Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE

Project Proposal: Designing a Constructivist Module for an Online High School Biology Class

Dy Chen, SN 37264009 Peggy Lawson, SN 18568097 Doug Smith, SN 40766883 University of British Columbia ETEC 510: Design of Technology Supported Learning Environments

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE Key Frameworks The purpose of our design project is to develop an online learning module for human genetics for a high school biology class, based on constructivist pedagogical principles. High school science classes have traditionally been very teacher-centered with teachers as the expert providers of knowledge and students as the mostly passive absorbers of knowledge. Science

education often faces criticism due to its strong focus on knowledge acquisition at the expense of building the foundation and skills needed for lifelong learning (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011). As reported by Logan & Skamp (2008), students attitudes, interests and motivation in science tend to decline as they enter high school for a variety of reasons including excessive note taking and lecture; a paucity of student-centered instruction; lack of time for practical work, discussions and debate of contemporary issues; and a perceived lack of relevance to students lives. Interestingly, Dearing (as cited in Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003) showed that while science in society is viewed as positive, the views for school science are negative. This suggests that science education is not providing a positive experience for students. Current educational trends are challenging this notion, and there is a gradual but powerful movement toward a learner-centered pedagogy. The implications of these studies indicate that in order to promote motivation for science learning and to achieve meaningful learning, there is a need to make content relevant and provide student-centered instruction that allows for more student-to-student interactions and active learning rather than the traditional transmission style of teaching. In response to these challenges seen in science education, the constructivist principles guiding our module design are based on meaningful learning in a social and cultural setting. Vygotskys work on developmental learning will be reflected in the design, as will Piagets pioneering work on

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE

constructivism. Furthermore, Ausubels theories on meaningful learning will be incorporated by the projects promotion of collaboration and subsumption of ideas. We propose to integrate these theories by promoting a knowledge building community with an emphasis on the student communitys collective knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). In order to enhance student motivation, anchored instruction and inquiry will be used. Anchored instruction, a type of practice field, creates scenarios that incorporate activities which learners will encounter outside of school (Barab & Duffy, 2000). Practice fields are similar to Problem Based Learning (PBL), which has been shown to promote intrinsic motivation (HmeloSilver, 2004). Scientific inquiry allows for learners to structure their understanding by connecting their background knowledge with newer information (Tan, Yeo, & Lim, 2005) and can be considered a part of meaningful learning. These instructional methodologies will be central to our human genetics project as choice and freedom afforded by constructivism and knowledge building acts as motivators for adolescents. The functional design of this project will be aided by the use of Dick and Careys (1990) systems approach model, which allows for targeted treatment of our set goals in instructional design. The components of the systems approach model begins with assessing the needs to set up goals, conduct instructional analysis, analyze learner needs, write performance objectives, develop instructional instruments, materials and strategies, and design formative and summative assessments. It is important to note that the intentional embedding of assessment in instructional design, as promoted by this model, is seen as being an important component of the project. Assessment for learning and formative assessment drives student learning (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004) and research shows that embedding formative assessment can lead to improved student outcomes (Shavelson et al., 2008).

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE Creative thinking and engaging students in real-world issues will be promoted by wrapping the specific learning outcomes around a selection of problem-based scenarios involving current, real-life issues. The use of collaborative web-based tools such as discussion boards, wikis, shared online documents, mind-mapping/presentation tools will supplement the use of a learning management system, Moodle, and other online content, including but not

limited to online simulations of laboratory activities. The module will be structured to require cooperative knowledge building in order to answer the problem scenarios. Expectations will be for frequent group contact on the order of three to four times per week. Options will be provided for both formative and summative assessments, allowing for individualized student demonstrations of knowledge gained.

The Curriculum Problem An oft-heard complaint of high school science teachers in Saskatchewan (and elsewhere in North America), consistent with Logan & Skamps (2008) findings, is of a content-heavy curriculum full of facts and figures. In order to address all of the course content in the available time, teacher-centered instruction in the form of lectures is often seen as the most efficient way to deliver content. Such content-heavy curriculum emphasizes the absorption of specific pieces of information by the student, with a skillful teacher aiding the student in making meaningful connections. Students typically play a passive role, taking in the information but often not actively participating in constructing relationships. This can lead to a reductionist perspective of the knowledge gained. Learning in this environment is an individual process, and often competitive. Student attention and motivation is often minimal in such a learning environment, not surprising in the age of the millennial student who typically experiences high levels of stimulation from pervasive personal technology and electronic social networks. Unfortunately,

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE

such cognitive approaches to learning rarely seem to produce the depth of understanding or longterm retention that results in meaningful knowledge. To answer some of these growing concerns, many provincial Ministries of Education are making a shift to 21st Century Learning (21C). In 21st Century Learning, students use educational technologies to apply knowledge to new situations, analyze information, collaborate, solve problems, and make decisions,(British Columbia Ministry of Education, n.d.). Constructivist approaches to learning embody these principles, and tend to enhance student motivation (Palmer, 2005).

An Online Learning Solution There are many reasons for providing learning via distance and Saskatchewan has a long history of distance education due to its large rural population. Rural communities often face particular challenges arising from difficulties in attracting teaching specialists and, even when found the result is typically low student-teacher ratios which results in higher per pupil costs (Picciano & Seaman, 2009). These low per class ratios are often resolved by extensive use of multigraded and multiclass sections. Credit recovery, greater course selection, and the opportunity to take university level courses are additional reasons for providing distance education (Picciano & Seaman, 2009). Online learning is also particularly situated to develop 21st century learning skills including self-direction and responsibility in learning, time management, technological literacy, problem solving skills, and global awareness (Cavanaugh and Clark, 2007; Watson, as cited in Duncan & Barnett, 2009). It is our intention that a constructivist online learning environment will help address both the curricula problems noted

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE above and the situational issues specific to Saskatchewan and other communities that desire distance education. As brick-and-mortar classrooms become more learner-centered and inquiry-based, so must the online classroom. Evolving from traditional paper-and-mail correspondence courses, distance education is currently mediated by a variety of tools and modalities but is typically defined as teacher-directed instruction where the teacher and the students are separated geographically (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, B. Gemin, & Rapp, 2010). Asynchronous courses add separation by time. A variety of terms apply to current models of

distance education web-based learning, e-learning, and online learning. Regardless of delivery mode, it is essential that any distance education course or program offer its students a quality of education comparable to face-to-face instruction. Several recent meta-analytical studies suggest that well-designed distance learning programs are at least as effective as well-designed traditional learning environments (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007). We then need to ask what is required to create online opportunities that fully meet these needs and goals. The Canadian Council of Learning (as cited in Barbour, 2009, p. 7) made clear the importance of effective course delivery and instruction by stating that the delivery of resources . . . does not guarantee learning. Relevant factors to consider in designing and managing an effective distance education program can be narrowed down to several areas (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007) recognition of intrinsic student characteristics, instructional factors, course design, technology, and administrative practices. Watson and Gemin (2009) provide recommendations for managing and operating online programs in the categories of curriculum development and course quality, teacher management, student support, technology management, and program evaluation.

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE In his review Conrad (2007) noted several key roles and attributes of successful online teachers: a constructivist, learner-centered pedagogy, strong planning and management skills, technological skills, and the ability to engage students in collaborative and social learning. Online teachers need particularly effective communication skills. Kearsley and Bloymeyer (as cited in Davis & Rose, 2007) provide specifics that are useful when evaluating online teachers providing timely and meaningful feedback, creating engaging learning activities, the ability to keep students motivated and interested, promoting effective interactions between students, and encouraging critical and reflective skills in students. Both the Southern Regional Education Board (2006a, 2006b) and iNACOL (Watson & G. Gemin, 2009) have released several publications relating to providing quality in online programs in terms of both course design and teacher attributes. What course design features promote student success? Some factors directly relate pedagogy to design. Clear expectations, concrete deadlines with some flexibility, strategies to aid student such as time sheets and study guides, and outlines of course requirements are all critical (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007). The Southern Regional Education Board (2006c)

categorizes course design standards into course content, instructional design, student assessment, technology, and course evaluation and management. This aligns well with Dick and Careys (1990) systems approach model. Thus developing an online module requires consideration and interplay of pedagogy and design considerations, including proper incorporation of the affordances provided by technology and administration. Anderson and Dron (2011) identify what should be the proper relationship between pedagogy and technology when designing online courses : the technology sets the beat and creates the music, while the pedagogy defines the moves (p. 81) and cautions when the

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE technology takes on too much influence and become the leader rather than the partner of the dance. This interplay is often skewed; Anderson and Dron highlight how the use of a LMS may encourage content-laden pedagogies. In order to achieve the desired online learning goals, one needs to be cautious with the instructional design. As technologies evolve quickly, curriculum or module changes may be required in order to stay up to date (Guthrie & McCracken, 2010). This can be one of the more

difficult aspects of implementing an online learning environment. Furthermore, it should be said that while online learning provides a perceived affordance of collaboration, much work and supervision is required to ensure collaborative learning actually takes place (Wang, 2009). All Saskatchewan curricula are currently undergoing a renewal and these changes reflect the shift in pedagogical thinking that is needed to prepare our students as 21st Century learners. Renewed K- 9 Saskatchewan science courses specify four goals, or broad statements, identifying what students are expected to know and be able do (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2011). Senior science curricula are yet to be rewritten but are expected to continue along this path. These goals and their relationship to one another and to curricular outcomes (Figure 1) recognize that a successful science program must focus on developing the process of learning by students, not just content mastery. Understand the Nature of Science and STSE Interrelationships Construct Scientific Knowledge Develop Scientific and Technological Skills Develop Attitudes that Support Scientific Habits of Mind

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE It is worth highlighting that central to the nature of science is the collaboration and knowledge-building relationships between scientists. As identified by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), encouraging the development of this practice is a desired approach for classroom learning. This also plays a part in what is referred to as thinking about thinking, or metacognition.

Figure 1. The four goals of K-12 science education in Saskatchewan. Graphic provided by Dean Elliott, Saskatchewan Ministry of Education science consultant.

Key Concepts and Contexts The module we are developing is targeted to specific curricular goals based on the Saskatchewan learning objectives for grade 12 biology. These goals include both conceptual understandings, along with broader scientific/procedural knowledge. The unit on human genetics

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE covers several broad topics; our primary focal point will deal with the following learning objectives (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 1992, p. 129), although other outcomes may also be incorporated:

10

1. Explain the significance of Mendels experiments and observations, and the laws derived from them. 1.1. Explain the concept of independent events. 1.2. Understand that the probability of an independent event is not altered by the outcomes of previous events. 1.3. Describe Mendels experiments and observations. 1.4. Describe the relationship between genotype and phenotype. 1.5. Use the concept of the gene to explain Mendels laws. 1.6. Describe the ideas of dominant and recessive traits with examples. 1.7. Consider the value of the punnet square by creating examples of mono and dihybrid crosses. 1.8. Explain the law of segregation.

Cognitive approaches to presenting conceptual material to students is typically very teacher-driven, lecture oriented, with some time given to lab work to verify and experience firsthand basic genetic principles of inheritance (Drosophila breeding experiments are common). Converting this content into an online module is a relatively simple task if the pedagogical approach to instruction is left unchanged. Posting text-based content, or even video-lessons, into an LMS is straight-forward. Online genetics simulations, such as found at http://www.cgslab.com/drosophila/ can easily replace standard lab work. Research shows that

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE

11

student motivation is critical to their success, and this is made even more important when dealing with online learning (Sansone, Fraughton, Zachary, Butner, & Heiner, 2011). Our challenge, however, will be to demonstrate a pedagogical shift in this approach, to a constructivist, studentcentered approach. From a scientific literacy point of view, it is equally important to ensure students make the connection from the text they are reading to their existing schemata (Tovani, 2005). Thus, activities and modules will be designed to demonstrate how objectives can lend themselves to the daily lives of the students, with concept maps playing an integral part (Novak, 2003). The proposed context for learning the conceptual outcomes of the project will be based on inquiry and practice fields, where aspects of problem based learning will provide motivation and meaningful learning (Araz & Sungur, 2007). The constructivist approach that we are proposing, although set in sound pedagogy, does have its problems. The reality is that constructivist methodologies are not always the most efficient ways to learn and they carry with them other tangible drawbacks such as increased workload on instructors and course designers (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). Not only may course or lesson preparations take longer to create, but more attention may be required for students to ensure that they have constructed meanings which make sense in a broad context. This creates a need for an increased role in assessment for learning. Assessment for learning has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to increase student learning (Black et al., 2004), and is a type of assessment that should be followed regardless of whether a constructivist environment is created or not. However, the success of a constructivist environment depends on strong formative assessment to ensure that targeted learning is achieved (Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Nikitina, 2010). If formative assessment and feedback are not done properly, the students will be in danger of carrying misconceptions in their new knowledge (Novak, 2003).

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE Interactivities The module will be introduced to the students with a selection of at least two problembased scenarios and the students will be asked to select one to complete. Students will then be

12

grouped according to their scenario selection. Visual representations will be provided as a hook. The scenarios will draw upon the students connections to culture and their daily lives. During the module learners will acquire and build on and subsume their knowledge of the concepts required to fully address the scenario. The module is expected to take 20 hours of class time to complete, and as a concluding project learners will be required to demonstrate their understandings by presenting their solution to their original problem. A variety of acceptable formats for this demonstration will be offered as suggestions but the teacher should be prepared to receive any acceptable format. Separate summative assessments for individual students will also be required, in addition to the group project assessment. Students will be provided with a selection of online presentations and external internet hyperlinks to gain information of the concepts. Visual representations are crucial in providing learners the ability to view concepts that are otherwise unable to be viewed in the classroom due to budgetary and time constraints. Consideration for multiple learning styles will be incorporated into the lessons. Collaboration between students will be an essential aspect of the learning. Throughout the duration of the module, students will be expected to post on the discussion forum to comment, generate ideas or request clarification of ideas and learning content. The teacher will be encouraged to act as a facilitator to knowledge building, rather than a content expert. The goal is to build upon a community of knowledge where all learners play a role in contributing to the knowledge base. Although instructors should limit their contribution to the forum in terms of

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE providing knowledge, it is important that they promote student participation in the forum.

13

Instructors can do this by commenting and providing positive feedback to further encourage less willing participants to participate. The instructor will also participate by asking reflective questions to students, rather than providing the correct answer to questions, so as to promote thinking about learning concept (Barab & Duffy, 2000). Other opportunities for student collaboration will also be provided, and options given to students as to what methods they select. Online concept mapping software will be used as a collaborative brainstorming tool by the full class to identify students base knowledge. This will assist the teacher in determining an appropriate zone of proximal development and providing necessary scaffolding to fill in missing gaps in knowledge. Concept mapping will continue to be used throughout the module as students build on their base. This will allow for higher order thinking skills in Blooms taxonomy and provide opportunities for learners to analyze concepts taught and separate the relevant information from the irrelevant information as a visual representation (Allen & Tanner, 2002). One of the weakness to web-based courses is its overwhelming wealth of information, be it through the lectures or through various discussions, and thus representing the information presented throughout various outputs will allow for enhanced learning and information processing by students (Chang, Sung, & Chiou, 2002). Students will collaborate on their scenarios using other web-based collaborative tools such as wikis, blogs, shared documents, VoiceThreads, or other suitable tools. After learners have a chance to view the contents presented within the concept maps, they will be responsible to create a wiki with their group members and revisiting one of the scenarios that was presented at the beginning of the module. Wikis, for example, afford students the ability to demonstrate

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE their construction of knowledge through synthesis and evaluation along Blooms taxonomy (Allen & Tanner, 2002). By the conclusion of the module, groups of students will have constructed a solution to their scenario. Students will present the knowledge they have gathered and their reasoning behind their thinking in a format of their choosing, after consulting with the teacher regarding acceptable options.

14

Taken as a whole it is our intention that the process and flow of knowledge, starting with discussion forums, to concept maps and then the use of collaborative tools, will serve as a model for knowledge building, similar to the more comprehensive Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Lastly, learners will be required to present a summary of their learning journey during the module, including their contributions to the collective knowledge. This reflective aspect serves three purposes. First, it is central to allow for learners to analyze their knowledge acquiring process (Barab & Duffy, 2000) and discover areas of strength and weaknesses. Secondly, it is a key part of assessment for learning strategies. Finally, the reflective process also assists the knowledge building community, especially the course instructors, in analyzing their own course and instructions and make improvements or adjustments on the course.

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE References

15

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 44449. Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2002). Approaches to cell biology teaching: questions about questions. Cell Biology Education, 1(3), 63-67. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97. Araz, G., & Sungur, S. (2007). The interplay between cognitive and motivational variables in a problem-based learning environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(4), 291297. doi:16/j.lindif.2007.04.003 Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassesn & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barbour, M. K. (2009). State of the nation: k-12 online learning in canada. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (n.d.). 21st century learning. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/dist_learning/21century_learning.htm Cavanaugh, C., & Clark, T. (2007). The landscape of k-12 online learning. In C. Cavanaugh & R. Blomeyer (Eds.), What works in K-12 online learning (pp. 5-20). Washington, DC: International Society fo Technology in Education.

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chiou, S.-K. (2002). Use of hierarchical hyper concept map in web-based courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 335-53. Conrad, D. (2007). The plain hard work of teaching online: strategies for instructors. In M. Bullen & D. P. Janes (Eds.), Making the transition to online learning. Hershey, PA: Information Publishing. Davis, N., & Rose, R. (2007). Professional development for virtual schooling and online

16

learning (pp. 17-19). International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_PDforVSandOlnLrng.pdf Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). Introduction to instructional design. The systematic design of instruction (pp. 2-11). New York: Harper Collins. Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach online: what works for pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 357-376. Guthrie, K. L., & McCracken, H. (2010). Reflective pedagogy: making meaning in experiential based online courses. Journal of Educators Online, 7(2). Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3 Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary secondary interface: listening to the students voice. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501-527. Nikitina, L. (2010). Addressing pedagogical dilemmas in a constructivist language learning experience. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 90-106. Novak, J. D. (2003). The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning. Cell Biology Education, 2(2), 122-132.

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE

17

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079. doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199 Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881. Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: a 2008 follow-up of the survey of u.s. school district administrators. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/k-12online2008 Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J. L., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: the importance of who, why and how. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 199-212. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9193-6 Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (1992). Biology 20 & 30 curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxgetmedia.aspx?DocID=&MediaID=1788& Filename=biology2030.pdf Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2011). Grade 9 science curriculum, aims and goals. Retrieved from https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moecurriculumBBLEARN/index.jsp?view=goals&lang=en&XML=science_9.xml Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Tomita, M. K., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: a collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295-314. doi:10.1080/08957340802347647

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE Southern Regional Education Board. (2006a). Standards for quality online teaching ( No. 06T02). Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T02_Standards_Online_Teaching.pdf Southern Regional Education Board. (2006b). Online teaching evaluation for state virtual schools ( No. 06T04). Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T04_Online_teaching_evaluation_checklist.pdf

18

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006c). Standards for quality online courses ( No. 06T05). Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T05_Standards_quality_online_courses.pdf Tan, S. C., Yeo, A. C. J., & Lim, W. Y. (2005). Changing epistemology of science learning through inquiry with computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(4), 367-386. Tovani, C. (2005). The power of purposeful reading. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 48-51. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents declining motivation to learn science: inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199-216. Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1138-1146. doi:16/j.compedu.2009.05.023 Watson, J., & Gemin, G. (2009). Inacol promising practices in online learning: management and operations of online programs: ensuring quality and accountability. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/iNACOL_PP_MgmntOp_042309.pdf Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with k-12 online learning: a review of state-level policy and practice. Learning Point Associates /

Running head: DESIGNING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE MODULE North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf

19