edtech 504 final paper

Running Head: LEARNING THEORIES THAT SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY

An Examination of Learning Theories that Support Technology Integration

John M. Potosnak

Boise State University

1

LEARNING THEORIES THAT SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY

Abstract

Not all educators have embraced technology or know how to effectively integrate technology

into the curriculum. This is most likely because of a lack of knowledge or framework for

technology integration. There will always be a need for researchers to continue to develop new

learning theories for the digital era. However, just because technology is changing education

does not mean that educators need to abandon learning theories of the past. There are many

theories that have been around for years that can be adapted to support technology integration.

This paper examines how learning theories can guide educators towards efficient use of

technology. It also explores existing learning theories and explains how they can support

technology integration. The theories that are discussed include dual-coding theory (DCT),

multiple intelligences, communities of practice, and connectivism.

Keywords: technology integration, dual-coding theory, multiple intelligences,

communities of practice, connectivism

2


An Examination of Learning Theories that Support Technology Integration

Developments in technology are providing exciting opportunities for educators. Learners

are highly engaged and motivated by the use of technology in the classroom. Unfortunately,

many educators are not taking advantage of technological advantages or are using technology in

pedagogically ineffective ways (Harris, 2009). Even though a large amount of teachers have not

yet discovered a way to meaningfully integrate technology in the classroom, students frequently

use technology daily in their personal lives making traditional teaching practices less relevant to

their world (Robin, 2008). Motivating learners is a critical component for learning, and research

studies have shown that motivation and student participation increases with technology use in the

classroom (Robin, 2008).

With all of this in mind, it poses the following question: why are educators not using the

technology available or using it in ways not conducive to learning? Research has shown there is

a lack of understanding of how technology can be successfully integrated into the classroom.

According to Kadijevich (2012), “A major reason for that unfavorable state may be found in the

fact that teachers lack sophisticated knowledge to support effective technology integration” (p.

28). By examining learning theories that support technology integration and providing

frameworks for determining the technology that will guide student learning, educators will feel

more comfortable using it in the classroom.

Researchers consistently exclaim that there is a strong need for new research and theories

in the continuously evolving field of educational technology. According to Bell (2011), “It is not

surprising that as the scope of changes in learning enabled by technologies increases, so does our

need to expand the repertoire of theories and research approaches” (p. 113). While this is

3


certainly true, there are many existing theories that already support technology integration and

can also guide educators to determine what technology is most beneficial to learning.

This paper will examine four learning theories and explain how they support technology

integration. It will also offer examples of how the theory can be used with technology and how

educators can use the theory as a framework to successfully integrate technology into their

classroom. The theories that will be examined and discussed in relation to educational

technology are dual-coding theory, multiple intelligences, communities of practice, and

connectivism. With the exception of connectivim, all of these theories were developed before

the emergence of much of the technology available today but are relevant and offer strong

support of technology integration.

Dual-Coding Theory

Dual-Coding Theory (DCT) supports technology integration and helps explain how

educators can effectively use technology. Developed by Allan Paivio in 1971, the theory states

that human knowledge is constructed from the activity of two subsystems, a verbal system that

processes language and a nonverbal (imagery) system that processes nonlinguistic objects and

events (Paivio, 2006). The interconnectedness of these cognitive systems facilitates the most

learning (Wang & Shen, 2012).

Mayer and Sims (1994) conducted two experiments on multimedia and dual-coding

theory. Both experiments presented computer-based material to students. The topic for the first

experiment was how a bicycle pump works, and the topic for the second experiment was how the

human respiratory system works. The goal was to determine which group of students would

better retain the information. The material was presented to varying groups of college-aged

students in three different ways: animation and narration simultaneously, animation followed by

4


narration, and narration followed by animation. The results showed that students who were

presented the verbal and visual information concurrently performed better. Mayer and Simms

(1994) concluded the following:

These results have practical and theoretical implications. On the practical side, it seems

worthwhile for instructional designers to be alert to an instructional manipulation that has

been shown to increase transfer performance by 50% across a number of studies. Our work

signals the value of instructional materials that maximize the learner's chances of building

connections between words and pictures. Unfortunately, examples of a lack of coordination

between animation and narration can be found in educational multimedia products

currently in use (e.g., presentation of animation without simultaneous narration). (p. 400)

Almost 20 years after this study, a lot can still be learned on how technology can be used most

efficiently in the classroom.

Traditionally, educators taught material in mainly a lecture format that completely leaves

out the visual system that helps retain knowledge. In recent years, a growing trend is to use a

lecture format while displaying a PowerPoint presentation or Smart Notebook file of written

notes for students to follow. According to dual-coding theory, this is not the most effective way

to promote learning because it is still only addressing the verbal system that represents both

written and spoken language. In order to incorporate the nonverbal (imagery) system, it would

be more beneficial for students to be presented with visual representations of what is being

taught so that the two systems are working together. It could be argued that the traditional

lecture format has become outdated and the most efficient way to teach is to create multimedia

presentations using iPads or interactive whiteboards. Narrated presentations allow the students

to activate both verbal and nonverbal systems, which increases retention of what is being

5


learned. Technology is greatly changing the role of the teacher in education, and a DCT

approach supports the use of technology because it allows material to be presented in ways that

were not previously possible and can easily target both verbal and nonverbal systems. By

applying dual-coding theory and following current studies, educators can ensure that technology

and multimedia are being used in ways that will benefit the student and promote knowledge

recall.

Communities of Practice

Another theory that supports technology integration and is distinctive because technology allows

it to be used globally is called communities of practice. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002)

define communities of practice as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a

passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting

on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). The three essential components of communities of practice are the

domain, the practice, and the community. The domain or subject is the shared interest of the

members in the community. The community is the group of people who work together on

activities and share information on the domain. Lastly, the practice is developed through the

community’s contributions of experiences, joint activities, resources, and tools (Harrison, 2004).

This is an exciting idea because technology can support the theory in multiple ways.

Technology can be used to support the community, the practice, or both (Hoadley, 2012). For

example, an online discussion board or chat room that allows musicians to discuss composition

would support the community. Software like Finale or Sibelius, which allows composers to

notate their music, supports the practice. Interactive software that allows multiple composers to

compose a piece of music together at the same time would support both the community and the

practice.

6


Much of how we interact online and the nature of Web 2.0 reflects the ideas of

communities of practice. Turnbull et al. (2009) explained the following:

Web 1.0 over the last couple of decades has focused primarily on users visiting Web sites

of “experts” to read or download their content. Alternatively, Web 2.0 focuses on Web

sites that offer participation where content is created and cocreated by users in a dynamic,

collective manner. (p. 57)

With all the available and emerging technologies, there are lots of opportunities to participate in

communities of practice. Social networking sites like Twitter and Pinterest allow the user to

search for shared interests and can be used by communities to share resources. Blogs, podcasts,

and YouTube encourage people to share their experiences and allow discussions to take place

between viewers. Skype, Google hangout, and other web chatting applications permit people to

discuss information from all over the world. Wiki pages and many Google applications allow

content to be created and edited by multiple users. Wikipedia is an ultimate example of a

community of practice where “enthusiasts devoted to discussion and argument” can explore a

shared interest (O’Sullivan, 2009, p. 85). Each page on Wikipedia can be seen as its own

community of practice as multiple contributors share information and resources to inform

viewers.

Hoadley (2012) went further to explain how technology can support communities of

practice by outlining four techniques: (1) link people with others who have similar interests by

using social networks like Facebook, (2) provide a shared repository of information resources,

(3) provide tools for discussion with others, and (4) provide awareness of the context of

information of various resources. By applying these techniques, one can successfully implement

a community of practice.

7


Multiple Intelligences

Multiple intelligences theory is based on the proposal of several different intelligences

that Howard Gardner believes all human beings possess. Gardner (1989) defined intelligence as,

“The capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural

settings” (p. 5). The seven original intelligences proposed by Gardner in 1983 included

linguistic, the ability to use spoken and written language; logical-mathematical, the ability to use

logic and numerical symbols and operations; musical, the ability to use musical concepts; spatial,

the ability to manipulate three-dimensional space; bodily-kinesthetic, the ability to coordinate

physical movement; interpersonal, the ability to interact well with other people; and

intrapersonal, the ability to use one's thoughts and feelings (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner,

2006). Since then Gardner (2011) extended his theory determining there was enough evidence to

add two more intelligences: naturalistic, the ability to distinguish and categorize objects or

phenomena in nature; and existential, the ability to contemplate phenomena or questions beyond

sensory data (Moran et al., 2006). Each person’s understanding of the world is shaped by his or

her unique combination of strengths and weaknesses within these intelligences (Beliavsky,

2006).

The mobile learning applications of Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory are endless.

In the past, teacher instruction primarily addressed linguistic and logical intelligences, but that

has changed with the emergence of new technologies. Addressing multiple intelligences in the

classroom is easily made possible with the advancements in technology. Linguistic learners

would do well completing a research project using the Internet and creating a presentation with

software such as EduCreations that allows the user to narrate and display slides. Logical-

mathematical learners would be excellent at organizing data in Excel or using software to create

8


graphs to display information. Spatial learners would excel in using graphic design software to

create visuals. Musical learners would enjoy using GarageBand for creating music or a song

about a topic. Bodily-kinesthetic learners would work well with free form gestural interfaces

such as Microsoft Kinect, which is software that responds to the user’s movements.

Interpersonal learners make good leaders and would do well working socially with students via

Skype, email, or social media to organize a project. Intrapersonal learners would do well

researching on the Internet and writing a blog or creating an individual project such as a

PowerPoint presentation. Naturalistic learners could use mobile devices to document nature such

as using an iPad to take pictures, videos, or record the sounds of nature. Lastly, existentialist

learners would do well exploring the nature of technology itself. For example, they can analyze

how technology has evolved and how technology effects the world around us (McCoog 2007).

These are just a few examples of how technology can be tailored toward each type of

intelligence. Although it would be ideal for teachers to be able to teach towards each student’s

strongest intelligence, large class sizes and limited time could present many challenges. Thus,

another approach can involve presenting material that incorporates multiple types of

intelligences all at once. Using the Jigsaw method of instruction and assigning students different

material based on their strongest intelligences is one example. Project-based learning is also

effective for multiple intelligences theory because each student can complete a separate portion

of the project that corresponds with their strongest intelligences, and interpersonal learners can

serve as project leaders. By creating a group project, students could be using multiple types of

technology at once. There are many ways that technology integration is supported by multiple

intelligences theory and research on this theory will continue to grow and develop.

9


Connectivism

Connectivism is a learning theory for the digital era that was developed by George

Siemens (Starkey, 2012). Siemens (2004) outlined eight core principals of connectivism.

Tschofen and Mackness (2012) summarized the principals by stating, “Learning in connectivism

terms is a network phenomenon, influenced, aided, and enhanced by socialization, technology,

diversity, strength of ties, and context of occurrence.” Starkey (2012) further explained that

“connectivism aims to provide a theory that considers how people, organizations, and technology

can collaboratively construct knowledge” (p. 26). In simple terms, connectivism is based on the

idea that learning is achieved through the sharing and communication of ideas and information.

The theory also has a strong belief that the multiple perspectives of knowledge available in Web

2.0 contradicts existing learning theories and should therefore be abandoned and replaced with

connectivism (Clara & Barbera, 2013).

This theory is unique compared to the others discussed in this paper in that it was

developed to include emerging technologies and networks as a central focus. It relates to

communities of practice because the starting point of a connectivist approach to learning is

connecting to and providing information into a learning community (Kop & Hill, 2008). Social

networking sites, wikis, and blogs allow users to connect and learn in a connectivist approach.

According to Siemens (2004), “Within social networks, hubs are well-connected people who are

able to foster and maintain knowledge flow” (para 24).

Since connectivism is still an emerging theory, there is a lot of debate on whether it

should be considered a theory or not. However, it continues to grow in popularity and has seen

success when used to design online courses for distance education. Also, the ideas of

10


connectivim provide a helpful framework for researchers to develop new learning theories for

the digital era.

Conclusion

As the popularity of educational technology continues to grow, there is a strong need for

more research and theories on how educators can effectively integrate technology into the

classroom. New technology emerges daily at such a pace that it is hard for researchers to

concurrently develop theories and perform studies. It is becoming increasingly clear that simply

using technology in the classroom is not enough to ensure successful technology integration

(Koehler & Mishra, 2005). For technology integration to be successful, it must be based in

learning theory so that educators can be guided to effectively use technology in the classroom

and see its importance. Park (2011) stated that the most serious issue facing emerging

technology is the lack of solid theoretical frameworks to guide instructional design and assess

program quality.

Rather than discuss the ongoing need for new research to broaden the field of educational

technology, this paper seeks to look at theories that have already been established. An attempt

has been made to outline how these theories can be applied in the field of educational

technology. These are certainly not the only learning theories that can be adapted to fit the needs

of 21st century educators, and researchers are continually looking to apply existing theories to

Web 2.0 and other emerging technologies. The discussion of four learning theories—multiple

intelligences, connectivim, dual-coding theory, and communities of practice—in this paper

provide an opportunity for educators to explore how existing theories support technology

integration.

11


References

Beliavsky, N. (2006). Revisiting Vygotsky and Gardner: Realizing human potential. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 40(2), 1-11.

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in

technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 12(3), 98-118.

Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2013). Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs),

connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129-136.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770428

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications

of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (3rd ed). New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content

knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration

reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Harrison, B. (2005). A community of practice? The Toshiba Ambassadors programme. Mobile

Learning Anytime Everywhere, 101-104.

Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D. Jonassen

& S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 286-299).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Kadijevich, D. M. (2012). TPCK framework: Assessing teachers’ knowledge and designing

12


courses for their professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology,

43(1). doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01246.x

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational

technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions

of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,

86(3), 389-401.

McCoog, I. J. (2007). Integrated instruction: Multiple intelligences and technology. The

Clearing House, 25-28.

Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H., (2006). Orchestrating multiple intelligences.

Educational Leadership, 64(1), 22-27.

O’Sullivan, D. (2009). Wikipedia: A new community of practice? Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Paivio, A. (2006). Dual coding theory and education. The Conference on Pathways to Literacy

Achievement for High Poverty Children. 1-20.

Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century

classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47, 220-228. doi: 10.1080/00405840802153916

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A theory for the digital age. Retrieved from

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Starkey, L. (2012). Teaching and learning in the digital age. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience.

13


International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1).

Turnbull, A. P., Summers, J. A., Gotto, G., Stowe, M., Beauchamp, D., Klein, S., Kyzar, K.,

Turnbull, R., & Zuna, N. (2009). Fostering wisdom-based action through web 2.0

communities of practice: An example of the early childhood family support community of

practice. Infants & Young Children, 22(1), 54-62.

Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2012). Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories, human

cognition and design principals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 561-

575.

Wenger, E. W., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

14

edtech 504 final paper

Documents