Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

Amy L. Robertson
Boise State University

Abstract

This article is an exploration of the connections between social constructivist learning

environments, collaborative learning, and instructional technology. The beginning of the

article defines social constructivist theories, introduces the ways educational technology

and collaborative learning may be used together in social constructivist learning

environments, then explores the challenges of integrating technology in collaborative

environments. The article specifically a) investigates evidence in support of

collaborative learning environments that integrate technology tools and methods b)

provides practical examples of the use of technology tools and methods to facilitate

collaborative learning in social constructivist learning environments, and c) introduces

challenges of applying and facilitating technology integration in collaborative learning

environments.

Keywords: social constructivism, collaboration, technology tools, Dewey,

Vygotsky, Piaget, Montessori, equity, authenticity in learning environments, inquiry-

based learning, project-based learning, the zone of proximal development (ZPD),

community of inquiry
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

2
When Piaget and Vygotsky simultaneously developed their learning theories in the early

20th century, learning environments in America were often lecture-based with the recitation of

information and rote tasks as primary methods of instruction and assessment. Vygotsky, Dewey,

& Piaget created learning theories that offered new insights to how people, especially children,

learn. These theories have been examined and researched since their inception, but as

technology becomes more integrated into 21st century learning environments, collaboration

methods utilizing technology tools have changed and are continuing to develop as technology

progresses. Research on collaboration and technology in current learning environments has been

increasing, and recent research has begun to focus on measuring outcomes for collaboration and

technology integration with students in social constructivist learning environments (Scalise,

2016). As technology integration in learning environments continues to increase, the

understanding of the relationship between learner collaboration and technology will become

more important for instructors, learners, learning theorists, and educational technology

developers and designers. When considering educational technology and collaboration, what

evidence exists that supports the idea that technology might enhance collaboration and learning

in social constructivist learning environments?

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

3
Social Constructivism

Historical and Pedagogical Background

Social constructivism is a learning theory that encourages active collaborative learning,

places the origin of cognitive function with social engagement and interactions, and requires

social and cultural experiences between people for learning to take place. Social constructivism

originated with Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, who argued that social contributions and

culture directly influence cognitive development in young children. Social constructivism in

education has been a progressive educational theory since the early twentieth century when Lev

Vygotsky and John Dewey introduced their learning theories that included collaborative learning

and inquiry (Ültanır, 2012, p.199). Vygotsky stated, "learning is a necessary and universal

aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological

function" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). He believed that social learning tends to come before

development, which was opposite to Piaget’s theory, which emphasized self-initiated discovery

as crucial to the process of development. Piaget’s cognitive constructivism theory focused on

personal learning stages and incorporated the importance of acknowledging that an individual

acquires knowledge and learns at his or her own pace (Ültanır, 2012, p. 203). The social aspect

of learning was not a primary focus in Piaget’s learning theory, as he concentrated on identifying

the stages of cognitive development of the individual, which places his theory in the realm of

cognitivism and constructivism, but not social constructivism.

Dewey theorized that cognitive development is dependent on social interactions with

more knowledgeable others (MKO) within the learner’s zone of proximal development (ZPD),
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

4
and he emphasized the importance of scaffolding learning through social discourse and

community involvement (Ültanır, 2012). The relationship between individuals and the culture of

the community was what Vygotsky believed supported the learner to make meaning in learning,

contributing to the development of cognition and higher order thinking (Vygotsky, 1978).

Dewey’s learning theories focused on the importance of previous experience and prior

knowledge leading to understanding, as well as how inquiry and collaborative learning support

the learning process. Dewey developed a reflective thinking model in 1933, which emphasized

reflection as a means to deepen understanding and experiences of learning. “According to

Dewey, reflective or critical thinking deepens the meaning of our experiences and is therefore a

core educational aim. Critical thinking both authenticates existing knowledge and generates new

knowledge suggesting an intimate connection with education” (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p. 108).

According to Dewey, education is connected to action. Knowledge and ideas are

born through meaningful and important experiences for the learner. These situations, like

the class used for mastery of the material, occur in social environments and in this

fashion, knowledge along with the community of learners is developed (Ültanır, 2012, p.

207).

Other constructivist approaches were developed around the same time, like Montessori’s

work with educating children with serious illnesses. “As Montessori sought to support students’

development of social and physical, alongside those of traditional education (language,

discipline), she created a curriculum to move from fundamental skills to more advanced ones”

(Ültanır, 2012, p. 205). Montessori created an interactive curriculum for young children that
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

5
gave them ownership of learning choices and decentralized the role of the teacher. Her model

emphasized student movement, learning choices, and self-direction (Ültanır, 2012, p.203-207).

Similar to Dewey’s ideas of inquiry and Vygotsky’s collaborative social learning, Montessori

instructional approaches fall into social constructivism theory with the learner being self-directed

to make interest-based choices regarding what he or she wants to learn about and with whom

(Ültanır, 2012, p. 203-207). Furthermore, learners play and construct learning environments

together in communities. Structure and scaffolding are designed by instructors with purpose, yet

learners enjoy the freedom of voice and choice. Despite these progressive learning theory

developments by Vygotsky, Dewey, Piaget and Montessori, most learning environments in

schools throughout the 20th and 21st centuries continued to be focused on teacher directed,

lecture-based models that utilized rote memory & exams as the primary source of measuring

student knowledge and understanding (Tanner, 1997).

Social Constructivism, Technology & Collaboration

Methods & Applications

Social constructivist theories described above clearly provide a supportive model for

learners that incorporate personal and meaningful experiences in conjunction with social

discourse and reflection. In addition to student voice and choice, these constructivist approaches

can create an environment that respects the learner and encourages a supportive climate and

community while encouraging higher levels of cognitive processing (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p.

106). This confluence of theory and community in educational environments has been

researched by Garrison and Akyol in online distance education. The commonalities of their
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

6
research findings with online learning environments and blended learning environments provide

ideas about how collaboration and social constructivist approaches can be transformed with

technology by creating a community of inquiry. Within their explanation of communities of

inquiry, they state that by creating a sense of community online, “a sense of being is created

through interpersonal communication” (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p. 106). In their research they

defined three presences that need to be in place for an educational experience and a community

of inquiry to be balanced. The three presences are social presence, cognitive presence, and

teaching presence. Through supporting discourse, selecting content, and setting climate, the

balance of the educational experience can exist (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p. 106, fig. 7.1).

Figure 1. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework.

“The CoI theoretical framework represents a process of creating a

deep and meaningful (collaborative-constructivist) learning

experience through the development of three interdependent

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

7
elements - social presence, cognitive presence and teaching

presence” (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p. 106).

Garrison & Akyol further discuss that effective social presence leads to group cohesion,

which “is achieved when students identify with the group and perceive themselves as a part of

the community of inquiry...Group cohesion increases the capacity for collaboration; the

discourse (the sharing of meaning) and the quality of learning will be optimized when there is a

cohesive community” (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p. 107-108). This goal of creating a cohesive

learning community can be supported and scaffolded by e-learning and technology according to

Garrison and Akyol, through understanding the use of online and blended learning to achieve

higher order learning targets. “This means going beyond enhancing course packages and using

email to contact tutors or putting videos of lectures online. ...we must be able to develop

pedagogical principles and guidelines that will directly facilitate deep and meaningful

approaches to teaching and learning” (Garrison & Akyol 2012, p. 112). How could meaningful

approaches to teaching and learning incorporate and be enhanced by technology?

“Web-based environments are important forums for joint problem solving, knowledge

building and the sharing of ideas” (Nevgi, Virtanen and Niemi, 2006, p. 937). Because social

interaction is an essential element of social constructivist pedagogy, technology integration could

create new and enriching venues for knowledge sharing that can include more global interactions

between learners, instructors, and experts brought into classrooms. Technology tools have

emerged like Skype, Facetime, Instagram, and Facebook, that have opened doors to new ways of

discourse in learning environments. Communities of inquiry could be initially structured to

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

8
incorporate web-based technology tools during initial course introductions, general sharing of

ideas between learners, and formative assessment opportunities. Formative feedback is the

collaborative action and practice that leads to individual and group awareness and application of

concepts. Within formative assessments, ideas can be exchanged, discourse happens, and

reflection about content and concepts can be explored by peers and instructors prior to a

summative assessment. “One potential reason why active learning interventions are effective is

that technologies and collaboration provide formative feedback” (Wu & Rau, 2017, p. 279).

Furthermore, formative assessments provide social interaction opportunities in communities of

inquiry that can provide group collaboration and discourse during learning situations if

scaffolded appropriately with technology. Scaffolding provided by instructors during stages of

learning is crucial to the design and facilitation of the purpose and path of the learning

community. This initial shared experience is part of building a community of inquiry that is an

essential part of collaborative learning and can be scaffolded by technology tools and methods

via internet or Web 2.0 tools. The community of inquiry theoretical framework can be viewed in

the graphic in Figure 1 and the Practical Inquiry model in Figure 2. Although the framework and

model do not specifically mention technology tools or methods, “the model is applicable to a

wide range of learning environments (from face-to-face to online, from K-12 to higher

education)” (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p. 107).

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

Figure 2. Practical Inquiry (PI) Model. “The PI model represents

the inquiry process, it has been compared to other models such as

Bloom’s taxonomy in terms of its potential to measure learning

outcomes” (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p. 109). This model has four

phases of critical inquiry, which are summarized in the figure and

are not sequential or constant.

Authentic Learning Environments & Technology

If meaningful approaches to teaching and learning are a means for collaborative learning

in a social constructivist e-learning situation as Garrison and Akyol suggest, how can industry

standard technology in the workplace influence approaches to instruction in a traditional or

blended learning classroom? A 2003 study by Mills and Treagust investigated two similar

constructivist pedagogical approaches in engineering education programs at the undergraduate

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

10
level in the USA, UK, and Australia. The researchers questioned what approach would meet the

needs of students in a changing workforce where technology was altering the engineering

workplace, but students were graduating unprepared for the technological and collaborative

profession of engineering. The research considered the technological and organizational changes

that were taking place in engineering professions in the early 2000’s and examined project-based

learning (PBL) and problem-based learning to ascertain which approach was most effective for

preparing graduates and satisfying industry needs. The researchers concluded that PBL was the

best model for preparing undergraduates for the engineering industry. PBL is a constructivist

approach that uses projects as a concept and teaching method to explore application and

acquisition of knowledge. Projects are spread out over long periods of time and involve subject

courses that are often interdisciplinary and inquiry-based. Students of PBL are expected to be

collaborators, use inquiry-based strategies for sharing knowledge and understanding, and be

effective group members in all projects and teamwork (Mills & Treagust, 2003, p. 8-9). “The

use of project-based learning as a key component of engineering programs should be

promulgated as widely as possible, because it is certainly clear that any improvement to the

existing lecture-centric programs that dominate engineering would be welcomed by students,

industry, and accreditors alike” (Mills & Treagust, 2003, p. 13).

The study did reveal that students who participated in PBL felt motivated and were

observed to have better collaboration skills than those who were not involved with PBL

approaches. Students were able to apply knowledge in practical and complex situations that

involved engineering issues and applications. “However, they may have a less rigorous
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

11
understanding of engineering fundamentals” (Mills & Treagust, 2003, p. 12). The students also

reported that the length of time projects took was a negative aspect of PBL and group participant

contributions were not always consistent, creating a lack of balance with collaborative efforts.

This study provided an investigation into the pedagogical framework to make changes to an

educational program and to begin a transformation of the traditional instructional approaches

used in the programs to a more social constructivist approach. The article also raised questions

about forcing pedagogical changes on the culture of engineering professions. The researchers

stated,

Engineering is a male-dominated, conservative, and technically focused culture.

Hence the adoption of innovative educational methods may be difficult to implement in

engineering due to faculty resistance. Despite the fact that the medical profession could

be similarly characterized...PLB has been readily adopted in medical education,

probably it seems to mirror the professional behavior of a physician more closely than

the professional behavior of an engineer (Mills & Treagust, 2003, p. 8).

Technology Integration & Collaboration to Transform Learning

This brings the question of collaborative learning and technology integration to mind

when facing an educational environment that is ripe for transformation. What can be done and

what tools can be used to create deliberate change? If interpersonal communication and a sense

of being are the keys to developing trust in a learning community so learners can thrive, then
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

12
how can a social constructivist learning environment harness technology tools and methods

effectively to transform learning environments? Garrison & Akyol attempted to provide possible

approaches to these questions with their community of inquiry framework and model, and

specifically with what they call the third presence, which is teaching presence. “Simply stated,

teaching presence is what the participants (usually the instructor) do to create a purposeful and

productive community of inquiry. ...In a collaborative constructivist e-learning process, students

must have influence on what is studied and how it is approached” (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p.

111). They mention the instructor as the facilitator of designing e-learning platforms that include

reflection and discourse, with development of a positive learning community and provide the

community with expertise in content and delivery. How can this be accomplished?

Creating a sense of community within a constructivist learning environment with

technology requires specific technology tools and methods of technology integration that rely

heavily on instructor facilitation according to Paily (2013). He clearly outlined how Web 2.0

technologies and constructivism in learning environments could utilize Web 2.0 tools to “create

learning environments where learners are able to collaborate electronically or otherwise to form

a self-regulated and self-governed learning community. Web 2.0 supports social interaction and

experience in education” (Paily, 2013, p. 44). He created the following tables of information that

include names of the Web 2.0 tools, their purpose and features, and examples of the tools with

URLs. These tables include a vast number of tools, from blogging to social networking, that can

serve specific purposes in a social constructivist learning environment.

Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

13

Figure 3. Nine of the Seventeen Web 2.0 tools with explanations and examples (Paily,

2013, p. 42). The rest of Figure 3 is on the next page.

Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

14

Figure 3 extended. Ten through seventeen of the Web 2.0 tools with explanations and

examples (Paily, 2013, p. 43).

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

15
Paily further explained that “these are not really technologies as such, but services (or

user processes) built using the building blocks of the technologies and open standards that

underpin the Internet and the Web” (Paily, 2013, p. 42). “The emphasis here is the construction

of knowledge with the others and for the others. The focus is on the community itself and not on

the individual user” (Paily, 2013, p. 44). He created a connection to transformative learning with

technology by stating, “these new technologies foster cooperation and construct human networks

that promote sociability through knowledge and mutual participation in new forms of activities”

(Paily, 2013, p. 44). He discussed the role of information and communication technology and

how learning can be transformed with technology in the ways that learners provide evidence of

their learning through technology tools. From this research, it seems clear that integration of

Web 2.0 tools can provide educators and learners with new forms of learning and knowledge

forming. Incorporating Web 2.0 tools like blogging, vlogging, video chats, webpages and social

media support social constructivist approaches with collaboration in learning environments

(Paily, 2013).

Petraglia mentioned that the advent of social tools available for educational purposes

connects the authentic and collaborative aspects of constructivism into a new or transformative

learning which did not exist until recently. These new forms of communication and

collaboration can feel authentic, but the instructor must be careful to avoid pre-constructing

every element of a learning environment to create scenarios that are overly planned and become

un-authentic (Petraglia, 1998, p. 41). But how equitable is access to technology tools and
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

16
methods? To consider this question, a deeper look at challenges in educational technology is

appropriate.

Challenges of Access

Educational technology in learning environments has brought new and challenging

questions about facilitating social constructivist approaches and how collaboration and

technology and might transform learning. As the integration of technology in learning

environments continues to increase across the globe, how collaborative learning and technology

is harnessed by instructional practices is becoming a skill set that could be considered separate

from subject content knowledge for both learners and instructors. Training teachers to use

technology effectively in their classrooms is a challenge. (Angeli & Valanides, 2009, p. 155).

Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that “technology has extensive pedagogical affordances and

great potential for transforming the teaching and learning environment when it is used

appropriately. Thus, the issue is no longer whether teachers should integrate technology in their

existing practices, but how to use technology to transform their teaching with technology and

create new opportunities for learning” (Angeli & Valanides, 2009, p. 154).

Petraglia (1998) mentioned similar challenges years earlier regarding teachers being ill

prepared to use technology to create authentic learning experiences. He challenged the idea that

educational technology professionals understand the concepts of constructivism and the roles of

authenticity in learning environments. He referred to authenticity as a principle and defined

authentic learning as, “knowledge, skills, and attitudes should be embedded in tasks and settings

that reflect the uses of these competencies in the world...the authenticity of the learning
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

17
environment ensures that the knowledge gained will be readily available in the kinds of

situations they will face in their work” (Petraglia, 1998, p. 56). He mentioned that Resnick

(1990) claimed that the classroom is an artificial environment, not keeping up with group-based

activities and shared problem-solving that happens in the real world. He described how learners

should discern between authentic learning environments and ones that simulate an authentic

environment. He noted that technologists should create real-world learning opportunities to

replace simulations and mentioned that Dewey and Vygotsky believed that collaborative and

group learning are essential for social learning to benefit a learner’s understanding of the

learning process and that technology is an essential support tool for collaborative learning. He

also mentioned that learners need to have the opportunity to fail, which he pointed out as an

essential component of constructivism, as failing is a way of testing the validity of one’s

constructed knowledge. He mentioned, “The final observation may be of little immediate use to

technologists, yet it may be the most important lesson constructivism teaches; students are free to

fail” (Petraglia, 1998, p. 62). His thought that instructors were erroneously applying

constructivism into technology design brings to light the challenges instructors face when

helping learners construct knowledge with technology tools.

Challenges of Equity

When collaborative technology tools are not available to learners, then the opportunity to

participate in beneficial collaborative discourse using technology is absent or fragmented.

Availability of educational technology used in learning environments varies globally depending

on socio/economics, culture, accessibility, and instructor training. The ethical dilemma of

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

18
educational technology accessibility and appropriate constructivist approaches for learners in

United States schools in the early 2000’s was research by Shutkin (2004). When the internet and

technology integration began emerging in educational settings, he wrote a critical discourse on

issues of equity and technology. His article made a solid case for culturally relevant teaching

which he said should be incorporated into the use of technology in equitable ways. He explored

the divide that the use of technology in learning had created for underserved populations, low

income students, and populations historically marginalized in society. He explained that the

system in place is primarily one of white culture and his research included findings that

privileged schools had more access to better technology and prepared instructors with experience

in both constructivist teaching and technology use (Shutkin, 2004, p. 73). He states,

I consider sociocultural constructivism and discuss learning in a technological

enhanced constructivist classroom as an historical practice of acculturation into the

western culture of power. As a practice of acculturation, constructivist discourse in the

field of Educational Technology excludes references to racial, cultural, or social

difference necessary for the effective design of technologically enhanced learning

environments. The effect of these exclusions is the tacit assumption that racial and

cultural differences are insignificant (Shutkin, 2004, p. 70-71).

Since Shutkin’s criticism of equity in technology education in the early 2000’s, equity

issues still exist in learning environments. Revisiting Shutkin’s equity concerns about technology

education with a current lens of equity might enlighten how lack of technology access could

hinder collaboration in social constructivist environments. Further research is needed to promote

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

19
understanding and continued transformation of access to technology integration in educational

environments.

Conclusion

Past and current research implies that educational technology and collaborative learning

may support learners, instructors, and the process of learning in social constructivist learning

environments. Web 2.0 technologies that can be used to support collaborative learning are

abundant, are continually being developed, and could be center stage in enabling the

transformation of educational practices for the future. It is clear from current research in

technology integration that tools are available that can enhance and support learners in online,

blended, and K-12 learning environments, (Garrison & Akyol, 2012, p 107) but there are

prevailing challenges to effective technology integration in social constructivist learning

approaches.

It is clear from the research gathered in this paper, that there are viable considerations

instructional designers and instructors could consider for effectively integrating technology and

collaboration to support learning in a social constructivist environment:

1) Incorporate the community of inquiry framework and model with Web

2.0 tools to enable technology enhanced discourse, climate, and content

availability

2) Improve instructor knowledge of application of technology integration

techniques and methods with Web 2.0 tools

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

20
3) Improve access to Web 2.0 tools to communities of inquiry

4) Utilize technology integrated instructional approaches that incorporate

social constructivist methodologies that incorporate application of

knowledge and subject content with collaborative approaches, like PBL,

problem-based learning, or Montessori

Methods to establishing an effective learning community that embraces social

constructivist approaches with collaboration, and technology integration is worthy of more

research. Further research and detailed studies of incorporating social constructivism theory

into modern learning environments could be transformative for educators and learners and could

provide further data for supporting PBL, problem-based learning, or Montessori approaches and

technology integration.
 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

21
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the

conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1),

154-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.21236/ada204690

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective

learning design. Computers & Education, 43, 17–33. Retrieved from

http://oro.open.ac.uk/6983/

Dewey, J. (1915). School and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing

critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement

Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2012). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In

Moore, M. G. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In Handbook of

Distance Education (pp. 104 - 117). New York, NY: Routledge.

Januszewski, A., & Yeaman, A. R. (2001). Educational technology: The development of a

concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

22
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering Education: Is problem-based or project-based

learning the answer? Australian Journal of Engineering Education, (2003-04), Retrieved

from https://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf

Montessori, M. (1912). The montessori method. (A. E. George, trans). New York, NY: Stokes.

Nevgi, A., Niemi, H., & Virtanen, P. (2006). Supporting students to develop collaborative

learning skills in technology-based environments. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 37 (6), 937-947.

Paily, M. U. (2013). Creating constructivist learning environment: Role of "Web 2.0"

technology. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 9(1), 39-50, 52.

Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to

the design of educational technology. Educational Technology, Research and

Development, New York, 46(3), 53-65.

Scalise, K. (2016). Student collaboration and school educational technology: Technology

integration practices in the classroom. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational

Technology, 11 (4), March - May 2016.

Shutkin, D. (2004). Thinking of the other: Constructivist discourse and cultural difference in the

field of educational technology. The Journal of Educational Thought, 38(1), 67-93.

Tanner, L. (1997). Dewey's laboratory school: Lessons for today. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the

 Social Constructivism: Collaborative Learning and Technology

23
empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173-

191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475

Ültanır, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist

learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5 (2),

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533786.pdf

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wu, S. P. W., & Rau, M.A. (2017, June). How technology and collaboration promote formative

feedback: A role for CSCL research in active learning interventions. Paper presented

at the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL),

Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577566.pdf