![[Previous Chapter]](/icons/button-back.gif){kind=icon}
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/button-contents.gif){kind=icon}
![[Next Chapter]](/icons/button-next.gif){kind=icon}
Western society provides an environment that is both technologically rich and intellectually challenging, creating the need for individuals who can make effective use of and contribute to the vast array of information available to us (Carnevale, Gainer & Meltzer, 1994; Papert, 1993; Schlechty, 1990). The skills required to be an effective citizen of the 21st century are based largely on information management in all subject areas. We have great opportunity to facilitate learning through the appropriate application of technology, including the use of 3-D learning environments.
Much of our educational system is not well suited to meet this challenge. In some respects, teaching styles and current day classrooms mirror those found in the prairie schools of the 1800s. In addition, distribution of resources, including computer technologies, remains sadly unbalanced. This does not fairly advance our children’s opportunity to develop critical thinking, problem solving and information management skills to function well in today’s environment.
According to Mecklenburger (1993), the characteristics of an "educated person" in society today are as follows:
Because now we live in an information age and electronic networks are linking the world into a ‘global village’ (McLuhan, 1964), an educated person is one who has the ability to find what is known, then to think about what is known, to reflect upon changes in what is known, to explore, to share, to debate, to question, to compare and contrast, to solve problems, to engage in what today’s educators call ’higher order thinking skills’, and to contribute to what is known. (p. 42)
Parents, business owners and government representatives often mourn our children’s inability to meet current day intellectual and professional challenges (National Alliance for Restructuring Education, 1994; Carnevale, Gainer & Meltzer, 1994; Schlechty, 1990). Curricular reform is often proposed as the solution, particularly in the areas of science, mathematics (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990; 1993), and creative and critical thinking (Sternberg, 1988; Weisberg, 1988).
According to data collected for Project 2061, a math, science, and technology literacy reform movement, American students’ educational performance in the areas of science and math has decreased continuously since the late 1970s (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990; 1993). National (Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, 1991) and local (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1993) organizations express fear that our students are becoming less cognitively adept and less knowledgeable in a world that is becoming increasingly more complex. Students are not deriving meaning from their educational experience (Negroponte, 1995; Papert, 1993; Cunningham, 1992). Therefore, our educational system is attempting to respond to this issue through educational reforms, such as revising curriculum, establishing new learning standards, and incorporating the use of technology as an integral part of the learning process (NARE, 1996; BHEF, 1993; VRC, 1994; APA, 1992).
Our choice as educators, according to Schlechty (1990), should be to foster a love of learning in our students that will transfer from school to professional life. He says:
The ability to think and solve problems, to take the creative turn, to draw upon a rich vocabulary based on a deep understanding of language and the human condition-- these are all attributes that thoughtful business leaders will seek in the future work force. (p. 4)
If we do not change the way we come at the educational process, we will indeed maintain and support the status quo. As stated by Schlechty (1990), "if you do what you’ve always done, you get what you always got."
There are those (Zemelman, Daniels & Hyde, 1993) who feel real change is occurring at the grass roots level through Constructivist curricular reforms. Through research and discussion, this movement has developed a set of characteristics of highly effective educational environments. Zemelman, Daniels & Hyde, (1993) state:
While legislatures, blue-ribbon panels, and media sages have tinkered with the logistics of education, another quieter school reform movement has been growing. Our nations curriculum research centers, a dozen subject-matter professional associations, many capable individual researchers, and thousands of on-the-line classroom teachers have been struggling to determine what works in the different school subjects, and to clearly define best educational practice in each teaching field. These groups share a curriculum-driven view of education: they assume that if American schools are to be genuinely reformed, we must begin with a solid definition of the content of the curriculum and the classroom activities through which students may most effectively engage that content. Today, there is a strong consensus definition of best practice, of state-of-the-art teaching in every critical field. (p. 3-4)
These characteristics, summarized from a variety of sources (National Alliance for Restructuring Education, 1996; National Research Council, 1995; Vermont Restructuring Collaborative, 1994; Lewis, 1993; Bybee et al., 1989, 1991; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, 1993; Harste, 1989; Hillocks, 1986; Anderson, et al., 1985) are listed in Table 1, below. They represent a fundamental shift towards student-centered learning, incorporating all of our human aspects and abilities: intellectual, emotional, social and creative.
|
LESS EFFECTIVE |
MORE EFFECTIVE |
|
Whole class teacher directed instruction |
Experiential, inductive, hands-on learning |
|
Student passivity |
Active learning: doing, talking and collaborating |
|
Prizing and rewarding of silence in the classroom |
Emphasis on higher-order thinking using concepts and principles |
|
Classroom time devoted to seatwork |
Deep study of a smaller number of topics, utilizing inquiry and discovery techniques |
|
Time spent reading textbooks and basal readers |
Time devoted to reading whole, original, real books, and nonfiction materials |
|
Thin coverage of broad subject matter |
Responsibility transferred to students: goal-setting, monitoring and evaluation |
|
Rote memorization of facts and details |
Choice for students; topics, study partners, research projects |
|
Stress on competition and grades |
Enacting and modeling the principles of democracy |
|
Tracking or leveling of students into ‘ability groups’ |
Attention to affective needs and cognitive styles of individual students |
|
Use of special pull-out programs |
Delivery of special help to students in regular classrooms |
|
Use of and reliance on standardized tests |
Descriptive evaluation of student growth, including qualitative/anecdotal information |
|
‘Traditional’ administrator/teacher/student roles |
Varied and cooperative roles for parents, teachers and administrators |
|
Individual activities that foster isolation and competitiveness |
Cooperative, collaborative activity; developing an interdependent community |
This reform effort seeks to create an educational environment in which students take an active role in their learning process within a supportive learning community. This dissertation describes efforts to provide such an interactive, collaborative learning opportunity through the application of constructivist principles and 3-D interactive technologies in the classroom.
Constructivist educators strive to provide students with access to information "on demand". Educational technologies can be utilized to facilitate such access to information including integration of computers, multimedia software and the Internet and World Wide Web into the curriculum. By accessing information in a variety of media formats and in an interactive fashion, students can make meaningful associations through their own explorations through these different technologies.
Development and integration of multimedia in the classroom have been positive steps towards truly interactive learning (Dede, 1992; 1994, Minstrell, 1992) . However, the student is often still primarily the passive recipient of information rather than an active meaning-maker. Creating support for knowledge construction within the student is a critical component to the success of developing self-motivated, intellectually stimulated learners (Wiske, 1994; Unger, 1994; Poplin, 1991; Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Arnold, 1991).
This research was intended to provide the student with a system of accessing information and the means to create or re-create their own personal meaning from that information. It has been found that 3-D interactive environments can make a unique contribution to knowledge construction (Winn, 1995; Byrne, 1996; Merickel, 1992). By using the body in conjunction with visual and auditory perception, students are provided with a rich environment in which they can imbed and extend their understanding in an interactive fashion. In creating and experiencing a virtual world, students can attribute meaning to objects, relationships and behaviors in a way that mirrors their personal understanding, but that is not necessarily constrained by real world attributes that might limit the students’ perspective.
Virtual learning environments that are self-paced, immersive, and interactive have been found to be educative (Rose, 1996; Winn; 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997; Dede, Salzman & Loftin, 1996; Byrne, 1993, 1996; Dede, 1994; Osberg, 1994b, 1997). It is the opportunity for self-directed study that is both engaging and meaningful.
This research compares the application of constructivist principles through virtual environment development and implementation to traditional, non-constructivist practices in a middle school biology classroom. The purpose of this study was to better understand the value of constructivist practices on students’ meaning-making and knowledge construction process.
Specifically, this research is designed to answer four questions: 1) Is construction of a virtual learning environment educationally efficacious? 2) Is experiencing a virtual environment educationally efficacious? 3) Does the construction process vary in educational value from the experiencing process? 4) How does world-building and experiencing compare to a traditional educational approach?
Previous research shows that students enjoy experiencing 3-D interactive environments (Rose, 1996) and enjoy creating them as well (Winn, 1995; Byrne, 1993, 1995; Bricken & Byrne, 1992; Osberg, 1993b, 1994b). But previous research in this field is undeniably slim. This study seeks to extend the knowledge base in this area by comparing the effect of two instructional interventions within a wetlands biology curriculum: constructivist practices, including virtual environment development and experience, and traditional pedagogy.