Oxy.mo.ron (n) a figure of speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas or terms are combined (Ex.: jumbo shrimp, constructivist design)
Believe me, this is an article I have approached with trepidation. There is more than a little paradox involved in the term, “constructivist design.” In my most recent articles, I’ve introduced the basic theory behind constructivism and reviewed some of the tools that learners can use to construct knowledge. The essential difference between the constructivist approach to learning and more traditional models is that in constructivism the point is not to precisely transfer knowledge from the instructor to a group of learners, but to facilitate the individual learner’s ability to build on and extend existing knowledge within a given domain. In that sense, it seems presumptuous to speak of designing constructivist e-Learning, in advance, for a mass audience.
However, because the rubber has to meet the road somewhere, pristine theory must inevitably be drawn into contact with squalid practice, and so in this article I shall show how to start designing e-Learning along constructivist lines. I’ll provide links to multiple resources, models, and discussions about this process online and elsewhere. You, Dear Reader, may then resolve the irony in this undertaking for yourself and in your own way.
Similar to traditional design of instruction in which the designer has a choice from among many step-by-step procedures for building a course, in constructivist practice there are guidelines of various kinds that can be followed. Each of these sets of guidelines represents someone’s way of dealing with the paradox of thinking about design while remaining true to a subtly anarchical set of principles.
Probably the most frequently-referenced set of guidelines used to create constructivist-based e-Learning are those provided by David Jonassen for Constructivist Learning Environments, or CLEs. You will find several References to these in the list at the end of this article. However, there are many practitioners who create successful constructivist systems for learners, and whose approaches to design are different in significant ways from Jonassen’s.
It is likely that there will never be a universal constructivist design framework such as ISD (Instructional Systems Design), Gagne’s Events of Instruction, or Dick and Carey’s model provides for the objectivist approaches. However, by paying careful attention to developments within the community of practice and to the body of work done by constructivists, designers can build up their own knowledge and toolkit of the principles that work. My purpose here is simply to open the introduction to the community of practice and to suggest places to start.
Benefits of constructivist design
One of the questions that a designer might reasonably ask is, “Why should I consider a constructivist approach to learning?” Perhaps it would be well to take a little time to give my answer to that question.
First, please be aware that I am not advocating replacing your current design model completely with constructivism. The traditional approaches to designing and delivering instruction (sometimes referred to as the “objectivist approaches”) work quite well for many learning situations, as long as they are appropriately selected and correctly applied. In some cases, either an objectivist approach or a constructivist approach would provide satisfactory results, depending on the maturity of the learners. But there are many situations you face as a designer, when you will find that you need to support learning in domains or for audiences where an attempt to transfer knowledge or skill from a subject matter expert’s head to a learner’s head is doomed to fail. Those are the times to reflect on constructivism and its many benefits, and to ask, “Should we do something different?”
It’s good to reflect that people learn all the time, every day, and that most learning takes place outside of a formal setting. People add to what they know and to what they can do, and for the most part without any “e-” being involved in the learning at all. It’s clear that the mechanisms by which these learnings take place are different from those used to teach in a traditional setting, and that the mechanisms are powerful. Much of constructivism is based on careful study of those “other” mechanisms. In many cases, information and communication technology — the Web, computers, and software — will make it possible for learners to leverage the other mechanisms in ways that are not possible even on the best day in a classroom.
Of course, part of the challenge to this day-to-day learning process is that people also get things wrong, perhaps more often than they “get it right.” They don’t know how to check what they’ve learned for validity, for exceptions, or for application guidelines. A substantial part of constructivist practice has to do with helping people learn how to learn, including how to test, verify, and validate new knowledge and skills and so to increase their own autonomy.
Constructivism is concerned with engaging people in meaningful learning. While there are various details provided by constructivist theoreticians about what makes learning “meaningful,” one of the keys is that meaningful learning is also mindful learning. Ellen Langer (see the list of Resources and References at the end of this article) has introduced this term in a very specific way, drawing from the concept of mindfulness. A mindful approach, she points out, has three characteristics: the continuous creation of new categories, openness to new information, and an implicit awareness of more than one perspective.
There are many benefits of a mindful approach for psychological and physical well-being. The alternative, mindless approach to learning and living can trap people in old categories and in automatic behavior that operates from a single perspective and keeps a person from attending to new signals. There are significant consequences in a changing world to the choice between adopting either mindfulness or mindlessness.
James Atherton says that although constructivism has received more attention in education and the schools for the reasons just given, it is important in two additional ways to those who design for learners in other organizational settings and for “post-compulsory” education. Atherton, a Principal Lecturer in Education at De Montfort University, Bedford, in the United Kingdom, asserts that constructivism provides an excellent approach to facilitate professional development, and to deal with resistance to learning.
Learning through reflection in professional practice
“Continuous learning” has received much attention in the training press in the last decade, mainly in an organizational context. We understand from this attention that many businesses believe that continuous learning can bring competitive advantage in a changing world. However, Atherton points out that, in 1983, the late Donald Schön showed how continuous learning as a result of reflection on one’s actions is one of the defining characteristics of professional practice. Schön was a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) when he wrote an important series of books around the processes and development of reflective practitioners. These works provided a close examination of what practitioners in different professions actually do, with the focus being on “an analysis of the distinctive structure of reflection-in-action.” Schön’s work quickly became influential as many educators involved in the development of professionals took it up.
A key part of Schön’s contribution was his insight that “Technical Rationality” — his term for the model of professional training that loads learners up with content while they are students, so that they can apply it when they enter practice — has never been an accurate description of how professionals “think in action,” and that this model is a poor basis for practice in a fast-changing world.
Helping learners discover how to reflect in action (both while doing something and afterward) is an important feature of constructivist practice, and one that has major applications for developing professionals.
(For more information on Donald Schön and his contributions to the theory and practice of learning, see his biography in the Encyclopaedia of Informal Education, at http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm.)
While professionals have an understandable interest in learning to be successful in their practice, other learners are more resistant. Atherton has some insights to offer regarding ways in which constructivism can address failure to learn.
Dealing with resistance to learning
Atherton contrasts “supplantive learning,” which questions current knowledge or skills and then replaces them, with “additive learning,” which simply adds new knowledge or skills to an individual’s current set. He makes the point that, when people fail to learn, the failure
may be due to lack of motivation, lack of ability, lack of aptitude, or to poor teaching. A fourth factor, which he says is often not recognized, is the psychological cost of change. This cost may come into play when an apparently competent, experienced adult is required to change or realizes that change is necessary.
Supplantive learning becomes problematic when it is forced, or if the individual has a significant emotional investment in the prior beliefs or skills. Where supplantive learning does not create problems, the learner may at least feel a bit demoralized because of a temporary loss of perceived competence. If the supplantive learning does become problematic, the demoralization intensifies, sometimes to “crisis” proportions. This combination makes it difficult to learn, and the learner may well simply go back to the old way of doing things.
Over time, the learner who does not just “give up” will become re-oriented through learning. The reorientation can be sparked in several ways. For example, there may be an external crisis that forces the change. In an extreme case, the individual may have the sense of “bottoming out,” so there is no way to go but up. Or, the learner may find himself or herself in a “facilitating environment,” where the learner is supported and safe, and where the change is not forced.
The function of learning under the constructivist model is to provide that supportive, safe, motivating environment. The designer’s job is to create such an environment.
Guidelines for constructivist design
If you look for a definitive flowchart that shows “how to design constructivist e-Learning,” you won’t find one. That’s because:
- Constructivism isn’t an approach to learning that can be outlined in a flowchart and applied the same way to all learning, over and over;
- Constructivism is about how individuals create meaning and knowledge, by extending and modifying current personal knowledge and skills; and
- Constructivism is not a specific approach to design — it’s a way of thinking about design.
However, you can find plenty of guidelines. These are useful because constructivist ideas can be incorporated into the typical instructional design process without impairing the project management and quality-control functions.
Brent Wilson, James Teslow, and Rionda Osman-Jouchoux provided an extensive set of ideas in their 1995 chapter on the impact of constructivism on instructional design (ID) fundamentals (again, please see the Resources and References section at the end of the article). They also gave a great summary of the theoretical background and research underpinning constructivism, and I recommend reading that summary along with my earlier articles.
Wilson, Teslow, and Osman-Jouchoux make an important observation when they say that, “Traditional ID models succeed largely because they provide for the management of a team of workers engaged in a complex project. ... management goals and design goals are often in tension with each other. For an ID model to work in the real world, it must combine these two critical functions into a workable methodology: effective, creative design on the one hand and efficient management on the other. ... the point is that we need a balanced set of safeguards and constraints that assure careful design and accountability, but which are flexible enough to allow the project to safely ‘fly’.”
Constructivist learning environments
I have already mentioned David Jonassen and his work with the design of Constructivist Learning Environments, or CLEs. A CLE is a framework that provides a supportive, safe, motivating environment in which learners can solve problems, interact with others, and assess their learning. Within a CLE, a designer can provide any resources the learners may need, from problem-based or case-based experiences to microworlds and virtual realities, subject to also taking into account some of the issues in constructivist design to be discussed later in this article.
Sidebar 1, “Attributes of meaningful e-Learning” (below) is a summary of Jonassen’s list of design attributes for meaningful learning, some details of the elements and considerations within each of those attributes, and my ideas about the kinds of technology a designer might provide to support each attribute.
|
The primary goal of constructivist design is to engage learners in meaningful learning, which has five interdependent attributes. Technology — e-Learning — should support these same attributes. |
||
|
Attributes |
Elements |
Technology |
|
Meaningful learning is ACTIVE |
Learners are engaged in mindful processing of information, where they are responsible for the result. Learners manipulate objects and parameters of the environment they are working in and observe the results of their manipulations. |
WebQuests, Office-type applications |
|
Meaningful learning is CONSTRUCTIVE |
Learners integrate new ideas with prior knowledge in order to make sense or meaning. Learners articulate what they have accomplished and reflect on their activity and observations: they construct increasingly complex mental models. |
Web logs, mind maps, concept maps |
|
Meaningful learning is INTENTIONAL |
When learners are actively and willfully trying to achieve a cognitive goal, they think and learn more because they are fulfilling an intention. Technology should help learners articulate their learning goals, and then support them. |
Web logs, WebQuests, concept maps, mind maps |
|
Meaningful learning is AUTHENTIC |
Learning tasks that are situated in meaningful real-world tasks or simulated in a case-based or problem-based learning environment are better understood and more consistently transferred to new situations. Technology should support learners in solving complex and ill-structured problems as well as simple and well-structured problems. |
Office-type applications, hypermedia |
|
Meaningful learning is COOPERATIVE |
Collaboration requires conversation, and technology can support this at any scale. Cooperation and collaboration are the most difficult attributes to support, especially if learning is evaluated on an individual basis. |
Wikis, community systems, hypermedia, content maps, course maps, |
You will find more about the details of CLEs in the online article, “Welcome to the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments (CLEs)” and in Jonassen’s Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective.
Guidelines (not rules) for designs
Another key element Jonassen provides is a list of the components of CLEs that the designer should try to include:
- A problem or project context: Learners should receive a clear problem statement, with the context surrounding the problem shown as clearly as if it were real life.
- A problem or project representation: Simulate the situation in a natural context, and recreate the same type of interesting cognitive problems the main players would face in the real world. Tasks assigned should replicate the actual activity structure, and the physical setting should provide the same constraints and advantages that would exist in the real world, including the tools.
- The problem or project manipulation space: Learners should be able to manipulate things — tools, product, or environment — in a meaningful way. Learners must be able to test hypotheses about their problems.
Instructional activities will also be necessary in a CLE. Sometimes learners do not possess enough knowledge structure in the domain to begin building or constructing new knowledge. Instructional activities must be supported in three ways: modeling, coaching, and scaffolding.
Modeling is mainly a matter of demonstrating to the learner how (and why) to perform the necessary activities needed to complete a task. In other words, provide one or more examples, and then ask the learner to explain what he or she is thinking about while going through each step.
Coaching involves intervening at critical points in the instruction. Each intervention provides learners with encouragement, diagnosis, direction, and feedback.
Scaffolding adjusts the task for the learner, so that the task is matched to what the learner can do. Eventually all scaffolding will be removed.
The constructivist design team and process
Wilson, Teslow, and Osman-Jouchoux suggest that essentially the same cast of players will be involved in constructionist design as is involved in objectivist (traditional) design. In other words, subject matter experts (SME’s), designers, instructors or facilitators, and learners will all take part. The difference is that all of them are part of each step in the process. SMEs help design the learning experiences. Designers can serve as model learners and teachers. Teachers and students may help define or select content and then design their own learning experience. This mixing of roles requires care in implementation.
The actual design process, from a project management point of view, may not look so different from the steps in a traditional project. Again, Wilson, Teslow, and Osman-Jouchoux provide a breakdown that includes all the major activity steps, from needs assessment to evaluation, with specific tips for incorporating constructivist methodology and concerns in each step.
Online resources
Many designers may find it more useful to start their first project by looking at some of the activity types typically included in a constructivist design. Susan Colaric has created a wonderful resource that will assist in this process. Please see Sidebar 2: Susan Colaric’s Knowledge Base, below, for the details.
|
Susan Colaric, now an assistant professor at East Carolina University, created a knowledge base covering the instructional systems process, as a component of her doctoral examinations at Penn State University. This knowledge base is available on a Web site and it can be an extremely useful resource for designers who are learning about different approaches to learning. The URL for the portal to this resource is at http://www.soe.ecu.edu/ltdi/colaric/KB/index.html (verified June 26, 2004). The knowledge base incorporates 427 files, 213 pictures, and 2088 internal hyperlinks. Among the resources that will be of interest to readers are eleven articles relating to constructivist design. |
|
|
Topic |
URL |
|
Constructivism |
|
|
Problem-Based Learning |
|
|
Case-Based Reasoning |
|
|
A Web-Based Case Library to Support Learning |
|
|
Anchored Instruction |
http://www.soe.ecu.edu/ltdi/colaric/KB/AnchoredInstruction.htm |
|
Scaffolding |
|
|
Goal-Based Scenarios |
|
|
Situated Learning |
|
|
Cognitive Flexibility Theory |
|
|
Constructivist Learning Environments (OLEs) - Jonassen |
|
|
Open Learning Environments (OLEs) |
|
As you use the various resources, take a minute to read over the article by Joseph Petraglia, “The Real World on a Short Leash: The (Mis)Application of Constructivism to the Design of Educational Technology.” Petraglia teaches at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and he makes some important points about how to design problems and task environments for learners.
Examples
Another way in which many designers learn is to look at examples of the work of other designers. While I was unable to find any complete constructivist programs on line, I did find several articles that may be useful to you.
- Mahnaz Moallem has provided an outstanding example of the way in which his team combined elements of traditional instruction and constructivist environments in order to deal with a learning situation in which part of the answer required prescriptive solutions, and part of it required learner control of the environment. Mahnaz is Associate Professor of Instructional Technology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
- Mark Guzdial, at Georgia Institute of Technology, created CaMILE (Collaborative and Multimedia Interactive Learning Environment) as a Web-based collaboration tool for use by students. Mark is also responsible for development of the Swiki, another anchored collaborative learning environment.
- Brent Wilson and May Lowry, both professors of Information and Learning Technologies, University of Colorado at Denver, compiled a very useful set of links, including links to actual projects, in their paper “Constructivist Learning on the Web.”
- Finally, the IBM Watson Research Center has published a number of papers from its Collaborative eLearning projects, and these name actual organizations involved in workplace training programs that make use of collaborative learning on the Web.
How to get started
Many designers find it easier to start adding collaborative elements one at a time to course designs, rather than to try to design a complete constructivist model all at once. I would recommend starting with a simple case-based approach in a single module. Susan Colaric’s Knowledge Base has enough information in it to make that possible.
Another way to begin would be to add a WebQuest to a synchronous e-Learning program, following the guidelines on Bernie Dodge’s WebQuest page. Then have the learners work together to create their own WebQuest, based on the model you have provided. I also recommend looking over all of the Web sites mentioned here, and contacting the authors.
This summer, we will also be publishing an article on Problem-Based Learning that you will not want to miss. Problem-Based Learning is one of the most effective of the constructivist methodologies. In the meantime, good luck with your efforts!
References
Atherton, James S. 2003. “Learning and Teaching: Constructivism (Online).”Retrieved May 20, 2004 from http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/constructivism.htm.
Atherton, James S. 2003. “Learning and Teaching: Reflective Practice (Online).”Retrieved May 20, 2004 from http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/reflecti.htm.
Atherton, James S. 2003. “Learning and Teaching: Resistance to Learning(Online).” Retrieved May 20, 2004 from http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/resistan.htm.
Brandon, Bill. 2004. “How Do People Learn? Some New Ideas fore-Learning Designers.” Learning Solutions Magazine, June 1, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/301/how-do-people-learn-some-new-ideas-for-e-learning-designers
Brandon, Bill. 2004. “Constructing Knowledge: Tools for Learners.” Learning Solutions Magazine, June 14,2004. Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/298/constructing-knowledge-tools-for-learners
Colaric, Susan. 2000-2001. “The Instructional Systems Process.”Retrieved May 25, 2004 from http://www.soe.ecu.edu/ltdi/colaric/KB/index.html.
Dodge, Bernie. “The Web Quest Page.”Recovered May 28, 2004 from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/.
Guzdial, Mark. 1997. “Anchored Collaborative Learning Environments.”Retrieved May 19, 2004 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/edtech/CaMILE.html.
IBM Watson Research Center. 1999.“Project: Collaborative eLearning.”Retrieved May 28, 2004 from http://domino.research.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/0/682fc431da5f2eb38525698a0066aada?OpenDocument.
Jonassen, David H. 2002. “Components of CLEs.” Retrieved May 19, 2004 from http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/documents/comps.shtml.
Jonassen, David H. 2002. “Instructional Processes in CLEs.” Retrieved May 19,2004 from http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/documents/insp.shtml.
Jonassen, David H. 2002. “Welcome to the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments (CLEs).” Retrieved May 19,2004 from http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/main.html.
Jonassen, David H.; Howland, Jane; Moore,Joi; Marra, Rose M. Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. 2003 (2nd Ed.). MerrillPrentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-048403-2.
Langer, Ellen J. The Power of Mindful Learning. 1997. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 0-201-48839-6.
Moallem, Mahnaz. 2001. “Applying Constructivist and Objectivist Learning Theories in the Design of a Web-Based Course: Implications for Practice.”Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2001/moallem.html.
Petraglia, Joseph. 1998. “The Real World on a Short Leash: The (Mis)Application of Constructivism to the Design of Educational Technology.” Originally published in Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1998,pp. 53-65. ISSN 1042-1629. Retrieved May 30, 2004 from http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/documents/authen_2.pdf.
Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner:How professionals think in action. 1983.Basic Books. ASIN 046506874X.
Schön, Donald A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions(Jossey Bass Higher Education Series).1987. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ASIN1555420257.
Schön, Donald A. 1987. “Educating the Reflective Practitioner.” Address to the1987 meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Retrieved June 15, 2004 from http://educ.queensu.ca/~russellt/howteach/schon87.htm.
Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice.1990. Teachers College Press. ISBN0807730459.
Smith, Mark K. 2001. “Donald Schön:learning, reflection and change,” The encyclopedia of informal education.Retrieved June 15, 2004 from www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm
Wilson, Brent and Lowry, May. 2000.“Constructivist Learning on the Web.” For inclusion in Burge, Liz (Ed.), Learning Technologies: Reflective and Strategic Thinking. Jossey-Bass, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001.Retrieved May 20, 2004 from http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~brent_wilson/WebLearning.html.
Wilson, Brent; Teslow, James; Osman-Jouchoux, Rionda. 1995. “The Impact of Constructivism (and Postmodernism) on ID Fundamentals.” In B. B. Seels (Ed.),Instructional Design Fundamentals: A Review and Reconsideration (pp. 137-157). Educational Technology Publications. Retrieved May 20, 2004 from http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~brent_wilson/idfund.
