20.5 Computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE)

Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean, Swallow, and Woodruff (1989) observe:

There has been a history of attempts in computer-assisted instruction to give students more autonomy or more control over the course of instruction. Usually these attempts presupposed a well-developed repertoire of learning strategies, skills, and goals, without providing means to foster them (p. 5 1).

Scardamalia and Bereiter envision a computer-based learning environment wherein students can learn and exercise these metacognitive skills, giving the name computer-supported intentional learning environments to "environments that foster rather than presuppose the ability of students to exert intentional control over their own learning ..." (Scardamalia et al., 1989, p. 52). In a series of studies, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1992) found that children were capable of generating impressive higher-order questions about a new subject, based on their interest and background knowledge. These questions could then be used to guide students' research and exploration of the topic. Intentional learning environments are designed to support the high-level, knowledge-generating activity resulting from this question-asking process.

The authors have developed a model computer program referred to as CSILE (for computer-supported intentional learning environment), the acronym denoting the specific program developed in the laboratory. While CSILE exhibits a number of design features, for space reasons we focus on the program's foundation and philosophy. In an early report, Scardamalia et al. (1989) suggest 11 principles that should guide the design of intentional learning environments:

1. Make knowledge-construction activities overt.
2. Maintain attention to cognitive goals.
3. Treat knowledge lacks in a positive way.
4. Provide process-relevant feedback.
5. Encourage learning strategies other than rehearsal.
6. Encourage multiple passes through information.
7. Support varied ways for students to organize their knowledge.
8. Encourage maximum use and examination of existing knowledge.
9. Provide opportunities for reflectivity and individual learning styles.
10. Facilitate transfer of knowledge across contexts.
11. Give students more responsibility for contributing to each other's learning.

While many of these principles also are similar to traditional instructional-design prescriptions (e.g., Reigeluth, 1983), there is additional emphasis on knowledge construction consistent with the cognitive apprenticeship model and other constructivist learning theories.

More recently, Scardamalia and Bereiter describe three ideas that are foundational to intentional learning environments:

1. Intentional learning. Ng and Bereiter (1991) observed students learning computer programming and found three kinds of goals:

• Performance goals, i.e., task completion goals.
• Instructional goals, i.e., the goals articulated by the instructor and the learning materials.
• Learning goals, i.e., the specific goals for learning brought to the situation by the learner. Learning goals usually overlap but do not equate to performance or instructional goals.

Intentional learning depends on students having learning goals and finding successful avenues to learn based on those goals.

2. The process of expertise. Scardamalia and Bereiter argue for a view of expertise in process terms rather than strictly as a performance capability. As people gain experience in a domain, simple tasks become routinized, freeing up mental resources for other tasks. If those newly available resources are reinvested back into learning more about the domain, then more and more difficult problems can be mastered. This process of expertise is equally characteristic of serious students and seasoned experts "working at the edges of their competence" (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 266). To become experts, students must demonstrate a disposition and commitment to engage in systematic intentional learning, in addition to having the brute cognitive capacity to learn.

3. Restructuring schools as knowledge-building communities. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) contrast what we call static from dynamic learning communities) Students in static communities adapt to the environment, but once adapted, "one becomes an old timer, comfortably integrated into a relatively stable system of routines ... (pp. 266-67). Traditional schools and even child-centered, individualized instruction are often static in this sense. In contrast, a dynamic learning community requires constant readaptation to other community members. Sports and businesses are examples. "[T]he accomplishments of participants keep raising the standard that the others strive for" (p. 267). In the sciences, for example, the collective knowledge base is continually changing. The challenge in these environments is to continue growing, adapting, and contributing along with the rest of the community. Dynamic knowledge-building communities engage in the kind of transformative communication suggested by Pea (1994; see discussion above). In large part, the goal of the CSILE research agenda is to find ways to help classrooms and schools become dynamic knowledge-building communities in this respect.

Central to intentional learning environments is the cultivation of a collective knowledge base, explicitly represented in CSILE as a computer database. This knowledge base allows the creation and storage of numerous forms of representation-text, graphics, video, audio-as well as the linking of items together via a hypermedia structure. The knowledge base is built up over a period of time in response to students' questions and their subsequent investigations and reports.

Another key feature of CSILE is the "publication" process, similar to the review process of academic journals:

Students produce notes of various kinds and frequently revise them. When they think they have a note that makes a solid contribution to the knowledge base in some area, they can mark it as a candidate for publication. They then must complete a form that indicates, among other things, what they believe is the distinctive contribution of their note. After a review process (typically by other students with final clearance by the teacher), the note becomes identified as published. It appears in a different font, and users searching the database may, if they wish, restrict their search to published notes on the topic they designate (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 279).

Thus CSILE emulates in many respects the activities of scholarly knowledge-building communities. Attempts at applying a CSILE-like model to higher education classrooms are reported in Grabinger (Chapter 23).

Like problem-based learning, the CSILE model provides a concrete framework for designers and teachers seeking to break out of traditional conventions and incorporate constructivist principles of instructional design. Two remaining issues for consideration are:

• Matching intentional learning activities to prespeciflied curriculum objectives. Every learning environment exists within a larger system of curriculum expectations and learning needs. A student may want to study X while the teacher thinks that Y would be a better choice. Meanwhile, the school district has a policy insisting on Z as the proper content. Negotiating between student-generated study questions and the surrounding system is an important consideration.
• Maintaining motivation. As in every learning environment, designers of intentional environments must develop methods for encouraging thoughtful collaboration while avoiding the damaging effects of competition. Cultivating a cooperative, open spirit among participants requires attention to group dynamics and the chemistry between individuals and within working groups. Maintaining motivation could be a challenge within an environment of widely diverging competencies and expectations.

'Scardamalia and Bereiter use the terms first-order and second-order environments. We have used the terms static and dynamic to suggest more concretely their differences.