Abstract
How to effectively integrate technology into the classroom has been a growing concern for teachers, parents, and other stakeholders within the field of secondary education. Bearing the genuine agreement with this concern the current study was undertaken to investigate the role of technology in constructivist classroom with respect to higher order learning skills namely metacognitive and cognitive style. In order to conduct the study sample of 100 students of class nine from one P.S.E.B and one C.B.S.E. school of Ferozepur City were taken. The selected students were randomly assigned to two groups. One group was considered as experimental group (which was taught by the investigator through constructivist technological approach using computers) and the other as control group (taught by regular classroom teaching). Metacognitive inventory and Group embedded figure test were adminstered to both the groups before and after the respective treatments to access the changes in their metacognitive and cognitive style respectively.The results of current investigation revealed that infusion of technology in the process of education and adoption of constructivist approach in the teaching learning process selfempowers the learners to define problems, research a wide variety of material and media, conceptualize, reason and clearly communicate their solutions using a wide range of furthering the development of higher order skills viz. metacognitive and cognitive style of the students.
Keywords: Technology, Constructivist classroom, Higher order skills, Metacognitive, Cognitive style.
ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST CLASSROOM WITH RESPECT TO HIGHER ORDER LEARNING SKILLS
Dr. Anita Dhawan^{1} and Jaspreet Kaur^{2}
^{1}Associate Professor, Dev Samaj College of Education for Women, Ferozepur City.
^{2}M.Ed. Student, Dev Samaj College of Education for Women, Ferozepur City.
[shc_shortcode class=”shc_mybox”]Published in: Contemporary Researches in Education, Edited by Dr.Asha J.V. and Naseerali M.K.[/shc_shortcode]
INTRODUCTION
Educational technologies, specifically computer and the Internet technologies, have apparently become powerful tools in the classroom as they change the way we teach and learn today. Technology integration, if done properly, can do many things to help in the process of creating more authentic learning environments and more. Many of the studies report, if the learning environment is technologically rich, it can increase selfesteem and enthusiasm for learning (Fouts, 2000). Research also has shown that technology integration increases the chance of interaction within the learning environment (Keengwe et. al., 2008).Our current educational system originated during the Industrial Revolution. It was aimed at training children to read basic material, write at a basic level, do simple mathematics, and follow directions (Burns, 1993). Now, educationalists assert that not only students need to be able to do the above but also must be able to: create, design, teach, define problems, quickly assimilate relevant data, conceptualise, reorganise information, make intuitive leaps, and work collaboratively to find solutions (Burns, 1993) and (Engle & Conant, 2002).The type of thinking processes a student needs to develop in order to accommodate changes in both the type and quantity of knowledge with which she/he will be confronted as society continues to change, go beyond the simple learning of facts and content (Raghavan & Glaser , 1995) and (Peters, 2003).
Furthermore, it is currently required that students become selfempowered learners who can define problems, research a wide variety of material and media, conceptualise, reason and clearly communicate their solutions using a wide range of media (Engle & Conant, 2002). All this is in strong contrast to merely gathering knowledge by rote learning which was more typical of earlier times(Gross, 1991) and (Mather, 2004). Hence the current process of education must aim at the development of various higher order skills namely: metacognition cognitive style, comprehension, critical thinking, problem solving, insight, context, creativity and procedural knowledge among the students. That is why pedagogies of school reform are now highly influenced by and built around the “constructivist” theories of learning, assuming the use of technology in education for active and meaningful knowledge construction. The infusion of technology in the constructivist classroom enables the learners to actively participate in classroom discussions, construct their own knowledge and arrive at solutions of various problems. This in turn helps in development of insight, problem solving and critical thinking furthering the process of development of various higher order skills.
Constructivist pedagogy as based on the belief that meaningful learning occurs when learners are actively involved in a process of meaningmaking and knowledge construction, rather than passively receiving and memorizing information (rotelearning). Learners become the meaningmakers, as they attempt to understand new ideas. As such, constructivist teaching is likely to promote critical thinking and create intrinsicallymotivated and autonomous learners. Constructivism represents a paradigm shift from education based on behaviourism to education based on cognitive theory. Fosnot (1996) has provided a recent summary of these theories and describes constructivist teaching practice. Behaviourist epistemology focuses on intelligence, domains of objectives, levels of knowledge, and reinforcement. Constructivist epistemology assumes that learners construct their own knowledge on the basis of interaction with their environment.
Research suggests that technology alone cannot effect educational change (Strommen, 1992). According to the National Council for Research, “if technology is to make a contribution to improving student learning, it must be aligned with educational practices that are most likely to achieve desired learning goals.” There appears to be a central theme within the debate of whether or not technology integration is working to enhance learning. Several researchers have suggested that technology integration combined with constructivist teaching strategies appears to be one of the most promising ways to use technology to affect learning. Constructivism and the infusion of technology in the curriculum could improve the achievement of all students in the core subject areas” (Lunenberg, 1998). Experts suggest that using technology, particularly the internet, along with constructivist strategies “advances higher level instruction, such as problem solving and increased learner control that is studentcentered” (Lunenberg, 1998). Jonassen (1999) describes constructivist technologyenriched methods as those which build knowledge resulting from activity and an effective use of technology in education.
HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF KY TERMS
Technology: Technology, however, as a distinctive phenomenon refers to the use of knowledge, materials, tools, techniques, systems, and sources of power to make life easier and better and to work more productively and efficiently.
Constructivism: Constructivist pedagogy is based on the belief that meaningful learning occurs when learners are actively involved in a process of meaningmaking and knowledge construction, rather than passively receiving and memorizing information (rotelearning).
Higher Order Skills: In this study this terms was categorized as follow:
Metacognitive: Metacognitive is knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them, metacognitive refers, among other things, to the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to cognitive object or data.
Cognitive Style: Cognitive style or “thinking style” is a term used in cognitive psychology to describe the way individuals think, perceive and remember information .The construct of field dependence (FD) and field independence (FI) manifest across a broad spectrum of cognitive processing behaviours. Specifically when interacting with stimuli, children who are FD may find it difficult to locate the information they are seeking because it becomes masked by other information within the stimulus field. Contrastingly, FI typically find it easier to recognize and select the critical information from the surrounding field (Jonassen and Grabowski, 1993).
RANDOMLY SELECTED GROUPS 
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
GROUP GGGRGROUP 
CONTROL GROUP 
PRETEST 
TAUGHT BY CONSTRUCTIVIST
TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH

PRETEST

POSTTEST 
DIFFERENCE IN PRETEST AND
POST TEST SCORES 
TAUGHT BY TRADITIONAL METHOD 
POSTTEST

DIFFERENCE IN PRETEST AND
POST TEST SCORES

COMPARED 
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE
In order to conduct the study, 9^{th} class students from one P.S.E.B and one C.B.S.E. school of Ferozepur City were taken. The selected students were randomly assigned to two groups. One group was considered as experimental group (which was taught by the investigator through constructivist technological approach using computers) and the other as control group (taught by regular classroom teaching). In total, a sample of 100 students were selected, 50 students from each school respectively.
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
For the purpose of present investigation “Randomized groups, pre test –post test design” is employed. Three variables namely technology, constructivist approach (independent variables) and higher order learning skills (dependent variable) are studied. . The higher order learning skills acquisition is checked as a difference in posttest and pretest results. The schematic layout of the study is presented in figure below:
INSTRUMENTS USED
Metacognitive Inventory: This test was developed by Dr. Punita Goyal. The inventory contains 30 items dealing with both the aspects of meatcognitive i.e knowledge of cognitive process and regulation of cognitive process. Item nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 30 deal with knowledge of cognitive processes and item nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 29 deal with regulation of cognitive processes. Each item is a statement followed by a fourpoint scale: ‘not at all’ is given a weightage of 1 point. Similarly 2, 3 and 4 points are given for markings on ‘somewhat’, ‘to a considerable extent’, and ‘very much so’ respectively. To find out the score of an individual the weightages assigned to him or her on all items are added. This sum will form the total score of the respondent. The items have arranged in a sequence according to their statistical properties. The test possesses satisfactory content validity and the value of reliability coefficient for the test is 0.82.
Group Embedded Figure TestGeft: This test was developed by Philip K.Oltman, Evelyn, Raskin and Harman A. Witkin to measure the cognitive style dimension of field independence/dependence of the sample. It has 18 complex figures and requires the subjects to locate a simple visual figure embedded within a complex one. Besides the seven simple forms (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) that have to be located, the test has three sections; first section comprised of a seven time practice test which served the purpose of providing practice to the subjects and is not to be scored, second and third sections are comprised of nine difficult figures which are arranged in ascending order of difficulty within each section.The entire resting session is of 20 min.The total number of simple forms correctly traced in second and third sections combined is the individual’s scores since the items in practice set are not scored but merely scanned to ensure that the instructions have been understood properly by the subjects. Omitted items are scored as incorrect. Those students getting 13 or above marks are indicative of field independence while those students getting 8 or below marks are denoted as field dependent. Those students getting the median scores are not included in the groups. The value of reliability coefficient for the test is 0.82.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Analysis is the process of resolving a problem in the logical sense. Analysis is a general process of breaking down a complex whole in to as many careful distinguished parts as opposed to synthesis so as derive concrete results.
The data in the current study was analysed under following headings:
Difference in the attainment scores of higher order learning skill (metacognitive) taught through routine classroom teaching and constructivist technology approach.
Table 1. Mean Difference of Metacognitive in case of P.S.E.B School Students
Pretest  Posttest  tvalue  
Control Group (P.S.E.B School)  Mean_{1 =} 91, σ_{ 1 = }8.10
_{ }N_{1 = }25, σ_{M1 = }1.62 df_{ =}24 
Mean_{2 =} 91.08, σ _{2 = }8.30
N_{2= }25, σ_{M2 = }1.66 df =24 
0.340 
r_{ =} 0.99 , σ_{D = }0.235  
Experimental group (P.S.E.B Schools)  Mean_{1 = }87, σ_{ 1 = }7.84
_{ }N_{1 = }25, σ_{M1 = }1.568 df_{ =}24 
Mean_{2 =} 98, σ _{2 = }6.92
N_{2= }25, σ_{M1 = }1.384 df =24 
10.39 
r_{ =} 0.75, σ_{D = }1.058 
Table 1 reveals that computed value of ‘t’ in case of the control group for P.S.E.B school is 0.340 which is quite small with respect to the critical values of ‘t’ for degree of freedom 24 at 5% and 1% level of significance which are 2.06 and 2.80 respectively .Hence, we conclude there is no significant difference between the pretest and post test scores of control group taught through routine classroom teaching .However in case of experimental group the computed value of ‘t’ i.e 10.39 exceeds the above mentioned critical values both at 5% and 1% level of significance indicative of the fact that in case of the experimental group taught by constructivist technological approach there is significant difference between the two set of scores and population mean on the posttest is significantly higher than the population mean on pre test .
Table 2. Mean Difference of Metacognitive in case of C.B.S.E School Students
Pretest  Posttest  tvalue  
Control Group (C.B.S.E. School)  Mean_{1 =} 94 ,σ_{ 1 = }7.63
_{ }N_{1 = }25, σ_{M1 = }1.53 df_{ =}24 
Mean_{2 =} 94.16, σ _{2 = }7.71
N_{2= }25, σ_{M2 = }1.54 df =24 
0.736 
r_{ =} 0.99, σ_{D = }0.2173  
Experimental group (C.B.S.E School)  Mean_{1 = }93, σ_{ 1 = }7.17
_{ }N_{1 = }25, σ_{M1 = }1.43 df_{ =}24 
Mean_{2 =} 98, σ _{2 = }7.66
N_{2= }25, σ_{M1 = }1.53 df =24 
6.83 
r_{ =} 0.88, σ_{D = }0.732 
Table 2 reveals that computed value of ‘t’ in case of the control group for C.B.S.E school is 0.340 which is quite small with respect to the critical values of ‘t’ for degree of freedom 24 at 5% and 1% level of significance which are 2.06 and 2.80 respectively. Hence, we conclude there is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of control group taught through routine classroom teaching .However in case of experimental group the computed value of ‘t’ i.e 6.83 exceeds the above mentioned critical values both at 5% and 1% level of significance indicative of the fact that in case of the experimental group taught by constructivist technological approach there is significant difference between the two set of scores and population mean on the posttest is significantly higher than the population mean on pretest .
Conclusions
The computed value of ‘t’ for the experimental group taught by constructivist technological approach is quite higher than the critical ‘t’ values both at 1% and 5% level of significance indicative of the fact that there is significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores and population mean on the posttest is significantly higher than the population mean on pretest. However, in case of the the control group taught by routine classroom teaching the calculated ‘t’ value is quite lower than the critical ‘t’ values both at 1% and 5% level of significance indicative of the fact that there is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest metacognitive scores. Hence, we conclude that the adoption of constructivist technological approach in classroom leads to significant improvement in higher order learning skill i.e metacognition. This provides sufficient evidence for rejection of H_{1 }i.e “There exists no difference in the attainment scores of higher order learning skill (metacognitive) taught through routine classroom teaching and constructivist technology approach.”
It may be noted from above that both in case of P.S.E.B. and C.B.S.E. school students the difference between the pretest and posttest scores is significant and population mean on the posttest is significantly higher than the population mean on pretest. Hence, we conclude that the adoption of constructivist technological approach in classroom leads to significant improvement in higher order learning skill i.e metacognition in case of both P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E board students. So, the hypothesis H_{2} that there exists no difference in the attainment of higher order learning skill (metacognitive) among P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E. schools is rejected.
Difference in the attainment scores of higher order learning skill (cognitive style) taught through routine classroom teaching and constructivist technology approach.
Table 2. Cognitive Style in P.S.E.B School Students
Control Group  Experiment Group  
Si. No.  Pretest  Posttest  S.No  Pretest  Posttest 
1.  9  13 (F.I )  1.  14 (F.I )  16 (F.I ) 
2.  14 (F.I )  15 (F.I )  2.  12  12 
3.  13 (F.I )  14 (F.I )  3.  10  14 (F.I ) 
4.  12  15 (F.I )  4.  15 (F.I )  16 (F.I ) 
5.  15(F.I )  12  5.  17 (F.I )  18 (F.I ) 
6.  16( F.I)  17 (F.I )  6.  13 (F.I )  18 (F.I ) 
7.  16 (F.I )  14 (F.I )  7.  9  15 (F.I ) 
8.  8 (F.D)  13 (F.I )  8.  11  15 (F.I ) 
9.  10  9  9.  15 (F.I )  17 (F.I ) 
10.  17 (F.I )  17 (F.I )  10.  15 (F.I )  16 (F.I ) 
11.  13 (F.I )  15 (F.I )  11.  13 (F.I )  15 (F.I ) 
12.  15 (F.I )  15 (F.I )  12.  11  14 (F.I ) 
13.  16 (F.I )  17 (F.I )  13.  15 (F.I )  17 (F.I ) 
14.  18 (F.I )  18 (F.I )  14.  18 (F.I )  18 (F.I ) 
15.  16 (F.I )  17 (F.I )  15.  17(F.I)  17 (F.I ) 
16.  12  14 (F.I )  16.  6 (F.D)  14 (F.I) 
17.  10  13 (F.I )  17.  7 (F.D)  13 (F.I ) 
18.  15 (F.I )  16 (F.I )  18.  12  15 (F.I ) 
19.  11  13 (F.I )  19.  6 (F.D)  16 (F.I) 
20.  6(F.D)  12  20.  8 (F.D)  14 (F.I ) 
21.  8 (F.D)  10  21.  5 (F.D)  13 (F.I ) 
22.  7 (F.D)  9  22.  8 (F.D)  17 (F.I) 
23.  6 (F.D)  9  23.  6 (F.D)  12 
24.  12  13 (F.I )  24.  10  13 (F.I ) 
25.  11  12  25.  13 (F.I )  14 (F.I ) 
Total  (F.I)=12
(F.D)=5 
(F.I)=18
(F.D)=0 
Total  (F.I)=11
(F.D)=7 
(F.I)=23
(F.D)=0 
Table 4. Cognitive Style in C.B.S.E. School Students
Control Group

Experiment Group  
Si. No.  Pretest  Posttest  Si. No.  Pretest  Posttest 
1.  7 (F.D)  12  1.  13 (F.I)  15 (F.I) 
2.  10  13 (F.I)  2.  14 (F.I)  16 (F.I) 
3.  8 (F.D)  13 (F.I)  3.  18 (F.I)  18 (F.I) 
4.  10  14 (F.I)  4.  16 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
5.  13 (F.I)  13 (F.I)  5.  14 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
6.  12  12  6.  8 (F.D)  13 (F.I) 
7.  15 (F.I)  16 (F.I)  7.  13 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
8.  13 (F.I)  14 (F.I)  8.  18 (F.I)  18 (F.I) 
9.  7 (F.D)  8(F.D)  9.  7 (F.D)  13 (F.I) 
10.  5 (F.D)  8 (F.D)  10.  15 (F.I)  16 (F.I) 
11.  14 (F.I)  17 (F.I)  11.  10  13 (F.I) 
12.  9  14 (F.I)  12.  12  14 (F.I) 
13.  10  14 (F.I)  13.  11  16 (F.I) 
14.  13 (F.I)  13 (F.I)  14.  8 (F.D)  17 (F.I) 
15.  14 (F.I)  15 (F.I)  15.  9  13 (F.I) 
16.  15 (F.I)  15 (F.I)  16.  15 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
17.  15 (F.I)  16 (F.I)  17.  6 (F.D)  14 (F.I) 
18.  8 (F.D)  13 (F.I)  18.  17 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
19.  18 (F.I)  18 (F.I)  19.  10  12 
20.  13 (F.I)  15 (F.I)  20.  14 (F.I)  18 (F.I) 
21.  7 (F.D)  8(F.D)  21.  7 (F.D)  13 (F.I) 
22.  13 (F.I)  14 (F.I)  22.  8 (F.D)  13 (F.I) 
23.  5 (F.D)  8(F.D)  23.  18 (F.I)  18 (F.I) 
24.  13 (F.I)  13 (F.I)  24.  12  15 (F.I) 
25.  16 (F.I)  16 (F.I)  25.  5 (F.D)  12 
Total  (F.I)=13
(F.D)=7 
(F.I)=19
(F.D)=1 
Total  (F.I)=12
(F.D)=7 
(F.I)=23
(F.D)=0 
(F.I) = Field independent (F.D) = Field Dependent
Change in cognitive style for P.S.E.B. school students
Change in cognitive style for C.B.S.E. school students
Conclusions
Table 5. Mean Difference of Metacognition between Posttest Scores of C.G and E.G both in case of P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E School Students
Category  Posttest
(Control Group) 
Posttest
(Experimental Group) 
tvalue 
P.S.E.B School  Mean_{1 =} 91.08, N_{1= }25, df _{= }48  Mean_{2 =} 98, N_{2= }25, df = 48 
3.168 
Pooled S.D = 7.80 , σ_{D = }2.184_{ }  
C.B.S.E Schools  Mean_{1 =} 94.16, N_{2= }25, df = 48  Mean_{2 =} 98, N_{2= }25, df = 48  2.084 
Pooled S.D _{=} 6.58 , σ_{D = }1.84 
Table 5 reveals that computed value of ‘t’ i.e significance of difference between post test scores of control and experimental group for P.S.E.B school is 3.168 which crosses the critical values of ‘t’ both at 5% and 1% level of significance which are 2.01 and 2.68 respectively. Similarly in case of the C.B.S.E school calculated value of ‘t’ i.e significance of difference between postest scores of control and experimental group for C.B.S.E school is 2.084 which crosses the critical values of ‘t’ at 5% level significance which are 2.01 but is smaller than critical tvalue at 1% level of significance i.e 2.68 .The result so obtained indicates that difference between posttest scores of control and experimental groups of C.B.S.E school is significant at 5% level of significance and insignificant at 1% level of significance. However, as the difference in both the cases is significant at 5% level of significance, this provides enough evidence to support the fact that the technological input in the classroom has lead to significant increase or gain in the metacognitive scores.
Table 6. Posttest Scores of Cognitive Style for C.G and E.G both in case of P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E School Students
P.S.E..B School  C.B.S.E School  
Si. No.  Posttest (C.G)  Posttest (E.G)  Si. No.  Posttest (C.G)  Posttest (E.G) 
1.  13 (F.I )  16 (F.I )  1.  12  15 (F.I) 
2.  15 (F.I )  12  2.  13 (F.I)  16 (F.I) 
3.  14 (F.I )  14 (F.I )  3.  13 (F.I)  18 (F.I) 
4.  15 (F.I )  16 (F.I )  4.  14 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
5.  12  18 (F.I )  5.  13 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
6.  17 (F.I )  18 (F.I )  6.  12  13 (F.I) 
7.  14 (F.I )  15 (F.I )  7.  16 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
8.  13 (F.I )  15 (F.I )  8.  14 (F.I)  18 (F.I) 
9.  9  17 (F.I )  9.  8(F.D)  13 (F.I) 
10.  17 (F.I )  16 (F.I )  10.  8 (F.D)  16 (F.I) 
11.  15 (F.I )  15 (F.I )  11.  17 (F.I)  13 (F.I) 
12.  15 (F.I )  14 (F.I )  12.  14 (F.I)  14 (F.I) 
13.  17 (F.I )  17 (F.I )  13.  14 (F.I)  16 (F.I) 
14.  18 (F.I )  18 (F.I )  14.  13 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
15.  17 (F.I )  17 (F.I )  15.  15 (F.I)  13 (F.I) 
16.  14 (F.I )  14 (F.I)  16.  15 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
17.  13 (F.I )  13 (F.I )  17.  16 (F.I)  14 (F.I) 
18.  16 (F.I )  15 (F.I )  18.  13 (F.I)  17 (F.I) 
19.  13 (F.I )  16 (F.I)  19.  18 (F.I)  12 
20.  12  14 (F.I )  20.  15 (F.I)  18 (F.I) 
21.  10  13 (F.I )  21.  8(F.D)  13 (F.I) 
22.  9  17 (F.I)  22.  14 (F.I)  13 (F.I) 
23.  9  12  23.  8(F.D)  18 (F.I) 
24.  13 (F.I )  13 (F.I )  24.  13 (F.I)  15 (F.I) 
25.  12  14 (F.I )  25.  16 (F.I)  12 
Total  (F.I)=18
(F.D)=0 
(F.I)=23
(F.D)=0 
Total  (F.I)=19
(F.D)=1 
(F.I)=23
(F.D)=0 
Table 6 reveals the post test scores for cognitive style both for control and experimental groups of C.B.S.E and P.S.E.B schools. It is observed from the tabulated score that in case of P.S.E.B school total number of field independent students for the control group were 18 which showed considerable improvement for experimental group being 23. Similarly, in case of C.B.S.E school total number of field independent students for the control group were 19 which showed considerable improved in the case of experimental group being 23.
Conclusion
In both the schools there is significant increase in the posttest scores of experimental group taught by constructivist technological approach , both for metacognitive and cognitive style with respect to postest scores of the control group taught by routine classroom teaching. This provides enough evidence to support the fact that the technological input in the classroom has lead to significant increase or gain in the both metacognitive and cognitive style scores. Hence, the H_{5 }viz: “There is no relationship between technological input and attainment of gain score in relation to higher order learning skills.” is rejected.
DISCUSSION
Hypothesis 1
Statistics of data show that the adoption of constructivist technological approach in classroom leads to significant improvement in higher order learning skill i.e metacognitive. Meaningful learning occurs when learners are actively involved in a process of meaningmaking and knowledge construction, rather than passively receiving and memorizing information as done in the traditional teaching. Learners taught by constructivist technological approach are selfempowered to define problems, research a wide variety of material and media, conceptualize, reason and clearly communicate their solutions using a wide range of media(Richardson, 1997) and (Schunk, 2004). This helps in active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of various processes in relation to cognitive object or data furthering the development of metacognitive. The results obtained are in tune with the findings of Ayas, Cemalettin.(2006) who asserts that powerful teaching learning that integrates technology aligned with constructivist pedagogy has the potential to move social studies education beyond meaningless facts, inadequate connections, superficial coverage of contents and passive knowledge construction. Studies carried out in university of London by Jonassen (2000) also suggests that Middle school students can acquire the necessary skills to learn science by using computer simulations. The results of current investigation were in close agreement with the similar study done by Philip (2000) which suggests that the students were encouraged to think in greater depth about the materials and to argue their convictions in an improved manner by computer simulation.
Hypothesis 2
Data reveals that that the adoption of constructivist technological approach in classroom leads to significant improvement in higher order learning skill i.e metacognitive in case of both P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E board students. Use of constructivist technological approach, through active participation of students in classroom discussion and following multisensory approach to learning equally empowers the learners both from P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E boards to become the meaningmakers, and understand new ideas which further help them to know and regulate their cognitive processes developing their metacognitive.
Hypothesis 3
Statistics of data show that there is significant improvement in the cognitive style of experimental group with respect to the the control group students. With respect to the traditional teaching the adoption of constructivist technological approach in classroom that appeals to the multiple senses of the learner and generates healthy learning environment in the classroom enables learners to actively participate in classroom discussions, construct their own knowledge and arrive at solutions of various problems (Fosnot, 1996) and (Hendry et al.,1999). This in turn help in development of Insight, Problem solving and Critical thinking which to large extent contribute to the cognitivestyle of the learner. These results so obtained are in tune with the findings of Philip (2000) who asserts that the constructivist approach to learning assumes that learning is best done by learner constructing their own understanding, developing higher order learning skills. Jonassen (2003) also arrived at similar results holding the view point that the problem solving, discovery learning, deeper insight and inductive learning are seen to constitute a general framework for the description of learning process that are involved in exploratory environments (constructivist approach).The results of present study are also in tune with the view point of Honey et. al.,(2003) who in their similar study arrived at conclusion that constructivist simulations on experimental group revealed that the experimental group demonstrated more sophisticated reasoning in other words higher order thinking skills.
Hypothesis 4
Data reveals that that the adoption of constructivist technological approach in classroom leads to significant improvement in higher order learning skill i.e cognitive style in case of both P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E board students. Adoption of constructivist technological approach in teaching rather than traditional one calls for active participation of students both from P.S.E.B and C.B.S.E schools in classroom discussions, give them opportunity to generate new ideas and come forward with innovative solutions to the novel problems that arise when the teaching –learning process continues. Moreover the curriculum requirement for both the boards is more or less the same hence the learners of class ninth of both the schools though of different boards were taught the similar content material by employing the constructivist technological approach to teaching which equally empowered them to develop insight, problem solving and critical thinking improving their cognitive or thinking style.
Hypothesis 5
Statistics of data provides enough evidence to support the fact that the technological input in the classroom has lead to significant increase or gain in the both metacognitive and cognitive style scores. With respect to the monotonous and teacher dominated environment that characterizes traditional teaching the childcentred environment generated by adopting the technological constructivist classroom act as the motivational source for the learners and create in them desire and interest to learn. The delivery of the subject material through Power point presentations loaded with variety of colourful illustrations, animations and sound clips appeals to the multiple senses of the students and enables them to correlate knowledge gained in four walls of classroom with real world outside. This helps in development of various mental faculties like memory, attention, imagination, reasoning and judgement which may further account for improvement in metacognitive and cognitivestyle.
EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
The results and findings of the study suggest that Constructivist technological approach has proved to increase the metacognitive and cognitive style of the students. These are some of higher order learning skills which are required by the learners to make them selfempowered to define problems, research a wide variety of material and media, conceptualize, reason and clearly communicate their solutions using a wide range of media. Inculcation of constructivist technological approach will make our future generations able to “use their knowledge and skills by thinking crtically, applying knowledge to the new situations, analyzing information, comprehending new ideas, communicating, collaborating, solving problems, making decisions”. The curriculum may be designed following the constructivist technology approach and after testing its initial impact, it may be made a part of present day curriculum.
Teachers should be encouraged to come out of their cacoons and orientate their teaching on the constructivist strategies. They should be receptive to the new techniques and innovative ideas in the field of teachinglearning to enrich their teaching strategies. New programmes should be organised for the teachers to give them training for the use of constructivist technology. Old myths of teachers regarding low level of attainment of P.S.E.B than C.B.S.E. students should be clarified. The low level of achievement of the students is not due to incapability of student but due to the traditional styles of teaching of the teachers.
Heads of the institutions should show an attitude of cooperation to an innovative teacher who wishes to use technology enriched environment that appeals to multisensory channels of pupil to provide them wide variety of experiences and knowledge. They should not only be concerned with the academic results of their students that can earn laurels to the institution but should make their students creative, original thinkers and problem solvers.
Parents of the children need to be technologyminded and need to understand the relevance of technology enriched environment in education of their child. They shouldmake available the necessary electronic gadget including computers and internet facility at the disposal of their child, so that he no more gets yesterdays education in the modern world of today. However, the parents of the children need to maintain the check that the technology is relevantly used by the children for the purpose of education and not for unnecessary entertainment.
The societal educational resources need to be reconstituted on the technological lines. In the community libraries, necessary provisions of computers along with the internet facilities need to be made so that learners from every strata of society are not devoid of fruits of quality knowledge and experiences that can self empower them to be creative, original thinkers and problem solvers.
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FURTHER STUDY
The present study was restricted to 100 students only of Ferozepur city. In further studies, a large sample from the large area encompassing entire state and even entire nation can taken to get more valid and reliable results.It was also restricted to the students of class 9^{th }only. It is suggested that similar study can be conducted on students from primary to senior secondary classes. In the present study only two higher order learning skills (metacognition and cognitive style) were taken in consideration. Same study can be conducted taking more of the higher order skills (comprehension, critical thinking, problem solving, insight etc) under investigation.
REFERENCES
Ayas, Cemalettin.(2006). An examination of the relationship between the integration of Technology into social studies and constructivist pedagogies. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 5,13036521.
Burns, S. (1993). Great lies we live by. Ultimo, NSW: Bramley Press.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learner’s classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399483.
Fosnot Twomey, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. 833. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fouts, J. T. (2000). Research on computers and education: Past, present and future. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Gross, R. (1991). Peak learning: How to create your own lifelong program for personal enjoyment and professional success. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
Honey, M., Mandinach, E., & McMillan, K. C. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.
Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Jonassen , H. David and Barbara L. Grabowski (1993). Field dependence and field independence (global vs. articulated style). In Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdal, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2 Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/PrenticeHall.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Merrill/PrenticeHall.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). The use of computer tools to support meaningful learning. AACE Journal, 16 (1), 7792.
Lunenberg, F.C. (1998).Constructivism and technology: Instructional designs for successful education reform. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 25(2), 7582.
Mather, A. (2004). The art of ‘failing forward’: Learning habits for resilient thinking. The Queensland Education Magazine, Term 3, 1517.
Phillips, D. (2000). An opinionated account of the constructivist landscape. In D.C. Phillips.
Raghavan, K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Modelbased analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education. 79, 3761.
Richardson, V. (1997). “Constructivist Teaching and Teacher Education: Theory and Practice.” In Constructivist Teacher Education: Building a World of New Understandings, ed. V. Richardson, p. 3–14. Bristol, Pa.: Falmer Press.
Richardson,V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623 1640.
Strommen, E.E., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society. 24(4), 466476.
Sir plz add more topics related to psychology and information technology
Surely, more topics will be added..
you may also share contents