Balancing Learning Theories, Instructional Styles and Technology to meet the Demands of

Teaching High School Mathematics in the 21st Century

Angie Kruzich
Kim Hefty Peer Reviewer
EdTech 504
Theoretical Foundations of Education Technology
Dr. K. Diane Hall
Boise State University
April 22, 2013




Abstract
The focus of this paper is to utilize past and present theories of learning and how the
relationship between the theories impact mathematical education in the classroom, specifically
high school. The ideas within this article embrace both the traditional theory of objectivism and
the more modern constructivist learning theory. Included are ideas to incorporate student
centered learning environments, educational technology, and the importance of doing so due to
new teacher evaluation systems. Additionally, you can create a mathematics classroom that
utilizes technology, higher level cognitive student thinking, as well as a student centered learning
environment.
Kruzich | 2

Introduction
Imagine a math teacher listening to a live symphony concert. The music provides astounding
inspiration to any listener, especially a high school mathematics teacher. The mathematics
combined with creativity needed by Gustav Mahler to write Symphony No. 5 is perplexing.
Orchestra must be a fantastic class to teach. All the students choose to be there as an elective
class. Every student has something in their hands to do at all times and is always participating.
The instructor gives feedback on what students should do and then students have the opportunity
to immediately apply it, continuously participating. Moreover, there is amazing technology
behind such intricate instruments. The thoughts that follow in this article show how any math
teacher can acquire an interactive classroom like orchestra.
Learning Theories of the Past and Present and the Mathematics Classroom
There are many existing learning theories; established theories and emerging theories. The focus
of this paper will pertain to the more traditional objectivism along with the more modern
constructivism. To begin, it is imperative to understand a little behind these two theories.
"Objectivism assumes that learning is the process of mapping...concepts onto
learners. Objectivism...holds that there is an objective reality that we as learners
assimilate. The role of education is to help students learn about the real world.
Students are not encouraged to make their own interpretations of what they
perceive; it is the role of the teacher or the instruction to interpret events for them.
Learners are told about the world and are expected to replicate its content and
structure in their thinking" (Jonassen, 1991).
Kruzich | 3

Constructivism is a theory that equates learning with creating meaning from experience (Ertmer
1993). It suggests that each listener or reader will potentially use the content and process the
communication in different ways, to construct one's own knowledge. This theory describes
learning as an active process, unique to the individual, which consists of constructing conceptual
relationships and meaning from information and experiences already in the learner's repertoire
(Cooper, 2009). David Jonassen summarizes the ideas within this paper well;
"These two theories are generally described as polar extremes on a continuum
from externally mediated reality (objectivism) to internally mediated reality
(constructivism). Most theorists, however, take positions that fall somewhere in
the middle of the continuum." (Jonassen, 1991).
In one's own life, a person should maintain balance between work and play. Likewise, a teacher
should maintain a balance within the mathematics classroom. A balanced mathematical
classroom occurs when a symbiotic relationship exists utilizing both objectivism and
constructivism learning theories. Typically, objectivism learning is seen when teaching utilizes a
direct instruction approach; whereas constructivism leads to activity based lessons.
Why choose just one theory? The ultimate goal when teaching mathematics should be to balance
learning theories, and therefore balance teaching styles in order to reach the needs of multiple
student learning styles. There are too many students from the past and present that avoid
mathematics because math is taught, all too commonly, using direct instruction. Math should not
be feared by so many people such that it is okay to say "I don't do math." or " I wasn't good at
math." In order to break down these mathematical barriers in the United States for math students,
math teachers must begin to break down their own barriers.
Kruzich | 4

The New Teacher Evaluation System and the Mathematics Classroom
Throughout the United States, there is a radical change occurring regarding teacher evaluations.
One of the adopted frameworks that will be used by many school districts within Washington
State is called the Danielson Framework. The following is an example of the expectations of all
teachers.
"Virtually all students are intellectually engaged in challenging content through
well-designed learning tasks and suitable scaffolding by the teacher and fully
aligned with the instructional outcomes. In addition, there is evidence of some
student initiation of inquiry and of student contribution to the exploration of
important content. The pacing of the lesson provides students the time needed to
intellectually engage with and reflect upon their learning and to consolidate their
understanding. Students may have some choice in how they complete tasks and
may serve as resources for one another" (Danielson, 2012).
Engaging all students is expected in the Danielson framework. This will affect all teachers, even
math teachers. There are four levels within the framework at which a teacher can be rated;
Distinguished, Proficient, Basic or Unsatisfactory. How will a math teacher attain a
"Distinguished" rating as described above using an objectivism learning theory? It will be crucial
for teachers to begin exchanging many direct instruction lessons for a more constructivism-based
learning style.
Engaging students in learning isn't the only category in which it will be difficult to achieve the
highest rating of "Distinguished". Other categories in which it will be difficult to achieve
satisfactory ratings using pure direct instruction include, communicating with students, using
questioning and discussion techniques, demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness, designing
Kruzich | 5

coherent instruction, creating an environment of respect and rapport, managing classroom
procedures, managing student behavior, designing student assessments, and showing
professionalism (Danielson, 2012). Although these are the broad titles of the framework, the
detailed expectations described in the Danielson framework document required to be a
distinguished teacher will be essentially impossible to reach when solely using direct instruction.
The Danielson framework clearly calls for constructivism when it states "Students contribute to
extending the content and help explain concepts to their classmates." or "Teacher persists in
seeking effective approaches for students who need help, using an extensive repertoire of
instructional strategies and soliciting additional resources from the school or community."
(Danielson, 2012). Furthermore, it also directly refers to the use of technology in the classroom
by stating, "Plans represent the coordination of in-depth content knowledge, understanding of
different students needs, and available resources (including technology),..." (Danielson, 2012).
All of these expectations clearly identify going beyond objectivism. The constructivism learning
theory will be more supportive of meeting the Danielson framework expectations by
implementing both student centered activities and educational technology.
Complex Instruction and the Mathematics Classroom
Complex instruction is an organized way to successfully implement the constructivism learning
theory in a mathematics classroom. Complex instruction is one way to implement student
centered learning environments and embrace more of the constructivist learning theory in a
classroom.
"Student centered learning environments (SCLEs) provide interactive
complimentary activities that enable individuals to address unique learning
Kruzich | 6

interests and needs, study multiple levels of complexity, and deepen
understanding" (Land, 2012).
Unfortunately, when SCLE's first came out, many math teachers failed to make it successful
within their own classroom. What was missing was how to implement group work effectively;
the organization to make group activities work was missing. The typical complaints by teachers
was that one or two students in the group do all the work. Lack of experience, that the teacher
has a special role to make it work, was missing.
"Complex Instruction (CI) is an instructional approach that allows educators to
address these questions successfully. In CI, teachers use cooperative group work
to teach at a high academic level in diverse classrooms. They assign open-ended,
interdependent group tasks and organize the classroom to maximize student
interaction. In their small groups, students serve as academic and linguistic
resources for one another. When implementing CI, teachers pay particular
attention to unequal participation of students and employ strategies to address
such status problems" (Cohen, 1999).
This brief summary of complex instruction doesn't do justice to the process. CI not only changes
the learning environment in a classroom from objectivism-based to constructivism-based, it also
created something unexpected; all kids were engaged in the activity. This is a difficult
requirement to meet in the Danielson Framework. Teachers that want to make CI group work
and constructivism victorious in their own classroom really need to attend training and observe
other teachers using the process. It is the employment of the strategies from CI training that
make SCLEs and constructivism flourish. Most importantly, CI can also remove the stigma set
Kruzich | 7

forth by students that "math is boring" or "I can't do math." by dealing with preconceived student
status issues. To initiate CI, math teachers must break down their own barriers that are
preventing them from using SCLEs.
Educational Technology and the Mathematics Classroom
Under the structure of CI, a math teacher can find many ways to alter a direct instruction lesson
into a more constructivist activity via technology. It is a very natural transition; placing
technology into students' hands immediately engages students. Today's students do not know the
world without technology and by giving them technology to work with in the form of computers,
graphing calculators, or iPads, a teacher will have a much higher probability of engaging every
student in the classroom. When students have a piece of technology in their hands, they will
naturally start pushing buttons and discovering how the technology works. Already,
constructivist learning is taking place.
Technology is necessary in today's classroom as stated by both the Bush and Clinton
administrations in their documents titled America 2000 and Goals 2000.
"These documents focused on the need for education to produce knowledge
workers who were proficient in the uses of technology and communication skills
and who possessed high levels of mathematical literacy. It was evident that
computer technology was reshaping the mathematics that students needed to
know now and in the future" (Woodward, 2004).
A perfect technology example in the high school math classroom was introduction of the
graphing calculator. This helped many math teachers bridge the gap between students doing
mathematics and students understanding why we the mathematics. The graphing calculator
Kruzich | 8

technology helped to reframe how mathematics was taught but still remains in a mostly direct
instruction venue.
Geometer's Sketchpad is another fantastic piece of technology that can be used in the
mathematics classroom at many different levels, from elementary math through calculus. This
program allows shapes to be constructed, measured and analyzed such that students can move
beyond the basic information of geometry and into a deeper understanding behind the
mathematics.
Recently, graphing calculators made another technological leap by developing wireless
capabilities in the TI-Nspire. This allows math teachers to be more interactive with students.
Teachers can immediately send data back and forth between student and teacher and check for
student understanding.
Utilizing iPads in the high school math classroom is also occurring. Some school districts are
now issuing an iPad to every student instead of checking out textbooks (Haselton, 2013). There
is a natural integrated use of an iPad in a school as it can work as a replacement for textbooks,
download many different apps for a variety of subjects and allow for internet research. Imagine
the joy by students, parents and teachers of a de-cluttered student backpack. In the long run,
implementing iPads could save school districts a lot of money. Districts would not be purchasing
individual textbooks, spending money on computer labs, and maintaining these labs. Schools
would also save space by not needing classrooms for labs in each building.
At this time however, there is simply a lack of high school math apps available. Most
mathematical apps are oriented towards elementary and junior high math (Heick, 2012). What
about high school? Without these resources, it explains why so many mathematics classrooms
Kruzich | 9

are still operating using a direct instruction technique and not integrating more technology. There
is a serious lack of technology applications above the geometry level (Hannan, 2012). When
some well-written apps are developed for the high school level including calculus, then more
teachers will be apt to utilize technology in the classroom. Finally, just two months prior to this
paper, Texas Instruments released a TI-Nspire graphing calculator app for the iPad (Johnston,
2013). This is a great step towards progress. However, until there are more applicable student
centered activities, many higher level mathematics classrooms will remain direct instruction with
limited technology.
Mathematics teachers need the help from the private sector to develop iPad applications but also
need school districts to support them with the training it will take to successfully implement
technological activities.
"...teacher educators need to explicitly teach how the unique features of
affordances of a tool can be used to transform a specific content domain for
specific learners, and that teachers need to be explicitly taught about the
interactions among technology, content pedagogy, and learners." (Angeli, 2009)
According to Angeli's research, new and experienced teachers that had been trained to properly
incorporate technology into their specific content areas had students outperform students whose
teachers were without training (Angeli, 2009). The training days provided by districts also need
to be as authentic for teachers as student centered activities need to be for students. Just telling
teachers to make use of technology is not enough; teachers need appropriate training on how to
effectively utilize technology. Again, math teachers must begin to break down their own barriers
preventing them from moving forward with technology.
Kruzich | 10

Applications in a Mathematics Classroom
When applying the use of technology in a mathematics classroom, it seems like a perfect time to
remove the direct instruction reins and let students begin to construct their own knowledge. The
first three weeks are critical training times for both students and teachers. This applies to
classroom management as well as integrating a successful SCLE. For example, when training a
family dog in obedience school, the training is more about training the humans than the dog.
Likewise, a teacher changing from direct instruction to a balance between direct instruction and
SCLE's, takes teacher training, teacher commitment and faith in the process. School districts
must commit to spend money on more genuine teacher trainings, rather than spending money on
another ineffective training day. Look around the room on these days. Is every teacher paying
attention? Are all teachers participating? Are all teachers learning well? The Danielson
Framework should apply to teacher learning environments as well.
So when should a math teacher use an objectivist or constructivist approach in their classroom?
First of all, a complex instruction type SCLE is not always appropriate. In order for group work
to be successful, the activity needs to be interdependent. In other words, the activity must be too
complicated for one or even two group members to complete by themselves. This helps to draw
all group members into the process. A common technique that helps to draw in all group
members is to give all members a different problem to complete. From this, a pattern can be
found using at least three members' results. Then the group can build a conjecture that results
from the pattern.
It is still acceptable to use direct instruction within a high school math classroom. If a concept is
too simple and can be too easily completed, then it is not group worthy. Likewise, review
Kruzich | 11

concepts are not a good choice for CI because students already know the outcome. The opposite
is true for a mathematical concept that is too complex and takes days to establish an outcome.
Technology would be another example of applying both direct instruction and SCLEs. Perhaps
teachers give students the skills they need by guiding students through GSP for two to four
activities, but then students are given the next GSP activity in a CI format. Now students are
following the instructions on their own to develop something as complex as the proof for the
Pythagorean Theorem. This could also work using the TI-Nspires. Math teachers must begin to
break down their own barriers to allow for such student growth in a math classroom.
Conclusion
The biggest barrier that math teachers must overcome, is that a teacher teaches math how they
were taught math, using direct instruction. However, to achieve a well-balanced math classroom
utilizing objectivism, constructivism, SCLE's and technology, first and foremost, there needs to
be a shift in how a district spends money on training teachers, especially math teachers. Math
teachers need to believe that there is a better way. Without buy-in, teachers will not change.
Excellent training and immediate positive results can help to adjust a teacher's outlook towards
SCLE's. With organization, first-rate training opportunities, and appropriate technology, a
teacher can successfully engage all students when learning math and help students learn it well.
The final benefit when applying both learning theories in a classroom is how the classroom will
be more appealing. When alternating between activities and direct instruction, the day-to-day
variety will keep the classroom more interesting for students. From day-to-day, the instructional
technique delivery system will depend upon the math teacher and the topic. The instructor must
decide which will work best for today's concept, objectivism or constructivism? As John Dewey
said,
Kruzich | 12

"Mankind likes to think in terms of extreme opposites. It is given to formulating
its beliefs in terms of Either-Ors, between which it recognizes no intermediate
possibilities. When forced to recognize that the extremes cannot be acted upon, it
is still inclined to hold that they are all right in theory but that when it comes to
practical matters circumstances compel us to compromise. Educational
philosophy is no exception" (Dewey, 1938)
Math teachers must begin to break down their own barriers by devoting the time to be properly
trained, to create a more balanced high school math classroom that utilizes different learning
styles and technology. If an instructor is still teaching solely using a direct instruction technique,
then take a look around the classroom to truly analyze the results. When direct instructing, are all
of the students paying attention? Are all students participating? Are all students learning well?














Kruzich | 13

References
Angeli, C. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization,
development, and assessment of ICT TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education (0360-1315), 52 (1), 154-168.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. R., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction:
Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 80-86. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/909852737?accountid=9649
Cooper, S. (2009). Constructivism: Constructivist learning theory. Retrieved February 16, 2013
from http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/constructivism/constructivism.html
Danielson, C. (2012). Danielson framework for teaching rubrics by Washington state criteria
(Version 1.1) Retrieved from Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington
State http://tpep-wa.org/wp-content/uploads/Danielson-Rubrics-by-criteria.pdf
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. (p. 17) New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ertmer, Peggy and Newby, Timothy J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism:
Comparing critical features from an instruction design perspective. Performance Improvement
Quarterly 6(4), 50-71. Retrieved February 16, 2013 from
http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/file.php/118/Week_6/Ertmer-Newby-beh-cog-const.pdf
Hannan, J. (2012). Top 12 math iPad apps for students and teachers [Web log post]. Retrieved
from http://www.teachhub.com/top-12-math-ipad-apps-students-and-teachers
Haselton, T. (2013). Apple:More than 8 milion iPads sold to education institutions [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/03/03/apple-8-million-ipad-school/
Heick, T. (2012). 12 of the best math iPad apps of 2012 [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.teachthought.com/apps-2/12-of-the-best-math-ipad-apps-of-2012/
Johnston, C. (2013). At long last, TI releases graphing calculator for the iPad. Retrieved from
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/02/at-long-last-ti-releases-graphing-calculator-for-the-ipad/
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 9-10. doi:
10.1007/BF02296434.
Land, S., Hannafin, M., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student centered learning environments. In D.
Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 3-25). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Woodward, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the united states: Past to present. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 16-31. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/194228235?accountid=9649