poor task performance
   • learn from the experience of others
5. Expert computer users:
   • are primary sources of knowledge and information
   • continually look for better models

(Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Hackos & Stevens, 1997)

The Concept of "Discourse." All action, including schooling action, is situated. Gee has developed the notion of Discourse as the situating context. "A Discourse is composed of ways of talking, listening, reading, writing, acting, interacting, believing, valuing, and using tools and objects, in particular settings and at specific times, so as to display or to recognize a particular social identity (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996, p.10)". In this view, learning is situated and interpreted in the multiple discourses to which the learner belongs--the school being a key one. The discourse(s) represented by the employment goals also affect learning. These are the new materials, tools, and ways of thinking that the learner is confronting in employment-related programs. Early on, the discourse of the new skill is so unfamiliar that the learner approaches the situation by way of other discourse(s) in which the learner is expert, which in the case of school-based instruction may likely be the discourse of schooling. The schooling discourse is likely to imply characteristic ways of thinking. Some of these include:

• the teacher as expert;
• teacher as pouring knowledge into the brains of students;
• "what do I have to do to get a good grade?" and
• certification of learning, rather than proficiency, as the final outcome.

All of these expectations may make the systematic approach for teaching both natural and successful. The challenge for teachers is how to assistant students in their movement from the discourse of schooling to the discourse of employment.

Whatever a student's primary discourse, certain assumptions can be made about the nature of the learning process. Learning requires variation, requires unexpected events to occur and is facilitated when outcomes are different from learners' initial expectations. The notion of the zone of proximal development attributed to Vygotksy (Saloman & Perkins, 1998; O'Connor, 1998) extends the concept of learning to include support from the environment and other persons. The zone of proximal development is the social space wherein learning occurs when a learner engages in activity that he or she can more or less successfully attempt with the help of a more knowledgeable other. The ideas of discourse developed by Gee connect to these ideas about learning in that discourse provides the relevance framework that defines what variation is worth attending to. Other members and artifacts in the social practice defined by the discourse provide the more knowledgeable "other," building a scaffold to the current skill level of the learner.

Further, it can be argued that the outcome of learning is better understood as becoming a kind of person rather than gaining a particular skill. "Discourses create, produce and reproduce opportunities for people to be and recognize certain kinds of people" (Hacking 1986, 1994). These ideas--consistent with the literature on apprenticeship--provide a different conception of the goal of schooling. It is clear that the content of instruction should consequently not be limited to the functionality of the tools. The work of office administration consists largely of solving problems with tools. The problems involve communication, record keeping, accounting, and application of regulation and policy to particular, emergent situations. The tools (desktop computers) include ways of thinking about these kinds of problems.

An implication of thinking of technology-related education as being part of a discourse is that the systematic approach to instruction is framed in the discourse of the tool and its functionality. Instruction is about the tool. On the other hand, the minimalist approach is framed in the discourse of the office. Moreover, instruction is within the discourse, not about it. That is, the knowledge constructed is largely tacit and relates to how office workers, as a type of people, do things, as opposed to what the tools can do.

These idealized conceptions of instruction can be applied to whole programs. It may also be that systematic and minimalist ways of teaching can also be found in the smallest day-to-day activities of students and teachers, independently of whether the overall program is systematic or minimalist in character. Who works out the solution to an unexpected software problem in the lab? Who does the keyboarding (drives the computer) to handle the problem? How long are students permitted to suffer with the ambiguity of a problem before help is rendered? What sources of help exist? A minimalist approach to these mundane activities may foster a deeper understanding and a willing-to-fail stance that support transfer of learning to different situations in particular, from the school setting to the work setting.

Two Types of Program Goals

In summary, two different goals can be prominent in employment-related programs. One implicitly recognizes the situation of schooling. The other very explicitly focuses on the eventual employment goals. When the goal is developing employment-related technology skills, balance is needed between gaining technology skills and understanding the eventual work settings in which such skills are used. When success in a work setting is the goal, the discourse of an employment setting should eventually become more dominant than the discourse of schooling. The instructional guidelines gleaned from exemplary office technology school settings will suggest ways in which students might be assisted in their progress as they move from schooling discourses into work-related discourses. Additional research is needed to more fully explore the nature of learning sites where more minimalist approaches are used. Schools which are responding to the increased interest in case-based learning and project-based learning are likely places to look.

For More Information

For more information, readers can contact Judith Lambrecht at the Department of Work, Community and Family Education, University of Minnesota, 420 A Vo Tech Building, 1954 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. Readers can email jlambrec@tc.umn.edu or 612-626-1256.

References

Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Computer Skill. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Carroll, J. M. (Ed.). (1986). Minimalism Beyond the Nurnberg Funnel. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dreyfus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind Over Machine. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Gagne, R. M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theroy of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wagner, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instruction Design (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Gagne, R. M., and Medsker, K. L. (1996). The Conditions of Learning: Training Applications. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Gee, J. P. (1998). Language, Learning and Latecomers: Discourses in Education. Paper prepared for a talk at the University of Minnesota.

Gee, J. P., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview/Harper Collins

Gee, J. P. (1992). The Social Mind: Language, Ideology, and Social Practice. New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey.

Hackos, J. T., & Stevens, D. M. (1997). Standards for Online Communication. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lundgren, C. A., Lundgren, T. D., & Mundrake, G. A., (1995). Teaching Computer Applications. Little Rock, AR: Delta Pi Epsilon.

Mundrake, G. A. (1998). Fifteen Learning Activities for a Multimedia Class. Business Education Forum 52(4), 40-41.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. In D. P. Pearson & Iran-Jejad, A. (Eds.), Review in Research in Education, Volume 23 (pp. 1-24). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Taylor, H. P., & Jeffers, B. H. (1994). How Computers are Changing the Classroom Environment and the Teacher's Role. NABTE Review 21, 5-9.

[2]This description matches the expectations frequently expressed by employers for employees who are independent workers and learners and who can be said to exemplify such terms as "initiative" and "resourcefulness."

Judith Lambrecht is the site director of NCRVE's University of Minnesota site.