Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paradigms revisited: a quantitative investigation into a model to integrate objectivism and constructivism in instructional design

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

Abstract

While learning interventions were traditionally classified as either objectivist or constructivist there has been an increasing tendency for practitioners to use elements of both paradigms in a consolidated fashion. This has meant a re-think of the two perspectives as diametrically opposite. A four-quadrant model, first proposed in this journal was tested to see to what extent instructional design practitioners were, in fact, integrating elements of both paradigms into a single learning event. After a pilot and a main study involving 214 designers it was found that all their courses did, in fact present somewhere in the four quadrants of the matrix, rather than to fall on a supposed straight line. The results of this study show that the matrix may be useful in describing the choices made by instructional designers when they select elements of instructional design.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Bell, L., & Dorman, J. (2012). Using a new learning environment questionnaire for reflection in teacher action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 259–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2013). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. Distance Education in China, 6, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahari, S. F. (2012). Qualitative versus quantitative research strategies: Contrasting epistemological and ontological assumptions. Jurnal Teknologi, 52(1), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basson, E. M. (1998). Constructivist versus behaviorist principles Excel spreadsheet Questionnaire.

  • Baviskar l, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist‐teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541–550.

  • Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools (p. 25). Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, V., & Fisher, D. (2001). The validation and application of a new learning environment instrument to evaluate online learning in higher education. Curtin University of Technology. http://bauhaus.ece.curtin.edu.au/~iain/PhDBU/A_Phddocs/Toread/Accessibilityinfo/Research/PhDJuly2002/wp_chang_fisher.doc.

  • Chen, S. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction. Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure, 158–183.

  • Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2009). Survey research: Process and limitations. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(1), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronje, J. C. (2006). Paradigms regained : Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 387–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronjé, J. C. (2000). Paradigms lost: Towards integrating objectivism and constructivism. ITForum. ITForum. http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/paper48/paper48.htm. Accessed 16 December 2015.

  • Cronjé, J. C. (2006). Pretoria to Khartoum: How we taught an Internet-supported Masters’ programme across national, religious, cultural and linguistic barriers Research method. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 9, 276–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronjé, J. C., & Brittz, B. (2005). Programming in the real world. Education as Change, 9(2), 131–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronjé, J. C., & Burger, D. (2006). Learning from a free-access digital information kiosk in Africa: An objectivist—Constructivist investigation. Aslib Proceedings, 58(3), 218–236. doi:10.1108/00012530610677246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyjur, P., & Li, Q. (2010). A study of designing an inquiry-based unit in mathematics and science. I-Manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 5(4), 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elander, K. R. (2012). Merging paradigms: The integration of objectivist and constructivist approaches in university settings. Minneapolis: Capella University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fosnot, C. T. (1995). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. Columbia: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frary, R. B. (1996). Hints for designing effective questionnaires. The Catholic Unviversity of America: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment & Evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, M. A., Hudson, L. M., & Wiersma, W. (1999). The constructivist teaching inventory: A new instrument for assessing constructivist teaching practices in the elementary grades.

  • Heckman, J. E., & Heckman, M. V. (2011). Evaluating surveys as assessment tools: theory, methods, and mechanics of online surveys.

  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoonakker, P., & Carayon, P. (2009). Questionnaire survey nonresponse: a comparison of postal mail and internet surveys. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(5), 348–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2007). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. The Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). College navigator. https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/. Accessed 7 Jan 2012.

  • Jin, L. (2011). Improving response rates in web surveys with default setting: The effects of default on web survey participation and permission. International Journal of Market Research, 53(1), 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. M., Casper, R. M., Dermoudy, J., Osborn, J. E., & Yates, B. F. (2010). Authentic learning: A paradigm for increasing student motivation in an era of mass education. In Teaching Matters 2010 Conference (pp. 52–59).

  • Jurczyk, J., Kushner Benson, S. N., & Savery, J. R. (2004). Measuring student perceptions in web-based courses: A standards-based approach. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(4).

  • Kang, L. O., Brian, S., & Ricca, B. (2010). Constructivism in pharmacy school. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 126–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A. S., & Nawaz, A. (2010). Digital literacy: The criteria for being educated in information society. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 10(10), 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K. (2008). Transforming our models of learning and development: Web-based instruction as enabler of third-generation instruction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, G. M. (2003). Integration of computers into the primary school curriculum at Glenstantia Primary School : grade 1. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). Students’ conceptions of distinct constructivist assumptions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(2), 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggio, L. A., ten Cate, O., Irby, D. M., & O’Brien, B. C. (2015). Designing evidence-based medicine training to optimize the transfer of skills from the classroom to clinical practice: Applying the four component instructional design model. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

  • Maor, D. (1999). A teacher professional development program on using a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 2(3), 307–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maronick, T. J. (2009). The role of the internet in survey research: Guidelines for researchers and experts. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 5(1), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masoumi, D., & Lindström, B. (2012). E-learning as a cultural artifact: An empirical study of Iranian Virtual Institutions. Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology 2012, 393–409. http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/2171/1/393-409_Session6a-Masoumi,Lindström_f.pdf.

  • Otting, H., & Zwaal, W. (2011). Hospitality management students’ conceptions about teaching and learning and their evaluation of tasks in problem-based learning. The Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and Tourism, 10(1), 4–12. doi:10.3794/johlste.101.240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, C. J., Gali, V. S., Patel, D. V., & Parmar, R. D. (2011). The effects of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on higher education: From objectivism to social constructivism. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 3(5), 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollalis, Y. A., & Mavrommatis, G. (2009). Using similarity measures for collaborating groups formation: A model for distance learning environments. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(2), 626–636. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.11.053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainer Dangel, J., & Hooper, S. (2010). Researching Pedagogy in a Professional Development School. School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2012). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1–37. doi:10.1111/cogs.12086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, K. N. (1978). Sample design for educational survey research. Evaluation in Education: International Progress, 2(2), 105–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabo, A. (1997). Integrating constructionism and instructionism in educational hypermedia programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(3), 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiboda, M. (2012). Life and thought in the rushes: Mnemotechnics and orthographic temporal objects in the philosophy of Bernard Stiegler. New Formations, 77(1), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., & Maor, D. (2000). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the Constructivist Online Learning Environment Survey.

  • Trollip, S. R., & Alessi, S. M. (2001). Multimedia for learning: methods and development. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Four-Component Instructional Design. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1320–1322). Springer.

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2014). Research paradigms and perspectives on learning. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 21–29). Springer.

  • Voigt, C. (2008). Educational design and media choice for collaborative, electronic case-based learning (e-CBL). Critical Inquiry (July).

  • Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, C. W., Hung, I. C., Lee, L., & Chen, N. S. (2011). A joyful classroom learning system with robot learning companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. R., & Schwier, R. A. (2009). Authenticity in the process of learning about instructional design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne de L’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 35(2).

  • Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1766–1783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harding University, Searcy, USA

    Kelly Elander

  2. Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

    Johannes C. Cronje

Authors
  1. Kelly Elander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes C. Cronje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes C. Cronje.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This study was self-funded and no conflict of interest exists.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elander, K., Cronje, J.C. Paradigms revisited: a quantitative investigation into a model to integrate objectivism and constructivism in instructional design. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 389–405 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9424-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9424-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation