International
Journal of
Educational
Technology

An Analysis of Instructional Technology Use and Constructivist Behaviors in K-12 Teachers

Glenda C. Rakes, University of Louisiana at Monroe
Beverly F. Flowers, University of Louisiana at Monroe
Holly B. Casey, University of Louisiana at Monroe
Ronnie Santana, University of Louisiana at Monroe

Abstract

If constructivism and technology are to play a role in current schoolreform efforts, it is important to determine if the availability and useof technology in classrooms can encourage teachers' demonstration of constructivistbehaviors in their classrooms. This exploratory study examines the relationshipbetween teacher perceptions of their constructivist behaviors and theiruse of technology in their classrooms. Results indicate that integratedtechnology use in the classroom and strong technology skills among teachersmay be factors that encourage teachers to use constructivist practices.Implications for technology training for K-12 teachers are discussed.

Introduction

School Reform and Constructivism

There is much disagreement on how to correct the perceived problemsassociated with school reform. There is widespread public dissatisfactionwith the performance of students in the United States on various standardizedassessments. Employers are increasingly concerned that high school graduatesdo not possess the necessary skills to be successful in the workplace.Classroom teachers are increasingly frustrated and are leaving the profession.

Some researchers suggest that school reform efforts need to focus onthe root causes of school problems. Mehlinger (1995)reports the conclusions of a California study by Poplinand Weeres (1992)which is based on extensive observation in representativeclassrooms. "One major conclusion the investigators reached was that manyof the school problems emphasized by education reformers (e.g. low testscores, high drop out rates, low morale among teachers) were in fact indicatorsof more deep-seated problems." (Mehlinger, 1995, pp. 49-50). One of these problems involvedthe fact that students and teachers saw little meaning in what they wereasked to study. Students wanted more activities and more opportunitiesto share ideas with classmates.

Reforming education is not a simple matter. Few would suggest that theteaching of basic skills is unimportant, but many feel that today's schoolsdo not venture much beyond the teaching of basic skills in providing school-to-worktransition for graduates. One important starting point is to identify theskills students need to participate in the modern workplace and the skilllevels that entry-level jobs require. In 1990, the secretary of the Departmentof Labor established the Secretary's Commission on Achieving NecessarySkills (SCANS) to address these issues (Whetzel,1992).

According to the commission, to find meaningful work high school graduatesneed to master certain workplace skills referred to as "foundation skills"and "competencies." Workers use three foundation skills, consisting ofacademic and behavioral characteristics, on which to build competencies.These foundation skills include:

• basic skills - reading, writing, speaking, listening, knowing arithmetic, and knowing mathematical concepts.
• thinking skills - reasoning, decision making, creative thinking, problem solving, seeing things in the mind's eye, and knowing how to learn.
• personal qualities - responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-management,integrity, and honesty.

• resources - identifying, organizing, planning, allocating time, allocating money, allocating materials and workers.
• interpersonal skills - negotiating, exercising leadership, working with diversity, teaching new skills to others, serving clients and customers, participating as a team member.
• information skills - using computers to process information, using computers to acquire information, using computers to evaluate information, using computers to interpret and organize information, using computers to maintain information, using computers to communicate information.
• systems skills - understanding systems, monitoring system performance, correcting system performance, improving systems, designing systems.
• technology utilization skills - selecting technology, applying technology,maintaining technology, troubleshooting technology.

The perception is that current educational practices have failedto meet many intellectual and occupational needs of many students (Airasian& Walsch, 1997). Specifically, there is a view that thinking skillsare not receiving enough focus because of an emphasis on rote memorization.

The educational philosophy known as constructivism has an appeal asan alternative to traditional practices because it seems to address thecriticism of current practices and promises to deliver higher levels ofliteracy, self-reliance, cooperation, problem-solving skills, and satisfactionwith school (Brooks & Brooks 1999, Iran-Nejad,1995;Larochelle, Bednarz, & Garrison 1998, Sprague& Dede, 1999,Windschitl, 1999). Constructivismpresents possibilities for classroom strategies that vary dramaticallyfrom those used in the traditional information-transfer model of instructionand presents possibilities for producing students who possess the skillsnecessary for work and life-long learning.

Constructivism and Learning

Theories of instruction have shifted from a behavioristic orientationthat emphasizes observable changes in performance to a cognitive orientationthat emphasizes internal cognitive processing. The stimulus-response approachof behaviorism made teaching simply a question of how to get the desiredbehavior from the learner. In contrast, a cognitive approach emphasizesthe mental elaborations that the learner performs more than the specificfeatures of instruction (Bruning, 1983). Fromthis framework, teachers can create learning environments that encourageachievement (Brezin, 1980). This point of view has been termed constructivism by a growing number of authors.

Constructivism borrows heavily from the work of Piaget(1977). Constructivism (Airasian & Walsch,1997; Jaramillo, 1996) is a philosophical explanation about the nature of knowledge. It is a theory about how learners learn. Constructivism is based on the assumption that people create knowledge as a result of interaction between existing knowledge or beliefs and new knowledge. The role of the teacher, then, would be to encourage interaction between students' existing knowledge and new experiences. The emphasis is different from the transmission model in which teachers attempt to convey knowledge directly to students. There are several instructional approaches that can be derived from this philosophy. 

While many may debate the precise definition of constructivism, thereare several instructional practices commonly attributed to the influenceof constructivism (Brooks & Brooks 1999,Hirtle, 1996; Poplin& Weeres, 1992; Roblyer, 1996; Roblyer,Edwards, & Havriluk, 1997; Schifter, 1996).These include:

• using problem-oriented learning activities relevant to student interests.
• using highly visual formats.
• encouraging active, not passive learning.
• providing learning environments that use a wide variety of learning resources.
• encouraging creativity.
• encouraging collaborative and cooperative group work.
• learning through exploration.
• emphasizing the process of problem solving, decision making, and evaluation skills.
• using authentic assessment methods along with quantitative methods.

Constructivism has several positive implications for teaching (Isit constructivism?, 1996; The practiceimplications of constructivism, 1996). First, teaching cannot be viewedas the simple transmission of knowledge; rather, teachers are guides whoprovide students with opportunities to test the adequacy of their currentunderstanding. Second, if learning is based on previous knowledge, thenteachers must become aware of that knowledge and provide learning situationsthat emphasize discrepancies between learners' current understandings andnew experiences. Third, if students must apply their current understandingsin new situations to form new knowledge, teachers must truly engage studentsin learning.

Technology can provide the vehicle for accomplishing constructivistteaching practices. Technologies accommodate the most meaningful thinkingwhen used as tools (Jonnason, 1994), They canbe given to the learner to use for representing and expressing what theyknow. Learners use the technology as tools for analyzing the world, accessinginformation, interpreting and organizing personal knowledge, and representingwhat they know to others. These tools are intended to engage and facilitatecognitive processing. Cognitive tools are both mental and computationaldevices that support, guide, and extend the thinking processes of theirusers.

School reform, constructivism, and technology

A move to instructional environments which are based on constructivistphilosophies may be one way to accomplish meaningful school reform; reformthat results in school graduates who are capable of assuming meaningfulroles in the workplace (Whetzel, 1992). Constructivismalso fits into the current emphasis on bottom-up instead of top-down approachesto educational reform (Airsian & Walsh, 1997; Mehlinger, 1995). With the increased emphasison more teacher discretion over teaching and learning, the interest inthe potential of constructivism in classroom practice has increased. Wise(1997 ), in his recent message to the National Council forAccreditation of Teacher Education, said:

The introduction of computers and other technologies into schools isoccurring at the same time that three decades of research in the cognitivesciences, which has deepened our understanding of how people learn, isprompting a reappraisal of teaching practices. We know from this researchthat knowledge is not passively received, but actively constructed by learnersfrom a base of prior knowledge, attitudes and values. Dependence on a singlesource of information, typically a textbook, must give way to using a varietyof information sources. As new technologies become more readily availableand less expensive, they will likely serve as a catalyst for ensuring thatnew approaches to teaching gain a firm foothold in schools.

Another difficulty teachers face is a decrease in the flexibility manyof them have to use such innovations in the face of state-mandated competencyexams in the form of standardized testing. Some movement has been made,however, toward the use of performance assessment in order to more closelygauge a child's ability to succeed (Eisner, 1999).Performance assessment seeks to move away from testing practices that requirestudents to select the single correct answer from multiple choices to arequirement that they create evidence through performance that will allowtesters to evaluate what the students know and can do in important situations.The virtual demise of behaviorism, the emergence of constructivism, andthe desire for concurrent and predictive validity have provided the groundfor interest in this type of assessment, which offers educators a methodfor developing ways of revealing the distinctive features of individualstudents. This movement may ultimately enhance teacher's use of both technologytools and constructivist practices.

Mehlinger (1996)and others (McLellan,1996; Nicaise & Barnes, 1996; White,1996; Wise, 1997) suggest that the useof these new technologies will greatly influence schools. The basic relationshipbetween teacher and students is changing because technology gives learnerscontrol over their own learning - one of the primary tenets of constructivism.The new technologies provide students access to information once only availableto and controlled completely by teachers. This change makes the traditionaltransmission model of teaching and learning increasingly obsolete. Mehlinger(1995) further suggests that even though change rarely results fromone event, sometimes one event is more powerful than others in the processof change.

The use of technology will have a profound effect on schools. It challengesthe very relationship between students and teachers, because technologyenables learners to gain control of their own learning. . . The new technologyprovides access to information that was once under the control of teachers(p. 94).

One of the few long-term studies on the use of technology in the classroomseems to support Mehlinger's views. Dwyer (1994)reports that a four-year study of seven Apple Classroom Of Tomorrow classroomsdemonstrated that the dramatic impact of technology in these types of learningenvironments should not be underestimated. Researchers watched technology"profoundly disturb the inertia of traditional classrooms" (p.7). There were noticeable differences in the behavior of students andteachers. The researchers reported that the use of technology in instruction

• encourages fundamentally different forms of interactions among students and between students and teachers;
• engages students systematically in higher-order cognitive tasks;
• prompts teachers to question old assumptions about instruction and learning.

The Present Study

This study seeks to answer the basic question: Does the use of instructional technology tools have an effect on teachers' use of constructivist teaching strategies? The study investigated the extent to which technology-using classroom teachers report the use of constructivist instructional practices and the extent to which teachers and students use instructional technology as a part of the regular curriculum.

Many believe that the teacher is key to any school reform (Beck,1997; Mehlinger, 1995; Mehlinger,1996). If constructivism and technology are to play a role in currentschool reform efforts, it is important to determine if the availabilityand use of technology tools in classrooms has an effect on teachers' demonstrationof constructivist behaviors in their classrooms. The present study identifieddifferences in teachers' self-reported degree of constructivist behaviorsbased on technology use and technology availability.

Research Questions

1. To what extent do technology-using teachers report that they aredemonstrating constructivist behaviors in their classrooms?
2. Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differ as a function ofteacher self-reported level of technology skill (entry and adoption, adaptation,integration and appropriation, or invention)?
3. Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differ as a function ofteacher characteristics such as experience, degree, and grade taught?
4. Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differ as a function ofreported student-to-computer ratio?
5. Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differ as a function of classroom arrangement?

Limitations of the Study

1. Only K-12 teachers with Internet access were included in this study.

That is where the awkwardness of e-survey arises. Investigatorsgenerally cannot determine, nor even guess the size of the population theyare interested in; cannot guess the number of subscribers sitting at keyboardsexploring the internet. The awkwardness is also compounded by lack of representativeness;e-survey investigators are restricting their studies not just to thosewith computer equipment but to those of them who have connected their equipmentto the outside world. (Hill, 1998).

2. Because a combination of random sampling and non-random samplingwas used, the results must be generalized with caution.

3. Responses were dependent on the respondent's ability to recall theirperceptions of past behaviors.

4. This exploratory study was designed to discover possible relationshipsamong the variables. The study cannot establish cause-effect relationshipsbetween variables. There may be other factors affecting both technologyuse and the use of constructivist behaviors such as recent training oninstructional methods or access to more interactive software that are notaccounted for in the methodology.

Methods

Participants.  The target audience consisted of K-12 teachers who currently use some form(s) of instructional technology in their classrooms. All transactions were electronic. Teachers were randomly selected from email lists (ClassroomConnect, 1998; ePals Classroom Exchange, 1998) and asked to participate in the study. Other teachers were invited to participate through announcement of the survey via technology-related Internet sites and online newsgroups (Classroom Connect, 1998; McKenzie, 1998). An announcement of the survey and request for participation by current K-12 teachers was sent to each teacher or newsgroup with a URL designating the location of the survey on the World Wide Web. Based on survey responses, some survey request information was circulated by recipients to their colleagues. Upon completion of the survey form, survey results were automatically emailed back to the investigators. Four hundred thirty-five complete, usable surveys were returned by active K-12 teachers, which is an adequate sample for this type of investigation.

There is seldom justification in behavioural research for samplesizes of less than 30 or larger than 500. Samples larger than 30 ensurethe researcher the benefits of central limit theorem. A sample of 500 assuresthat sample error will not exceed 10% of standard deviation, about 98%of the time (Hill, 1998).

The second part of the survey instrument was adapted with permissionfrom the Forum on Education and Technology (STaRchart self-diagnostic tool, 1997)which was created to follow upon the excellent work done by the President's National Information InfrastructureAdvisory Council (NIIAC) in the area of educational technology. This organizationdeveloped an online instrument to help gauge the use of technology in schools.Three questions asked teachers to describe how their school/classroom isconnected to the Internet and asked them to report on the availabilityof computer hardware - the student to computer ratio in their classroomand school computer lab(s). Seven items were yes/no questions that reportspecific types of technology use in the classroom. Three items asked teachersto describe patterns of technology use by their students and by the teacher.The survey is derived from Quality Education Data's(QED) Tech Measure (1997) which was created by Becker using a sampleof nearly 80,000 public schools. The instrument results in a categorizationof the technology level of each respondent as "high," "medium," or "low."

Data Analysis.  Each respondent was assigned a score for their constructivist responsesand a rank for their technology use (high, medium, or low). For purposesof this study, the continuous raw scores were used as the dependent variablein the analyses. Using continuous scores rather than the categorical descriptionincreases the sensitivity of the tests and controls for the error causedby the creation of an arbitrary dichotomy. Analysis of variance procedures(p < .05) were used to determine significant differences in cell means.Duncan's New Multiple Range test was used for post-hoc analysis.

Results

Demographics.  Four hundred thirty-five complete, usable surveys were returned. There was at least one respondent from each of the 50 states. The percentage of respondents indicating that the highest degree earned was a bachelors degree was 40.7%; 30.8% had masters degrees; 22% had earned at least 30 hours above the masters degree; 1.8% had earned doctorates. The percentage of respondents who taught in kindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs was 2.1%; 23% taught in grades 1-3; 23.7% taught in grades 4-6; 17.2% taught in a middle school; 11.7% taught in grades 7-9; 22.3% taught in grades 10-12. Twenty-one point four percent of respondents indicated their schools were located in urban areas; 41.8% were rural; 36.8% of schools were in suburban areas. 

Research Question 1: To what extent do technology-using teachersreport that they are demonstrating constructivist behaviors in their classrooms?

Respondents were asked, "How often do you as a classroom teacher. .." with 14 constructivist behaviors as completers. Figure 1 shows the percentagefor each possible response. The items endorsed by the participants areobjective (i.e., behavioral). Scales such as these are less susceptibleto error and produce relatively stable and accurate ratings (Murphy& Davidshofer, 1988).

Figure 1. Teacher Use of Constructivist Behaviors (D)

Research Question 2: Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differas a function of teacher self-reported level of technology skill (entryand adoption, adaptation, integration and appropriation, or invention)? 

Data were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance with the constructivist score serving as the dependent variable and the technology ranking (high/medium/low) serving as the independent variable. Table 1 presents a summary of ANOVA results. Post-hoc analysis indicated that those respondents with the "high" technology rank (M = 61.79) had significantly higher constructivist scores than those with "medium" (M = 58.95) and "low" (M = 56.28) technology rank.

(D)

The overall technology ranking included a measure of technology skilllevel. To determine the technology skill levels of the respondents, eachwas asked to select one of four statements which best described their levelof technology skills:

Level 1 = Entry and Adoption
I am just beginning to learn how to use basic applications such asword processors and drill and practice software. (4.6%);

Level 2 = Adaptation
I am familiar with a variety of applications and often require studentsto use technology to complete assignments. (17.6%);

Level 3 = Integration and Appropriation
I regularly use technology for collaboration, communication, and researchand integrate these processes into the curriculum. (45.7%);

Level 4 = Invention
I use technology as a tool to craft new curriculum and new teachingand learning techniques (31.9%).

Data were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance with the technologyskill level, one component of the overall technology score, serving asthe independent variable. The ANOVA indicated significant differences betweenthe overall constructivist score and the teachers' self-reported technologyskill level. Table 2 presents a summary of the ANOVA results. Post-hocanalysis indicates that respondents at the "invention" skill level (level4 above; M = 60.99) had significantly higher constructivist scores thanthose at the "entry" (M = 56.85) and "adaptation" (M = 58.14) levels (1and 2 above respectively).

(D)

Research Question 3: Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differas a function of teacher characteristics such as experience, degree, andgrade taught?

Data were analyzed with a three-way analysis of variance. A three-wayANOVA was used to protect against the inflation of alpha associated withthe calculation of multiple ANOVAs. This was not a concern in the previousanalyses because the follow-up ANOVAs used independent variables that wereused in the calculation of the independent variable used in the first,overall ANOVA. In a sense, these were used post hoc to further decomposethe significant finding in the first ANOVA. The ANOVA was used to comparethe constructivist scores by each of three teacher characteristics whichserved as the independent variables (years of experience - 0-5 years, 6-10years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 21-25 years, and over 25 years); (gradelevel taught - PK-K, 1-3, 4-6, middle school, 7-9, 10-12); (highest degreeearned - bachelors, masters, +30 hours, specialist, doctorate). Groupingswere arbitrarily chosen.

Table 3 indicates that there were significant main effects. Higher order interaction effects were suppressed due to matrix singularity. Post-hoc analysis indicated that respondents with 0-5 years experience (M = 60.89), 6-10 years experience (M = 59.69) and 11-15 years experience (M = 60.92) had significantly higher constructivist scores than those with 16-20 years of teaching experience (M = 56.56). There were no significant differences found for highest degree earned. Respondents who teach in grades 1-3 (M = 61.85) had significantly higher constructivist scores than those teaching in middle school (M = 58.84), grades 7-9 (M = 57.31), and grades 10-12 (M = 58.28).

(D)

Research Question 4: Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differas a function of reported student-to-computer ratio?

Data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance. The ANOVA indicated significant differences between the overall constructivist score by classroom student-to-computer ratios (none, >25:1, 24:1­10:1, 9:1­5:1, <5:1) which served as the independent variable. Table 4 presents a summary of the ANOVA results. Post-hoc analysis indicated that respondents with classroom student-to-computer ratios of 24:1­10:1 (M = 59.82), 9:1­5:1 (M = 61.75), and <5:1 (M = 60.19) had significantly higher constructivist scores than those with classroom student-to-computer ratios of over 25:1 (M = 55.47). Respondents with classroom student-to-computer ratios of 9:1-5:1 had significantly higher constructivist scores that those with no computers (M = 57.74) in their classrooms.

(D)

Research Question 5: Do self-reported constructivist behaviors differas a function of classroom arrangement?

Respondents were asked to choose one of three classroom sketches that looked most like their own (see Figure 2). Fifty-four point three percent of the respondents selected a cluster-type classroom arrangement (see A on Figure 5), 21.3% selected an open, circular-type arrangement (see B on Figure 2), and 24.4% selected the traditional lecture-type arrangement (see C on Figure 2).

Figure 2. Classroom Arrangements (D)

Data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance. The ANOVA indicatedsignificant differences between the overall constructivist score basedon classroom arrangement which served as the independent variable. Table5 presents a summary of the ANOVA results. Post-hoc analysis indicatedthat those respondents who selected the cluster-type arrangement (see Aon Figure 2; M = 61.61) and the open, circular-type arrangement (see Bon Figure 2; M = 59.09) had significantly higher constructivist scoresthan those who selected the traditional lecture-type arrangement (M = 55.85).In addition, those respondents who selected the cluster-type room arrangementhad significantly higher constructivist scores than those who indicatedthat their classroom was in a circular-type arrangement.

(D)

Discussion

In recent years, research has shifted from the investigation of theimpact of a technology product to how technology can impact important aspectsof the teaching and learning environment, for example the nature of teacher/studentinteractions, ways in which a classroom functions, or types of unique learningexperiences possible through the use of certain technology resources (McLellan,1996; Roblyer, 1996). The primary focusof this exploratory study was to determine if the availability and useof instructional technology affects the use of constructivist behaviorsin K-12 teachers. This study provides some evidence that the use of technologymay provide a tool that facilitates constructivist behaviors in classroomteachers. As the amount of technology available, the use of technology,and technology skill levels increase, the use of constructivist practicesin the classroom appears to increase, making technology funding and trainingeven more important. Technology availability and skills can have a positiveimpact on the overall behavior of the classroom teacher.

Despite growing concerns that the use of drill and practice type softwaremay produce less than the most desirable results, 66.4% of the respondentsindicated that their students use this type of software as a regular partof the curriculum. This result may, in part, be related to the continuingemphasis on standardized test scores as primary quality indicators forschools and individual classrooms in most places.

Despite the emphasis on basic computer skills, 74.7% of the technologyusing teachers who participated in this survey say their students do notuse word processing, spread sheets, or drawing programs as a regular partof the curriculum. However, 70.2% regularly use more advanced web publishingand presentation software for group work along with simulation software(77.5%). These responses present an interesting contrast. The results mightindicate that teachers are concentrating on what they view as more "cuttingedge" technology (i.e., the World Wide Web) that focuses on general informationliteracy skills instead of what may be perceive as more specifically targetedtraditional technology tools such as spread sheets.

About two-thirds (66.2%) of those responding do not use CD-ROM researchresources or World Wide Web information resources regularly. Only abouthalf (55.1%) report the regular use of networked communications (e.g.,email) and indicate regular individual and group use for communicationand research tools. Progress has been made toward true technology/curriculumintegration, but these results give an indication of the need for increasingefforts in this direction. Perhaps teacher training in technology needsto move beyond literacy skills to address more thoroughly application andcurriculum integration issues.

A surprisingly large percentage of teachers (75.2%) reported Internetconnections in their classroom, but this study provides continuing indicationsthat computer labs have better student-to-computer ratios than regularclassrooms with about 2/3 of the labs providing a <5:1 student-to-computerratio while a <5:1 student-to-computer ratio exists in less than onefourth of classrooms. The results suggest that the investment in increasingnumbers of computers may result in academic benefits for students becauseof the effects on teacher behavior. Respondents with classroom student-to-computerratios of less than 25:1 had significantly higher constructivist scoresthan those with classroom student-to-computer ratios of over 25:1. Morecomputer access in the classroom does seem to provide a tool which encouragesconstructivist behaviors among teachers.

Despite recent emphasis on constructivism, constructivist behaviorsas reported by the respondents were used with much less than desirablefrequency. Responses to eight of 14 behaviors on the survey indicate thatover half of the respondents never use these behaviors. Responses to threeother behaviors indicate that over 40% never use these behaviors. Respondentswho teach in the lower grades (1-3 ) had significantly higher constructivistscores than those teaching in middle school and grades 7-12. A close examinationof the classroom practices of lower grade teachers may be beneficial indesigning training, especially technology training, for all teachers.

The results showed striking generational differences among teacherswith those having 0-15 years experience having significantly higher constructivistscores than those with over 15 years of teaching experience. This may beindicative of changes that are taking place in teacher education programs- an indication that such programs are placing more emphasis on both technologyand on constructivist practices. This result may indicate one criterionon which administrators may base decisions as to what type of technology-relatedprofessional development activities are more appropriate for certain groupsamong their teacher populations.

This study also add credibility to McKenzie's(1997) suggestion that the arrangement of a classroom indicates thetype of activities that occur in that classroom and whether that classroomis technology/information-ready. He describes these classrooms as constructivist/student-centeredenvironments with a primary focus on investigation, questioning, and research.Interestingly, teachers who reported using the two classroom arrangementswhich are more typical of classrooms in which computer technology is used(A and B on Figure 2) also report using constructivist behaviors more thanthose using the typical lecture-type arrangement for their classroom environment.If the arrangement of a classroom environment is indicative of the activitiesthat take place there, perhaps teachers should be encouraged to experimentwith a variety of classroom arrangements in order to influence classroomactivities.

McKenzie (1997) sees these issues as representativeof important staff development challenges if schools are to gain a significantreturn on their technological investments. Certainly, staff developmentinitiatives concerning the integration of technology into the K-12 curriculumtake on increased importance when viewed in this light.

There is no longer a question about whether the new technology willbe used in schools. Many believe these technologies are necessary becausecompetency in their use is an important feature of career preparation;others see equally important outcomes for civic participation. Most importantly,a growing research base confirms technology's potential for enhancing studentachievement. What is less certain is how and when these technologies willchange the nature of schooling itself (Wise, 1997).

Airasian, P. W. & Walsh, M. E. (1997).Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-450.

Beck, J. (1997). Teachers' beliefs regardingthe implementation of constructivism in their classroom. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The University of Toledo.

Brezin, M. J. (1980). Cognitive monitoring:From learning theory to instructional applications.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28, 227-242.

Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999).The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bruning, I. L. (1983). An information processingapproach to a theory of instruction. Educational Communication and TechnologyJournal, 31, 91-101.

Classroom Connect. (1998). Retrieved February 13, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.classroom.net

Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple Classroom of Tomorrow:What we've learned. Educational Leadership, 51, 4-10.

Eisner, E.W. (1999). The uses and limitsof performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 658-60.

ePals Classroom Exchange. (1998). Retrieved September 8, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.epals.com/search/index.html

Hill, R. (1998). What sample size is "enough"in Internet survey research? Interpersonal Computing and Technology:An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 6. Retrieved September 5, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.html

Hirtle, J. S. (1996). Constructing a collaborativeclassroom. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23, 19-21.

Iran-Nejad, A. (1995). Constructivism assubstitute for memorization in learning: Meaning is created by the learner.Education, 116, 16-32.

Is it constructivism? (1996). SEDLetter, 9 (3). Retrieved November 17, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v09n03/construct.html

Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky's socioculturaltheory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula.Education, 117, 133-141.

Jonassen, D. (1990). Toward a constructivistview of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30, 32-34.

Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: learners as designers. ITForum Paper #1. Retrieved November 18, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html.

Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., & Garrison,J.W. (Eds.) (1998). Constructivism and education. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

McKenzie, J. (1998). From Now On: TheEducational Technology Journal. Retrieved September 17, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fromnowon.org

McKenzie, J. (1997). Internet (and information)readiness. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal. Retrieved August 28, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://emifyes.iserver.net/fromnow/apr97/indicator.html

McLellan, H. (1996). Being digital: Implicationsfor education. Educational Technology, XXXVI, 5-20.

Mehlinger, H.D. (1995). School reformin the information age. Bloomington, IN: Center for Excellence in Education.

Mehlinger, H. D. (1996). School reform inthe information age. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 400-408.

Murphy, K.R., & Davidshofer, C.O. (1988).Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Nicaise, M. & Barnes, D. (1996). Theunion of technology, constructivism, and teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 205-211.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development ofthought: Elaboration of cognitive structures. New York: VikingPress.

Poplin, M. & Weeres, J. (1992).Voices from the inside: A report on schooling from inside the classrooms.Claremont, CA: Institute for Education in Transformation, The ClaremontGraduate School.

The practice implications of constructivism.(1996). SEDLetter,9(3). Retrieved November 17, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v09n03/practice.html

Quality Education Data's Tech Measure . (1997). Retrieved September 10, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.cfm?CID=4&RID=1

Roblyer, M.D. (1996). The constructivist/objectivistdebate: Implications for instructional technology research. Learningand Leading With Technology, 24, 12-16.

Roblyer, M., Edwards, J. & Havriluk,M. (1997). Integrating educational technology into teaching.New York: Prentice-Hall-Merrill College Publishing.

Schifter, D. (1996). A constructivist perspectiveon teaching and learning mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 492-500.

Sprague, D., & Dede, C.J. (1999). IfI teach this way, am I doing my job? Constructivism in the classroom. Learningand Leading with Technology, 27, 6-9.

STaR chart self-diagnostic tool. (1997). Retrieved September10, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ceoforum.org

Whetzel, D. (1992). The Secretary of Labor'sCommission on Achieving Necessary Skills. Retrieved December 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed339749.html

White, C. (1996). Relevant social studieseducation: Integrating technology and constructivism.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 4, 69-76.

Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges ofsustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80,751-755.

Wise, A.E. (1997). Technology and theNew Professional Teacher: Preparing for the 21st Century Classroom .Retrieved December 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/TECH.HTM

IJET Homepage| Article Submissions| Editors | Issues

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.
Last Updated on 1 December 1999. Archived 5 May 2007.
For additional information, contact IJET@lists.ed.uiuc.edu