Integration in the Classroom
Integration for What?
“Teachers are being asked to learn new methods of teaching, while at the same time they are facing even greater challenges of rapidly increasing technological changes and greater diversity in the classroom…but relatively few teachers (20%) report feeling well prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom instruction.” U.S. Department of Education, 1999.
Technologies do not guarantee effective learning. Yet inappropriate uses of technology can make learning more difficult. This is the case, for example, when students spend most of their time selecting fonts and colors for reports instead of planning, writing, and revising their ideas. Although technology integration is talked about a lot in education, very few educators have a clear vision or philosophy of what technology integration is all about. Moreover, if you ask educators how to integrate technology into the curriculum, very few will know how to go about doing it in a meaningful and purposeful way.
Approaches for Technology Integration
Educational goals change according to new social needs, and so do strategies for integrating technology into teaching and learning. Lately, there have been disagreements among learning theorists about which strategies will prove most effective in achieving today’s educational goals. This dispute has served as a catalyst for two very different models of teaching and learning: directed instruction and constructivism (Roblyer et al., 1997). Directed instruction is grounded primarily in behaviorist learning theory and the information-processing branch of the cognitive learning theories. The constructivist view, on the other hand, evolved from other aspects of the cognitive learning theory. A few technology applications (e.g., drill and practice, tutorials) are associated only with directed instruction; most others (e.g., problem solving, multimedia applications, and telecommunications) can enhance either directed instruction or constructivist environments, depending on how teachers integrate them into classroom instruction.
Information-processing theories emerged from a branch of cognitive psychology that focused on the memory and storage processes that enable learning. A theorist in this area explored how a person receives information and stores it in memory, the structure of memory that allows the learning of something new to relate to and build on something learned previously, and how a learner retrieves information from short-term and long-term memory and applies it to new situations. One well-known information-processing theorist was David Ausubel, who proposed that the way a learner receives and stores information affects the usefulness of the information, for example, by transferring current learning to learning other skills.
Roblyer et al., 1997 identified four major needs addressed by computerized directed instruction. They are
Cognitive Constructivism is based on the work of Jean Piaget. Piaget's theory has two major parts: one component that predicts what children can and cannot understand at different ages, and a theory of development that describes how children develop cognitive abilities. There are two key Piagetian implications for teaching and learning. First, learning is an active process where direct experience, making errors, and looking for solutions is vital for the assimilation and accommodation of information. How information is presented is important. When information is introduced as an aid to problem solving, it functions as a tool rather than an isolated arbitrary fact. Second, learning should be whole, authentic, and "real." In a Piagetian classroom there is less emphasis on directly teaching specific skills and more emphasis on learning in a meaningful context. Technology, particularly multimedia, offers a vast array of such opportunities (Chen, 2000). With technology support such as videodisks and CD-ROMs, teachers can provide a learning environment that helps expand the conceptual and experiential background of the reader. Although much of the educational software created in the 1970s and 1980s was based on behavioral principles, much of the new multimedia educational software is based on constructivist theories.
Within the field of educational computing, the best-known cognitive constructivist theoretician is Papert (Chen, 2000). Unlike Piaget, Papert (1993) uses the term "contructionism" to brand his favored approach to learning. "Constructionism is built on the assumption that children will do best by finding ("fishing") for themselves the specific knowledge they need. Organized or informal education can help most by making sure they are supported morally, psychologically, materially, and intellectually in their efforts" (Papert, p.139). As such, "the goal is to teach in such a way as to produce the most learning for the least teaching."
As examples of constructionist learning activities, Papert refers, amongst others, to measuring quantities while making a cake, building with Lego or working with the computer programming language LOGO developed specifically by Papert and colleagues for educational use. Papert's philosophy of learning and his constructionist approach rely on the computer for realization. He postulates that the computer, and particularly, its future development, will change children's relationship with knowledge, producing a revolution comparable to that of the advent of printing and writing. He imagines a machine he refers to as "The Knowledge Machine," which would allow children a rich exploration of the world. While the computer offers "new opportunities to craft alternatives, moving from the present epistemology and approach in schools will, in Papert's view, require "megachange." Little schools, involvement of community, encouragement of educational diversity, decentralization, fostering of personal teaching styles, and the involvement of parents, teachers and students: these are to be the prime ingredients of change to embark on the revolution necessary to move into "the age of learning".
Vygotsky's constructivist theory, which is often called social constructivism, has much more room for an active, involved teacher than cognitive constructivism. The central point of our psychology, Vygotsky claimed, is mediation. Through mediation - both material and semiotic - human cognition engages in relationships with the material and social environment that are fundamentally different from non-mediated relationships. In Vygotsky’s view, the use of technology to connect rather than separate students from one another would be appropriate. Teachers, thus, can facilitate cognitive growth and learning as can peers and other members of the child's community.
At present, interest in constructivist methods is on the rise. Robin and Harris (1998) found that technology-using teacher educators are generally learner-centered in their teaching styles, have higher levels of formal schooling, are more often female than male, and prefer to learn by concrete experience. Most frequently, proponents of information technologies in education speak of assisting student-centered learning through technology's ability to access, store, manipulate and analyze information, thereby enabling learners to spend less time gathering information and more time reflecting on its meaning (Robin & Harris, 1998).
Roblyer et al. (1997) identified four major instructional needs met by the constructivist model. They are
Which Approach is Best Suited for Technology Integration?
There is no right or wrong answer, yet there is one more question to bear in mind: Who is going to decide this? The software package producer, the computer, or the educator?
First of all, believing that acquiring the hardware and the software packages will resolve the problem is denying the importance of the human mind and capacity to choose. Second, the computer can be used as a tool to facilitate teaching and learning. However, the machine cannot make the choice of pedagogical approach. Whether to use one approach or the other is up to the teacher, who knows the lesson objectives, the expected results, and the students. Both approaches presented above, the directed instruction and constructivism could be used alternatively as long as educators have in mind why they chose them.
Three questions1 could help educators determine technology's worthiness in a given lesson or situation. These questions are:
Chen, Irene (2000).Technology and learning environment: an electronic textbook. Retrieved in December, 2000. [On line] http://www.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/ET-IT/cover.htm
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Glynn, S., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In S.M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Novak, J.D. (1995). Concept mapping: A strategy for organizing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 229-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking the school in the age of computers. Basic Books: New York.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, May 1991.
Robin, B., & Harris, J. (1998). Correlates among computer-using teacher educator’s beliefs, teaching and learning preferences, and demographics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18 (1), 15-35.
Roblyer, M., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M.A. (1997). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Prentice Hall: Columbus, Ohio.
Strommen, Erik F. & Lincoln, Bruce. (1992, August). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24, 466-476.
U.S. Department of Education (1999). Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers. National Center for Education Statistics January 1999.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1985).
La méthode instrumentale en psychologie. In B. Schneuwly & J.
P. Bronckart (Eds.), Vygotsky aujourd'hui Neufchâtel: Delachaux et
Niestlé, pp. 39-47.
For feedback on this article, please write to: TechKnowLogia@KnowledgeEnterprise.org
Subscribe | Reader Feedback | To Sponsor | To Advertise
Editorial Network | Editorial Policy | Home
|TechKnowLogia, October - December 2002||Copyright © 2002 Knowledge Enterprise, Inc.|