RP3 Learning with Technology and Constructivism

This week's readings were designed to help us decide if technology makes a difference in the learning process, and whether or not Constructivism underlies best practices in educational technology.

Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, by Richard E. Clark

Mr. Clark's basic tenet is stated quite clearly in one of his opening paragraphs: that is, "that media do not influence learning under any conditions." He goes on to state that incidents that caused changes in student achievement or ability is actually caused by a curricular reform, rather than by any media that accompanied the change. Clark further states that media are nothing more than vehicles for delivering instruction, "but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition." 

Clark boldly asserts that after five decades of research on media comparisons, that there are "no learning benefits to be gained by employing different media in instruction." He argues that it is actually the relevant and crucial cognitive process features--translated in a symbol system and delivered via a convenient medium--that are necessary for learning or successful performance of tasks. He proposes that "it is therefore not the medium or the symbol system that yields the required performance. When a chosen symbol system is shaped to represent the critical features of the task and other things are equal, learning will occur."

My Thoughts: Clark's research and theory are from the digital dinosaur age, and in my opinion are too outdated to be relevant. Educational Technology (and technology in general) is vastly different right now than it was even 16 years ago at the turn of the century--let alone how it was 33 years ago when Clark's original article was written. Clark's evidence and resources also seem rather biased, so they do little for me in the way of supporting his claims. While I would agree that using media/technology to deliver instruction does not ensure learning and success for all students all the time, and that there can be other factors in play that help determine student achievement, that doesn't necessarily disprove that technology can indeed influence student learning.

 

Learning with Media, by Robert B. Kozma

Kozma's 1991 article is a response to Clark's. In it, Kozma first defines media, and then examines theories and research on learning from books, television, computers and multimedia environments. Clark examines each medium, the instructional designs that take advantage of them, and the characteristics of learners and learning tasks relevant to each.

Kozma states that "whether or not a medium's capabilities make a difference in learning depends on how they correspond to the particular learning situation--the tasks and learners involved--and the way the medium's capabilities are used by the instructional design." Kozma views learning with media as a "continuous, reciprocal interaction between person and situation--between learner and mediated information." He contends that little research has been done on learning in a multimedia environment, but that the advantages of using a combination of each type of the individual media already researched can be brought together and "strategically used to facilitate learning." He also notes that most media research for the past 30+ years has been on the impact of one medium vs. another, when the focus should really be on how to effectively learn WITH media.

With regard to Clark, Kozma concedes that some students will indeed learn regardless of delivery device. However, his research indicates that some students will be able to "take advantage of a particular medium's characteristics to help construct knowledge." He concludes that many instructional methods are effective in large part due to a particular medium's ability to "complement the learner's prior knowledge and cognitive skills." And, unlike Clark, Kozma feels strongly that further research is necessary to help further understanding of the relationship between media capabilities and learning.

My Thoughts: Kozma's research seems less biased and more accurate. I like that he acknowledges that media isn't necessarily going to improve learning for every student in every situation. But he gives much evidence for the benefits of the various types of media (or a combination thereof) for potential improved student achievement. He explains and cites evidence for each type of media, the instructional designs that take advantage of them, and the characteristics of the learners and learning tasks. In doing so, in my opinion, he effectively demonstrates the effects of learning with the different media. Additionally, he notes that because of the ever-evolving nature of technology, that more research is needed; and he notes that our focus shouldn't really be on the debate about whether or not teaching with media is effective. Rather, our focus should be on how to more effectively utilize media within instruction to improve student achievement. 

Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design, by David H. Jonassen

In this 1994 article, Jonassen first explains Constructivist theory--which states that learners construct their own reality based on their perceptions and experiences, so "an individual's knowledge is a function of one's prior experiences, mental structures, and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events." Jonassen talks about the difficulty in designing constructivist instruction, and "trying to determine what guidelines might exist in a constructivist design model." Also noted is that with Constructivism, there is a focus on knowledge construction, not reproduction, with authentic tasks and reflective practice, rather that "predetermined instructional sequences." The article also points out the primary difference between Constructivist and Objectivist approaches to instruction design: that is, the distinction between instruction and learning. Instructional design focuses on instruction with a predetermined outcome; Constructivism believes that learning outcomes shouldn't be predictable, and that "instruction" should foster rather than control the learner's process. In the Constructivist model there is much collaboration and "social negotiation" between learners, and the instructor is more of a mentor or facilitator, rather than an expert of "purveyor of knowledge." The conclusion is that both Objectivist and Constructivist models are useful and effective, but in different contexts.

My thoughts: I like this particular learning model and agree that it can be an effective way to improve learning. I think it is just like anything else where instruction is concerned: different contexts and learning goals can benefit from different methods of instruction. As an art teacher, I think Constructivism can be utilized a lot, especially when the focus is on the process, rather than on the product. Sometimes art lessons have very specific learning outcomes in mind, while other times they are much more open-ended. And I often feel that I am much more of a facilitator or mentor, rather than as someone who is just purveying knowledge.

Redefining Equity: Meaningful Uses of Technology in Learning Environments, by Robbin Chapman

Chapman first discusses in her article the need for equitable and meaningful access to technology. She discusses the common notion that the "Digital Divide is a manifestation of social inequities, which results in limited or denied access to digital resources." However her clearer focus is on the question of whether "equal access to educational technologies, in and of itself, will benefit all learners." Chapman suggests that a much broader definition of "equity" is necessary, one that includes meaningful use of these tools by all learners. She further states that "meaningful use describes a learner who is not a passive consumer of technology, but an active user, designing, creating, and sharing content that is culturally relevant" to them. Chapman also notes that there are three important aspects of what is considered meaningful use.

• The learner's motivation to produce personally meaningful content.
• Activities that motivate users to explore new means of expression through technology.
• The incorporation of a support system within their learning environment.

All of these things, according to Chapman, are a part of the Constructivist model of learning, which can be effective in combination with Community Technology Centers and/or Computer Clubhouse models. Chapman concludes that equity goes hand in hand with meaningful use of technology, and that both are particularly suited the to Constructivist model of learning, which is also very adaptable to a variety of learning styles.

My thoughts: It seems evident that meaningful use of technology is the key in creating true equity, and that equity and meaningful use of technology are very well suited to Constructivism. Learners can be much more successful when they feel that content is personally relevant and meaningful to them. Learners can also be more successful when they are allowed to explore new means of expression and collaborate in social environments, and when they are working with a strong support system in their learning environments. And these are all key components of Constructivism. 

Reflection

If we are to believe Mr. Clark, we really should simply disregard technology all together within the classroom because, according to him, it has no influence on learning under any circumstances. Mr. Kozma, on the other hand, believes that technology can and often does influence learning--but that it depends upon the context. He also seems to concede that even though technology can be effective in learning, it is not necessarily beneficial in every class or situation. Kozma also feels that we should focus on how to use media more effectively, rather than continuing to debate whether or not it actually is.

Constructivism is explained by Jonassen as a model wherein knowledge is facilitated by instructors but constructed by students, rather than reproduced, and based on their prior knowledge and experiences, mental structures, and beliefs. There is no predetermined outcome in Constructivism, and there is much social collaboration and communication between learners, while the instructor acts as more of a mentor. This seems to tie in very well with Chapman's notions of equity and and meaningful access to technology. In Chapman's model, the learners are also motivated by personally meaningful content; they are encouraged to explore new means of expression in a community center, and there is a strong support system incorporated into their environment. So there are many similarities between Constructivism and Chapman's community model of learning with technology.

I think the main connection between all of these theories and research is that there is not a one-size-fits-all-model of effective instruction. What works in come contexts and circumstances will not necessarily work in all, and what works for some students will not necessarily be effective for others. Additionally, it seems clear to me that technology can be very effective in improving student learning when it is equitable, meaningful, and personally relevant to the learner. What it comes down to is active and meaningful engagement and participation of learners, rather than passive observation. And, like Kozma, I think that continued research is important, considering the ever-evolving technological world in which we live.

I just want to add a helpful resource that I found on effectively using Constructivism in the classroom. It has lots of relevant information and explanation, demonstration, videos, resources, lesson plans and more.

Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning