How should students learn

Mark Guzdial makes an important point, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. Software intended for learners must be designed in different ways from the vast majority of pieces of software we see in wide distribution. Even more, Guzdial and I agree on many values and strategies for producing productive computer-supported learning environments. Perhaps most important, we both would like to see students learning in modes that provide them wide flexibility and freedom for creativity in undertaking tasks they feel are personally meaningful, while at the same time learning important subject matter. Accomplishing and learning, together, is a goal that can make learning more effective and more engaging; it is a goal that software designed with narrow instrumental goals--such as merely accomplishing a particular task--will almost always fail to achieve. Nonetheless, there are some differences in our points of view that I will try to expose in this brief essay. These differences are partially strategic--how should one best achieve agreed ends?-and partially teleological--what should we strive to achieve? More than anything else, I believe our differences stem from a slightly different take on the "big picture" in which we need always to situate our local design decisions. Given how much we agree on, especially in view of how close together we stand in the wider universe of approaches to computer-supported learning, my points may seem at first to pick nits. Nonetheless, bringing out differences will allow me to make points ! feel are important. The first time I read through Guzdial's paper, I felt a vague unease at how he portrayed learners. He sees learners as perhaps overwhelmed by a "huge hierarchy of goals," somewhat bored-or at least in need of "enormous motivation" to work through these goals-and in dire need of help, for example, in terms of scaffolding that can keep their heads above water. Of course, I'm exaggerating for effect. But, still, students come across as a little lost and helpless in his portrayal. It is certainly important to have empathy for students, and there can be no question our job is to help them. But, I don't believe we should assume that these unfortunate conditions are the permanent fate of students. Instead, I think it is extremely productive to take as one of our central goals to eradicate the conditions he describes as affecting students, rather than accepting them and trying to deal with them. I propose that our long term goals for learning environments should include helping students to become committed learners (diSessa, in press). More than anything else, I would characterize committed learning as engaging in learning tasks that feel important and personally fulfilling, and engaging in those tasks with a sense of confident competence. Most of my life involves extended and felt-tobe-meaningful activities. We should have no less a goal for our students. Committed learning may be difficult to achieve. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try for it. Indeed, treating students as in need of motivation and without sufficient resources for the tasks we pose to them is undoubtedly a self-fulfilling prophesy. Always trying to "motivate" our students without cultivating their own independent motivation, and assuming the tasks we propose will always be ones student would not chose for themselves gives away