Skip to main content
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1988). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1986).Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1990).Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Churchland, P. (1984).Matter and consciousness: A contemporary introduction to the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. H. (in press).Instructional principles for constructivist learning environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Fodor, J. (1981).Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1985).The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1984).Of mind and other matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1985a). Learning strategies: A new educational technology.Programmed Learning & Educational Technology, 22, 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Context is everything.Educational Technology, 31(6), 33–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational technology, 31(9).

  • Kuhn, T. (1962).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand, A. (1966).Introduction to objectivist epistemology. New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(2), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1979).The interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1983).Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. P. (1960).The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). Radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.),The invented reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P. (1984).The invented reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, T., & Burton, J. (1981). Integrating learning theory with instructional design,Journal of Instructional Development, 4(3), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1975). An open system model of learning.A V Communication Review, 23, 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1989). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonassen, D.H. Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. ETR&D 39, 5–14 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434

Keywords

Navigation