How does the combination of constructivism & technology affect 21st century learners?
How does the combination of constructivism & technology affect 21st century learners?
An Analysis
Diana Wilkes
WORD COUNT -2134
ETEC 530, UBC Diane Janes March 6, 2011
How does the combination of constructivism & technology affect 21st century learners?
Précis
Schools have had computer labs and computers in classrooms (some anyways) for many years now. Have they had the impact that was anticipated? Do they enhance teaching and learning? I believe that for true constructivism and technology integration to occur the computers need to be in classrooms where the learners have access to them constantly. This paper will look at how constructivism and technology, when infused into the classroom, can have a profound and positive influence on student motivation and actual learning.
My context
Currently, the school I work in has two computer labs, 1 computer in each classroom, 2 interactive whiteboards in public areas (library & meeting room) and is attempting to integrate ICT across all grades (1-9). There is one designated ICT teacher and a wide range of technological skills amongst the other subject teachers. Some teachers in this school are embracing the new pedagogical strategies while others resist. The risk takers are observing drastic changes in their classrooms; better-on task-behaviour, group support, their own ability to extend and differentiate and opportunities to integrate technology have now become more possible. I am professionally invested in proving that the amalgamation of constructivism and technology is the way to nurture our budding digital natives in the 21st century.
The Learner’s Context
The students in this school are accustomed to traditional ‘chalk and talk’ style teaching and have difficulty thinking critically and applying meta-cognition. Constructivist lessons are new and honestly, few and far between. However, the students are now more familiar with working in groups, doing differentiated tasks, understanding the lesson objectives and collaborating to solve problems. Nevertheless, receiving one discrete ICT lesson a week, and with only one computer in each classroom to share, their exposure to technology is minimal.
The Teacher’s Context
The teachers have been habituated to teach from a text book and to teach to the test. The recent introduction of a new, ‘Western’ constructivist-style curriculum that is not linked directly to a text book has obviously left them well out of their comfort zone. With coaching guidance from advisors like myself, they are learning to plan lessons which include more aspects of constructivism including: attention to the individual, facilitation of group dialogue, creation of cognitive conflict, provision for self reflection and opportunity to co-construct knowledge (Richardson, 2003). In addition, having little access to the computer lab and minimal ICT PD has virtually eliminated their initiative to integrate technology. It must be stated that a teacher’s own technical skills are not enough if the classroom practice does not effectively support meaningful learning based on constructivist theory (Sprague, D., & Dede, C. 1999).
Integration of Technology- the good, the bad and the ugly!
The Good – Technology is just a tool to facilitate learning, but it is a powerful tool and it is ever-present in the lives of our students, extending their human capacity. When technology is integrated effectively and authentically, learners begin to conceptualize knowledge in a different way and teachers augment their teaching process, especially their metacognition (Mayrberger, 2004). Computer technology supplies learners and educators with unprecedented opportunities to transform the teaching and learning process, from exceptionally simple, common uses like word processing to the most sophisticated such as creating mashups. The internet, if accessibility isn’t an issue, provides endless opportunities for integration through Web 2.0, webquests, virtual field trips/experiments and online communication forums that are free. The need for expensive software has been significantly minimised. Integration of technology propagates a knowledge building community in the f2f classroom and in blended learning experiences; encouraging learners to collaborate to solve problems and be innovative (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005).
The Bad – Integration of technology is dependent upon the personal dedication of teachers and their knowledge about applying pedagogical concepts that revolve around constructivist views (Mayrberger, 2004). Teachers are more likely to use computers for personal and administrative purposes than in teaching/learning experiences (Keengwe & Whittaker, 2004) and will not use technology just because it is ‘there’. There is a common belief that students learn from computers when in fact they learn more with computers. This means that technology can support collaboration, interpretation, accessing information and presentation but this cannot occur until teachers have the ability to facilitate this meaningful learning. In my context unfortunately, technologies are being added to schools without changing classrooms, pedagogy or expectations/visions of the school at a leadership level.
The Ugly – With many schools lacking a clear vision revolving around integration of technology and pedagogical approaches, it is amazing that technology ever gets integrated! In addition, lack of funding for quality hardware/maintenance and teacher training increases the problem. Include a general lack of technical support and fear of the technology itself and it becomes clear why it is such a challenge to integrate technology consistently (Keengwe & Whittaker, 2004). Meaningful integration of technology necessitates in-service days for technology workshops and a support group that can include tech savvy teachers/students, ICT teachers, technicians or community volunteers (Keengwe, Pearson & Smart, 2009). The general belief that computers will transform educational practices by proponents of school reform is detrimental to true integration because increased access doesn’t necessarily lead to increased integration. Ultimately, many teachers fear technology or believe that they will lose classroom control. They aren’t able to commit the necessary time required to learn new technologies or prepare constructivist lessons that utilizes them (Keengwe, 2005).
Constructivism – opportunities and limitations
Opportunities – At the centre of constructivism is a learner-centred pedagogy that is founded on reflective/contextual and active learning, authentic tasks and social problem solving. It is an accepted learning theory supported by the likes of Piaget, Vygotsky, Gardner and Dewey (Keengwe, Wachira & Sands, 2008).
Constructivism, as a learning theory, provides a plethora of opportunities for teachers in their lesson creation and for students in their learning journey. It emphasises individual meaning-making. Constructivist Learning Environments (CLEs) as proposed by Jonassen (1999), require:
- an issue (creates cognitive conflict),
- related cases (scaffolding and tapping into prior knowledge),
- information resources (a variety of sources provided),
- cognitive tools (for knowledge building and higher-order thinking) and;
- conversation and collaboration tools (opportunities for discourse that leads to problem solving).
CLEs that employ a combination of synchronous and asynchronous communication are successful in engaging the net generation- who happen to be non-traditional, multi-tasking, hands-on, inquisitive learners (Campo & DeVrieze, 2008). Online, instructional design that includes Web 2.0 technologies and problem-based learning activities ensure collaboration in authentic tasks using the tools of the ‘real world’.
Sherman and Kurshan (2005) identify eight teaching characteristics that are consistent with constructivist principles:
1. learner-centred (ie. access to online resources, organize info using computer-based tools)
2. interesting (ie. motivational hooks- youtube, animations, virtual manipulatives)
3. real-life (ie. Jasper Woodbury series, Schools For Thought –SFT, real presentations)
4. social (ie. Global Lab, online forums, online communities, flat classroom project)
5. active (Webpals, stimulating questions, timelines)
6. feedback (Logal Simulations, immediate technology based feedback, personalised from teacher)
7. time (better use of time, tutoring programs, visible learning activities)
8. supportive (scaffolding, spreadsheets-graphing-modelling programs, Electronic Emissary Project)
Limitations – Conversely, one of the greatest limitations to constructivist learning is that the teacher has a clouded view of what constructivist teaching looks like (Richardson, 2003). Constructivism, as it stands, is a learning theory and not a teaching theory so the transfer from transmission teaching to a constructivist classroom is not always complete. This leads to educators who think they are constructivists but are in fact not as is frequently the case in my context. There needs to be a more explicit definition of what quality constructivist pedagogy and teacher action is.
One limitation that is also an opportunity is pre-service teacher training. New teachers who are taught about constructivism and how to integrate technology and who are placed with mentor teachers in their practicum, will certainly be more likely to adopt this approach when they begin teaching. In ‘From Teaching Technology to Using Technology to Enhance Student Learning’, the authors conclude that pre-service teachers who receive: “hands-on experiences exploring computer technologies and their applications in teaching and learning; education courses that model technology integration; field experiences in technology rich classrooms; and a rich, constructivist vision of technology infusion possibilities” (Beyerbach, Walsh & Vannatta, 2001, p.107) will be able to integrate technology into their curricula.
Constructivism + Technology = student learning
An effective way to integrate technology into teaching and learning process is to follow a constructivist model. Te Whaariki – Early Childhood Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1996) supports this view of constructivist approaches to education and to knowledge acquisition.
For a constructivist, technology integrated, approach to be successful the teacher must:
- Become a facilitator or architect
- Instead of telling students the answer, the teacher asks questions to help them discover the answer themselves
- Allow student responses to drive lessons and curriculum as much as possible
- Allow adequate time for experimentation, collaboration and discussion
- Be tolerant with noise and some disorder
- Get comfortable with uncertainty and see it as a prevailing condition of learning
- Be active participants with children, co-constructing knowledge together. The concept of teaching and learning at the same time endorses a view that we all bring something to teach and also have something to learn in each situation. (Tamati, 2005).
Student-Cantered, Technology-Rich learning Environments (SCenTRLE) is a good model for infusing technology into the constructivist pedagogical framework and it involves 8 events that facilitate knowledge construction and promote life-long learning:
1. Set learning challenge- curriculum goal or problem to solve- this situates the learning
2. Negotiate learning goals & objectives- learners identify what they need to know to succeed
3. Negotiate learning strategy- students employ metacognition and make a plan of action
4. Construct knowledge- independently and collaboratively research, critically evaluate and validate knowledge that is co-constructed
5. Negotiate performance criteria- students describe how they will know they have achieved their learning goals
6. Assessment- students conduct self, peer and expert assessments
7. Monitor performance and provide feedback- this is ongoing, cyclical not linear
8. Communicate results- a more formal communication that is used for summative and formative evaluation (portfolio)
***Throughout the eight events the computer can be used as a tutor, a tutee and as a tool (Hirumi, 2002).
Is infused learning the way of the future?
The infusion of technology into constructivist pedagogy (I will refer to this as infused learning) has been coined connectivism. Many parallels can be drawn to the more traditional learning theories of cognitivism, behaviourism and constructivism but connectivism offers autonomy, connectedness/interactivity, diversity and openness (Downes, 2009).
The Connectivist Framework embodies the idea that knowledge is disseminated across a network of connections and that learning manifests as the ability to navigate and assemble those networks where learners can create and consume knowledge simultaneously (Downes, 2009).
So why is infused learning different? Infused learning is a powerful premise that encapsulates what is good about many learning theories, technology and social constructs. The affordances of infused learning promote both synchronous and asynchronous interactions allowing ‘think time’. Infused learning can encompass elements of the other social, developmental and cognitive learning theories but operates under a Connectivist perspective.
I believe that infused learning addresses how people learn (through automony, diversity, interactivity and openness), what people learn (through the internet, collaboration, www) and why it is learned (articulation of learning objectives in LMS, webquests, webpages, social networks) so it can be viewed as a pedagogical approach for the digital 21st century.
Conclusion – Constructivism + Technology = Learning?
Has the computer become “a catalyst for deep and radical change in the education system” as Seymour Papert postulated more than 25 years ago? Absolutely! Is this true for my context? Not so much! Classrooms around the world are using Internet-Based Training, Web-Based Training, online CLEs, eLearning, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Web 2.0 applications and many combinations of technological devices within a blended learning methodology and for them, the computer has certainly changed the way students are learning. So how does combining technology with constructivism affect learners in the 21st century? In a nutshell: Employing student-centred teaching strategies coupled with technology is yielding motivated learning and collaboration (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005).
My Context- The school that I work in is promoting technology for technologies sake and this is a recipe for disaster (Keengwe, Pearson & Smart, 2009). Our school needs to begin with a school-wide vision for integration of technology and support teachers who are using constructivism. Following this, in-service professional development on both technology and employing constructivism needs to happen regularly. In addition, we need to disassemble the second ICT lab, redistribute the computers to classrooms and teach teachers how to use the IWBs. The curriculum is there to promote constructivism, now we need teachers to fully adopt the strategies and underlying principles of a student-centred, technologically-rich learning environment.
References
Akyeampong, A. & Keengwe, J. (2010). Growing up Digital: Supporting Digital Natives to Learn Meaningfully. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2129-2131). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 2, 2011from http://www.editlib.org/p/33677.
BAGLEY, W., RICE, M.L. & WILSON, E.K. (2001). Transforming Learning with Technology: Lessons from the Field. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 211-230. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/8429.
Campo, M.A. & De Vrieze, L. (2008). Instructional Design Model: Blending Digital Technology in Online Learning. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 2324-2329). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/28690.
Connectivism. (2010). Connectivism: a learning theory for today’s learner. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.connectivism.ca/about.html.
Downes, S. (2009). Places to Go: Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue1/Places_to_Go-__Connectivism_&_Connective_Knowledge.pdf
Hicks, D., Sears, P., Gao, H., Goodman, P. & Manning, J. (2004). Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Be Socially and Ethically Aware Producers and Consumers of Interactive Technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 470-481. AACE. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/19918.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-Cantered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Judson, E. (2006). How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs About Learning: Is There a Connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 3, 2011from http://www.editlib.org/p/6046.
Keengwe, J. (2005). Computer technology in the Classroom: Overcoming challenges and enhancing opportunities for successful integration of technology in instruction. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 1438-1441). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Keengwe, J., Wachira, P. & Sands, J. (2008). Constructivist Guidelines for Effective Technology Integration Practices. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 2060-2063). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/27505.
Keengwe, J. & Lawson-Body, A. (2009). Technology and Net Generation Students: Creating the Right balance. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 1905-1907). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/30897.
Keengwe, J., Pearson, D., & Smart, K. (2009). Technology Integration: Mobile Devices (iPods), Constructivist Pedagogy, and Student Learning. AACEJ, 17 (4) pp.333-346.
Keengwe, J. & Whittaker, S. (2004). Using a Constructivists’ Approach to Enhance Student Learning and the Integration of Technology. In J. Nall & R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 (pp. 1297-1300). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/11508.
Mayrberger, K. (2004). ‘New learning’ with ICT in Primary School? – A Constructivist Orientated Learning Environment from a Structuralist Point of View. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004 (pp. 2678-2683). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 2, 2011from http://www.editlib.org/p/12832.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105 (9), pp1623-1640.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved September 22, 2010, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999). Constructivism in the classroom: If I teach this way, am I doing my job? Learning and Leading with Technology, 27 (1), 6-9.
Tamati, A (2005). Ma tou rourou, Ma toku rourou. The Concept of Ako: co-construction of knowledge for a Kaupapa Maori perspective. Early Education, Spring, 2005.
Ministry of Education. (1996a). Te whaariki: He whaariki matauranga mo nga mokopuna o Aotearoa. Wellington: Learning Media.
Vannatta, R., Beyerbach, B. & Walsh, C. (2001). From Teaching Technology to Using Technology to Enhance Student Learning: Pre-service Teachers’ Changing Perceptions of Technology Infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105-127. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 2, 2011from http://www.editlib.org/p/8456.