The Impact of Theory on Technology Use in the Classroom

By Carol Fulton, Alec Couros, and Vi Maeers

This paper will examine some aspects of a graduate course in educational technology at the University of Regina in
Canada. A major strand running through the course (offered in the Fall 1999 semester) was to examine the
appropriateness of different learning theory on the use of technology in the classroom and to develop a theoretical
model that could impact the way in which technology is being used in school classrooms. In this paper we will
describe the course content, provide an overview of the processes involved in developing the theoretical framework,
and outline how WebCT was used as an interface for discussions of educational technology theory.

A. Description of the Course

The course under discussion in this paper was designed for graduate students who are familiar with basic computer-
related technology skills and concepts and their pedagogical appropriateness in the K-12 classroom. Specifically,
the course was designed to explore the effective integration of the internet into the curriculum: Students were
expected to examine ways in which the internet can be integrated into the curriculum; they were to examine
different learning theories and determine which (if any) related to the current (or future) use of the internet in the
classroom; they were to develop a working learning-theory model that could be used to influence the appropriate use
of the internet into the curriculum.

The entire course is posted on WebCT at the University of Regina site [http://webct.uregina.ca:8080/ -- click on
course listings, then on "Internet and Curriculum Integration" and then log in as guest]. Students were expected to
participate as students on WebCT by contributing to the chat room and Bulletin Board, and as instructors, by
creating directories and pathways through which they posted the various course modules.

An overview of the entire course and the various components to be studied were discussed on the first night of class.
Students formed small groups of two or three and selected specific topics that would be course modules and would
eventually be posted as such on WebCT. The students were responsible for developing the content of the modules
and for the actual posting of the modules on WebCT.

Four topic groups were formed on the first night of class. As the topic groups began exploring and writing about
their topic, for a future class presentation and web posting, the course instructor led the class through some
introductory work. During each night of the course the instructor had a special topic of interest prepared to present
to the students.
First of all the class explored the provincial on-line curriculum at http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/evergrn.html
and examined ways in which this on-line curriculum is attempting to integrate technology into and across subject
areas. One of the on-line curriculum designers presented the class with an update of all the new features, one in
particular being the NEXUS page at http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/nexus/index.html. On another night of the
course, the instructor presented aa review of different belief systems and students were given an overview of two
different models of learning. On yet another night, a WebCT course developer expert gave the class a summarized
overview of how to create pathways, directories, and upload documents. This was very important information for
the students who would soon be posting their modules on WebCT. Another special interest topic presented by the
instructor was on Seymour Papert's Mindstorms.

The different topics selected by groups of students are as follows:

1. Community of Learners classroom learning model and the Cognitive Apprenticeship and Situated
Cognition model. This group consisted of three students who became our ongoing and evolving experts
on learning theory.
2. Virtual Architecture. This group consisted of three students who explored the work of Judi Harris. This
work was selected for its focus on the integration of the internet into the curriculum and for its many
practical examples. The Virtual Architecture website can be found at
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jbharris/Virtual-Architecture/
3. Filamentality This group consisted of three students who examined the work of Bernie Dodge and Tom
March. This work was selected for its broad appeal in integrated web-based projects. The following
websites are about different aspects of filamentality:
  http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/
 http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/webquest.html
 http://www.ozline.com/
4. Virtual Environments This group consisted of two students who explored the work of Chris Dede. This
work was selected for its potential to dramatically increase instructional outcomes. More information on
Virtual Environments can be found at: http://165.224.220.67/Technology/Futures/dede.html

Numbers 2, 3 and 4 above examined current popular ways in which educators have organized internet-related
frameworks for technology-curriculum integration. Number 1 above examines current learning theory, how theory
drives the frameworks (if it does), and questions the absence of such theory. Ongoing learning theory model
creation evolved with each topic presented. We also discussed the work of the some of the critics of instructional
technology to determine the downside of IT and how it might be avoided. By the end of the course we had a good
idea of what theory permeates each of the current popular internet-related frameworks and we how we might be able
to convince others of (a) the need for such a theory, and (b) the features of such a theory.

Theoretical Framework

Having examined some of the theoretical models of learning which guide instruction as well as some frameworks
for integrating technology into the curriculum, class members then attempted to analyze the frameworks to
determine which theory of learning (if any) guided them. Using Schwab’s (1966?) Commonplaces as the heuristic,
we first compared the respective roles of the teacher, the student, the subject matter and the environment as they
apply to two primary educational belief systems and two recent learning theories. We are also developed a 'wish list'
with the question "what would you like the computer technology classroom to look like according to the
commonplaces?" This 'wish list' took into consideration what we consider to be the most essential, most appropriate,
and most effective features of a computer-rich classroom environment. The first draft of our 'wish list' was
completed prior to any student presentations. At the time of the writing of this paper, we are in the process of
revising our ‘wish list’ based on the presentations of the groups, the lessons from the critics, our on-line and in-class
discussions and our own experiences as teachers. A summary of our ideal classroom is presented in figure 1 along
with a summary of the belief systems and theories of learning as they relate to integration of technology and
curriculum.

Belief Systems, Learning Theories, and Instructional Technology Frameworks

Belief Systems

Although there are numerous views on how students learn and should be taught, two beliefs systems primarily
dominate current educational practice – teacher centered versus child-centered practice - or a combination of both.
Teacher-centered practice is often referred to as an objectivist orientation to education whereby knowledge is
viewed as an object or commodity to be acquired by the learner. The teacher is seen as the dispenser or transmitter
of knowledge and the one who determines what is to be taught and how. The teacher may often model what is to be
learned and the student imitates the behaviour. The student is seen as a passive receiver of knowledge who
regurgitates what has been memorized. The subject matter is generally pre-determined by someone other than the
learner and is often hierarchical and specific. Evidence of knowledge acquisition is determined by observable
outcomes and behaviours exhibited by the student. The learning environment is generally highly teacher controlled
with little interaction among learners.

A child-centered orientation to education, often called a constructivist approach, is based on the premise that
students learn best when the subject matter is meaningful and related to their interests and experiences. The
teacher’s role in this orientation is one of a guide or facilitator who provides a stimulating, challenging, but safe
learning environment that promotes hands-on experiences, intellectual risk-taking and cooperation. The student’s
role is to be inquisitive, creative, collaborative and reflective. The subject matter is holistic and customized to the
needs, interests and prior learning of the students. It is often divergent or open-ended with groups of students
working in an area of interest. When students reflect on their experiences, they generate “rules” or “mental models”
to make sense of their experiences. In other words, they construct their own meaning from the experiences.
Learning is believed to be a process of continually adjusting the mental rules and models.

These beliefs systems arose from the plethora of learning theories that generally support one orientation or the other.
For more information on some of the more well-known and some not so well-known learning theories, see the
following two web sites: http://.gwu.edu/d~tip/theories.html and
http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_theory_how1.html .

Two Theoretical Models of Learning

In this course class members explored two newer learning theories: Barbara Rogoff’s Communities of Learners
(1994), and Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning (Brown, J., Collins, A. & Duguid, P., 1989. These
theories were chosen for their particular relevance to technology integration in the classroom.

Community of Learners

In Developing Understanding of the Idea of Communities of Learners (1994), Rogoff asserts that
“learning occurs as people participate in shared endeavours with others, with all playing active but often
asymmetrical roles in sociocultural activity” (p. 209). This view of learning contrasts with the one-sided learning
models typical of European and American schools where adults are transmitters of knowledge and students are the
passive receivers of information. It also differs from child-run models that are “based on the assumption that
learning is the product of discovery by oneself or with peers” (p. 210). In the Community of Learners theory,
learning is a process of transforming participation where “both mature members of the community and less mature
members are conceived as active; no role has all the responsibility for knowing or directing, and no role is by
definition passive” (p. 210). In this view all members of the community are at some time both a teacher and a
student.

Situated Cognition (Cognitive Apprenticeship)

Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, often referred to as cognitive apprenticeship, has some similarities
to the community of learners theory. Both models acknowledge that learning is best accomplished when it is
authentic and related to the interests and experiences of the students. In the model proposed by Brown et al.
however, the adult serves as a mentor and the student is an apprentice. Herrington and Oliver (1997) succinctly
summarize the or cognitive apprenticeship model in the following statement:

Brown et al. (1989) argued that meaningful learning will only take place if it is embedded in the social and
physical context within which it will be used. Formal learning is often quite distinct from authentic activity,
or 'the ordinary practices of the culture' (p. 34). Many of the activities undertaken by students are unrelated
to the kind performed by practitioners in their everyday work. A means of achieving authenticity, they
proposed, was the model of cognitive apprenticeships, a method designed to 'enculturate students into
authentic practices through activity and social interaction', and based on the successful and traditional
apprenticeship model (Brown, et al., 1989, p. 37). A critical aspect of the situated learning model is the
notion of the apprentice observing the 'community of practice'.

They go on to say that the principal theorists (and critics) of situated learning have identified a number of important
characteristics of the learning environment which have added to the evolving theory of situated learning. In
attempting to identify those characteristics that are most applicable to the instructional design of interactive
multimedia, Herrington and Oliver suggest that the learning environment should:
• Provide authentic context that reflect the way the knowledge will be used in real-life
• Provide authentic activities
• Provide access to expert performances and the modelling of processes
• Provide multiple roles and perspectives
• Support collaborative construction of knowledge
• Provide coaching and scaffolding at critical times
 • Promote reflection to enable abstractions to be formed
• Promote articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit
• Provide for integrated assessment of learning within the tasks.

The characteristics outlined in the cognitive apprenticeship and community of learners models also suggest the role
of the teacher, student and subject matter. It is interesting to note that some of the roles have elements of both
teacher-centered and child-centered approaches to learning.

The chart below summarizes the roles of the teacher, student, subject matter and environment in each of the two
primary belief systems about teaching and learning and the two recent theoretical models of learning. Students in the
class summarized the roles with the view to how these might be applied to instructional design when using
computers in the classroom.

Fig. 1.

Role of the Teacher Role of the Student Role of the Subject Role of the
Matter Environment
Objectivist Leader
(Teacher-centered) Manager
Authority figure
Director of learning
Transmitter of
knowledge
Constructivist
(Child-centered)
Community of
Learners
Cognitive
Apprenticeship
Our Learning
Theory

Frameworks for Organizing the Integration of Curriculum and Technology

The next step in the process of creating our ‘wish list’ was to examine the work of educators who have developed
frameworks for organizing the integration of the internet in the curriculum. The works of Judi Harris (Virtual
Architecture), Bernie Dodge and Tom March (Filamentality), and Chris Dede (Virtual Environments) were of
particular interest because of the innovative ways they have used the internet and technology in classrooms. We
also looked at the work of Cynthia Leshin (Internet Adventures,1998) who has developed an extensive list of
internet resources for teachers, and Seymore Papert (Mindstorms, 198 ) , the developer of Logo, the first computer
programming system for children.

Virtual Architecture
Judi Harris (199) uses the metaphor of a house to organize the ways teachers and students might use the internet to
extend learning. She compares the different rooms in a house that serve different purposes to educational activities
can be structured to serve different purposes. And, just as rooms in different dwellings might have similar purposes
but can function and look quite differently, so can “the same activity structures . . .be used to help students at
different levels and with different curricula learn in differentiated ways that are best suited to their interests and
needs” (p.42). Within the “house” are several areas where students can use computers in a variety of ways to
accomplish different learning objectives. For example, the basement provides the foundation or rationale for the
framework, the kitchen is for telecollaboration, the study for teleresearch, the bathroom for designing projects, and
the yard for assessment. For an overview of some of the classroom activities that could be accomplished through
telecollaboration, see http://rbe.sk.ca/webactivities.
Harris cautions however, that the activity structures for telecollaboration must be combined with seven action “c-
quences” to help the students “plot the steps they will take as they use the activity’s structure to engage in active
learning” (p. 43).

Filamentality
Bernie Dodge and Tom March of San Diego State University created filamentality which is is an interactive fill-in-
the-blank website for guiding teachers though the process of designing internet-based instruction. Teachers pick a
topic, search the Web, gather good internet sites and turn the Web resources into activities appropriate for learners.
(SDSU Pacific Bell Fellows, http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil, 1997).

Dodge and March are best known perhaps for creating WebQuest in 1995 which “is an inquiry-oriented activity in
which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web. WebQuests are designed to use
learners’ time well, to focus [learners] on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners’
thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation” (Dodge & March,
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/overview.htm).

WebQuest is only one instructional method suggested in the Filamentality site. Other suggestions include creating a
hotlist of good sites, developing a scrapbook with multimedia links and other resources, having the students gather
information about a subject through a treasure hunt, and developing a subject sampler of a half-dozen intriguing
sites organized around a main topic. The Filamentality site can be used by novices to the internet or those who are
more advanced.

Virtual Environments
Chris Dede of George Mason University has focused his work on how emerging technologies may reshape our
views of distance education into an alternative instructional paradigm – distributed learning (1996, p. 1). He and his
colleagues have also worked on the use of ScienceSpace Virtual Realities (VR) to help learners understand complex
scientific concepts (Salzman, Dede, & Loftin, 1995). The work on distributed learning is of particular significance
to educators as local and regional school governing bodies are looking for ways to reduce the costs of education.
Dede believes distributed learning can provide opportunities for “learning by doing” and for interacting with virtual
communities in ways that complement face-to-face interactions. He suggests, however, that if distributed learning is
to fulfill its potential as an economically viable and pedagogically valuable way for students to learn, research is
required on the following issues a) instructional design, b)knowledge webs, c)virtual communities and d) shared
synthetic environments. He reminds us that as the new technologies become part of our everyday existence, it will
be important to keep a balance between virtual interaction and face-to-face interaction and that the new media “need
not eliminate choices or force us into high tech, low touch situations (p. 24).

Internet Adventures

Cynthia Leshin’s work provides extensive and very practical ideas for accessing web resources. She has also
compiled lists of web sites that can be used for a variety of themeatic units in a classroom. Her work will save
teachers several hours of searching for appropriate web sites when developing WebQuests or other activities where
children will be using internet resources. One difficulty with Leshin’s work however, is that is will quickly become
dated given the daily growth of the Internet.

Mindstorms

Symore Papert’s creation, Logo, which allows children to learn the principles of computer programming by
commanding the movements of a turtle on a computer screen, has greatly influenced the development of educational
technology and our understanding of how children learn. In Mindstorms (198 ), he discusses the importance of
children being able to manipulate objects in order to progress through the cognitive developmental stages described
by Piaget. He demonstrated that children can learn mathematical concepts with computers or ‘objects-to-think-with’
and that by articulating what they do as they create programs in Logo, they are learning to think about their own
thinking. Because Logo is fun, it also increases the interaction among students who want to share their ideas and
creations with others.
Each of the uses of technology described above gave our class several ideas for creating our own ideal classrooms
where technology is an integral tool for learning. We felt there were some caveats, however, and we could see
issues which teachers must recognize and address. Readings by critics and supporters of instructional technology
provided insights into these issues.

Issues Related to Instructional Technology

Several issues which our class identified included:

• the need for professional development and support for teachers when learning to use and integrate instructional
technology,
• the expense of implementing computer technology in schools and the ability of school divisions to sustain the
cost of the upkeep,
• the problem of access for some students whose homes or schools cannot afford computers,
• the problem of students coming across inappropriate or dangerous sites,
• the problem of providing meaningful learning experiences using technology with only one or two computers in
the classroom.

Dede (199 )also identified these and other issues including how to convince the public that the expense is
worthwhile, and how we should be assessing student performance. Other critics and supporters have raised
additional concerns such as:
• the uncritical acceptance of computers in schools (Moll and Roberston, 1997);
• the indiscriminate use of computers in the classroom ((March, 1995),
• the willingness of corporate interests to supply computers and funding to schools, and whose agendas may
not be in the best interests of students (Roberston, 1997);
the lack of research showing the benefits of using computers (Robertson, 1997); and
• the decrease in personal interactions as people spend more time in virtual communities rather than with
their families or friends (Stoll, 1995).

We took these issues and concerns into consideration and discussed ways teachers might address them. The
readings and discussion helped us to realize that there is no one right way to deal with each of the concerns. We did
recognize, however, that we must be engaged in discourse with other educators about these issues; that we need
support from school divisions for on going professional development; and that we must be continually examining
our teaching beliefs and practices. It is crucial that we ask questions such as, “Why am I doing this and how does it
benefit students?” “How does this fit with what I believe about teaching and learning?” “Could this activity be
completed just as effectively without using computers?” “Whose interests are being served if we wholeheartedly
embrace computers in the classroom?”

Teachers’ Thoughts

Near the end of the course, we posted some questions to the bulletin board and asked our fellow classmates to
respond. We wanted to find out if they were aware of any belief system or learning theory that guided their use of
computers in their classrooms, if their thinking or practices had changed since they had started the course or began
using computers in the classroom. Their responses are summarized after each of the questions.

1. How would you describe your use of technology in your classroom prior to taking this or other graduate level
courses in Instructional Technology?

Some of the participants replied that their use of technology was mainly for personal use (email, word
processing, marks, etc.) and that their students didn’t often use computers because there was only one in the
room. Some participants stated that when they first started having students working on computers it was in a
lab and doing word processing or educational games. When there weren’t enough computers, they would break
the group in half and have the ones who weren’t on the computers doing something else such as math.
2. Has your teaching changed (or your thinking about teaching changed) as a result of taking IT courses and/or
through any technology projects or opportunities (e.g., Blue Book sessions/Cyberchallenge) and if so, how?

In some cases, teachers now have their students working on projects such as WebQuests. Others have their
students using email and writing to key-pals, or their students are involved with other web-based research
projects. Some class members would like to use computers in their classrooms and are considering the best way
to get started.

3. Can you identify a catalyst that caused a change in your teaching, or influenced you to consider making some
changes in the way you teach?

One person noted that his teaching hasn’t changed and no catalyst has “hit” him yet. Others reported that their
involvement with the Grassroots project and Cyberchallege has greatly influenced their teaching styles and the
way they use technology in the classroom. Those who have only taken this grad course found they were
intrigued by WebQuests and some of the activity structures proposed by Judi Harris and wanted to try these out
in their classrooms. Some teachers said that their teaching is constantly changing each time they learn about a
teaching innovation. Another said that her students’ excitement when they were introduced to projects using
computers inspired her to keep trying new and better ways to help students learn. One teacher has completely
changed her teaching style and has her students involved in project-based learning for most of the day. Others
are considering how they might have students working on computers. Others became excited about technology
because of colleagues who introduced them to it.

4. What do you see as some barriers and/or supports to implementing instructional technology in your teaching?

Some of the barriers identified included the teacher’s perceived need to “cover” the curriculum with little time
to use technology for projects or research; teachers’ reluctance to try technology because they felt they didn’t
the skills, resources or support; not enough adequate equipment; lack of time to explore the web; and not having
other like-minded teachers with whom to work.

5. Can you attribute changes to your teaching or thinking to your adoption of any particular learning theory?

Most of the class members reported that the community of learners theory has most influenced their own
thinking and practices. Many recognized that they modeled their classrooms after this notion, but didn’t realize
it until they had read about the theory. Others reported that they believed in a constructivist approach but
became aware after having taken this course, that their teaching practices were in fact, quite traditional or
teacher-centered. The graduate course helped them to see where their beliefs were not in line with their
practices. The course was helping one student ‘walk the walk, not just talk the talk’. One person said that there
had been no change in his practices.

6. How do you believe students learn? Where does technology fit with your beliefs about how students learn?

Class members agreed that students learn best when they see a purpose for what they are doing, when they are
actively involved, when they working with others, when they can try new skills and ideas and when they have a
say in decisions about their learning. Teachers who were actively using technology in classrooms with students
felt strongly that “technology is the tool with which we accomplish the curricula” and that “it needs to be an
integral part of the curriculum.” One teacher suggested one way to find out if technology is being integrated
into the curriculum: “As students are working on the computer, ask them what they are doing. If they answer
that they are checking the weather in New Zealand or collecting data on the rainforest, then technology is being
integrated. If they answer they are learning computer skills or a certain program, then technology is not being
integrated. Good test”. One teacher however, didn’t want her students to be in “awe of technology or in awe of
those technologically educated” and cautions them that “just because it has bells and whistles, doesn’t mean it is
necessary.” In other words, if something can be accomplished just as well without technology, don’t use it.

7. Critics have a lot to say about the use of technology in the classroom. How does (can) what they say influence
how or why we use technology?
 One person’s summary reflected most of the feelings of the group: “Critics can influence how we use
technology by pointing out the pitfalls. Some of what they say is valid and deserves our attention. People
‘jump-on-board’ because they see other people doing it (without thinking it through for their own purposes).
The critics force us to rethink our positions and, thus, strengthen them.” Other class members agreed that we
need to be aware of the concerns because parents and school boards will have similar concerns that we will
have to address.

8. Our theoretical framework for using technology in specific ways can change with (a) the students we teach, (b)
the subject we teach, (c) the grade level we teach, (d) our "normal" preferred theory for teaching!!! Comment.

No one responded to this question; however, it was a topic of discussion in one of our sessions. A lengthy
debate centered around the question of whether our theoretical framework guided our use of technology or
whether the use of technology in new ways changed our beliefs and practices. One teacher, for example
described how her theoretical framework and teaching style evolved when she and her students became
involved in a grassroots initiative call Cyberchalleng ’99 (Machnaik, 1999). Not having enough computers in
her classroom forced her to find other ways to provide time for all students to spend on the internet. The
challenging project and the physical realities of the classroom caused her to use a project-based curriculum in
her classroom.

As we went through the process of a) analyzing the belief systems and theoretical models with respect to each of the
commonplaces as they apply to instructional technology, b)examining frameworks for providing meaningful
learning experiences using computers and the internet, c) responding to the critics of technology, and d) discussing
our teaching practices, a clearer understanding of our own philosophies of teaching began to emerge. This in turn
led to the development of our notion of the ideal classroom where technology is a tool to enhance learning. We also
began to recognize some inappropriate uses of computers in the classroom. This, we believe, is the result of
teachers having no theoretical base to inform and guide their instruction. As well, we noted several issues that
emerged from our discussions. Our notion of the ideal classroom and the issues associated with achieving the ideal
follows.