Running head: HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY

How Practice Measures Up To Theory: Instructional Technology In The

Constructivist Classroom


Brian P. Nagy
Boise State University















HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 1
Abstract
This paper examines how modern uses of educational technology can be used under the
constructivist model of learning. It begins by defining constructivism and presenting the
primary tenets of that theory and what they may look like in use. It then looks at some
uses of technology that erroneously are labeled as constructivist, but fail to meet the core
tenets of the model. Finally, the paper examines some best-practices of using technology
to support constructivist learning environments.
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 2

Instructional technology is difficult to define. For teachers, technology can serve as a
crutch or as a tool. Ely (2008) noted that the ever-changing world of technologies and the
overlap of various other fields of study make a precise explanation of educational technology
next to impossible. Practically, it can be something to use simply to say, Im using technology!
or it can be used because it makes sense and improves the learning experiences of the students.
Constructivist learning theory focuses on student-centered learning and the understanding that
each student will create their own knowledge based on personal experiences and prior
knowledge.
Technology is an ever-presentand integralpart of the lives of many students today.
To ignore such ubiquity when designing learning experiences is to ignore tools and experiences
that many students already have and are comfortable with. Technology promotes interest in most
learners because of its novelty in many classrooms. Utilizing technology, teachers can design
learning experiences that allow students to actively engage with content. Technology allows
students to more freely investigate material by pulling in the expertise of others, exploring open-
ended simulations or following the trail of hypermedia to form new connections.
How does instructional technology support constructivist theory? Some would argue that
the static nature of some content on the web makes it difficult to create individualized
experiences where students take the reins of their own learning. Others tout the benefits of
technologyincluding exploring through hypermedia and virtual worldsas exactly the
experiences called for in a constructivist setting.
Background Theory: What Makes Us Learn?
Learning theories abound. Many have attempted to utilize data to formulate a unifying
statement that tells us how people learn. Can they all be right? Perhaps not in whole. Perhaps
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 3
taken all together, a clearer picture of everything involved in learning comes into focus. When
considering the transformative role that technology can take, it is constructivist learning theory
that offers the most potential for viable application.
Constructivist theory suggests that knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge are
personal and internalized by the individual based on what they already know. Prior experiences
produce knowledge which acts as a foundation upon which new experiences add new
knowledge. Dalgarno (2001) clarifies, each person forms their own representation of
knowledge with prior experiences shaping that formation. A core notion of constructivism is
that individuals live in the world of their own personal and subjective experiences. It is the
individual who imposes meaning on the world, rather than meaning being imposed on the
individual (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). In order for these experiences to truly fit the
constructivist theoryand constructivist pedagogy, with which the theory should not be
confusedthey must meet a few necessary criteria. Truly constructivist learning experiences
must incorporate: collaborative learning; complex problems that can be viewed and attacked
from multiple angles; apprenticeship with experts; and cognitive flexibility (Petraglia, 1998).
It seems that there are quite a few definitions of constructivism. Apparently, true to the
spirit of constructivism, most everybody constructs his or her own particular meaning for it
(Salomon, 1998). Yet, as Duffy and Cunningham (1996) state, there is a general consensus that
(1) learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and (2)
instruction is a process of supporting the construction rather than communicating knowledge. In
brief, it is the role of the instructor to get students engaged in activities that lead to construction
of knowledge. Dalgarno (2001) suggests that in these activities, a discrepancy between
perceived knowledge built on prior events and new information derived from the activity is what
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 4
drives learning. More concisely, learning is a change in meaning constructed from experience
(Tam, 2000).
Further, constructivism states that in order to successfully integrate the outcome of
learning experiences with prior knowledge, students must take part in a reflective period. This
becomes especially important when evaluating student learning, as the hard line between
correct and incorrect becomes blurred. The students ability to explain and defend decisions is
an important element of evaluation and is related to the development of metacognitive skills and
self-reflexive processes (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).
None of these descriptions of the learning process are predicated on the use of
technology. What, then, does technology have to do with conforming to constructivist theory in a
classroom setting? Technology can be used to provide the authentic learning experiences
required for the formation of new understandings. To name just a few uses of new computer
technologies, learners can more fully investigate problems, communicate with experts or even
run experiments remotely or virtually that they would otherwise be unable to do.
What Is Not Constructivist Use Of Technology?
Knowledge is based on experience and experiences occur in different contexts. It is the
contexts that matter most for learning. Multiple authors have extolled the virtues of learning
happening in a realistic context. The idea of everyday expertise (Zimmerman & Bell, 2012,
p.224) states that learners can gain knowledge and understanding of a task or idea when in
context, but lose that understanding when questioned in a decontextualized school setting. For
example, if statistics are learned in the context of a sport, then that context should be a thread
throughout instruction and should still be used in assessment. J onassen (1991) states, rather than
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 5
decontextualizing learning in isolated school environments, we should create real-world
environments that employ the context in which the learning is relevant.
Typical use of software packages that fall into categories such as drill-and-practice and
tutorials fail to provide the learning activities required for learning according to constructivism.
Further, the one-size-fits-all approach found in many such software suites often fails to provide
context familiar to all students or any individual students. Though such software may provide
feedback, there is no opportunity for true interaction with the software, an expert, or other
students to provide valuable context for internalization and therefore learning. Additionally, such
software more often tells information, but does not allow the learner to discover it on their
own. Learners are rarely given the opportunity to analyze new data and they are unlikely to be
trained to respond to teachable moments, where student responsesdrive lessons, shift
instructional strategies and alter content (Lunenberg, 1998).
Petraglia (1998) takes issue with instructional technology that preauthenticates, or
starts out by introducing an induced-fit authentication of the scenario. In doing this, a
presumption of the learner is made as a general audience for whom the scenario must be
authentic. As Zimmerman and Bell (2012) point out, no such presumption can be made as the
prior experiences of each learner is unique and must be accounted for. Contrarily, Karagiorgi and
Symeou (2005) might consider this pragmatic constructivism, wherein the level of authenticity
and self-discovery is chosen to best suit the learning environment.
Apprenticeship is the next tenet of constructivism which, according to Petraglia,
technology fails to adequately support. The social relationship between a learner and a mentor is
invaluable for learning through experiencelearning from a master is one form of discovery
learning, an off-shoot of constructivist learning theory (Bruner, 1971). Some simulations can
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 6
provide a facsimile of the give-and-take nature of conversation and instruction provided for by
such a relationship, but will fail to create the student-motivating emotional connection, according
to Petraglia. What he does not consider, however is newer technologies that allow students to
directly interact with experts to form such a relationship. E-mail, instant messaging, and video
chat services like Skype and Google Hangouts now allow for real-time, synchronous
communication which may well provide for the personal touch required in an apprenticeship
environment.
Finally, Petraglia lists one more technology that doesnt quite cut it for constructivism.
Hypertext is a useful tool that allows learners to follow linked articles and create a web of
understanding from their explorations. In a more concrete example, it allows for what could be
called Wikipedia Surfing, wherein a user follows links from inside of one article to another
article and continues to follow links, creating connections for themselves and retrieving new
information according to his or her own interests within the articles. The shortcoming, according
to Petraglia is in the links themselves. Again, there is an induced-fit scenario. Here, it is the web
developer who decides how many links to provide and which are important. It is that one
persons idea of what informational denseness and conceptual association in the real world
would look like, though a learner may want to explore different avenues if they were available.
What Does Constructivism Look Like With Educational Technology?
Teaching with constructivism in mind requires a paradigm shift. The traditional image of
a row of desks facing the front of the room does not fully perform the role of a learning
experience, nor does it provide adequate flexibility for multiple learning styles and abilities.
Instead, instructors must move back to act as facilitators and guides through the learning
experiences. Dalgarno (2001) suggests that constructivism comes in different shades, based on
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 7
the level of teacher involvement in the learning process. Dialectical constructivism is perhaps
easiest to adapt for the faint of heart, as it provides scaffolding for learners to guide them
through the learning experiences and peer collaboration. Exogenous constructivism allows for
a blending of direct instruction and learning experiences that provide for application of the
instruction. Finally, endogenous constructivism is the learning that is completely self-induced
by the student. It should be noted, though, that even the information obtained from the classic
notion of school is filtered and stored within the framework of prior knowledge and experiences.
To try to make an exhaustive list of technology that can be used in the classroom would
indeed be an exhausting process. New devices and software applications hit the market at
breakneck speed. These either supplement or supplant existing technology. What follows is
merely a set of examples of uses of technology that support constructivism in the learning
environment. The subsequent paragraphs will examine the value of hypermedia, simulations,
telecommunication, online data, and cognitive tools for self reflection.
"Because hypermedia information databases typically allow browsing under complete
learner controls, with learners following a sequence of links that makes sense to them, it is
suggested that they facilitate the formation of individual knowledge representations (Dalgarno,
2001). That being said, as noted above, the author of software, by nature, has control of which
links are provided. To counteract this, there should be a level of freedom given to learners to
wander outside of curated databases or websites to explore connections that may not have been
made by the designer. Salomon (1998) also suggests that design of hypermedia sites by learners
be used as authentic construction as they are creating a model of their understanding with the
linkages that they have created being mirrored in the linked text.
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 8
Simulations have long been used in education. Computer-aided simulations allow users to
manipulate variables and test ideas that interest them. In a more perfect world, this would be easy
to do in the confines of a classroom or lab. Computers allow such exploration in a way that is
safe and cost-effective (a sad, but realistic requirement in these times). In addition, such
simulations allow learners to see immediate results as they create models or try out their
theories about the concepts modeled (Dalgarno, 2001). In essence, though it allows for the
learning experience, the time frame required is reduced. This then allows the student to repeat
their simulation or make changes, reinforcing the knowledge constructed through the simulation.
Simulations also provide students with what Petraglia (1998) calls freedom to fail. It is
difficult to learn from a mistake if mistakes cant be made. Simulations allow students to test
conditions and see what does not work without the fear of real-world reprisal for such failure.
Tam (2000) focused on the collaborative aspect of constructivism, namely in distance
education. Collaboration with peers allows students to bounce ideas off of each other and gain
fresh perspectives on new information that may be drastically different from prior
misinformation or knowledge that simply does not mesh well with the set of experiences with
which they enter the learning environment. She states, A central strategy for building
constructivist learning environments such as situated learning, multiple perspectives and flexible
learning is to create a collaborative learning environment. Telecommunication also allows
students to reach out and collaborate with students who are different from them, whether they are
from across the state or across the world. Further, telecommunication technologyincluding
message boards, instant messaging, videoconferencing services like Skype and Google Hangouts
and teleconferencing hardware and networks that might be found in a distance learning lab
allows access to experts. Such communication tools allow students to have authentic experiences
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 9
with experts in a field or even go on a virtual field trip to a site that they otherwise could not
visit, thus allowing them to witness activities that can now be incorporated into their schema.
Brooks and Brooks (1993, as cited in Lunenburg, 1998) state that, constructivist
teachers use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulatives, interactive and physical
materials. These allow learners to explore, experiment and research real-world problems using
real-world tools. The World Wide Web allows for easy access to such tools including: real-time
environmental data; databases full of data already collected by scientists that only await new
interpretation; the words of current and former public figures found in the text of their speeches
and the text of their social media posts; and primary sources from across history that have been
scanned or transcribed into online libraries. As with everything related to technology, this list
certainly does not cover them all.
As hypermedia allows learners to follow connections, they must have some way to
examine and visualize the connections between what they know and what they have learned.
Blogs have been used since their inception as a kind of public journal where thoughts and
connections can be made and others can add to the dialog through responses to a blog post. As
such, blogs are a valuable tool in the collaborative and reflective aspects of constructivist
learning. In addition, tools exist to actually map the connections between seemingly discrete bits
of information. Concept mapping, using tools like cMap and Inspiration, allows students to make
connections with arrows that use linking verbs, or terms that describe the relationship. The
use of modelling tools that allow the learner to develop their own simulation of a particular
aspect of the world can require the learner to develop a very deep understanding of the concepts
involved (Dalgarno, 2001).

HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 10
Conclusion
Constructivism is hardly a new theory of learning, but with increased focus on student
achievement and readiness for careers upon leaving the education system, there has been a
paralleled increase in interest in constructivism. Constructivists place emphasis not on what is
learned, but how it is learned and how the new knowledge is processed. It looks at learning as a
social endeavor that must take into account the experiences of the learner. Indeed, for the learner
to assimilate new information, he or she must take part in new experiences. The application of
constructivism to instructional design has certain advantages such as more meaningful learning
outcomes, more independent problem-solving capability and more flexibility in both design and
instruction activities (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). New technology allows for these important
facets of learning by providing experiences that may not be available to the learner otherwise.
New technologies are sure to come and no doubt, teachers willing to provide optimum learning
activities will find ways to leverage them to the benefit of their students.
HOW PRACTICE MEASURES UP TO THEORY P age | 11

References
Bruner, J . (1971). The process of education revisited. The Phi Delta Kappan, 53(1), 18- 21.

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194.

Doolittle, P.E. & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of
technology in social studies. Theory & Research in Education, 31(1), 72-104.

Duffy, T. & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of
instruction. In J onassen, D. (Ed.). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications
and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

Ely, D. (2008) Frameworks of educational technology. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(2), 244-250.

J onassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design:
Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.

Lunenburg, F. (1998). Constructivism and technology: Instructional designs for successful
education reform. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25 (2), 75-81.

Petraglia, J . (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to
the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development,
46(3), 53-65.

Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some
issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1(1), 3-12.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design and technology: Implications for
transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.

Zimmerman, H. & Bell, P. (2012). Everyday expertise: Learning within and across formal and
informal settings. In J onassen, D. & Land, S. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning
environments (2
nd
ed.) (pp. 220-235). New York, NY: Routledge.