Tech+Tools+-+Solvie+and+Kloek

Done by: Matthew Perez, Thao Nguyen, Keeley McCormack, Courtney Bell, Zainab NazarKhan
 * Using Technology Tools to Engage Students with Multiple Learning Styles in a Constructivist Learning Environment ** Pamela Solvie and Molly Kloek

toc =Introduction=

This article discusses the use of technology tools as a means to support constructivist learning experiences. It specifically investigates the use of these tools in a pre-service teacher education reading methods course.

Pre-service teachers are expected to be both teachers and learners (they are also known as student teachers). Inside university classrooms, they are required to learn theory, content, and methods that will help them become good teachers. Part of their experience as pre-service teachers include observing other teaching models. Through this experience, they will develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions that will guide their teaching in an elementary and/or secondary classroom.
 * What are Pre-Service Teachers?**

This study involves having a reading methods course. This course is meant to prepare pre-service teachers to teach elementary school childreen how to read. The instructor of this course wanted these pre-service teachers to be able to connect to the content as they explored theory and practical application of reading instructional strategies. In order to do this, the instructor used technology tools, that were supported by a project at the University of Minnesota which was funded by the Archibald Bush Foundation Grant, to address the learning preferences of these pre-service teachers and create a constructivist setting. These technology tools included discussion boards, wikis, and course Web pages.
 * Context of this study**

The participants for this study were the students (pre-service teachers) enrolled in 2 sections of a 16-week-long reading methods course. 27 were females and 3 were male, with 6% diversity. Both sections were treated equally throughout the study.
 * Participants**

=Background for the Study=

The goals for this study included the creation of a constructivist learning environment that targeted learning styles in the presentation and understanding of content. Goals also included provisions for pre-service teachers to construct knowledge of theory and instructional strategies, reflect on content and pedagogical practices, and articulate their knowledge and understanding to and with others in their course.

The findings of this study, which relate to technology-enhanced learning experiences and student self-efficacy, may prove useful to other instructors. The generalizability of these findings may be limited due to research limitations in this study, like sample size, lack of control group, and variables present in terms of the number of technology-assisted and unassisted activities/assignments in this study.

=Theoretical Framework= This project draws on research of three theoretical fameworks:

1) Constructivism
This theory refers to bodies of knowledge built up over time and influenced by politics, ideologies, values, and power structures that work to preserve this knowledge. Another way of looking at this theory is by the social construction of knowledge, as well as the knowledge of the external world. Constructivist learning environments are established with the belief that learner control or autonomy is important in the learning process. The instructor does have a role in the environment; but, rather than being in control, they serve as a coach or expert guide leading and scaffolding their students' learning in the construction of knowledge. Students in the environment are meant to help shape and reshape knowledge, social relations, and identities.

So, in this study, pre-service teachers consider material presented to them (external bodies of knowledge) and construct meanings and understandings, as they reflect on and make sense of what they have experienced; thus, creating knowledge, not just acquiring it. This involves them making connections to prior knowledge, viewing materials from multiple perspectives, and adding to an existing schema.

2) Learning Style Theory
Knowledge of learning styles, or the ways students prefer to grasp and process information, is used to plan and scoffold students' work in a constructivist setting. David A. Kolb's Cognitive Learning Style Model was mainly used in this study because it is closely related to constructivism and has roots in experiential learning, which is the interaction between the learner and the environment. With regards to experiential learning, viewing learning as a process and not a product, developing inquiry skills, acquiring knowledge as opposed to memorizing, and applying knowledge and skills in the context of relevant settings are key components.

A learning style model associated with Kolb's theory points out that learners go through a cycle of 4 stages in the learning process: Concrete experience, Reflective observation, Abstract conceptualization, and Active experimentation. Discussion Question: http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/CyRWP6EgVIao4lz

As a group, discuss why you think it is (or is not) important to know your own learning style.

3) Technology Integration in Education
Technology aligned to learning styles has been used to engage students and support learning. It extends learning by providing "learning by doing" or "learning by seeing" experiences. Additionally, it provides different alternatives for students to contribute, respond to, and demonstrate understanding of content. By using technology tools, like video and audio clips, Simple Machines Forum discussion boards, wikis, Powerpoint, SMARTBoard and SMARTNotebook software, Inspiration, and a course Web page, instructors are able to create a constructivist setting that shapes, models, extends, scaffolds, and clarifies learning.

=Methodology=

Since this research study was an inquiry into the connections between technology tools and construction of knowledge in a methods course, this study looked into the following connections: 1) Would technology-enhanced learning experiences, aligned to learning styles of students, support a constructivist setting and students' understanding of course content? 2) To what extent do students understand and use knowledge of learning styles and technology tools to guide their own learning as they construct knowledge? 3) What are the affordances of particular technology tools for particular learning experiences (psychological and/or sociological constructs)?

Researchers used a single-group design for this study, where 30 pre-service teachers in the reading course volunteered to participate. The teachers engaged in individual and group activities inside and outside of class, making use of technology tools, and completed individual and group assignments to fulfill course requirements. The collected data was focused on the teachers' learning style preferences, use of technology tools, and student performance in the class.

Selection of Technology Tools: Cognitive and Social Expectations and Affordances of Technology Tools
Electronic resources and their connection to Social and Cultural literacy practices influenced selection of tools for each mode of Kolb’s model of learning styles:  1) Concrete Experience (Feeling)  2) Abstract Conceptualization (Watching)  3) Reflective Observation (Thinking)  4) Active Experimentation (Doing)

According to Cormack and Comber, Cultural literacy:“[...] adds to our understanding of literacy by switching the focus to the ways in which individuals, groups, communities and societies put literate practices to work,”(2002). Additionally, Brian Street (1995) emphasized how significant social and material conditions are in determining the significance of a particular form of communication. Because of this, technology tools were chosen to influence social interaction, communication and cognitive development within the constructivist classroom.


 * Technology Tools for the Constructivist Classroom Based On: **
 * 1) Medium (tool)
 * 2) Mode (Type of learning from Kolb’s Model)
 * 3) Discursive Practice (Group Size and In Class or Online)
 * 4) Support (Instructor, Peers, Resources)
 * 5) Subjectivity (Relations of Power, Choice, Visibility)

Constructivism and Concrete Experiences
In this study, several concrete experiences were planned in order to provide background in authentic learning contexts. Cognitively, students were expected to acquire information related to **literacy development, reading instructional practices**, and **decision-making in the classroom.** Additionally, social expectations were **sharing knowledge within the group, models on video clips, and presenting examples of reading instructional practice.**
 * *FEELING* **

Because the Concrete mode of Kolb’s involves active involvement with materials, students constructed knowledge using a SMARTBoard (electronic whiteboard), use of audio clips on a course Web Page, and video clips.

Within this study, students used the SMARTBoard to view and discuss model lessons within their course as well as fill in the model lessons as if they were the elementary students. Factors such as fonts, colors, and shapes on the SMARTBoards offered support in the learning process as well as visual stimulation. Additionally, video clips were used to view and analyze lessons (Harris, Reutzel, & Cooper, 2004; InTime,1999).

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Model lessons presented on the SMARTBoards were designed to allow preservice teachers in the study to construct their own knowledge. After viewing SMARTBoard lessons and audio clips, students would hold discussions in small groups and then share out their thoughts to the entire class. Because the students socially constructed knowledge, they were able to determine effective and less effective teaching behaviors.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In terms of content for the preservice classroom, the instructor used audio clips for instruction on phonemic awareness, phonics, and reading assessments. The instructor also used text documents with graphemes as an additional visual aid and scaffolding.

Constructivism and Reflective Observations
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Cognitive expectations for students in reflecting involved encouraging students to think about their own thinking as it concerned literacy development. Students were expected to look at information from different perspectives using the aid of concept maps--providing a broad overview of topics. Furthermore, concept maps assisted both students needing to see the big picture and those needing to see details, thus both needs were met.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">*REFLECTING* **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Additionally, students collaborated with each other to create a Wiki document as a means of presenting information on six different approaches to reading instruction. Concept maps created by students were included in the Wiki, ultimately aiding their individual knowledge as well as a social construction of knowledge in smaller groups.

Constructivism and Abstract Conceptualization


<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">For abstract conceptualization, students were expected to obtain information from authoritative sources, use research and methods, and engage in reading of theory. To aid this process, students were supported with a Web Page that contained resources for research and review. The professor used PowerPoint and SMARTNotebook presentation software to model lessons and focus discussions. This information could then be accessed through the course Web page, including hyperlinks to additional information. While some of the information on the Web page was required, others were accessible so students could construct knowledge as they pleased.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">*WATCHING* **

Constructivism and Active Experimentation
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">For active experimentation, students take learner control in bringing pieces of their learning together in order to problem solve and apply it to new settings. In this study, the preservice teachers demonstrated their knowledge and skills, redesigned information, and spoke about their work. In alignment with active experimentation, students used technologies such as iMovie to illustrate their work related to literacy development. Additionally, students used audio clips to discuss fluent reading. SMARTBoard, SMARTNotebook and PowerPoint were used as technology tools in presenting their knowledge of literacy development. In presenting information via these technologies, students were able to get feedback from their peers and prompt discussion that provided direction as well as feedback regarding their projects. In order to make instructional decisions regarding children’s reading development, preservice teachers utilized discussion boards to collaborate with their peers and share ideas.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">*DOING* **

=Data Collection=

On the first day of class, the pre-service teachers completed a learning style inventory, which placed them into one of the four categories from Kolb’s Model based on their preferred way of learning: Concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, and reflective observation. The data collected over the course of the study was then pulled from six different activities: 1) Raw scores from the learning style inventory 2) Scores on four course exams a. The exams were comprehensive short answer and essay assessments 3) A reading and writing analysis project a. Required students to collect raw data on one elementary student’s reading and writing progress and to analyze the data, as well as to make recommendations for the student’s future education 4) A literacy PowerPoint Project a. Required students to use text, audio and video to create a PowerPoint presentation on literacy development and effective instructional practices 5) Scores from discussion board posts 6) And two 5-point Likert Scale Questionnaire (Mid-semester and End-of-Semester) a. The Likert Scale questionnaires gives four open-ended questions that allowed the students to reflect on what technology tools they felt were and were not affective in supporting their construction of knowledge, and what they think should be changed or continued in the course. b. It used a rating scale of 1-5 with 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = not sure, and 5 = strongly agree similar to the graphic depicted below

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Analysis of Data
While the raw scored from the learning style inventory was used to reveal the teaching students’ preferred learning style, the other five activities were used to provide information on the students’ preferences for multiple learning styles. The scores from each of these activities were plotted along Kolb’s model of concrete/abstract and active/reflective as well.

Based on their placement on the model and a k-means cluster analysis, the students were grouped into one of three different “clusters” in two areas: learning style and performance.

**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Learning Style Clusters: **

 * Cluster #1 – held nineteen students who scored high on active experimentation, average on abstract conceptualization and concrete experience and low on reflective observation
 * Cluster #2 – held six students who scored high on reflective observation, average on abstract conceptualization and concrete experience and low on active experimentation
 * Cluster #3 – held five students who scored high on reflective observation and abstract conceptualization and low on active experimentation and concrete experience

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Performance Clusters:

 * Cluster #1 – the high-achieving cluster which held nineteen students who had high or average scores
 * Cluster #2 – the average achieving cluster which held eight students who had average or low scores
 * Cluster #3 – the low-achieving cluster which held three students who had low scores on everything but the PowerPoint presentation score, which was average

After generating the k-means cluster scores, a t-test was run using the performance “cluster” scores and the preferred learning style scores. This test showed that:
 * The High-Achieving group did not have strong learning style preferences and therefore had strengths in more than one learning style performed better on the four exams and the reading and writing analysis project and the literacy PowerPoint project
 * The Average Achievement group had slight learning style preference
 * The Low-Achieving group had the strongest learning style preference and therefore the most rigid learning style preferences had the worst on the four exams and the reading and writing analysis project and the literacy PowerPoint project

=Technology Tools for Construction of Knowledge= The results of the study is that students' perceptions of how technology tools support their learning style varied. Perception on whether technology helped the student understand the course content also varied. (see Table 2 below)

During the questionnaire, students were given the option to write their own comments on the use of technology in the classroom and about their own learning styles. What the researchers found is that an overwhelming amount of students wrote about video clips and modeling. They felt that these two uses of technology were helpful in understanding course content. The comments did not reflect their own learning styles. Some comments reflected on the use of visuals, of seeing the models being used, while others emphasized the analysis of the video clips.

Cluster 1 -- n = 19 “active experimentation” Cluster 2 -- n = 6 “reflective observation” Cluster 3 -- n = 5 “reflective observation/abstract conceptualization”

=Disucssion: Tying Learning Styles, Technology Tools, and Constructivism Together=

The Match/Mismatch Between Claims About Technology and Learning Styles in Constructivist Settings
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">There were no preferences of individual technology tools with each cluster of students; however, there was a general consensus that technology did help them in constructing knowledge. Preference of an individual technology tool to match the learning style was not indicated through the Likert scale, but the characteristic of the tool and the learning style was indicated through the questionnaire.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The students were required to use the technology outside of class for assignments and activities. When using these technologies outside of the classroom, it was shown that the students used tools in the manner that their instructor used them. The way in which the instructor structured the technology is the same way the students structured it when at home working on assignments for the class.

==<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> Expanding Learners’ Expectations From Rigid to Flexible Stances==

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">When using the technology inside and outside of the class, the preservice teachers were able to use tools for both learning and teaching. They learned that students with multiple styles of learning were able to benefit the most from the different tools used in their classes. The students that were most flexible were able to construct more knowledge.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The students relied on metacognition throughout the course. They were forced to think about how they learn best by identifying their own personal learning styles and using different technological tools and other students to help construct their knowledge. The preservice teachers were also able to connect their own learning to their future teaching. They made connections to the technology they use in their preservice class and were able to devise ideas about how to use them in their future classes.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Conscious awareness and control over what is being learned” is important in the <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">construction of knowledge (Solvie and Kloek). In other words, research showed that these activities allowed students to view their learning from different angles and perspectives. Their ability to be aware of varying perspectives and to control their own learning resulted in further knowledge construction.

Student and Instructor Roles in Technology-Enhanced Constructivist Classrooms
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Understanding what is being learned as well as how learning takes place is also necessary for students to develop agency (ability to learn through active participation and thinking). Metacognition, reflection, and assimilation of knowledge when using these technological tools pushed students to learn not only the content, but the ways in which they were learning.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> The instructor provides tools and resources to support learning and also alters planned experience to address learning needs of students. However, more should be done to help students understand specific cognitive and social demands of tools and tasks in relation to learning modes associated with varying learning styles. Kloek and Solvie urge pre-service teachers to teach students to develop the ability to acclimate to new learning situations or contexts in order to better construct knowledge. Teachers should release support and encourage students to become responsible for their own learning.

=Conclusion and Recommendations=

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The construct of knowledge of literacy development and instructional practices led students to codefine social practices and valid learning for themselves as a group in the context of the content. Based on the research, student behavior and motivation heavily affected their ability to work together and actively observe and critique their learning. Also, teacher’s monitoring also influenced particular responses while hindering others.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Solvie and Kloek also urge preservice teachers to change teaching strategies and methods to address students’ learning styles and helping them to develop the ability to acclimate to new learning tools, situations, and contexts utilizing necessary skills to construct knowledge.

= = =Citations= 1. Solvie, P. and Kloek, M. (2007) Using Technology Tools to Engage Students with Multiple Learning Styles in a Constructivist Learning Environment. EEE. Retrieved July 7, 2013, from [|EEE: Ed 240 Class] 2. Student Teaching Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [] 3. Constructivism Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [] 4. Kolb's Learning Style and Experiential Learning Model Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [] 5. Students Using Computers Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [] 6. SmartBoard Tutorial Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [] 7. Powerpoint Sleeping Pill Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [] 8. Untitled Likert Scale Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [] 9. Untitled K-Means Cluster Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [|www.mathworks.com/help/stats/kmeans.html] 10. Table 2. Technology Tools as Support for Construction of Knowledge Table. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [|EEE: Ed 240 Class] 11. Frog Metacog Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from [|Frog Metacog Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from http://unh-ed604.wikispaces.com/Metacognition] 12. Teacher and Kid at Computer Image. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from []

<span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: -40px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: 3326.5px; width: 1px;">