Forum 15 Required
– Topic of Choice
Paragon, Paradigm,
or Just Another Techno-Trend: Educational Technology and the Constructivist
Classroom
Instructor: Tom Anderson
Submitted By
Kim Fitzer
The rush to digitize our classrooms and schools has, in many ways, left educators and administrators uncertain of the role that technology will adopt in the future. More than $7 billion is spent annually in U.S schools, and while some of the expenditure is channeled toward training and professional development (Means, Wagner, Haertel and Javitz, 2000), the majority of the cost supports equipment, networking and software. However, filling our nation’s classrooms with expensive machines and assuming that students will suddenly learn more, score higher on achievement tests and become more motivated is not the answer to the educational issues that plague our schools. Schools, school districts, and state and local governments do not make such significant investments in educational technology without knowing this, and yet, the current use for computers and other forms of digital equipment is still very traditional in implementation (Means, et. al., 2000). For most educators, the computer in the classroom consists of a storage, presentation, typing and diversionary device. Technology is used mainly as a tool, replacing what might have been done just as effectively without the computer. Despite the evidence that technology has enormous potential for student learning, few have recognized the power of the computer to transform the classroom from the traditional, top-down methodology of teaching to a more student-centered, constructivist environment. This ambivalence and reluctance to integrate technology completely into the curriculum reflects an overall mistrust and fear of technology on the part of educators, and most certainly generates some anxiety on the part of educational officials, as they see their investment not being put to good use.
However, for those educators that have embraced
technology as a new and entirely customizable tool for social and informational
investigation, communication, creativity and problem solving, the future seems
quite certain (Reibel, 1994). These
teachers would agree that the most effective use of educational technology is
constructivist in nature (Means, et. al. 2000), and allows for learner
construction of knowledge, reflection, metacognitive development and social
interaction (Bruning, Schraw and Ronning, 1999). Students in a technologically equipped
constructivist classroom use the technology to perform inquiries, organize,
explore, discuss, create, communicate and reflect, with the instructor acting
as facilitator and guide (Bruning, et. al., 1999). Students are active, instead of passive, and
become responsible for their own learning.
Furthermore, in the technologically constructivist classroom, technology
is not merely an added unit, tool, or word processor. It has become integral to the learning process;
so much so, in fact, that the activities organized by the instructor and
performed by the students cannot take place without it. At this point, educational technology
transcends the novelty of being a new tool and becomes not only an
irreplaceable component of the classroom, but an entirely new methodology of
teaching. The question is, will this
evolve into the classroom of the future, or will it remain, as it is now, the
domain of the technologically well informed and well-equipped? The following paper seeks to investigate this
query.
In order to understand why the constructivist-learning
model is beneficial for today’s classrooms, it is important to investigate the
model itself. There are several
principles associated with the constructivist learning theory that are integral
to the framework of this discussion.
·
Learners bring prior knowledge, experience
and beliefs to a learning situation. These unique perceptions and skills provide a
firm foundation on which new knowledge is constructed (Adams, Burns, 1999).
·
Learning is internally controlled and
mediated. Learners have the ability to gather
process and reorganize information to fit with their personal needs, wants and
desires (Adams, Burns, 1999).
·
Knowledge is constructed in multiple ways,
through a variety of tools, resources, experiences, and contexts. Learning
does not take place in a linear, one-dimensional environment. The construction of information takes place
in a variety of ways, from multiple stimuli, and occurs sequentially and
simultaneously (Adams, Burns, 1999).
·
Learning is a process of accommodation,
assimilation, or rejection to construct new conceptual structures, meaningful
representations,
or new mental
models. The multitude of stimuli we are subjected to cannot possibly be
integrated into our existing knowledge structures.
Learners are able to review,
accept or discard information depending on their need to construct meaning
(Adams, Burns, 1999).
·
Learning is both an active and reflective
process. Both experience and thought must
be present for learners to construct meaning.
·
Social interaction introduces multiple
perspectives through reflection, collaboration, negotiation, and shared
meaning. Exchanging information, communicating ideas and creating interpersonal
connections are important for the cognitive process of knowledge
construction. Individual experiences
and reflections are transformed into a collective understanding of concepts,
ideas and information (Adams, Burns, 1999).
Clearly, the principles outlined here suggest an
environment where learning takes place in an interactive atmosphere, an
environment in which all participants, including the instructor, actively
participate in the cognitive process. As
the teacher in this highly engaged classroom, the task is not to merely
transmit information, but to encourage knowledge formation and metacognitive
activity (Bruning, et. al., 1999). The
traditional classroom teacher that instructs by rote memorization, drill,
recitation and endless lecture does not belong in the constructivist classroom. How then, can the traditional teacher become
the facilitator, rather than the director, in today’s interactive technology
based classroom?
To begin, it is important to recognize that there are
significant benefits to adapting to this style of instruction. Students are encouraged to become more reflective
and delve deeper into thematic leaning structures. When planning units of studies, the
constructivist teacher aims for lessons that integrate a variety of subject
areas, such as math, science, art, language arts and technology education
(Bruning, et. al., 1999). Topics are
selected that encompass many concepts, and students are directed to look at all
angles. As a result, students begin to
make important connections between areas of study, as they seek to answer
questions within a topical framework. In
the constructivist classroom, students engage in activities that promote
self-reflection and awareness of how they learn best. Meta-cognitive training prepares students to
be super-selective of their own system of learning strategies. It can be argued that as learners become more
self-aware of their strengths and weaknesses, they are more effective at
guiding their own cognitive development (Riding and Rayner, 1998).The stimulus
provided in the constructivist classroom is multi-dimensional, creative and
interactive. The constructivist teacher
selects course and unit resources that provide for a wide variety of learning
styles, such as slide presentations and video viewing, information gathering
from a variety of sources, field trips, observations, interactive games, and
discussion topics. The students also
have opportunities to build on prior knowledge, as lessons are presented in a
related hierarchy of concepts. This
learning strategy works well in the constructivist classroom, because students
have a firm foundation on which to independently structure new knowledge
(Riding and Rayner, 1998). Finally, and
perhaps most central to the constructivist view, through social interactions
and collective engagement, students are able to cooperatively
problem-solve. The teacher acts as guide
and mediator in this exchange of ideas and information. This emphasis on
cooperative learning suggests that social development is essential for
cognitive development. Indeed, the
Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky proposed that social interactions were
integral and necessary to the cognitive process, so much, so that all higher
order human cognitive functions must originate in a social and cultural context
(Bruning, et. al., 1999). If this is
true, and much educational research has been focused on the veracity of this
hypothesis, then a strong cooperative educational structure will significantly
improve learning and knowledge acquisition.
Teaching in the constructivist classroom may be further
enhanced by the use of educational technology, in any or all of its forms. Software, CD-ROMs, video taping and editing,
digital photography, internet searches and Web Quests, E-Books, Palms, and
on-line leaning environments are beginning to change the fabric of today’s
classroom. However, how all of this
hardware and software is used depends tremendously on the teacher, his or her
own comfort level with the technology, and the extent to which it is integrated
into the learning environment. Merely
placing a computer in the corner of the room and allowing children to use it as
a reward or to type a paper is not complete integration, as mentioned
before. For educational technology to
significantly impact learning, it must be utilized in a constructivist,
transformative approach. The following
uses for technology provide a complete integration of resources.
·
Multimedia integration: The
use of video, presentation software, sound editing, construction graphics (CAD,
Architectural Desktop, 3D Studio Max), web design and publication, digital
photography, computer graphics, and other multimedia processes can stimulate
creativity, social interaction, multi-tasking, problem-solving,
inter-disciplinary connections, and engagement in the constructivist learning
environment. The use of multi-media can
be used independently or cooperatively, in an extended, long-term unit, or just
a short lesson. Obviously, some
instruction on how to perform these processes will be needed prior to any implementation,
but matching difficulty level to the abilities and development of the students
will streamline this necessity. The
instructor will need to be sensitive to this reality.
·
On-Line Learning Environments: There
exists several ALNs (Asynchronous Learning Environments) on the Internet such
as Blackboard.com, WebCT, Tapped-IN, and others. These centers for on-line activities
originated in institutions of higher learning, but are now being used in K-12
classrooms. The advantages of these
on-line classrooms are that they allow student interactions both at school and
at home, can be used for e-mail, chat and discussion (to promote reflection and
social interaction), can be customized according to the needs to the
class. They also allow the instructor to
manage and monitor groups, participation, work completion, assignments,
discussion topics, surveys and testing.
In some cases such as Tapped-IN, the ALN also maintains a database of
research materials and virtual spaces.
As on-line graduate and professional development programs continue to
proliferate, it is certain that new, more robust ALNs will emerge on the
horizon.
·
Networking with other classrooms and
cultures: The Internet can provide the communication tools needed to converse and
share information with classrooms and content experts next door, or on the
other side of the world. E-mails,
listservs, discussion boards, chat rooms and other distance learning venues
have proliferated on the internet and anyone can access them without the use of
special equipment; all that is needed is a computer and an internet connection
(Adams, Burns, 1999). Teachers, too can
take advantage of the interactive benefits of the internet to communicate with
other teachers, exchange lesson plans, and create globally networked
classrooms. Global Schoolhouse.net is
one such clearinghouse of educational information. Literally thousands of lesson plans, Web
Quests, Network projects, and other constructivist-centered offerings are
stored in its databases, and new entries are being added continuously. The opportunities to be part of a global
professional community have never been greater.
·
Whole-class instruction, cooperative learning
and assessment tools: Local networks can support a variety of
features that allow participants in the constructivist classroom to share work
folders and submit work to be graded.
Sharing common folders can have a tremendous benefit for cooperative
learning, in that text files, URLs, images and other digital information can be
uploaded and shared among the group. The
instructor can also place files in a common work area that may be accessed by
all participants. These files may then
be transferred to the individual’s user file to work on later, or to work on
while instruction is taking place.
Students may also upload files to a common folder that can only be
accessed by the instructor or network administrator. The instructor may then grade the work, and
if a two-way exchange is possible, send the work back to the student with
comments. The downside of this local
network feature is that it usually cannot be accessed from home.
·
Technology for the special needs
student: Assistive technology such as voice recognition systems, dynamic Braille
displays, speech
synthesizers, and talking books provide learning and communication
alternatives for those who have developmental or physical disabilities (Adams,
Burns, 1999). Computers, too, have been
found to be particularly engaging for students that may have concentration and
focusing issues. This engagement
translates to more time spent on task, better listening skills, and improved
concentration (OLTC, 1996).
Of course, managing the technology enriched
constructivist classroom can be challenging to any teacher. Initially, there may be more preparation time
involved with curriculum planning, resource material selection, instructional
materials, setting up folders, learning software, and creating the class
website or on-line classroom. Once the
unit or units are underway, however, preparation time drops off dramatically,
due to an increase in student involvement and participation. At this point, the instructor takes on the
role of manager, guide, consultant and facilitator. Students will need guidance in choosing
relevant information, structuring and organizing their data and transforming
their ideas into viable solutions to the problem presented (Adams, Burns,
1999). There are some important points
to consider as technology is being integrated into the classroom.
·
Do not try to do everything at once. The
integration of technology is a gradual process, and requires monitoring over
time to evaluate effectiveness (Adams, Burns, 1999). Furthermore, some activities may not require
the use of technology.
·
Always have a back-up plan. Educational
technology has the potential to occasionally self-destruct, and usually does at
very crucial moments. This can be
frustrating, but will be less so if preparations have been made in anticipation
of such an event (Adams, Burns, 1999).
·
Take advantage of professional development
workshops and seminars. Teacher technology training will greatly
enhance the learning experience of both the instructor and the students (Adams,
Burns, 1999).
·
Allow students to occasionally become the
teachers. It is said that one learns best when teaching, and by allowing the students,
who sometimes are more technologically experienced that the adults, to teach a
lesson builds confidence, improves classroom climate, encourages peer
interaction and stimulates metacognitive understanding on the part of the
student-instructor. It may be beneficial
to ask the student-instructor to reflect on his or her thought processes as
they planned and delivered the lesson (Adams, Burns, 1999).
From the information above, it may appear that technology
and the constructivist-centered classroom may be the panacea for the troubles
(lack of motivation, declining test scores, apathetic schoolchildren, etc,)
facing public education today. A
paradigm shift in instructional methodology may be on the verge of manifesting
itself within the near future. However,
as more teachers integrate computers, multimedia, distance learning and other
tech paraphernalia into their classrooms, a growing concern has been slowly
mounting. Despite the considerable
potential of the technologically advanced constructivist classroom, there are
issues that may cause educators to question the widespread integration into our
nation’s schools. These issues include
technological equity, access, and long-term evaluation of learning outcomes.
Technological equity: There has been much written and said about
the “digital divide,” and while technology grants and the Educational rate (E-rate
is a Federally funded program that provides discounts on digital equipment and
infrastructure to the nation’s poorest urban and rural schools) have done much
to close the gap between the technological haves and have-nots, the reality is
that many less affluent districts are still struggling to offer a well-rounded
package of digital equipment. In 1997,
less than 15% of our nations classrooms had internet access (Hoffman, Novak,
1999), and while that percentage increased to 63% by 1999, 74% of this number represented
schools that had lower concentrations of poverty-level students(Williams, 2000). Furthermore, the racial demographics of the
technological have-nots portray an even more depressing image. In a one-year period, from Spring, 1997 to Spring,
1998, the number of whites that had internet access and used it frequently
actually increased in relation to the number of non-whites that had access and
put it to use (Hoffman, Novak, 1999). Simply put, internet availability appears to
be a non-issue. Whites were far more
likely to use the internet regardless of availability than non-whites and in
particular, African-Americans. This sobering
information indicates that it is less likely that the technology rich constructivist
classroom will become a reality for all of our nation’s schools and schoolchildren.
Access: Having an internet connection is but one of
the hurdles schools will have to overcome if planning to give all students
access to a menu of educational technology choices. Once having made the realization and decision
that the total integration of technology will be of tremendous benefit to
learners, school districts will have to invest even more heavily in making sure
that every student can access a computer, at any time, during the school
day. Other educational technology equipment,
such as digital cameras, PDAs, graphing calculators and the like will also have
to be purchased, which will place a significant, if not insurmountable, burden
on already cash-strapped school districts.
While programs such as E-rate and technology grants may ease the pain,
the majority of these assistance programs are more likely to focus on bringing
schools up to the status quo, not providing for an enrichment in digital
equipment. Most school districts may
find themselves caught in a self-funding dilemma.
Long-term Evaluation of Learning
Outcomes: The question remains whether
educational technology in the constructivist classroom does help students to improve
their learning skills. While many
studies have been conducted on the short-term impact of technology-supported
instruction on specific learner outcomes, few studies have investigated the
impact for a number of years (Means, et. al., 2000). In addition to conducting a long-term study,
a significant amount of research needs to be done before we can state
unequivocally that technology positively impacts learner outcomes. A number of variables need to be investigated
before a conclusion may be reached:
·
Student sample: Just as it is inconclusive to investigate one
demographic in determining technological equity, it is realistic to suppose
that the same will be true for learner outcomes. A broad number of students will need to
sampled, from different cultural, religious, educational, economic, developmental,
geographic, familial and linguistic backgrounds. Thousands of school-age children will need to
be surveyed, in order to create a realistic picture of cognitive impact (Means,
et.al., 2000). Furthermore, the study
will need to follow these students from the beginning of their middle-school
years to high school graduation.
·
Authentic and standardized assessment: Multiple baseline data sets will need to be established
for the sample participants in order to measure the outcomes effectively. Results of portfolio and performance-based
assessments, observable behaviors, and of course, nationally-normed
standardized tests will have to be administered and archived prior to the beginning
of any study that seeks to measure student achievement, as well as at the
conclusion. This endeavor is time-consuming,
costly, and requires the use of trained assessors outside of school hours to
conduct the assessments (Means, et. al., 2000).
It is unlikely that many schools will be enthusiastic participants in
this facet of determining learner outcomes.
·
Content-area Implementation: Teachers in a wide variety of content-areas; indeed,
all that are represented in the cross-section of students participating in the
study would have to be interviewed and questioned regarding the ways technology
is used in their content area, how frequently, what lessons, what activities,
how many computers they have in their classrooms, etc (Means, et. al., 2000). From this sampling, a comprehensive database
needs to be compiled and studied, at both the middle school and high school
level.
·
Other factors: Student attendance, participation in
extra-curricular activities, percentages of students sampled that receive a
high-school diploma (as opposed to the average sample of students not
participating in the study), acceptance to college, reading level, behavior,
grades, and honors-level classes need to be included in the study as well. All of these variables will add depth to the
overall results (Means, et. al., 2000).
Clearly, there are many obstacles to full-scale
integration and implementation of technology into our nation’s classrooms. While there exists much evidence for the
positive effects of a technologically rich constructivist curriculum,
conclusive evaluation, access, and economic and racial equity need to be
investigated before this advancement in instruction becomes a reality for
all.
References:
Adams,
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tec26/flash.html
Means, Barbara, Wagner, Mary, Haertel,
http://www.sri.com/policy/designkt/bmeans3.html
Hoffman, Donna L. and Novak, Thomas P. 1999. The
Evolution of the Digital Divide:
Examining the Relationship of Race to Internet Access and Usage Over
Time. Published by
http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/
Williams, Catrina.
2000. Stats in Brief: Internet Access
in
Reibel, Joshua H.
1994. The Institute for Learning
Technologies: Pedagogy for the 21st
Century. Published by the Institute for
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/Publications/papers/ILTpedagogy_print.html
Riding, Richard and Rayner, Stephen. 1998. Cognitive
Styles and Learning Strategies:
Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behavior. London, David Fulton Publishers Ltd. p. 87.
Bruning, Roger H., Schraw, Gregory J., and Ronning, Royce
R. 1999. Cognitive Psychology and Instruction.
1996. Stories and Views about the Use of Computers
in Education. Open Learning
Technology Corporation Limited. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on
http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/03.htm