implications and problems of constructivism for ... · implications and problems of constructivism...

Education Journal 4t tf ^ & © 77?^ Chinese University of Hong Kong 1996

Winter 1995, Vol. 23, No. 2 ISSN 1025-1936/HK$50

Implications and Problems ofConstructivism for InstructionalDesign

LAW LAI-CHONGLudwig-Maximilians-UniversitdtMunchenWONG KA-MINGThe Chinese University of Hong Kong

While one of the primary aims of expert-novice comparison studies is todraw instructional implications for educating learners to acquire the ex-pertise, it is argued that this process of applying empirical findings toinstructional practice is problematic. The issue can be traced back to thelearning theories which are inextricably related to instructional design.Grounded upon behaviourism and cognitivism, traditional instructionalapproaches are suspected of breeding inert knowledge. In their place,constructivism, which actually spans a continuum of theoretical positions,has instigated significant reconceptualizations of instructional design andcurriculum planning. Its basic assumptions are that knowledge is activelyconstructed by knowers and that learning is most effective when situated insome authentic task contexts. Nonetheless, apart from an apparent incom-patibility with the basic philosophy of traditional teaching and learning,other immediate challenges particularly presented to constructivist in-structional approaches include the problems of evaluation, boundary con-ditions, effects of media on learning, and teacher training.

The slogan that "students construct their own knowledge" has apparentlygained wide acceptance among many educational researchers and prac-titioners since the past decade, despite the fact that this statement in itselfcan give rise to different interpretations, not to mention its equivocalimplications for pedagogical practice. Constructivism reduced to such amotto that, after having entered into the background as our common sense,can no longer stimulate further enthusiasm for theoretical and pedagogical

74 Law Lai-chong & Wong Ka-ming

considerations. In this article, we want to focus on some implicit issuesconcerning the epistemological assumptions of traditional instructionaldesign, curriculum planning as well as constructivism. Some features andproblems of a constructivist instructional model will be discussed. Beforedelineating the implications of constructivism for instructional design, weshall first look at some background of traditional theories of instruction.

Instructional Design and Research on Expertise

Research on expertise pioneered by de Groot (1946/1978) has instigatedmanifold studies in a variety of academic disciplines (see, e.g., Chi, Glaser,& Farr, 1988; Ericsson & Smith, 1991; Hoffman, 1992). In particular, asubstantial portion of the research efforts has been invested in thosedomains where symbolic representations play a crucial role, includingmathematics, physics, computer programming, and medicine. Varyingdegrees of expertise constitute a continuum which is analogous to the caseof on-the-job training programmes where a trainee progresses from ap-prentice to journeyman to master craftsman. Presumably, the primary aimof the expert-novice studies is to identify the contrasting characteristics,both qualitative and quantitative ones, of subjects with various levels ofknowledge and skills in a certain domain, and thus to establish theories byincorporating the variables so isolated to account for the observed differen-ces in their performance in that domain. Concomitantly, a practical con-cern is to draw some implications from these studies for training novicesinto experts by some efficient and effective means. Instructional interven-tions have conventionally been considered as germane to serve this par-ticular function. In fact, one way that current endeavours in cognitivescience can contribute to instructional design is through this research onexpertise from which the empirical findings can be employed to sensitizethe instructor to differences in performance of experts and novices as wellas of intervening stages. Generally speaking, the significant distinctions liein mental representations of concepts and problems, in pattern recognition,in sequencing actions for a task, in the depth of rules deployed, in theautomaticity in using procedures, and the like (Chi et al., 1988).

In view of the fact that experts organize knowledge and approachproblem solving differently from novices, the goal of instruction from acognitive perspective seems to be to replicate experts' knowledge struc-ture and cognitive processes in the learner's mind (Glaser, 1990). Further-more, empirical findings across various domains have shown that superior

Implications and Problems of Constructivism for Instructional Design 75

performance is predominantly acquired rather than inherited (Ericsson &Charness, 1994). This implies that instruction is believed to be capable ofimposing certain effects on the acquisition of expertise. Nonetheless, cau-tion should be taken when relating the empirical findings from research onexpertise to instruction (Di Vesta & Rieber, 1987; Linn, 1986). Besides thequality of expertise, experts differ from novices in many factors such asage, quality of the learning experiences received, motivation, and style oflearning. On the other hand, the mere fact that experts behave and operateat a different level does not necessarily imply that the characteristics ofexperts' performance should be the goal or even a subgoal to be achievedby all novices, or that the processes employed by experts should be learnedat the outset by novices. For instance, in programming debugging tasks,experts tend to debug several program errors at one time. However, it istoo cognitive demanding for novices to imitate such debugging strategywhen their limited domain-specific knowledge and programming ex-perience can merely allow them to tackle only one bug at a time. Further-more, to attain the ultimate degree of expertise necessitates considerabletime. Yet, mere time-on-task is not sufficient to advance towards expertise.The progress requires quality time involving a variety of well-guidedlearning experiences as well as involvement in tackling problems arisen inpraxis. These caveats notwithstanding, by understanding how a given ac-tivity is peiformed at each stage of expertise and by knowing the attributesof expert behaviour, instructional designers can nonetheless have someveridical references for the standard to be achieved.

With the advent of audiovisual and computer technology, varioustechniques for modelling expertise and representing knowledge have beenexplored in artificial intelligence research. Built upon experts' knowledgestructures, intelligent tutoring systems or computer-based instruction, andmore recent hypermedia systems have been extensively developed in thefield of instructional systems design. While a variety of research methodsand analyses are elaborated in the bulk of the literature on expertise,implications for teaching or instructional strategies are predominantly con-fined to establishing more sophisticated expert systems (or knowledge-based systems) using knowledge engineering techniques, but with limitedattention being paid to examining the underlying theoretical premises ofthis particular approach. With the increasing sophistication of educationaltechnology, it is tempting to equate such technological advance with in-structional gain. Many have argued that simply knowing the correlatedrelationships linking instructional methods with their outcomes cannot


ensure the success of instructional design (Winn, 1989) because there maybe other intervening factors such as learners' characteristics which are alsoconducive to the desirable effects observed. Moreover, the worrisomediscontinuities between learning in school and cognitive activities outsideschool (Resnick, 1987) cannot simply be bridged by mere high-technol-ogy. It is of utmost importance, on the one hand, not to confuse ends withmeans by which such ends can be accomplished, and not to dissociatepractice from theory, on the other.

The Linking Role of Instructional Design

The recurrent problem lurking in almost every research enterprise, be it ofnatural sciences or humanities, is the seemingly frail link between theoryand practice. Discussions pertinent to bridging the gap between armchairphilosophy and real life application, and to resolving the contentiousrelationship between the privileged perspective of scholars vis-a-vis thepractitioners keep on emerging in the centennial history of educationalpsychology (Dewey, 1916; Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1994). The argu-ments concerned have particular relevance and significance for instruction-al design which is termed a "linking science" for relating instructionaltheory with practice (Winn, 1989). Instructional design is eclectic in na-ture, encompassing a diversity of techniques grounded upon a range ofparadigms and disciplines, such as behavioural learning theory, cyber-netics, information-processing theory, media technology, systems theory,to name just a few (Andrews & Goodson, 1991; Bednar, Cunningham,Duffy, & Perry, 1991; Reigeluili, 1983, 1987). Extracting the concepts andstrategies from theoretical and empirical research is a practical mechanismfor providing the guidance that practitioners need. However, the difficul-ties of translating theory-in-the-air to practice-on-the-ground are tremen-dous and some even argue that such a crude process would strip thetheoretical concepts of meaning.

Nevertheless, there are two major problems engendered by the tradi-tional instructional approaches, namely the issue of inert knowledge and ofknowledge compartmentalization. The former refers to the phenomenonthat learners fail to access relevant knowledge spontaneously while tack-ling a novel problem and this can be attributed to their habitual learningstrategy of memorizing information without understanding its relevance toa specific context. The latter refers to the lack of connections betweenfragmented pieces of knowledge and is caused by the lack of linkages


between the newly taught concepts with learners' preconception andrelevant knowledge in the topic concerned (Bransford, Goldman, & Vye,1991; Mandl, Gruber, & Renkl, 1993). These issues can well reveal theinadequacy of traditional instructional practice in fostering transfer oflearning, showing that the instructional models in question should be sub-ject to challenges and revisions. In order to locate the core reasons forthese identified deficiencies, we might partly trace to the theoretical as-sumptions underlying the learning psychology on which these instructionalmethods ultimately rely.

Epistemological Assumptions of Traditional InstructionalTheories

While expertise has become an intriguing research domain which has beenboosted by the advances of artificial intelligence and cognitive psychologysince mid-1960s (Chi et al., 1988), instructional psychology has beengaining its ground as an exuberant branch of the mainstream research onhuman cognition and development (Glaser & Bassok, 1989). Variousschools of thought and research that have strong bearings in shaping dif-ferent instructional approaches and programmes in diverse domains havebeen well documented (see, e.g., Glaser, 1990). Not until recently hasinstructional design tended to be built principally upon the behaviourallearning theory. The evolution of instructional theories from early be-haviouristic views (e.g., Skinner's programmed instruction) to recent cog-nitive perspectives (e.g., Merrill's [1994] component display theory) havebeen reviewed by a number of authors (see, e.g., Bonner, 1988; Cooper,1993; Di Vesta & Rieber, 1987; Merrill, Li, & Jone., 1990). According tothese reviews, three core assumptions of the behavioural approach, namelyobjectivism, environmentalism, and reinforcement (Bullock, 1982), andthree pivotal concepts in cognitive psychology, namely metacognition,schema, and knowledge acquisition (Gagne & Dick, 1983) are of particularrelevance to instruuioual design. Nonetheless, expert modelling, be it per-formance-oriented or conceptual-based and be it demonstrated through ahuman tutor or technological media, is the central process for instructionaldesign in these two paradigms.

While evidence is accumulating that the instructional methods com-monly adopted in schools are problematic (see, e.g., Bransford et al., 1991;Resnick, 1989), an intriguing query is whether such problems are inherentin the epistemological assumptions about learning per se or in translating


the related theories into practice. A number of theorists have asserted thatmost currently employed educational practice is indeed the victim of aninadequate epistemology (see, e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;Greeno, 1989). In reviewing the traditional instructional theories, severalaspects have been identified as supportive evidence for the foregoingassertion. Each of them will be briefly elucidated below.

Objectivism

In spite of their divergence, both behaviourism and cognitivism are builtupon the fundamental assumption of objectivism, that is, a unique, inde-pendent reality existing external to the knower. To the behaviourist, theinternal cognitive processing is of no concern, and the key to analysinghuman behaviour lies exclusively in the observation of environmentalevents; to the cognitivist, the internal processing is only of importance tothe extent that it can explain how the external reality is discerned. How-ever, von Glasersfeld (1977), a radical constructivist, rejected this objec-tivist view, pointing out that two of its basic premises are illogical: "thatwhat we learn is a replica of some independent, well-structured worldand that this independent ontological reality determines our experiences"(p. 34). The transition from behavioural to cognitive learning theory ismarked by Chomsky's seminal review of Skinner's work, and the cor-responding paradigmatic shift is claimed to have taken place in instruction-al theory. On the other hand, it has been argued that instructional designaccommodates cognitive psychology at the theoretical rather than the prac-tical level (Jonassen, 1990). In view of its reliance on evaluating externaland observable actions, a cognitive frame is always implicitly tainted withbehavioural bias which ironically is disdained by cognitivists.

Mechanistic View of Human Cognition

The deep-seated ideas of logical empiricism, rationalism, and formalismhave been highly upheld in Western culture (Winograd & Flores, 1986).With the advent of computer technology, the metaphorical depiction of thearchitecture of human mind as the corresponding components of a com-puter system has been widely accepted as a legitimate model in the last fewdecades in cognitive science in which the mecnanisms for human learningare described in terms of input-process-output cycles of symbolicmanipulations. Nonetheless, the taken-for-granted rationalistic traditionand the symbolic processing approach have repeatedly been subjected to


critical analyses in view of the limitations of their scope and power toexplain complex human behaviour (e.g., H. L. Dreyfus & S. E. Dreyfus,1988; Norman, 1993).

Determinism, Predictability, and Replicability

The traditional cognitivist learning differs from the emergent situatedlearning primarily in the predictability of human behaviour. Given thepresumption that pre-specified behavioural responses can be determinedby a specific stimulus, prescriptive uses of descriptive instructionaltheories are therefore justified for traditional instructional design(Reigeluth, 1983,1987). More problematic is to suppose that instructionalprototypes can be applied across contexts, time, and student charac-teristics. These questionable suppositions on durability and portabilityof instructional systems are well reflected in the traditional transmis-sion teaching model with the implicit view that learners are passiverecipients.

Reductionism, Context-Independence, and Simplification

Traditionally, it is assumed that generic knowledge and skill can bedecomposed into component parts which function consistently inde-pendent of the context in which they are used. It is a common teachingpractice to initiate with simple, basic concepts and skills, and then proceedwith increasing complexity in order to avoid overloading learners' limitedattentional capacity. It is assumed that these separate knowledge elementscan be combined as a whole later without problem. However, sinceknowledge is represented not as isolated bits but as a network of organizedrelationships, and skill and knowledge are highly context-dependent, thefunctionality of such a bottom-up instructional approach is questionable(Resnick, 1989).

The growing body of evidence for the indeterminism and unpre-dictability of human cognition calls forth further changes in how instruc-tional designers think and act (Winn, 1990). A new challenge forinstruction now is to develop ways of organizing learning that allowscontextualized practice, which is necessary both to attune skills andknowledge to their environments of use as well as to inspire motivation forapplying what have been learned (Resnick, 1989).


Constructivism: A Paradigm Shift for Instructional Theory

In contrast to its predecessors, the cornerstone of constructivism is thenotion that "reality" is determined by the experiences of the knower.Concisely speaking, the move from behaviourism through cognitivism toconstructivism represents shifts in emphasis away from an external viewtowards an internal view. The constructivist regards reality as personallyconstructed. That is, external phenomena are meaningless unless they areperceived by the mind. In fact, to present a concise theoretical analysis ofconstructivism is difficult, as it actually involves a number of substantiallydifferent schools of thought, and the current discussions are characterizedby miscellany and confusion (Gerstenmaier & Mandl, 1994). While con-verging on the basic tenet that knowledge is actively constructed by thelearners themselves and agreeing upon the advocacy that the traditionalmodel of teaching should be replaced by a much more complex and inter-active one (Prawat & Floden, 1994), various schools of constructivism,however, diverge on their views about how best to facilitate the knowledgeconstruction process and on the instructional implications. A variety ofconstructivist theoretical positions can, according to some reviews (e.g.,Cooper, 1993; Lowyck & Elen, 1993; Winn, 1990), be characterized bytheir relative stances in four philosophical orientations, namely, existenceof an objective reality, predominance of internal processes, effects of in-structional interventions, and legitimization of translating descriptivetheory into prescriptive practice. Noteworthy is that positions on these fourphilosophical orientations are not entirely independent. To simplify thematter, we describe briefly the features of three major positions.

Mild Constructivism

For constructivists adopting a mild stance, most learning involves theinteraction between internal cognitive structures and processes and exter-nal instructional materials (see, e.g., Gagne, 1987). With the belief that anabsolute reality or truth can be well-defined, it is possible to steer anindividual's behaviour towards a desirable goal through systematic in-structional interventions. In this position, it is implicitly accepted thatlearning objectives are externally defined and that the translation fromdescription to prescription is justified, albeit the prescriptive advice in-ferred directly from outcomes of cognitive research are generallyvague and encompassing. For these mild constructivists, adding somecoaching component or incorporating some helping systems to traditional


instructional strategies are sufficient for knowledge construction (Winn,1993), and self-regulated learning is an ideal strategy to be deployed.

Strong Constructivism

On the opposite end of the scale, strong constructivist theory rests upon theepistemological assumption that knowledge is not tied to an externalreality at all, but based upon individual personal experiences to the extentthat the world is perceived in an idiosyncratic way. For those who take thisradical position, learning itself is indeterministic and unpredictable but isemergent, depending on continuous negotiation of meaning in social inter-actions within specific contexts. There is no shared objective world toteach about, and consequently instructional analysis and prescription aredeemed to be useless. This extreme view of constructivism can be wellrepresented by a Chilean biologist, Humberto Maturana, who has coinedthe term autopoiesis to describe a living system as self-organized andstructurally closed (Maturana & Varela, 1980). It is implied that there is nostrict cause-effect relationship between the world and the learner who canrespond to environmental stimuli in an idiosyncratic manner. Maturanaargued that human learning could only be understood by focusing oninteractions within the learning systems, but not on the structure of theenvironment (Winograd & Flores, 1986). From this perspective, instruc-tional design should only limit its endeavours to the construction of in-structional systems that help learners develop their self-teaching skills andoffer learning environments to be used by learners as resources (Streibel,1989). To push further, the death penalty for instructional design could besentenced because its inherently controlling nature interferes with anddeteriorates the learning process, so claimed by strong constructivists.

Moderate Constructivism

Those who occupy the moderate positions on this scale are proponents ofsituated cognition. While the reality is not totally denied by thesesituationists, the notion of humans as observing systems has its strongimpact on some of them (e.g., Clancey, 1993). In this view, learning isregarded as a generative process, but can still be influenced by instructionmainly through setting goals and monitoring the process. Its basic assump-tion that a learner is an active participant in instructional process withidiosyncratic reactions towards the stimuli is however irreconcilablewith the traditional notion that a learner's reactions can be predicted and


controlled. Hence, this position considers that the translation from descrip-tion to prescription is problematic, and that the incorporation of cognitiveresearch outcomes into instructional design is barely possible (Winn,1989). To cut a long story short, the stronger the constructivist bias, thelesser is the importance ascribed to the role of instruction in learning.

Some Basic Considerations for ConstructivistLearning Environments

Two fundamental notions emphatically claimed by all constructivist ap-proaches are that the reality is constructed by knowers based upon theirperceptions and that learners construct knowledge by actively interpretingperceptual experiences in terms of their prior knowledge, current mentalstructures, and existing beliefs (Jonassen, Mayes, & McAleese, 1993). Inthis view, learning environments should be so arranged as to encourage thegenerative processes. Given that communication is essential for instruc-tion, a concerning problem is whether individualistic experiences deny thepossibility of communicating ideas with others. In accord with social-con-structivist theory that common meanings emerge from negotiations incultural settings (Prawat & Floden, 1994), more or less compatible under-standing for most objects or events in the external world can be achievedby different individuals. Hence, concepts with their socially-accepted in-terpretations can be taught explicitly. Presumably, genuine understandingof such concepts can be acquired by reflective thinking through Socraticdialogues (Collins & Stevens, 1983), cognitive apprenticeship (Collins,Brown, & Newman, 1989), and other strategies that help learners external-ize their thinking processes.

While the notion of "real-world context" is pivotal in constructivistlearning theories, several stipulations have to be stated. First, given thatmetacognitive skills are essential for effective functioning in real-worldsituations, an authentic learning activity thus requires learners to have fullautonomy of their learning and performance, and thereby the learnersshould assume the responsibility for establishing and monitoring theirgoals and strategies. Second, a holistic view of the complex activity shouldbe made available to learners, be it verbally presented or mediated bysome other possible means, whereby the relevance or function of thecomponential task at hand can be well understood and the learners'motivation can thus be increased. In other words, each task is not isolated,but rather is part of a larger context. More than that, affective factors

Implications and Problems of Constructivism for Instructional Design 8 3

should be considered for designing authentic contexts for learning(Bereiter, 1990). Third, given that a critical part of expert cognition in mostauthentic activities is to conceptualize a problem from different perspec-tives, the learner's cognitive ability to generate and evaluate alternativeperspectives should therefore be enhanced. Collaborative learning, whenproperly implemented, is one strategy for developing such a capacity.Fourth, the "real-worldness" or authenticity of a task is a determiningfactor for transfer. Given that knowledge acquisition proceeds throughphases each characterized by different levels of skills (see, e.g., Jonassen etal., 1993), authentic learning environments should vary in complexityaccording to the expertise level of the learner. Hence, a child should not beconfronted with the complexity of the adult's world. In essence, theauthenticity and complexity of a learning environment should be con-sidered within a proximal range of the learner's knowledge and priorexperience (Bednar et al., 1991). Apart from complexity, variability incontexts which can give rise to a diversity of experience-based meanings isalso crucial for contextually mediated learning.

As learning, in the constructivist view, occurs not by recording infor-mation but by interpreting it, effective learning depends on the intentions,self-monitoring, elaborations, and representational constructions of an in-dividual learner who is intrinsically motivated. An individual needs ahighly adaptive environment and should be viewed as an "active, self-regulating and reflective learner" (Seels, 1989, p. 14). Designing instruc-tion that can both accommodate individual motivations and goals as wellas stimulate active knowledge construction constitutes a problem for cur-rent instructional design theory. Jouassen (1991) noted that the instruction-al goals and objectives would have to be negotiated during the learningprocess rather than set a priori, and in this regard, there was therefore nobest way of sequencing instruction. He further stated that the goal ofinstructional theory should then concern itself more with developing"mental construction 'toolkits' embedded in relevant learning environ-ments that facilitate knowledge construction by learners" (p. 12), ratherthan some specific instructional strategies.

Constructivist Instructional DesignComparison Between Traditional and Constructivist Valuesfor Instructional Design

In spite of the seemingly antithetical characters of traditional instructional


design and constructivist views, different positions regarding their com-patibility can still be identified. For those who well acknowledge theeclectic nature of instructional design, objectivist and constructivist ele-ments in instructional models can be combined (Merrill et al., 1990). Forothers, owing to sharp differences in assumptions about the nature ofknowledge and its acquisition, instructional design and constructivism arethus considered fundamentally incompatible (Streibel, 1989). A thirdperspective inclines to maintain a distinction between formal, systematicinstructional design and situated, process-oriented constructivist educa-tional intervention (Dick, 1991).

Nevertheless, Lebow (1993) has commented that these theorists,regardless of their positions, tend to confuse the role of constructivism as aphilosophical orientation with that of instructional design as a method.Constructivist philosophy, rather than being a competing paradigm in thefield of instructional design, can provide an alternative set of world views.Therefore, it is values and priorities of practitioners rather than paradig-matic issues that are at stake in the debate over the compatibility of the twoapproaches, and only at the extremes are the positions of constructivistphilosophy and instructional design really antagonistic. Nonetheless, sometheorists (e.g., Winn, 1990, 1993) have, in their analyses and comparisonof the two approaches, professed their major distinctions as portrayed bythe following polarized philosophical assumptions, namely, objectivismversus subjectivism, reductionism versus systemic interactionism, predict-ability versus variability, and determinism versus contingency. Furthercontrasts concerned are enumerated in Table 1, in which the interpretationsof the fundamental concepts like knowledge, learning and teaching are ofparamount significance. Recently, Collins (in press) has presented somecomprehensive arguments concerning the cost-benefit tradeoffs associatedwith a broad set of issues arisen in designing learning environments. Heasserts that while traditional stances should not entirely be replaced by theconstructivist ones, the great challenge presented to instructional designersis how to strive the right balance between these conflicting ideas.

Theoretical Shift and Instructional Design Principles

Against this theoretical backdrop of the constructivist approach, it is animportant aim of this article to further explore the consequences of thisparadigmatic shift in instructional design. According to Winn (1990), threesignificant implications can be identified. First, while task and student


Table 1 Comparison of Traditional Instructional Design and ConstructivistInstructional Approach

Traditional Instructional Approach Constructivist View

Knowledge is external to learners andcan be objectively specified throughrepresentations of various forms.Knowledge acquisition is static, linear,and systematic.

Learning is to transfer some mind-independent entities into the learnerthrough mediation of fixed cognitivestructures like plan or schema.

Teaching is systematic transmission ofknowledge and skills progressing fromsimple to complex, maximizing thecommunication of fixed concepts.

Task analysis enhances mastery learningby reducing knowledge and skills tosequences and hierarchies (atomisticapproach).

The goal is to make learners attain certainprespecified performance criteria (e.g.,apply the principles of a domain).

Focusing on homogeneouscharacteristics of learners.

Individual differences are undesirableand difficult to incorporate ininstructional programmes.

Metacognitive skills lead to deviation fromprescribed instruction andunpredictable outcome.

Instructional outcomes are predictablebecause what people learn is relativelystable across situations in which it isused, and people apply what they havelearned in logical and planful ways.

Iteratively tested-and-revised instructionalprototypes can be applied acrosscontent domains, contexts, time, andstudents of various characteristics.

Knowledge is subjectively perceived bylearners through an active process ofconstruction. Knowledge acquisition isdynamic, multidimensional, andsystemic.

Learning is to construct an internalrepresentation of knowledge, apersonal interpretation of experience,and therefore an active process ofsense-making.

Teaching is to enable learners toexperience and manipulate knowledgeconstruction process, and to appreciatemultiple perspectives.

Ongoing dynamic interactions of thewhole system of knowledge and skillsdefy a reductionists analysis (holisticapproach).

The goal is to teach learners how to thinklike an expert. Specific objectivesemerge and are realized whenindividual learners solve authentic tasks.

Focusing on heterogeneouscharacteristics of learners.

Individual differences are inherent inlearning and of central concern.

Metacognitive ability is essential forconstructing understanding of aknowledge domain.

Dynamic, changing situations of learningdefy predictability of instructionaloutcome as plausible reasoning andsituated cognition do allow people tosolve real-world problems without usingformal academic logic.

Individual differences and metacognitiveability of students render thereplicability of instruction questionable.

86 LaW Lai-chong & Wong Ka-ming

analyses will continue to play a significant role in instructional design,they need to be counterbalanced by synthesis. Hence, a variety of prescrip-tions for strategies that can achieve synthesis and integration should beincluded in instructional theories. Second, instruction should be adaptive tounpredicted changes in student behaviour and thinking. Instructionaltheory should have emergent properties which render ad hoc generation ofprescription possible. To realize such a goal, teachers are expected toassume an exceptionally demanding role, being simultaneously a monitorof student progress, a designer equipped with expertise in instructionaldesign and learning theories, and a scholar capable of researching intoprescriptive principles. Third, it is imperative for teachers, instructionaldesigners and learners to constantly reflect in action by bringing their tacitexperiences to bear on problem solving. It is also necessary for them toexperience a "reflective practicum" (Schon, 1987) in which they canengage in discourses and compare their own performance with the respec-tive experts. While Winn's implications entail certain bias towards tradi-tional instructional design, he has highlighted the importance of theconstructivist value of reflectivity, which is essential for developing exper-tise in all kinds of domains (Lebow, 1993).

Five Principles of Constructivist Instructional Design

Based on the conviction that a new mind-set should be instilled into thepractitioners concerned, Lebow (1993) has put forward five principles ofconstructivist philosophy for instructional design. The first principle is tomaintain a buffer between the learner and the potentially damaging effectsof instructional practice. Traditional instructional design has been accusedof imposing adverse constraining effects on learners by its inherent interestin controlling students' learning. In response to this criticism, it isproposed that learning environments should offer choice, minimize perfor-mance pressure, and encourage initiation.

The second principle emphasizes the importance of providing a con-text for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness. For con-strued vists, social relationships in a learning setting are of central concern.In order to sustain students' interest and personal responsibility for thelearning process, teachers can provide scaffolding or coached practices toextend the potential development of the learners within their "zone ofproximal development", and promote knowledge construction by structur-ing students' mutual relationships to encourage collaboration.


The third principle is to embed the reasons for learning into the learn-ing activity itself. To avoid the problem of inert knowledge, studentsshould know the significance of what they learn and be allowed to practiseskills in the simulated contexts of use. That meaning is indexed by ex-perience and understanding is developed through continued, situated use(Brown et al., 1989) is now a commonplace assumption for learning.Hence, learning environments should be so designed that strong linkagesto the real-world contexts outside the classroom can be established.

The fourth principle is to support self-regulated learning by promotingskills and attitudes that enable the learner to assume increasing respon-sibility for the developmental process of restructuring. Finally, the fifthprinciple is to strengthen the learner's tendency to engage in intentionallearning processes, especially by encouraging the strategic exploration oferrors. Interestingly, instructional designers treat errors quite differentlyfrom constructivists. The former tends to ascribe evaluative function toerrors which are regarded as reflecting the quality of instruction and areused for assessing student performance. On the other hand, constructivistsview errors as "positive stimulants for the kinds of perturbations that createdisequilibrium necessary for self-reflection and conceptual restructuring"(Lebow. 1993. p. 12). In fact, these principles have already been consis-tently applied in some established instructional models such as cognitiveapprenticeship (Collins et al., 1989). random access instruction (Spiro,Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991), and anchored instruction (Cogni-tion and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992).

Constructivist Views on Curriculum

While the preceding arguments mainly focus on the constructivist views ofinstructional design, an equally important, if not more, related problem —the implications of constructivism for curriculum studies — should beheeded. Nonetheless, in view of the primary interest and limited length ofthe present paper, this issue merely constitutes a secondary focus here andonly some significant points will be presented in the following discussion.An in-depth analysis of the problems concerned is beyond our presentscope.

Whereas instructional design predominantly deals with the ways ofpresenting resources to learners, curriculum planning mainly concernswhich resources are to be included.1 Concisely speaking, the two domainsaddress respectively the questions of strategy and content. They are


interdependent rather than connected by any subsumptive relationship assome researchers may assume. To determine what is to be learned isinevitably a multifaceted problem embedded in a specific educational,political, social, and economic context. Nonetheless, such a crucial issue isstill basically a query of epistemology. Based on constructivist views,knowing, in contrast to the traditional static model, is regarded as anadaptive activity, and knowledge is "a kind of compendium of conceptsand actions that one has found to be successful, given the purpose one hasin mind" (von Glaseisfeld, 1995a, p. 7). How do these changes in epis-temological assumptions reconceptualize curricular issues? To answer thisquery, a general overview of the conventional notions in curriculumstudies is necessary.

Traditional Curriculum Design

School curricula, orthodoxically, have been built on objectivism. Hence, intraditional classroom settings, distinct roles of dispensers of knowledgeand passive recipients of conveyed knowledge are ascribed to teachers aridstudents respectively. Consequently, teachers tend to attribute students'failure to learn to their inability to follow instructions. Teachers, on theother hand, are blamed for the low students' achievement which allegedlyreflects teachers' incompetence to faithfully implement the given cur-riculum. Such observations reveal an implicit view that learning is the endproduct of a process of transmitting knowledge which is construed to be astable and convey able entity. As these basic assumptions are quite ill-founded, the curricular as well as instructional models so derived should becritically revised. In particular, many charges have been levelled againstthe three traditional curriculum sequencings, namely, easy to hard, familiarto unfamiliar, and concrete to abstract (Bereiter & Scardamaiia, 1992). Byvirtue of the empirical findings in learning psychology and expert-novicestudies (e.g., H. L. Dreyfus & S. E. Dreyfus, 1986), the conventionalmodel of "progressive de-familiarization and abstraction" is at stake.

A Fixed Agenda Versus a Matrix of Ideas

The view of curriculum as a fixed agenda, a course to be run that consistsof preset means (i.e., certain materials to cover) and predetermined ends(i.e., a discrete set of facts, skills, or competencies), still pervades in theeducational community. In accord with the constructivist assumptions,Prawat (1992) postulated an alternative, more interactive and dynamic


approach to curriculum. It was believed that a curriculum should beregarded more as a matrix of ide?.s to be explored over time than as a roadmap (cf. Clancey's [1992] arguments against equating a map to a ter-ritory). Prawat further asserted that teachers could select one of the variousentry points for this matrix contingent on students' prevailing level ofunderstanding. Such an open system represents a marked departure fromits preceding closed one, and is therefore more consistent with currentconstructivist reflections in education (see, e.g., Driver, 1995; Wood,Cobb, & Yackel, 1995) which is evolving away from a staole, mechanicalworld view towards one based on notions of complexity and change.Understandably, teachers may be bewildered by the seemingly unguidedintuitions promoted by this model of to-be-explored matrix. Their pressingconcerns are more about how a curriculum can be formulated and whichideas should be taught.

Formulation of a Constructivist Curriculum

To address teachers' needs, the notion of a matrix of ideas can, in practice,be translated into a two-tier approach to curriculum planning (Prawat,1992). First, it involves selecting two or three broad, general goals. Thechoice depends much on students' extant abilities to handle ideas of dif-ferent degrees of complexity. There are, however, no principled ways ofdealing directly with subject matter so as to estimate and adjust its difficul-ty level. Hence, it entails some sort of conceptual analysis which, whendone with some precision, can yield a set of ideas relevant to each majorgoal and provide ways in adapting the curriculum to students' limitedprocessing capacities. More important, teachers should bear in mind therelationships between crucial ideas in the specific domain and attend to thediversity of understandings students develop when wrestling with theseideas. In fact, attentiveness to student cognition is one of the definingfeatures of constructivist learning. Prawat has posited three precipitatingconditions for transforming a classroom into a centre of intellectual inquirywhere negotiations of meanings are highly encouraged. These includeintense discussions and reflections on the part of teachers, wholesalerestructuring of the workplace, and participation in the community ofpractice (cf. Lave & Wenger, 1991). In sum, the essence of Prawat's modelis that conjectures about student thinking constitute an integral part of thelesson-planning process.

Obviously, it is extremely demanding for teachers to conceive and


implement an idea-oriented curriculum which requires more experimenta-tion and self-reflection. In order to decide which domain-specific ideas toemphasize and how to situate them in real-world contexts, teachers have totake several factors into considerations, namely, not only calculating whatis most important for students to know from a disciplinary perspective, butalso estimating what students are best equipped to learn and what theythemselves are best equipped to teach (Prawat, 1992).

As mentioned previously, authentic activities are essential for success-ful learning. Therefore, the ideas to be included in a curriculum should becontextualized and relational, in the sense that their connectedness withreal life situations as well as among the ideas themselves can be clearlyestablished. Evidently, a curriculum cannot be considered in isolation fromthe culture in which it is to be implemented. While the importance ofcultural literacy is commonly acknowledged by educators and psy-chologists, a list of indispensable items for such a literacy can never beexhaustive, and thus, the usefulness of this notion for addressing cur-riculum issues becomes questionable. Nor has any systematic empiricalstudy been conducted to investigate this question. Contrastingly, the prob-lem of how to build coherent, meaningful knowledge under the rubric ofmetacognition has attracted much research effort.

Teaching Metacognitive Skills

In a conventional classroom, teachers tend to preempt most metacognitiveactivities such as setting objectives, identifying problems, and evaluatingperformance. This take-ever of student control is presumed to be one of thefactors responsible for the contemporary problematic schooling situation.Thus, fostering the acquisition of metacognitive skills has been emphati-cally advocated by situated learning. However, this advocacy may becounterproductive if attention to strategies leads to overlooking of moresubstantive issues, that is, what we want students to think about. Ideas,being more substantive by nature, may be more important resources forpromoting thought than thinking skills per se. Nonetheless, the notion ofmetacognition covers many different areas of interest; to speak of teachingor enhancing it is inherently vague. One of the most popular means is toteacn self-regulatory strategies, involving some combination of explaining,modelling and coaching (cf. Collin et al.'s [1989] cognitive apprenticeshipapproach). Teaching genuine functional strategies may require a consider-able restructuring of the teaching-learning context. More important, it is


imperative to heighten students' awareness that they are learning "some-thing" as well as to enhance students' understanding of what the nature ofthis something is. This kind of teaching entails incorporating a certainamount of epistemology into the curricula at all levels. By the same token,inducing a more elaborated concept of learning in students can lead themto approach learning more intelligently. This belongs to a kind of concep-tual learning that calls forth curricular attention in its own right (Bereiter &Scardamalia, 1992). Concomitantly, to meet the challenges that knowledgein the head is necessarily subjective and that "real" knowledge must in-evitably be acquired through means other than the extant formal cur-riculum, the questions concerning the respective roles of and thecompatibility between formal and informal (or naive) knowledge shouldbe further examined.

Taken together, a curriculum built upon constructivist beliefs neces-sitates a new breed of resources for teachers and for students — resourcesthat can grant learners autonomy to select activities according to theirinterests and relevant experiences. Teachers should not be construed as toimplement resources with fidelity. Instead, opportunities should be givenfor teachers to become competent in the proper use of resources tofacilitate classroom learning (Tobin & Dawson, 1992). Nevertheless, theoverarching problem of which subject matters should be taught has notsystematically been studied by constructivists. As a matter of fact, thisalready sensitive topic is further complicated by political and historicalcircumstances. At any rate, school subjects are taught not because of theircustomary roles in the curricula, but rather because of their relevance toenculturating an individual into the modern society as well as the potentialutility of the subject knowledge in our daily lives and jobs.

Problems of Constructivist Instructional Models

Given that the empirical work for constructivist instructional theory is onlyprogressing at its nascent stage, convincing evidence is inevitably stillinsufficient to justify the claims about the effectiveness of their developinginstructional models. Besides this obvious issue, some other problemshave to be addressed.

Problem of Evaluation

In view of the high cost, effort, and time required in its implementation,


is it justifiable to apply constructivist instructional models on a largescale when the evaluation of learning outcomes remains conceptuallyproblematic?

Constructivist instructional designers will hold parents, teachers, andadministrators accountable for the effects of their innovative instructionalapproach. In order to meet the expectation of boosting student achievementscores — the current common objective indicator of effective learning —some of the constructivist goals may have to be compromised. To assurethe general acceptance of this novel approach, changes in epistemologicalassumptions for learning should take place not only among instructionaldesigners themselves, but also among other members of the educationalcommunity. While both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced evalua-tions are not strictly compatible with the constructivist views, alternativeassumptions and new tools for evaluations have to be developed. Referringto the basic constructivist values, some related questions can be raised(Jonassen et al., 1993). Given that learning is the process of knowledgeconstruction, who can better evaluate knowledge construction than theknowers themselves? Does it imply that evaluation from a constructivistperspective should be based on self-analysis and metacognitive tools?These queries, however, trigger some others such as the problems as-sociated with learner control (see below) and the notorious problems relat-ing to metacognition.

Assuming that meaning is negotiated, should the goals of learning benegotiated, or the negotiation process itself in the form of argumentationbe used as evidence of learning? However, a predominant reliance onverbal criterion tends to discriminate against those students who are notparticularly articulate. Given that the primary goal of the constructivistinstruction is to help students construct applicable knowledge and high-level thinking, it may be appropriate to adopt process variables such asknowledge states and qualitative variables such as learner interactions asalternative forms of assessment. Nevertheless, inferring implicitknowledge from explicit actions bears many uncertainties and is also con-fronted with the paradoxical issue inherent in all behavioural measure-ments. Provided that pluralism is one of the basic constructivist values, cana set of possible outcomes and a panel of reviewers with different viewsand expertise be accepted for assessment in actual practice? Surely, suchan evaluation scheme would be unreasonably demanding. Nonetheless, itis critical to integrate effective assessment into any instructional process.Some evaluative tools like diagnosis, summary statistics, and profolio have


Figure 1 Stages of Knowledge Acquisition

Well-structured domainsSkill-based

Literal coding

Initial (Introductory)KnowledgeAcquisition

Practice Feedback

Traditionalinstructional

design

Learning

ll-structured domainsKnowledge-based

AdvancedKnowledgeAcquisition

ApprenticeshipCoaching

ConstructivistInstructionalapproach

Elaborate knowledgeSchematic patterns

Interconnectedknowledge

Expertise

Experience

Experience

Note: Modified from Jonassen et al., 1993, p. 232.

been proposed (Collins, 1990). These tools appear intuitively appropriate,but more empirical tests are still required to establish their validity andreliability. Above all, the problem of evaluation hinges crucially uponfurther refinement and operationalization of some ambiguous theoreticalconstructs of the constructivist such as applicable knowledge.

Problem of Boundary Condition

Should constructivist instructional models be used for all kinds of learnersin all instructional contexts?

Unfortunately, the answer to this question tends to be negative. Whileconstructivists place much emphasis on authenticity and complexity inlearning environments, some theorists argue that simplified contexts aremore effective for initial learning, for instance, the case of language(Tripp, 1993). Furthermore, knowledge acquisition can be conceived asprogressing through phases each of which is identified by various levels ofknowledge and skills (Jonassen et al., 1993; see Figure 1). Accordingly,while learners at the introductory stage lack the requisite knowledge for


constructing more personally meaningful knowledge, traditional instruc-tional design appears better to meet the learners' need by providing ahighly structured learning environment. In subsequent stages, whenlearners have to acquire more advanced knowledge to solve more complexand context-dependent problems, constructivist instructional approachescould then be more consistently applied to support knowledge construc-tion. While the acquisition of expertise is not necessarily a direct conse-quence of instruction, it can be enhanced by the rich extent of instructionalsupport offered by most constructivist environments. To conclude, it iscritical to take the learner's characteristics into consideration beforerecommending any specific form of instructional interventions. Construc-tivist learning approaches and environments are probably not equally ap-propriate for all learning contexts. Perhaps constructivist instruction ismore conducive to studies and training at an advanced level than atelementary or intermediate levels on which most of the present researchfocuses.

Problem of Learning Effects with Media

Should traditional schools be abolished and school learning be replaced byeducational technology?

Some provocative claim has asserted that traditional schooling instruc-tions are fundamentally flawed and should be replaced by educationaltechnology (Perelman, 1992). Many may find it so radical that they rejectit as unreasonable and discordant with the current social conditions. Whilemany constructivists still regard schools as indispensable, structured set-tings for formal learning, they tend to focus the question on the problem ofintegration rather than replacement. Nonetheless, this assertion raises is-sues related to learning with media (e.g., Kozma, 1991). In view of theinsurmountable manpower constraint to provide individual coaching aswell as of the impracticability of exposing students to all sorts of real-world situations, constructivist instructional approaches have to relyheavily on educational technology through which microworlds simulatingreal life environments can be conveniently generated (Collins, 1991).

While some have asserted optimistic claims about the power of educa-tional technology (eg., Heinrich, 1984), the disputes concerning the im-pact of media on learning remain unsettled (Clark, 1992) and haverecently been rekindled (see a special issue of Educational TechnologyResearch and Development on the "media effects" debate with an editorial


introduction by Ross, 1994). In constructivist view this debate, however,should not focus on the role of media as conveyors of knowledge, but onhow media can be employed to facilitate knowledge-construction andsense-making on the part of the learner (cf. Papert's [1990] argument oninstructionism versus constructionism; Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson's[1991] contention on the effects of learning with technology versus theeffect of technology). It is therefore necessary to investigate the learningprocess, the role of context, and the types of environments and cognitivetools required to enhance that learning. Only then could the affordances ofmedia for generating those learning environments or furnishing cognitivetools be considered (Jonassen, Campbell, & Davidson, 1994).

While media are conventionally considered as vehicles for delivering(the contents of) instruction, it is high time to reconsider this role from theperspective of "distributed cognition" (Perkins, 1993) which claims thatintelligence is distributed among learners, the activities they engage in, thetools they employ, and the community of practice they work in. Along thisvein, Jonassen and his colleagues (1994) have performed some intriguinganalyses on the notions of "media-in-context" and "media-as-context"from the perspectives of phenomenology, quantum physics, and chaostheory, which are all intimately related to constructivism. They have con-cluded that it is impossible to specify which and how components of thelearner, the media, and the contexts influence learning.

Furthermore, there are other contentious issues relating to the employ-ment of educational technology for implementing situated learning. Whileconstructivists believe that educational processes should emphasize thenurture of self-regulation, the learner control over instructional methodsand contents presents yet another problem. Notwithstanding that com-puter-based learning programs can afford high degree of freedom on thepart of learners, the lack of relevant knowledge probably leads to impru-dent choices which might in turn result in some undesirable effects. Forproper learner control, students should have a clear understanding aboutthe extent of their own capabilities and be able to act wisely based on suchknowledge. Moreover, didactic embedding and instructional support areindispensable to guiding students, thus preventing them from being over-whelmed by a host of choices available in computerized macrocontexts.Hence, situated-learning-based computer programs might not be effectivelearning environments by themselves (Gruber, Law, Mandl, & Renkl, inpress). On the other hand, although authenticity is highlighted in construc-tivist learning environments, the gap between in-school tasks and practical


cognitive activities in real-life situations appeals unbridgeable even withthe use of this computer-based technology. As this discontinuity can hardlybe completely eradicated regardless of the type of educational technologyadopted, learning with computers might better be viewed as a link forsupporting students to adapt to the transition from school-type learning toreal practice.

Problem of Challenges to Teacher Training

What kind of teacher training (or refreshing) programmes should be of-fered to support teachers to adjust themselves to constructivist learningenvironment?

Teachers undeniably play a vital role in the educational enterprise. Thechallenges they have to face when being placed in this novel constructivistinstructional environment merit attention of the researchers. An immediateproblem that teachers have to tackle is the change of identity from apurveyor of knowledge to a coach or even to a fellow learner, which mayresult in role confusion. On top of that, teachers are expected to assumedemanding multiple responsibilities which include being a model withhigh-level expertise in a domain, a coach sensitive to the students' need, adesigner with expertise in instructional and learning theories, a scholarcapable of researching into prescriptive disciplines, an evaluator able toassess students continuously in an unstructured way, and even a publicrelation officer to convince the society about the effects of their instruc-tional models. To meet all these stringent requirements, a high qualityteacher training course which can prepare teachers in all these aspects isimperative. In this connection, recent models of reflective teacher trainingmay be a possible solution (Schon, 1987). Moreover, a collaborative work-ing environment should be established among groups of teachers formutual support. Resources have to be created to enable teachers to usetheir situational judgement for ameliorating their practice. Undoubtedly,training teachers to be reflective practitioners is the ultimate goal to beaccomplished.

Concluding Remarks

The fundamental aims of instructional interventions are to acceleratelearners' pace in attaining expertise and to address the problem of transferwhich has unfortunately presented itself as a paradoxical inquiry in every


historical phase of psychology. Since the traditional instructional ap-proaches seemingly fail to meet these two objectives, the underlying learn-ing theories — behaviourism and cognitivism — have been subjected tocritical revisions. In their place, constructivism, which actually spans acontinuum of theoretical positions, is now gaining ground in educationalpsychology. According to dissimilar theoretical commitments to the exist-ence of an objective reality, different schools of constructivism can beclassified as mild, moderate, or strong. Based on their belief that learningis indeterministic and that the effect of instructional intervention is mini-mal or even detrimental, strong constructivists pose a highly incompatiblestance vis-a-vis their mild counterparts. Views of moderate constructivistswho presume that learning processes can be influenced by particular formsof instruction have nonetheless more significant implications to currenteducational issues.

The constructivist view of education, with the goal being set to enablestudents to construct their own understanding, can be traced back, accord-ing to von Glasersfeld (1995b), to the epistemological positions in theworks of Kant (e.g., Kant, 1783/1953), Dewey (e.g., McLellan & Dewey,1908), Piaget (1937/1955), and Vygotsky (1934/1986). However, not untilrecently have the constructivist values been incorporated in designing in-struction and learning environments. While the cognitivist paradigm forlearning has deeply rooted in the educational community, constructivismhas instigated the workers involved in this age-old enterprise to reconcep-tualize, or even revolutionize their epistemological assumptions aboutknowledge, about learning and about teaching. Grounded upon the centraltenet that knowledge is actively constructed by knowers, learning is con-sidered most effective when situated in the context of some meaningful,real-world or authentic task with certain forms of guided participation.Concomitantly, the role of instruction has undergone some dramatic chan-ges, shifting from a controlling to a facilitative function.

Nevertheless, the focus on how knowledge can be conveyed by aninstructional strategy should not blind us from the problem of whatknowledge should be included in a curriculum. In accord with construc-tivist views, school curricula should evolve away from a closed, fixed-agenda model towards an open, dynamic, and interactive one. While ideasof substantive nature are believed to prompt thinking more effectively thanmere strategies, it is therefore crucial that the relevance of the contentsshould be focused upon prior to considering the potency of the vehiclesemployed. Apart from teaching metacognitive skills like self-regulatory


methods, incorporating certain views of epistemology and elaboratedconcepts of learning into the curricula at all levels are recommended asthese may enable students to approach learning more intelligently.

While many instructional design systems tend to generalize theirtheories and techniques to every learner in all instructional contexts, it isargued that the use of constructivist learning environments and methodsmay only be suitable for certain learning phases. Since requisiteknowledge for constructing personal experiences and effective strategiesfor exploiting resources can only be acquired progressively from elemen-tary through intermediate to advanced levels, a corstructivist instructionalmodel whose effectiveness depends much on these two factors is perhapsbest suited to higher level learning. In spite of the optimistic claims aboutthe potential of the constructivist learning environment, constructivismshould not be treated as a panacea for all instructional problems in educa-tion and training. Like other cognitive theories and educational tech-nologies, this emerging instructional paradigm has to be developed withthe ultimate aim to render learning more realistic and meaningful. Withmore empirical findings from research on expertise, thus providing a muchclearer picture about knowledge acquisition, constructivist instructionalenvironments can then be more effectively and wisely applied. To con-clude, further research efforts are to be called forth to conduct systematicempirical research on various problems and conjectures associated withthis instructional paradigm and to refine theoretical frameworks of con-structivism in education.

Note

1. The definition of the term "curriculum" itself is somewhat controversial (e.g.,compare Schwab's [1973] classical notion of "commonplaces" and Pinar &McKnight's [1995] contemporary hermeneutical/interpretative approach). Be-sides, the scope of curriculum research is all too encompassing. Darling-Hammond and Snyder (1992) have presented a comprehensive review on thehistoiy of curriculum studies from the conceptual and methodological perspec-tives.

References

Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1991). A comparative analysis of models ofinstructional design. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, pre-sent, and future (pp. 133-155). Englewood, NJ: Libraries Unlimited.


Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory intopractice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past,present, and future (pp. 88-101). Englewood, NJ: Libraries Unlimited.

Bereiter, C. (1990). Aspects of an educational learning theory. Review of Educa-tional Research, 60,603-624.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1992). Cognition and curriculum. In P. W.Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 517-542). New York:Macmillan.

Bonner, J. (1988;. Implications of cognitive theory for instructional design:Revisited. Educational Communication and Technology, 36, 3-14.

Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., & Vye, N. J. (1991). Making a difference inpeople's abilities to think: Reflections on a decade of work and some hopes forthe future. In L. Okagaki & k. J. Stemberg (Eds.), Directors of development:Influences on the development of children's thinking (pp. 147-180). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the cultureof learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32—42.

Bullock, D. H. (1982). Behaviorism and NSPI: The erratically applied discipline.Performance and Instruction, 27,4-8,11.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Fair, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Clancey, W. J. (1992). Representations of knowing: In defense of cognitive ap-prenticeship. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 3, 139-168.

Clancey, W. J. (1993). Situated action: A neuropsychological interpretationresponse to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 87-116.

Clark, R. E. (1992). Media use in education. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofeducational research (Vol. l,pp. 805-814). New York: Macmillan.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as anexample of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessmentdata. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.

Collins, A. (1990). Reformulating testing to measure learning and thinking. In N.Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M. G. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitor-ing of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 75-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship ai.d instructional technology, in L.Idol, & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Im-plications for reform (pp. 121-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, A. (in press). Design issues for learning environment. In S. Vosniadou, E.de Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds ), International perspectives on the psy-chological foundations of technology-based learning environments. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),


Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. InC. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview(pp. 247-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorismto cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 5,12-19.

Darling-Hammond, D., & Snyder, J. (1992). Curriculum studies and the traditionof inquiry: The scientific tradition. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of re-search on curriculum (pp. 41-78). New York: Macmillan.

de Grcot, A. (1978). Thought and choice and chess. The Hague, The Netherlands:Mouton. (Original work published 1946).

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Di Vesta, F. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering:

The next generation of instructional systems. Educational Technology Re-search and Development, 35, 213-230.

Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism. EducationalTechnology, 5,41—44.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. Oxford: BasilB lack well.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1988). Making a mind versus modeling thebrain: Artificial intelligence back at a branchpoint. In S. R. Graubard (Ed.), Theartificial intelligence debate: False starts, real foundations (pp. 15-43).Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science learning. In L. P. Steffe, &J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385-400). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure andacquisition. American Psychologist, 49,125-1'47.

Ericsson. K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (1994). Promoting confusion in educa-tional psychology: How is it done? Educational Psychologist, 29,49-55.

Gagne", R. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, 'NTJ:Erlbaum.

Gagne, R. M., & Dick, W. (1983). Instructional psychology. Annual Review ofPsychology, 34, 261-295.

Gerstenmaier, J., & Mandl, H. (1994). Wissenserwerb unter konstiuktivisrischerPerspektive (Forschungsbericht Nr. 33) [Knowledge acquisition from a con-siructivist perspective (Research Report No. 33)]. Miinchen: Ludwig-Maxi-milians-Universitat, Lehrstuhl fur Empirische Padagogik und PadagogischePsychologic.


Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional re-search. American Psychologist, 45,29-39.

Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction.Annual Review of Psychology, 40,631-666.

Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models and generative knowledge. In D.Klahr, & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact ofH. A. Simon (21st Carnegie-Mellon Symposium on Cognition) (pp. 285-318).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gruber, H., Law, L.-C, Mandl, H., & Renkl, A. (in press). Situated learning andtransfer: State of the art. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humansand machines. Los Atlos: Kaufmann.

Heinrich, R. (1984). The proper study of educational technology. EducationalCommunication and Technology Journal, 32,67-87.

Hoffman, R. R. (Ed.). (1992). The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research andempirical AJ. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view ofinstructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Hypertext as instructional design. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 39(1), 83-92.

Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media:Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development,42(2), 31-39.

Jonassen, D. H., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a construc-tivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T. M. Duffy, J.Lowcyk, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructivelearning (pp. 231-247). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Kant, I. (1953). Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that will be able to presentitself as a science (Trans.). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.(Original German work published 1783)

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61,179-211.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Fiveprinciples toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 4J(3), 4-16.

Linn, M. C. (1986). Science. In R. F. Dillon & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognitionand instruction (pp. 155-204). San Diego, NY: Academic Press.

Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (1993). Transitions in the theoretical foundation of instruc-tional design. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowcyk, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Design-ing environments for constructive learning (pp. 213—229). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.


McLellan, J. A., & Dewey, J. (1908). The psychology of number. New York:Appleton

Mandl, H., Gruber, H., & Penkl, A. (1993). Misconceptions and knowledge com-partmentalization. In G. Strube & F. Wender (Eds.), The cognitive psychologyof knowledge: The German Wissenspsychologie project (pp. 161-176).Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realiza-tion of the living. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

Merrill, M. D. (1994). The descriptive component display theory. In M. D. Merrill,& D. G. Twitchell (Eds.), Instructional design theory (pp. 111-235).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Second generational instructionaldesign (ID2). Educational Technology, 2, 7-14.

Norman, D. A. (1993). Cognition in the head and in the world: An introduction tothe special issue on situated action. Cognitive Science, 17,1-6.

Papert, S. (1990). Introduction by Seymour Papert. In I. Harel (Ed.), Construc-tionist learning. Boston: MIT Media Laboratory.

Perelman, L. J. (1992). School's out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and theend of education. New York: Morrow.

Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. InG. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational con-siderations (pp. 89-110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Piaget, J. (1955). The construction of reality in the child (Trans.). London: Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul. (Original French work published 1937)

Pinar, W. F., & McKnight, D. (1995). The uses of curriculum knowledge: Noteson hermeneutics. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(2), 181-190.

Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' belief about teaching and learning: A construc-tivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 7(70(3), 354-395.

Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivistviews of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-48.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional design: Theories and models.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional theory in action. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9),13-20.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning andinstruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Ross, S. M. (1994). Delivery trucks or groceries? More food for thought onwhether media (will, may, can't) influence learning. Educational Technology


Research and Development, 42(2). 5-6.Salomon, G., Perkins, D N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition:

Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Re-searcher, 20(3), 2-9.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass.

Schwab, J. J. (1978). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. In I. Westbury& N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selectedessays (pp. 365-383). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Reprintedfrom School Review, 81, 501-522, 1973).

Seels, B. (1989). The instructional design movement in educational technology.Educational Technology, 29(5), 11-15.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitiveflexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for ad-vanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technol-ogy, 31(5), 24-33.

Streibel, M. J. (1989). Instructional plans and situated learning: The challenge ofSuchman's theory of situated action for instructional designers and instruction-al systems. Proceedings of selected research papers presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology(pp. 541-574). Dallas, TX, February 1-5.

Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers andthe myths of schooling. Educational Technologv Research and Development,40(1), 1042-1629.

Tripp, S. D. (1993). Theories, traditions, and situated learning. Educational Tech-nology, 33(3), 71-77.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1977). Radical constructivist view of knowledge. Symposiumon constructivism and cognitive development, American Educational ResearchAssociation, New York.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995a). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe& J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995b). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learn-ing. London: The Palmer Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. trans.). Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press. (Original Russian work published 1934)

Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technol-ogy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 35-46.

Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19, 53-69.

Winn, W. (1993). A constructivist critique of the assumptions of instructionaldesign. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing


environments for constructive learning (pp. 189-212). Berlin: Springer- Verlag.Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and Cognition: A

new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1995). Reflections on learning and teaching

mathematics in elementary school. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Construc-tivism in education (pp. 401-422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

implications and problems of constructivism for ... · implications and problems of constructivism...

Documents