Session Six: Constructivism and Electronic Learning

Instructor notes written by J. David Perry, Ph.D., Indiana University.

What is constructivism?

As a philosophy, constructivism suggests that, while there is a real world out there, there is no meaning inherent in it. Meaning is imposed by people and cultures. So, for example, one who followed the constructivist philosophy might say that there is nothing inherently correct about the way we classify living things (genus, species, etc.). This classification system is a human invention, and it is subject to revision or replacement. Thus, when we teach this classification system, we should teach it not as fact, but as the current system accepted by scientists. And we should also teach about the process of creating a classification system, not just the end product.

As a set of instructional practices, constructivism favors processes over end products; guided discovery over expository learning; authentic, embedded learning situations over abstracted, artificial ones; portfolio assessments over multiple-choice exams, etc.

Why is this distinction between constructivism as a philosophy (epistemology, to be more accurate) and constructivism as a set of teaching practices important? Because it is my contention that you could be a constructivist in philosophy without always using constructivist teaching methods. A useful analogy is with physics: Newtonian mechanics have been demonstrated to be inadequate and replaced by Einsteinian mechanics. However, we can continue to use Newtonian laws for many local situations because they work well enough and are simpler. Similarly, I may believe that people must construct their own knowledge--even of objects in the physical world--but I may choose to use relatively didactic approaches for some kinds of learning because it is expedient and works well enough.

On the other hand, someone who espouses an objectivist philosophy (if you can find anyone who admits to it!) would likely agree that constructivist-like teaching approaches are appropriate for areas of "knowing" that are highly divergent, say in the arts, literature, ethics, etc. Can you imagine teaching an ethics course didactically? It would be absurd. You would likely have to acknowledge that an ethical sense is something each learner has to develop for him/herself, and that the job of the course would be to provide an opportunity to do that with guidance.

Also, keep in mind that believing in a constructivist philosophy or epistemology does not automatically dictate using any particular set of teaching strategies--any more than being a behaviorist automatically dictates using teaching machines. Different learning theories may suggest particular kinds of instructional strategies, but they do not determine them fully.

Influences on constructivist "theories" of instruction

• Qualitative/naturalistic research paradigms: Finding meaning in particulars rather than generalities. Increasing interest in these forms of research supports the constructivist notion that what is unique (in people, events, institutions, etc.) is at least as important as what one can generalize about them.

• Situated cognition/learning: Learning in the "natural" setting seems to be quite different from learning in school. Lave, Brown, Resnick, and other psychologists have written extensively about the ways in which typical school learning tasks seem to be remote from the kind of learning we do outside of formal instructional settings. Thus, educators have sought ways to make school learning more "authentic."

• Donald Schon's ideas about reflective practice in the professions: The real challenge of professional practice is framing a problem, not solving it after it has already been defined. Schon's ideas have been influential, particularly in education in the professions. What is important in the practice of most professions, Schon says, is the artistry of framing a problem in a useful way, not the "science" of solving it once it has been framed.

• Cognitive and intellectual development theorists: E.g., Vygotsky, Bruner, Piaget, William Perry, Belenky. All have had something to say about the ways in which children or young adults "construct" their understanding of the world at various stages.

• Semiotics: Includes the notion that all events, objects, phenomena can be understood as "signs", the meaning of which is determined by the individual interpreter.

• Hypertext/hypermedia:The notion of bodies of information that can be connected and organized in various, idiosyncratic ways (of which the World Wide Web is a prime example) is an obvious analogy to the constructivist idea of uniquely constructed understandings.

Constructivism: Opposing viewpoints to ponder

Point: "[Constructivism] holds that learning is infinite and not subject to the sorts of analyses favored by objectivists except in the most trivial cases [emphasis added]. Things can be known from a variety of sign systems (verbal, mathematical, visual, musical, gestural, etc.), a variety of metaphors ... , and with varying degrees of self awareness of the processes by means of which constructions are made. The role of education in a constructivist view is to show students how to construct knowledge, to promote collaboration with others to show the multiple perspectives that can be brought to bear on a particular problem, and to arrive at self-chosen positions [emphasis added] to which they can commit themselves, while realizing the basis of other views with which they may disagree." (from D. J. Cunningham, Assessing constructions and constructing assessments, p. 36. In Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (1992), Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H., eds. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Counterpoint: "... [C]onstructivists argue that specific learning objectives are not possible--that meaning is always constructed by, and unique to, the individual; that all understanding is negotiated. In our opinion this is a very extreme position. Let me speak up for the vast amount of "trivial cases," those situations where shared meaning is not only possible but necessary. Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" with regard to the sound of letters in learning to read? Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" about the meaning of the integers. Will a machine allow us to have a "self-chosen position" about how it works? ... Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" ... about how to solve a linear equation? Do we want drivers to have a "self-chosen position" about the meaning of a red light? ... If I hire a surgeon to do heart surgery, PLEASE let me have one who has learned the trivial case and knows that my heart looks like every other human heart. Please don't let him negotiate new meanings and hook up my veins in some "self-chosen position to which [she/he] can commit [herself/himself]." I want her/him committed to the standard objective view. The trivial case is not so trivial. To dismiss so casually the objective case is perhaps the greatest danger of radical constructivism." (from M. D. Merrill, Constructivism and instructional design, pp. 107-108. (same publication as above)

Learning activities

Learning Activities for Session Six