Issue Paper – Instructional Practice

The article I reviewed for this assignment examined the relationship between classroom use of technology, possession of the skills to make use of that technology effectively, and adoption of Constructivist instructional practices. The article I reviewed is “The Influence of Teacher’s Technology Use On Instructional Practices” (Rakes et al, 2006). The authors of this article made me think a great deal about priorities in regards to how technology is implemented, and the urgent need for proper training techniques and priorities for the educators that will work hands-on with technology.

My own Action Research interests for my degree requirement lie in the area of how best to engage the motivation of educators and students for proper use of educational technology, so the findings of this article were of particular interest to me.
The article opens with a discussion of the nature of the traditional classroom as lacking in the ability to provide complete, dynamic learning experiences, instead leading to disconnected, arbitrary activities that are not easily integrated into the student’s body of existing knowledge.
The focus on standardized testing is believed to be a prime factor for this and is seen as one of the key factors leading to this lack of focus on higher-order learning skills (p. 409). These practices of teaching for these “single points of accountability” do not adequately prepare students for the real world outside the classroom. The problem is acutely focused when considering poor rural areas where the schools are often under-funded and adequate resources are not at hand. The article states that 43% of our public schools are located in rural areas, and that 31% of our nation’s children attend these rural public schools where under-funding leads to a difficulty in hiring and keeping properly trained teachers as well as a general lack of technology assets.
The article goes on to look at Constructivism as an instructional practice that can help alleviate the lack of authenticity in classroom instruction. Constructivism describes the learning process as one in which the learner associates new experiences with past knowledge and creates their own understanding of the integral whole. (p. 410) It is based on the works of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky, all of whom stressed learning as an active process in which the learner is an intimate, active partner.
The argument of whether schools should put emphasis on the learning of facts versus the acquisition of critical thinking skills is addressed. The authors discuss a study of the data that suggests that, while it is important for students to learn basic facts and skills, instructional focus on advanced reasoning abilities promoted higher student achievement. (p. 411)
The pedagogical models of Constructivism are described as based on “authentic problems”, that is, ill-defined, amorphous, complex problems similar to those that a student might face in everyday life, which the students must use existing and newly acquired knowledge to resolve. The authors suggest that the proper use of technology can play a vastly helpful supportive role for the constructivist model, and thus for the development of advanced reasoning skills.
The authors note that Papert had found that schools clinging to non-constructivist models often were not using technology to its fullest; rather than using technology as an integral part of all classroom instruction, it was isolated and its broader capacities ignored.
When the constructivist model is used, technology use is naturally integrated into the learning process. In this way the proper use of technology reinforces higher cognitive skill and complex thinking development.
The authors describe a constructivist-based learning environment as being designed in such a way as to facilitate the ability of the learners to work together. It provides a large variety of information tools and other learning resources to help guide the resolution of the students’ learning goals. The integration of learning technology provides a “synergy of dynamic interactions”. (p. 411)
The article goes on to discuss the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) project, and how the research conducted through that initiative came to the conclusion that technology “profoundly disrupts the inertia of traditional classrooms”. Beside this fact they also found that many teachers were using technology in support of their old model classrooms instead of as a tool to engage in more constructivist practices. The research revealed that a deficit in teacher knowledge and confidence with learning technology skills was a prime factor in determining which teachers adapted a more constructivist approach in their classrooms. They found that increased technology provides a vehicle for educators to address learning opportunities for all of their students. (p. 412)
All of the preceding is in the way of introduction, as the authors now get to the meat of the matter and address the purpose of the article’s study. The study focuses on four questions centered on exploring whether personal and classroom use of technology by teachers can be correlated to the use of constructivist teaching practices. The first question probes the overall levels of teacher ratings on level of technology use, personal computer use, and current instructional model. The second question seeks to find a relationship between current instructional model used and the teacher’s level of technology implementation. The third question examines teacher personal use of computers versus their current instructional model. The fourth question examines the correlation between teachers current instructional model and their scores on level of technology implementation and personal computer use.
To answer these questions, the authors conducted research in a school district in a southern state. The subjects were 186 fourth and eighth grade teachers from 66 schools (elementary through high school) in 11 districts. The specific districts were chosen because they had all received a federally funded technology grant that provided equipment and professional development training for teachers in the use of the new technology. The program had been running for one year before the study was conducted. The fourth and eighth grades were chosen because that is when that state has its “high-stakes” standardized exams. (p. 413)
The study was conducted by administering three testing instruments to the subjects. These instruments were the Level of Technology Implementation (LoTi), the Current Instructional Practices (CIP) and the Personal Computer Use (PCU).
The LoTi scale measures the “authentic classroom technology use” in seven categories. The CIP scale measures teacher’s instructional practices focused on a subject matter versus learner-based perspective. The PCU scale measures the comfort level and personal skill of instructors when using technology for their own personal use. The scales are presented in tabular format and are fairly easy to understand. (Pgs. 413 – 417) The LoTi instrument is more sophisticated than just the scale, and is accessible for viewing at the website http://LoTiConnection.com/. I found the website fascinating and will be investigating this particular instrument in more detail as it closely pertains to my field of study.
The article discusses some of the limitations of the applicability for generalization from the findings of their study as being in part affected by the questionnaire’s lack of detail on complexity of software used. In addition the study was focused on a restricted sample, and is self-reported data.
For research question one regarding overall levels, they found that their group of subjects scored a level of 0 (non-use) indicating that technology is either not present, or is not used. Their data showed that more than 35% of the respondents were at this level. They found this indicated that the teachers perceived access and time constraints to their use of technology. On the PCU scale, the group scored a level 3, indicating that the respondents felt they had moderate skill levels in computer use. The authors point out that this is discouraging given that for the previous year the technology initiative had been in place.
For the Current Instructional Practices overall rating the study group averaged a level 4, indicating that the respondents may feel comfortable using either an approach focused on subject matter or a constructivist learning-based model. The authors saw this as a good sign, as at least half of the participants described the use of constructivist models and practices to at least a moderate degree. (p. 419)
To analyze their second question they performed multiple regressions on the data. Their results indicated that teachers who scored higher on the LoTi also scored higher on the CIP meaning the more technology that was integrated into the classroom, the more constructivist the instructional practice. The correlation was statistically insignificant and the authors state that the data did not show sufficient predictive ability.
The results for research question three regarding a relationship between the teacher’s CIP score and their PCU score (again based on standard multiple regression) indicated that a significant relationship exists between the subject’s comfort level with personal computers and a higher likelihood for the use of constructivist instruction. The CIP score can be predicted from the PCU. Strong basic technology skills seem to provide teachers with a comfort level needed to implement constructivist practices. (p. 420)
Their final question regarded the relationship between CIP scores and on both the LoTi and PCU scales. Again they use standard multiple regression to derive their results. They found that teachers who scored higher on both the LoTi and PCU scales had higher levels on the CIP scale. They conclude the findings section by confirming that “the appropriate use of technology can reinforce higher cognitive skill development and complex thinking skills as promoted through the constructivist teaching practices.” (p. 421)
They go on discuss further research questions, some of which may be appropriate to my own interests in implementing software that provides intrinsic motivation for its own proper use.
Due to the nature of my work, I necessarily approach these subjects from the angle of the technologist trying design resources that assist the instructor in delivering their message. I do not have a classroom of my own, per se. Rather, my classroom comes in the form of an interconnected series of computer modules that my work team is designing for use throughout the clinical skills curriculum at the University of Michigan Medical School.
Reviewing this article was helpful for me because it gave me good information on what Constructivism learning practices entail. It made me think about how my own multimedia designs might be more engaging, and how components of our system might be expanded in a more authentic approach. We already adhere to many of the principles I learned about through this article. For instance our main program is a series of case-based modules that have students interact with patients that present with certain conditions, but we do not direct their learning, rather, we give them the tools to interact with the patient, to do whatever history taking or physical exams they may desire to perform, and order any advanced technology tests (CAT scans, MRI, XRAY, etc). They are presented with all of this data and must devise the answer from there. Based on the data in this study, one place where I could improve upon our program would be that our material is almost all solo lessons, and does not really incorporate the social learning aspects of the constructivist model. A broader social learning model should be explored.
In conclusion, I have reviewed the article and drawn some conclusions about how its insights might provide useful changes to my own work. I am going to do further reading into constructivist learning practices, and learn more about the LoTi, CIP, and PCU scales, as I believe these instruments will be useful for my own Action Research.

References

Rakes, G., Fields, V., & Cox, K. (2006). The Influence of Teacher’s Technology Use on Instructional Practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409-424. Retrieved August 2, 2007 from ProQuest.