edtech504 murtagh jim synthesispaperconstructivism3

8/11/2019 Edtech504 Murtagh Jim SynthesisPaperConstructivism3

1/14

RUNNING HEAD: CONSTRUCTIVISMS IMPACT ONTEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY 1

Constructivisms Impact on Teachers and Technology in the K-12 Classroom

James P. Murtagh

Boise State University


2/14

CONSTRUCTIVISMS IMPACT ON TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY 2

Abstract

Building on the work of behaviorist and cognitivist learning theorists, constructivism emerged as

a theory which proposes that learners construct new knowledge based on their prior experiences.

A constructivist approach to education focuses on active, student-centered environments, filled

with inquiry, research and collaboration. Technology is the perfect accompaniment to

constructivist methods as it addresses all of these attributes. Teachers are being asked to integrate

technology in their classroom practices to prepare students for college and career, and to create

more rigorous, student driven learning experiences. The combination of a constructivist

framework and the integration of technology appear to be the solution. This paper will provide

an introduction to the rise of constructivism as an evolution of behaviorist and cognitivist

learning theories, and explain why educators need to understand multiple learning theories. It

will conclude by exploring constructivismsimpact on teachersbeliefs of learning theories, and

the connection between constructivism and the use of technology in the classroom.

Keywords: constructivism, technology, learning theories


3/14


Introduction

There is a growing push for educators to increase the use of technology in their K-12 classrooms

to prepare students for a world where technology will eventually permeate every career option

(Vannatta & Beyerbach, 2000). This drive to integrate technology has brought a rise in the

popularity of constructivist based teaching approaches. This paper explores the development of

constructivism, the role learning theories have for educators, and constructivisms impact on

teachers beliefs and the integration of technology in the classroom.

The Development of Constructivism

Where we stand today is the result of all the steps we took yesterday and every day prior to that,

so to understand constructivism in its current context, it would serve us well to trace its origins

and explore its development throughout time. The concepts of learning and how to teach are as

old as recorded history. Plato, Aristotle and Descartes all wrestled with the ideas of what is

knowledge, and how do our minds process the world around us.

Competing explanations on the origin of knowledge arose in the concepts of empiricism and

rationalism. Aristotle, an empiricist, proposed that knowledge is a result of sensory impressions

and that an individuals experiences are the primary source of knowledge. Humans enter the

world as a blank canvas, with little to no pre-existing knowledge. Through our interactions with

everything around us, our brains begin to process our environment, connecting simple

impressions to form more complex ideas (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Platos rationalist viewpointbelieves that all knowledge is already embedded in the mind and

through reasoning, that knowledge becomes available for use. Everything anyone could ever


4/14


know is trapped in our brain, and as we learn, we reveal pieces of that information to ourselves.

Rationalism stands in stark opposition to empiricism by eliminating the use of our senses and

experiences in the acquisition of knowledge.

In the early 20th

century, the empiricist constructs led psychologists to establish several learning

theories of which behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism have become widely accepted.

Learning theories attempt to describe how the human brain collects, processes, and stores

information through a process called learning. By understanding learning theories, teachers and

instructional designers can apply these frameworks to create instructional strategies that aid the

learner in their quest for knowledge.

Behaviorism is credited to the early work of B.F Skinner, an American psychologist, who

proposed that organisms are black boxes and that it is not necessary to understand the internal

operations of howsor whys of learning, as long as the desired end goal is achieved (Hung,

2001). The learners response to stimuli is the focus, and a student is recognized to have learned

something when they demonstrate the proper response to a specific environmental condition. The

learner has a reactive role in knowledge acquisition. The association between stimulus and

response is of paramount importance, and it is the teachers or designers role to control the

arrangement and presentation of the stimuli so that the correct response is observed at the

appropriate time (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

By the mid 1900s, a shift from behaviorist theories to cognitive theories began to emerge.

Where behaviorists focused on the overt behaviors of student performance, cognitivism

emphasized the internal mental structures, and the complex cognitive process such as problem

solving and information processing. On the epistemological continuum, these ideas were more


5/14


aligned to rationalism than empiricism (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Learners are actively involved

in the learning process, and the mental activities that precede a students response are equally

important in a cognitive framework. For teachers and instructional designers, their role is to help

learners organize information and make connections between new and existing knowledge.

From the philosophical and psychological work of Piaget, Bruner and Goodman, another shift in

learning theories formed. Where behaviorism and cognitivism emphasized that knowledge is

something external to the learner, a more personalized view of individual learning called

constuctivism emerged. Constructivism puts the emphasis on the connections that learners create

when they link prior knowledge to new concepts (Overbay, Patterson, Vasu, & Grable, 2010).

While not radically different than the two theories preceding it, constructivism offers a

significant refinement. Ertmer and Newby (2013) explain Most cognitive psychologists think of

the mind as a reference tool to the real world; constructivists believe that the mind filters input

from the world to produce its own unique reality (p. 55). So instead of assimilating knowledge

from the real world directly into an empty spot in our brain, constructivism tells us that learners

form a mental connection between a new experience (a piece of information) and an existing

memory. Our brains link these two separate experiences, which from another persons

perspective may or may not have any relationship, to form a unique piece of individualized

knowledge. Our brains construct knowledge from all our prior experiences, and therefore each

individual has a personalized interpretation of the same experience.

This seemingly subtle shift has a major impact for educators and instructional designers. While

two students may both understand that there is something called the sun, their mental

processes that give them that understanding will be very different. When I hear the word sun, I


6/14


might think of the color yellow, and warmth, as my mind at some point constructed a

relationship between these attributes of the sun and the existence of the sun. For another leaner,

they might understand the sun to be a violent, turbulent ball of gas, and while both of us may

describe the sun with widely accepted facts about the sun, the way each of our minds store that

information is radically different, and the way each of us will use that information when we

experience new stimuli is radically different. Humans createmeaning as opposedto acquiring

it(Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.55).

Constructivism links the learner to their environment by the interactions that take place between

the two. It proposes that knowledge can be situationally dependent, that is learners may respond

differently to the same stimuli in the same environment. The constant mapping that occurs in the

brain between a users interpretation of the external world and their internal understanding

shapes all knowledge into distinct and unique forms.

Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, proposed a modified view of constructivism referred to

as social constructivism. Vygotskys brand of constructivism is called socialconstructivism

because he emphasized the critical importance of interaction with peopleother children,

parents and teachersin cognitive development (Hung, p.282).

In practice, constructivism moves the classroom experience from the memorization of facts

(behaviorism) to active student enquiry. The teacher becomes less of a dispenser of knowledge

and more of a facilitator for assisting students to form their own understanding. Ferguson (2001)

explains the student process as Instead of simply absorbing ideas spoken by teachers, or

somehow trying to internalize thoughts through endless, repeated rote practice, constructivism

suggests children actually invent their own ideas (p.47).


7/14


Why Are Learning Theories Important?

By tracing the roots of constructivism, one can understand how it differentiates itself from other

learning theories, and the influences other theories had on its own development. Why is this

important? Why cant a single theory be applied for all learners, and why couldnt this paper just

simply explain constructivism in isolation?

Ertmer and Newby (2013) provide us with a clear and concise answer. Learning theories provide

teachers and instructional designers with verified information that can guide them in the

selection and integration of instructional strategies and techniques. These strategies, when

integrated within the instructional context, allow for reliable predication of student results.

They also explain that the acquisition of knowledge comes in stages, and progresses from

introductory to mastery. As a learner moves along this continuum, different learning theories can

guide teachers to use instructional techniques that match the learners needs. So even if a teacher

wants to create a constructivist learning environment in their classroom, they still need to be

cognizant of the appropriateness for other theories. While a constructivist approach may be

suitable for learners moving to the more advanced stages of knowledge acquisition, it should not

exclude the use of more objective approaches derived from behaviorism and cognitivism for

introductory knowledge (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

An active, student-driven approach to learning lends itself very well to the use of technology,

and the rest of this paper will focus on examining the role of technology in a constructivist

classroom and the implications of constructivist methods on teachers and their personal views

about learning theories.


8/14


Pressure to Embrace Constructivism

The Common Core State Standards (K-12) hail college and career readiness as the mantra for

an educational revolution, and the integrated use of technology in the educational process is at

the forefront of the charge. In response to growing pressure, schools are beginning to ask

teachers to abandon traditional teaching methods in favor of techniques that create environments

where students must grapple to understand new information and defend their conclusions

(Judson, 2006). Students are being put into the center of an active participation, discovery

oriented, process which is heavily dependent on technology. Prompted by the increased use of

technology in K-12 schools as well as NCATE and ISTE standards for teachers, most teacher

education programs have established the goal of developing technology-using educators

(Vannatta & Beyerbach, 2000, p. 132).

Ferguson (2001) suggests that A guiding philosophy for educational curriculum and effective

uses of technology is needed,and then proposes that constructivism might be the obvious

choice (p. 46). She points out that constructivist advocates pin the hopes of American

competitiveness on the creation of a capable workforce, ready for the challenges of a global

economy in the 21st century. Overbay, Patterson, Vasu, & Grable, (2010) declare that most

contemporary scholars are stressing the urgency to adopt constructivist practices.

An interesting connection begins to emerge between the implementation of a constructivist

framework, and the integration of technology into student activities. Constructivism seems to be

driving the use of technology in the classroom, as more teachers begin employing student-

centered, research driven methods, such as the popular project based learning approach. Sahin

(2003) provides a glimpse of the inner workings of a constructivist classroom, The


9/14


constructivist teacher encourages students to connect and summarize concepts by analyzing,

predicting, justifying, and defending their ideas (p.68).This is accomplished by providing

multiple opportunities for students to validate their hypotheses through peer discussion, and

utilizing technical resources such as online simulations. Educational technologies can create an

apprenticeship-like environment where students have the opportunity for self-correction and

learning modification because of frequent repeated exposures (Petrag, 1998). Technology helps

foster the acceptance of constructivism, as it is an effective tool to support collaboration and

increase learner exploration, both of which are traits indicative of constructivism (Vannatta &

Beyerbach, 2000).

For many teachers, there is pressure to reform their teaching methods as well as pressure to

integrate technology into their classroom environments. One, or both, of these demands may be

unfamiliar to a teacher. Research indicates that teachers who readily integrate technology into

their instruction are more likely to possess constructivist teaching styles (Judson, 2006, p. 1).

Judson (2006) also goes on to state Although most teachers identified strongly with

constructivist convictions, they failed to exhibit these ideas in their practices (p. 1).

Overbay, Patterson, Vasu, & Grable (2010) assert Teachers with stronger constructivist

orientations are more likely to use technology themselves and with their students(p. 104).

Judson (2006) states This connection between the use of technology and constructivist

pedagogy implies constructivist-minded teachers maintain dynamic student-centered classrooms

where technology is a powerful learning tool(p.1).

The paradox that research supports is that even though teachers describe themselves as practicing

constructivist theories, they fail to exhibit these principles in practice (Judson, 2006). Whether


10/14


this stems from teachers not fully understanding the theory, not truly believing in the

constructivist approach, or just not having the time to implement the approach properly, is still

unclear (Ferguson, 2001).

Amongst all this pressure to adopt constructivist principles, one must wonder how an

individuals epistemology should be taken into account. Is the pressure to embrace

constructivism and the presence of technology enough to alter onesbeliefs? Judson (2006)

argues a teacher who firmly believes the best way for students to learn content is through

informative teacher-delivered lectures will give little consideration to the idea of using

technology as a means for student exploration (p. 2). Overbay, Patterson, Vasu, & Grable

(2010) provide additional insight and explain that teachers who use technology fall along a

continuum of instructional styles which include behaviorism, cognitivism, as well as

constructivism.

There is an abundance of literature that links technology to constructivism and vice-versa, such

as Ferguson (2001), Judson (2006), and Petrag (1998). Caught in this squeeze play are teachers

with individual beliefs in learning theories and preferred methods of instruction, who are being

pressured to embrace constructivism and technology in tandem, whether or not they fully

understand or believe in them.

Technology in the Constructivist Classroom

Classrooms are being equipped with technology, and whether this occurs through a districts or

administrators mandates, or is the result of theinitiatives of eager teachers, there is much

confusion on how that technology should be used. In a constructivist classroom, technology

typically takes a prominent role in student learning. The core attributes of constructivism (active


11/14


student engagement, student exploration and experimentation, collaboration with peers, etc.) are

all tasks that align perfectly with the use of technology.

The integrated use of technology has the potential to support a constructivist approach, but its

mere presence does not create a constructivist environment. According to Judson (2006)

Utilization of technology is not a goal of constructivism. However, the use of technology may

very well enable the dynamics of students constructing personal meaning, learning from one

another, learning from experts, and creating unique interpretations (p.8). Constructivism

provides a framework upon which teachers and instructional designers can build supports and

develop lessons for effective classroom methods, and while technology aligns nicely with

constructivism, it can be applied to any learning theory with equal effectiveness.

When integrated in the constructivist classroom, Technology should be utilized in such a way

that it engages students and pushes them to make deeper connections with the material under

study, to generate meaning, rather than regurgitate isolated bits of information(Overbay,

Patterson, Vasu, & Grable , 2010, p.105). Effective use of technology assists students in

becoming better learners by providing resources at the moment they need it. Technology does

not enable constructivism as many might infer incorrectly (Judson, 2006).

Ferguson (2001) states that many researchers and educators are associating the adoption of

constructivist practices and learning with the integration of technology. This is especially true in

environments that put an emphasis on computer-based learning. While adopters of a

constructivist philosophy may gravitate towards technology, the opposite may not be true. The

U.S. Department of Educations findings reveal that even though more classrooms have

technology, teachers are still using traditional, more behaviorist approaches. The National Center


12/14


for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that only half of the public school teachers with

computer equipped classrooms ever used the technology for instructional purposes (Judson,

2006).

Summary

Constructivism and technology appear to be inexorably linked. The question of which is driving

the other is an interesting proposition. A teacher with a constructivist mindset tends to use

technology to support their instructional strategies, as computers are a fabulous tool for

independent research, experimentation and collaboration. Research has demonstrated that the

mere presence of technology will not force a shift in teacher epistemology, nor will it create a

constructivist learning environment. Instructional designers and teachers are being pressured to

incorporate technology at an increasing rate under the premise that the use of technology is a

college and career requirement. As instructors look for ways to use the technology, a

constructivist approach seems to be the most appropriate, and so educators claim they are

constructivists, even though this might not align with their personal beliefs or be exemplified in

their methods. Proponents of constructivism recognize that this philosophy may not provide the

best instructional framework for all learners. A teacher or designer that is well versed in multiple

learning theories, such as behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism, will be the most

successful when they recognize a learners needs and tailor solutions that employ the best aspects

of any of the theories. The role of technology is to support the instructional approach, not define

the learning theory.


13/14


References

Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical

features from an instructional design perspective.Performance Improvement Quarterly,

26(2), 43-71.

Ferguson, D. (2001). Technology in a constructivist classroom.Information Technology in

Childhood Education Annual 2001, 45-55.

Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional strategies.Education

Media International, 38(4), 282-286.

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.

Overbay, A. Patterson, A. Vasu, E. & Grable, L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use:

Findings from the IMPACTing leadership project.Educational Media International

47(2), 103-120.

Petrag, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the

design of educational technology.Educational Technology, Research and Development,

46(3), 53-65.

Sahin, Tugba. (2003). Student teachers perceptions of instructional technology: Developing

materials based on a constructivist approach.British Journal of Educational Technology,

34(1),67-74.


14/14


Vannatta, R. & Beyerbach, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology

integration among education faculty and preservice teachers.Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 33(2), 132-148.

edtech504 murtagh jim synthesispaperconstructivism3

Documents