Colloquium

A principle-based pedagogical design framework for developingconstructivist learning in a seamless learning environment: A teacherdevelopment model for learning and teaching in digital classrooms

Siu Cheung Kong and Yanjie Song

Address for correspondence: Dr Siu Cheung Kong, Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, TheHong Kong Institute of Education, 10, Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. Email: sckong@ied.edu.hk

IntroductionDigital technologies such as personal mobile devices and social learning networks are turningschool classrooms into digital classrooms without time and space constraints (Chan, 2010; Dede& Richards, 2012). These changes help to create a seamless learning environment in whichlearners can access information, communicate and share information with peers, and constructknowledge collaboratively both inside and outside the classroom (Wong, 2012; Wong & Looi,2011). In this context, educators are advocating for a paradigm shift from teacher-centred teach-ing to learner-centred learning. The latter approach encourages learners to develop 21st centuryskills through day-to-day subject learning. Twenty-first century skills include a wide range ofgeneric skills that are required to cope with day-to-day challenges in the twenty-first century,including inquiry skills, critical thinking skills, communication skills and collaboration skills(Hoffman, 2010; Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). Constructivist learning approach is a suit-able pedagogy for developing such skills (Hoffman, 2010; Wong & Looi, 2011). This trend placesnew demands on teachers and requires a better design for teacher development. This studypresents a model of constructivist learning in a seamless learning environment. Then, it identifiesthe challenges to teachers in the new instructional environment, and finally it proposes a teacherdevelopment model for teachers in digital classrooms.

Constructivist learning in a seamless learning environmentConstructivist learning is concerned with how meaning and knowledge are made and built,respectively, within the individual mind, and with how a shared meaning is developed within asocial grouping such as a classroom (Kirschner et al, 2006; Richardson, 2003). An ideal con-structivist learning environment enables learners to progressively develop deep understandingsof domain knowledge through convenient access to appropriate and sufficient resources andextensive sharing of useful information (Kong, 2011; Richardson, 2003). Networked technolo-gies offer opportunities to support constructive learning in seamless learning environments.Learners are exposed to diverse digital resources and tools for learning and communication,which can be extended from the digital classrooms to online interactions (Wong, 2012; Wong &Looi, 2011). These digital technologies give learners the convenience of collecting research data,storing and sharing multimedia resources, exchanging ideas and tracking discussions with peersduring the process of knowledge construction.

Challenges to teachers implementing constructivist instruction in a seamlesslearning environmentThe creation of digital classrooms and the implementation of a constructivist learning approachhave placed new demands on teachers to transform their pedagogical practices. In the newlearning environment, teachers are expected to be facilitators who monitor students’ learning

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013 E209–E212doi:10.1111/bjet.12073

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

processes and provide them with timely support. Learners control their own learning flow, notonly in class but also out of class. This is different from the teacher-centred paradigm in which ateacher’s role is to transmit knowledge in traditional classrooms.

Research on technology-supported innovations reveals that implementing constructivist instruc-tional practices is challenging for teachers for various reasons. One major issue concerns teachers’lack of pedagogical competence in implementing technology-supported innovative practices. Thishas led to a series of related problems, such as low quality of produced knowledge, low sustain-ability of the discourse, heterogeneity in participation and the teacher’s dominating role in thediscourse (Lakkala, Lallimo & Hakkarainen, 2005). Another major issue is that teachers arereluctant to accept technology-supported innovative approaches because they are deemed notonly complex, but also contrary to standard pedagogical designs (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).Thus, a new teacher development model is required to build teachers’ competence in and accept-ance of innovative practices.

A teacher development model: a principle-based pedagogical design framework fordeveloping constructivist learning in a seamless learning environmentThere are a variety of models for teacher development in the framework of educational innova-tions. Teacher development studies show that principle-based pedagogical designs are more suc-cessful in increasing teachers’ competence and acceptance of innovative practices (Song & Looi,2012; Zhang, Hong, Morley, Scardamalia & Teo, 2011; Zhang et al, 2010).

Pedagogical design refers to a plan for learning activities and the actual implementation of sucha plan in a learning unit (Lakkala et al, 2005). Principle-based pedagogical designs focus onguiding principles and customizable practices rather than on predefined tasks and rigid proce-dures in specific learning contexts (Song & Looi, 2012; Zhang et al, 2011). Zhang and colleagues(2010) propose seven constructivist principles that are suitable for a seamless learning environ-ment: exploit the affordances of mobile technologies; integrate formal and informal learningactivities supported by mobile technologies; design learner-centred learning activities; make useof community support and resources; facilitate collaborative knowledge building; support teach-ers to be good curriculum developers and facilitators; and assess learners’ learning formatively.Richardson (2003) also presents a set of instructional principles for constructivist learning.These principles include recognizing diversities of learning progress among individual learners;enabling access to different sources of learning information; facilitating group dialogue for gen-erating ideas and sharing understandings; encouraging engagement in decision making and idearefinement; and raising awareness of knowledge understandings and learning processes. Usingconstructivist theories and based on the aforementioned principles, we recommend the followingfive constructivist principles as part of our principle-based pedagogical design for constructivistlearning in a seamless learning environment: (1) facilitate collaborative activities for idea gen-eration and sharing; (2) recognize diversities of learning progress among individual learners; (3)make full use of the affordances of mobile devices; (4) bridge formal and informal learningactivities supported by mobile devices; and (5) make formative assessments. These principles arenot exhaustive and may undergo changes during the implementation process.

To help teachers clearly understand these constructivist principles and to increase their abilitiesto plan and implement constructivist learning activities, a community of practice (CoP) (Wenger,1998) should be formed in the teacher community. In the CoP, teachers develop a shared reper-toire of resources through sustained reciprocal interactions; they experience reflective discus-sions which support mutual growth and the attainment of common curricular goals, and theyshare their pedagogical principles and instructional practices. More importantly, teachers engagein reflective, interactive principle-based pedagogical practices in the CoP, and thus develop skills infacilitating constructivist learning and improving learning outcomes. Figure 1 shows how teach-

E210 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

ers in a CoP collaboratively make principle-based pedagogical designs for constructivist learning(see Figure 1 on the left). They then implement their pedagogical designs in seamless learningenvironments with the aim of advancing both domain knowledge and the 21st century skillsof the learners. Learners also reflect on the constructivist learning processes and outcomes (seeFigure 1 on the right). Figure 1 illustrates a principle-based pedagogical design framework fordeveloping constructivist learning in a seamless learning environment.

This model uses a design-based research approach to develop insights into teacher development.Design-based research is an approach based on “progressive refinement in design”; in this case,educational designs are developed based on theoretical principles derived from prior research(Collins, Joseph & Bielaczyc, 2004, p. 18). The results of each intervention can help to clarify goalsand identify the refinements that are needed; these results guide the design and implementationof subsequent efforts (Kong, 2008; Song, Chen & Looi, 2012). Teachers in this model improvetheir skills in facilitating constructivist learning through reflective discussions in the CoP thatrefine the implemented principle-based pedagogical designs based on the evidence of learningoutcomes and previous pedagogical design experiences. With this iterative development process,teacher development is supported by continuous evidence-based research and pedagogical reflec-tion, guided by the constructivist principles of pedagogical design.

Significance of the teacher development model and future workThe teacher development model in the “principle-based pedagogical design framework for con-structivist learning in a seamless learning environment” is significant and innovative in twoways. First, the model adopts CoPs that are modelled on “principle-based” pedagogical designs forconstructivist learning. This helps teachers understand the principles behind the educationalinnovations, and this, in turn, will increase the teachers’ ability to design and implement flexibleconstructivist pedagogical practices instead of following rigid tasks and procedures. Second, themodel not only focuses on teachers’ learning, as most teacher development studies have done,

Developing the domain knowledge and21st century skills of learners in

constructivist learning

Developing the skills of teachers infacilitating constructivist learning

Principle-based pedagogical designs for constructivist learning

Implementation

Learning outcome

Seamless learning environment

Reflection

Community of practice (CoP)

Domain knowledge and 21stcentury skills

Skills in facilitating constructivistlearning

Constructivist learning

Reflection

Figure 1: A principle-based pedagogical design framework for constructivist learning in a seamlesslearning environment

Colloquium E211

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

but also links the teachers’ learning to learners’ learning, which has rarely been explored in theteacher development literature. We have used this model to initiate teacher development andshall report the research findings.

ReferencesChan, T. W. (2010). How East Asian classrooms may change over the next 20 years. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 26, 1, 28–52.Collins, A., Joseph, D. & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1, 15–42.Dede, C. & Richards, J. (2012). Digital teaching platforms: customizing classroom learning for each student.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Hoffman, J. (2010). What we can learn from the first digital generation: implications for developing twenty-

first century learning and thinking skills in the primary grades. Education 3-13, 38, 1, 47–54.Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work:

an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-basedteaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 2, 75–86.

Kong, S. C. (2008). The development of a cognitive tool for teaching and learning fractions in the math-ematics classroom: a design-based study. Computers and Education, 51, 2, 886–899.

Kong, S. C. (2011). An evaluation study of the use of a cognitive tool in a one-to-one classroom forpromoting classroom-based dialogic interaction. Computers and Education, 57, 3, 1851–1864.

Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supportedcollective inquiry: a national case study. Computers and Education, 45, 3, 337–356.

Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teachingand learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educa-tional Research, 77, 4, 575–614.

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 9, 1623–1640.Song, Y., Chen, W. & Looi, C.-K. (2012). A collaborative professional development model for rapid collabo-

rative knowledge improvement in Singapore schools. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21, 1, 15–27.Song, Y. & Looi, C.-K. (2012). Linking teacher beliefs, practices and student inquiry-based learning in a CSCL

environment: a tale of two teachers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7,1, 129–159.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Wong, L. H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 43, 1, E19–E23.

Wong, L. H. & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile assisted seamless learning? A criticalreview of the literature. Computers and Education, 57, 4, 2364–2381.

Zhang, B., Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Chia, G., Wong, L. H., Chen, W. et al (2010). Deconstructing and recon-structing: transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers and Education,55, 4, 1504–1523.

Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Morley, E. A., Scardamalia, M. & Teo, C. L. (2011). Sustaining Knowledge Building asa principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 2, 262–307.

E212 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013

© 2013 British Educational Research Association