Constructivism and Instructional Design

Are they compatible?

Summary and Presentation by Anna Ignatjeva

Introduction

• Instructional designers use various theories.• Constructivism has been dominant theory of

last decade.

• This presentation addresses the following: – Basic principles of constructivism– Implications of constructivism on instructional

design

Constructivism-an overview• Constructivists believe that learners actively

create knowledge based on their own experiences, goals and beliefs.

• Concepts of “Teaching” and “Learning” not synonymous.

• Knowledge cannot be transferred but only constructed.

• Meaning is created by individual not imposed on individual.

Constructivism in video

Click on the link below to learn more general information about constructivism theory in education

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00R3pOXzuk

Two groups of Constructivists

• Radical constructivists• Non-radical or moderate

constructivists

Implications for Instructional Design

My research presents constructivism in terms of three major phases of instructional design

Analysis

Development

Evaluation

Analysis

• Traditional Approach- analyze who is the learner, content and setting.

• Constructivist Approach- does not break environment into traditional components; no predetermined content or tasks.

• Constructivists analyze learning environment as whole and provide rich context to negotiate meaning.

Development

• Traditional Approach- set and achieve specific performance objectives.

• Constructivist Approach-no predetermined content and objectives.

• Constructivists concentrate on student-centered, student directed, collaborative, supported and cooperative learning.

Development cont

There are 4 major strategies preferred by constructivists in this stage

1. Active Learning2. Authentic Learning3. Multiple Perspectives4. Collaborative Learning

Evaluation

• Traditional Approach-evaluate the outcomes and results of learning.

• Constructivists evaluate thinking process, metacoginitive and reflective skills.

• Constructivist learners need to explain what they have learned and make connection to previous experiences.

Challenges

• Pre-specification of knowledge

• Evaluation

• Learner Control

• Underlying philosophy not a strategy

Solution based on Merrill’s second generation instructional design theory

– Mental models are constructed by learners based on their experience

– Each mental model may be different, but their structure is the same

– Teaching authentic tasks in a context is desirable

– But there is also need to teach abstractions that are taken out of context

– Subject matter and instructional strategy are somewhat independent

– But both of these can be adapted to different contexts separately, if needed

– There is class content that is appropriate for all learners

– When learning is active not necessarily collaborative, an individual learning is as effective

– Testing can be incorporated and aligned with learning objectives

– But other type of assessment is also possible (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005 p.23).

Technology tools

• Hypermedia, multimedia and Internet can allow for non-linear learning with increased learner control.

• Toolkits, coaching, scaffolding, role-playing games, simulations, case studies, storytelling promote active constructive learning.

• In the future micro worlds and virtual reality can simulate authentic learning.

Conclusion• Constructivism can become guiding

theoretical foundation of the future. • Two issues to consider: – Moderate not extreme constructivism fits into

instructional design framework– Many new technologies can implement and

facilitate constructivist environments.

Go to Journal of Educational Technology and Society online to read more http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_1/5.pdf

References• Gordon, M. (2009). Toward A Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reflections on Lessons from Practice.

Educational Studies, 45, 39–58. • Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potentials and

Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1),17-27.

• Kafai, Y., & Resnik, M (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. G. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext. In Nix, D. & Spiro, R. (Eds.), Cognition, education, multimedia, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 165-202.

• Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe, L. P. & Gale, J. (Eds.),Constructivism in education, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-15.

• Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning – Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 254–266.

• Kala, S. et. al (2009).et al. Electronic learning and constructivism: A model for nursing education. Nurse Education Today. Retrieved on October 12, 2009 from www.elsevier.com/nedt

Questions?