jenniferball52.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewTraditional professional development opportunities usually involve faculty sitting through seminars where people tell them the

Running head: CONSTRUCTIVISM AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Applying Constructivism to Professional Development in Support of Technology Integration

Jennifer L. Ball

Boise State University

CONSTRUCTIVISM AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to make a connection between professional development built upon

constructivist principles and successful technology integration. Research suggests that we can no

longer be satisfied with a one-size-fits-all professional development model; instead, the

importance of offering professional development that is collaborative and authentic is essential.

Applying the idea that faculty become students, the argument is made for a professional

development model that identifies the need of individual teachers, includes hands-on experiences

related to specific grade-level and content discipline material and encourages access to

technology-rich models.

Keywords: constructivism, professional development, technology integration.

2


Applying Constructivism to Professional Development in Support of Technology Integration

Traditional professional development opportunities usually involve faculty sitting

through seminars where people tell them the benefits of using technology in the classroom or

they receive instruction on how to use a specific software or application (Birman, Desimone,

Porter, & Garet, 2000; Ertmer, 1999; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Popham & Rocque, 2004).

This teacher-centered delivery does not support the transfer of knowledge and has not met with a

great deal of success (Ertmer, 1999; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Howland

& Wedman, 2004).

To support school-wide technology integration, a change in professional development

must occur (Garet et al., 2001; Popham & Rocque 2004). Teachers must have the opportunity to

experience technology use in a constructivist model – authentic, relevant, hands-on experiences

using and developing lessons applying technology tools (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).

How do we support the redefinition of teacher professional development? Using

Thackeray-Ritchie (1890) “give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour; if you teach him to

catch a fish you do him a good turn" (p. 342) as a model makes sense. “Humans create meaning

as opposed to acquiring it” (Ertmer & Newby, 2008, p. 62); therefore, providing constructivist

experiences that are not only classroom and discipline specific but also access to technology-rich

models will support successful innovation (Brown et al., 1989).

Constructivism

Researchers, in educational technology, support moving away from traditional

instructional techniques and incorporating constructivist concepts into educational practice

(Judson, 2006).

Constructivism, a theory first identified by Jean Piaget (1973), is the idea that knowledge

3


is continually organized and reorganized based on experiences. According to von Glasersfeld

(1995) “interaction provides the intelligent organism with knowledge, and that this knowledge,

through further interaction, becomes better” (p. 56). Therefore, cognitive development, which is

the outcome of active learner reorganization, must become part of a successful teacher-as-student

professional development plan. In other words, to gain cognitive understanding, teachers must

construct their own meaning through active, collaborative participation in authentic activities

involving problem-solving and critical thinking opportunities, which are relevant and engaging

to the classroom (Beilin & Pufall, 2013).

Dwyer (1995), in the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow report (ACOT) “Changing the

Conversation About Teaching Learning and Technology,” distinguish this experience as

situational professional development. Situated staff development is identified as “working in real

classrooms” (p. 19) and considered a “powerful agent for change” (p.17). This type of

professional development allows participants “to see that what they are learning can be useful in

their own classrooms” (p. 19).

This ACOT report found professional development strategies that had the most impact

included: “collaborations among faculty, took place in working classrooms, and provided

opportunities to experiment and reflect” (p.18). Ertmer and Newby support this view when they

state, “Learners do not transfer knowledge from the external world into their memories; rather

they build personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions”

(p. 63). Consequently, if applied to professional development opportunities, faculty would be

the learners in the constructivist professional development model.

4


Constructivist Professional Development

According to a study conducted by Popham and Rocque (2004), the traditional, seminar

model “heightened [faculty] awareness of available technologies and possible uses but didn’t

allow them the time to learn the skills needed to incorporate the use of these products into their

courses” (p. 122). This type of traditional instruction, as identified by Relan and Gillani (1997),

“encourages passive learning, ignores the individual needs of [teachers], and underserves the

development of problem solving and other higher order intellectual skills” (p. 41) Instead,

teachers are left to return to their classrooms with no real understanding of how the technology

would fit into their classroom or discipline (Popham & Rocque, 2004). They face the daunting

task of spending countless hours trying to figure out the application and how it will fit into their

lessons. Often frustrated over an unsuccessful initial trial, teachers will abandon the technology

and revert to a traditional instructional model (Popham & Rocque, 2004; Rogers, 2000).

Thus, to produce real results and support large-scale innovation success, professional

development must be restructured. What would this new professional development look like?

Popham and Rocque (2004) suggest applying the faculty-as-student model. This constructivist

approach meets the individual needs of teachers (Howland & Wedman, 2004, p. 247), involves

hands-on, guided work (Birman et al., 2000) and provides support for the application of

technology to specific disciplines (Ertmer, 1999, p. 55). This model also encompasses authentic

activities aligned with student classroom requirements (Myers & Halpin, 2002, p. 133).

Additionally, Popham and Rocque found that professional development “needs to focus

less on skills acquisition, though important, and more on good instructional design and seamless

integration of technology into instruction and lesson plan preparation” (p. 126). “It is important

that teachers gain technical skills as well as pedagogical knowledge of effective instructional

5


practices that incorporate meaningful uses of technology” (Ertmer, 1999, p. 48). The focus of

professional development should be on sound pedagogical design not just technology use.

One last component of successful professional development to support technology

integration is to offer technology-rich models that will prepare teachers to “integrate technology

into their own teaching (Howland and Wedman, 2004 p. 241). Professional development must

move from instructor-centered presentations to discipline specific, student-centered instruction.

“Participation in staff development activities that model meaningful uses of technology can help

teachers understand what it takes to translate new visions into classroom practice” (Ertmer, 1999,

p. 54). In other words, the teacher must become the student in a student-centered technology

integration classroom.

Identification of the Need of the Teacher

Professional development opportunities should begin by identifying each faculty member

on a continuum of technology use expertise (Rogers, 2000). Some faculty will need help to

accomplish basic tasks with technology and others, more comfortable with integration, will

benefit from the challenge of applying technology in a new way (Howland & Wedman, 2004).

How is the level of expertise identified? Begin by examining technology use by faculty.

Howland & Wedman (2004), in their study of faculty integration of technology, begin by

identifying “base line data that include an analysis of syllabi to determine the extent to which

technology is already integrated into courses and a questionnaire that examines faculty

technology proficiency” (p. 247). Supporting this view, Rogers (2000) states, “understanding

where teachers are in terms of their level of technology adoption is a necessary first step” (p.

458).

6


According to Ertmer (1999) “integration is determined by observing the extent to which

technology is used to facilitate teaching and learning (p. 48). Thus, included in this initial

analysis should be classroom visits. “Direct observations that gauge the manner in which

teachers integrate technology are more precise” than self-reporting practices (Judson, 2006, p.

581). “The technology integration model that classroom teachers follow in their own practice

directly affects how they use technology” (Admay & Heinecke, 2005, p. 234). Many faculty

members may identify their use as proficient or confident but in reality, use according to school

goals may be quite different; therefore, it is important to schedule classroom visits to gain

understanding of individual integration practice.

For a full picture of the level of expertise of each faculty member, on-on-one

conversations must be part of this scrutiny (Rogers, 2000, p. 470). Personal conversations not

only open lines of communication and allow for an in-depth understanding of the faculty

members use of technology but also “allows the [faculty] to form connective links, to rethink

past experiences in the context of new ones, and ideally to develop ways of applying those

insights to future endeavors” (McKinney, 1998, p. 86).

Authentic, Classroom-Based, Collaborative, Hands-On Activities

Researcher D.C. Dwyer with Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (as cited by Ertmer, 1999)

suggests “that technology training experiences be embedded within authentic activities that

engage teachers in relevant collaborative problem-solving tasks” (p.56). Thus, successful

professional development to promote technology integration is achieved “through collaborative

involvement in authentic, challenging, multidisciplinary tasks” (Means et al., 1993, p. 39).

If we hope to instruct teachers on how to integrate technology into their classrooms, we

must allow them to learn in the context in which the technology will be utilized or integration

7


will fail. Ertmer and Newby (2008) agree, “If learning is decontextualized, there is little hope of

transfer to occur” (p. 64). Cognitive theorists, Putnam & Borko (2000) posit, “The physical and

social contexts in which an activity takes place are an integral part of the learning” (p.4). This

emphasizes the importance of authentic, classroom-based, collaborative, hands-on activities as

the foundation of professional development regarding technology integration. Brown, Collins

and Dugid (2007) support this idea when they write about Situated Cognition and the Culture of

Learning. They claim:

The activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed, it is now argued, is not

separable from or ancillary to learning and cognition. Nor is it neutral. Rather, it is an

integral part of what is learned. Situations might be said to co-produce knowledge

through activity. (p. 32)

As teachers construct their own meaning through interaction with peers and the

technology applications, classroom instruction changes. Applying a constructivist “professional

development activity is likely to enhance the knowledge and skills of participating teachers and

improve their classroom teaching practice” (Birman et al., 2000, p. 29).

Building professional development around constructivist principles will also help

alleviate the fear that many experience when endeavoring to innovate. According to Schrum

(1999) “Many adults feel uncomfortable with technology and are fearful of looking foolish” (p.

85). To reduce this fear, Schrum (1999) suggests, “teachers should have an opportunity to try

the technology in the classroom where they work” (p. 86).

Providing opportunities for teachers to use the tool in the classroom before using it with

students will strengthen innovation success. Birman et al., 2000, consider this type of hands-on

activity to be a central piece of successful professional development practices. This core feature

8


influences “how successful the experience is in increasing teacher growth in knowledge and

skills” (p. 29). In addition, “it is essential that those learning about technology have access to

equipment at home and at school for extended practice and to build comfort” (Schrum, 1999, p.

85). This will allow teachers to become comfortable with the use of the technology before

classroom presentation. Supporting this claim, Ertmer (1999) states, “It is currently

recommended that technology training engage participants in the same types of projects (and

using the same types of applications) that they are encouraged to use in their own classrooms”

(p.56). Agreeing, Vannatta and Beyerbach (2000) found that to successfully integrate technology

teachers must be provided “authentic opportunities to experience and develop lessons that

integrate technology in a meaningful context” (p.146).

As we move forward with technology integration, we need to consider the goal when

providing professional development. If the goal is to support teachers as they integrate

technology into their classrooms, then activities must be authentic, collaborative, classroom-

based, and hands-on to be effective.

Discipline and Grade Level Application

Professional development that addresses the specific needs of the discipline and grade

level must also be considered. Garet et al. (2001), support this thought when they state,

“Teachers who work together are more likely to have the opportunity to discuss concepts, skills,

and problems that arise during their professional development experiences” (p. 922).

Each discipline will apply technology in a different way and need specific support to

adapt technology to their needs. Humanities, focused on the written word, will need different

integration practices than math and science. “Teachers who are from the same department or

9


grade are likely to share common curriculum materials, course offerings and assessment

requirements” (Garet et al, 2001, p. 922).

According to Garet et al. (2001), “teachers who share the same students can discuss

students' needs across classes and grade levels” (p. 922). Certainly, elementary school aged

students should not be exposed to all the Internet has to offer whereas a college student will

benefit by being openly connected.

Working together in grade-level or content-discipline teams, the focus of integration can

best meet the needs of the individual classroom. In their research, Myers and Halpin (2002)

found “some of the most effective professional development programs have been those that

focus on specific curricular content and applications” (p. 134).

Technology-Rich Models and Reflective Feedback

Professional development opportunities should include classroom visits of technology-

using educators and ongoing discussion on technology integration: what works and what does

not work. This is an opportunity for classroom teachers to have feedback and reflect on

effectiveness (Howland & Wedman, 2004).

“Teachers need increased and varied opportunities to see other teachers, to confront their

actions and examine their motives, and to reflect critically on the consequences of their

choices, decisions, and actions. They need opportunities for ongoing dialogue about their

experiences and for continuous development of their abilities to imagine and discover

more powerful learning experiences for their students” (Sandholtz et al. as cited by

Ertmer, 1999, p.54)

Describing an ongoing Goals 2000 Pre-service Technology Infusion Project, Vannatta

and Beyerbach (2002) found that providing “numerous sessions on various technology skill was

10


not facilitating a dynamic, constructivist vision of educational technology” (p. 133). Instead,

teachers needed “opportunities to observe technology-rich classrooms” (p.145).

“Reflection among teachers is a critical component of any innovation effort” (Ertmer,

1999, p. 54). Martins and Terblanche (2003) concur, “The degree to which [teachers] have

freedom and authority to participate in the decision making…is positively related to the level of

creativity and innovation” (p. 71). Giving teachers, who are on the front lines of integration in

the classroom, a real voice in the process, will allow for a greater amount of creativity with the

innovation (Hew & Brush, 2007). Windschitl and Sahl (2002) support this view when they state,

“Teacher learning and instructional innovation thrive in environments where there are others

who are experimenting with technology” (p. 168). Therefore, schools that include opportunities

to view technology-rich models and reflective practice will establish successful technology

innovation programs that move beyond low-level use to true integration.

One reflective method used by Vannatta and Beyerbach (2002) was videoconferencing.

This form of technology use “enabled teachers to immediately process with peers” (p. 146) and

gives teachers an opportunity to provide more interactive opportunities to observe technology-

rich classrooms. Ertmer (1999) claims “many teachers have had little, if any, experience with

integrated technology classrooms” (p. 49) and need this experience to build their own vision of

integration.

Conclusion

Howland and Wedman (2004) posit that technology integration is an ongoing process as

technology continues to change over time. This perspective applied to professional development

is “grounded on the principle that faculty must be life-long learners of educational technology”

(p. 242). To support this view, professional development that moves away from the one-size-fits-

11


all, teacher-centered model to building authentic, discipline specific opportunities for teachers to

develop lessons that include technology is essential. Research demonstrates “a substantial

difference in both attitudes toward and use of computer applications by those teachers who

participated in…constructivist-based professional development training” (Myers & Halpin, 2002,

p.138). Therefore, a scaffolded professional development plan must be created that identifies

and meets the individual needs of each teacher, is based on authentic, collaborative, classroom-

based, hands-on experiences, includes opportunities for reflection, and incorporates opportunities

to observe technology-rich models of integration. If we follow this path of reasoning, the

teacher-as-students model, where teachers become the students in a constructivist based

professional development program, classroom instruction will be transformed as teachers

practice this authentic, collaborative restructuring of their own learning.

12


References

Adamy, P., & Heinecke, W. (2005). The influence of organizational culture on technology

integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,

13(2), 233-255.

Beilin, H., & Pufall, P. B. (Eds.). (2013). Piaget's theory: Prospects and possibilities.

Psychology Press.

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional

development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176008

Cook, S.D.N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management

Inquiry, 2(4), 373-390. Retrieved April 6, 2014 from

http://skat.ihmc.us/rid=1255440988328_2070174417_20693/Cook%20and%20Yanow

%20article%20on%20culture%20and%20org%20learning.pdf

Diaz, D. P., & Bontenbal, K. F. (2000). Pedagogy-based technology training. Teaching and

learning in a network world, 50-54.

Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching learning and

technology: A report about ten years of ACOT research. Cupertino, California: Dwyer, D.

C.

Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises

and challenges. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 42(1),

13

http://skat.ihmc.us/rid=1255440988328_2070174417_20693/Cook%20and%20Yanow%20article%20on%20culture%20and%20org%20learning.pdf

http://skat.ihmc.us/rid=1255440988328_2070174417_20693/Cook%20and%20Yanow%20article%20on%20culture%20and%20org%20learning.pdf



5-13. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic87187.files/Earle02.pdf

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for

technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology

integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2008). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement

Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How

knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 42(3). Retrieved March 19, 2014 from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ882506.pdf

Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: understanding the

importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 37(5), 749-760.

Fosnot, C.T., & Perry, R.S. (2013). Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning. In C.

T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. (chapter 2) New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. doi: 10.3102/0002831203800

14

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ882506.pdf

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic87187.files/Earle02.pdf


Hawkins, J. (1997). Imagine the possibilities: The world at your fingertips. In P. Burness & W.

Snider (Eds.). Learn & Live (pp. 212-215). Nicasio, CA: The George Lucas Educational

Foundation.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current

knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.

Howland, J., & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing

technology learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 239-262.

Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a

connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1996). Practice, person, social world. In H. Daniels, (Eds.), An

Introduction to Vygotsky (143 – 149). London: Routledge.

Lawless, K.A., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology

into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and

answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614. Retrieved April 6, 2014 from


Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2013). Technology-Rich Schools Up Close. Educational

Leadership, 70(6), 51-55.

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of

information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology

and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.

15



Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity

and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.

McKinney, M. (1998). Preservice teachers' electronic portfolios: Integrating technology, self-

assessment, and reflection. Teacher Education Quarterly, 85-103. Retrieved April 23,

2014 from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/1998/25_1/1998v25n109.PDF.

McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: developing an on‐line community

of learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 231-243.

doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00112

Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C. C., Remz, A. R., & Zorfass, J.

(1993). Using technology to support education reform. US Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Research.

Meier, E. B. (2005). Situating technology professional development in urban schools. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 395-407. doi:10.2190/5KCQ-5VKQ-380X-

JYND

Myers, J. M., & Halpin, R. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes and use of multimedia technology in the

classroom: Constructivist-based professional development training for school districts.

Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(4), 133-140.

doi:10.1080/10402454.2002.10784449

Okojie, M. C., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The Pedagogy of Technology

Integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2). Retrieved April 5, 2014 from

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/v32n2/okojie.html

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education (G. A. Roberts, Trans.).

New York: Grossman Publishers.

16

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/v32n2/okojie.html

http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/1998/25_1/1998v25n109.PDF


Popham, J. A., & Rocque, R. (2004). Faculty-as-Students. Computers in the Schools, 21(1-2),

115-126.

Relan, A., & Gillani, B. B. (1997). Web-based instruction and the traditional classroom:

Similarities and differences. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp. 41-46). New

Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455-472. doi: 10.2190/4UJE-B6VW-A30N-

MCE5

Roschelle, J. (1992). What should collaborative technology be?: A perspective from Dewey and

situated learning. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 21(3), 39-42.

Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 47(4), 83-90.

Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’

Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology. Retrieved from

U.S. Department of Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000102.pdf

Thackeray-Ritchie, A. I. (1885). Mrs. Dymond. London: Smith, Elder, & Co.

Vannatta, R. A., & Beyerbach, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology

integration among education faculty and preservice teachers. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 33(2), 132-48. doi:10.1080/08886504.2000.10782305

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism. London: Falmer.

Wang, Y. M. (2002). When Technology Meets Beliefs: Preservice Teachers' Perception of the

Teacher's Role in the Classroom with Computers. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 35(1), 150-161.

17

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000102.pdf


Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer

school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture.

American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.

18

Documents

jenniferball52.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewTraditional professional development opportunities usually involve faculty sitting through seminars where people tell them the