The framework as a whole
The Perspectives Interactions Paradigm highlights the need to focus on the level of 'classroom' interaction.

This need to focus on the actual practice is illustrated by Mosely et al's 'interactive model of teaching and learning'.

Having looked at existing frameworks I carried out case studies in three classrooms in order to explore key dimensions of practice. These case studies, which I refer to as my original case studies, highlighted a number of key features that The Computer Practice Framework needed to have (as detailed under the three main headings below).

Stage models are dangerous because they create an impression that innovation follows a smooth progression. As Sandholtz et al (1990) point out

"change is slow, and sometimes includes temporary regression. ... those searching for a way to assess the impact of innovation should not expect to see a clear progression through stages."
                                           (Sandholtz et al 1990 p9)

The Quantity dimension
A key distinction between the practice in my original case studies was the amount of computer use.

The Focus dimension
A number of the earlier frameworks share a dimension that looks at the degree to which computer use aims to deal with learning about computers or learning with computers. For example:

• Stage 1 of Heppell's (1993) 4 Stage Model of the evolution of educational computing identifies that the focus of computer use, within this stage, is on the technology itself. Thus he is identifying, at least implicitly, a dimension of computer use that deals with the focus of computer use.
• Chandler's (1980) Locus of control ranges from the Program being in control (the computer teaching you about something) to the User being in control (using programming languages to control the computer). Programming clearly involved learning about computers.
• Taylor's (1980) Tutor, Tool, Tutee, like Chandler's framework, ranges from the computer teaching the learner about something (Tutor) to the learner teaching the computer (ie programming it).

Whilst less explicit in Kemmis et al's (1977) CAL Paradigms this dimension of computer as tutor (Instructional Paradigm) to computer as tool (Conjectural Paradigm) is present. This is also the case for Dwyer et al's (1990) Five-Phase Model, in which there is a shift in focus from operating the technology (Entry phase) towards using it to enhance learning (Adoption phase).

The Focus dimension of the CPF makes this underlying dimension within many of the earlier frameworks explicit.

The Mode dimension
Stage 4 of Heppell's (1993) 4 Stage Model of the evolution of educational computing revolves around a dimension that seems to deal with the degree of change in the content and practices of learning. Within Heppell's model he identifies that new technology can radically alter both of these (Pedagogic Evolution). This corresponds to the Transform category within the Mode dimension of the CPF.

A change in the content and processes of learning also seems to be implicit within Heppell's (1993) three modes of multimedia use.

Kemmis et al's (1977) fourth 'paradigm', Emancipatory, highlights the degree to which the learner is focussing on 'authentic' learning. It indicates that the computer can be used to relieve the learner of certain aspects of a task and in so doing allow them to concentrate on other, more highly valued learning.

Taylor's (1980) Tutor, Tool, Tutee highlights the notion that learners can become more effective by becoming the teachers. This represents a significant shift in the role of the learner, which is linked with the use of computers.

Dwyer et all (1990a p4) talk about the impact, or lack of it initially, of high-technology classrooms on learning tasks. They identify that whilst the addition of large numbers of computers "radically transformed the physical environment" it had little impact on student learning tasks. Their five-phase model hinges around moves away from 'didactic learning tasks' towards cross curricular problem-based learning.

Within one of my initial case studies it was clear that when working with the computers the children were teaching each other how to use the software. This was activiely encouraged by the class teacher, and was formalised in that children from her class were subsequently timetabled to go and teach children in other classes how to use computers. This class teacher went so far as to teach the children how to teach each other how to use computers. Whilst peer-peer support was not unheard of within my initial case study classes in non-computer contexts it was: much more prevalent when computers were in use; only formalised in the context of computer use; only involved the teacher teaching the children how to teach each other in the context of computer use. Thus, within at least one of my initial case studies, the use of computers radically altered both the content (learning about how to teach) and process of learning (becoming teachers - with all that involves in terms of roles, power relationships, etc).

Applying the CPF

Home The CPF CPF roots

Investment Literature Impact Reasons Solution Frameworks Limitations Discussion

This page is maintained by Peter Twining (PeterT@meD8.info)
Last updated 8th January 2002