Humphrey Sedet 709 Research Paper

Running Head: CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 1

Constructivist Approach to Technology Integration in Elementary Education

Chris Humphreys

EDET 709-J50

University of South Carolina Columbia

CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 2

Abstract

If the educational system is to move towards 21st century teaching and learning best

practices for the integration of technology in the classroom, then a new approach to integrated

technology education is necessary to facilitate this transition. Current technology integration is

looked at through many different lenses depending on the background and educational

philosophy of the teacher in the classroom. It is the constructivist approach to this issue that we

will focus on as the greatest opportunity for successful integration of technology into the

classroom. This theory will be the paradigm shift technology integration needs to be successful.


Constructivist Approach to Technology Integration in Elementary Education

The constructivist learning environments are often defined as technology-based spaces, in

which students can explore, experiment, construct, converse, and reflect on what they are doing

so that they learn from their experiences’ (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999, p. 194). In these

types of classes the learning is student centered. Whereas in traditional classrooms are typically

more teacher-centered where the teacher is the giver of information and the students are the

receivers of the information. Only getting what the designer has created and laid out in the

instructional model for the class or lesson. Past research has shown that a technology-rich

learning environment can more effectively promote social-constructivist educational goals, such

as higher-order thinking skills, learning motivation, and teamwork, in comparison to traditional

settings (Rosen, 2009; Rosen, & Salmon, 2007).

Traditional instructional design models such as the ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop,

Implement, and Evaluate) model are inappropriate for designing CLEs as the assumptions of

constructive learning are different from those of traditional instruction (Jonassen & Rohrer-

Murphy, 1999, p. 61). With that being said we need to alter teacher’s way of thinking about

technology integration away from the teacher centered environments that Jonassen, Peck, and

Wilson described and embrace a constructive approach to allow students to develop and become

active learners. Essentially, “The basic goals of education are deceptively simple. To mention

three, education strives for the retention, understanding, and active use of knowledge and skills”

(Perkins, 1991a p 18). In order for students to become active learners means to have them work

in an environment where they can solve real world problems and apply their learning and make

sense of it. This change must be made through education programs at the university level, PD for

classroom teachers, and ET’s as well as curriculum developers.


Traditionally speaking technology in education in most cases has been typically taught in

a computer lab where the teacher leaves their students with a subject matter expert of sorts

during special area time. This time is usually one time a week where the students are exposed to

educational computer software that school districts have purchased, digital citizenship activities,

and keyboarding based assignments designed to instruct the basics and functionality of the

keyboard. During this time the teacher is giving whole group lessons and then having the

students either follow along or working independently on their own computers. This type of

technology integration is more that of cognitive information processing (CIP) where the learner’s

brain is the processer of information similar to the way computers processes information. The

students are given information from the computer teacher then they process what to do with it

then they do it or the output. This is opposed to the research that a constructivist environment

where classroom teachers integrate technology and are more facilitators of technology rather

than teachers of it.

Theory

The constructivist approach unlike traditional learning theory’s emphasis on direct

instruction and the transmission of knowledge, constructivism stresses the facilitation of

knowledge construction through connecting new concepts with prior beliefs (Ravitz, Becker, &

Wong, 200). That is when teaching students how to use program code in the elementary

classroom it is not advisable to follow a traditional learning theory as given direct instruction,

students are unable to make sense of what you are teaching them. This is especially the case

when they have no prior knowledge on the subject to relate it to. The transfer of knowledge does

not lend itself to this type of technology use. Students will find themselves overwhelmed by the

content of the instruction and lose sight of the intended purpose of the objective. This deals with


several topics discussed such as zone of proximal development and cognitive load theory. The

constructive theory rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they

attempt to make sense of their experiences. Learners, therefore, are not empty vessels waiting to

be filled, but rather active organism seeking meaning (Driscoll, 2005).

The (ZPD) is the research of Vygotsky. His work with the process of development in

children was his way to understand their skill development and how it changes over time. These

functions could be termed the ‘buds’ or ‘flowers’ of development rather than the ‘fruits’ of

development (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86). This establishes that there are two independent yet distinct

types of development rather than just the total portion of development to account for. The (ZDP)

defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation (Vygotsky,

1978). Given the complexity of basic computer programming it is this (ZDP) that classrooms full

of five, six and seven year olds are different in every way. Take for instance a kindergarten class

of mostly five year olds. The range is from those that have just turned five to those who are

closer to six years old. They are close together by birth but their development is quite different.

So, a traditional style of direct instruction then putting them to work on a coding program will

cause those who are outside of their (ZDP) and cause them to become overwhelmed.

In a constructivist classroom the teacher will require this understanding of these

differences of student development as the teacher acts as a guide through their learning. Tapscott

(1997) defined the changing role of the teacher as less of an “instructional transmitter but more

of a facilitator of social learning whereby learners construct their own knowledge” (p. 148).

Working with students as they code or with any technology in the classroom and allowing them

to program or work in small groups or in pairs not only allows them to develop their social

constructivism but to assist each other if one’s (ZDP) is greater than that of the other students is.


The teacher is the facilitator of the learning and guiding them as they make sense of new

information. This is a shift in philosophy where the teacher is as much a part of the class as the

students are. When integrating technology such as iPads, laptops, digital cameras, educational

software it is necessary for the students to have an active role in their learning. The teacher as

facilitator helps to define “the role of language in cognitive development through interactions

with those more knowledgeable than ourselves” (Lucus & Claxton, 2010, p. 177).

In order for this type of constructivist approach towards the integration of technology in

the elementary classroom to be possible one must look at the relationships that the teacher has

with the students. The establishment of warm, positive, healthy, teacher-student relationships is

crucial to promoting meaningful student engagement in the learning process (Beutel, 2010). It is

these relationships that help to engage students and allow them the freedoms to work together

and explore their learning without fear of working too loudly, sharing ideas, and solving

problems together rather than alone. Many teachers feel that this type of teaching and learning is

a loss of control in the elementary classroom. It should be viewed as organized chaos. Yes,

students will talk to each other, yes they will move out of their seats and discuss a problem with

another group, and yes they will learn how we as adults learn in the 21st century. The amount of

information is endless and at our direct disposal. If we face a problem at work we aren’t

generally expected to solve it ourselves. We pick up a phone and call someone with more

experience, email a college or a higher level of support, or research the issue to get the problem

resolved. We are not left to do this on our own and we need to teach our students at a young age

to be able to do this. This is a 21st century skill and an expectation by most employers in today’s

job market. So, if the teacher is unable to remove themselves from the role as the sole provider of

learning due to personal and pedagogical conflicts of constructivist and Vygtoskian approaches


to learning then the class will slip back into a traditional objectivism type of instruction.

Teachers with a constructivist orientation consider the perspectives of their students when

seeking to facilitate learning, provoke the questioning of assumptions, and focus on the big ideas

that are relevant to students (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Teachers that understand the different

learning styles of the students in their classroom and plan for the intentional use of higher order

questioning, student collaboration, and ways to facilitate learning through the integration of

technology adhere to what Brooks & Brooks stated in their research. Instead of providing a

platform for simple rote, drill, and skill-focused approaches, technology should serve as a set of

tools for knowledge construction through such means as simulations, hypermedia, and “problem

based learning environments” (Jonassen, Howland, More, & Marra, 2003: Mayer, 2003).

It is this that a constructivist classroom will use to allow students to find different

representations of their learning. They can do this through computer programing with code to

providing simulations to solve a problem. Students use different types of software programs such

as Pixie and Kidspiration to create, use, and edit graphics, audio, and video to showcase their

learning. The (PBL) project based learning environments have been a place where students solve

real world problems and challenges. This allows for deep understanding of the subjects they are

studying, increase collaboration and student engagement.

Cases

The following two cases aim to serve as examples of how a constructivist approach to

technology integration in elementary education is the most suitable methodology in doing so.

The two cases are similar in content as one relates to using one-to-one laptop environment in

teaching and learning and the other is related to the beliefs about learning, instruction and


technology in elementary schools. Each of these two cases is rooted in a constructivist approach

to the integration of technology in the elementary classroom.

Intertwining Digital Content and One-to-One Laptop Environment in Teaching and

Learning

The first case by (Beck-Hill, D. & Rosen, Y., 2012) discusses how a constructivist

approach to popular one-to-one laptop computer programs affects the teaching and learning

pedagogies. This case was chosen as it provides a glimpse into technology-rich learning

environments and the implications of introducing a one-to-one program as a way to increase

these practices related to constructivist approach to technology integration.

This case was part of research conducted in Texas in the Grand Prairie Independent

School District (GPISD). This study was designed to address four research questions related to

the impact of the program on math and reading performance, attendance and disciplinary

records, instructional and learning practices, and learning motivation and attitudes toward

learning with computers. The populations examined are fourth and fifth grade students and their

teachers within the (GPISD). The researchers used two control schools and two test schools. All

four of the schools have similar gender and race distribution. The study was conducted over the

course of a two year period during the same time frame during the spring of each year.

In this study, the researchers set to answer four guiding questions about the intertwining

of digital content and one-to-one laptop environments in teaching and learning. The results of

reading and math performance showed that the fourth and fifth grades test participants

outperformed the control groups significantly during the two years in both reading and math

while the test groups only showed a small increase during the same test period. The results of the


unexcused absences showed a decrease by the test groups by 29.2% where the control groups

increased by 56.6%. This fact is statically significant and saves the school district an average of

$32.83 per student that is charged for each student’s unexcused absences. The study also found

that students’ discipline issues by the control group did not change. However, the test groups

issues decreased by 62.5%. The study also found that teachers using this program increased

across the board independent learning, student collaboration, adjusted instructional methods,

feedback, and scaffolding strategies. The study showed that the program promoted differentiated

teaching and learning in the classrooms by effectively implementing a constructivist technology-

enriched model (Beck-Hill, D. & Rosen, Y., 2012).

Beliefs about Learning, Instruction, and Technology

The second study by (Kurz-McDowell & Hannafin, 2004) discusses the beliefs about

learning, instruction, and technology of six teachers in the second, third and fourth grade level.

This study was chosen based on the importance of teacher attitude, educational philosophy and

technology background when integrating technology into a classroom.

This study was conducted in an average size public elementary school located in a

suburban town. It is a K-5 school with approximately 500 students. The participants were six

teaches from second and fourth grade classrooms. Five of the six teachers were female. This is

an important fact to know as it could alter the results based on the comfortability of technology

between male and females. There was a wide range of years of experience ranging from 3-21

years at the time of the study.

The study was conducted to research the various beliefs about teaching and learning in

elementary school and the integration of technology and technology use in their classrooms. The


teachers were given a survey as a way to collect their thoughts and beliefs about technology and

constructivism in a student centered classroom prior to a face-to-face interview. The

questionnaire had nine open-ended questions about what technology they used already, how they

felt about it, what type of barriers they have in integrating it and their definition of technology

integration to list a sampling of the survey. During the survey the teachers were asked another

six questions related to their own beliefs about learning and instruction only.

The results of the survey and interview questions were then grouped together based on

each of the teachers responses to the questions related to teaching and learning beliefs and

technology use. Then the results were broken down into two categories by either teacher-

centered or a student-centered constructivist approach. The second grade teachers wanted to

meet the needs of the students and adapt their teaching to do so. They fit a more constructivist

approach when examining the results of the questions. However, the fourth grade teacher felt that

due to state standardized testing that those were the things that needed to be taught, along with

independence, in the classroom and that there was little time to integrate technology and

continued in a teacher-centered environment. At the end of the study two patterns were identified

by the researchers. The first was that there was a correlation between teacher’s personal beliefs

and their philosophy’s on teaching and learning and integrating technology in to their

classrooms. The second pattern is how much difference there was between second and fourth

grade teachers’ philosophies and technology use.

Recommendations

The study of one-to-one technology integration was successful in in answering their

initial research questions related to technology integration using a constructivist approach.


However, the study faced challenges in whether or not the same study would be successful in

different contexts such as social studies and science classes as this one primarily focused on

math and reading. Another challenge was whether it had an effect on the other aspects of critical

thinking, reasoning and (ICT) literacy. A study would need to be conducted with a different

scope. Researchers would need to develop similar types of programs for the test teachers to

follow in the science and social studies classes while focusing more on problem solving,

reasoning skills, and ICT.

The primary challenge faced by the second study was barriers to the constructivist

approach to technology integration. Ertmer (1999) examined the barriers that prevent teachers

from integrating technology. Ertmer classified them into two distinct categories. The first are

related to teacher’s access to different technologies in the classroom and having a limited amount

of time set aside to plan constructivist based lessons. The second category is internal to the

teacher and relates directly to their beliefs about teaching and learning best practices. The study

related to teacher beliefs speaks to this as a primary challenge faced to the integration of

technology integration. Ertmer discussed that once a teacher had the first category of external

barriers removed that successful constructivist technology integration would ensue.

However, this study found that wasn’t the case. The study identified that the primary

barrier was the second and internal teacher factor of teaching philosophy. One way to try to

overcome these challenges would be to develop a comprehensive staff development plan

designed specifically to target teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards constructivist integration of

technology. The breadth of the development would cover everything from research based lesson

planning to research case studies in hopes of changing teacher’s philosophies. A tracking system

and an (ITP) individualized technology plan created for each teacher since we all learn at


different rates. These plans will assist an (ET) with gauging teacher’s movement towards the

target goals. Cochran, DeRuiter, and King (1993) examined pedagogical content knowledge of

beginning and experiences teacher. Teachers in training should be taught content knowledge

related to their field in such areas as “interpreting, critically reflecting, representing information

in multiple formats, adapting, tailoring and flexible understanding (p264).

Conclusion/ Next Steps

The current research supports success in the constructivist approach to technology

integration in elementary education. However, there are still many obstacles faced by

instructional designers, ET’s, classroom teachers and students when choosing what type of

technology to integrate and the philosophies of those implanting the theories in to the classroom.

The studies indicated that there had been significant statistical changes in the test group when

integrating technology into fourth and fifth grade classes with one-to-one laptop initiatives. It

also identified challenges with the research as it was limited to math and reading. It also

indicated that teachers beliefs of teaching and learning directly correlated to technology use or

the lack there of in the classroom. The next steps for these studies would be to extend further

investigation into the curriculums of science and social studies, as well as, explore its

effectiveness in other elementary grade levels. The studies should also take into consideration the

beliefs of teachers prior to the study being conducted. Technology-rich learning environments

are becoming more prevalent in the classroom and have been used as intellectual partners for

active participation in construction of knowledge (Jonassen, 2008). More information related to

constructivist approaches to technology integration can be found in David Jonassen’s book titled

Meaningful Learning with Technology (4th edition).


References

Beck-Hill, D., & Rosen, Y. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop

environment in teaching and learning: lessons from the time to know program: Journal of

Research on Technology in Education. 44.3 (Spring 2012): p225. From Student Resources in

Context.

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). Insearch of understanding: The case for constructivist

classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An

integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education. 44(4), 263-272.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for

technology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47-61.

Hamilton, B. (2007). It's elementary!: Integrating technology in the primary grades (First

edition.). Eugene, Or.: International Society for Technology in Education.

Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems: A

constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist

perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.


Jonassen, D.H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing

constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,

47(1), 61-79.

Kurz-McDowell, N. J., & Hannafin, R. D. (2004). Beliefs about Learning, Instruction, and

Technology among Elementary School Teachers. Journal Of Computing In Teacher

Education, 20(3), 97-105.

Lucas, B., & Claxton, G. (2010). New kinds of smart: Teaching young people to be intelligent

for today’s world. Maidenhead, GBR: Open University Press.

Overbay, A., Patterson, A. S., Vasu, E. S., & Grable, L. L. (2010). Constructivism and

Technology Use: Findings from the Impacting Leadership Project. Educational Media

International, 47(2), 103-120.

Ravitz, J.L., Becker, H.J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Teaching learning, and computing: 1998 national

survey. Irvine, CA: Research Institute on the Integration of Technology.

Rosen, Y. (2009). Effects of animation learning environment on knowledge transfer and learning

motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 439-455.

Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist

technology-intensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta

analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 1-14.

Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. Blacklick, OH, USA:

McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

Documents

Humphrey Sedet 709 Research Paper