Constructivism and Instructional Design
The shift of instructional design from behaviorism to cognitivism was not as dramatic as the move into constructivism appears to be, since behaviorism and cognitivism are both objective in nature. Behaviorism and cognitivism both support the practice of analyzing a task and breaking it down into manageable chunks, establishing objectives, and measuring performance based on those objectives. Constructivism, on the other hand, promotes a more open-ended learning experience where the methods and results of learning are not easily measured and may not be the same for each learner.
While behaviorism and constructivism are very different theoretical perspectives, cognitivism shares some similarities with constructivism. An example of their compatibility is the fact that they share the analogy of comparing the processes of the mind to that of a computer. Consider the following statement by Perkins:
"...information processing models have spawned the computer model of the mind as an information processor. Constructivism has added that this information processor must be seen as not just shuffling data, but wielding it flexibly during learning -- making hypotheses, testing tentative interpretations, and so on." (Perkins, 1991, p.21 in Schwier, 1998 ).
Other examples of the link between cognitive theory and constructivism are:
• schema theory (Spiro, et al, 1991, in Schwier, 1998)
• connectionism (Bereiter, 1991, in Schwier, 1998)
• hypermedia (Tolhurst, 1992, in Schwier, 1998)
• multimedia (Dede, 1992, in Schwier, 1998)
Despite these similarities between cognitivism and constructivism, the objective side of cognitivism supported the use of models to be used in the systems approach of instructional design. Constructivism is not compatible with the present systems approach to instructional design, as Jonassen points out :
"The conundrum that constructivism poses for instructional designers, however, is that if each individual is responsible for knowledge construction, how can we as designers determine and insure a common set of outcomes for leaning, as we have been taught to do?" (Jonasson, [On-line])
In the same article, Jonassen (Jonasson, [On-line]) lists the following implications of constructivism for instructional design:
"...purposeful knowledge construction may be facilitated by learning environments which:
• Provide multiple representations of reality - avoid oversimplification of instruction by by representing the natural complexity of the world
• Present authentic tasks - contextualize
• Provide real-world, case-based learning environments, rather than pre-determined instructional sequences
• Foster reflective practice
• Enable context- and content-dependent knowledge construction
• Support collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation, not competition among learners for recognition
"Although we believe that constructivism is not a prescriptive theory of instruction, it should be possible to provide more explicit guidelines on how to design learning environments that foster constructivist learning"
Jonassen points out that the difference between constructivist and objectivist, (behavioral and cognitive), instructional design is that objective design has a predetermined outcome and intervenes in the learning process to map a pre-determined concept of reality into the learner's mind, while constructivism maintains that because learning outcomes are not always predictable, instruction should foster, not control, learning. With this in mind, Jonassen looks at the commonalties among constructivist approaches to learning to suggest a "model" for designing constructivist learning environments.
"...a constructivist design process should be concerned with designing environments which support the construction of knowledge, which ..."
• Is Based on Internal Negotiation
o a process of articulating mental models, using those models to explain, predict, and infer, and reflecting on their utility (Piaget's accommodation, Norman and Rumelhart's tuning and restructuring.)
• Is Based on Social Negotiation
o a process of sharing a reality with others using the same or similar processes to those used in internal negotiation
• Is Facilitated by Exploration of Real World Environments and Intervention of New Environments
o processes that are regulated by each individual's intentions, needs, and/or expectations
• Results in Mental Models and provides Meaningful, Authentic Contexts for Learning and Using the Constructed Knowledge
o should be supported by case-based problems which have been derived from and situated in the real world with all of its uncertainty and complexity and based on authentic realife practice
• Requires an Understanding of its Own Thinking Process and Problem Solving Methods
o problems in one context are different from problems in other contexts
• Modeled for Learners by Skilled Performers but Not Necessarily Expert Performers
• Requires Collaboration Among Learners and With the Teacher
o the teacher is more of a coach or mentor than a purveyor of knowledge
• Provides an Intellectual Toolkit to Facilitate an Internal Negotiation Necessary for Building Mental Models
(Jonasson, [On-line])
The technological advances of the 1980s and 1990s have enabled designers to move toward a more
constructivist approach to design of instruction. One of the most useful tools for the constructivist designer is hypertext and hypermedia because it allows for a branched design rather than a linear format of instruction. Hyperlinks allow for learner control which is crucial to constructivist learning; however, there is some concerns over the novice learner becoming "lost" in a sea of hypermedia. To address this concern, Jonassen and McAlleese (Jonnassen & McAlleese, [On-line]) note that each phase of knowledge acquisition requires different types of learning and that initial knowledge acquisition is perhaps best served by classical instruction with predetermined learning outcomes, sequenced instructional interaction and criterion-referenced evaluation while the more advanced second phase of knowledge acquisition is more suited to a constructivist environment.
If a novice learner is unable to establish an "anchor" in a hypermedia environment they may wander aimlessly through hypermedia becoming completely disoriented. Reigeluth and Chung suggest a prescriptive system which advocates increased learner control. In this method, students have some background knowledge and have been given some instruction in developing their own metacognitive strategies and have some way to return along the path they have taken, should they become "lost". (Davidson, 1998)
Most literature on constructivist design suggests that learners should not simply be let loose in a hypermedia or hypertext environment, but that a mix of old and new (objective and constructive) instruction/learning design be implemented. Davidson's (1998) article, suggesting a criteria for hypermedia learning based on an "exploration of relevant learning theories", is an example of this method.
Having noted the eclectic nature of instructional design, it is only fair to point out that not all theorists advocate a "mix and match" strategy for instructional design. Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy and Perry wrote an article that challenges the eclectic nature if instructional systems design by pointing out that "...abstracting concepts and strategies from the theoretical position that spawned then strips them of their meaning." They question objectivist epistemology completely and have adopted what they consider a constructivist approach to instructional design. In the article they compare the traditional approaches of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation to that of a constructivist approach. (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy & Perry, 1995)
Learning Theories and the Practice of Instructional Design
What is the difference between the learning theories in terms of the practice of instructional design? Is one approach more easily achieved than another? To address this, one may consider that cognitive theory is the dominant theory in instructional design and many of the instructional strategies advocated and utilized by behaviorists are also used by cognitivists, but for different reasons. For example, behaviorists assess learners to determine a starting point for instruction, while cognitivists look at the learner to determine their predisposition to learning (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). With this in mind, the practice of instructional design can be viewed from a behaviorist/cognitivist approach as opposed to a constructivist approach.
When designing from a behaviorist/cognitivist stance, the designer analyzes the situation and sets a goal. Individual tasks are broken down and learning objectives are developed. Evaluation consists of determining whether the criteria for the objectives has been met. In this approach the designer decides what is important for the learner to know and attempts to transfer that knowledge to the learner. The learning package is somewhat of a closed system, since although it may allow for some branching and remediation, the learner is still confined to the designer's "world".
To design from a constructivist approach requires that the designer produces a product that is much more facilitative in nature than prescriptive. The content is not prespecified, direction is determined by the learner and assessment is much more subjective because it does not depend on specific quantitative criteria, but rather the process and self-evaluation of the learner. The standard pencil-and-paper tests of mastery learning are not used in constructive design; instead, evaluation is based on notes, early drafts, final products and journals. (Assessment [On-line])
Because of the divergent, subjective nature of constructive learning, it is easier for a designer to work from the systems, and thus the objective approach to instructional design. That is not to say that classical instructional design techniques are better than constructive design, but it is easier, less time consuming and most likely less expensive to design within a "closed system" rather than an "open" one. Perhaps there is some truth in the statement that "Constructivism is a 'learning theory', more than a 'teaching approach'." (Wilkinson, 1995)
Learning Theories - Some Strengths and Weaknesses
What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of using certain theoretical approaches to instructional design?
Behaviorism
Weakness -the learner may find themselves in a situation where the stimulus for the correct response does not occur, therefore the learner cannot respond. - A worker who has been conditioned to respond to a certain cue at work stops production when an anomaly occurs because they do not understand the system.
Strength - the learner is focused on a clear goal and can respond automatically to the cues of that goal. - W.W.II pilots were conditioned to react to silhouettes of enemy planes, a response which one would hope became automatic.
Cognitivism
Weakness - the learner learns a way to accomplish a task, but it may not be the best way, or suited to the learner or the situation. For example, logging onto the internet on one computer may not be the same as logging in on another computer.
Strength - the goal is to train learners to do a task the same way to enable consistency. - Logging onto and off of a workplace computer is the same for all employees; it may be important do an exact routine to avoid problems.
Constructivism
Weakness - in a situation where conformity is essential divergent thinking and action may cause problems. Imagine the fun Revenue Canada would have if every person decided to report their taxes in their own way - although, there probably are some very "constructive" approaches used within the system we have.
Strength - because the learner is able to interpret multiple realities, the learner is better able to deal with real life situations. If a learner can problem solve, they may better apply their existing knowledge to a novel situation.
(Schuman, 1996)
Is There One Best Learning Theory for Instructional Design?
Why bother with Theory at all?
A solid foundation in learning theory is an essential element in the preparation of ISD professionals because it permeates all dimensions of ISD (Shiffman, 1995). Depending on the learners and situation, different learning theories may apply. The instructional designer must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each learning theory to optimize their use in appropriate instructional design strategy. Recipes contained in ID theories may have value for novice designers (Wilson, 1997), who lack the experience and expertise of veteran designers. Theories are useful because they open our eyes to other possibilities and ways of seeing the world. Whether we realize it or not, the best design decisions are most certainly based on our knowledge of learning theories.
An Eclectic Approach to Theory in Instructional Design
The function of ID is more of an application of theory, rather than a theory itself. Trying to tie Instructional Design to one particular theory is like school vs. the real world. What we learn in a school environment does not always match what is out there in the real world, just as the prescriptions of theory do not always apply in practice, (the real world). From a pragmatic point of view, instructional designers find what works and use it.
What Works and How Can We Use It?
Behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism - what works where and how do we knit everything together to at least give ourselves some focus in our approach to instructional design? First of all we do not need to abandon the systems approach but we must modify it to accommodate constructivist values. We must allow circumstances surrounding the learning situation to help us decide which approach to learning is most appropriate. It is necessary to realize that some learning problems require highly prescriptive solutions, whereas others are more suited to learner control of the environment. (Schwier, 1995)
Jonnassen in Manifesto for a Constructive Approach to Technology in Higher Education ([On-line]) identified the following types of learning and matched them with what he believes to be appropriate learning theory approaches.
1. Introductory Learning - learners have very little directly transferable prior knowledge about a skill or content area. They are at the initial stages of schema assembly and integration. At this stage classical instructional design is most suitable because it is predetermined, constrained, sequential and criterion-referenced. The learner can develop some anchors for further exploration.
2. Advanced Knowledge Acquisition - follows introductory knowledge and precedes expert knowledge. At this point constructivist approaches may be introduced.
3. Expertise is the final stage of knowledge acquisition. In this stage the learner is able to make intelligent decisions within the learning environment. A constructivist approach would work well in this case.
Having pointed out the different levels of learning, Jonassen stresses that it is still important to consider the context before recommending any specific methodology.
Reigeluth's Elaboration Theory which organizes instruction in increasing order of complexity and moves from prerequisite learning to learner control may work in the eclectic approach to instructional design, since the learner can be introduced to the main concepts of a course and then move on to more of a self directed study that is meaningful to them and their particular context.
After having compared and contrasted behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism, Ertmer and Newby (1993) feel that the instructional approach used for novice learners may not be efficiently stimulating for a learner who is familiar with the content. They do not advocate one single learning theory, but stress that instructional strategy and content addressed depend on the level of the learners. Similar to Jonassen, they match learning theories with the content to be learned:
... a behavioral approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a
profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem
-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations
(knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with
ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action. (Ertmer P. & Newby, T., 1993)
Behavioral
... tasks requiring a low degree of processing (e.g., basic paired associations,
discriminations, rote memorization) seem to be facilitated by strategies most
frequently associated with a behavioral outlook (e.g., stimulus-response, contiguity
of feedback/reinforcement).
Cognitive
Tasks requiring an increased level of processing (e.g., classifications, rule or
procedural executions) are primarily associated with strategies
having a stronger cognitive emphasis (e.g., schematic organization, analogical
reasoning, algorithmic problem solving).
Constructive
Tasks demanding high levels of processing (e.g., heuristic problem solving,
personal selection and monitoring of cognitive strategies) are frequently
est learned with strategies advanced by the constructivist perspective (e.g.,
situated learning, cognitive apprenticeships, social negotiation.
(Ertmer P. & Newby, T., 1993)
Ertmer and Newby (1993) believe that the strategies promoted by different learning theories overlap (the same strategy for a different reason) and that learning theory strategies are concentrated along different points of a continuum depending of the focus of the learning theory - the level of cognitive processing required.
Ertmer and Newby's suggestion that theoretical strategies can complement the learner's level of task knowledge, allows the designer to make the best use of all available practical applications of the different learning theories. With this approach the designer is able to draw from a large number of strategies to meet a variety of learning situations.
Conclusion
Upon completion of this site on learning theories and instructional design, I have not only accomplished my objective, but gained insight and appreciation for the different learning theories and their possible application to instructional design.
It was interesting for me to find that I am not alone in my perspective regarding learning theories and instructional design. There is a place for each theory within the practice of instructional design, depending upon the situation and environment. I especially favor the idea of using an objective approach to provide the learner with an "anchor" before they set sail on the open seas of knowledge. A basic understanding of the material in question provides the learner with a guiding compass for further travel.
Another consideration is the distinction between "training" and "education". In today's competitive business world, the instructional designer may be required to establish and meet the objectives of that business. On the other hand, in a school setting, the designer may be challenged to provide material that fosters an individual to find divergent approaches to problem solving. Whichever situation the instructional designer finds themselves in, they will require a thorough understanding of learning theories to enable them to provide the appropriate learning environment.
Finally, though Instructional Design may have a behaviorist tradition, new insights to the learning process continue to replace, change and alter the process. Advancements in technology make branched constructivist approaches to learning possible. Whether designing for training or education, the instructional designer's toolbox contains an ever changing and increasing number of theoretical applications and physical possibilities. With intelligent application of learning theory strategies and technology, the modern designer will find solutions to the learning requirements of the 21st century.
**Web addresses updated Feb. 5, 2001. Some sites seem to be no longer available, but I am searching for them.
References & Bibliography
Assessment in a constructivist learning environment. [On-line]
http://www.coe.missouri.edu:80tiger.coe.missouri.edu/Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., Perry, J.P. (1995). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. (2nd ed., pp. 100-111)., Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Behaviorism and constructivism. [On-line]. Available:
http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/debbie/CADVANT.HTM Behaviorism. [On-line]. Available:
http://sacam.oren.ortn.edu/~ssganapa/disc/behave.htmlBeyond constructivism - contextualism. [On-line]. Available:
http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~t377/cx_intro.htmlBlack, E. (1995). Behaviorism as a learning theory. [On-line]. Available:
http://129.7.160.115/inst5931/Behaviorism.htmlBracy, B. (Undated) Emergent learning technologies. [On-line]. Available:
gopher://unix5.nysed.gov/00/TelecommInfo/Reading%20Room%20Points%20View/Burney, J. D. (Undated). Behaviorism and B. F. Skinner. [On-line]. Available:
http://www2.una.edu/education/Skinner.htmConditions of learning (R. Gagne). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/gagne.htmlConstructivist theory (J. Bruner). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlCunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. Educational Technology, May, 13-17.
Davidson, K. (1998). Education in the internet--linking theory to reality. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.oise.on.ca/~kdavidson/cons.htmlDembo, M. H. (1994). Applying educational psychology (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism. Educational Technology, May, 41-44.
Dorin, H., Demmin, P. E., Gabel, D. (1990). Chemistry: The study of matter. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Duffy, T. M., Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technolgy? Educational Technology, May, 7-12.
Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-70.
Genetic epistemology (J.Piaget). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/piaget.htmlGood, T. L., Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach. (4th ed.).White Plains, NY: Longman
Information processing theory and instructional technology. [On-line]. Available:
http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~t377/IPTools.htmlInformation process theory of learning. [On-line]. Available:
http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~t377/IPTheorists.htmlJonassen, D. H. (1991) Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14.
Jonasson, D.H. (Undated). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. [On-line]. Available:
http://ouray.cudenver.edu/~slsanfor/cnstdm.txtJonassen, D. H., McAleese, T.M.R. (Undated). A Manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology in higher education. [Last Retrieved December 12, 2005].
http://apu.gcal.ac.uk/clti/papers/TMPaper11.htmlKhalsa, G. (Undated). Constructivism. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~etl/khalsa.htmlKulikowski, S. (Undated). The constructivist tool bar. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.coe.missouri.edu:80tiger.coe.missouri.edu/Learning theory: Objectivism vs constructivism.[On-line]. Available:
http://media.hku.hk/cmr/edtech/Constructivism.htmlLebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41 (3), 4-16.
Lewis, D. (1996). Perspectives on instruction. [On-line]. Available:
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtech540/Perspectives/Perspectives.htmlLieu, M.W. (1997). Final project for EDT700, Learning theorists and learning theories to modern instructional design. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.itec.sfsu.edu/faculty/kforeman/edt700/theoryproject/index.htmlMerrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, May, 45-53.
Military. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/military.htmlOperant conditioning (B.F. Skinner). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/skinner.htmlOperant conditioning and behaviorism - an historical outline. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/genetics/behavior/learning/behaviorism.htmlPerkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology , May, 18-23.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 1042-1629.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1995). What is the new paradigm of instructional theory. [On-line]. Available:
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper17/paper17.html Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, May-June, 13-20.
Reigeluth, C. (Undated). Elaboration theory. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/reigelut.htmlRizo,F.M. (1991). The controversy about quantification in social research: An extension of Gage's "historical sketch." Educational Researcher, 20 (12), 9-12
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of american educational technology . Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Schiffman, S. S. (1995). Instructional systems design: Five views of the field. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. (2nd ed., pp. 131-142)., Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Schuman, L. (1996). Perspectives on instruction. [On-line]. Available:
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.htmlSchwier, R. A. (1995). Issues in emerging interactive technologies. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. (2nd ed., pp. 119-127)., Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Schwier, R. A. (1998). Schwiercourses, EDCMM 802, Unpublished manuscript, University of Saskatchewan at Saskatoon, Canada.
Shank, P. (Undated). Constructivist theory and internet based instruction. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.gwu.edu/~etl/shank.htmlSkinner, Thorndike, Watson. [On-line]. Available:
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rsauzier/Thorndike.htmlSmorgansbord, A., (Undated). Constructivism and instructional design. [On-line]. Available:
http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/smorgan/cons.htmlSpiro, R. J., Feltovich, M. J., Coulson, R. J. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, May, 24-33.
White, A. (1995) Theorists of behaviorism. [On-line]. Available:
http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~t377/btheorists.htmlWilkinson. G.L. (Ed.) (1995). Constructivism, objectivism, and isd. IT forum discussion, April 12 to August 21, 1995. [On-line]. Available:
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/extra4/disc-ex4.htmlWilson, B. G. (1997). Thoughts on theory in educational technology. Educational Technology, January-February, 22-27.
Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html