how practice measures up to theory

Running head: HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY

How Practice Measures Up To Theory: Instructional Technology In The Constructivist Classroom

Brian P. Nagy

Boise State University

HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P a g e | 1

Abstract

This paper examines how modern uses of educational technology can be used under the

constructivist model of learning. It begins by defining constructivism and presenting the

primary tenets of that theory and what they may look like in use. It then looks at some

uses of technology that erroneously are labeled as constructivist, but fail to meet the core

tenets of the model. Finally, the paper examines some best-practices of using technology

to support constructivist learning environments.


Instructional technology is difficult to define. For teachers, technology can serve as a

crutch or as a tool. Ely (2008) noted that the ever-changing world of technologies and the

overlap of various other fields of study make a precise explanation of educational technology

next to impossible. Practically, it can be something to use simply to say, “I’m using technology!”

or it can be used because it makes sense and improves the learning experiences of the students.

Constructivist learning theory focuses on student-centered learning and the understanding that

each student will create their own knowledge based on personal experiences and prior

knowledge.

Technology is an ever-present—and integral—part of the lives of many students today.

To ignore such ubiquity when designing learning experiences is to ignore tools and experiences

that many students already have and are comfortable with. Technology promotes interest in most

learners because of its novelty in many classrooms. Utilizing technology, teachers can design

learning experiences that allow students to actively engage with content. Technology allows

students to more freely investigate material by pulling in the expertise of others, exploring open-

ended simulations or following the trail of hypermedia to form new connections.

How does instructional technology support constructivist theory? Some would argue that

the static nature of some content on the web makes it difficult to create individualized

experiences where students take the reins of their own learning. Others tout the benefits of

technology—including exploring through hypermedia and virtual worlds—as exactly the

experiences called for in a constructivist setting.

Background Theory: What Makes Us Learn?

Learning theories abound. Many have attempted to utilize data to formulate a unifying

statement that tells us how people learn. Can they all be right? Perhaps not in whole. Perhaps


taken all together, a clearer picture of everything involved in learning comes into focus. When

considering the transformative role that technology can take, it is constructivist learning theory

that offers the most potential for viable application.

Constructivist theory suggests that knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge are

personal and internalized by the individual based on what they already know. Prior experiences

produce knowledge which acts as a foundation upon which new experiences add new

knowledge. Dalgarno (2001) clarifies, “each person forms their own representation of

knowledge” with prior experiences shaping that formation. “A core notion of constructivism is

that individuals live in the world of their own personal and subjective experiences. It is the

individual who imposes meaning on the world, rather than meaning being imposed on the

individual” (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). In order for these experiences to truly fit the

constructivist theory—and constructivist pedagogy, with which the theory should not be

confused—they must meet a few necessary criteria. Truly constructivist learning experiences

must incorporate: collaborative learning; complex problems that can be viewed and attacked

from multiple angles; apprenticeship with experts; and cognitive flexibility (Petraglia, 1998).

It seems that there are quite a few definitions of constructivism. “Apparently, true to the

spirit of constructivism, most everybody constructs his or her own particular meaning for it”

(Salomon, 1998). Yet, as Duffy and Cunningham (1996) state, there is a general consensus that

“(1) learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and (2)

instruction is a process of supporting the construction rather than communicating knowledge.” In

brief, it is the role of the instructor to get students engaged in activities that lead to construction

of knowledge. Dalgarno (2001) suggests that in these activities, a discrepancy between

perceived knowledge built on prior events and new information derived from the activity is what


drives learning. More concisely, learning is “a change in meaning constructed from experience”

(Tam, 2000).

Further, constructivism states that in order to successfully integrate the outcome of

learning experiences with prior knowledge, students must take part in a reflective period. This

becomes especially important when evaluating student learning, as the hard line between

“correct and incorrect” becomes blurred. “The students’ ability to explain and defend decisions is

an important element of evaluation and is related to the development of metacognitive skills and

self-reflexive processes” (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).

None of these descriptions of the learning process are predicated on the use of

technology. What, then, does technology have to do with conforming to constructivist theory in a

classroom setting? Technology can be used to provide the authentic learning experiences

required for the formation of new understandings. To name just a few uses of new computer

technologies, learners can more fully investigate problems, communicate with experts or even

run experiments remotely or virtually that they would otherwise be unable to do.

What Is Not Constructivist Use Of Technology?

Knowledge is based on experience and experiences occur in different contexts. It is the

contexts that matter most for learning. Multiple authors have extolled the virtues of learning

happening in a realistic context. The idea of “everyday expertise” (Zimmerman & Bell, 2012,

p.224) states that learners can gain knowledge and understanding of a task or idea when in

context, but lose that understanding when questioned in a decontextualized school setting. For

example, if statistics are learned in the context of a sport, then that context should be a thread

throughout instruction and should still be used in assessment. Jonassen (1991) states, “rather than


decontextualizing learning in isolated school environments, we should create real-world

environments that employ the context in which the learning is relevant.”

Typical use of software packages that fall into categories such as drill-and-practice and

tutorials fail to provide the learning activities required for learning according to constructivism.

Further, the one-size-fits-all approach found in many such software suites often fails to provide

context familiar to all students or any individual students. Though such software may provide

feedback, there is no opportunity for true interaction with the software, an expert, or other

students to provide valuable context for internalization and therefore learning. Additionally, such

software more often “tells” information, but does not allow the learner to discover it on their

own. Learners are rarely given the opportunity to analyze new data and they are unlikely to be

trained to respond to “teachable moments,” where “student responses…drive lessons, shift

instructional strategies and alter content” (Lunenberg, 1998).

Petraglia (1998) takes issue with instructional technology that “preauthenticates,” or

starts out by introducing an induced-fit authentication of the scenario. In doing this, a

presumption of the learner is made as a general audience for whom the scenario must be

authentic. As Zimmerman and Bell (2012) point out, no such presumption can be made as the

prior experiences of each learner is unique and must be accounted for. Contrarily, Karagiorgi and

Symeou (2005) might consider this “pragmatic constructivism,” wherein the level of authenticity

and self-discovery is chosen to best suit the learning environment.

Apprenticeship is the next tenet of constructivism which, according to Petraglia,

technology fails to adequately support. The social relationship between a learner and a mentor is

invaluable for learning through experience—learning from a “master” is one form of discovery

learning, an off-shoot of constructivist learning theory (Bruner, 1971). Some simulations can


provide a facsimile of the give-and-take nature of conversation and instruction provided for by

such a relationship, but will fail to create the student-motivating emotional connection, according

to Petraglia. What he does not consider, however is newer technologies that allow students to

directly interact with experts to form such a relationship. E-mail, instant messaging, and video

chat services like Skype and Google Hangouts now allow for real-time, synchronous

communication which may well provide for the personal touch required in an apprenticeship

environment.

Finally, Petraglia lists one more technology that doesn’t quite cut it for constructivism.

Hypertext is a useful tool that allows learners to follow linked articles and create a web of

understanding from their explorations. In a more concrete example, it allows for what could be

called Wikipedia Surfing, wherein a user follows links from inside of one article to another

article and continues to follow links, creating connections for themselves and retrieving new

information according to his or her own interests within the articles. The shortcoming, according

to Petraglia is in the links themselves. Again, there is an induced-fit scenario. Here, it is the web

developer who decides how many links to provide and which are important. It is that one

person’s “idea of what informational denseness and conceptual association in the real world

would look like,” though a learner may want to explore different avenues if they were available.

What Does Constructivism Look Like With Educational Technology?

Teaching with constructivism in mind requires a paradigm shift. The traditional image of

a row of desks facing the front of the room does not fully perform the role of a learning

experience, nor does it provide adequate flexibility for multiple learning styles and abilities.

Instead, instructors must move back to act as facilitators and guides through the learning

experiences. Dalgarno (2001) suggests that constructivism comes in different shades, based on


the level of teacher involvement in the learning process. “Dialectical constructivism” is perhaps

easiest to adapt for the faint of heart, as it provides “scaffolding” for learners to guide them

through the learning experiences and peer collaboration. “Exogenous constructivism” allows for

a blending of direct instruction and learning experiences that provide for application of the

instruction. Finally, “endogenous constructivism” is the learning that is completely self-induced

by the student. It should be noted, though, that even the information obtained from the classic

notion of school is filtered and stored within the framework of prior knowledge and experiences.

To try to make an exhaustive list of technology that can be used in the classroom would

indeed be an exhausting process. New devices and software applications hit the market at

breakneck speed. These either supplement or supplant existing technology. What follows is

merely a set of examples of uses of technology that support constructivism in the learning

environment. The subsequent paragraphs will examine the value of hypermedia, simulations,

telecommunication, online data, and cognitive tools for self reflection.

"Because hypermedia information databases typically allow browsing under complete

learner controls, with learners following a sequence of links that makes sense to them, it is

suggested that they facilitate the formation of individual knowledge representations” (Dalgarno,

2001). That being said, as noted above, the author of software, by nature, has control of which

links are provided. To counteract this, there should be a level of freedom given to learners to

wander outside of curated databases or websites to explore connections that may not have been

made by the designer. Salomon (1998) also suggests that design of hypermedia sites by learners

be used as authentic construction as they are creating a model of their understanding with the

linkages that they have created being mirrored in the linked text.


Simulations have long been used in education. Computer-aided simulations allow users to

manipulate variables and test ideas that interest them. In a more perfect world, this would be easy

to do in the confines of a classroom or lab. Computers allow such exploration in a way that is

safe and cost-effective (a sad, but realistic requirement in these times). In addition, such

simulations allow “learners to see immediate results as they create models or try out their

theories about the concepts modeled” (Dalgarno, 2001). In essence, though it allows for the

learning experience, the time frame required is reduced. This then allows the student to repeat

their simulation or make changes, reinforcing the knowledge constructed through the simulation.

Simulations also provide students with what Petraglia (1998) calls “freedom to fail”. It is

difficult to learn from a mistake if mistakes can’t be made. Simulations allow students to test

conditions and see what does not work without the fear of real-world reprisal for such failure.

Tam (2000) focused on the collaborative aspect of constructivism, namely in distance

education. Collaboration with peers allows students to bounce ideas off of each other and gain

fresh perspectives on new information that may be drastically different from prior

misinformation or knowledge that simply does not mesh well with the set of experiences with

which they enter the learning environment. She states, “A central strategy for building

constructivist learning environments such as situated learning, multiple perspectives and flexible

learning is to create a collaborative learning environment.” Telecommunication also allows

students to reach out and collaborate with students who are different from them, whether they are

from across the state or across the world. Further, telecommunication technology—including

message boards, instant messaging, videoconferencing services like Skype and Google Hangouts

and teleconferencing hardware and networks that might be found in a distance learning lab—

allows access to experts. Such communication tools allow students to have authentic experiences


with experts in a field or even go on a “virtual field trip” to a site that they otherwise could not

visit, thus allowing them to witness activities that can now be incorporated into their schema.

Brooks and Brooks (1993, as cited in Lunenburg, 1998) state that, “constructivist

teachers use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulatives, interactive and physical

materials.” These allow learners to explore, experiment and research real-world problems using

real-world tools. The World Wide Web allows for easy access to such tools including: real-time

environmental data; databases full of data already collected by scientists that only await new

interpretation; the words of current and former public figures found in the text of their speeches

and the text of their social media posts; and primary sources from across history that have been

scanned or transcribed into online libraries. As with everything related to technology, this list

certainly does not cover them all.

As hypermedia allows learners to follow connections, they must have some way to

examine and visualize the connections between what they know and what they have learned.

Blogs have been used since their inception as a kind of public journal where thoughts and

connections can be made and others can add to the dialog through responses to a blog post. As

such, blogs are a valuable tool in the collaborative and reflective aspects of constructivist

learning. In addition, tools exist to actually map the connections between seemingly discrete bits

of information. Concept mapping, using tools like cMap and Inspiration, allows students to make

connections with arrows that use “linking verbs”, or terms that describe the relationship. “The

use of modelling tools that allow the learner to develop their own simulation of a particular

aspect of the world can require the learner to develop a very deep understanding of the concepts

involved” (Dalgarno, 2001).


Conclusion

Constructivism is hardly a new theory of learning, but with increased focus on student

achievement and readiness for careers upon leaving the education system, there has been a

paralleled increase in interest in constructivism. Constructivists place emphasis not on what is

learned, but how it is learned and how the new knowledge is processed. It looks at learning as a

social endeavor that must take into account the experiences of the learner. Indeed, for the learner

to assimilate new information, he or she must take part in new experiences. “The application of

constructivism to instructional design has certain advantages such as more meaningful learning

outcomes, more independent problem-solving capability and more flexibility in both design and

instruction activities” (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). New technology allows for these important

facets of learning by providing experiences that may not be available to the learner otherwise.

New technologies are sure to come and no doubt, teachers willing to provide optimum learning

activities will find ways to leverage them to the benefit of their students.


References

Bruner, J. (1971). “The process of education” revisited. The Phi Delta Kappan, 53(1), 18- 21. Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted

learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194. Doolittle, P.E. & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of

technology in social studies. Theory & Research in Education, 31(1), 72-104. Duffy, T. & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of

instruction. In Jonassen, D. (Ed.). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

Ely, D. (2008) Frameworks of educational technology. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 39(2), 244-250. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design:

Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27. Lunenburg, F. (1998). Constructivism and technology: Instructional designs for successful

education reform. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25 (2), 75-81. Petraglia, 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.

Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some

issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1(1), 3-12. Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design and technology: Implications for

transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60. Zimmerman, H. & Bell, P. (2012). Everyday expertise: Learning within and across formal and

informal settings. In Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.) (pp. 220-235). New York, NY: Routledge.

how practice measures up to theory

Documents