1. RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO JONASSEN (2006)
Response to Jonassen (2006)
Adam Cavotta
Samuel Stichter
Miriam Maske
New Mexico State University

2. RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO JONASSEN (2006)
Introduction
Jonassen (2006) argues that meaningful learning is brought about by conceptual change and he
endorses modeling with technology as a method to promote conceptual change. Jonassen
describes several mindtools (programs used to develop models) that teachers can utilize to
promote meaningful learning in their classrooms. While there are several mindtools available
from which to choose and Jonassen makes a strong case for using mindtools, the process of
selecting a mindtool and the adoption of teaching practices required to use them, presents
teachers with a few challenges. First, conceptual change, if it is to be accomplished in the
classroom, must begin with teachers. The mindtools that teachers select must be used to support
learners in a model building process, therefore teachers also must develop skills in model
building and have a basic understanding of theories of conceptual change in order to gain the
benefits of using such tools to promote learning. We contend that learning about theories behind
the use of mindtools and how to bring theory into practice is of even more significance than
knowing how to use the tool itself and that conceptual change about teaching practices must
occur before these practices can be used in a sustainable way in the classroom. Second, limits on
the availability of technologies that support model building require teachers to adapt their
teaching methods to the capabilities of the systems to which they have access. That is to say, not
all technologies tools possess or were designed with the intent of being used as mindtools and
teachers must recognize this fact and make accommodations as appropriate. In this response, we
will attempt to describe why these challenges are important, the genesis of these problems and
potential solutions.

3. RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO JONASSEN (2006)
Conceptual Change Starts with Teachers
Any structured program, whether it be a diet, exercise routine or teaching method, is only as
effective as the practitioners’ ability to utilize the program. That is to say, even the best
supported method for teaching critical thinking can fail if not well understood by the teacher or if
an essential resource is lacking. For example, if a teacher is provided with access to technology
suitable for use as a mindtool, but the assessment methods specific to mindtools are not
supported by the administration, a key element of using mindtools is lost. Ideas like assessing
students in groups rather than individually and using rubrics to assess knowledge construction
and self-regulation may find resistance in some instructional contexts because these activities
don’t directly support the students’ performance on high stakes tests or other performance
expectations (such as those related to the student’s job in a workforce education setting). In a
certain respect, it appears that to teach students with a goal of fostering critical thinking is to do
more than is required, because Jonassen provides little support for the notion that critical
thinking skills will have a measurable affect on student performance on standardized tests or any
other measure of domain specific achievement. Considering this scenario, teachers are left with a
dilemma, which is to choose between meaningful learning or performance on standardized tests
as a focus of their instructional practices. Therefore, using the concept of conceptual change as
lens for understanding this problem, we see that conceptual change regarding the pedagogy
necessary to train students to be critical thinks must start at the highest levels or our
educationally system and it’s greatest advocates and crucial partners to bring about this change
are the teachers themselves.
To further support the notion that conceptual change must occur at the level of teachers and
administrators, let us consider scholarly thinking about conceptual change. Conceptual change

4. RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO JONASSEN (2006)
can be seen as an evolutionary or revolutionary process whereby new information is used to
support a conceptual change. If conceptual change is an evolutionary process in this respect, we
would see incremental adoption of methods that support critical thinking, such as the use of
mindtools, however other practices, such as the manner that we assess students, would remain
relatively unchanged until support for change is provided. This incremental process, while
matching theories of cognitive conflict that might explain how conceptual change occurs, seems
to be an inefficient method to address the perceived need for developing our students as critical
thinkers, because if all of the various pieces to support mindtools as a tool and method to
promote critical thinking are not used we risk devaluating and underutilizing the instructional
method’s primary strengths. If, however, we were to perceive conceptual change as a
revolutionary process, where by radical conceptual change is a result of new information, we see
that the fullness of the benefits of teaching students to be critical thinkers can be realized. That is
to say, half measures and incomplete adoption jeopardizes the efficacy of using mindtools to
bring about conceptual change and that simply using a mindtool in the classroom, without the
knowledge of how to model, does not constitute the action that Jonassen recommends. In
addition, using a paradigm of assessment that does not match the manner of instruction muddles
the ability of teachers to assess students’ progress. Only through radical conceptual change can
we hope to see critical thinking as more important in the classroom than standardized tests.
Support for conceptual change as a radical process can be drawn from scholarly thinking about
the nature of a certain type of conceptual change within the study of the philosophy of science.
Kuhn (1970) argues that while most discoveries in science occur within a paradigm in the
practice of normal science, there are times when a paradigm shift occurs and conceptual

5. RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO JONASSEN (2006)
underpinnings are radically changed as a result. That is to say, we then must throw out some of
the old assumptions in order to make way for a radically different way of looking at the world.
Lack of Resources Requires Adaptation
Another challenge that teachers face related to the use of mindtools is adapting teaching practices
when limited resources restrict the types of tools that can be used. For example, discussion
boards (structured computer conferences) have been identified as tools used to generate a verbal
model of understanding; hence Jonassen suggests these tools can be used as mindtools. At
certain institutions in the State of New Mexico, discussion board tools are made available
through the learning management system for teachers to use in their classes. While use of this
tool by a teacher may represent an attempt to foster critical thinking through the use of
mindtools, the picture is not complete if the discussion lacks appropriate structure in order to
help students build a verbal model of understanding. Part of the problem is that the tools
provided to teachers are typically generic and unstructured hence teachers must provide the
structure and make the tool work in a way that is consistent with its use as a mindtool. One
barrier that appears to inhibit the ability of teachers to transform relatively generic computer
programs into mindtools is the Gestalt psychological concept of functional fixedness. Functional
fixedness is a strong bias against using a tool in a new way when attempting to solve a problem.
(Duncker, 1945) For example, a hammer can only be used to drive nails and wouldn’t be
considered as a lever or counterbalance. In order to overcome the tendency, teachers must
become familiar with the process of model building and have enough information about the
technology tool that they are using to change the various settings and preferences so that the
necessary components for model building are utilized most often. Several other examples of
functional fixedness can be seen with other mindtools, such as databases and hypermedia,

6. RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO JONASSEN (2006)
because students and teachers alike have so much prior experience with these programs in non-
mindtool capacities that it is difficult to see the mindtool possibilities without models for how to
use these tools in a new way.

7. RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO JONASSEN (2006)
References
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, 5Retrieved from
PsycINFO database.
Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with Technology. Mindtools for conceptual change. Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, third edition.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL, USA, second edition.