Advertisement

Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset

  • David Lebow
Research

Abstract

In this article, the implications of constructivism for instructional systems design (ISD) are summarized as five principles that integrate the affective and cognitive domains of learning. In contrast to current views, it is suggested that constructivist philosophy offers instructional designers an alternative set of values that may significantly influence the emphasis of ISD methods without undermining the coherence and consistency of the ISD model. Distinguishing characteristics of the two approaches are described, based on a review of recent literature. The article concludes with the assertion that the influence of constructivist philosophy on ISD should be to focus attention on critical enabling objectives traditionally overlooked by instructional designers.

Keywords

Coherence System Design Distinguishing Characteristic Recent Literature Educational Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1990).The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory.American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1990). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.),Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69–164). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Vye, N. J., & Reiser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving.American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S., (1988). Steps toward a new epistemology of situated learning.Proceedings of the ITS-88 International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada, June 1–3.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  10. Carroll, J. M. (1990).The Nurnberg funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physics students. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.),Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 163–187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chin, R., & Benne, K. D. (1976). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In K. D. Benne, W. G. Bennis, & R. Chin (Eds.),The planning of change (3rd ed., pp. 22–45). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Clifford, M. M. (1984). Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure.Educational Psychologist, 19, 108–120.Google Scholar
  14. Clinchy, E. (1989). Education in and about the real world.Equity and Choice, 3, 19–29.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, A. (1985). Teaching reasoning skills. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions (pp. 65–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing construction and constructing assessments: A dialogue.Journal of Educational Technology, 5, 13–17.Google Scholar
  18. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective.Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 325–346.Google Scholar
  20. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism.Educational Technology, 5, 41–44.Google Scholar
  21. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990).The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  22. DiVesta, F. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering: The next generation of instructional systems.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35(4), 213–230.Google Scholar
  23. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychology Review, 95(2), 256–273.Google Scholar
  24. Fosnot, C. T. (1984). Media and technology in education: A constructivist view.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32(4), 195–205.Google Scholar
  25. Gleick, J. (1987).Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  26. Groisman, A., Shapiro, B., & Willinsky, J. (1991). The potential of semiotics to inform understanding of events in science education.International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 217–226.Google Scholar
  27. Grundy, S. (1987).Curriculum: Product or praxis? New York: Palmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Emerging technologies. ISD and learning environments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.Google Scholar
  29. Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32(2) 67–87.Google Scholar
  30. Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (Eds.)Paradigms regained (pp. 515–520). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Hollis, W. (1991). Humanistic learning theory and instructional technology: Is reconciliation possible?Educational Technology, 11, 49–53.Google Scholar
  32. Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (in press). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. Jonassen (Eds.),Designing environments for constructivist learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.),Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 22–37). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.Google Scholar
  35. Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986).Models of teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Kaufman, R. (1988). Means and ends: Fixing the quick fix.Educational Technology, 1, 35–36.Google Scholar
  37. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction: A theoretical perspective. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–433). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Kember, D. (1991). Instructional design for meaningful learning.Instructional Science, 20(4), 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design.Educational Technology, 8, 42–47.Google Scholar
  40. Kozma, R. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1992).Technology and the fate of at-risk students. (Award No. USE-9150617). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990).A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Mager, R. F. (1962).Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.Google Scholar
  43. Mager, R. F. (1984).Developing attitude toward learning (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Mahoney, M. J., & Thorensen C. E. (1974).Self control: Power to the person. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  45. Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1986).The affective and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and research. Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  46. McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1989). The role of affective variables in autonomous learning.Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Merrill, D. M., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Second generational instructional design (ID2).Educational Technology, 2, 7–14.Google Scholar
  48. Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 99–105.Google Scholar
  49. Miller, A. (1984).For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence (2nd ed.) (H. Hildergarde, Trans.) New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. (Original work published 1980)Google Scholar
  50. Narode, R. (1989).A constructivist program for college remedial mathematics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 988)Google Scholar
  51. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension: Fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B.J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk, (Eds.),Self-regulated learning and academic theory, research, and practice (pp. 169–199). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Poplin, M. S. (1988). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(7), 401–416.Google Scholar
  54. Reeves, T. C. (1993, January).Pseudoscience in instructional technology: The case of learner control research. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  55. Reigeluth, C. M. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 1042–1629.Google Scholar
  56. Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Ross, S. M., & Morrison G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  58. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.),Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Ryan, R., & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to motivation and education.Journal of Experimental Education, 60(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  60. Salomon, G. (1986). Information technologies: What you see is not (always) what you get.Educational Psychologist, 20, 207–216.Google Scholar
  61. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
  62. Schmeck, R. (1988). Strategies and styles of learning: An integration of varied perspectives. In R. Schmeck (Ed.),Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 317–346). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  63. Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sigel, I. E. (1986). Cognition—Affect: A psychological riddle. In D. Bearison & H. Zimiles (Eds.),Thought and emotion: Developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.Google Scholar
  66. Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117–121.Google Scholar
  67. Streibel, M. J. (1989).Instructional plans and situated learning: The challenge of Suchman's theory of situated action for instructional designers and instructional systems. Dallas, TX: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 308 844)Google Scholar
  68. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.),Cognitive structure and conceptual change (p. 163–187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  69. Suchman, L. A. (1987).Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Tobin, K. (1992, February). Constructivism and the teaching of college science. In K. Tobin (Chair),Symposium on teaching and learning science and math. Symposium conducted by the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
  71. Triandis, H. C. (1972).The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Vermunt, D. H. (1989).The interplay between internal and external regulation of learning, and the design of process-oriented instruction. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 820)Google Scholar
  73. von Glasersfeld, E. (1988).Environment and communication. Paper presented at the ICME-6, Budapest, Hungary. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 850)Google Scholar
  74. von Glasersfeld, E. (1992, February). Untitled. In K. Tobin (Chair),Symposium on teaching and learning science and math. Symposium conducted by the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
  75. Wager, W. W. (1992, March 15). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  76. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education.Journal of Education Psychology, 82(4), 616–622.Google Scholar
  77. Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lebow
    • 1
  1. 1.the Department of Educational Research at Florida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations