shaping students ' learning via prescribed communications and interactions , media and technology are given directly to learners to use for representing and expressing what they know . Learners themselves function as designers using media and technology as tools for analyzing the world , accessing and interpreting information , organizing their personal knowledge , and representing what they know to others .
Productivity Tools and Cognitive Tools
It is necessary to highlight differences between this new conception and earlier perspectives of using computers and other technologies to support learning that have not been as successful as promised . In 1980 , Taylor described the three major roles of computers in education as “ tutor , tool , and tutee .” The tutor role ( see Section Two of this report ) has enjoyed some success , and promises to be even more successful as cognitive learning theories increasingly guide the design of integrated learning environments and other forms of CBI .
The computer as productivity tool in the sense defined by Taylor ( 1980 ) has enjoyed some success , especially when used to support writing ( Becker , 1992a ; Bruce & Rubin , 1993 ). However , other software tools such as spreadsheet , database , and computer-aided design ( CAD ) programs have failed to improve teaching and learning as much as promised by proponents of the technology as tool approach because they have been largely used in the context of traditional " instructivist " pedagogy . Goodlad ( 1984 ) described the teacher-directed , textdominated , curriculum that characterizes most instructional practice in American schools . Ironically , software tools have often been regarded as objects for study in themselves and subjected to the same instructivist pedagogy that limits intellectual growth by students in areas such as science , mathematics , and social studies .
For example , although computer-aided design ( CAD ) software has revolutionized professional practices and dramatically increased productivity in engineering , architecture , and other design fields , it has had little impact in education . Industrial arts teachers ( now called " technology educators " in the USA ) have enthusiastically adopted CAD software into their classrooms and labs , but instead of engaging students in authentic tasks , they often " teach " students the command sets for the software outside of meaningful contexts . Students end up failing to perceive the relevance and value of CAD programs within the design professions or how to apply the software within their own design projects . As pointed out by Salomon , Perkins , and Globerson ( 1991 ), " No important impact can be expected when the same old activity is carried out with a technology that makes it a bit faster or easier ; the activity itself has to change " ( p . 8 ).
Embraced with almost religious fervor in some circles ( cf . Papert , 1980 ), the tutee role for computers in education has also delivered less than promised . According to the “ tutee ” approach , students develop higher order thinking skills and creativity by teaching computers to perform tasks , e . g ., draw a picture , using " friendly " programming languages such as Logo ( Papert , 1980 ) and microworlds
18