Constructivism and
Instructional Design
Are they compatible?
Summary and Presentation by
Anna Ignatjeva
Introduction
• Instructional designers use various theories.
• Constructivism has been dominant theory of
last decade.
• This presentation addresses the following:
– Basic principles of constructivism
– Implications of constructivism on instructional
design
Constructivism-an overview
• Constructivists believe that learners actively
create knowledge based on their own
experiences, goals and beliefs.
• Concepts of “Teaching” and “Learning” not
synonymous.
• Knowledge cannot be transferred but only
constructed.
• Meaning is created by individual not imposed
on individual.
Constructivism in video
Click on the link below to learn more general
information about constructivism theory in
education
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00R3pOXz
uk
Two groups of Constructivists
• Radical constructivists
• Non-radical or moderate
constructivists
Implications for Instructional Design
My research presents constructivism in terms of
three major phases of instructional design
Analysis
Development
Evaluation
Analysis
• Traditional Approach- analyze who is the
learner, content and setting.
• Constructivist Approach- does not break
environment into traditional components; no
predetermined content or tasks.
• Constructivists analyze learning environment
as whole and provide rich context to negotiate
meaning.
Development
• Traditional Approach- set and achieve specific
performance objectives.
• Constructivist Approach-no predetermined
content and objectives.
• Constructivists concentrate on studentcentered, student directed, collaborative,
supported and cooperative learning.
Development cont
There are 4 major strategies preferred by
constructivists in this stage
1. Active Learning
2. Authentic Learning
3. Multiple Perspectives
4. Collaborative Learning
Evaluation
• Traditional Approach-evaluate the outcomes
and results of learning.
• Constructivists evaluate thinking process,
metacoginitive and reflective skills.
• Constructivist learners need to explain what
they have learned and make connection to
previous experiences.
Challenges
• Pre-specification of knowledge
• Evaluation
• Learner Control
• Underlying philosophy not a strategy
Solution based on Merrill’s second
generation instructional design theory
– Mental models are
constructed by learners based
on their experience
– Each mental model may be
different, but their structure
is the same
– Teaching authentic tasks in a
context is desirable
– But there is also need to
teach abstractions that are
taken out of context
– Subject matter and
instructional strategy are
somewhat independent
– But both of these can be
adapted to different contexts
separately, if needed
– There is class content that is
appropriate for all learners
– When learning is active not
necessarily collaborative, an
individual learning is as
effective
– Testing can be incorporated
and aligned with learning
objectives
– But other type of assessment
is also possible (Karagiorgi &
Symeou, 2005 p.23).
Technology tools
• Hypermedia, multimedia and Internet can
allow for non-linear learning with increased
learner control.
• Toolkits, coaching, scaffolding, role-playing
games, simulations, case studies, storytelling
promote active constructive learning.
• In the future micro worlds and virtual reality
can simulate authentic learning.
Conclusion
• Constructivism can become guiding
theoretical foundation of the future.
• Two issues to consider:
– Moderate not extreme constructivism fits into
instructional design framework
– Many new technologies can implement and
facilitate constructivist environments.
Go to Journal of Educational Technology and Society
online to read more
http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_1/5.pdf
References
•
Gordon, M. (2009). Toward A Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reflections on Lessons from Practice.
Educational Studies, 45, 39–58.
•
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potentials and
Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1),17-27.
•
Kafai, Y., & Resnik, M (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital
world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
•
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. G. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext. In Nix, D. & Spiro, R. (Eds.), Cognition,
education, multimedia, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 165-202.
•
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe, L. P. & Gale, J.
(Eds.),Constructivism in education, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-15.
•
Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning –
Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 254–266.
•
Kala, S. et. al (2009).et al. Electronic learning and constructivism: A model for nursing education. Nurse
Education Today. Retrieved on October 12, 2009 from www.elsevier.com/nedt
Questions?