DOCUMENT RESUME IR 019 689 ED 431 398 Dimock, K. Victoria; Boethel, Martha AUTHOR Constructing Knowledge with Technology. TITLE Southwest Educational Development Lab., Austin, TX. INSTITUTION DATE 1999-00-00 PUB NOTE 58p. Reports - Evaluative (142) Information Analyses (070) TYPE PUB MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. PRICE EDRS *Computer Uses in Education; *Constructivism (Learning); DESCRIPTORS Educational Change; Educational Practices; *Educational Technology; Educational Theories; Elementary Secondary Education; Instructional Improvement; Literature Reviews; Resistance to Change; Student Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Teaching Methods; *Theory Practice Relationship Barriers to Implementation; Knowledge Development; *Learning IDENTIFIERS Environments; *Technology Implementation; Technology Role; Technology Utilization ABSTRACT This literature review lays the groundwork for exploring potential linkages between constructivist learning theory and applications of technology. The first section provides an overview of constructivist learning theory, including the major concepts of constructivism, support for constructivist precepts, and confusions and controversies. Constructivism's implications for K-12 classrooms are identified in the next section, including the following elements of constructivist theory and their application in the classroom: the importance of prior understandings; learning as an adaptive activity; knowledge as constructed; resistance to change; learning as situated; and the role of social interaction. The third section describes the role of technology in constructivist learning environments; three major categories of instructional use for computer-based technologies are summarized--learning from technology, technology as the object of instruction, and learning with technology. The challenges of establishing constructivist learning environments and using technology to support them are addressed in the fourth section, including barriers to technology implementation, teachers' resistance to change, students' resistance to change, the dilemma of "right" answers versus student understandings, and the need for in-depth understandings of pedagogy, subject matter, and skills in using technology. A final section offers conclusions about creating constructivist learning environments supported by technology. (Contains 141 references.) (AEF) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** C nstructing Knowledge with Tchno1sgy K. Victoria Dimock Martha Boethel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CENTER (ERIC) 0 This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization D. Wilson originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. ° Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES official OERI position or policy. INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701-3281 (512) 476-6861 FAX (512) 476-2286 2 BEST COPY AM AB Table of Contents Introduction 1 An overview of constructivist learning theory 2 Major concepts of constructivist learning theory 2 Support for constructivist precepts 7 Confusions and controversies 8 Constructivism's implications for K-12 classrooms 10 The elements of constructivist theory and their application in the classroom 11 A summary of the instructional implications of constructivist theory 17 The role of technology in constructivist learning environments 19 Perspectives on the instructional role of technology 20 Learning with technology and the instructional implications of constructivism 22 The challenges of establishing constructivist learning environments, and using technology to support them 37 Barriers to technology implementation 37 Teachers' resistance to change 38 Students' resistance to change 39 The dilemma of "right" answers versus student understandings 39 The need for in-depth understandings of both pedagogy, subject matter, and skills in using technology 40 Creating constructivist learning environments supported by technology 41 References 43 3 Introduction This report is grounded in the idea that "theories of learning and prescriptions for practice must go hand in hand" (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992, p. 2). Both separately and in an aid to a learning theory tandem, constructivism and technology are receiving increasing attention in current efforts at instructional practice educational reform. However, the elements of constructivist theory, their implications for classroom practice, and the potential for technology to support instruction that is grounded in constructivist principles, often are addressed only in general and superficial ways. Although constructivism is prominent in discussions of instructional improvement, the tenets of constructivist learning theory do not necessarily reflect the mainstream of belief among educational practitioners. Schifter (1996) describes the "beliefs about learning that still order most of our classrooms": that people acquire concepts by receiving information from other people who know more; that, if students listen to what their teachers say, they will learn what their teachers know; and that the presence of other students is incidental to learning. (p. 494) There is a real danger that teachers are making only superficial changes while believing that they are implementing constructivist teaching approaches. As Taylor, Fraser, and Fisher (in press) report, "Our research has shown how readily traditional teacher-centered classroom environments can assimilate th[e] constructivist perspective and remain largely unchanged" (p. 3). particularly in the form of computers and online In a similar vein, technology is proliferating in schools. According to surveys by Market Data networks Retrieval (1997), the number of computers in public schools grew by nearly two hundred percent over the period from 1991-92 to 1995-96. The National Center for Education Statistics (1998) reports that 78 percent of U.S. public schools had access to the Internet in 1997, up from only 35 percent in 1994. Yet the potential of these technologies to support new, more student-centered instructional approaches, remains largely untapped (Means and Olson, 1997; U.S. Congress, 1995). This literature review lays the groundwork for exploring potential linkages between constructivist learning theory and applications of technology. The paper first outlines basic tenets common to most discussions of constructivism, then identifies, from the current literature, implications of these tenets for strengthening instruction in K-12 classrooms. A third section describes the use of technology to support instructional improvement based on the implication of constructivism. A final section outlines some of the challenges involved in using technology to support constructivist-oriented approaches. 4 An overview of constructivist learning theory Constructivist theory has its roots in a number of disciplines, including philosophy, anthropology, the natural sciences, semiotics, socio-linguistics, and education. Its lineage has been variously described (see, for example, Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; and Entwistle, Entwistle, & Tait, 1991). In the field of education, both Rousseau and Dewey are often cited as incorporating constructivist perspectives into their views of teaching and learning. More recently, the focus on constructivism has emerged from the push for reforms in specific content areas, with science and mathematics education at the forefront (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). In education, constructivism is often discussed as a philosophy or instructional approach. As Catherine Fosnot observes, however, "Constructivism is not a theory about teaching. It's a theory about knowledge and learning" (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, and to a tendency to p. vii). The confusion of the two has led both to controversy consider constructivism as merely one in a broad array of concepts on which teachers can draw in seeking to improve student learning. For any learning theory for to be of use, it is certainly necessary to identify and explore its implications teaching. But it is critically important to consider constructivism first purely through the lens of learning theory, i.e., what is (according to the constructivist perspective), rather than what should be. Major concepts of constructivist learning theory Duffy and Cunningham (1996) point out that "the term constructivism has come to authors serve as an umbrella term for a wide diversity of views" (p. 171). Some distinguish between cognitive constructivism, which focuses on the individual learner, and social constructivism, which emphasizes learning as occurring within the context of dialogue and social interaction (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Definitions of constructivism under any of these views, however, include as central the idea that knowledge is "constructed" by the learner. For example, Honebein, Duffy, and Fishman (1991) state, "Basically, constructivism proposes that knowledge but rather is constructed by individuals through their or meaning is not fixed . . . in a particular context" (p. 88). Embedded in this statement are a experience . . . number of concepts that run counter to the beliefs still shaping instruction in U.S. schools today: that learning is adaptive, a process of building functional understandings rather than of uncovering fixed truths; that learning is an active for learning are process controlled by the learner; and that learning and the context deeply intertwined (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Duit, 1995; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). There are other important concepts as well, particularly the role of social interaction in both mediating and facilitating the learning process. Learning as an adaptive activity. Constructivist theory characterizes learning as sense-making. Brooks and Brooks (1993), for example, state, "Each of us makes sense of our world by synthesizing new experiences into what we have previously come 5 to understand" (p. 4). Learning is a process of developing ever-more-powerful understandings; the activity is not one of acquiring a fixed body of knowledge, but of building concepts and explanations that allow us to function effectively in a given context and that adequately account for the circumstances presented to us: Taken as the advancement of understanding, the cognitive endeavor starts from what happens to be currently adopted and proceeds to integrate and organize, weed out and supplement, not in order to arrive at truth about something already made but in order to make something right to construct something that works cognitively, that fits together and handles new cases, that may implement further inquiry and invention. (Bauersfeld, 1995, p. 144, quoting Goodman & Elgin, 1988) Knowledge, in this view, is not fixed; it is not possible, in fact, to determine objective truth with any absolute certainty. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) state that "what we choose to call knowledge is a consensus of beliefs, a consensus open to continual negotiation" (p. 178). Rather than the approximation of objective reality, then, "viability" is the appropriate measure of understanding. As von Glasersfeld (1995a) observes, "To the biologist, a living organism is viable as long as it manages to survive in its environment. To the constructivist, concepts, models, theories, and so on are viable if they prove adequate in the contexts in which they were created" (pp. 7-8). Learning as situated. The quotation by von Glasersfeld focuses on understandings within "the contexts in which they were created." Constructivist theory describes knowledge as inextricably tied to the circumstances in which it is constructed and used: Recent investigations of learning challenge [the] separati[on] of . . . what is learned from how it is learned and used. The activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed, it is now argued, is not separable from or ancillary to learning and cognition. Nor is it neutral. Rather, it is an integral part of what is learned Learning and . . . cognition, it is now possible to argue, are fundamentally situated. (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, p. 32) If knowledge is defined as understandings that can be put to use, as was suggested in the preceding section, then knowledge may be characterized as "similar to a set of tools," and, like tools, "can only be fully understood through use": It is quite possible to acquire a tool but to be unable to use it. Similarly, it is common for students to acquire algorithms, routines, and decontextualized definitions that they cannot use and that, therefore, lie inert People who use tools actively rather than just acquire . . . them, by contrast, build an increasingly rich implicit understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools themselves. (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, P. 32) Knowledge, according to this view, is never completely abstract or independent from its context. Context may include the learner's reasons for seeking new understandings as well as the nature of the learning problem, its complexity, and the physical and social circumstances in which it is embedded (Honebein, Duffy, & Fishman, 1991). Traditional schooling simplifies knowledge and practice, presenting concepts and information abstractly rather than in a context of meaningful application (Resnick, 1989). When students memorize formulae, definitions, and the like, divorced from applications that have meaning to them, then the context for learning becomes merely that of passing a test or getting by in the classroom, and students' capacity to retain and apply the content is limited (Duit, 1991). Knowledge as constructed by the learner. Learning as sense-making is an active Perkins process; the learner is an actor, not a passive recipient of information. As (1992) describes it, "Learners do not just take in and store up given information. They make tentative interpretations of experience and go on to elaborate and test those interpretations" (p. 49). Constructing knowledge, moreover, is not merely a mechanical process of sorting and processing as a computer might. Duffy and Cunningham (1996), analyzing the metaphors used to characterize learning, contrast the mechanistic image of "mind as computer" with their conception of "mind as rhizome": The metaphor of rhizome specifically rejects the inevitability of such notions as hierarchy, order, node, kernel, or structure. The tangle of roots and tubers characteristic of rhizomes is meant to suggest a form of there are no fixed points or positions, only connections mind where . . . the structure is dynamic, constantly changing . (relationships) . . . . . Learning, then, is neither a matter of discriminating the symbols of the world and the rules for manipulating them nor of activating the right connections in the brain. It is, rather, a matter of constructing and navigating a local, situated path through a rhizomous labyrinth. (p. 177) In building ideas, then, learners draw on a complex web of experiences, voices, it, "Our sensory input, and other information. As Brooks and Brooks (1993) put perceptions and rules are constantly engaged in a grand dance that shapes our understandings" (p. 4). They use as an example a young girl who enters the ocean for the first time. She has experienced immersion in water only in bathtubs and swimming pools and so thinks of it "as calm, moving only in response to the moves she makes" (p. 4), and she has a certain conception of its taste. Her experience of the briny, tumultuous ocean water challenges these conceptions; from her old and new experiences and perceptions, the child must make new sense of the 7 4 characteristics of water. In doing so, she does not merely add new information to the mental category of water, but changes her basic framework for thinking about it. In this case, Brooks and Brooks state, "learning is not discovering more, but interpreting through a different scheme or structure" (p. 5, quoting Fosnot, in press). The role of experience and prior understandings. As the preceding example illustrates, the process of building new understandings is rooted in what we previously have experienced and understood. New experiences are internally mediated compared, filtered, assessed via prior experiences and understandings in an effort to find consistency. Von Glasersfeld (1995b) explains that, from our earliest sensory experiences, the human organism attempts "to establish regularities in its experience": The reason, on the simplest level, is that an organism that acts as if things that happen are likely to happen again can at least try to avoid situations it does not like (because they hamper or hurt) and to make those situations recur that it does like. As philosopher David Hume stated in the eighteenth century, if we do not believe that the world we live in repeats itself, we cannot draw inferences of any kind. (p. 369) Sense-making begins with inferences built and tested through direct sensory experience. As we grow older, "experience" becomes more broadly defined, encompassing not only physical phenomena and action but conversation, observation, reading, and thought (De Vries & Kohlberg, 1990). Whatever the nature of the experience, an opportunity for learning takes place when we encounter something that appears inconsistent with our existing understandings: Often, we encounter an object, an idea, a relationship, or a phenomenon that doesn't quite make sense to us. When confronted with such initially discrepant data or perceptions, we either interpret what we see to conform to our present set of rules for explaining and ordering our world, or we generate a new set of rules that better accounts for what we perceive to be occurring. Either way, our perceptions and rules are constantly engaged in a grand dance that shapes our understandings. (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. 4) A learner's encounter with objects or circumstances that do not fit her or his previous understandings and experiences, has been variously described as "disequilibration," or "perturbation," or, more simply, puzzlement (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 175). The learner seeks balance, or equilibrium; as Yager (1991) explains, this equilibrium is not static like a balance beam, but dynamic like that maintained by a cyclist. The brain is continually seeking to impose order on incoming stimuli and to generate models that lead to adaptive behavior and useful predictions. (p. 54) Resistance to change. Duit (1995), among others, notes that "conceptions stemming from everyday experiences are usually deeply rooted. This is especially true of conceptions based on sense experiences" (p. 275). Having found a "balance" of and understanding that appears to work in the circumstances encountered so far the learner feels no need to examine, that may be further reinforced over time much less doubt, that understanding. The more one's understandings recede from conscious awareness, the more difficult they become to change. Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) note a difference between "espoused theories," which they define as "what we are able to say we think and believe," and "theories-in-use," which are beliefs and assumptions existing, for the most part, beyond our conscious awareness and which exert much greater power espoused theories readily incorporate new over our actions and perceptions: "While While we [superficially] adopt new information, theories-in-use resist change . . . ideas, our behavior often continues unchanged" (p. 12). When discrepancies do arise, a learner's first response generally is to seek explanations that do not require a shift in well-established understandings, and if the discrepancies seem irrelevant, they are simply ignored. As Shapiro (1994) points of an old one. out, "In order to take on a new viewpoint, one must decide to let go There must be a reason to decide to make a shift in thinking" (p. 7). Or, as Wheatley (1991) puts it, "Our path is viable as long as we do not run into a wall" (p. 11). Even when seemingly impassable "walls" appear, the human organism demonstrates a remarkable capacity for getting around or through apparent contradictions, by blaming some intervening factor, even by disbelieving one's own eyes (Duit, 1991). The role of social interaction. One of the major areas of divergence among constructivists relates to their perspectives about the role of social interaction in the learning process (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Williams (1989; see also Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989) discusses the difference between cognitive constructivism, which emphasizes individual problem-solving and construction of ideas, and social constructivism, which posits that social interaction is not merely supportive of, but is an essential ingredient in, cognitive development. Social constructivism builds on the work of L. S. Vygotsky: Where cognitive theories move to the interior of the mind (what was going on to mediate stimulus and response), Vygotskian theory moves to the context of behavior, to the social situation within which the In this view, cognitive abilities and capacities action takes place. . . themselves are formed and constituted in part by social phenomena. (p. 109) Whichever the emphasis, however, constructivists agree that social interaction is an important component in the learning process. As Duffy and Cunningham (1996) explain, thinking "is always dialogic, connected to another, either directly as in some 9 6 communicative action or indirectly via some form of semiotic mediation: signs and/or tools appropriated from the socio-cultural context" (p. 177). Moreover, dialogue serves several functions, helping the learner to test and refine her or his ideas, introducing multiple perspectives, and negotiating limits on idiosyncratic conceptions: The constraints on constructed knowledge come largely from the community of which one is a member. By continually negotiating . . the meaning of observations, data, hypotheses, and so forth, groups of individuals construct systems that are largely consistent with one another. (Cognition and Technology Group, 1992, p. 117) Support for constructivist precepts It is not possible to definitively "prove" a learning theory, only to disprove it. However, a number of empirical studies support the power of constructivist theory in explaining the learning process. Studies of children's behavior in language acquisition and literacy (De Vries & Kohlberg, 1990; Seliger, 1991), mathematics (Aichele & Coxford, 1994; Bauersfeld, 1995; Schifter, 1996), and science (Driver, 1995; Duit, 1995; Shapiro, 1994; Wheatley, 1991), among others, indicate that prior to and independent of formal schooling, children seek regularities or patterns, ,and use them to build personal understanding of natural phenomena, language, symbols, and tools (De Vries & Kohlberg, 1990). resistance to changing their including adult learners' Studies reveal learners' existing conceptions, even to the point of perceiving events differently than they actually occur. As an example, learners who believe an object's weight will influence the speed with which it falls to the ground, tend to report "seeing" a heavier object touch down before a lighter one, even though the two objects fall at the same rate of speed (Duit, 1991, 1995). Studies also support the idea that social interaction plays an important role in supporting learning, although it remains difficult to characterize the precise role of social interaction (Driver, 1995; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). For example, Driver (1995) reports on a study of the influence of group discussion on students' understanding of science concepts. Results indicate that all children make progress in their scientific and that this progress occurs regardless of whether understanding. ., . the group discussion reflects progress. This suggests that the progress in understanding is brought about not so much through the scaffolding offered by other children's ideas as the opportunity for each individual to reorganize his or her own ideas through talk and listening. (pp. 394- 395) 1 0 7