Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Angie Kruzich
Kim Hefty Peer Reviewer
EdTech 504
Theoretical Foundations of Education Technology
Dr. K. Diane Hall
Boise State University
April 22, 2013
Abstract
The focus of this paper is to utilize past and present theories of learning and how the
relationship between the theories impact mathematical education in the classroom, specifically
high school. The ideas within this article embrace both the traditional theory of behaviorism and
the more modern constructivist learning theory. Included are ideas to incorporate student
centered learning environments, educational technology, and the higher demands of Bloom's
Taxonomy in the mathematics classroom and the importance of doing so due to new teacher
evaluation systems. And by doing so, you can create a mathematics classroom that utilizes
technology, higher level cognitive student evaluation and synthesis, as well as a student centered
learning environment.
Kruzich | 2
Introduction
As I am sitting here listening to a symphony concert, I am astounded at the inspiration the music
provides me to begin writing down ideas for this paper. The mathematics combined with
Learning Theories of the Past and Present and the Mathematics Classroom
There are many existing learning theories including established theories and emerging theories.
The focus of this paper will pertain to the more traditional objectivism and constructivism. So
first it would be imperative to understand a little behind these two theories.
Kruzich | 3
Constructivism is a theory that equates learning with creating meaning from experience (Ertmer
1993). It is not just another way of knowing, but a way of thinking about knowing. It suggests
that each listener or reader will potentially use the content and process the communication in
different ways. It describes learning as an active process, unique to the individual, and consists
of constructing conceptual relationships and meaning from information and experiences already
symbiotic relationship exists utilizing both objectivism and constructivism learning theories.
Typically objectivism learning is seen when teaching utilizes a direct instruction approach where
Why choose just one? The ultimate goal when teaching mathematics should be to balance
learning theories and therefore teaching styles to reach the needs of all students when learning
and using mathematics. Math should not be feared by so many adults such that it is okay to say
"I don't do math. I wasn't good at it." Of course as they say this, I would like to correct their
English, but they are not saying "I don't do English!" If we are to break the barriers in the United
Kruzich | 4
States where students do not follow a career path that requires a mathematical background, then
math teachers must begin to break down their own barriers.
The New Teacher Evaluation System and the Mathematics Classroom
"Virtually all students are intellectually engaged in challenging content through
well-designed learning tasks and suitable scaffolding by the teacher and fully
aligned with the instructional outcomes. In addition, there is evidence of some
student initiation of inquiry and of student contribution to the exploration of
important content. The pacing of the lesson provides students the time needed to
intellectually engage with and reflect upon their learning and to consolidate their
understanding. Students may have some choice in how they complete tasks and
may serve as resources for one another" (Danielson 2012).
This is just one sub category, engaging students in learning, in the Danielson framework that will
be used to evaluate all teachers in Washington State's new teacher evaluation system. This will
affect all teachers and especially traditional math teachers when the system goes into place. In
the near future, evaluations will involve much more specific targets that was not part of the
previous evaluation system. To reach a distinguished category rating, it will require a teacher to
do what is described in the above quote. How will a teacher accomplish all this using objectivism
learning theory and direct instruction? It will be crucial for teachers to begin exchanging many
direct instruction lessons for a more constructivism based learning style.
And engaging students in learning isn't the only category in which it will be difficult to achieve
the highest rating of distinguished. Other categories that will be more difficult to accomplish a
distinguished rating using purely direct instruction in a math classroom include communicating
with students, using questioning and discussion techniques, demonstrating flexibility and
Kruzich | 5
objectivism learning environment. The constructivism learning theory would be more supportive
centered
learning
environments
(SCLEs)
provide
interactive
of the constructivist learning theory into your classroom. Unfortunately, when student centered
activity based instruction first came out, many math teachers failed to make it successful within
their own classroom. What was still missing was how to implement group work in an effective
manner; the organization to make activities work was missing. The teacher has a role to make it
Kruzich | 6
work, but what is it? Before complex instruction, student centered learning environments didn't
work for me either. With every new curriculum came my hope that that text would provide
activities that would engage all students. However, the typical complaints by teachers was that
one or two students in the group do all the work held true in my classroom as well. I had
basically given up. Then I had the opportunity to attend a complex instruction training in the
summer of 2011. It not only changed the learning environment in my classroom, it also created
something I did not expect; all kids were participating.
teachers must begin to break down their own barriers that is preventing them from using SCLEs.
Kruzich | 7
Under the structure of CI, a math teacher can find many ways to alter a direct instruction lesson
into a more constructivist activity via technology. It is a very natural transition, placing
technology into student's hands immediately engages students. Today's students do not know the
world without technology and by giving them technology to work with in the form of computers,
graphing calculators, or iPads, as a teacher you will have a much higher probability of engaging
every student in your classroom. When each student has a piece of technology in their hands,
they will naturally start pushing buttons and discovering how the technology works. Already,
constructivist learning is taking place. When teachers have to compete for student attention
against video games, you need every tool you can gather.
"Government documents America 2000 and Goals 2000...focused on the need for
education to produce knowledge workers who were proficient in the uses of
technology and communication skills and who possessed high levels of
mathematical literacy. It was evident that computer technology was reshaping the
mathematics that students needed to know now and in the future" (Woodward
2004).
A perfect technology example in the high school math classroom is introduction of the use of a
graphing calculator. This helped many math teachers bridge the gap between students doing
mathematics and students understanding why we do this mathematics. The graphing calculator
technology helped to reframe how mathematics was taught but still remains in a mostly direct
instruction venue.
Geometer's Sketchpad is another fantastic piece of technology that can be used in the
mathematics classroom at many different levels, from elementary math through calculus. It
Kruzich | 8
allows shapes to be constructed, measured and analyzed such that students can move beyond the
basic information of geometry and into a deeper understanding of geometry.
Recently, graphing calculators made another technological leap by developing wireless
capabilities in the TI-Nspire. This allows math teachers to be more interactive with students.
Teachers can immediately send data back and forth between student and teacher.
Utilizing iPads in the high school math classroom is also occurring. Some school districts are
now issuing an iPad to every student instead of checking out text books (Haselton 2013). There
is a natural integrated use of an iPad in a school as it can work as a replacement for textbooks,
download many different apps for many different subjects and allow for internet research.
Imagine the joy by students, parents and teachers of a de-cluttered student backpack. In the long
run it could save school districts a lot of money. Districts would not be purchasing individual
textbooks or spending money on computer labs and the maintenance of such labs. Schools would
save space by not needing multiple labs within a building.
However, there is simply a lack of high school math apps available. Most mathematical apps are
oriented towards elementary and junior high math (Heick 2012). What about high school?
Without these resources, it explains why so many mathematics classrooms are still operating
using a direct instruction technique and not integrating more technology. There is a serious lack
of technology applications above the geometry level (Hannan 2012). When some well written
apps are developed for the high school level including calculus, then more teachers will be apt to
utilize technology in the classroom. Finally, just two months prior to this paper, Texas
Instruments released a TI-Nspire graphing calculator app for the iPad (Johnston 2013). This is a
Kruzich | 9
great step towards progress. But, until there are more applicable student centered activities, many
telling teachers to make use of technology isn't enough, teachers need appropriate training on
how to effectively utilize technology. And math teachers must begin to break down their own
applies to classroom management as well as integrating a successful SCLE. Just like when my
family took our dog to obedience school, the training was more about training the humans than
Kruzich | 10
the dog. Likewise, changing your teaching technique from direct instruction to a balance
between direct instruction and activities, takes training, teacher commitment and faith in the
process. School districts must begin to spend money on more authentic teacher trainings, rather
than spending money on another ineffective training day. Look around the room on these days, is
every teacher paying attention? Are all teachers participating? Are all teachers learning well?
So when does a math teacher use an objectivist or constructivist approach in their classroom?
First of all, a complex instruction type SCLE is not always appropriate. In order for group work
to be successful the activity needs to be interdependent. In other words, the activity is too
complicated for one or even two group members to complete by themselves. This helps to draw
all group members into the process. Another technique that helps to draw in all group members
is not everyone in the group is building the same initial math concept, but then all four group
member results help to build a pattern followed by a group conjecture.
It is acceptable to still use direct instruction within a high school math classroom. If a concept is
too simple and can be too easily completed, then it isn't a group worthy concept. This could also
apply to review concepts and so students already know the outcome. Or the opposite of this is if
a mathematical concept was so complex it would take days to establish an outcome by a group.
Technology would be another example of applying both direct instruction and SCLEs. Perhaps
teachers give students the skills they need by guiding students through GSP for 2-4 activities, but
then students are given the next GSP activity in as CI. Now students are following the
instructions on their own to develop something as complex as the proof for the Pythagorean
Theorem. This could also work using the TI-Nspires. Math teachers must begin to break down
their own barriers to allow for such student growth in a math classroom
Kruzich | 11
Conclusion
How do you go about doing all this? First and foremost, there needs to be a shift in how a district
spends money and trains teachers, especially math teachers. And math teachers need to believe
that there is a better way. Without teacher buy-in, he/she will not change. Excellent training and
immediate positive results can help to adjust a teacher's outlook towards student centered
learning. With organization, excellent training opportunities, and appropriate technology, then all
students learning will follow.
The final benefit to mention when applying both learning theories in your classroom is how your
classroom will be more appealing. By alternating between activities and direct instruction, it
keeps it more interesting for students. The instructional technique delivery system will depend
upon the math teacher and the topic. Which will work best for today's concept, objectivism or
constructivism? As John Dewey said,
"Mankind likes to think in terms of extreme opposites. It is given to formulating
its beliefs in terms of Either-Ors, between which it recognizes no intermediate
possibilities. When forced to recognize that the extremes cannot be acted upon, it
is still inclined to hold that they are all right in theory but that when it comes to
practical matters circumstances compel us to compromise. Educational
philosophy is no exception" (Dewey 1938)
Math teachers must begin to break down their own barriers by devoting the time to be properly
trained such that you can create a more balanced high school math classroom that utilizes
different learning styles and technology. If you are still teaching solely using a direct instruction
technique, then take a look around your classroom to truly analyze your results. When direct
Kruzich | 12
instructing, are all of your students paying attention? Are all students participating? Are all
students learning well?
References
Angeli, C. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization,
development, and assessment of ICT TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education (0360-1315), 52 (1), 154-168.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. R., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction:
Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 80-86. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/909852737?accountid=9649
Cooper, S. (2009). Constructivism: Constructivist learning theory. Retrieved February 16, 2013
from http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/constructivism/constructivism.html
Danielson, C. (2012). Danielson framework for teaching rubrics by Washington state criteria
(Version 1.1) Retrieved from Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington
State http://tpep-wa.org/wp-content/uploads/Danielson-Rubrics-by-criteria.pdf
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. (p. 17) New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ertmer, Peggy and Newby, Timothy J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism:
Comparing critical features from an instruction design perspective. Performance Improvement
Quarterly
6(4),
50-71.
Retrieved
February
16,
2013
from
http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/file.php/118/Week_6/Ertmer-Newby-beh-cog-const.pdf
Hannan, J. (2012). Top 12 math iPad apps for students and teachers [Web log post]. Retrieved
from http://www.teachhub.com/top-12-math-ipad-apps-students-and-teachers
Haselton, T. (2013). Apple:More than 8 milion iPads sold to education institutions [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/03/03/apple-8-million-ipad-school/
Heick, T. (2012). 12 of the best math iPad apps of 2012 [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.teachthought.com/apps-2/12-of-the-best-math-ipad-apps-of-2012/
Johnston, C. (2013). At long last, TI releases graphing calculator for the iPad. Retr ieved from
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/02/at-long-last-ti-releases-graphing-calculator-for-the-ipad/
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 9-10. doi:
10.1007/BF02296434.
Land, S., Hannafin, M., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student centered learning environments. In D.
Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 3-25). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Kruzich | 13
Woodward, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the united states: Past to present. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 16-31. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/194228235?accountid=9649