Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 397–412 | Cite as

Constructivist research in educational technology: A retrospective view and future prospects

  • Inae Kang
  • Jeong-Im Choi
  • Kyungwon Chang


Along with a socially urgent impetus for revolutionary reform of an educational environment appropriate to the 21st century society, constructivism is highlighted in various fields related to education as an alternative educational ideology and approach. Despite its radical shift from traditional learning environments, and the diverse interpretation and understanding among scholars on the nature of constructivism, constructivism surely has brought out meaningful changes and developments in understanding how people learn. In light of this context, the present study aims to retrospectively review the last decade of constructivism, which will be followed by a brief prospective on its future in the next decade, simultaneously taking into account expectations as to how constructivism can stand firm as a theoretical basis for the digital age.

Key words

constructivism constructivist research constructivism in Korea 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banathy, B. (2003). Dialogue: The method of choice in collective communication.Educational Technology, 43(2), 11–18.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S. (2004). Using design to advance learning theory, or using learning theory to advance design.Educational Technology, 44(3), 16–19.Google Scholar
  3. Barabasi, A. (2002).Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2002).Brain literacy for psychologists and educators. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bork, A. (2000). Learning technology.EDUCAUSE Review,January/February, 74–85.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, L. (2003). Smarter, simpler, social: An introduction to online social software methodology. Retrieved May 30, 2005, from archieve/sss2.html.Google Scholar
  7. Caine, G., & Caine R. (2001).The brain, education and the competitive edge. MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  8. Choi, J. (1996). The effects of contextualization and complexity of situation on learning achievement, attitude and transfer Focused on Mathematics problemsolving.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 213–230.Google Scholar
  9. Choi, J. (1998). Understanding the studies of constructivism.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 385- 400.Google Scholar
  10. Choi, W., & Jeon, K. (2002). Effects of problem based learning with internet on information literacy and retention by achievement levels.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 18(3), 109–131.Google Scholar
  11. Choi, W., & Kim, M. (2003). Effects of an instructional model for academic controversies in problem based learning utilizing internet on balanced critical thinking skill.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 19(3), 261–283.Google Scholar
  12. Choi, W., & Sung, E. (2004). An Instructional model of problem based inquiry learning with internet.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4), 147–183.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. Danish Technological Institute. (2005).Future trends in elearning technologies. Retrieved July 5, 2005, from Scholar
  14. Down, S. (2005).E-learning 2.0. Retrieved February 23, 2005, from 31741Google Scholar
  15. Duffy, T. (2004). Theory and the design of learning environments: Reflections on differences in disciplinary focus.Educational Technology, 44(3), 13–15.Google Scholar
  16. Elijl, P., & Pilot, A. (2003). Using a virtual learning environment in collaborative learning: Criteria for Success.Educational Technology, 43(2), 54–56.Google Scholar
  17. Ernest, P. (1995). The one and the many. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.),Constructivism in education (pp. 459–486). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Fosnot, C. T. (1984). Media and technology in education: A constructivist view.ETR&D, 32(4),195–205.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, H. (1993).Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, N., & Driscoll, M. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study,ETR&D, 50(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glasser, W. (1990).The quality school. NJ: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  22. Honebein, P. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. Wilson,Constructivist learning environments (pp. 17–24). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Jo, E. (2000). International cooperative project-based learning using internet web board for designing anchored instruction in Korean elementary classroom.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 247- 266.Google Scholar
  24. Jo, M., & Lee, Y. (1994). A master plan of instructional design based on cognitive apprenticeship.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 147–161.Google Scholar
  25. Jo, M. (1999). Types and steps of the utilization of the project-based learning approach using the internet(NetPBL).Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 3–27.Google Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D. (1991a). Evaluating constructivist learing,Educational Technology, 36(9), 28–33.Google Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?,ETR&D, 39(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kang, E., & Lee, W. (2000). The effects of web-based virtual discussion environments on the change of learner’s multiple perspectives using a collaborative decision-making model in social studies.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 3–27.Google Scholar
  29. Kang, I., & Kim, S. (1998). An instructional design and implementation by PBL: A case study of social studies in an elementary school classroom.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2).Google Scholar
  30. Kang, I. (1995a). A brief reflection on cognitive and social constructivism.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 3–20.Google Scholar
  31. Kang, I. (1995b). The constructivist principles and the design of instruction: A case study of an associate instructor training program.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1). 25–45.Google Scholar
  32. Kang, M., & Han, Y. (2000). The effects of inquiry training model on the inquiry skill and task performance in the resource-based learning environment.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2). 3–18.Google Scholar
  33. Kang, O. (2001). Developing an inquiry based linguistics class in web-based Learning.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1). 37–55.Google Scholar
  34. Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world.Proceedings of IEEE International workshop on wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. Vaxjo,Sweden: IEEE Computer Society, 95–98. Google Scholar
  35. Kolodner, J. (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, future.Educational Technology, 44(3), 34–39.Google Scholar
  36. Koschmann, T. (2004). The learning sciences: What’s in a name?Educational Technology, 44(3), 26–2.Google Scholar
  37. Kwon, H. (2000). Learning effectiveness of adaptive webbased instruction.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 16(4), 23–50.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, I. (1997). How medical students adapt learning strategies to problem-based learning by.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 241–261.Google Scholar
  39. Lee, J. (1996). A goal-based scenario in business training, the theory and the practice: A case study of a consultant training methodology at Andersen Consulting Andersen Consulting.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 231–248.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, K. (1994). A responsive constructivist evaluation: An alternative to the objective evaluation models.Korean Journal of Educational Research, 32(1).Google Scholar
  41. Lee, S., & Kim, D. (2003). The effects of collaborative reflection-supporting tools on problem solving performance and process in computer supported collaborative learning environments.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 131–159.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, S. (2003). The effects of individual and collaborative reflection on cognitive structures and inter subjectivity in web based and face to face learning environments.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 19(4), 55- 73.Google Scholar
  43. Lim, B. (2003). Experiences of college students in online inquiry based learning environment: Implications for design of inquiry on the web.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 19(3), 69–99.Google Scholar
  44. Lim, C. (1998). Formative research on Problem-Solving Scenario as an instructional and learning environment design model.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 137–165.Google Scholar
  45. Lim, J., Lim, B., Choi, S., & Kim. S. (2004). A study on the development of community based project learning models combined with blended learning approach in k- 12 setting.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3), 101–133.Google Scholar
  46. Mahoney, M. (2004). What is constructivism and why is it growing?Contemporary Psychology, 49, 360–363.Google Scholar
  47. Maltz, L., Deblois, P., & the EDUCAUSE current issues committee. (2005). Top ten IT 2005. EDUCAUSE Review,May/June, 15–28. Retrieved July 7, 2005, from http://www. Scholar
  48. Mellon, C. (2003). From need to ownership: socialization into online teaching.Educational Technology, 43(2), 47–50.Google Scholar
  49. Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2005).Literature review in mobiletechnologies and learning. A Report for NESTA Futurelab. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from research/lit_reviews.htm.Google Scholar
  50. Nasseh, B. (2001).Internet-generation & adult learners will create major challenges for higher education institutions in the 21st Century. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from html.Google Scholar
  51. Park, E., & Kang, E. (2003). The analysis of knowledge construction process in a web based learning environment for the gifted in mathematics.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2).Google Scholar
  52. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004).Learning for the 21st Century: A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Retrieved July 30, 2005, from http://www. ort.pdfGoogle Scholar
  53. Reigeluth, C., & Beatty, B. (2003). Why children are left behind and what we can do about it.Educational Technology, 43(5), 24–32.Google Scholar
  54. Schutt, M. (2003). Scaffolding for online learning environments: Instructional design strategies that provide online learner support.Educational Technology, 43(6), 28–35.Google Scholar
  55. Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002).Scientific research in education. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  56. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs.Educational Technology, 43(6), 51–54.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, B. (2004). Instructional systems and learning sciences: When universes collide.Educational Technology, 43(6), 20–25.Google Scholar
  58. Spitzer, D. (2003). Lessons learned: 20 keys to successful training and performance improvement.Educational Technology, 43(4), 50–53.Google Scholar
  59. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http:// This paper has been viewed 57,496 times since 6/7/01.Google Scholar
  60. Strandvall, T. (2003).Online education in the future trends and technologies for e-learning. Paper presented at the Boldic online conference. October 27 to November 21, Norway. Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.elearnit. fi/tommy/tommy_paper.html.Google Scholar
  61. Suter, V., Alexander, B., Kaplan, P. (2005). Social software and the future of conferences right now.EDUCAUSE review, January/February, 47–59.Google Scholar
  62. Sylwester, R. (1993). What the biology of the brain tells us about learning.Educational leadership, December. Google Scholar
  63. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). (1995).Constructivism in education (pp. 3–16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  64. Vygotsky, L. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wight, A. (1970). Participative education and the inevitable revolution,Journal of Creative Behaviour, 4(4), 234- 282.Google Scholar
  66. Winn, W. (2003). Beyond constructivism: A return to science-based research and practice in educational technology.Educational Technology, 43(6), 5–14.Google Scholar
  67. Winne, W., & Windschitl, M. (2001). Learning in artificial environments.Cybernetics and Human knowing, 8(3),5–23. Google Scholar
  68. You, Y. (1994). Trends and issues in the field of instructional systems design: Paradigm shift and its implications for theoretical practice.Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 3–43.Google Scholar
  69. Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.ETR&D, 41(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Graduate School of EducationKyunghee UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Education Technology, College of EducationKwandong UniversityKorea
  3. 3.Center for Teaching and LearningKyunghee UniversityKorea

Personalised recommendations