How constructivist theory is benefited by instructional technology (Annotated bibliography) Brian P. Nagy EDTECH 504 Fall, 2013 Introduction Instructional technology is a field that is difficult to define. For instructors, technology can act as a crutch or a tool. It can be something to use simply to say “I’m using technology.” or technology 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 experiences and prior knowledge. How does instructional technology conform to constructivist theory? Some would argue that the static nature of some content on the web makes it difficult to create individual 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 practice that follow from constructivist theory. The resources that follow explore the very question of instructional technology in a constructivist setting. Entries Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194. Dalgarno begins by summarizing constructivism and uses the focus that “each person forms their own representation of knowledge. He presents three different interpretations of constructivism: endogenous, exogenous, and dialectical. These vary only in the degree of teacher interaction with the act of learning, with endogenous having the least teacher-structured learning and dialectical having the most. Dalgarno then goes on to discuss how computer assisted learning best fits into each level of constructivist instruction. This article gives a lot of insight into the theoretical foundation for using technology in a constructivist setting. If there is a flaw, it is that the technology discussed is out-dated as the work was published more than a decade ago and instructional technology has grown exponentially in that time. Ely, D. (2008). Frameworks of educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(2), 244-250. Ely’s article attempts to place educational technology in the context of other fields of study as it often branches in many directions and pulls from other fields. The change in the study of educational technology is “triggered more by the introduction of new technologies than by conceptual reconfiguration, although both have been influential.” Using this article helps to form a historical context for where the study of educational technology exists today. The article echoes the sentiments of many that the field of educational technology is hard to define because it is ever-changing and can be viewed from many different perspectives.

Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27. Karagiorgi and Symeou focus on the translation from constructivism as a learning theory to instructional design practices. They begin by defining constructivism and they essentially use the framework of everyday expertise as written about by Zimmerman and Bell (2012) to explain the prior experiences used to construct new meaning. They go on to discuss different ways that constructivism can be applied. They focus on the phases of instructional design (analysis, development, and evaluation) as dimensions to focus on. Karagiorgi and Symeou also discuss the difficulty in applying constructivism given the degree of differences in interpretation of the theory. They champion the idea of “pragmatic constructivism,” or choosing the level of self-discovery for learners that is best suited to the instructional environment. This article presents a framework for effective use of constructivist theory in educational settings, providing valid suggestions and laying out the challenges that are connected. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16. Lebow begins by discussing literature that suggest that instructional systems design and constructivism are incompatible, but argues that there is a confusion of constructivism as a tool and not a theory and ISD as a theory and not a tool. He provides a list of five principles that support constructivist theory and towards who’s goals instructional technology can be applied and goes on to suggest how instructional technology can fulfill those principles. This article, now 20 years old, provides valid arguments in favor of instructional systems design combined with constructivist theory. However, many of the arguments against are older still and do not take into account current technology which is more immersive, allows for greater autonomy in exploring content and allows for more self-assessment of learning. Lunenburg, F.C. (1998). Constructivism and technology: Instructional designs for successful education reform. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(2), 75-81. Lunenburg begins with a historical reference of changing educational goals in the United States. He continues by proposing the World Wide Web as having answers to the need for improved “thinking skills,” stating that it could be used to promote “problem solving and increased learner control”. Lunenburg suggests that the wide variety of resources found on the Web allow students to gain experiences they wouldn’t otherwise have, and in the end, “the children’s cooperative classroom becomes the world.” This article is the first to not just say what educational technology could look like practically in the confines of constructivist theory, but it goes on to say what good constructivist pedagogy looks like. Though it takes educational technology into consideration, it shows an understanding that good teaching is good teaching whether it utilizes a chalk board or a cart full of computers for students to use.

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. Petraglia speaks about the requirements for constructivist learning and the need for authentic experiences. His premise is that educational technology often forces itself into constructivism through “preauthentication,” or by telling users that the activities are authentic, though they are not related to the students’ lives. Petraglia continues by discussing pedagogical theories that conform to constructivist learning theory. Important aspects of pedagogy include collaborative learning, apprenticeship and cognitive flexibility and technological advances that can be used include hypertext and hypermedia and interactivity. In order for truly authentic experiences, technologists need to address “variation among knowledge domains” and “freedom to fail”. Unlike other authors, Petraglia focuses on the true nature of constructivism and how to effectively use technology to teach along its core values. Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60. Tam, like previous authors, begins the article with an exploration of constructivist theory, including an examination of the teacher’s role in constructivist learning, namely as “facilitator and guide.” She next looks at the traditional model of instructional design (essentially, ADDIE) and how there is a disconnect between that model, which is more objectivist, and constructivism. Tam suggests that instead of a linear framework for design, the focus be on making “situations in which the instructional context plays a dominant part.” Due to the versatility, computers have changed to the acquisition of knowledge to be more self-guided, but also allows for collaboration and interaction with others. It is in this that distance education as facilitated by technology works well with constructivist theory. The article as a whole explains the benefits of technology in a constructivist environment, but also suggests a need for a new paradigm in the effective planning of that instruction since a single experience may be interpreted and internalized differently by each learner. Zimmerman, H. & Bell, P. (2012). Everyday experience: 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. Though this chapter is not specifically related to constructivism, the framework presented—different learning capabilities based on different settings—fits neatly into constructivist theory. Zimmerman and Bell suggest that social, cultural and individual contexts must be considered when designing instruction. For authentic instruction and assessment, these contexts should come into play. If statistics are learned in the context of a sport, then they should be assessed in the same way, not as a list of complex problems with no real-life application. Rather than put addition and subtraction problems on an exam, ask a student who has worked in a family store to make change to see if they can do the same math. It is the experiences of the learner that shapes the knowledge they acquire and that is the central tenant of constructivist theory.