Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 53–65 | Cite as

The real world on a short leash: The (mis) application of constructivism to the design of educational technology

  • Joseph Petraglia
Development

Abstract

Constructivism, or more precisely, a constructivist metatheory, presently prevails throughout professional education circles. Most educators easily accept constructivism's central premise that learners approach tasks with prior knowledge and expectations based on their knowledge of the world around them. Naturally, then, constructivist educational technologists have been guided by the implicit (and increasingly explicit) desire to create “authentic” environments for learning: environments that correspond to the real world. In this paper, I argue that technologists have tended to paper over the critical epistemological dimension of constructivism by “preauthenticating” learning environments: creating environments that are predetermined to reflect the real world even though constructivist theory contrindicates precisely this. I suggest that a rhetorical perspective on constructivism offers a way out of this bind and I propose some guidelines to assist developers of educational technologies in accommodating the essentially dialogic nature of teaching and learning.

Keywords

Real World Prior Knowledge Educational Technology Professional Education Constructivist Theory 
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., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education.Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1932).Rhetoric. (L. Cooper, Trans.). New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
  3. Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J.D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 393–452). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction, language and the authority of knowledge.College English, 48, 773–787.Google Scholar
  7. Clancey, W. (1993). Guidon-manage revisited: A socio-technical systems approach.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 4(1), 5–34.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, J.M. (1995).Cognitive apprenticeship, motivation, and college writing: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.Google Scholar
  9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19, 2–10.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, Y.A. (1971). The shaping of mens's minds: Adaptation to imperatives in culture. In M. Wax, S. Diamond, & F. Gearing (Eds.),Anthropological perspectives on education. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds.),Educational values and cognitive instruction (pp. 121–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, A. (1994, November–December). Goal-based scenarios and the problem of situated learning: A commentary on Andersen Consulting's design of goal-based scenarios.Educational Technology, 30–32.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.American Educator, (Winter), 6–11, 38–46.Google Scholar
  14. Covey, P.K. (1990). Integrating emotion in moral reasoning and learning. In R. Kozma & J. Johnston (Eds.),Educational computing in the humanities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (1938).Experience and education. New York: Collier.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1961).Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.Educational Researcher, 23(7) 5–12.Google Scholar
  18. Dunn, T.G. (1994). If we can't contextualize it, should we teach it?Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990).Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southen Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Geertz, C. (1985).Local knowledge: Further essays on interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Greeno, J.G. (1989). A perspective on thinking.American Psychologist, 44(2), 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hacking, I. (1983).Representing and intervening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hmelo, C.E., & Nararyanan, N.H. (1995). Anchors, cases, problems, and scenarios as contexts for learning.Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. (5–8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Jonassen, D.H. (1992) Cognitive flexibility theory and its implications for designing CBI. In S. Dijkstra, H.P.M. Krammer & J.J.G. van Merrienboer (Eds.),Instructional models in computer-based learning environments, (pp. 385–403). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D.H. (1994, April). Thinking technology: Towards a constructivist design model.Educational Technology, 34–37.Google Scholar
  26. Leontiev, A.N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.),The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  27. Luria, A.R. (1976).Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mastracci, M. (1991). Confronting real-world ethics on videodisc.Carnegie Mellon Magazine, 9(3), 26–29.Google Scholar
  29. McKendree, J., Reader, W., & Hammond, N. (1995). The ‘homeopathic’ fallacy in learning from hypertext.Interactions.2(3), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Minsky, M. (1961). Steps toward artificial intelligence.Proceedings of the IRE;49, 8–29.Google Scholar
  31. Neuman, W.R. (1995, January). The psychology of the new media.Educom Review, 48–54.Google Scholar
  32. Ong, W. 1982.Orality and literacy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  33. Perkins, D.N. (1992). What constructivism demand of the learner. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 161–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Petraglia, J. (1991).Exploring the effects of realism on arousal and rhetorical representation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  35. Petraglia, J. (1998).Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Piaget, J. (1970).Genetic epistemology. (E. Duckworth, Trans.) New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Resnick, L.B. (1990). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 13–20.Google Scholar
  38. Sack, W., Soloway, E., & Weingrad, P. (1992). Re-writing cartesian student models.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 3(4), 381–402.Google Scholar
  39. Schank, R., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1994).The design of goal-based scenarios. Unpublished manuscript. Institute for Learning Sciences, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  40. Shute, V. (1993). A macroadaptive approach to tutoring.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.4(1), 61–93.Google Scholar
  41. Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Spiro, R., & Jehng, J-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–202). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962).Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Petraglia
    • 1
  1. 1.the Georgia Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations