You are on page 1of 42

School Reform: What Role can Technology Play in a Constructivist Setting?

Melissa N. Matusevich Montgomery County Public Schools May, 1995


Abstract

The author examines the long-neglected theory of constructivist learning and how modern technology will bring it to the fore. Several examples of constructivism, technology, and their joint application in Montgomery County Public Schools are presented. Also considered are the implications for assessment in a technology-rich constructivist environment. The author demonstrates how the combination of technology and constructivist theory will revolutionize school reform. Constructivism as a theory of learning has existed for over one hundred years but has not been widely accepted or applied in public schools. Modern technology is significantly impacting society and our daily lives. Public schools have and will continue to reflect societal change. There is a strong link between effective use of modern technology and the theory of constructivism, as this paper will demonstrate. This link is so strong that it will cause a fundamental shift away from didactic techniques to a unifying constructivist framework. In this paper I first explain constructivism. Next, I give examples of the applications of constructivism in Montgomery County Public Schools. I then focus on appropriate classroom applications of emerging technologies and how I view these being used in Montgomery County Public Schools. I follow by drawing together the threads of technology and constructivism. I discuss the implication for constructivist theory as a direct result of the integration of technology in classrooms and demonstrate that future assessment must reflect this theory. Finally, I show how these theories are being applied in my daily work.
Constructivism

Technology has always impacted education; the printing press allowed textbooks to be developed, and the replacement of slates and chalk by pencil and paper permitted a permanent record of one's writing to be preserved. In the late 1950s and 1960s television was utilized as a means of teaching large groups of students, albeit ineffectively. Today, a new wave of technology is beginning to cause repercussions in

schools that will forever change how students are taught. Is this change a positive one? To gain insight into this dilemma, one must first look at how children learn. Many theories of learning have been proposed in the last century. Until recently, behavioral psychology has influenced education in this country to such a startling degree that it had a virtual stranglehold on how textbooks were defined and how teachers planned and implemented lessons. To date most statewide testing programs reflect this philosophy. Of late, however, the constructivist theory of learning has, again, come to the forefront. Constructivism isn't new; John Dewey advocated it at the turn of the century. Maria Montessori based her educational model on constructivism as did Joseph Bruner, and more recently, Vygotsky (Collins, 1991). Constructivism as a theory of learning is juxtaposed to behavioral theory. Constructivism is child-centered; it "proposes that learning environments should support multiple perspectives or interpretations of reality, knowledge construction, context-rich, experience-based activities" (Jonassen, 1991, p. 28). Constructivism focuses on knowledge construction, not knowledge reproduction. It is a belief that one constructs knowledge from one's experiences, mental structures, and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events. Jonassen (1991) stated, "The mind is instrumental and essential in interpreting events, objects, and perspectives on the base that is personal and individualistic" (p. 29). Our view of the external world differs from others because of our unique set of experiences. Senge (1995) put it this way: "We don't describe the world we see; we see the world we can describe." An important component of constructivist theory is to focus a child's education on authentic tasks. These are tasks which have "real-world relevance and utility, that integrate those tasks across the curriculum, that provide appropriate levels of difficulty or involvement" (Jonassen, 1991, p. 29). It would be impossible for us all to become masters of all content areas, so "instruction is anchored in some meaningful, real-world context" (Jonassen, 1991, p. 29). According to constructivist theory, children learn whole to part, not incrementally. The ideas and interests of children drive the learning process. Teachers are flexible; sometimes they are the giver of knowledge, but often are the facilitator (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992). Holden (1994) states that learning must become the constant and time the variable in a constructivist setting. Dwyer (1991) asserts that this approach is child centered rather than curriculum centered, while Bagley and Hunter (1992) state that learning becomes a dynamic process. Bagley and Hunter (1992) go on to say that active learning leads to greater retention and higher level thinking. And as knowledge

continues to double every two years, and since it also has a shelf life, students must learn to access information; there is now far too much information to memorize.
The Application of Constructivism in Montgomery County Public Schools

The impact constructivist theory has had on education in Montgomery County Public Schools in the last ten years is great. Here are phrases used to describe what is happening in constructivist classrooms in Montgomery County Schools:
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

whole language mathematics based on NCTM standards and incorporating discovery learning real world audiences peer review cooperative learning where students naturally collaborate on projects curriculum focused on broad-based themes self evaluation portfolios and other forms of alternate assessment student-developed plans for learning students as active learners teacher as facilitator authentic activities peer support groups higher level thinking skills life-long learning teacher as learner

In Montgomery County, much has been accomplished as evidenced by the above list of phrases. The change in philosophy which I have witnessed in my school division during the last ten years has been bottom-up. It began slowly as does most change. A few teachers learned about constructivist theory and began advocating restructuring of curriculum and instructional practice. Word spread. More teachers began attending conferences and workshops. As interest grew, retraining sessions were conducted. Teachers made great changes because they wanted to, not because they were required to do so.
Resistance to Constructivism and its Acceptance in Public Schools

What problems exist for constructivist classrooms? The general public is often suspicious of educational practices which differ from what they experienced. Statewide assessment is not in alignment. Students are required to perform on standardized tests which do not assess what they are learning. The standard report card with letter

grades also causes problems for both teachers and students. And the structure of the school day causes most classes to be fragmented. The clock rules!
The Role of Emerging Technologies

Education is being partially transformed by new technologies. At one time students could learn a small, but fixed body of knowledge. However, today, the enormous amount of available information, coupled with the fact that the amount of knowledge in the world continues to double at an increasingly quick rate, requires a transformative approach to education. It is imperative that the student of today learns how to be an information manager, rather than in information regurgitator (Mann, 1994). In a technology-rich environment one must remember that the educational focus is on learning and instructional goals instead of the technology itself, because technology are merely tools or vehicles for delivering instruction (Campoy, 1992). It is not what equipment is used, but how the equipment is used which makes it relevant to a constructivist classroom (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992). Studies show that in technology rich classrooms there are many observable changes: 1. There is a shift from whole class to small group instruction. 2. Coaching occurs rather than lecture and recitation. 3. Teachers work with weaker students more often rather than focusing attention on brighter students as in traditional settings. 4. Students are more actively engaged. 5. Students become more cooperative and less competitive. 6. Students learn different things instead of all students learning the same thing. 7. There is an integration of both visual and verbal thinking instead of the primacy of verbal thinking (Collins, 1991). In one study, student self-esteem and motivation in a technology-rich environment was measured and found to be strong. In addition, student attendance was up and discipline problems were reduced. Students were also coming in on their own time-lunch, recess, after school--to work on their projects. Students shifted from being competitive to collaborating on projects (Dwyer et al., 1991).
Technology Meets Constructivsm

Collins (1991) states, "So, inadvertently, technology seems to be coming down on the side of constructivists, who have been trying--unsuccessfully to date--to change the prevailing societal view of education" (p. 31). Why? Because computers undermine

the didactic, lecture methodology, and, instead promote the student as a self-directed learner. "And just as a change in practices with respect to racial integration led eventually to a change in racial attitudes, so a change in practices will slowly lead to a change in the educational beliefs of society. Using computers entails active learning, and this change in practice will eventually foster a shift in society's beliefs toward a more constructivist view of education" (Collins, 1991, p. 33). According to Mann (1994), the use of new technologies in an educational setting has caused the theory of learning, constructivism, to receive new attention. Students in these settings become empowered by gaining access to real data and work on authentic problems. Often, roles are reversed as teacher and student learn from one another. Strommen and Lincoln (1992) make the point that it is not what equipment is used, but how it is used that makes the difference. "The key to success lies in finding the appropriate points for integrating technology into a new pedagogical practice, so that it supports the deeper, more reflective self-directed activity children must use if they are to be competent adults in the future" (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992, p. 473). In other words, computers and other technology should not be viewed as "add ons," but as tools which are an integral part of a child's learning experience. It has been suggested by LeBaron and Bragg (1994) that the role of technology in education is so important, that it will force the issue of didactic versus constructivist teaching. Teachers will no longer have a choice but will be compelled to use a constructivist approach in a technology-rich environment. How can technology be appropriately used, and how can it be misused? There are many software packages available which are little more than electronic worksheets focusing on skill and drill. Compoy (1992) states, "To promote the wholesale use of technology-based systems for [the teaching of] mechanical skills, means that schools would settle for the lowest level of instruction to the exclusion or extinction of higher level skills. If the present system is failing to produce the type of educated students that the nation needs, then automating those same processes will not change the educational outcomes. Having students learn superficial information faster will not improve education" (p. 19). Technology, can, however, be used effectively in many ways, some of which are described in this paper. Barr's (1990) five goals essential to meaningful educational reform apply here. He states that learning should be more: 1. independent 2. individualized

3. interactive 4. interdisciplinary, and 5. intuitive.


Appropriate use of technology in the classroom naturally meets these five goals.

Barr (1990) states that resources in a typical school library are usually quite limited and "often impose artificial restrictions which limit the potential for genuine exploration and discovery" (p. 81). In addition, with current knowledge having a shelf life of approximately one and a half years, many library materials are out of date or incomplete. Available resources via technology now include electronic data bases with current information and other independent research tools available what used to be accessible by only the most sophisticated research environments. Barr (1990) goes on to say, "If we wish to prepare students for life-long learning, we must begin to introduce them to the tools which they will use in the careers they pursue after their formal education is completed" (p. 84). Perhaps the most useful pieces of available technology for students are hypertext and hypermedia which allow students to browse information in a nonlinear fashion. These data bases contain hyperlinks which give the decision making power as to what to explore next. This type of interactive learning also allows the student to create his or her own nonlinear data bases! "Interactive learning in this context means learning in which inquiry, feedback and ongoing collaboration play important roles" (Barr, 1990, p. 86). One commercially available hypermedia application is Hyper-card. In a Hyper-card environment the focus is on single, complex projects which require students to "conceive of and execute an entire program which presents them with a rich, openended, self- directed tasks in which they can explore the various procedures and how they interact rather than simply learn them in isolation from one another, in rote fashion" (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992, p. 471). Students select their own project content, but in reality actively collaborate with other students. Thus, without prompting, the students' projects become a group effort as they tutor each other in new procedures and review each other's work and make suggestions for improvement or revision (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992). In addition, students use more resources, seem to enjoy learning more and generate higher level reasoning strategies as well as demonstrating a greater diversity of ideas and procedures (Bagley and Hunter, 1992).
The Application of Technology in Montgomery County Public Schools

In Montgomery County Public Schools I have witnessed great changes in how students are being taught in technology-rich classrooms. I have observed students

naturally collaborating and taking charge of their own learning. In one Hyper-card class at Auburn Middle School, students were coming in on their own time, during lunch, to work. In addition, many chose to stay until five o'clock in the afternoon and had to be shooed from the building! As I work with and train more and more teachers, I see these teachers unconsciously making the shift to using constructivist methodology. Much work has been ongoing, particularly at the secondary level. Charles Jervis's students at Auburn High School are creating HTML documents so that their work can be posted on the World Wide Web for peer review. Suzan Mauney and Donna Swenson at Blacksburg Middle School work with eighth graders who are creating a multimedia magazine which will be highlighted on a web page. Mark Freeman at Blacksburg High School has posted his physics students' work on the web. Each of Mark's students researched a topic from opposing views. Both views are posted on Blacksburg High's web page. A form for feedback is provided. This allows each student to get feedback from members of a real world audience who vote for the view with which they agree, based on the persuasiveness of the student's argument. In all of the classroom projects highlighted in this paper, I have been tangentially involved as part of my job. As a facilitator for the NSF planning grant, it has been part of my job to assist with these projects upon request. In addition, I have created web pages for three schools and regularly post student work for real-world feedback. I have witnessed first hand the positive impact this has on students.
Resistance to Technology and its Acceptance in Public Schools

Overall, however, problems do continue to exist. Lack of funding and no clear vision keep systemic change from occurring as rapidly as the evolution in technology. Most elementary schools in Montgomery County are lucky to have old Apple IIe computers which are out of date and cannot support software such as Netscape or Blue Skies. When new technology is purchased, it is generally bought for secondary schools. Donations made to the schools are not new technology, but old computer equipment incapable of handling the rich world of the internet, particularly the World Wide Web. In addition, too many teachers are unaware of much of what is available, so awareness sessions must be held. While Montgomery County has a technology plan, budget cuts have reduced the possibility of its implementation. This plan also does not address curricular issues. What is greatly needed is a major paradigm shift. To prepare for this paradigm shift, teachers need to be trained and to think about why they do what they do. Acculturation in the schools must take place, but this is a slow

process. Elementary teachers often use a constructivist approach, but most secondary teachers continue to teach in a didactic manner. Thus, even though students come to us from a technology-enriched environment where they control information flow, they are expected to fit into an educational institution unchanged by the technology which has swept through society (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992). Another problem concerns student teachers who regularly come into classrooms having never turned on a computer! Strommen and Lincoln (1992) chastise teacher training programs by stating that because of a lack of training in the uses of technology, student teachers are "more like their predecessors who graduated decades earlier than they are like today's children" (p. 467). The result, according to Strommen and Lincoln (1992), is that there exists an estrangement of schools from both society in general and from the children who attend these schools.
Appropriate Assessment in a Constructivist Setting

Appropriate assessment must be considered, if briefly. Jonassen (1991) states, "Perhaps the thorniest issue yet to be resolved regarding the implications of constructivism for learning is how to evaluate the learning that emerges from those environments. If constructivism is a valid perspective for delivering instruction, then it should also provide a valid set of criteria for evaluating the outcomes of that instruction. That is, the assumptions of constructivism should be applied to evaluation" (p. 32). Jonassen (1991) makes twelve points about appropriate assessment and constructivism:
1. Technology can and will force the issue of constructivism.

2. Assessment will have to be outcome based and student centered. 3. Assessment techniques must be developed which reflect instructional outcomes. 4. "Grades" must be contracted where grades are required. 5. There must be non-graded options and portfolio assessment. 6. There must be self and peer evaluation as well as teacher assessment. 7. Performance standards must be developed. 8. A grading system must be developed which provides meaningful feedback. 9. Technology will be used to facilitate communication with parents. 10. Students will be videotaped as they work as part of their portfolio. 11. The focus must be on originality rather than regurgitation; it is important to evaluate how the learner goes about constructing his or her own knowledge rather than the product. 12. Assessment is context dependent.

Because of the growing dependence and importance of technology in society, technology will become increasingly important in schools as problem-solving tools. In fact, the potential of new technologies has been generally unrealized by many educators (Mann, 1994). "Many educators, as well as members of the general community, are naive about the ramifications of technology implementation, and proceed without a clear understanding of both the role of technology in schools and what are reasonable expectations" (Campoy, 1992, p. 17).
Personal Application of Constructivism and Technology

As I continue to research this topic, I find that I am actively using what I learn. I'm applying this knowledge in a way I never envisioned possible. For many years I have worked with a small, but enlightened group of individuals who have spent many, many hours discussing ways to effect positive change in Montgomery County Public Schools. This dedicated group developed curriculum, provided staff development, acquired appropriate instructional materials, and lent support to teachers striving to make their classrooms more child centered. Now this small group of which I am a part is undertaking a major project. We are in the process of writing a multi-million dollar grant which will not only impact Montgomery County Schools, but could also be of national significance. We began by looking at the results of the National Science Foundation planning grant which comes to a close in August. We came to the stark realization that systemic change is all but impossible within existing structures. We discerned that to try to restructure education at an existing site would be an undertaking with little chance of success. Thus, we have proposed a "key school" as John Goodlad (1984) calls it. Our key school would serve as an exemplar or model which could be replicated. We envision this to be a school of the future. As we set out to write this grant we began by looking at how children learn. We also looked at what Steve Hodas (1993) calls technology refusal. These two issues are the driving force for our proposal. When I met last week with the National Science Foundation site review team, the reviewers were quite intrigued by our approach. They asked many, many questions and made several good suggestions. I am at this time working on the revisions which must be finished in time for the June 2nd deadline. This initial grant will be first submitted to the National Challenge Grant project, and next year will be submitted to the National Science Foundation. If funded, education in Montgomery County Public Schools will undergo a major paradigm shift. We will begin preparing students for the world of the twenty-first century.
Conclusion

Constructivism as a theory will be forced into play by emerging technologies because it is impossible for a teacher to use didactic methodology in a technology-rich classroom. Appropriate assessment will naturally follow as school reform incorporates technology into the curriculum.
http://delta.cs.vt.edu/edu/fis/techcons.html

Radical Pedagogy (1999) ISSN: 1524-6345 Using Constructivism in Technology-Mediated Learning: Constructing Order out of the Chaos in the Literature
Heather Kanuka Educational Policy Studies University of Alberta heather.kanuka@ualberta.ca Terry Anderson Academic Technologies for Learning University of Alberta terry.anderson@ualberta.ca

Abstract
There are a variety of epistemological positions underlying constructivism learning theory in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to identify and categorize the positions of constructivism learning theories, their relationships to each other, and the implications for instructional practice for each position. This paper clarifies these positions by differentiating the major forms of constructivism along two dimensions. The first dimension defines the constructivist position along a continuum between an understanding of reality as being objective at one end, and a view of reality that is defined subjectively at the other end. The second dimension defines each position on a continuum where knowledge is either socially constructed at the one end, or individually constructed at the other end.

Introduction

Accelerating global competition between post-secondary institutions in combination with increasing learner expectations is pressuring many higher education institutions to improve access by removing time, place, and situational barriers in ways that are cost effective. Technology-mediated learning is an option that many post-secondary institutions have begun to explore as a way to remove these barriers. Until recently there was reluctance in the higher education communities to adopt and/or integrate technologies due, primarily, to an inability of the technologies to provide the amount and quality of interpersonal interaction that is considered central to the facilitation of higher order thinking skills (such as that developed in small group discussions, Socratic dialogue, collaborative/cooperative learning, brainstorming, debriefing, case studies, problem based learning, etc.). This scenario, however, has changed. The type of interaction that is considered central to many educators can be sustained through new communication technologies such as computer mediated conferencing. In certain applications these technologies are also proving to be cost effective and accessible to learners who are experiencing time, place, or situational barriers (Bates, 1995) while supporting the development of higher order thinking skills (Bullen, 1997; Newman, Webb & Cochrane, 1995). For these reasons many post-secondary institutions are integrating communication and instructional technologies into their teaching programs. Though, how successful technology-mediated learning activities will be at facilitating higher order thinking skills will be dependent upon the approach taken to the design, delivery, selection, and utilization of appropriate and effective technologies with a support structure to maintain and sustain the learning transactions (Pisel, 1995; Schreiber, 1998). This often requires educators to acquire new perspectives in a number of diverse areas - one of which is philosophical orientation to teaching and learning. One's philosophical orientation will dictate how educators will view teaching, learning, knowledge (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982), and the use of technology. And, while one's working philosophy will not resolve problems educators encounter when integrating technologies, it can help in understanding and guiding decision making. The result, according to Darkenwald and Merriam, is intentional and informed practice where decisions regarding the application of technologies are made more reflectively and rationally. Educators who clarify and articulate their philosophical position about the use of technologies in the learning process know what they are doing as they use technologies to facilitate learning, as well as why. Until recently, the prevalent philosophical orientation in instructional technology was instructivism (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Instructivists (sometimes also referred to as objectivism or the systems view) argue that using an instructional systems design model can be useful to instructional designers to systematically identify what is to be

taught, determine how it will be taught, and evaluate the instruction to determine if it is effective. Specifically, educators need to pay careful attention to what it is that is going to be learned and what must already be known prior to the learning transactions. Once objectives have been identified, they are progressively sequenced from lower order to higher order learning. The instructionist position stresses the importance of using an instructional systems design model where the learning objectives are clearly identified and stated, and exist apart from the learner (Reeves & Reeves, 1997). Learning activities should be focused on the skills to be learned and presented under the best conditions for learning. The learner is assessed equitably with evaluation tools that measure the behaviors described in the stated objectives. The data from the evaluation is used to revise the instruction so that it will be even more effective with succeeding learners. Following this systems design process encourages educators to focus on the needs and abilities of the individual learner resulting in the development of effective learning activities. The process is ongoing and cyclic. Instructionists argue that using this kind of systems model is a very organized and systematic way of providing learning, where the learner is evaluated fairly with instruments that measure the behaviors described in the objectives. The polarized view of instructivism is constructivism. The main ideas underpinning constructivism learning theories are not new. They began with the insights of Socrates who claimed that there are basic conditions for learning that are in the cognition of the individual (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). But it was Piaget's theory of intellectual growth that had the primary influence on the development of current positions. Specifically, Piaget first emphasized the processes of conceptual change as interactions between existing cognitive structures and new experience (Piaget, 1969; Wasdworth, 1978). Constructivism learning theories are, essentially, a branch of philosophy that tries to understand how we construct knowledge. Constructivism theorists ask the following questions (Hofer and Pintrch, 1997; Jonasson, 1996):
y y y

What does it mean to know something? How do we come to know it? How does this knowledge influence our thinking processes?

The constructivists argue that the `systematic' process offered by instructionists is a problem. According to constructivists, there is nothing systematic about how we learn or construct knowledge. Rather, constructivists believe that knowledge is constructed socially using language (Vygotsy, 1962) and everyone has different social experiences resulting in multiple realities (Jonassen, 1996). Constructing knowledge, then, is a socio-linguistic process where there is gradual advancement of understandings built

upon previous knowledge resulting in multiple dimensions of the truth (Spiro & Jehng, 1990; Sprio, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). If we accept the assumptions that there are multiple realities of what the truth must be and learning is based on prior knowledge, educators will need to acknowledge that they cannot assume that all their learners will understand new information in the same way (as the instructionists assume). Based on this assumption, constructivists argue that educators will need to understand that learners will require a variety of different experiences to advance to different kinds and levels of understanding. Thus we must bring our learners' prior knowledge to the forefront if they are to apply their current understandings to new situations in order to construct new knowledge. To achieve this, educators need to spend time understanding learner's current perspectives and, based on this information, incorporate learning activities that have real world relevance for each learner. The constructivists see instructivism as offering a quick and easy fix to very well defined problems in education, where the problem is defined as a gap between `what is' and `what should be'. Constructivists argue that educators are faced with an incessant onslaught of problems in a field that is constantly changing. As many educators feel a victim of this kind of instability, they look to the literature for guarantees for the right way and to justify what they are doing - for themselves, their learners, and their organizations. Educators often feel a need for exemplary teaching models (or learning envrionments) that promise soundness with an enduring academic approval - such as what the instructionists offer in their instructional system design models. Unfortunately, according to constructivists, the promises inherent in systems models, along with the educator's eagerness to know what `successfully works' corresponds with a disinclination for educators to think critically. That is, it is much easier for educators to follow an instructional systems design model and feel that it is right and good because the literature on it says so, than to grapple with the complexities of our 'ill-structured' world in which we must function (Jonassen, 1997; Koschmann, Myers, Feltovich & Barrows, 1994). A major problem with instructivism, then, is that it discounts the reality of the ambiguous, complex, and continually changing world in which we live. Consequently, learning activities must be presented in an ill-structured way that will reflect the complexity of functioning in a changing world after the course has ended. This, according to constructivists, cannot be achieved through a predefined systems view.

Significance of the Study


Only recently has it become feasible to consider constructivism principles within the context of technology-mediated higher education (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997; Blanchette & Kanuka, 1999). This is due primarily to advances in

communication technologies resulting in an effective means to implement constructivism principles, which would be difficult to accomplish with other media (Driscoll, 1994). Specifically, communication technologies have the capacity to provide an interactive environment that can support instructional methods required to facilitate constructivist principles. For these reasons, constructivism has become a popular epistemological position for many educators who are using technologymediated learning. Unfortunately, educators who take on the challenge of trying to make sense of the literature on constructivism often find it to be an overwhelming adventure. There are a variety of epistemological positions that coexist in the literature on how we construct knowledge - many using the same constructivist label. Conversely, there are many different labels used to describe the same central ideas inherent in many constructivist positions. Adding to the labeling confusion is another problem: some of the education literature describes constructivism as a set of instructional strategies, some describe constructivism as a learning theory, and others describe constructivism philosophically - or as a way we come to understand ourselves and our environment. The following literature review identifies the writings on constructivism that are noteworthy. Writings were identified as noteworthy when they made important theoretical points about the use of constructivism for technology-mediated learning.

Method
Reviews of the literature generally summarize results of past studies, suggest possible explanations for discrepancies in past research findings, and direct future investigations (Cooper & Dorr, 1996). This paper includes a description of the literature from disparate sources in the area of educational technology and constructivism. The review of the literature in this study does more than just describe and report the literature; it synthesizes diverse sources, explains findings, and integrates them into a series of recommendations for the design of instructional activities based on constructivism.

Findings From the Narrative Literature Review


The major forms of constructivism fall along two dimensions. The first dimension defines the constructivist position along a continuum between an understanding of reality as being objective at one end, and a view that reality is defined subjectively at the other end. Where educators fall in this first dimension will influence not only how knowledge is constructed (i.e., what are we trying to understand?) but also the way educators will facilitate learners to construct these understandings in the learning process. For example, should the focus be on increasing a learner's capacity to

understand an objective reality or on the capacity to understand more deeply the perceptions and sense of this reality? The second dimension defines each position on a continuum where knowledge is either socially constructed at the one end, or individually constructed at the other end. This dimension examines the degree to which social, contextual, and cultural factors determine our constructed knowledge. As with the first dimension, where educators fall in this second dimension will influence their teaching and learning practices. Specifically, assumptions of how we construct knowledge on this continuum will influence the emphasis that will be placed on social interaction, group process, and the learning and practicing of socio-linguistic skills. Despite the differences of each position along these two dimensions, each constructivist position has underlying similarities. Common to each position is a belief that we construct knowledge based on what we already know (there is notabula rasa) and that learning is an active rather than a passive process. Figure 1 is an illustration of where each constructivist position may be placed in relation to the other positions and the label that is frequently applied to each in the literature.

Following is a description of each position. Cognitive Constructivism This view approaches learning and knowing as an actively constructed individual thought process (King and Kitchener, 1994; Glaser, 1990). The assumption here is that we construct knowledge through a reasoned integration of internal contradictions - though our internal contradictions occur as a result of interaction with the environment. These contradictions, according to Lyddon (1995), encourage us to construct knowledge by understanding phenomena that have direct teleological development resulting in improved knowledge. Similar to Lyddon's view, Bruner (1986) claims we construct new knowledge based upon our current knowledge; the process is ongoing (Perry, 1970), where we continually build upon what we have already learned. In this process we continually acquire a better understanding of our external world; it is a dynamic and successive process. Sometimes referred to as critical constructivism, this position is consistent with Piagetian schemes. Basically, Piaget (1970) theorized that knowledge grows and

evolves and we are always in a process of constant evolution (Piaget in Brainerd, 1978). He describes learning as the process of continually re-inventing our understanding or knowledge to take our past experiences into account (Carver and Scheier, 1988; Piaget and Inhelder, 1973). As we interact with our environments, we will undoubtedly encounter phenomena that are inconsistent with our constructed knowledge of the world. As we process new information into a coherent system, it is done in one of two ways: when it is consistent with our pre-existing schema it will be assimilated; when it is inconsistent with our pre-existing schema it will be accommodated. Assimilation is the adoption of new information that fits into a preexisting view. Accommodations are changes in response to environmental pressures resulting in the adoption of a new view. The central idea underlying Piaget's theory of accommodation is similar to Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance or Schmidt's theory of cognitive restructuring (in Belkin, 1982) and also Mezirow's (1990) theory of perspective transformation. These theories of learning are concerned with changes that happen as a result of new information that is inconsistent with current beliefs. Cognitive constructivism also maintains that there is a true (or objective) world that we aspire to understand - though it postulates that we can never reach absolute understanding (Young, 1997). When we construct knowledge we are developing more adequate understandings of what the truth must be. Thus, constructing knowledge is an evolutionary process whereby reality can be understood. Cognitive constructivists, then, are of the opinion that there is an external reality that we continuously strive to understand (Kelly, 1955). Although this view focuses on the individual, it does not deny the importance of social interaction. Rather, it acknowledges that we interact with our environments, be they physical or social environments. Moreover, it is through social settings that cognitive disturbance typically occurs. For example, through discourse or exchange of ideas with others we come to understand the inconsistencies or inadequacy of our understandings. In cognitive constructivism, however, the focus remains on the individual development of understanding, even when learning takes place in social settings. Implications for Practice The underlying assumption in cognitive constructivism is that internal contradictions instigate the construction of knowledge, conflict or puzzlement are necessary stimuli for learning (Tobias, 1991). The cognitive disturbance resulting from the conflict and puzzlement will determine the organization and nature of what is learned. Similar to Piaget's theory, instructional methods in this view "aim to confront the learner with situations that make the inherent inconsistencies in the learners' naive model plain and

challenge the learners either to construct better models or at least to ponder the merits of alternative models presented by the teacher" (Perkins, 1991, p. 19). Based on this assumption, educators need to provide learning environments that capitalize on inconsistencies between the learners' current understandings and the new experiences they encounter. Activities requiring learners to compare and contrast two opposing positions would be appropriate instructional methods. Learning environments, then, should be designed to challenge understandings and the role of the educator should be one of catalyst. Based on these premises, there are two necessary instructional conditions: (1) educators know the learners naive model; and (2) opportunities for real or simulated dialogue in which inconsistencies are revealed. While learners should be encouraged to compare conflicting ideas (Perkins, 1991), they should also discuss conflicting views through argumentation (Kuhn, 1991). The argumentation should be based on their existing knowledge as they try to accommodate new knowledge that is internally inconsistent. When the focus is on the learner's accommodation of conflicting ideas, it is necessary that the instructor act as a catalyst providing learning opportunities that enhance this process. Provision for opportunity to reflect on both the learning content and process is important. Instructional methods such as case studies, debates, individual and group summarizing, and team teaching using heterogeneous grouping are appropriate instructional activities that will instigate internal conflicts, facilitating the learner's individual development of understanding. It is recognized that interaction with peers who have different ability levels and backgrounds are a main source of conflict that can stimulate this process. Radical Constructivism The fundamental assumption in this position is that reality is only a speculation, or a supposition, or - at most - a hypothetical position that is, really, just an individual's opinion. Knowledge is, essentially, a function of the workings of our cognitive structure and thus a very personal experience (Maturana, 1991). There is no shared reality (Suchman, 1987). In this view we construct knowledge based on our environment and experiences (Clancy, 1986; Winograd & Flores, 1986). As each one of us will never have exactly the same environment or experiences, we will never form exactly the same understanding of reality (Jonassen, 1991). Therefore, we can never know what exists in reality, as we can never compare our assumptions of realities with others. That is, based on the assumption that no two people will ever have exactly the same experiences, other realities will always be different. According to Honebein, Duffy and Fishman (1993), knowledge is not permanent or fixed; rather, it is constructed individually through our experiences in a particular context. Thus, our understandings

are embedded in our experiences. Knowledge, according to Jonassen (1990), "is based upon individual constructions that are not tied to any external reality, but rather to the knower's interactions with the external world. Reality is to a degree whatever the knower conceives it to be . . . if knowledge is constructed individually, then there is no objective reality, and our experiences determine our reality" (pp. 32, 34). Thus, there are many ways to structure our world and there are multiple realities, or many meanings, for any event or concept. There is no one correct meaning that we can strive for (Jonassen in Reigeluth, 1991) and there is no objective reality that is independent of our thoughts (von Glasersfeld, 1984). According to Cooper (1993), "external phenomena are meaningless except as the mind perceives them . . . Constructivists view reality as personally constructed, and state that personal experiences determine reality, not the other way around" (p. 16). Although this view is sometimes labeled extreme constructivism in the literature, many individuals who fall in this category claim that they are not extreme in their position. The implied negative connotation that comes with the labels `radical' and `extreme' motivates many writers who fall into this category to deny they are radical constructivists or extremists. It is unfortunate that these labels have been applied to this position as it is not any more - or less - extreme or radical than any of the other views. As Figure 1 (above) illustrates, this view is merely one of four `positions' describing knowledge construction.
Implications For Practice

Writers criticizing radical constsructivism state that it is impossible to predict learning outcomes - as there is no objective reality from which we can construct them. As Winn (1993) explains, if there is no objective reality, there is nothing that instructors can do that will influence the understandings of learners. While it is true that this position of constructivism maintains there should be few specific guidelines for instruction, it would be absurd to say there is nothing educators can do that will influence and facilitate the process of knowledge construction. Similar to the cognitive constructivism position, educators need to recognize that learning is an individual process. However, where the cognitive constructivism position sees the role of the educator as a catalyst, the radical constructivist sees the role of the educator as a guide or coach to learners in selecting or developing their own learning strategies. Different from cognitive constructivism, educators should not impose on the learners a particular way to learn. Rather, the function of the educator is to support what the learner decides to do and accept that there will be diversity of understandings within each learner. In the radical constructivist position, the learner is given the responsibility for deciding what and how to learn.

Learning activities need to be authentic with unplanned instructional responses (Bendar, et al., 1992). The cognitive apprenticeship model (comparable to mentoring relationships) and collaborative problem solving (or group problem based learning) are instructional methods that would be appropriate for this view (Duffy and Bednar, 1991). As Honebein, Duffy, and Fishman (1993) note, these methods provide authentic learning activities where the activities of the learner are relative to the environment in which the learning will be used. In addition, if learners are to function effectively in their own worlds, learning activities must be designed in a way to develop their metacognitive skills. Metacognition, according to Flavell (1976), refers to one's knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes or, stated simply, thinking about thinking. The Metacognition process requires that learners take ownership of their learning and performance (Honebein, et al.; Jones, et al., 1997). All learning in this view must provide the ability to not only accommodate but to also encourage learners to understand multiple perspectives. In other words, instructional activities must be authentic and provide for the opportunity for learners to generate and evaluate alternative perspectives. It is not enough that learners know their own world, they must also be able to see and solve problems or perform tasks from alternative perspectives. This view would agree with Schon's (1987) advice that instruction needs to include helping the learners to not only `solve' problems, but also `identify and choose' and define the problems to be solved. The learning process, then, has "at least as much to do with finding the problem as with solving the problem found" (Schon, p. 18). The need for learners to not only `problem solve', but to also `problem set' is based on the assumption that in the real world there are many realities that make it impossible to construct and use knowledge derived from a systematic and determined body of knowledge. According to Jones, et al. (1997), learners need to learn how to think critically and strategically to solve problems in a world where there are many and diverse contexts. Instructional strategies should also include content sequences that progress from simple to complex with a variety of contexts. The progression from simple to complex learning should continue until there are realistic levels of complexity in the learning environment and the learner is functioning in the `authentic' environment (Honebein, Duffy and Fishman, 1993; Strommen, 1995). Situated Constructivism In the situated constructivism learning theory, there is an assumption that we can know what is real - but not with certainty (Young, 1997). Although this may seem paradoxical, it is not. Duffy and Jonassen (1992) explain this paradox with the reasoning that we impose our own realities on the world, rather than an external reality that is imposed on us. "There are many ways to structure the world, and there

are many meanings or perspectives for any event or concept. Thus there is not a correct meaning that we are striving for" (Duffy and Jonassen, p. 3). Similar to the radical constructivism view, this position sees our world as comprised of complex and ill-structured environments where there is no reality in any absolute way. According to Spiro, et al. (1991), one reality is false; multiple realities are true. How we construct knowledge has nothing to do with truth validation; rather, meanings emanate from the patterns of our individual and unique social experiences that occur over time in a contextual, situated, and continually changing synthesis. Different from radical constructivism, then, this position asserts that knowledge is constructed as a social process rather than an individual process. Using social patterns that we observe over time, we conceptually interpret events, objects, and perspectives in our environments and construct knowledge (Jonassen, 1991). Restated, we each have unique social interactions that we interpret. As we interpret our social interactions over time, patterns emerge (Wittegenstein, in Spiro, et al., 1991). Our individual interpretations of these emerging patterns are how we construct knowledge. What this means is that we live in a world where there are multiple realities or a multiuniverse (Dell, 1985). Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) draw parallels to Wittegenstein's pattern making and refer to `indexing' our experiences. Our knowledge of our experiences becomes a part of the meaning of the knowledge we create. According to Belenky, et al. (1986), "all knowledge is constructed and the knower is an intimate part of the known" (p. 137). Thus, knowledge is grounded in the experience and the experience is critical to the understanding of and ability to use that knowledge. The process of constructing knowledge, therefore, involves examining and understanding the experience where the process occurred. As Figure 1 (above) illustrates, the situated constructivism view of multiple realities is in agreement with the radical constructivism position but not the critical constructivism view, which asserts that there is an objective reality that we strive to understand. Alternatively, the situated constructivist position asserts that knowledge is constructed socially, in disagreement with the radical constructivist position, which claims knowledge construction is an individual process (but in agreement with the cognitive constructivist position).
Implications For Practice

Based on the assumption that there are multiple realities, Spiro, et al. (1991) argue that there is a need for "multiple dimensions of knowledge representation, for multiple interconnections across knowledge components" (p. 67). The emphasis on learning in this view capitalizes on the students' need to create interpretations and actively struggle with a variety of opposing understandings (Cunningham, 1991; Perkins, 1991). Although this may at first glance seem similar to the central concept in the

cognitive constructivism view, it is not. Specifically, although both views would agree that opposing views should be presented as a social process, the cognitive constructivism view maintains that conflict should be encouraged and actively explored, whereas situated constructivism believes that conflict should be deferred. Situated constructivism invites learners "to `bracket' their intuitive models for a while and just learn a new way of thinking and talking about the phenomena. When the new way has become somewhat familiar and consolidated, then the instruction turns back to the naive model and explores relationships between the two" (Perkins, 1991, pp. 19-20). Instructional activities from this view are largely concerned with collaborative problem-solving skills resulting in "advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains" (Molenda, 1991). In an ill-structured world where there are multiple truths, learners must be able to use their knowledge flexibly, "to be able to find the most useful of the valid representations to fit the needs of a particular case, one must have available a diverse repertoire of ways ofconstructing situation-sensitive understandings" (Spiro, et al., p. 22). In agreement with the radical constructivist position, instructional strategies might include exploration of multiple and differing perspectives, general and content specific problem-solving processes, and - in particular - using a random access instruction strategy discussed by Spiro et al. (1990). Random access instructional strategies focus on explorations of multiple views (preferably, though not necessarily, contradictory views). An example that McManus (1996) provides of random access instruction is the use of the World Wide Web and cross-links that "take the learner through the same information several times and from several directions. This enables the learner to explore multiple routes through the same content thereby reinforcing cognitive construction." Small discussion groups following the presentation of each view on the topic would enable the learner to explore and understand multiple perspectives of the content. In the end, the goal of instruction is to help the learner understand multiple interpretations of reality, rather than to assure that the learner know `the' reality (Cunningham, 1992). Co-Constructivism The most prevalent form of constructivism epistemology is co-constructivism sometimes labeled symbolic social interaction or social constructivism. This view emphasizes the influence of cultural and social contexts in learning (Vygotsky, 1962). Co-constructivism assumes that we actively construct meanings socially through language, similar to the assumptions of situated constructivism. However, unlike situated constructivism, cultural and environmental factors - or groups of people functioning together by virtue of their shared cultural practices (Bereiter, 1992) - are essential to constructing knowledge in this view (Duffy, et al., 1993). Thus knowledge is constructed in the context of the environment in which it is encountered (Baxter

Magolda, 1992) through a social and collaborative process using language (Vygotsky, 1962). Based on the premise that knowledge construction is a socio-linguistic process dependent upon the content and culture where it occurs, this view argues that we use conversational language to negotiate meanings that results in shared knowledge and understandings. Similar to the situated constructivist position, this view maintains that knowledge construction is a dialectical process where we test our ideas on others and persuade others of the virtue of our thinking - or, conversely, are persuaded by others of the virtue of their thinking (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991). According to The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993) "by continually negotiating the meaning of observations, data, hypotheses and so forth, groups of individuals construct systems that are largely consistent with one another" (p. 3). The process of negotiating meanings, using conversational language, is how we construct knowledge. But - although we construct our knowledge socially and collaboratively through dialogue - no two people will have exactly the same conversations with exactly the same people. This view acknowledges that multiple realities exist, in agreement with the radical constructivism view - though unlike radical constructivism this position believes that it is possible for us to have shared meanings and understandings that are, as mentioned, negotiated through conversation. Thus knowledge of reality is constructed through shared meanings and shared meanings are arrived at through social negotiation using language (Kuhn, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978). The process of negotiation is how we construct knowledge and if the process of negotiation results in agreement, the agreement is reality. Restated, knowledge is constructed through conversation and conversation, in turn, is the reality.
Implications for Practice

Similar to the radical constructivism view, this position of constructivism provides few specific guidelines for instruction (Scardamailia and Bereiter in Duffy, et al., 1993). Understanding occurs through interaction with the environment. What is learned cannot be separated from how it is learned, suggesting that knowledge is not just within the individual, but part of the entire context. Based on these assumptions, the emphasis in instruction is on the importance of helping learners engage in `generative' rather than `passive' learning activities (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1993; Jones, et al., 1997). In agreement with the other positions, learning activities such as rote memorization are insufficient instructional methods. Co-constructivism claims that that "students need to engage in argumentation [similar to the cognitive constructivist position] and reflection as they try to use and then refine their existing knowledge as they attempt to make sense of alternate points of view" (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, p. 6). As knowledge is

constructed through social negotiation, discussions with other individuals are a primary instructional methodology. Small discussion groups in a risk free environment, brainstorming and categorizing, Socratic dialogue, and debriefing are examples of instructional methods that can allow learners to examine their understandings through other individuals. Learners should also be encouraged to test their ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts. Consistent with cognitive construction, other people are considered to be the greatest source of conflict that stimulates new learning. In addition to providing generative learning activities, instruction should also include `anchored instruction' where the instruction includes meaningful problem solving contexts (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1993). Anchored instruction provides an opportunity to create shared environments that support learners with sustained exploration. Finally, cooperative learning is also an instructional method that can provide opportunities for generative learning. Cooperative learning is a "learner-centered instructional process in which small, intentionally selected groups of 3-5 students work interdependently on a well-defined learning task; individual students are held accountable for their own performance and the instructor serves as a facilitator in the group learning process" (Cuseo, 1997). Cooperative learning creates an opportunity to form communities of inquiry that provide learning environments that encourage critical dialogue and, hence, understanding (Vygotsky, 1978; Cuseo, 1997).

Discussion
The intent of this article was to bring order out of the chaos - and often conflicting information - in the literature on constructivism learning theories. There are a variety of positions of constructivism learning theory that vary in belief with respect to the extent that knowledge construction is subjective versus objective and the extent that knowledge construction is a social versus an individual process. Table 1 provides a comparison of each constructivism learning theory with respect to the aim of education, the role of the learner, the role of the educator, the role of content, how we construct knowledge, how we learn, and what instructional methods can effectively facilitate the learning process. Yet although there are differences between each position, there are also central beliefs common to each position. Specifically, all concur that:
y y y y

new knowledge is built upon the foundation of previous learning, learning is an active rather than passive process, language is an important element in the learning process, and the learning environment should be learner-centred.

All positions of constructivism would agree that teaching cannot be viewed as the transmission of knowledge to the unenlightened from the enlightened. Nor can the learning process be teacher-centred where the student is a receptacle of information (like a `beaker' that can be filled with information). And the learning process cannot be content-centred where reality is arrived at through an observable cause and effect relationship. Rather, the educator is a guide, helper, and partner where the content is secondary to the learning process; the source of knowledge lies primarily in experiences. The educators' role is not to simply provide information; they must create the conditions within which learning can take place. The focus of education is not on the content; it is on the process. All positions also agree that, if learning is based on prior knowledge, then educators need to acknowledge that they cannot assume that all their learners will understand new information in the same way. Thus educators must understand that learners need different experiences to advance to their different kinds and levels of understanding. Educators must bring the learners' current understandings to the forefront if learners are to apply their current understandings to new situations in order to construct new knowledge. To achieve this, educators should incorporate problems that have real world relevance to the learners through interaction with others where the interplay among other learners facilitates individuals to become explicit about their own understanding by comparing it to that of their peers. As the use of language is also important to all positions, all views agree that educators need to incorporate learning activities that facilitate learners to improve in their communication skills. Specifically, educators should include activities that enhance learners' confidence and ability to express viewpoints as well as help learners to develop coherent organization and precise expression of ideas structured in a manner that matches the speaker's (or writer's) purpose and intended audience. Journaling is an example of an instructional method that facilitates the process of internalizing dialogue (Vygotsky, 1962). Specifically, journaling is considered to be an instructional activity that reinforces the skill of reflecting what was simultaneously being discussed with others (Burnham, 1992; Reinersten and Wells, 1993; Beyerbach, 1992). Finally, if knowledge is actively constructed then educators must have the learners `do' something; "that is, create a product for delivery to the teacher, classmates, or others. Requiring students to do something ... increases the depth of learning by the student who produces the deliverable. We learn best by doing" (Klemm and Snell, 1996). In agreement with Klemm and Snell, Perkins (1992) emphasizes that the learner be more than an `active processor of information' but also elaborate upon and interpret the information. The products that learners create must be "meaningful, challenging experiences that involve planning, development over time, presentations

and debriefings about what [they] learned" (Jones, et al., 1997). After the learners have done something, time to reflect is required. Reflection "can be seen as an essential human capacity for thinking about oneself, events, or circumstances with a view to interpreting and understanding those things" (Evans, 1991, p. 12). Time facilitates learner reflection about new experiences, how those experiences compare to their current understandings, and how different understandings might provide learners with improved understandings. Brooks and Brooks (1993) suggests five guiding principles to facilitate constructivism in our classrooms: (1) posing problems of emerging relevance; (2) structuring learning around primary concepts: the quest for essence; (3) seeking and valuing students' points of view; (4) adapting curriculum to address students' suppositions; and, (5) assessing student learning in the context of teaching. Examples of instructional methods that facilitate constructivism learning principles have been provided throughout this paper. But how well do these methods translate to the online learning environment - or `can' these instructional methods even be translated to technology- mediated learning? While not all instructional methods translate well to technology-mediated learning, most do - and some work even better online than in face-to-face learning environments. Following are three examples of instructional methods that facilitate constructivism learning principles and translate well to technology-mediated learning environments. Debate The debate is an instructional method that facilitates articulation of thoughts and argumentation through the use of language. Instructors can use debates to enhance their learners' confidence and ability to express viewpoints as well as help them to develop coherent organization and precise expression of ideas structured in a manner that matches the speaker's (or writer's) purpose and intended audience. To maximize the effectiveness of debates, instructors should establish a few ground rules before beginning. Debates can range from highly structured, formal interactions, to quite casual exchanges of viewpoints. There is, however, a tendency for technologymediated debates to be more successful when they are structured and formal. Whether or not the debate is formal, there needs to be a moderator and judge. The moderator's role is to enforce the rules of the debate and the judge's role is to determine the winning team. To help contribute to a successful debate, instructors should adhere to a structure similar to the following:
y

The class size should not consist of more than 25-30 participants and not be less than 10- 15. There should be two teams with an equal number of team members on each side. There should also be a moderator and a judge, who is

usually (but not always) the instructor. When there is an odd number of class participants, one learner may be chosen to be the debate moderator. The topic should be an issue related to the course content and one where there are polarized views on the issue presented. Content on the topic and the related issues should be presented to the learners, but they should not be told which team they will be assigned to in the debate until the onset of the debate. The instructor should make every effort to get to know where each class participant stands on the issues presented and have them argue on the side that they do not agree with. Members of the team have a predetermined time limit to present their position on the issues. If using synchronous technologies (such as audio or video conferencing), the time limit should be two to three minutes to present for individual team members. If the technology is asynchronous (such as a listserv or computer mediated conferencing software), the time limit might be 24 to 48 hours with an opportunity for each team member to post one message no longer than one screen of information. After each team has presented their most important points, the opposing teams may take turns to counter any points raised by their opposing team members. The debate should be concluded with an opportunity for each team to present concluding remarks.

The desired learning outcome of a debate is to force learners to confront situations that that result in contradictions that challenge the learner to acquire better understandings. To make the debate effective at facilitating constructivism principles, the instructor will need to ensure learners take a stand that is contrary to their current belief system. This will help the learners to actively challenge their understandings by searching out new information and experiences of which they have little working knowledge. Case Method Much of the literature on constructivism learning principles stresses the importance of experiential learning. Case studies provide one such opportunity to enhance learning through the examination of real life situations tailored to raise those issues that are important for learners to consider (Boyd, 1980; Dixon, 1991). A case study provides information about a simulated (or sometimes real) situation; learners respond to predetermined questions or develop an action plan (Marsick, 1990). If cases are developed so as to bring about a questioning of learner assumptions and if learners are also provided with the opportunity to examine those assumptions in interactions with

others, critical self-reflection will be fostered (Hudspeth, 1991; Stolovich & Keeps, 1991). Writing case studies includes the following (Graf, 1991; Lacey & Merseth, 1993).
y

Selecting objectives. These will depend on the subject and quite often involve such interpersonal skills as revolving conflict, leadership or management techniques. Providing background in the form of a clear description of the actual problem. Only one major problem should be presented and focused on. Information on the nature of the environment, the players in the case, the resources available, and any time frames that apply need to be included. The inclusion of relevant information of major influences on people in terms of specific events, facts, and circumstances which relate directly to the incident or problem. These may be social contexts, previous experiences, or cultural backgrounds. These should also be made as authentic as possible. Formulation of discussion questions need to be developed to guide the activities of the learners and facilitate the exploration of the issues contained in the problem situation. The questions should lead the learners to recognize alternative solutions, consider contributing influences, and anticipate probable consequences.

Other elements to include when writing case studies are as follows.


y y y y y y

Select facts and incidents that will be easily recognizable. Identify characters and keep to four at the most; one or two is best. Describe clear pictures so readers do not get confused. Include brief dialogues that give a sense of the characters involved. Introduce key characters early and link them clearly to the problem. Include social/organizational content. The concluding sentence should point out a need for some form of action.

When using case studies in technology-mediated learning environments, the web would be an appropriate medium to present the case study and following discussion questions. If the web is not being used, the case should be presented in paper based format. To make the case study as effective as possible at facilitating constructivism principles, consideration should be given to having the class participants develop the cases, rather than the instructor. Irrespective of whether the learners or the instructor develops the case study, it should be presented to the class prior to the discussion and read individually. Once the class has read the case, the instructor should use heterogeneous discussion groups to discuss particular points of view. Groups that

include a mix of gender, culture, socioeconomic status, and age will provide multiple perspectives to the problem presented in the case. If the instructor is using synchronous technologies, the learners should be provided with approximately 30-45 minutes for discussion on the questions followed by a presentation of their findings, opinions, or beliefs to the entire class. If the instructor is using asynchronous technologies, the instructor should have access to an online learning environment capable of dividing the class into small groups. The small groups should have approximately one week for discussion. The discussion should then be followed with a summary developed by each group of their findings, opinions or beliefs and presented to the entire class. Opportunities for all class participants to respond to the group summaries should also be provided in both asynchronous and synchronous environments. Case studies can be made more effective at facilitating constructivism learning principles in asynchronous environments through the use of role play. According to Renner (1997), role playing is experiential learning at its best and can be used to "insert a slice of life into the classroom, connect theory with everyday practice, practice unfamiliar skills in a safe setting, and learn to appreciate contradictory viewpoints" (p. 64). Role play can be made even more interesting with asynchronous software that allows for users to have an `alias'. The alias option is where a user can be assigned an alternate user name on the conferencing software. Using the alias, the instructor can assign roles from the case study to class participants where they are a different gender, socioeconomic status, ethnic origin, or age. In this way, the learners must not only act from an alternative perspective, but also respond to their fellow class mates who will not know the `true' identity of each class member. This kind of learning activity helps learners to understand that much of what we know to be true (our objective and external realities) is often contextually and culturally situated. Brainstorming Brainstorming is an instructional method that works well when used in combination with the nominal group technique (group problem solving) (Korhonen, 1990). Brainstorming is most often used to channel a group's collective thoughts through structured group input over a short period of time in ways that invite uninhibited participation (Renner, 1997). This process can result in fresh solutions to old problems. Brainstorming works well with group sizes that are not larger than eight (Renner, 1997). When using synchronous technologies, such as video or audio conferencing, one participant should be assigned recorder of the ideas generated while the rest of the group spontaneously contribute their ideas. The time required should range from five to fifteen minutes with an equal amount of time for evaluation and discussion. When

using asynchronous technologies, such as computer mediated conferencing software, group sizes should also be limited to eight. Limiting group size with computermediated conferencing software is important in that it will as ensure that all class participants have an opportunity to generate their ideas, yet will not result in an overwhelmingly large number of messages to read - as can often happen when group sizes are too large. One to three days is the time frame suggested for brainstorming with asynchronous technologies; longer periods of time can often result in the degeneration of fresh ideas. Rather than a final discussion on evaluation, as is suggested with synchronous technologies, the group should work together through a negotiation process and produce a summary of the most worthwhile ideas generated. The desired outcomes of brainstorming include, according to Renner (1994), the development of new solutions to existing problems, inspire collective creativity, and effect group synergy. Brainstorming supports constructivism learning principles through the facilitation of a collaborative group process where shared understandings are negotiated through a socio-linguistic process.

Conclusion
If learning is, as constructivists argue, a process whereby we actively construct knowledge using language based on our past experiences, then context-rich, long-term learning environments with tools that enhance communication and access instructional methods that provide real-world examples are required. This kind of learning environment will provide learners with experience-based learning opportunities to practice and reflect on the learning process and to a lesser extent the content. Moreover, according to constructivism learning principles, in this kind of learning environment the tasks will reflect the complexity of the real world in which learners must function after the planned learning activities have occurred.
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html

Constructing on Constructivism: The Role of Technology Aloka Nanjappa and Michael M. Grant University of Memphis Abstract
A complementary relationship exists between technology and constructivism, the implementation of each one benefiting the other. Constructivism is a doctrine stating that learning takes place in contexts, while technology refers to the designs and environments that engage learners. Recent attempts to integrate technology in the classroom have been within the context of a constructivist framework (e.g., Richards, 1998). The purpose of this paper is to examine the interrelationship between constructivism and technology as revealed by empirical research. The cases include a variety of studies in a variety of

settings teacher education, online learning, and K-12 education; constructivist strategies include collaborative and cooperative learning methods, engaging in critical and reflective thinking, evaluation through electronic portfolios, and a critical look at emerging teacher roles within constructivist paradigms. Success has been reported in the development of constructivist course modules using technology as cognitive tools, benefiting both students and faculty. However, many teachers do not use constructivist practices, and those who do are not judicious in their selection of technology use (Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999). Technology needs to be viewed in a three-dimensional perspective: semiotic, epistemic, and pragmatic, enabling the construction of knowledge by learners through a process of acculturation.

Introduction
Once knowing is no longer understood as the search for an iconic representation of ontological reality, but, instead, as a search for fitting ways of behaving and thinking, the traditional problem disappears. Knowledge can now be seen as something that the organism builds up in the attempt to order the as such amorphous flow of experience von Glasersfeld (1984, p. 39)

The use of computer technology to support learning has been difficult to document and quantify (Clark, 1994; Russell, 1999), leaving the role of computers in the classroom precarious. In the past decade, a sudden resurgence of interest was markedly observed in the classroom use of technological innovations, along with the increased use of the Internet and other digital technologies (Reiser, 2002). The field of Instructional Design and Technology, too, saw the evolution and emergence of alternative approaches, such as cognitive and constructivist theories, that deviated sharply from traditional practices, such as behavioral models. New emphases, like electronic performance support systems, web-based instruction, and knowledge management systems, not only shook the knowledge base of the field, but also widened its horizon across business and industry, the military, health care and education, worldwide (Reiser, 2002). Initiatives, such as situated learning theory and constructivism presented fresh approaches to bring about reforms in the domains of public education and higher education (Anderson, Reder & Simon, 1996; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Jonassen, 1999; Reiser, 2002). To understand the potential of technology implementation in enhancing the teaching-learning process, the impact of constructivism on classroom practices has been studied by many researchers (e.g., Black & McClintock, 1995; Richards, 1998; Brush & Saye, 2000). Other researchers have suggested that constructivist strategies exploit technologies for greatest impact in learning (e.g., Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). A complementary relationship appears to exist between computer technologies and constructivism, the implementation of each one benefiting the other.

Constructivism, derived mainly from the works of Piaget (1970), Bruner (1962, 1979), Vygotsky (1962, 1978), and Papert (1980, 1983), is both a philosophical and psychological approach based on social cognitivism that assumes that persons, behaviors and environments interact in reciprocal fashion (Schunk, 2000). Constructivism is a doctrine stating that learning takes place in contexts, and that learners form or construct much of what they learn and understand as a function of their experiences in situation (Schunk, 2000). More recently, researchers (e.g., Lave, 1990; Saxe, Guberman & Gearheart, 1987) have presented more qualitative documentation of learning in context. Technology, according to Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) refers to the designs and environments that engage learners (p. 12). The focus of both constructivism and technology are then on the creation of learning environments. Likewise, Hannfin and Hill (2002) depict these learning environments as contexts: in which knowledge-building tools (affordances) and the means to create and manipulate artifacts of understanding are provided, not one in which concepts are explicitly taught a place where learners work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and learning resources in their pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities (p.77). The purpose of this paper is to review the research on the integration of technology in the classroom, highlighting the connection between constructivism and technology. The focus is on the constructivist view of learning as an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and instruction as a process that supports construction rather than communicating knowledge. The review is followed by a series of case studies, emphasizing constructivism and technologys relationship. Finally, implications for teachers and teacher educators are presented. Review of Related Literature In order to understand learning within a constructivist framework, as an activity in context, the whole learning environment must be examined. However, the wide diversity of constructivist views makes the task very complex and beyond the scope of this paper. These views commonly emphasize the role of the teacher, the student, and the cultural embeddedness of learning (see e.g., Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Honebein, Duffy, & Fishman, 1993; Simons, 1993). Using these commonalities as guidelines, this review outlines the relationship of constructivism with

technology by looking at (a) technology as cognitive tools, (b) constructive view of the thinking process, and (c) the role of the teacher in technology enhanced environments. Technology as Cognitive Tools A central assumption of constructivism is that learning is mediated by tools and signs (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Ezell & O'Keeffe, 1994). Culture creates the tool, but the tool changes the culture. Participants in the culture appropriate these tools from their culture to meet their goals, and thereby transform their participation in the culture (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 180). The computer is an exemplar of mediational means that has aspects of both tool and sign. The computers role in education has been largely viewed as an instructional tool and for providing a richer and more exciting learning environment (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Taylor, 1980). However, by focusing on the learner, the role of technology can support new understandings and capabilities, thus, offering a cognitive tool to support cognitive and metacognitive processes. For example, an electronic exchange program between students of a class in the U.S. with a similar classroom in Northern Ireland shared multiple cultural perspectives through pictures, stories, letters and multimedia programs (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). The experience was enriching, increasing their understanding. Further, clarifying the role of technology in learning, Duffy and Cunningham (1996) state: Technology is seen as an integral part of the cognitive activity.This view of distributed cognition significantly impacts how we think of the role of technology in education and training, the focus is not on the individual in isolation and what he or she knows, but on the activity in the environment. It is the activity focused and contextualized- that is central... The process of construction is directed towards creating a world that makes sense to us, that is adequate for our everyday functioning (pp. 187-188). Thus, the task of the learner is seen as dynamic, and the computer makes available new learning opportunities. The view of technology as cognitive tools is also shared by other researchers (e.g., Jonassen, 1994; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Lajoie, 2000). The traditional view of instructional technologies of instruction as conveyors of information and communicators of knowledge is supplanted with active role the learner plays in learning with technology. Technologies, primarily

computers, help build knowledge bases, which will engage the learners more and result in more meaningful and transferable knowledge Learners function as designers using the technology as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others (Jonassen, 1994, p. 2). Technological tools such as spreadsheets, databases, expert systems, video conferencing and others can be used by students to analyze subject matter, develop representative mental models, and then transcribe them into knowledge bases (Jonassen, 1994; Jonassen & Carr, 2000; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). An illustration is the development of simulated microworlds and games by children using Logo programming. Logo programming has evolved since the early text-based medium conceived by Seymour Papert and his team at MIT in the 1970s, to a considerably easy, digitized format. Kafai, Ching, and Marshall (1997) gave an introductory training program to fifth and sixth grade students one week before the design projects. The Logo version included support for modern computer features like multimedia, sprite animation, sounds, movies, and paint tools. According to Kafai and her colleagues (1997), the multimedia software proved to be a good context for students to learn through collaboration and project management. The interaction between team members, the flow of ideas and loud thinking encouraged the children to experiment and find alternative ways for designing and solving problems. For example, the students worked on different characters individually, but then worked together to integrate all the characters, and in debugging (Kafai et al., 1997). Cognitive tools do not preclude the use of computers to increase productivity for learning. Off-loading repetitive tasks and lower order tasks to cognitive tools frees cognitive resources for deeper thinking (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen, 1999) and reduces errors. According to Swain and Pearson (2001), teachers and students must be educated to use the computer as a productivity tool, as well as a tool for learning, research, networking, collaboration, telecommunications, and problem-solving. Using computers as a productivity tool is one of the six National Educational Technological Standards (NETS) (http://cnets.iste.org/) for teachers which states that teachers will use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practices (Morrison, Lowther, & DeMeulle, 1999). Constructive view of Thinking

The process of thinking in constructivist paradigms requires higher-order skills, delving deeper and harder into content and context (Black & McClintock, 1995; Jonassen, n.d.; Manzo, 1998; Swain & Pearson, 2001). Traditional schooling, according to Manzo (1998), actually discourages constructive thinking with goals of transmitting existing knowledge that conflicts with any real attempt to generate new understanding. Constructivist thinking combines both the critical and creative intellectual processes. It can be practiced by encouraging critical analysis in activities. Schools, teachers and students can be conditioned to veer away from traditional schooling regimen to encourage constructive thinking (Manzo, 1998, p. 287). Cognitive tools, along with constructivist learning environments, guide and activate cognitive learning strategies and critical thinking (Jonassen, 1994). Cognitive tools help in knowledge construction and not knowledge reproduction. The knowledge constructed by the learners reflects their comprehension and conception of the information. To illustrate, when students build knowledge bases with databases, they need to analyze the content domain and engage in critical thinking. Black and McClintok (1999) stress the importance of interpretation as being central to cognition and learning. Their design of Study Supported Environments (SSEs) based on constructivist design principles called Interpretation Construction Design (ICON) focused mainly on the interpretive construction of authentic artifacts in the context of rich background materials, and spanning across different fields of study. Their study showed that in addition to learning specific content, students were able to acquire generalizable interpretation and argumentation skills. For example, in teaching sixth grade ancient history, a program called Archaeotype was used that presented students with a graphic simulation of an archaeological site. Students who worked collaboratively in groups, had to dig up artifacts through simulation, observe and measure them in simulated laboratories, and finally through a process of interpretation and argumentation, arrived at the understanding of general principles behind what they were doing. In a follow-up evaluation study, it was found that there were significant gains in the interpretative and argumentation skills of students who had participated in the study against a control group (Black & McClintock, 1999). Reflective thinking, that requires careful deliberation, is also encouraged by constructivists (e.g., Kafai et al., 1997; Swain & Pearson, 2001; Walker, 2000). Metacognition, or the self-monitoring and self-control of the learning process, is emphasized. New knowledge which is composed is added to

previous representations, modifying them in the process. This usually requires external scaffolding in the form of people, books, or technologies such as computers. Swain and Pearson (2001) advocate the practice of reflective thinking by teachers to evaluate their technology use. They stress the importance of documentation of reflective thoughts to determine the extent and quality of personal versus instructional uses of technology, organization and implementation of environments and activities. Jonassen (1994) describes technological tools as intellectual partners and powerful catalysts in the process of learning, scaffolding the all-important processes of articulation and reflection, which are the foundations of knowledge construction (p. 5). The Role of the Teacher in Technology Enhanced Environments The role of the teacher as a facilitator is seen as most important in a constructivist context (Witfelt, 2000; Richards, 1998). Within a constructivist classroom, the teacher engenders social and intellectual climates, where collaborative and cooperative learning methods are supported. In parallel, technology-enhanced classrooms tap constructivist strategies (Jonassen, 1999), arranging problem-based projects where students actively construct knowledge, linking knew knowledge with previous knowledge. In non-traditional classrooms such as the open/global classroom (Walker, 2000; Witfelt, 2000), the role and responsibilities of the teacher have changed. The teacher, as an agent, has to constantly update information and technology for making learning authentic and relevant. For example, while developing a course module for teachers and taxonomy for teacher competencies in the use of educational multimedia, Witfelt (2000) observed that it was important to combine several theories such as constructivism, postmodernism, situated intelligence and multiple intelligences. However, the theoretical framework would be constructivist in nature with the teacher assuming the role of the facilitator, providing an environment for spontaneous research, understanding the social and collaborative nature of learning, helping children construct knowledge and initiate problem-based, projectoriented work. With this transition in roles and responsibilities, Witfelt (2000) listed new teacher competencies in constructivist contexts that include supervisor qualifications, supporter and facilitator of students work, advisor and subject-matter expert, inspirer and encourager, arbiter at group discussions, critic in mobilizing greater effort when objectives are not being met, and evaluator to improve general learning capacities of students. Case Studies

After examining the literature on technology integration and constructivist principles, a complementary relationship between technology and learning within a constructivist framework seems sound and advantageous to teachers and learners. To illustrate these principles discretely, exemplary cases are presented that reflect the philosophy established above. Teacher-trainees at Winthrop University in South Carolina undertook a meaningful technology-based activity to accomplish literacy goals (Richards, 1998). They developed an electronic portfolio around a literacy-related topic, including data, reflections and critical responses, which they shared with their peers and other educators. The infusion of technology was helped by implementing constructivist-based activities, such as collaboration and cooperation in a group, engaging in problem solving and constructing potential solutions to societal dilemmas, and communicating the deeper processing of content and the critical development of literacy skills and strategies (Richards, 1998). Student perceptions were determined through formative and summative assessment methods. Students responded positively toward accomplishment of cooperative and collaborative learning, the technology component functions and the relevance of the activities to future careers in schools. However, they recommended that more time be provided for processing ideas and synthesizing them in the portfolio. Research conducted at the Open University, U.K. also demonstrated a positive relationship between constructivism and technology integration (Walker, 2000). A distance-learning course was developed keeping in mind the experiential and constructivist perspectives of learning. The purpose was to help students in a distance-learning course learn in better and more effective ways, to be active learners, constructing their own understanding. Assignments and assessments were also oriented towards constructivist goals. Their efforts culminated in a new paradigm of course development. A survey of all the students who completed the course and took the examination revealed that the majority felt that they had improved their learning skills to a considerable extent. A follow-up survey was undertaken the following year. These findings revealed a high proportion of positive responses to questions regarding the continued use of reflection to improve assignments, based on instructors feedback and evaluation criteria. However, students were less positive about their use of reflection in general. These students like those described above (Richards, 1998) struggled with maintaining and using reflection effectively. Students were not the only beneficiaries of the mixture of constructivist strategies with technology tools. According to Richards (1998) and Walker

(2000), the development of course modules based on constructivist practices and the integration of technology were also beneficial to the faculty, as they had to plan and retool to integrate technology so that students could be helped to become more capable and mature learners. Implications for Practice These cases have significant implications for teacher educators and teachers. In the area of teacher education, Kim and Sharp (2000) observed that the planning of teachers consistent with constructivist practices was highly variable with most preservice teachers knowing very little about the effective integration of technology in education. Since teachers tend to teach as they were taught, it is essential that both preservice and inservice teachers must be exposed to constructivist-based instruction, which would then facilitate the development of teaching strategies consistent with recent reform movements (Kim & Sharp, 2000). An exposure to constructivist teaching methods and simultaneous multimedia learning experiences influenced the planning of constructivist behaviors and infusion of technology (Kim & Sharp, 2000). Technology may also influence teacher practice to incorporate constructivist principles. Rakes, Flowers, Casey and Santana (1999) report that as the amount of technology available, the level of technology skills of the teachers, and the use of technology increased, the use of constructivist strategies in the classroom also appeared to increase. Technology can provide the vehicle for accomplishing constructivist teaching practices (Rakes et al., 1999, p. 3). So, increasing the skill levels of teachers with regard to computers and providing additional opportunities for teachers to integrate technology into lessons may encourage the use of constructivist behaviors. Availability, skill level and use may not, however, guarantee purposeful use of technology nor constructivist principles. Rakes et al. (1999) reported many teachers concentrated on the drill and practice type of software, neglecting basic computer skills development, or dealt only with presentation skills and Internet resources. These researchers recommended focusing on staff development and training in technology use and constructivist practices that moved beyond literacy skills to address more thoroughly application and curriculum integration issues. When addressing the role of the teacher in constructivist paradigms, there should be no misunderstanding regarding the importance of the teacher. Yet, many teachers feel uncomfortable with the lack of a well-defined content and the shift of locus of control to the learners (Brush & Saye, 2000; Duffy &

Cunningham, 1996). Creating suitable contexts is not merely providing learners with resources and letting them discover things for themselves, but organizing resources in such a way to engender cognitive dissonances in the minds of the learners, inspiring them to learn how to learn through a process of collaboration and defensible understandings (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). As a facilitator of learning, the teacher is not ineffectual and on the sidelines. On the contrary, the teacher is free to use a variety of constructivist strategies, such as coaching, modeling, and scaffolding, to aid each learner (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1990). Scaffolding may include support from other individuals and artifacts, as well as the cultural context and history that the learners bring to the environment. Scaffolding, however, does not mean guiding and teaching a learner toward some well-defined goal but supporting the growth of the learner through cognitive and metacognitive activities (Hannafin, Hill & Land, 1997). Thus, the teacher assumes the role of a coach and ensures mutual understanding of the views of the learner. In using collaborative and cooperative groups, the teacher must be careful in ensuring that they are not just strategies for learning, but means to promote dialogical interchange and reflexivity (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). As Morrison, Lowther, and DeMeulle (1999) aptly suggest, Technology and a constructivist approach need not be at odds with each other. If we change our view of computers from merely a means to deliver instruction to one of a tool to solve problems, then the reform movement can influence the use of technology, and technology can influence the reform of education (p. 5). Conclusion Constructivist views assert that learning is the active process of constructing rather than passively acquiring knowledge, and instruction is the process of supporting the knowledge constructed by the learners rather than the mere communication of knowledge (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Honebein, Duffy & Fishman, 1993; Jonassen, 1999;). Truth is determined by the viability of the learners understanding in the real world, where viability is culturally determined. The constructivist framework seeks to understand multiple perspectives, and challenges the learners thinking (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen, Mayes & McAleese, 1993). It examines the social origins of constructions, whereby it acknowledges learning as a process of acculturation. Thus, the study of social and cultural processes and artifacts becomes a central issue. Context is a dynamic whole including the individual and sociohistorical aspects (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Ezell & OKeefe, 1994). Thinking is always dialogic, connecting minds, either directly or

indirectly. The indirect or semiotic means are the signs and tools appropriated from the sociocultural context (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Within this shift in focus from the objectivist to the constructivist context domain, technology can play an integral part in the learning environment (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). The richness of the technology permits us to provide a richer and more exciting (entertaining) learning environment our concern is the new understandings and new capabilities that are possible through the use of technology (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 187). By integrating technology with constructivist methods, such as problem-based learning and project-based learning, learners are more responsible for and active in the learning process (Grant, 2002). Additionally, everyday applications, such as word processors and spreadsheets, become powerful instruments for authentic learning. Constructivism offers flexibility to teachers to individualize learning for each student while using technology tools to augment cognitive and metacognitive processes.
http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.htm

Are You a Techno-Constructivist?


Staff development experts have been tracking teacher adaptation as technology has moved into classrooms. Technology is transforming education unlike any trend that has preceded it -- but how do educators take such revolutionary tools and use them to optimize learning? Included: A real-world model for teachers adapting technology to the classroom Technology is transforming education. Teachers have access to more information, more ways to interact and collaborate, and more approaches to instruction than ever before. Technology can enable teachers to accommodate a variety of orientations to learning, track student progress, remediate struggling students, and challenge advanced learners. Traditional barriers no longer restrain educators from meeting the needs of every child. And children are reaping the benefits of the digital explosion! Combine the boom in instructional technology and the trend of constructivism and you have a potent mixture. Through this alchemy we are witnessing professionals who use technology in constructivist ways -- technoconstructivists!

A FOUR-STAGE MODEL
Connected University's Scott Noon offers a framework for considering the stages of teacher assimilation to new technologies. His model is based on his active participation in teacher technology training. That model identifies four stages of teacher technology efficacy:

Stage 1: Preliterate end users -- These teachers have no experience with computers and other technologies. Either they have never had the chance to be trained or they simply are not interested in becoming literate. The challenge is to help such teachers see the benefits technology can offer them: more efficient use of time, more easily managed tasks, less bulky paperwork, differentiation of instruction, ease of record keeping. Stage 2: Software technicians -- These teachers have begun to use common applications for their own personal use. They may search and surf the Web, keep in touch with family and friends using e-mail, use a word

processing application for letters and forms, and chat online. Teachers at this level are ready to be introduced to the notion that computers can serve useful purposes in the classroom setting when technology is integrated into the curriculum.

Stage 3: Electronic traditionalists -- These teachers are proficient in using technology in the classroom. The implementation, however, is an extension of traditional classroom functions: digital lesson plans, electronic grade books, drill and practice software, tests, quizzes, and tutorials. The emphasis is to assist such teachers in seeing new possibilities in the classroom: online projects, virtual field trips, distance learning, Webquests, and much more. Stage 4: Techno-constructivists --These are the teachers who integrate technology into the curriculum so that it not only complements instruction but redefines it. The true techno-constructivists have come through the previous three stages and have realized the full potential of technology to help children build on their own experiences, construct their own meanings, create products, and solve problems successfully.

QUESTION YOUR ASSUMPTIONS


"Technology does not necessarily improve education. It could become a valuable education tool, but only if we use it to capitalize on our new understanding of how the human mind works." -- Shirley Veenema and Howard Gardner, Multimedia and Multiple Intelligences In order to begin this journey, teachers must first question their assumptions about children and learning. What was true 50 years ago at the height of the industrial age may no longer be viable today. Here are some questions to reflect upon:

y y y y y y y y

Do all children learn the same way? What do we know about the way the brain processes information? How have the physical limitations of the traditional classroom impacted our instructional choices in the past? How does technology remove the barriers of time, space, and cost that traditionally existed for teachers and students? What workforce skills will children need in the 21st century? Which skills are holdovers from the industrial age and are not pertinent today? What are you willing to rethink? What beliefs do you hold onto with fearless conviction?

There has been a groundswell of brain research over the last 30 years. The medical and educational communities, once disparate professions, now have common ground in addressing the physiological evidence for human cognition. Experts once made assumptions based on observable overt human behavior; now experts base their conclusions on specific centers of the brain and the neurological paths information takes to arrive there. The Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences documents these newfound discoveries for us. With that information, we can reconsider many long held assumptions about instruction, learning, and assessment. A large proportion of the jobs available in the workforce are related to the acquisition and manipulation of digital knowledge. Workers need to be able to access information, evaluate it for its worth, use it in creative ways, and be flexible enough to change their work product as the information changes. These jobs will go unfilled if this need is not addressed today in the schools. The time is now. Once a teacher immerses himself or herself in technology and accepts the knowledge of human cognition and the needs of the future information economy, the remaining questions are the most vital: What are you willing to rethink and what do you need to hold onto with fierce conviction? The answers will vary for each teacher based on his or her own experiences, for teachers -- like everyone else -- need to build their own meanings and create a framework that will work for them.

Once they have answers to those questions, though, teachers are ready to meet the information age on their own terms.

THE TECHNO-CONSTRUCTIVIST IN ACTION


Should all teachers aspire to becoming techno-constructivists? Yes, most definitely. In the ongoing dialogue on public education, teachers have no greater tool of empowerment and efficacy than technology used constructively with students. But what does the techno-constructivist teacher look like? There is no one concise answer. Techno-constructivists are as many and as varied as the assortment of whole language teachers or effective school models we have seen over the last 20 years. But here are wonderful examples of the kinds of activities techno-constructivists undertake in their classrooms:

They create collaborative online projects that involve students in long-term problem-solving and productgenerating tasks that utilize Internet resources and a variety of digital communications. (See Creating Internet Projects and Students and Class Projects Using the Internet for ideas.) They implement lesson formats that are conducive to the utilization of both technology and constructivist methodologies, such as the Webquest, which has taken off in popularity among teachers. (See The Webquest Page orWebQuest.org for endless materials.) They take students on virtual field trips around the universe, through human body systems, within animal colonies, back in time -- all by simply using their Internet connection and a projector. (See The Virtual Field Trips Site to learn more.) They provide virtual simulations of real-life experiences that can be easily integrated across the curriculum. (See The Exploratorium for great examples of what is possible.) They promote information literacy through online activities that require research and evaluation of digital information. (See From the Creative Minds of 21st Century Librarians for lesson plan ideas.)

y y

More than anything else, techno-constructivists willing allow their students to completely immerse themselves in the affordances of technology. They allow their students to see the connections they can make using electronic mail, Web sites, multi-user environments, databases, spreadsheets, publishers, word processors, and more, and they support them and help them successfully complete their tasks.

BEGIN THE JOURNEY


"Childhood is a journey, not a race." -- Society for Developmental Education More than anything else, becoming a techno-constructivist is an attitude. It is the ability to open up to the new possibilities presented in this age of wonder. No matter what stage of life we are in, let us begin the journey. We will not all start at the same point, nor will we all finish at the same place. But together we can embrace the technological revolution to truly benefit all members of our society. Recall the educational pioneers of the past. How would they react to the advances in this day and age? Would they question the worth of technology and shun its potential or take the challenge and try to harness what it has to offer for the benefit of everyone concerned? Question your long-held assumptions. Slowly work your way through the four stages identified by Scott Noon, and be patient with yourself! Evolve as an educator by transforming your experiences with children from the mundane to the magnificent! Let the journey begin. "Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these." -- Ovid

http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech005.shtml

http://www.gesci.org/assets/files/Knowledge%20Centre/country-policies.pdf

You might also like