Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A variety of instructional approaches has been studied and implemented across educational and training settings. Vastly different design practices have been proposed that reflect fundamentally different philosophies, beliefs, and biases. Yet, evidence of mismatched frameworks and methods are widespread. This has become particularly problematic in advancing emerging constructivist learning environments. In this paper, we advance the concept of grounded design, a process that involves linking the practices of learning systems design with related theory and research. The purposes of this paper are to introduce the fundamentals of grounded design, to describe how underlying foundations and assumptions can be aligned with the corresponding methods, and to introduce examples of grounded constructivist learning environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd Ed.) (1993). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  • Anderson, J. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learning and education.Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1995). Theory into practice: How do we link it? In G. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., p. 100–112). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Davis, E. (1996, April).Designing an activity in the knowledge integration environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York: NY.

  • Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braden, R. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths.Educational Technology, 36(2), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On Procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.),Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing and learning: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J., Moore, M., & Magliaro, S. (1996). Behaviorism in instructional technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 46–73). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991). Some thoughts about constructivism and instructional design.Educational Technology, September, 16–18.

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.),International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347–361). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Hollum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.American Educator, 15(3), 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism.Educational Technology, May, 41–44.

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996).The systematic design of instruction (4th Ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. (1968). Learning hierarchies.Educational Psychologist, 6, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1988).Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R., & Glaser, R. (1987). Foundations in learning research. In R. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 49–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research.American Psychologist, 45(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665–692). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications.Educational Technology, 34(8), 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J., & Land, S.M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments.Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1989). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Parts I & II.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 91–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J., & Hannafin, M.J. (in press). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World-Wide Web.Educational Technology Research and Development.

  • Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.) (1996).Constructionism in practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design.Educational Technology, August, 42–47.

  • Lamon, M., Secules, T., Petrosino, A., Hackett, R., Bransford, J., & Goldman, S. (1996). Schools for thought: Overview of the project and lessons learned from one of the sites. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.),Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 243–288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(2), 47–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Bell, P. & Hsi, S. (in press). Lifelong science learning on the Internet: The Knowledge Integration Environment.Interactive Learning Environments.

  • McClellan, H. (Ed.) (1996).Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D., Drake, L., Lacy, Pratt, J., and the ID2 Research Group at Utah State University (1996). Reclaiming instructional design.Educational Technology, September–October, 5–7.

  • Microworlds Project Builder (Version 1.02) (Computer program). (1993). Highgate Springs, VT: Logo Computer Systems, Inc.

  • Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993).Mindstorms (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D.N. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information processing technology shapes thinking.Educational Researcher, 14, 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections.Educational Technology, January–February, 42–47.

  • Reigeluth, C. (in preparation).Instructional design theories and modls (Vol. II). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (1991).Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (1996). Toward a practice of constructional design. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.),Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 161–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L.P. (1993). A pragmatic view of instructional technology. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 193–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, D. (1988). Effective drill and practice strategies. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 103–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1986). Information technologies: What you see is not (always) what you get.Educational Psychologist, 20, 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T.M. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. (pp. 135–150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1996).Innovations in learning: New environments for education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1993).Instructional Design. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. (1993). Theories, traditions, and situated learning.Educational Technology, 33(3) 71–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasserfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (Ed.) (1996).Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (1997). Thoughts on educational technology.Educational Technology, January–February, 22–27.

  • Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership?Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology.Educational Technology, January–February, 34–41.

  • Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 112–142). New York: Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the University of Georgia, USA

    Michael J. Hannafin (Professor of Instructional Technology and Director of the Learning and Performance Support Laboratory)

  2. the Medical College of Georgia, USA

    Kathleen M. Hannafin (Associate Professor and Director of Educational Design and Development)

  3. The Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Susan M. Land (Assistant Professor of Instructional Systems)

  4. the University of Georgia, USA

    Kevin Oliver (doctoral candidate in the Instructional Technology program)

Authors
  1. Michael J. Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen M. Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan M. Land
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin Oliver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Land, S.M. et al. Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. ETR&D 45, 101–117 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299733

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299733

Keywords

Search

Navigation