Using+Technology+Tools+Constructivism

toc

Using Technology Tools to Engage Students with Multiple Learning Styles in a Constructivist Learning Environment Pamela Solvie and Molly Kloek Kendall Schmidt Desere Klain Jennifer Bartlau Davis Zhao Drew Hillman
 * The New Traditionalists**

=Introduction= Pre-service teachers are learners and teachers at the same time who are able to connect theory and practice in a classroom setting. This study examines pre-service teachers taking reading methods courses and studying how to teach elementary school children how to read. This 4-month study was funded by the Archibald Bush Foundation Grant, takes place at University of Minnesota, Morris, and included 27 females and 3 males who were taking two reading methods courses (16 weeks each).

=Background for the Study= This study aimed to create a constructivist learning environment, one that targeted multiple learning styles. The pre-service teachers developed knowledge and strategies, reflected and collaborated with other pre-service teachers, and incorporated their methods course information into the student learning environment. Also, technology-enhancement was investigated and proven effective for reading instruction.

=Theoretical Framework= The study focused on three theories: constructivism, learning style theory, and technology integration.

Constructivism Constructivism is the idea that people develop or construct their own understanding about material that is taught; the learner is interactive with educational material, comparing it to previous bodies of knowledge, and integrating new knowledge with old knowledge. Teachers need to be aware of previous experiences and prior knowledge in order to scaffold students’ learning as they reshape new knowledge into an understandable form.

Learning Styles Learning is a process where a student is able to identify skills, deepen knowledge, and apply this new knowledge and skill set to their lives. Learning and environment are closely associated and are central to experimental learning. Experimental learning requires a transformation of ideas based on time with experiences, collaboration, and consideration. Kolb's Model includes the following four learning styles: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.

Technology Technology is used to both support learning and engage students by providing “learning by doing” experiences. Technologies that can be used include video and audio clips, Simple Machines Forum discussion board, wiki, PowerPoint, SMARTBoard and SMARTNotebook software, Inspiration, and course web page.

=Methodology= The research was conducted to find out if technology-enhanced learning experiences support constructivist setting.The research included 30 preservice teachers in reading methods course and course activities that use technology tools. Data was collected on students' learning style preference, the use of technology, and performance in the classroom.

Constructivism and Concrete Experiences Concrete experiences were used to in literacy development, reading instructional practices, and decision-making in the classroom. This relates to constructivism as students were expected to make connections to prior knowledge and get into groups to participate in concrete experiences and share their knowledge within their groups. Technology used to provide concrete experiences included a SMARTBoard, audio clips, video clips.

 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Constructivism and Reflective Observations <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">To help students reflect on the information gained as a result of prior experiences, concept maps were prepared by the instructor. Concept maps were used to help students provide overview of topics and concepts and to extend individual reflection and support social construction of knowledge as students worked together in small groups. A wiki discussion board was formed to encourage reflection on six different approaches to reading instruction.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Constructivism and Abstract Conceptualization <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Cognitive expectations included: getting information from authoritative sources, using research and methods and engaging in reading theory. A course webpage was used to help students discuss and share experiences to help facilitate social construction of knowledge.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Constructivism and Active Experimentation <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;"> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Students make use of concrete experienced, reflective observations, and knowledge gained throgh abstract conceptualization in new settings. Students should be able to put the pieces of their learning together to problem solve and apply what they learned to something new. Students used short videos on IMovie or Windows MovieMaker to illustrate their work in designing a classroom environment that supported literacy.

=Data Collection= <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Data was gathered on students’ use of technology tools in accordance to students’ learning styles and their performance. Students took a 12-question test and were separated in four learning styles from Kolb’s Model. 1) Concrete Experiences 2) Abstract Conceptualization 3) Active Experimentation 4) Reflective Observation

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Description of Data Sources <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Students identified how well they believed technology tools supported their learning. Four open-ended questions allowed to students reflect on what was effective and less effective. Preservice teachers were required to analyze their data, write up their data, and make recommendations for further teaching practices

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">K-Means Cluster <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Students were sorted into one of three learning style clusters.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Cluster 1: Active Experimentation; n=19. Scored above average on active experimentation, average on abstract conceptualization and concrete experimentation and below average on reflective observation
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Cluster 2: Reflective Observation; n=6. Scored above average on reflective observation, average on concrete experimentation, and below average on active experimentation
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Cluster 3: Reflecting observations/abstract conceptualization; n=5. Scored above average on reflective observation and abstract conceptualization and below average on active experimentation and concrete experience

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">T-Test There is a correlative relationship between how many different learning style preferences a student can apply and how well the students do on the t-test. The more flexible, the better.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Analysis of Variance and Discussion Board Posts <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Raw scores from learning style inventory were related with their performance on discussion board assignments. Students were assigned points based upon concepts and vocabulary used to demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of literary topics.Those in the abstract reflective cluster did much better than those in the active cluster or the reflective cluster. Students who scored high on reflective observation and abstract conceptualization and low on active experimentation and concrete experience showed higher scores in discussion board posting

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Review of Likert Scale Questionnaires <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Linkert Scale Questionnaire uses a 5 point scale with 1 being Strongly Disagree, 3 being No Opinion and 5 being Strongy Agree. Questionnaires were given once after the midterm and once after the final exam in order to collect information on students’ use of learning style information, how well technology was used to support understanding of course content, and whether or not technology in and outside of schools support construction of knowledge. Responses provides responsive statistical data on preferences for particular technology tools. T-tests used to compare the mean scores to each other by cluster showed no significant differences among the students in the learning style clusters.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Learning Styles <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Students, regardless of learning style, believed that the curriculum addressed a variety of learning styles and the assignments allowed for varied opportunities to demonstrate comprehension. However few students used their knowledge of learning style to guide their studying.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Technology Tools for Construction of Knowledge <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Students’ perception of how technology tools support learning styles varied <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The usefulness of many technology tools were largely uncertain. Students in cluster 2 reported high scores for the course Web page, the discussion board, and the Power Points. In-class technology usefulness also varies among all three clusters. Audio and visual clips supported their learning, see Table 4 below. Narrative comments from many students reinforce videos as helpful in supporting course content and comprehension. Reflections on video use in the course represent differences in learning styles.

=Discussion: Tying Learning Styles, Technology Tools, and Constructivism Together=

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">The Match/Mismatch Between Claims About technology and Learning Styles in Constructivist Settings Among the three learning style clusters, no significant difference was found in preference for particular technology tools. __The match between learning styles and characteristics of a technology affect performance more than a student’s preference for technology__. All students used technology to complete their assignments and activities. However, not all students chose to use technology when it was optional. Whether or not a student decided to use technology resources may have been due to his/her resistance to the use of technology in general, his/her ideas about what constitute valid forms of knowledge and class participation and also how the instructor presented the technology tools. It is the way technology is presented and not just the technologies themselves that impact whether or not they are valued and therefore used. Further research is recommended in regards to the way that classroom dynamics (teacher and students) play out to impact the social practices of the classroom that in turn affect the way that knowledge is constructed through the use of technology tools.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Expanding Learners' Expectations From Rigid to Flexible Stances <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Students in the study had social context for their course since they had at one time themselves learned to read and additionally they were in school to eventually become reading teachers. Metacognition was also an important component as students “engaged with content, technology tools, and others to construct knowledge.” The technology tools provided the students with a chance to consider the viewpoints of others, contextualize those views by considering their own experiences learning to read, and then equipped with new ideas, the students could later bring this knowledge and experience to their work with elementary school students. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Cognitive flexibility was encouraged. Learners who had multiple learning style preferences benefited the most from technology tools selected to address a variety of learning styles. Those with multiple preferences could adjust their learning to meet the needs of any given task. The authors recommend that more is done to help students to be able to adjust and meet the needs of a variety of technologies and tasks. Essentially, there needs to be a way that students can incorporate a preference for more than just one learning style. Metacognition is likely to help. “With further experience, additional scaffolding, and analysis of tasks associated with use of the discussion board and topics discussed on it, the discussion board as used in this course might support both individual and social construction of knowledge to a higher degree for all students.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Student and Instructor Roles in Technology-Enhanced Constructivist Classrooms <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">__Agency__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> is the power to act; it is the “conscious awareness and control over what is being learned”. To develop agency one must understand what is being learned and also know how learning takes place. Agency must be visible to everyone involved in a constructivist setting. It is important, in a constructivist classroom, that learners and instructors responsibility to themselves and to the group be discussed. This can be done by means of metacognition, reflection, and assimilation of knowledge when using technology tools.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Constructivist classrooms involve some <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">__tension/balance between the roles of the students and of the instructor__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. The role of instructor in constructivist classrooms is to provide scaffolding, expert guidance, tools and resources in support of learning, and to alter planned experiences to address student needs. Technology tools enable instructor to model and share feedback. This is part of the scaffolding that instructors provide. It is crucial that multiple learning tools are provided so that it is more likely for students of all learning styles to be engaged in the learning process. If technology tool use is not required, they may not benefit everyone if students choose not to utilize tools. The students, through discussion, were able to help each other learn. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Issues of power can come up when considering tension/balance between roles. Students communicate through discussion boards and wiki work yet ultimately the instructor gives the grade. Because the instructor views and monitors the online discussions this may have an effect on what students say or don’t say. This may additionally impact what is considered valid forms of knowledge. “Discussing who selects tools, organizes the information, and monitors, whatever the mode of learning, will be important as social practices are constructed and negotiated in the constructivist classroom.”

=Conclusions and Recommendations= <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Technology tools can be beneficial in a constructivist classroom when different learning needs, in regard to different learning style preferences, are taken into account. The integration of technology tools into the four modes of learning can aid the students’ construction of knowledge. In a constructivist classroom, it is important that students and instructors negotiate how technology tools will be used and monitored in the classroom as social practices are shaped.

=References=

Duquesne University. (n.d.). //Service-Learning.// Retrieved July 7, 2013, from http://www.duq.edu/about/centers-and-institutes/center-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-and-learning/service-learning

Hoskins, P. (n.d.). //Constructivist Education.// Retrieved July 8, 2013, from Hoskins, P. (n.d.). Constructivist Education. Retrieved from http://www.scoop.it/t/5e-s-learning/p/456714456/constructivist-education

Pamela Solvie/Molly Kloek (2007). Using Technology Tools to Engage Students with Multiple Learning Styles in a Constructivist Learning Environment. //Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education//, //7//(2), 7-27.

Rouman, M. (n.d.). //Education World: Are You a Techno-Constructivist? .// Retrieved July 7, 2013, from http://www.scoop.it/t/web-2-0-tools-for-presentation-collaboration

Unknown (n.d.). //Learning Styles.// Retrieved July 8, 2013, from http://theinteractiveweb.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/learning_styles.jpg <span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: -40px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: 1605.5px; width: 1px;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14pt; line-height: normal; margin-left: 0in;">The research was conducted to find out if technology-enhanced learning experiences support constructivist setting. The research included 30 preservice teachers in reading methods course and course activities that use technology tools. Data was collected on students’ learning style preference, the use of technology, and performance in the classroom.