AUC Academic Conference 'From Virtual to Reality' The University of Queensland 1996

Back to Home Page ...... by Presenter ...... by Paper Title ...... by Keyword

Paper Title:

Instructivism or Constructivism:
which end of the continuum?

Presenter / Author:

Di Margules, Lecturer, University of Canberra

(contact details)

Keywords: Instructivism, Constructivism

Faculty area: Education, Communication

Abstract

This debate is intrinsically linked to the rapid development of both hardware and software technologies, and the increasing expectations of learners who generally see these technologies available to them, and expect to experience them in all parts of their everyday lives, including in education and training.

According to Rieber (1994), the field of instructional technology is characterised by its products, such as instructional media and its processes; and instructional design in the direct instruction mode, sometimes called instructivism, (or objectivism). In contrast, constructivism, a faction within cognitive psychology associated with Piagetian learning theory, is characterised by discovery and experiential learning. Those educators and developers favouring the constructivist approach have sought to tap the computational power of modern microcomputers and their associated technologies, to create an environment in which learners can experience and develop sophisticated ideas from a variety of domains. Devotees of constructivism or instructivism are usually viewed, at worst, as being in opposition to one another or, at best, at opposite ends of a continuum.

This paper reports the results of a research project which proposed to identify and evaluate the influences on, and the attitudes of, adult tertiary learners to these seemingly opposing computer based learning paradigms.

Central Issues

Over the past 50 years, the process of instructional technology has been shaped by advances in learning and instructional theory. Much of the development work to date has been associated with direct instruction (or variously, instructional systems design, or objectivism or instructivism), that is, instruction based largely on the application of behavioural principles. These methods have their roots in pre-technology systems, which may explain why the interactive potential of the medium has not been fully developed or exploited by those educators following this philosophy.

Conversely, educators and developers favouring the constructivist approach have sought to tap the computational power of modern microcomputers and their associated technologies, to create an environment in which learners can experience and develop sophisticated ideas from a variety of domains.

On the topic of computer hardware, Landauer, (1987), asserted that cognitive psychology was more intimately related to the design of computers than to that of traditional machines, such as home appliances and the like. In attempting to provide greater 'user friendliness', it seems designers have paid more attention to the useability of their systems, and in doing so exploited the much expanded systems' power with which they worked. In Landauer's view, the iterative interplay between the invention of new methods to support cognitive activities and the analysis of their success and failure is exciting, but cognitive psychology has suffered from the lack of an applied discipline where complete accounts could be measured, or where a sorting of phenomena into those important for actual human function, from those of merely scholastic interest could be made. He offered four ways in which cognitive psychology could interact with computer system invention and design:

Landauer concluded with the hope that increased interaction between cognitive psychology and design problems will produce a 'cognitively rich and powerful device' which can be developed to be of great benefit to both.

Historical Context

One of the most significant and intuitive papers in response to this debate was written by Jonassen, (1991) entitled Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? The crux of his argument centred around the belief that in attempting to simplify the learning in order to improve instructional efficiency and effectiveness, instructional system design may be short-circuiting the relevant mental processing required in learners. Jonassen believed that 'designers' attempts to simplify learning risk supplanting the complexity that is inherent in the learning process or task to be learned'.

He further argued that instructional designers tended to map a particular reality onto learners, but ultimately the learners interpreted the instructional messages in the context of their existing knowledge and experiences, and construct meaning relative to their learning needs, backgrounds and interests. 'Rather than attempting to map an external reality structure onto learners, constructivists attempt to assist learners to construct their own conceptual framework of their world.'

Jonassen acknowledged that much of the instructional systems design theory and cognitive psychology are grounded in objectivism but asserted that instructional designers should not reject all of their objectivist assumptions, but recognise that cognitivism holds important lessons on how to interpret the results of learning and how to design environments to support that learning. The axiom here is with the element of control: do we, as educators and instructional designers remain with program control or pass control to the learner?

The objectivist view on learner control suggests there is an unwillingness on the part of the learner to assume responsibility for learning, preferring mediation by instructional interventions. Cognivists argue that the type of control that they impose on learners promotes 'meaning making'. Jonassen asserted that: 'since learning obviously entails constructivist and objectivist activities, the most realistic model of learning lies somewhere on the continuum between these positions. Instructional design is a prescriptive theory based on descriptive theories of learning.'

Significantly, Jonassen added a caveat to his paper which aims to alert instructional designers to the fact that they should clearly identify the nature of the learning and the context in which it is to occur before they commit to one theory or another.

As background to these thoughts, Hannafin and Rieber, (1989) in their articles Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design for Emerging Computer-Based Instructional Technologies: Parts 1 and 2, examined the historical roots of computer based instruction in behavioural psychology. They noted that recent advances in cognitive psychology have revealed alternatives rarely applied outside of experimental settings, and set out to review the contributions of both behavioural and cognitive psychology to the design of computer based instruction.

Their main conclusion was that it was 'impossible to view the task of instructional design exclusively from a single perspective'. Both branches of educational psychology offer tools that, taken eclectically, can strengthen lesson effectiveness and understanding of the learning process. What instructional designers must be aware of is the tendency to be negatively influenced by technocentric perspectives, where technological capabilities dictate lesson activities, rather than a more reflective view on the relationship among learner, learning task and performance requirements, and the selective use of the capabilities of the media.

By 1992, Hannafin indicated in his article, Emerging Technologies, ISD, and Learning Environments: Critical Perspectives, that he had come down firmly on the side of instructional systems design and was critical of design methodologies, in so far as advances in computers and related hardware technologies had far outstripped the prevailing ones. He argued that 'the field remains insulated from developments of considerable consequence for improving learning, and isolated collectively from intellectual communities where significant work in next-generation learning systems has occurred'. Hannafin concluded that, collectively, instructional designers remained entrenched in historical views about teaching and learning. He identified learning environments as offering potentially powerful alternatives to many of the traditional instructional goals but warned that instructional designers must learn to both understand and respect alternative approaches if they expected to influence their evolution.

Some of these views had also been expressed by Gagne and Merrill (1990) in their article, Integrative Goals for Instructional Design. They identified the need for learning goals requiring the integration of multiple objectives, which they called 'enterprise schemas'; which they saw as playing a facilitating role in the transfer of training. They asserted that enterprise schemas should incorporate 'integrative goals' which did not supplant 'single objectives such as labels, facts, concepts, and rules'; rather, they should incorporate them. Further, associated with the integrative goals, was an 'enterprise scenario' which incorporated the various items of verbal knowledge, intellectual skills, and cognitive strategies that needed to be learned in order to support the required performances. 'These performances are brought together in a purposeful activity known as enterprise.'

Gagne and Merrill concluded that 'instructional design must specify the conditions for acquisition of an enterprise schema', which should serve to remind the learner of the relationships that they have with the enterprise. 'In view of these characteristics, the enterprise schema is seen as a factor of substantial positive influence in the transfer of learning.'

Back to top of page

Significant Influences

As background to his later work, Rieber (1990) wrote a paper entitled Animation in Computer-Based Instruction, which reviewed the current empirical evidence of the effectiveness of animated visuals in instruction, recognising that they were becoming increasingly popular in computer based instruction, either for attention-gaining, presentation, or practice. Rieber concluded that instructional designers 'must resist incorporating special effects, like animation, when no rationale exists, yet must try to educe creative and innovation applications from the computer medium.

Central to Rieber's thinking since this time is a text by Donald Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things, where, among other things, Norman investigated the application of cognitive psychology to the design of human and machine interfaces - something he called 'cognitive engineering'. Rieber actually reviewed this text and asserted in his review that 'these principles lend themselves to the activity of simulation in computer based instruction'. Rieber also saw Norman's text as being useful as an introduction to many concepts and principles from cognitive psychology, particularly for instructional designers who were attempting to translate educational psychology theory into education practice. Significant concepts covered included:

There are other important insights for educational technologists, such as the psychology of making errors and the phenomenon of learned helplessness - the tendency of some people to falsely blame themselves for lack of success during an activity, which, in turn, frequently leads to the self-fulfilling expectation that success will never be possible.

Norman also described two 'deadly temptations' for designers, which are directly applicable to instructional designers: 'creeping featurism' and the 'worshiping of false images'. These refer to the temptation by designers to include features and options merely because they were technically possible, not because they were necessarily relevant or useful to the task. This, coupled with the tendency of consumers to buy products on the basis of a 'the more features the better' mentality could lead to self-perpetuating cycles of bad design. The rampant use of sound, video and graphics in educational media closely parallelled these two 'deadly temptations.

Identifying Instructivism and Constructivism

Two years later in his paper Computer-Based Microworlds: A Bridge Between Constructivism and Direct Instruction, Rieber (1992) attempted to blend the two philosophies, using the concept of a microworld - a concept closely aligned with the well used computer based instructional strategy of simulation. In addition to this concept Rieber also found his own 'ism' - instructivism. - a form of direct instruction, or instructional systems design, incorporating a blend of behaviourism, cognitivism and traditional computer based instruction, which characterised learning as a progression of stages, starting at the novice level in a particular domain and ending at a point where the learner became an 'expert'.

In his book, Computers, Graphics and Learning (1994) Rieber expanded on the concepts of instructivism and expert status, arguing that expert status is achieved 'through a process by which knowledge is successively acquired and organised and then integrated or 'fine tuned' into existing knowledge structures. 'One might label this approach as instructivism because the instructional goals that related to one given and supposedly objective interpretation of a domain (ie - reality) are still the dominant influence on instructional design, despite the concern and care given to learner abilities and needs.' Instructivism makes the following assumptions:

Back to top of page

These assumptions imply that there is only one objective interpretation of the world that the learner should accept, and that certain pieces of knowledge are 'significant enough' for everyone to learn.

Rieber believed that instructivists saw the road to better learning as improvements in instruction; with the overrider that both behavioural and cognitive applications of instruction are included in the theory, so long as they all held an objectivist view. This is significant because it goes against the current trend of grouping educational applications of cognitive psychology with constructivism. As Rieber emphatically stated on ITForum, on 13 August 1995 after a prolonged debate by subscribers on the issue: 'Philosophies of knowledge and theories of learning don't necessarily match up neatly. I see some cognitive theories of learning as clearly aligned with objectivism [read instructivism] - eg - Ausubel - and others clearly aligned with constructivism (eg - Piaget)'.

According to Rieber what is most significant about microworlds, is the concept of offering an initial point of entry which matches the user's cognitive state so as to allow productive interaction to take place. This in turn offered the link between constructivism and instructivism. He concluded that 'the ability to learn and otherwise progress in cognitive ways is a natural, innate, and personal process for people', and one which the constructivist approach advocated. However, he observed that 'extreme interpretations of constructivism can lead to instructional chaos'. Equally, he saw problems with the instructivist approach which required the mastery of a series of objectives, where the mastery of one was the starting point for the next. The danger is focusing on the content to be learned rather than the learner and the learning experience.

One of the issues that surrounded the development of computer-based microworlds was expressed by Wood (1995) in his article Theory, Training and Technology: Part 1. Wood was concerned that such systems actually yield the anticipated learning benefits. One problem he saw is that, left to their own devices - or working alongside peers - learners may exploit only a fragment of a systems' functionality - they will only learn how to perform a small range of actions on the system. He continued: 'even where people manage to drive such systems and enjoy the experience, there is no guarantee that they will infer or discover fundamental concepts or develop deeper understanding'.

More importantly, the arguments surrounding the value of microworlds revolved around competing conceptions of the nature of learning where it was doubtful that novices could rediscover complex human knowledge without guidance by someone who already had some understanding of that knowledge. Where Piagetian theory emphasised the role of self-discovery and peer collaboration, Vygotskian theory stressed the role of interactions between novices and experts, where the observation that novices can often perform tasks with help when they cannot handle them alone, is of central importance to the theory. Wood argued that: 'the gap between assisted and unassisted performance, is where important learning takes place'.

This begs the question of a comparison of computer based instructional models. In their paper A Conceptual Framework for Comparing Instructional Design Models, Edmonds, Branch and Mukherje (1994) argued that even though it was accepted that instructional designers typically employed models to guide their practice, it was unclear how a specific model was selected for an instructional situation. They acknowledged the comparison framework provided by Andrews and Goodson (1980) in A Comparative Analysis of Models of Instructional Design, but argued that with the introduction of instructional design into new learning contexts and the emergence of alternative approaches to instructional design, there has emerged a need for a new framework which assesses the potential success of any instructional design model.

Edmonds et al outlined a four-application categories model which allowed the researcher to construct a complex, multi-dimensional comparison framework, with the underpinning philosophy that instructional design, as a domain of educational technology, has historically been systems-theory based in its origin of application. They acknowledged that while a systems approach enabled users to explore, understand, and describe hierarchical characteristics, relations and interactions, parameters, dynamic patterns, results of integration and synthesis, and modifications in system patterns, there remained a need for the explicit articulation of intuition in the practice of instructional design. They proposed a meta-analytical observation about the utility of instructional design models to inform current and innovative instructional design practices.

Laszlo and Castro (1995) in their article Technology and Values: Interactive Learning Environments for Future Generations raised some very real concerns which they felt would affect future generations. They identified that interactive learning technologies were rapidly becoming powerful multisensory, interactive environments that challenge current educational values with both risk and opportunity. They presented the following concerns:

. 'that the current global education system is oriented toward the production of 'knowers' instead of 'learners', and consequently threatens the formation of individuals capable of responding effectively to rapidly changing environments;

. rapidly changing environments are the hallmark of contemporary societal dynamics and require an appropriate repertory of learning responses;

. the advent of computer aided learning environments has augmented the domain of the educational experience;

. these new technologies can launch human potential through the generation of repertories of learning responses that foster inquisitiveness and readiness to deal with challenge; and

. the technologies can also suppress human potential by fostering attitudes of competitive aggression and individual domination'.

They concluded that as our educational system shifts its focus from the production of passive 'knowers' to the facilitation of active 'learners', individuals could express their uniqueness by developing their own personal value scale, and by becoming aware of their uniqueness, they can facilitate the formation of socially significant personal goals. Clear ideas and concrete goals make the process of learning not only easier, but more meaningful, as they act as internal motivators that drive learners to search, create, adapt, and overcome limiting circumstances in order to fulfil their desires.

This is precisely the orientation that our educational systems should be dedicated to fostering, aided by the technologies of interactive learning, as we are now in a position to begin to learn what we need to know and why we need to know it. Education should be returned to the learners so that they direct and administer it, and are guided by learning facilitators and interactive learning technologies.

Although a great deal has been written about situated or workplace learning, Billett (1995) in his article Workplace Learning: Its Potential and Limitations identified his concept of it as 'social constructivism'. He claimed that current learning theory now emphasised the construction of knowledge being mediated by the social and cultural circumstances in which it is experienced. He held that in a situated approach to learning, the authenticity of activity and circumstances assisted the development of knowledge and its transfer. He supported this notion with references to studies by Lave, Rogoff and Scribner, all of which involve understanding, cognitive development and knowledge in a situated, social context.

He concluded that, with guidance, everyday work activities when effectively structured, provided opportunities for accessing and constructing robust and transferable vocational knowledge. He saw the instructional qualities provided in the workplace as those shared with what might be expected in an effective, formal educational environment, where the key difference was the authenticity of the social and cultural context, in terms of its relationship to the knowledge to be developed and its direct application to work practices.

Back to top of page

Side Issues

My research threw up a number of related issues, one of these being the concept of 'edutainment' - a relatively new word in the language, with its origins probably attributable to Microsoft's marketing department. However it does raise the issue of 'fun' or 'enjoyment' associated with learning - a concept many commercial software manufacturers promote as a major feature of their wares. William (Bill) Gates, (1994) CEO of Microsoft Corp in an article Multimedia Technology and Education: Progressive Products and Powerful Promises began with the premise that educators need to present ideas to students in ways that draw them into the excitement of learning.

He claimed that educators needed to find ways that take advantage of learners' natural curiosity and to get them to interact with and experience new information. Additionally the information needed to be in context so the relevance to their lives is obvious. Gates' goal is to construct products in such a way that they enhance the learning process, with each program designed logically, following the way learners think, so they can easily find whatever solution they need. This is his rationale behind the extensive use of multimedia CDs. Gates concluded: 'Multimedia technology can help make learning an adventure and a productive process for countless people. It creates the perfect learning environment so children and adults can have fun while exploring real or virtual worlds.

Another side issue identified was that of today's interfaces which have grown out of attempts to provide the computer user with a wide range of easily accessible and understandable choices when interacting with a computer. While multimedia graphics may be rich, the opportunities for interactions and navigation in most multimedia programs are often surprisingly limited.

In an article entitled The Evolving Interface of Multimedia, Lynch (1994) contended that with the release of Apple's System 7.5 and Windows 95, graphical user interfaces now dominated the personal computer marketplace, but a distinct style of interface was emerging to challenge both. By removing the menu bar and taking over the whole screen, most of today's multimedia CD-ROM interfaces simply abandon both the Macintosh and Windows interfaces, substituting intense visuals, video clips, and animations for the more functional windows, pull-down menus, and standard buttons of the mainstream graphical interfaces. In drawing their screen metaphors and graphical designs from television, video games, and film, many multimedia producers have adopted a paradigm for interacting with computers that is fundamentally different, to the extent that in the future they may behave more like television sets with keyboards, or personal computers that can also deliver complex audiovisuals.

Although Lynch's thrust was towards the publishing industry, he was critical of the available multimedia authoring tools generally, and stated that as the design of multimedia documents is rapidly evolving, most new users of authoring tools are immediately stymied by the need to reinvent the design of each electronic document before they get to the task of assembling their content. He found it odd that authoring tools had never offered users a range of ready-made templates for multimedia content similar to the basic document templates that are available with desktop publishing software.

Towards a Conclusion

Ongoing research indicates that the current generic educational paradigm is based on the tradition of producing knowers rather than learners. The educational system does this by encouraging the development of learners who can remember information and systematically repeat skills. Perhaps you, like me are rather confused by the much touted word 'competent' now being applied to skills acquisition and measurement.

Realistically, the world no longer needs human databases - it needs learners who can adapt their activities to what is happening in the world. To encourage this concept instructional designers need to perceive knowledge and skills as the means by which they encourage learners to exercise and extend the range of their capacities for learning.

However, the risk is that if instructional designers allow the philosophies and processes to intrude too much they may end up with entirely the wrong solution. What we, as education professionals, should perhaps be aiming to achieve is to use our collective expertise and knowledge of behaviourist, cognitive and constructivist learning theories and combine these with experts in communication, environmental design, engineering and psychology to design and deliver the most appropriate solutions for a variety of learners and learning situations.

To paraphrase one of Australia's prominent educational instructional practitioners and educators, AP Rod Sims from Southern Cross University: 'if we are developing systems which have an instructional goal, then they must be subjected to rigorous design in terms of providing a valid delivery environment, but if we try to develop tools to support learning, then different parameters may well apply'. This suggests that in this discipline of computer based instruction there is no one true path to be found. It may be that we have to understand that there are many ways of describing a problem, and as many ways of solving it. In the end this may well be the way we contribute to the enhancement of human performance, and subsequently bridge the gap between the theoretical and the applied, in a realistic way.

Back to top of page

Back to Home Page ...... by Presenter ...... by Paper Title ...... by Keyword

REFERENCES

Andrews J. and Goodson L. 1980. A Comparative Analysis of Models of Instructional Design . Journal of Instructional Development 3(4): 2-16

Bergstrom R.Y. 1993. Workforce Obsolescence. Production. 105 (8): 52-55.

Billett S. 1995. Workplace Learning: Its Potential and Limitations. Education and Training. 37 (5): 20-27.

Carroll J.M. (Ed). 1987. Interfacing Thought. The MIT Press. London.

Carroll J.M. and Rosson M.B. 1995. Managing Evaluation Goals for Training. Communications of the ACM. 38 (7): 40-48

Doerr J. 1994. Substance Over Style. Management Review. 83 (7): 4.

Edmonds G.S., Branch R.C. and Mukherjee P. 1994. A Conceptual Framework for Comparing Instructional Design Model. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42 (4): 55-72

Forster J.R. 1994 Introduction to Special Section on Constructivism and Narrative. Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 7 (4): R3

Gagne R.M., Briggs, L.J. and Wager, W.W. 1992 Principles of Instructional Design (4th Ed). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Orlando

Gagne R.M. and Merrill M.D. 1988. Integrative Goals for Instructional Design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 38 (1): 23-30.

Gates W. 1994. Multimedia Technology and Education: Progressive Products and Powerful Promises. Reference Books Bulletin. May 15, 1994.

Hannafin M. And Rieber L.P. 1989 Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design for Emerging Computer-Based Instructional Technologies: Part 1. Educational Technology Research and Development. 37 (2): 91-101

Hannafin M. And Rieber L.P. 1989 Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design for Emerging Computer-Based Instructional Technologies: Part 2. Educational Technology Research and Development. 37 (2): 102-114

Hannafin M.J. 1992 Emerging Technologies, ISD, and Learning Environments: Critical Perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development. 40 (1): 49-63

Igbaria M., Schiffman S.J. and Wieckowski T.J. 1994 The Respective Roles of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Fun in the Acceptance of Microcomputer Technology. Behaviour & Information Technology. 13 (6): 349-361

Jonassen D.H. 1991 Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development. 39 (3): 5-14.

Kinzie M. B. And Sullivan H. J. 1989 Continuing Motivation, Learner Control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development. 37 (2): 5-14

Kinzie M. B. 1990 Requirements and Benefits of Effective Interactive Instruction: Learner control, Self-Regulation, and Continuing Motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development. 38 (1): 1-21

Kommers P. 1993 Scenarios for the Development of Educational Hypermedia. Educational & Training Technology International. 30 (3): 234-254

Laszlo A. and Castro K. 1995. Technology and Values: Interactive Learning Environments for Future Generations. Educational Technology. March-April 1995.

Landauer T.K. 1987. Relations between Cognitive Psychology and Computer System Design in: Interfacing Thought. The MIT Press. London. (Carroll J.M. (Ed)).

Lowther D.L. and Sullivan H.J. 1994 Teacher and Technologist Beliefs about Educational Technology. 42 (4): 73-87

Lynch P.J. 1994. The Evolving Interface of Multimedia. Syllabus Magazine, 8(3): 48-50

Merrill D.M. (Ed) 1971 Instructional Design: Readings. Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs. NJ.

Norman Donald. 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books. New York.

Park I. And Hannafin M.J. 1993 Empirically-Based Guidelines for the Design of Interactive Multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development. 41 (3): 63-85

Reyna V.F. and Brainerd C.J. 1995 Fuzzy-Trace Theory - Some Foundational Issues. Learning and Individual Differences 7 (2): 145-162

Rieber L.P. 1990 Animation in Computer-Based Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development. 38 (1): 77-86

Rieber L.P. 1992 Computer-Based Microworlds: A Bridge Between Constructivism and Direct Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development. 40 (1): 93-106

Rieber L .P. 1994. Computers, Graphics & Learning, WCB Brown & Benchmark. Dubuqua. IA.

Schwier R.A. and Misanchuk, E.R. 1993. Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Educational Technology Publications. Englewood Cliffs.

Sutcliffe A.G. 1995. Human-Computer Interface Design (2nd Ed). Macmillan Press Ltd. London.

Tripp S.D. and Bichelmeyer B. 1990. Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Instructional Design Strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development. 38 (1): 31-44

Utah State Univ ID2 Research Team 1994 (Untitled) Educational & Training Technology International. 31 (4): 276-294

West T.G. 1994 Advanced Interaction - A Return to Mental Models and Learning by Doing. Computers & Graphics. 18 (5): 685-689

Wood D. 1995. Theory, Training and Technology: Part 1. Education and Training 37 (1): 12-16

Contact Details

Ms Di Margules
Lecturer
University of Canberra
Faculty of Communication
PO Box 1, Belconnen
ACT 2617

Ph 06 201 2670
Fax 06 201 5367

email: dcm@comserver.canberra.edu.au

Back to top of page

Back to Home Page ...... by Presenter ...... by Paper Title ...... by Keyword