No part of this paper can be used or re-used without authorization from Mr. Borowski.
© Borowski 2002-2003
WHEN OLD CLASHES WITH NEW: TEACHING
UNITED STATES HISTORY USING TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTIVISM
Teaching was not something I grew up dreaming about. Like many kids, I never thought much about the teachers I had or how they taught. They had a job to do and they did it. Some did it better than others. Many of them were truly awful. Now that teaching is my reality, I spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to be a better teacher. After spending my first three years of teaching high school history, the “old fashioned” way, I realized my students needed a change.
The old fashioned way consisted of my students taking notes, writing reports, doing book work, watching movies and working in small groups. Several times throughout the year we used the computer lab, which typically consisted of students looking at predetermined web sites and completing a worksheet. They enjoyed the opportunity to get out of the classroom to do something different. In reality, it was not any different than looking at a textbook to search for answers. A monitor, instead of their nemesis the textbook, delivered the material.
Still, students were very excited about their
opportunities to use the computer lab to learn. Because of this, I decided to
use a computer lab to teach
a theory that defines knowledge as temporary, developmental, socially and culturally mediated, and thus, non-objective. Learning from this perspective is understood as a self-regulating process of resolving inner cognitive conflicts that often become apparent through concrete experience, collaborative discourse, and reflection. (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. vii)
Students would learn how to sort through information, organize it, and present it via technology. My findings were both amazing and enlightening.
Before teaching the class I saw a great potential for differentiated instruction using technology and computers. This environment was supposed to create an atmosphere of excitement that would help to encourage low-achieving students to have the motivation to be successful, and the highly motivated students would be given an opportunity to show their strengths in unique ways. The class would allow students flexibility and a forum to be successful. Students would use technology to seek greater understanding of history. The technology was supposed to stand on its own, meaning it would be so exciting and interesting that students would not need much, if any, motivation from me. There were times when these assumptions were true, yet those times were not nearly as frequent as I would have liked. I found students distracted by the technology. Instead of using it to seek more knowledge on the subject of history, they used it to play games, surf the Internet, and check fantasy football statistics. They rushed through assignments so they could play on the computer.
Students were also often frustrated with the technology and constructivist questions they were assigned. I spent a great deal of time encouraging students to complete assignments and to do their best work. There were many class periods during which I did nothing but council students. History was often forced to wait so I could help students deal with their insecurities regarding assignments and their frustrations with the technology.
I think many of students’ insecurities had their roots in constructivism. Students struggled with the complex constructivist questions they were encountering. Before teaching this class I realized there would be obstacles. I never anticipated the obstacles would come from the students’ lack of motivation and insecurities in their abilities. The assumption that technology would be the ultimate motivational tool was false. The assumption that constructivism would allow students an opportunity to have an authentic learning experience was true. The combination of the two, especially early on, was quite clumsy and extremely frustrating to me as a teacher. It would change though as the year went on.
I spent a great deal of the summer of 2002 researching the subject of
technology in the classroom. I felt it was important to look at many different
perspectives before teaching a new class. Many books discussed the positives of
teaching with technology and constructivism. Others, such as, Armstrong and
Casement (2000), argued that computers might be putting students’ education at
risk. I assumed I would disagree with their arguments because I wanted to
believe that technology is a legitimate solution to some of the issues we have
in our schools. I found that Armstrong and Casement made some valid arguments as
to why computers, technology and education do not always mix. One of their main
arguments is that achievement by students in technology-based classes is not
proven to increase. They argued that studies have not shown dramatic increases
in student achievement since schools have started to focus their attention on
technology. I assumed they were wrong, and my student’s achievement would be
higher than my other
I examined ways in which I could test achievement between the students who took the technology and constructivism based class to those who did not. I gave all of my United States history classes, including the technology and constructivist class, identical tests. These tests consisted of multiple choice, true false and essay questions. I then compared the results of these tests. In doing this, I found the results were inconclusive at first. The technology-based students’ average test score on two random tests was 78.5%. Another class’s average on the same tests, was 77.5%. I looked at other test comparisons and found similar results. These results did not show improvement in achievement at first.
The technology students would later show higher achievement than the other classes. On identical tests, in March of 2003, the technology students had an 83% test average where as the other three classes scored an average of 69%. This was a significant improvement in achievement. They were outperforming the other history classes by large margins in their achievement on tests. I could not believe students had improved so much over the course of a few months. The only difference between the two groups of students was how I taught. In the technology class, students had opportunities to explore the history at deeper levels through the use of technology and constructivism. Students created their own PowerPoint presentations and videos on topics that involved the events and people of World War I.
The videos were extremely entertaining and educational and turned out to be one of the best educational tools we used. “Video is, for the time being, the most familiar communication medium for students” (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 2001, 62). Students understood how to use and manipulate video and this helped lead to their dramatic academic improvement, which continued throughout the course of the school year. Many obstacles had to be overcome by my students and myself to reach these high levels of achievement but it was well worth it.
When students first arrived they were given surveys to determine what their strengths and weaknesses were with various forms of technology and software. The vast majority of students felt they were experts with many of the programs they would be using. There were only two students who were not comfortable using word processing programs and the Internet. This caused me to immediately incorporate technology into my lessons. I was able to focus my attention on the two students who were uncomfortable and let the other students start using the technology. I decided to work on constructivism, assuming they understood the technology aspect.
The class was established with the principle that students would be given constructivist questions. They would then do research to find information about the constructive questions and attempt to reach possible solutions to those questions. I would give brief introductions to material, supplement a small amount of information along the way as guides, and then let the students attempt to sort through this information. Students were given time in the computer lab to assist them in the process of doing historical research. They could then use various technological portals, such as, PowerPoint presentations, papers, or web pages to display their mastery of the material.
In September of 2002, students were given a constructivist assignment on the topic of Native American assimilation. Students had to create a plan to assimilate Native Americans into 1890’s industrial society. Many students struggled to find ways to do this. Constructivism helped students to think about history in a way they never had before. Many of them could not imagine themselves making difficult decisions for a group of people. That part of the assignment was enlightening. However, students had a difficult time digging deep enough into the material to truly attempt to answer the question at the level I was anticipating. Many students attempted to answer the question quickly and with little effort. This situation would arise throughout the course of the first semester.
There were fundamental problems in the assumptions I had coming into the class. I assumed the technology would help kids to enjoy history and be motivated to study it. They would be excited about the opportunity they were being allowed to experience. The technology would be used to investigate difficult subjects and help the students to come away with a better understanding of significant events in history. What the students would find would motivate them to ask relevant questions, seek resources outside of the classroom, and school. It would be a classroom filled with students who were motivated, energetic and excited about the information they were studying.
Many of the students struggled early on in the class because they wasted lab time looking for information which was either hard to find or impossible. It was hard because there was no right or wrong answer, or no easy answer to the questions I was asking them. They assumed they could find the information on the web, regurgitate it by copying and pasting it into a PowerPoint presentation, and complete the assignment without doing any real work. Their frustrations over the assignments began to mount. They were discovering their strategies for finding information and completing assignments with a minimal amount of effort was not working for them. I encouraged students to use other resources such as their textbooks, encyclopedias and the public library to find information. Still, they refused to give up the computers and the Internet as their main place to gather information.
Many assignments during the first semester were completed quickly and were of poor quality. I returned assignments to students with feedback and encouragement to help students to take what they created and to build on it. Students complained that they were tired or bored of working on the assignments. They also argued that I was not setting enough parameters or bars for them. They wanted more guidelines on assignments so they knew exactly what they needed to do to get their desired letter grade. They did not want their work returned with my feedback. They wanted to be finished with their work so they could play on the computers. Many would do no more than they had to get their desired grade. These students were grade and guideline driven, which hindered many of them from achieving at a higher academic level.
In
November of 2002, I became extremely frustrated with their lack of effort. We
had a class discussion about frustrations and celebrations. Each student
recorded what they thought was going well in the class and what was going
poorly. Changes needed to be made if I was going to continue to use technology
and constructivism as the main teaching tools in the class. Hearing my students
input was enlightening. Many of them voiced major concerns about the lack of
clear guidelines for assignments. They complained that too many students were
unfocused and disruptive. This was a problem because the students who rushed
through assignments were often distracting because they were not working on
their assignments anymore. In a technology classroom “seemingly innocent
classroom activities become an opportunity for misconduct” (Sandholtz,
Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997, p. 57).
Students
reported that they had a difficult time taking responsibility for their lack of
motivation and academic achievement. I realized that technology was not
everything I had hoped it would be. There was also a fundamental problem with
teaching students using technology and constructivism. Many students had very
little experience with constructivism before this class. A few students
excelled, creating things that were unbelievable, the majority though,
floundered. They were not interested in self-regulation and did not want to
deeply explore history. Most of them made it clear they hated history. It seemed
as though there was nothing I could do or say to change their minds.
Using
constructivist techniques, with students who dislike the subject they are
learning, is a difficult task. Many students can find loopholes in
constructivist practices in which they can hide or act like they are looking for
deeper meaning. The computer and Internet allowed them an ocean of distraction
in which they could become lost in. Sometimes it was difficult for me to tell if
they were doing legitimate work or pretending to work. To combat this illusion,
my student teacher and I created time sheets for several students in the class.
Using
their student folders on the school network, we placed an Excel timesheet into
their individual document folders. When students were working in the lab, they
had to log into the spreadsheet program and record what they were doing and how
long they were doing it. I also went into many student’s folders and removed
games and other distracting programs. This helped students to regain focus, or
for some, establish focus. They realized they were going to be held accountable
for their time on the computers.
Once
students realized I was accessing their folders on a weekly basis to see their
progress, achievement and motivation increased, but micro-managing their
computer usage was time consuming and uncomfortable. It was a practice I would
soon abandon because I did not feel comfortable looking at their personal
documents. Students did not seem to care that I was looking at their private
work. Some actually felt it helped them to accomplish more work if they knew
they were being closely monitored.
Instead
of trying to monitor students’ every move, I decided to move away from
constructivist questions and assignments. I created assignments that could be
more easily monitored and had clear guidelines. For example, students were given
the assignment to create a web page. Instead of giving students a great deal of
choices, I narrowed it down and gave them specific groups of people I wanted on
their web page. I also assigned questions that could be easily answered with the
minimal amount of research. They were then to take this information and place it
on a GeoCities web page. We used this
web page builder because it was free and simple.
Students
were excited about the idea of creating web pages and began establishing them
immediately. The problem with this was that students had not answered the easy
questions I had given them. They came to the lab without doing any research and
tried to create a web page without any content. The majority of students had
zero content a few days before the rough draft was due. Students were distracted
by the technology because it was more fun than doing the work they were
assigned. Students who did not have substantial content were strongly encouraged
to go through books and encyclopedias to find the information for their web
pages instead of using the Internet. Many students became extremely frustrated
with this. All but two students finished their web pages and had them
functioning with content the week they were due. Students realized it was not
the teacher or the other students in class that was causing them not to be
successful, it was themselves and the technology.
It
was an enlightening moment for all of us. We realized the technology could only
be used after a large part of the work was done. The students had a difficult
time using technology as an information gathering and compiling tool. Before
this class, the majority of their prior computer experiences had been for
entertainment. They used computers and technology to escape their reality. Now
they were being required to use them to create quality work. The divide between
using computers for fun, and using them to do work, is immense.
Breakthrough
In
December of 2002, students began to realize the computer was nothing more than a
tool in my classroom. The first sixteen weeks seemed like wasted time until
students started completing their semester project. It was a project which
involved a great deal of choice and student input. Students felt it was better
to choose something they wanted to do, rather than being forced to do something
they disliked.
The
project involved the skills they had worked on throughout the first semester.
They were to pick a historically relevant topic they were interested in, develop
a question around this subject, and research it. Students were then to do action
research on it, which meant they had to do interviews or surveys. They were
allowed to come to their own conclusions on their subject. As a culminating
activity, students were to present their question and findings to the class. It
was left up to the students how they wanted to be assessed. They could use any
form of technology to display their work. Many chose to use PowerPoint
presentations, web pages and videos. The goals of the project were very
explicit and a good deal of time was spent trying to help students focus their
ideas. The results were marvelous.
Students
anticipated each task of the project with great excitement and energy. Students
were self-motivated, extremely focused and were using the technology to help
them create quality work. The focus and energy, which I had anticipated at the
beginning of the class, had finally arrived. It was then that I realized that
this was truly a constructivist assignment and this was different from previous
constructivist assignments they had worked on. Students had ownership and
control of how they wanted to display their work. Instead of me deciding how
they were going to be assessed and what they were going to do, they decided.
Students ended up using the computers more efficiently because they were not
being forced to create something they had no ownership of. Students’ semester
projects were wonderful, authentic pieces of work.
I realized that my earlier assignments, which were only partially constructivist, lacked the students’ full involvement, which helped to lead to some of the major frustrations we had earlier in the semester. Students need to be active members in the teaching and learning process in a constructivist classroom. If they are not, the class will not function correctly. It took me sixteen weeks to realize this.
Conclusion
In any classroom there are varying degrees of abilities. In most classes, students’ abilities, or lack of abilities, are easily masked by the whole. It is hard to find out what students’ strengths and weaknesses are in a classroom of thirty students who are all doing the same assignment. In a room where students are working on constructivist questions, their strengths and weaknesses are glaring. They cannot compare their work with someone else’s to complete their assignment because they are all attempting to answer questions in unique ways. Therefore, each student’s needs are more obvious. This means an increased amount of student to teacher contact. It also means that students and teachers will need to rely on each other to work through difficult problems.
There will be many changes I will implement when I teach this class in the coming years. Students will, at the beginning of the school year, be encouraged to take an active role in the classroom. Their input on assignments and the classroom environment will be established early on. This will allow students an opportunity to demonstrate their strengths and abilities in authentic ways. I feel this is the only way in which constructivism and technology can be combined to create a quality learning environment.
The hardest part of this experience was sharing responsibility and control of the material with the students. This was a new and difficult experience for me. But, it allowed students to take ownership over the material and their education. Once this happened, the results were wonderful. By the end of the year, students needed very little motivation and guidance from me to complete assignments. It was a long process but a successful one. I know I will forever be changed as a person and as an educator because of the learning experiences I had integrating technology and constructivism into my classroom.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (2000). The
child and the machine: How
computers put our children’s educational at risk.
Lane Press.
Brooks J. G.,
& Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of
understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms.
Curriculum Development.
GeoCities, (2003). GeoCities
Page Builder. [Computer software].
CA:
Yahoo! Inc.
Jonassen, D., Pfeiffer, W., Peck, K., & Wilson, B.
(2001). Learning with
technology: A constructivist perspective.
Prentice Hall.
Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997).
Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centered classrooms.
College Press.