In this article, I propose a theory of pedagogical praxis. Pedagogical praxis begins with the premise that under the right conditions, computers and other information technologies can make it easier for students to become active participants in meaningful projects and practices in the life of their community and suggests that professional practices such as architecture, mediation, and journalism can provide constructive models for helping students learn from such experiences. In this vision, new technology reinvigorates Dewey's (1915) idea of linking school with society. Technology builds a bridge that allows young people to participate in the learning practices of professionals; in the process, they develop epistemological frameworks that organize the skills, habits, and understandings they need to thrive in a complex, postindustrial society. Although further work needs to be done to explore the processes through which such learning can take place, studies suggest that this perspective may be a productive avenue for continuing research. This article presents an overview of the theories and methods that inform such work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronJ. B., and WolfD. P. (Eds.). (1996). Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BransfordJ. (1994). The Tearning Technology Center at Vanderbilt University. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 20, 44—48.
3.
BrownA. L., and CampioneJ. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In SchaubleL., and GlaserR. (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289—325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
CossentinoJ., and ShafferD. W. (1999). The math studio: Harnessing the power of the arts to teach across disciplines. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33(2), 99—109.
5.
DeweyJ. (1915). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
7.
DeweyJ. (1958). Art as experience. New York: Capricorn Books.
8.
diSessaA. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
DonaldM. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
EnyedyN., VaheyP., and GiffordB. (1997). Active and supportive computer-mediated resources for student-to-student conversations. In HallR., MiyakeN., and EnyedyN. (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 27—36). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
11.
EricksonJ., and LehrerR. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design hypermedia documents. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 351—386.
12.
EvansC. A., AbramsE. D., and RockB. N. (2001). Student/scientist partnerships: A teachers’ guide to evaluating the critical components. The American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 318—323.
13.
GeeJ. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
14.
GoldenbergE. P. (1996). “Habits of mind” as an organizer for the curriculum. Journal of Education, 178(1), 13—34.
15.
Goldman-SegallR. (1997). Points of viewing children's thinking: A digital ethnographer's journey. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
GreenoJ. G. (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think: Middle-School Mathematics Through Applications Project. American Journal of Education, 106, 85—126.
17.
HallR., and StevensR. (1996). Teaching/learning events in the workplace: a comparative analysis of their organizational and interactional structure. In and and CottrellG.W. (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 160—165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
HmeloC. E., HoltonD. L., and KolodnerJ. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247—298.
JacksonS., StratfordS., KrajcikJ., and SolowayE. (1996). Making dynamic modeling accessible to pre-college science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 233—257.
21.
JacobsonC., and LehrerR. (2000). Teacher appropriation and student learning of geometry through design. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 71—88.
22.
KafaiY. (1996). Learning design by making games: Children's development of design strategies in the creation of a complex computational artifact. In KafaiY., and ResnickM. (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 71—96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
KolodnerJ. L., CrismondD., GrayJ., HolbrookJ., and PuntambekarS. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. In A. S. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, & J. L. Kolodner (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 16—22). Atlanta, GA.
24.
LaveJ. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
25.
LaveJ., and WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
LehrerR., and ChazanD. (Eds.). (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
LehrerR., EricksonJ., and ConnellT. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents. Computers in the Schools, 10(1–2), 227—254.
28.
LichtfieldD., GoldenheimD., and DietrichC. H. (1997). Euclid, Fibonacci, and Sketchpad. The Mathematics Teacher, 90(1), 8—12.
29.
MenandL. (2001). The metaphysical club (1st ed.). New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
30.
NovakJ. D., and GowinD. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
32.
ResnickM. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
ScardamaliaM., and BereiterC. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6—10.
34.
SchonD. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.
35.
SchonD. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
SchwartzJ., and SherinB. (2002). Describing science content: Bridging the gap between content and process. In BellP., StevensR., and SatwiczT. (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 421—428). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
ShafferD. W. (1997). Learning mathematics through design: The anatomy of Escher's World. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(2), 95—112.
38.
ShafferD. W. (1998). Expressive mathematics: Learning by design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
39.
ShafferD. W. (2000). This is Dewey's vision revisited. In and and GordonD.T. (Ed.), The digital classroom: How technology is changing the way we teach and learn (pp. 176—178). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Letter.
40.
ShafferD. W. (2002). Design, collaboration, and computation: The design studio as a model for computer-supported collaboration in mathematics. In KoschmannT., HallR., and MiyakeN. (Eds.), Computer support for collaborative learning 2 (pp. 197—222). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
ShafferD. W. (in press). When computer-supported collaboration means computer-supported competition: Professional mediation as a model for collaborative learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.
42.
ShafferD. W., and ResnickM. (1999). Thick authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195—215.
43.
SizerT. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
44.
SizerT. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
45.
StoddartT., AbramsR., GasperE., and CanadayD. (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science inquiry learning: A report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1221—1246.
46.
SusskindL. E., and CorburnJ. (2000). Using simulations to teach negotiation: Pedagogical theory and practice. In and and WheelerM. (Ed.), Teaching negotiation: Ideas and innovations (pp. 285—310). Cambridge, MA: PON Books.
47.
VygotskyL. S. (1934). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50.
WertschJ. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
