International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 161-180, 1997. 1997

Contextual learning
A rich learning environment filled with authentic problems and real situa­tions is critical for developing intellectual skills. Expertise is created through interaction with the environment, not in isolation from it (Berryman & Bailey, 1992). Brown et al. (1989) view contextual learning as a form of enculturation. As we interact with others in a contextually rich learning envi­ronment, we “pick up relevant jargon, imitate behavior, and gradually start to act in accordance with” the norms of the cultural setting (Brown et al., 1989, p. 34). Through this “authentic” activity, we have the chance to observe the behaviours of others, practice the skills we see, use the tools and materials of the day, and give and receive advice. Learning within a rich context also helps address the transfer problem by learning in an envi­ronment that reflects the way knowledge will be used in real life (Collins et al., 1989). Various approaches to instruction that build on contextual learning have been developed recently including situated learning, anchored instruction, and cognitive apprenticeship.

LEARNING TECHNOLOGICAL CONCEPTS

171


Although the chapter by McCormick provides sufficient examples of the importance of context in instruction, two additional examples high­light the power of context on intellectual skills. The first example comes from an in-depth protocol analysis of electronic troubleshooters from three different contexts: design, production, and repair (Flesher, 1993). Flesher provided technicians from each of these contextual settings with a faulty electrical system and analysed their troubleshooting performance from a cognitive perspective. His results showed that context influenced the trou­bleshooters’ initial frame of reference, which impacted their ability to locate faults. The second example, provided by Martin and Beach (1992), demon­strated the differences in the thinking patterns of technical personnel as a result of prior experience and the type of training they received. They also noticed that when they were confronted with a technical problem, engineers thought about economic concerns, machinists thought about contingen­cies, and setup people thought about practical matters.
If education is to facilitate learning that is useful outside the classroom, it must take place in contexts that resemble the situations in which the knowledge and skills will be used (to facilitate near transfer) and provide extensive opportunities for practice (to facilitate low road transfer). Once students develop a relatively firm grasp of the rules and principles that underlie concepts and are taught how to apply them in other situations, they will be more likely to use spontaneously (i.e., transfer) their knowl­edge in new situations.
Peer-based learning
“We learn from the company we keep” (Smith, 1992, p. 432). All cogni­tive activity is socially defined, interpreted, and supported (Rogoff & Lave, 1984). By interacting with others, tutoring them, and being tutored by them, we have the opportunity to learn from them, share our knowl­edge, and engage in competition, cooperation, collaboration, conversation, and negotiation of meaning. Essentially, through the social activity of learning, we have the opportunity to develop a community of learners (Brown, 1994).
Peer-based learning involves working together to achieve a learning goal and this team approach makes training programs more realistic. Therefore, what is learned cooperatively may be more transferable to the real world because of the similarity between the training situation and the actual work situation (Holubec et al., 1993). The teacher’s role is to par­ticipate as a peer, monitor the activity, and facilitate and moderate as needed. Getting the right answer is not as important as getting the learners to work together to develop a solution. Even if an incorrect solution is reached, how and why it was reached must be understood so the error will be less likely to occur again. Example of instructional approaches that are grounded in peer-based learning include reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1990), peer

172

SCOTT D. JOHNSON


tutoring and cross-age tutoring (Gaustad, 1993), and paired problem solving (Lochhead & Whimbey, 1987).
One of the reasons students learn so well when working with others is because of the amount of verbalization that takes place. Peer-based learning fosters extensive verbal elaboration that aids cognitive restructuring of infor­mation (Slavin, 1990). In fact, it is the verbal interaction among group participants that contributes the most toward learning (Holubec et al., 1993; Jones & Carter, 1995). Jones and Carter (1995), for example, found that low ability students spoke significantly more words when paired with high ability students than with low ability students. This was also true for high ability students who were paired with lower ability students. In addition, the high ability students showed more helping behaviour when paired with lower ability peers.
Working with others leads to verbal interactions that help in several ways. First, by verbalizing their thoughts, learners become more aware of thinking activities and actually begin to listen to their thinking (Lochhead, 1985). Second, the interaction helps students learn how to modify someone else’s thinking and how to defend their own ideas (Krulik & Rudnick, 1980). Third, group interaction supports reflective activity as learners self-monitor and self-correct by observing and modifying their own cognitive behav­iour. Finally, the verbalization process contributes to more precise thinking and stimulates conceptual development (Lochhead, 1985).
Other studies have shown that verbalization leads to more effective problem solving (Andre, 1986; Biemiller, 1993; Glass, 1991). Glass (1991), for example, in a study of technical problem solving, found that students who verbalized their thoughts while problem solving tended to form more accurate problem representations, could transfer their knowledge to other problem situations, were more aware of their thinking, and appeared to be more task-oriented and focused on the problem. It is thought that ver­balization induces greater elaboration and cognitive structuring of the presented material. The effect is even greater if the learner expects to teach the material to others.