Home Page

Reflective Journal: Module 1 vs. Module 8
EDIT 732, Advanced Instructional Design, July 2, 2002

Module 1: Learning Paradigms and Instructional Design
May 23, 2002
As a late arrival to this constructivist party, I was relieved to look around the classroom and see some familiar faces that view constructivism as a learning theory with plusses and deltas, rather than as a gospel truth that must be followed at all costs. Long before the classroom discussion of the readings begin, it is clear that some course members are more zealous than others in their belief about the effectiveness of constructivism in fostering learning. Oh well, at least it won’t be a dull, one-sided discussion.
Our approach to discussing the readings begins in a typically constructivist fashion: We split into groups of 4 and are charged with formulating 3 questions about the article by Ertmer and Newby (1993). In my group are Elizabeth – whom I worked with last semester in the Human-Computer Interface Design class – a woman (whose name escapes me) who is in either corporate or government training, and whose cell phone goes off when least expect it – and a former accountant. To get the ball rolling, I toss out the first question for consideration:

  1. According to Ertmer and Newby, what are the factors that determine the selection of a According to Ertmer and Newby, what are the factors that determine the selection of a “best” learning strategy.
    At this point, I expect our group to discuss whether or not this would be one of our three questions to pose to the entire class, the purpose of the group assignment, I thought. Instead, one group member begins to answer the question by extolling the virtues of constructivist theory and citing Spiro and Bruner. The group member then notes the challenge to the application of constructivist strategies made by Merrill on page 108 of the Duffy and Jonassen (1992) reader. Seeking to get us back on track, I then suggest that this contrast be our second discussion question for the class, specifically:
  2. According to Ertmer and Newby (p. 63), there is no objective reality that learners strive to know. Conversely, Merrill talks about the dangers of a “self-chosen position” in situations where shared meaning is essential (e.g., the meaning of a red light in traffic). Personally, I find Merrill’s point especially powerful when he states: “To dismiss so casually the objectivist case is perhaps the greatest danger of radical constructivism.” Like the extremists and zealots of any cause, the merit within the message is hidden by the bluster and bombast of the messenger. As our workgroup time reaches its end, another group member offers the following as our third discussion question:

  3. Ertmer and Newby (p. 66) note that apprenticeships frequently use constructivist methods. Does this support the contention that constructivism is really a set of strategies, tools that can be used in whatever theory the instruction happens to be grounded?

Ellen, the course instructor, opens the general class discussion by asking one of the other workgroups to read their first question. The question, which deals with the article’s challenge to objectivist-based testing and measurement to assess constructivist learning environments, dredges up the same old anti-objectivist, anti-Virginia SOL testing responses from the FCPS teachers in the room. In response, the corporate contingent (myself included) notes the need for concrete results when dealing with corporate training and professional practice. At this point I, as group spokesperson, note that the discussion at hand is actually addressing our first question on the “best” learning theory. Further, the Jonassen (1991) article on objectivism vs. constructivism notes the importance of shared reality in certain instances (p. 13), even though designers should be designing environments that support constructivist learning. Similarly, Perkins’ article in Duffy and Jonassen (chapter 4) promotes the marriage of objectivist-based information processing technologies and constructivist strategies, while Dick (chapter 7) goes back to the question of assessment or the lack thereof. At the close of the discussion, there are no converts to among the course members.

Net Impressions of Module 1

  • There is no “best” theory. Although there are challenges to the objectivist-based paradigm, constructivists have failed to conduct and/or promote solid research that supports the effectiveness of their learning theory as the “replacement” theory needed to shift that paradigm.
  • Constructivism offers strategies, such as scaffolding and articulation, that can be used in any learning environment to assist learners in a deep learning of the content.

  • Designers will use whatever strategies are known to work within the context and target audience for they are designing.

Module 8: Constructivism and Instructional Design
June 25, 2002
The readings in this module shatter all illusions I might have had about “understanding” constructivism and its role in how learning environments are designed. On the one hand, the debate among constructivists continues. Duffy & Bednar ( Duffy & Jonassen, chapter 11) rail against Merrill, contending that the latter distorts the views of the former, and that constructivism is the guiding light for contemporary instructional designers. Winn (Duffy & Jonassen, chapter 17) questions whether or not learners can construct all knowledge and that some foundation must be explicitly taught. Nevertheless, he calls for a change in the way instruction is designed, with more emphasis on aligning design with implementation and less on predicting outcomes. Tobias (Duffy & Jonassen, chapter 19) calls for a halt to the polemics and a start to concrete research (here-here!).

Net Impressions of Module 8

  • It is clear that constructivists are continuing to shoot themselves in the foot by not seeking to provide evidence of the effectiveness of constructivist learning.
  • Instructional designers may view adoption of constructivist strategies as “too risky”, further entrenching objectivist-based strategies in the educational and training contexts.
  • If constructivism is so good for the learners, why haven’t more learners (particularly adults) sung the praises of constructivist learning? Like any product, the buyers need to be the advocates.

Final Thoughts
Although certainly not a convert to constructivist-only approaches to learning, I am incorporating constructivist strategies in my own teaching, which is grounded in CIP. Taking pieces of constructivism to meet the needs of the specific audience is a first step. Nevertheless, constructivists must still address the issue of measurable assessment before they can capture the torch from objectivist-based learning approaches.