Constructivism: A perspective on instructional design

Traditional assumptions about learning learners as passive receivers of information learning strengthens bond between S & R learners are blank slates knowledge is independent of context transfer is predictable training by abstraction works part-task training works

“Objectivists believe in the existence of reliable knowledge about the world. As, learners, the goal is to gain this knowledge; as educators, to transmit it. Objectivism further assumes that learners gain the same understanding from what is transmitted (…) Learning therefore consists of assimilating that objective reality. The role of education is to help students learn about the world. The goal of designers or teachers is to interpret events for them. Learners are told about the world and are expected to replicate its content and structure in their thinking” (Jonassen, 1991).

Which? Cognitive constructivism Social and cultural constructivism

Cognitive Constructivism Individual learners adapt and refine knowledge (Piaget; Brown et al.) Instructional implications: Aware of prior knowledge Challenge and develop initial ideas Provide opportunities to discuss/debate/reflect on new ideas in a range of contexts Engage in complex, meaningful problem- based activities Multiple assessments, both process and products

Social Constructivism Knowledge is shaped by cultural influences and evolves through participation in COP (Lave; Vygotsky) Instructional implications: Participate in collaborative activities relevant to discipline Support identity development Instructors as model of practitioners Tools (physical and psychological) as mediators of learning

Examples Problem-based learning – – Games & simulations Others?

Issues of Design and Implementation Individual differences Group dynamics Instructor’s role Evaluation/assessment Others?

Constructivists argue that specific learning objectives are not possible--that meaning is always constructed by, and unique to, the individual; that all understanding is negotiated. In our opinion this is a very extreme position. Let me speak up for the vast amount of "trivial cases," those situations where shared meaning is not only possible but necessary. Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" with regard to the sound of letters in learning to read? Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" about the meaning of the integers. Will a machine allow us to have a "self-chosen position" about how it works?... Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position"... about how to solve a linear equation? Do we want drivers to have a "self-chosen position" about the meaning of a red light?... If I hire a surgeon to do heart surgery, PLEASE let me have one who has learned the trivial case and knows that my heart looks like every other human heart. Please don’t let him negotiate new meanings and hook up my veins in some "self-chosen position to which [she/he] can commit [herself/himself]." I want her/him committed to the standard objective view. The trivial case is not so trivial. To dismiss so casually the objective case is perhaps the greatest danger of radical constructivism. (Merrill, 1992)

Norman: POET User-centered design: Users (not artifacts) at center Early focus on users to formulate requirements, briefs and prototypes Early, and continual user testing Iterative design Integrated design => Put learner, not instruction, at center of design process