Learning Theories

Learning Theories and Technology:  Their Impact on Student Learning

Hai Lamb

Northern Arizona University



Abstract

This paper will define four learning theories to include behaviorism, cognitive learning theory, constructivism, and constructionism.  This paper will also describe the history of technology use in schools, the impact of technology on teaching and learning in the classroom, and how educators should embrace technology integration.



         In the past, the role of teacher and student has been transference of knowledge from expert to novice.  However, different approaches to learning have been created that have defined new roles for teachers and students.  Technology has been a catalyst in more recently paradigms of learning, but before we discuss those, we will begin with earlier teaching and learning models.

Behaviorism
The behaviorist approach to learning focuses on behavior and ignores mental or internal influences.  B.F. Skinner’s radical behavior theory has been famously exemplified given a rat in a cage that when it sees a flashing light (stimuli), the rat pushes the lever (response) to obtain food (reinforcement).  Behavior is then learned through a stimuli, response, and reinforcement cycle (Cambre & Hawkes, 2004).  This has been an approach to teaching and learning in the classroom where students learn to master concepts.  Starting with simple tasks, students answer repetitive questions.  If correct, the student is able to progress to higher levels and the complexity varies depending on the number of correct responses on each learning level.  Teachers would refer to this method as “drill and kill.”
         Proponents of behaviorism believe that chunking information promotes easily digestible steps for students to learn concepts.  Opponents of behaviorism view behaviorism as a teaching model that focuses on rote memory and applications of facts.  They believe that students who learn from this model are not using higher ordered thinking skills because students are passive learners (Cambre & Hawkes, 2004).
         The impact of behaviorism can be seen in educational software.  Many programs use a behaviorist approach, for example, students who successfully answer questions, move on in these types of programs; whereas, answering incorrectly involves a lesson to be re-taught.  Although there is evidence that educational software that uses a behaviorist approach can increase student learning, this is only evident in fields, such as math, where procedural knowledge or rote facts can be memorized (Cambre and Hawkes, 2004).


Cognitive Learning Theory
The movement from behaviorism to cognitivism that is often characterized as the cognitive revolution is not best represented in terms of a Kuhnian “paradigm shift” in which one theoretical paradigm gives way to another under the pressure of an empirical anomaly or set of anomalies.  The various anomalies that eventually faced behaviorism, such as the “discovery” of biological limits on conditioning and doubts about the ability of conditioning theory to accommodate linguistic performance, did not result in the abandonment of the central principles of operant or classical conditioning theories – the core theoretical elements of the behaviorist paradigm (Greenwood, 1999).

However, Greenwood (1999) continues that behaviorism overestimated the ability of humans and animals to communicate, which can not be explained by conditioning, and with the introduction of an internal variable, cognitive psychologists began to reject the behaviorist limitations on observable behavior.  Nevertheless, cognitive psychologists did not ignore the importance of behavior in their cognitive studies.  In fact, both behavior and cognitive learning models believed knowledge to be independent of the learner where an external reality transferred to an internal reality.  (Applefield, 2000-2001)
An example of educational software that exemplifies the idea of cognition is Inspiration and using concept maps.  These maps are a powerful tool to be able to take an internal mental map and construct an external map because the end result is conceptual change. These models consist of elements and their relationship to one another, so when students build these models they are engaging in a complex task that promotes higher ordered thinking skills. They demonstrate a deeper understanding of what students know (Jonassen, 2006).

Constructivism
Although cognitivism led to constructivism, constructivism relies on a construction of knowledge as opposed to transference of knowledge.  (Applefield, 2000-2001)  Constructivism is a learning theory led by Piaget who believes that learning needs to be meaningful through students engaging in complex, authentic tasks that involve collaboration.  Through collaboration and reflection, students participate in dialogue that emphasizes higher ordered thinking skills such as synthesis and analysis.  Students develop their own strategies and define their own methods.  Therefore, a classroom taught using a constructivist approach would have students be active participants, in charge of their own learning, with no fixed process, and set in a dynamic environment.
         Proponents for constructivism believe that students learn to adapt in dynamic situations and problem solve.  They learn how to be flexible, how to communicate effectively, how to think outside the box, how to strategize, and how to reflect and use constructive feedback to redefine methods.  Opponents to constructivism believe that there are no goals, no guidance, and that there is no need for educators to be content area proficient (Applefield, 2000-2001).  However, Richardson (2003) witnessed a program in which whole language learning was the approach used to teach language acquisition.  What was found is that teachers did not understand this type of instruction and in turn the program was not successful.  Therefore, teachers need a deep understanding of content as well as an understanding of learning development to be successful in a constructivist classroom.
         Constructivism also has had an impact on technology.  Programs such as Geometer’s Sketchpad use the idea that students construct meaning because no pre-programmed shapes are designed for student use (Jackiw).  The program does not teach the students what to do but the students use the program to learn concepts, making Geometer’s Sketchpad as a constructivist tool to learning.

Constructionism
Bruner’s constructionism is similar to Piaget’s constructivism in the fact that both believe that knowledge is constructed and not transferred (Applefield, 2000-2001).  However, McDonald and Ingvarson state that constructionism has one more layer, which is that students need to construct their knowledge tangibly, in a visual sense.  In McDonald and Ingvarson’s 1990-1994 study of whether computers enhanced student learning at Methodist Ladies’ college (MLC), which is an all girls school in Melbourne, Australia ages 5 to 18, they examined constructionist classrooms.
They found classrooms where students took ownership in their own learning, set their own goals, created their own learning, actively participated in all learning stages, and worked without teacher intervention.  Students became independent learners, creators, risk takers, and problem solvers.  Students also used a computer program, Logo, which would allow students to creatively develop their own worlds. Class times were flexible to accommodate dynamic learning environments so that if two content areas were integrated, the students’ classes overlapped.  The physical classrooms were divided into two areas, one which was a typical classroom and the other was an open space. Therefore, students were allowed to work at their desks, on the floors, in the open community areas, or in the school’s library.  Although all rooms were supervised, there was no direct teacher supervision.  The teachers’ roles changed from monitoring classroom behavior and being the only resource to students to a role of troubleshooter and being one of the many resources available.  This freed a lot of time for educators, but they still had the responsibility of assessing student progress, which was more demanding with everyone learning at their own level and their own pace. Nevertheless, teachers still needed to have strong content knowledge but they also needed high technological literacy.  However, not all learning was done using a computer.  Some students designed classrooms to replicate specific environments.  (McDonald & Ingvarson, 1997)

History of Technology Use in Schools
Technology has been used in schools since the 1800’s in forms such as still pictures, lantern slides, talking motion pictures, television, and instructional television (ITV).  Technology has been used to teach a larger population especially with a shortage of teachers.  (Cambre and Hawkes, 2004)
However, distance education is an excellent example of how technology and education have been successfully integrated.  Distance education began in England in the late 1800’s where tutors would visit students, who were unable to travel to university, from small villages.  The United States began implementing distance education in the early 1900’s through correspondence classes on printed paper.  This changed shortly after the Second World War and the advent of broadcast television.  However, the use of personal computers and the World Wide Web have surpassed all previous deliveries of distance education and dominated the field.  Today distance education has been popular amongst teachers pursuing professional development and parents who have chosen to home school their children.  (Cambre and Hawkes, 2004)
Proponents believe that technology represents an element in our ever-changing world where students need to learn to adapt to change.  Therefore, educators need to use technology in their classrooms to develop skills that embrace change and dynamic situations.  Opponents believe there needs to be more for face-to-face human interaction that helps each and every one of us build personal relationships and personal characteristics within ourselves.

Need for Technology in the Classroom
Howard Gardner (2007) talks about his book, Five Minds for the Future. He distinguishes that his earlier theory about multiple intelligences was from a psychologist’s perspective and that he still believes there are between eight to nine independent intelligences. However, his book about the five minds was written from a viewpoint as a policymaker, meaning he believes there are five types of minds that need to be cultivated in education for the 21st century.
Gardner states that no one is born with any of the five minds, which is the reason people need to go to school. Nevertheless, the five minds are as follows: A disciplined mind is a person who wants to be an expert in their field, whether it is a profession, craft, or art.  A synthesizing mind starts off with a goal, then develops a strategy to make a first rough draft and gathers feedback to redevelop the method if needed. A creative mind is someone who can think outside the box and is inquisitive. They need to be resilient and have a robust temperament to deal with negative feedback. A respectful mind is someone who embraces diversity, and this is a mind that is cultivated shortly after birth. An ethical mind is on a higher level of abstraction than the respectful mind. It is when one views him or herself as a good worker and citizen and acts appropriately in both roles. Gardner notes that the last two types of minds are not in the cognitive area but the human area. Also, Gardner states that the five minds do not fit effortlessly together. They can promote the globalization of education with cultural exchanges, student interaction, information exchanges, and embracing diversity.
         Therefore, in order to cultivate these minds students need to develop skills that will promote success as future citizens for this coming century.  Educators do not know what the future holds, but it will be dramatically different than the world we live in today.  Educators need to teach students to be independent learners who are able to adapt to change and think outside the box.  The teaching styles today need to cultivate a mind for the future.  Cambre and Hawkes (2004) suggest that there is an under use of technology in the classrooms today, and this needs to change so that these teacher tools become teaching tools.  This is unfortunate because learning needs to be relevant and applicable to the real world.  Students can learn to achieve in their content areas as well as developing their technological skills needed, if technology is implemented in curriculum.  Students need to be the center of attention and the focus should be on their learning and not the teacher.  The teacher needs to take a passive role so that students can develop their own learning.
¬
Integration of Technology in the Classroom
To integrate technology in the classroom teachers should be technologically literate in the sense that they can trouble shoot simple problems with hardware and software.  Since technology is ever-changing, in-service teachers need to continue in professional developments on technology so that new information does not come sporadically.  Teachers should question how, when, why, and how much technology should be integrated into a classroom to engage students in learning and not just as up-scaled presentation tools.  As pre-service teachers, teacher programs should promote technology integration and curriculum.
There is a concern about equity in technology use in the classroom.  Although there use to be a gender gap because boys were more enthusiastic about technology than girls, girls have grown interest in the technological field because it now encircles a social realm.  Nevertheless, in education, we need to ensure that both genders learn how to use basic applications on computers (Cambre & Hawkes, 2004).
Another concern that Cambre and Hawkes (2004) discuss is about equity and technology use in the classroom is the digital divide.  Arguments have been made that students from more affluent families will have more privileges than those students from lower income families.  There is some truth in this argument.  However, if teachers are aware of students’ accessibility to computers than there should be sensitivity involved when assigning tasks to be completed.
         The use of alternative assessments should be addressed with using technology in the classroom.  Since standardized tests often assess students’ abilities to memorize facts, educators should focus on students’ skills to work in collaborative environments and develop higher ordered thinking.  Therefore, alternative assessments should be considered to fully evaluate a student.  Furthermore, rubrics should be used so that students may understand the guidelines to assess themselves.  Peer evaluations are also a powerful tool to develop strategies (Cambre & Hawkes, 2004).

Change of Learning Beliefs for Educators
Levin and Wadmany (2006) suggest that change does occur over a multi-year exposure to technology based classrooms.  Teachers may more easily change their practices than their beliefs, but that the beliefs will follow.  However, this does not suggest that educators are expected to dispose of their old practices and completely adopt new ones but to build on and refine the old ones.  Furthermore, in an educational setting, educators should not view having different belief systems of teaching and learning as detrimental but they work together complementary because there is so much depth to teaching and learning that different viewpoints add understanding to the complex dimensions.  In addition, the presence of technology does not mean the successful integration into curriculum.  McDonald and Ingvarson’s (1997) study reflects the same conclusion that the existence of technology does not mean integration of technology and also that time is needed for change to occur within teachers mindsets of learning approaches.

Conclusion
         Learning theories have developed over time from students being passive learners to students actively engaging in their own learning.  There is an importance of these shifts because the students today will need different skills tomorrow, and there are concepts that we can not define today, since tomorrow brings changes.  However, educators can strengthen students’ abilities to adapt to change and work in dynamic situations.  Educators should focus on teaching students to be creative, resourceful, socially apt, and aware through social interactions and dialogue.  Students should learn to be comfortable with making mistakes and appreciating mistakes because they are learning experiences.  Communication skills should be strengthened so that higher ordered thinking skills are used to resolve conflicts.  Technology helps students learn without boundaries by freeing students of remedial time consuming tasks, allowing students to externally create models of their internal mental mind, and offers a platform where students can develop and create.  As time will move forward, so will technology, and new technologies will be introduced that will continue change and hopefully we can all change with time.


References

Applefield, J., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2000-2001). Constructivism in Theory and Practice: Toward a Better Understanding. The High School Journal, 84(2), pp.35-53.

Chambre, M., Hawkes, M. (2004). Toys, Tools, and Teachers: The Challenges of Technology. Maryland: Scarecrow Education.

Gardner, H. (Presenter). (2007, May 7). Five Minds for the Future [Podcast]. Harvard University: WBGH Forum Network. Retrieved June 16, 2007, from http://www.forum-network.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3560

Greenwood, J. (1999). Understanding the “cognitive revolution” in psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), 1-22.

Jackiw, N. (Presenter). (2007). Sketchpad’s Design [Podcast]. Retrived June 20, 2007 from http://pdonline.keypress.com/

Jonassen, D. (2006). Modeling with Technology: Mindtools for Conceptual Change. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental View. Journal of Reseach on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157-181.

McDonald, H. & Ingvarson, L. (1997). Technology: A Catalyst for Educational Change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(5), 513-527.

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.