CLE Project Paper Page 1
Running Head: CLE Project Paper
CLE Project Paper
Mark Beattie
George Mason University
EDIT 732
Dr. Nada Dabbagh
May 7th 2003
CLE Project Paper Page 2
Constructivism And Its Implications For Teaching And Learning.
Constructivism is a theory that asserts that learning is an activity that is individual
to the learner. This theory hypothesizes that individuals will try to make sense of all
information that they perceive, and that each individual will, therefore, “construct” their
own meaning from that information. Driscoll (2000) explains that constructivist theory
asserts that knowledge can only exist within the human mind, and that it does not have to
match any real world reality. Learners will be constantly trying to derive their own
personal mental model of the real world from their perceptions of that world. As they
perceive each new experience, learners will continually update their own mental models
to reflect the new information, and will, therefore, construct their own interpretation of
reality.
Constructivism is often compared to objectivism, which is usually quoted as being
the counter point or direct opposite of constructivism. Much of objectivist theory is based
on the work of behaviorists such as Skinner (1954.) Objectivists believe that information
itself is knowable outside the bounds of any human mind, and that any individual
interpretation of knowledge can be said to be either correct or incorrect. Objectivists view
individual pieces of information as symbols or currency that can be acquired by humans,
and can be transferred from human to human should the correct learning conditions exist.
(Jonassen, 1991.)
While much of the early work in formal instructional design derived from
objectivist theory, modern academic minds have come to accept that learning
environments which more closely match the needs of constructivist learning may be more
CLE Project Paper Page 3
effective. The perceived benefits of constructivist learning may be particularly valuable
where the teaching of complex skills, such as problem solving or critical thinking skills
are concerned (Tam, 2000.)
If we accept that constructivist theory is the best way to define learning, then it
follows that in order to promote student learning it is necessary to create learning
environments that directly expose the learner to the material being studied. For only by
experiencing the world directly can the learner derive meaning from them. This gives rise
to the view that constructivist learning must take place within a suitable constructivist
learning environment (CLE). One of the central tenants of all constructivist learning is
that it has to be an active process (Tam, 2000); therefore, any CLE must provide the
opportunity for active learning.
Tam (2000) lists the following four basic characteristics of CLEs, which must be
considered when implementing constructivist instructional strategies:
1)
Knowledge will be shared between teachers and students.
2)
Teachers and students will share authority.
3)
The teacher’s role is one of a facilitator or guide.
4)
Learning groups will consist of small numbers of heterogeneous students.
Explicit in these characteristic requirements for CLEs is an understanding that the
role of the teacher in any CLE will not be the same as that of a teacher in an objectivistlearning environment (OLE). In a CLE, the teacher must become a guide or facilitator
who helps point the student in the direction of the learning materials. Whereas, by
CLE Project Paper Page 4
contrast in an OLE, the teacher would have been seen as a source of learning materials
and as a distributor of learning materials.
The teacher’s role in a CLE must include spending time developing or preparing
the CLE for the students to use. This can require detailed preparation to ensure that the
students are exposed to relevant authentic tasks. For example, this may encompass
preparing collaborative environments to expose students to multiple perspectives. It can
also include the design of situated learning cases that match the student’s zone of
proximal development, or the design of problems for problem based learning
environments where the students have no experience of the subject matter under study.
(Oliver, 2000).
While there is no single constructivist theory of instruction (Driscoll, 2000), there
are many pedagogical models that are compatible with the ideas of constructivism. These
models will all align with some, though not necessarily all of the goals that are associated
with CLEs. Honebein (1996) summarizes what he describes as the seven pedagogical
goals of CLEs as:
1) To provide experience with the knowledge construction process (students
determine how they will learn).
2) To provide experience in and appreciation for multiple perspectives
(evaluation of alternative solutions).
3) To embed learning in realistic contexts (authentic tasks).
4) To encourage ownership and a voice in the learning process (student centered
learning).
5) To embed learning in social experience (collaboration).
CLE Project Paper Page 5
6) To encourage the use of multiple modes of representation, (video, audio text,
etc.)
7) To encourage awareness of the knowledge construction process (reflection,
metacognition).
Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland (under contract – In Progress), indicate that the
constructivist pedagogical models that meet these goals include:

Situated learning or anchored instruction,

Problem based learning (PBL).

Cognitive Apprenticeships,

Cognitive Flexible Hypertexts (CFH),

Communities of Practice or Learning Communities,

Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILES).

Microworlds Simulations and Virtual Worlds.
Constructivist pedagogical models are sometimes classified into two separately
identifiable groups: 1) Those that are derived from social constructivism, which grew out
of the works of the Swiss philosopher and psychologist, Piaget, and therefore emphasize
the need for collaboration and social interaction. 2) Those that derive from Cognitive
constructivism, which grew out of the work of the Russian psychologist, Vygotsky, and
therefore emphasize the importance of authentic meaningful tasks (Tam 2000.)
Learning environments that build on the benefits of collaboration and social
negation, such as problem based learning or communities of practice, are sometimes
considered to be social constructivist in nature. Those that concentrate on individualist
CLE Project Paper Page 6
learning, such as microworlds or CFH, are sometimes considered to be based in cognitive
constructivism. However, all constructivist pedagogies in general terms have many
characteristics in common, and all environments that are derived from the application of
these pedagogies can still all be considered to be constructivist-learning environments.
(Tam 2000).
As constructivist learning is an individual experience, so too constructivist
assessment must be individualized if it is to measure the learning achieved by a particular
student. CLEs will, therefore, require new forms of assessment that are integrated within
the CLE, and that reflect the achievements of the student. Although CLEs are becoming
more widely accepted as a strong basis for learning, constructivist based assessment
techniques are sometimes criticized by those who are accustomed to objectivist style
certifications, as being inefficient tools for comparing the relative competency levels of
students. (Tam, 2000).
As computers make excellent communication tools, constructivist pedagogical
models map well into computer environments, and in particular online computer
environments. As a result CLEs can be particularly useful as the foundation for both in
class as well as distance based educational programs. One good example of a computer
supported CLE would be a microworld, (Jonassen, 1996).
CLE Project Paper Page 7
Microworlds.
Jonassen (2000), reports that the term “microworld” was first used by Seymour
Papert in his 1980 paper, “Mindstorms, Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas.”
Though closely related to simulations and virtual worlds, microworlds can be
distinguished from these by the fact that microworlds are designed to enable experimental
investigation into a specific subject area. Unlike simulations or virtual worlds,
microworlds allow students to set up environmental variables and then check the effect of
these settings on a simplified simulation of a real world situation. Additionally, the
graphics detail or realism found in a microworld will usually be represented in a simpler
way than that presented by a simulation or virtual reality system. Generally speaking,
therefore, microworlds are used to investigate constrained problems within specific
subject areas that mimic problems that exist in the real world. (Dabbagh & BannanRitland, under contract – In Progress), (Jonassen, 2000.)
Unlike simulations or virtual worlds, microworlds do not specifically have to be
computer based. They can include such simple things as a child’s chemistry set or play
tea set (Jonassen, 1996, p239). However, computers can provide an ideal platform for the
development of microworlds. In large part this is because of the ability of a computer to
visually generate graphical representations of real world situations and to apply
programmed rules of logic on these environments in a way that will mimic the real world
while reflecting parameters input by the learner. Most microworlds are in general
considered to be computer supported CLEs. Jonassen (2000), Dabbagh & BannanRitland, (under contract – In Progress.) Due to the use of computer graphics and
CLE Project Paper Page 8
animation, Jonassen, (2000) considers computer based microworlds to be inherently
motivational environments.
Microworlds require that the learner progress from simpler to more complex skills
and they, therefore, place great emphasis on the prior abilities of students. Microworlds
are generally real world simulations that allow users to experimant and test out
hypotheses that will allow them to develop the skills necessary for the solving of real
world problems. Most usually, microworlds will allow the learner to investigate
problems that would be difficult to experimant with in the real world due to time
constraints or physical restrictions. Hooper, Hannifin, Hannifin, Kini & Rober (1996)
define a microworld as representing the simplest case of a domain that is still
recognizable by an expert in the domain. Though a microworld may become more
complex as the learner progresses and becomes more proficient, it will always be the
learner that structures the operation of the microworld to suit his or her own learning
needs.
Microworlds meet the basic tenant of constructivist environments in that they are
experimental, and that learners learn by doing, and as such they must be considered
active learning experiences. While the tasks that the learners are involved in are
simulated, they can be thought of as authentic as they mimic real world problems.
Microworlds do not generally require collaboration or social negotiation, but instead
focus on exposing the learner to authentic tasks, and allowing the learner to experiment
with their mental models by providing the learner with a way to test the accuracy of their
CLE Project Paper Page 9
own mental models. Microworlds can, therefore, be described as being based on
cognitive constructivism rather than social constructivism.
In their article “Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical
Thinking” Jonassen, Carr & Yueh (1998) describe computer based microworlds as being
dynamic modeling tools that can act as “exploratory learning environments” or what they
term “discovery spaces.” Perhaps the most important feature of Microworlds is that they
involve active learning. Learners learn by doing when they input parameters to the
microworld, come up a with a hypothesis on the effect of the parameter values they have
set, and then test their hypothesis using the programmed logic of the microworld to
simulate reality. (Jonassen, 2000).
Hooper, Hannifin, Hannifin, Rieber & Kini (1996) describe computer based
microworlds that utilized the turtle graphics based programming language Logo. They
indicate that while research has found no clear link between the use of microworlds and
improvements in students critical thinking skills, this may be purely as a result of
difficulties in measuring the holistic effects of any constructivist-learning environment.
However, Jonassen (2000) reports that work by Thompson and Wang in 1998 found that
skills learned in microworlds did indeed transfer effectively to the real world.
Jonassen (2000) emphasizes the usefulness of the hypothesis-testing feature of
microworlds in the development of critical thinking in learners. Jonassen agrees that
many of the problem solving tasks being investigated will be specific to an individual
microworld. However, he indicates a firm belief that that improvements in a learner’s
problem solving abilities in the constrained problem area investigated in a microworld
CLE Project Paper Page 10
may well transfer to more general critical thinking skills that can be applied in other
areas.
Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, (Under contract – In Progress.) list the instructional
characteristics of microworlds as including:

The promotion of exploratory or experiential learning.

They allow a hypothesis to be tested.

They model parts or features of the real world.

They compress time and space to aid speedy hypothesis testing.

The model is considered by experts to accurately reflect the real world.

They are aimed at learners with specific prior knowledge.

They support the incremental acquisition of complex skills.

Learners can directly control social or environmental parameters.

Include both deductive and inductive reasoning.

Allow users to learn form errors.

Encourage incidental learning.

Promote hypothesis testing and higher order thinking.

Provide a learning path from known to unknown.

Provide simple ideas that are visually grounded in reality.

Provide informative feedback.
While microworlds do not necessarily incorporate the social constructivist
characteristics of collaboration and social negotiation, this is because they are derived
CLE Project Paper Page 11
more directly from the ideas of cognitive constructivism. As described above, clearly the
characteristics of microworlds align sufficiently well with those of constructivism for
microworlds to be considered constructivist learning environments.
CLE Project Paper Page 12
References
Dabbagh, N. & Bannan-Ritland, B. (under contract - in progress). Chapter 5: Pedagogical
models for online learning. Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and
application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Education, Prentice Hall.
Driscoll, Marcy. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Hooper, S.R., Rieber, L.P., & Kini, A.S. (1996).
Research on and research with emerging technologies. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 378402). New York, NY: Simon & Shchuster Macmillan.
Honebein, P.C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning
environments. in Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in
Instructional Design. Brent G. Wilson (Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Educational
Technology Publications: 11-24.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm?, Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), 5-13.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Toward a Constructivist Design Model. Educational Technology,
April, 34-37.
Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking.
Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall..
Jonassen, D.H. (2000). “Microworld learning environments: immersion in action”, In
Computers in the classroom –mindtools for critical thinking, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, Merrill, Prentice Hall. (237-253).
CLE Project Paper Page 13
Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.P. (1998, March). Computers as Mindtools for
engaging learners in critical thinking. Tech Trends, 43 (2), 24-32.
Oliver, K.M. (2000), Methods for developing constructivism learning on the web,”
Educational Technology, 40 (6)
Skinner, B.F., (1953), Science and human behavior, New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for
Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3 (2).