This article traces the development of the constructivist theory of teaching and learning, overviews the research that links technology to constructivism and highlights some of the teaching and learning tools, systems and models that are successfully using technology to develop learners' thinking and understanding. Constructivist viewpoints represent a range of thinking on different dynamics, such as:
· Teacher-directed instruction vs. student-empowered learning
· Standardization vs. customization
· Solitary vs. community-based learning
· Simulation vs authentic experience
There are now a variety of tools and systems available to assist with learning across these spectra. Recent research has shown that electronic performance support systems (EPSS) offer a great deal of potential for users to adapt or design the framework of their activities and their own materials to empower the learner; various multimedia combinations have shown a great deal of promise in supporting learners to create their own visual schema; simulations and virtual environments come closer to attaining the same results as real-world experiences and models that exist which will help us to organize these resources to attain optimal impact. The article closes with a review of available tools and implications for research.

">

Improving Learning With Constructivist Technology Tools

Melodee Landis*
Associate Professor, Teacher Education, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Periodicity:January - March'2008
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.571

Abstract

This article traces the development of the constructivist theory of teaching and learning, overviews the research that links technology to constructivism and highlights some of the teaching and learning tools, systems and models that are successfully using technology to develop learners' thinking and understanding. Constructivist viewpoints represent a range of thinking on different dynamics, such as:
· Teacher-directed instruction vs. student-empowered learning
· Standardization vs. customization
· Solitary vs. community-based learning
· Simulation vs authentic experience
There are now a variety of tools and systems available to assist with learning across these spectra. Recent research has shown that electronic performance support systems (EPSS) offer a great deal of potential for users to adapt or design the framework of their activities and their own materials to empower the learner; various multimedia combinations have shown a great deal of promise in supporting learners to create their own visual schema; simulations and virtual environments come closer to attaining the same results as real-world experiences and models that exist which will help us to organize these resources to attain optimal impact. The article closes with a review of available tools and implications for research.

Keywords

standardization, customization, student-empowered learning, teacher-directed instruction

How to Cite this Article?

Melodee Landis (2008). Improving Learning With Constructivist Technology Tools. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.571

References

[1]. Amill, L. (1999-2000). Telementoring: A view from the facilitator's screen. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
[2]. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
[3]. Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399-413.
[4]. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning, Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12.
[5]. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the nd science of instruction. (2 ed.) San Francisco: Pfeiffer, John Wiley & Sons.
[6]. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[7]. Cuban, L. (2001). Computers, oversold and underused. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
[11]. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2007). Meaningful learning with rd technology (3 edition). Upper Saddle Creek, JG: Pearson Education.
[12]. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
[13]. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
[14]. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17- 27.
[15]. Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
[16]. Locke, J. (1996). An essay concerning human understanding. K. P. Winkler (Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 33–36
[17]. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing Instruction for Constructivist Learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 141-159.
[21]. Richards, R. T. (1998). Infusing technology and literacy into the undergraduate teacher education curriculum through the use of electronic portfolios. T.H.E. Journal, 25(9), 46-50.
[22]. Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist technologyintensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 1-14.
[23]. Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychologist. 13, 276-295.
[24]. Simons, P. R.-J. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 291-313). Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag.
[25]. Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers' pedagogical content beliefs matters for students' achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24(3), 344-355.
[29]. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[30]. Walker, M. (2000). Learning how to learn in a technology course: A case study. Open Learning, 15(2), 173-189.
[32]. Zhang, C. (2002). An Investigation of Traditional and Constructivism Models of Internet Training and Effects on Cognitive Gain. In C. Crawford, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2002 (pp. 2343-2344). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Online 15 15

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.