CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Constructivist Based Learning Environment Enriched with Web 2.0 Tools Leslie Haskell Boise State University EdTech 504

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the educational benefits of transitioning from a traditional face-to-face classroom to a modern blended classroom. The blended classroom environment based on the constructivist theory and partnered with Web 2.0 tools will prove educationally advantageous to 21st century students. This transition will allow students will gain access to a vast pool of world-wide collaborative and informational resources while managing their own learning. The initial focus of this paper is to clarify the purpose of education and how that purpose will be achieved through the classroom transformation. Education is a constantly changing medium; most of the prompt for change comes from on-going research of teaching and learning theories as well as technological advancements. While learning theory preferences are ever changing and redefined, technology seems to dictate the swing of the educational pendulum. Keywords: face-to-face classroom, blended classroom, constructivist theory, web 2.0

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Constructivist Based Learning Environment Enriched with Web 2.0 Tools Technology as a tool is not a new resource to the classroom. For many years teachers have used tools such as filmstrips, tape cassettes, over-head projectors and slide projectors, this type of technology was solely intended for teacher use. Only since technology has become global and mobile have teachers been faced with the decision of whether or not to implement technology designed for student use. It is only a matter of time before technology will be an ever-present staple and teachers will not have an option. The delivery method of instruction is offered across the spectrum, from the traditional classroom to completely on-line delivery. Even though more and more courses are being made available online, there is still a place and need for the traditional classroom with todays K-12 students; at this point not everyone is ready (or able) to go completely digital. The blended classroom, which is in the middle of the spectrum, intermixes the advantages of a theory driven traditional classroom with the technology tools of the on-line delivery method. Whether the technology integration approach is gradual or more aggressive, the attention remains on providing methods most beneficial to students. Regardless of the individual classrooms level of digital readiness, unification of the constructivist theory and web 2.0 tools will benefit 21st century leaners as well as provide teachers with a great means of engaging students across the curriculum. Purpose of Education In order to clarify the rationale of merging the constructivist theory with Web 2.0 tools, in an attempt to maximize the learning environment, it is important to focus on the purpose of education. In search of the perfect statement regarding the purpose of education, opinions tend to get a bit muddled. Many outside sources (parents, teachers, state and local government

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

agencies, psychologists, and business owners) share an interest and an opinion on the purpose of education, but not all agree. One idea that is agreed upon by the majority of sources is that todays students will play an important role in society as the future leaders, business owners, politicians, inventors, etc. Author Ayn Rands (1999) definition of the purpose of education highlights acquired skills that will prepare todays students for their current and future role in society. It also validates the constructivist theory and the students development of knowledge. The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort. Rand (1999) helps create a clearer purpose of education. The dual role of the teacher is to present the curriculum in a way that will prepare students for their role in society. This is achievable through the promotion of a constructivist cooperative classroom, where students can learn from and interact with other students from around the world and deal with real-world events and situations on a daily basis. Teachers' perceptions and behaviors are shaped by their individual beliefs, values, attitudes, and dispositions (Yero, 2001-2011, p.1). Many veteran teachers beliefs, values, attitudes, and dispositions will require flexibility in order to embrace the newest tools and practices. Not only have classroom practices and tools changed, but the classroom setting is in the midst of a change as well.

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Face-to-Face Transition to the Blended Classroom The change in views and opportunities regarding modern teaching and learning practices should not minimize the success of the traditional face-to-face classroom. There was a time and place for the traditional classroom. It has and still is serving a purpose for many students and teachers worldwide who are technology deficient. Technology encourages reaching beyond the walls of the iconic classroom to meet the needs of 21st century learners. The blended classroom is a step towards complete online education, by mixing the traditional classroom (face-to-face interaction between teacher and students) with internet based tools and resources. A blended classroom offers more flexibility and encourages creative development, changing the focus from teacher-centered to student-centered learning. It is important to understand how teachers change their conception of learning from a view which sees learning as a process of the transmission of facts from one person to another, to a view of learning as an active and knowledge-constructivist process (Levin & Wadmany, 2005, p. 283). Opening the confines of the traditional classroom with the use of technology allows the students to branch out and discover learning opportunities the world has to offer. According to Levin and Wadmany (2005) success of technology integration depends on the restructured collective vision of teacher and students in the classroom as they experience new modes of learning in a rich, technology-based environment (p.283). The teachers level of computer literacy along with their motivation to incorporate it is also essential to a successful blended-classroom. Technology is swiftly changing the classroom and will continue to change, quicker than many teachers are prepared for. In recent years, teacher preparation programs have

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

begun to require computer literacy courses along with the regular teacher certification requirements. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has provided the following foundation standards for pre-service teachers; (1) basic technology operations and concepts, (2) application of technology in instruction, (3) professional and personal use of technology, and (4) the societal, ethical, and human impact of technology (Halpin, 1999, p. 129). A large majority of todays students are beginning to enter the classroom fully technology literate. Teachers, who lack confidence in their usability and knowledge of technology, are intimidated by students grasp of technology. This challenge supports the need for new hires to step into the classroom as computer literate as their students, if not more so. Unfortunately, for teachers lacking computer literacy and nearing their retirement, they are less likely to incorporate technology into their classroom which is regrettable for their students. With this said the use of technology as a tool will not single-handedly change the enrichment of the learning environment. Technology paired with teachers who approach teaching with constructivist views will change the learning environment by shifting the teachers role from a director (teacher-centered classroom) to a coach and facilitator (student-centered classroom). Teachers will do less teaching and students will learn more as students take on the ownership role of their personal learning. What we want is to see the child in pursuit of knowledge, and not knowledge in pursuit of the child (Thayne & Morgan, 2009). Constructivism Theory The constructivist theory falls under two schools of thought; social constructivism and cognitive constructivism. Social constructivism is based on Lev Vygotskys model which assigns the teacher as an active model for students, who develop knowledge through a series of learnercentered tasks. The cognitive constructivism is based on Jean Piagets model that says

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

individuals learn through active construction of their own, new knowledge. According to Etmer and Newby (1993), to be successful, meaningful, and lasting, learning must include all three of these crucial factors; activity (practice), concept (knowledge), and culture (context). New teachers are entering classrooms fully embracing educational technology. Without a theory driven approach, however, technology will just be another tool. Constructivism is both a philosophy and a theory of learning; the key concept of constructivism is that learning is an active process of creating, rather than acquiring, knowledge (Burns, Heath, & Dimock, 1998, p. 1). The constructivist goal, through authentic real-world experiences, is that students will construct knowledge both individually and socially, based on and built upon their prior experiences and existing knowledge. Constructivism describes both what knowing is and how one comes to know. Obviously, how one comes to know has a direct link to teaching and learning. When teachers plan to stimulate and enhance a students learning, they must remember that knowledge does not exist outside the students mind (Simpson, 2002, p. 348). Constructivism promotes hands-on experimentation, manipulation, critical thinking, problem solving, creative expression, social interactions, collaboration, and allows for differentiated learning. These are all the tools and skills students will use to construct his/her knowledge and develop higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills. A technology supported learning environment is the substance necessary to bring the outside world into the confines of the classroom. According to Levin and Wadmany (2005): Information technology has also been hailed as the catalyst for restructuring and reculturing the classroom and the emergence of an environment able to promote

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

constructivist-based learning, encourage the development of higher-order inquiry skills, and produce mindful, self-regulated teachers and students (p. 282). Mattar (2010) expresses that learners are expected to function as self-motivated, self-directed, interactive, and collaborative participants in their learning experienceswithin the technology supported learning environment (p. 4). The constructivist theory alone is an invaluable guide for designing goal-driven lessons, but the outcome can be magnified with the incorporation of web 2.0 tools. Web 2.0 Tools According to Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes, 2004 marked the transition from the readonly Web 1.0 tools to the read-and-write Web 2.0 tools which provided a means of interacting and participating through the World Wide Web (2009, p. 247). On a daily basis students use web 2.0 tools such as Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and blogs outside of the classroom, many times these tools are used for educational purposes (homework, research, study groups, etc.). It is evident that technological development and social software are significantly altering the way learners access information and knowledge (Mattar, 2010, p. 3). Web 2.0 tools are already engaging and promoting collaboration among students outside of the classroom. Classroom implementation of these modern tools will create a change from classical epistemology of education to a new epistemology, based on active learning pedagogies, constructivism, situated teaching, co-creation of knowledge, peer review, and new forms of assessment (Mattar, 2010, p. 3). Another advantage of Web 2.0 tools is the flexibility on the part of the program developer and user (teacher and student) with the capability of real-time upgrade and improvements; a

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

much better option compared to the one-size-fits-all software previously used. OReilly and Batelle (2009) express that the network as platform means far more than just offering old applications via the network (software as a service); it means building applications that literally get better the more people use them, harnessing network effects not only to acquire users, but also to learn from them and build on their contributions. Web 2.0 tools are being developed by the masses, they are easily accessible with many of them being offered at minimal to no charge. School districts are running out of excuses for not providing these beneficial student friendly applications. Web 2.0 tools are computer and mobile driven programs and applications with the central idea that, successful network applications are systems for harnessing collective intelligence (OReilly & Batelle, 2009). The ability of harnessing collective intelligence will be more challenging if students are not given the opportunity to use these valuable web 2.0 tools in the classroom. Cooperative learning, which promotes collective interaction, has decreased as the student to teacher ratio has increased. In the typical face-to-face classroom, only the outgoing and confident students benefit from the collaboration of cooperative learning. Those students who are a bit more timid and lack the confidence to push for interaction miss out on the benefits. While the use of web 2.0 tools will allow every student to experience the benefits of participating in a cooperative learning environment, it is important to keep in mind the new responsibilities that accompany global interaction. The classroom provides an ideal environment to educate students on privacy issues, copyright laws, netiquette, and how to access and analyze information. Web 2.0 tools range from accessing real-time news feeds, promoting social

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

10

interaction (Twitter, Facebook, Edmodo, discussion boards), support peer-to-peer collaboration (Google docs, discussion boards, forums, wiki), inspire creativity (digital story books, flash game creator, video editing, design a website/blog), creating presentations (slide share, glogster, prezi), while others aid in research, analysis and gathering information. These tools provide teacher benefits as well as offering great assessment tools and real time feedback with students. Regardless of task, there is a web 2.0 tool available to meet nearly every need imaginable. Conclusion Todays students are often criticized for having short attention spans, however when they are highly engaged and interacting there is no insufficiency in their attention span. Students spend much of their out of classroom time playing a video game, texting, creating videos to share with friends, surfing the web for the perfect outfit, and watching how-to videos to improve their game or learn how to do something of interest. Many students begin their weekday dreading going to school, they see school as boring, they do not think they will use the skills taught later in life, many do not even understand the purpose behind what is taught. When teachers incorporate technology that students are already familiar with and use on a daily basis to create engaging and interactive lessons, the classrooms will transform into a productive learning environment where students do not have the impulse to complain. There are three fundamental aspects essential in achieving a productive blended learning environment; the teacher, constructivist learning theory and web 2.0 tools. The teacher has five key roles: 1. Keep the students needs and learning objectives the focal point of instruction.

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

11

2. Demonstrate the ability to organize and follow through with clearly planned goaldriven lessons. 3. Illustrate confidence and knowledge of 21st century tools and resources. 4. Be an active facilitator who will keep the students on task while providing immediate feedback. 5. Be competent in incorporating technology that will meet the needs of the lesson (not a lesson that will meet the needs of the technology). The second fundamental aspect of a productive learning environment is to base instruction and learning on the constructivist learning theory. This will promote student-owned knowledge development. The third aspect is the incorporation of engaging and purposeful web 2.0 tools specifically chosen to enrich objective goals and projected learner outcomes. If the purpose of education is to teach the core curriculum while guiding students to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality,to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove, to acquire further knowledge by his own effort (Rand, 1999), then it is the responsibility of the teacher to provide a technology-rich cooperative learning environment.

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

12

References Burns, M., Heath, M., & Dimock, V. (1998). Constructivism and technology: On the road to student-centered learning. Tap into Learning 1(1), 1-8. Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671 Halpin, R. (1999). A model of constructivist learning in practice: Computer literacy integrated into elementary mathematics and science teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing In Education, 32(1), 128-138. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 14(3), 281-307. Mattar, J. A. (2010, August). "Constructivism and connectivism in education technology." Retrieved from http://www.joaomattar.com/Constructivism%20and%20Connectivism%20in%20Education% 20Technology.pdf O'Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). Web squared: Web 2.0 five years on [Special issue]. Retrieved from http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194

CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

13

Rand, A. (1999). Return of the primitive: The anti-industrial revolution. New York: Meridian. Simpson, T. L. (2002, September 6). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? Educational Forum, 66(4), 347-54. Thayne, C., & Morgan, P. (2009). Children and young people's plan 2009-2013. The Children and Young People's Trust. Retrieved from http://www.blackburn.gov.uk/upload/pdf/Children-and-young-peoples-plan-2009.pdf Yero, J. L. (2011). The meaning of education. Teachers Mind Resources. 1-3. Retrieved from http://www.teachersmind.com/pdfdirectory/Education.PDF