The idea of a ‘tool’ for activity and learning is a central aspect of social

The idea of a ‘tool’ for activity and learning is a central aspect of social

constructivism. In the science lessons we observed, both the computer hardware and the mind mapping software can be understood as tools in this sense. A tool may be more than the pencil used for writing or the dictionary used for spelling. It is, broadly, any material or symbolic arte- fact which people use to carry out both ordinary and specialised activities: cutlery, maps, mathematical formulae, computers and human language are all tools which carry the cultural knowledge and skills of the inventors and previous users. Other people may be perceived as ‘tools’ when they are involved in assisting or directing activities. In this sense they act to medi- ate learning and support development by enabling learners to achieve with help what they could not do alone (Vygotsky 1978, 1935). Most tools

‘IS THERE A PICTURE OF BEYOND?’

are so familiar and embedded in daily life that it is hard to imagine what we would do without them. However, certain activities may call for the invention of new tools (ranging from swimming goggles to computer software) without which we could not achieve our goals (to swim in chlor- inated water or to simulate the workings of DNA). It is worth noting that tools may both guide and constrain activity, depending in part on the immediate motivation and goals of the people involved in their use (Pea 1993). However, broader educational aims and intentions must also

be taken into account. Sutherland et al. (2004) remark that ICT tools may facilitate what would otherwise be impossible for pupils, contributing in this way to democratisation, access and inclusion in education. Yet there is

a dynamic aspect to the introduction of new educational tools which may lead to unexpected outcomes. One of the general questions that arises in investigating any computer hardware is whether it is just a new form of an old tool (such as IWBs interpreted as replacing blackboards) or whether it is a new tool which may afford fundamental changes in pupils’ learning in school. The key question is whether the process is one of replacement or transformation in the classroom? As we see later, this depends at least in part on the teacher’s aims and the pupils’ responses. A particular issue arising from the research discussed in this chapter is how different tools may be combined in the classroom use and orchestrated by the teacher to best effect in the light of what we know about how children learn and the aims for their learning.

In considering the pupils’ learning during this study we focused on both procedural and conceptual understanding in science. The mind mapping software was an important tool which allowed us to highlight both aspects of learning as the teachers attempted to scaffold the pupils’ collective construction of knowledge. We were, primarily, interested in how such ‘content-free’ software might facilitate a genuine exchange of science ideas and how these exchanges and interactions might differ depending upon the hardware used. Before discussing the findings in detail, however, it is worth considering the terms ‘mind mapping’ and ‘concept mapping’ as both came up in planning the research and working with the teachers.