Advertisement

Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?

  • David H. Jonassen
Research
  • 4.2k Downloads

Abstract

Many scholars in the instructional systems field have addressed the paradigm shift in the field of learning psychology and its implications for instructional systems technology (IST). This article analyzes the philosophical assumptions underlying IST and its behavioral and cognitive foundations, each of which is primarily objectivistic, which means that knowing and learning are processes for representing and mirroring reality. The philosophical assumptions of objectivism are then contrasted with constructivism, which holds that knowing is a process of actively interpreting and constructing individual knowledge representations. The implications of constructivism for IST provide a context for asking the reader to consider to what extent our field should consider this philosophical paradigm shift.

Keywords

Educational Technology System Technology Paradigm Shift Knowledge Representation Individual Knowledge 
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. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1988). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. (1986).Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. (1990).Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction.Educational Psychologist, 17, 31–51.Google Scholar
  5. Churchland, P. (1984).Matter and consciousness: A contemporary introduction to the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, A. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.),Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.),Learning, knowing, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. DiVesta, F. J., & Reiber, L. P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering: The next generation of instructional systems.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35, 213–230.Google Scholar
  9. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. H. (in press).Instructional principles for constructivist learning environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J. (1981).Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, H. (1985).The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Goodman, N. (1984).Of mind and other matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jonassen, D. H. (1985a). Learning strategies: A new educational technology.Programmed Learning & Educational Technology, 22, 26–34.Google Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D. H. (1985b). Mathemagenic vs. generative control of text processing. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),The technology of text (Vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Context is everything.Educational Technology, 31(6), 33–34.Google Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational technology, 31(9).Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, T. (1962).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rand, A. (1966).Introduction to objectivist epistemology. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  20. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Introduction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: The current state of the art. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(2), 13–20.Google Scholar
  22. Salomon, G. (1979).The interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Scriven, M. (1983).Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  24. Snow, C. P. (1960).The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  25. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988).Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Technical Report No. 441). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
  26. von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). Radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.),The invented reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Watzlawick, P. (1984).The invented reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wildman, T., & Burton, J. (1981). Integrating learning theory with instructional design,Journal of Instructional Development, 4(3), 5–14.Google Scholar
  29. Winn, W. (1975). An open system model of learning.A V Communication Review, 23, 5–33.Google Scholar
  30. Winn, W. (1989). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • David H. Jonassen
    • 1
  1. 1.the University of ColoradoUSA

Personalised recommendations