Project Report by Maggie Lynch

Constructivism in Instructional Design for Distance Education
Project Report

By Maggie McVay Lynch



Background

This project was designed to gain a better understanding of the theories and concepts of constructivism and their potential impact on instructional systems design for distance education. The project proposal�s original goals were threefold:

To increase the writer�s depth of knowledge regarding constructivism and its many evolutions in the literature.
To evaluate specific tools and methods for providing better opportunities for students to construct knowledge throughout the writer�s distance education curriculum.
To gain resources for increasing faculty awareness of constructivist principles and methods.
The writer used two primary resources for the project: a literature review of selected articles relating to the project goals and the distribution of a brief email questionnaire to five well-known researchers in the field of constructivism.
Research
An Introduction to Constructivism

Since learning is equated with behavioral outcomes, behavioral laws (e.g., the work of Skinner) have provided the foundation of technology efforts in Instructional Systems Design (ISD). According to these behavioral laws, learning can be shaped by selective reinforcement. Behaviorists, such as Skinner, were unwilling to acknowledge the existence of covert mental operations or "the act of knowing" because these were not observable.

Unlike behaviorists, who are only concerned with what learners "do", cognitive psychologists were interested in what learners "know" and how they come to acquire it. Fodor (1981) suggested that cognitive activity was embodied in mental states that enable humans to construct mental representations and manipulate them through the use of symbols.

Epistemological Assumption. Knowledge is a function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her experiences; it is not a function of what someone else says is true. Each of us conceives of external reality somewhat differently, based upon our unique set of experiences with the world and our beliefs about them.

Constructivist Belief. Our personal world is constructed in our minds and these personal constructions define our personal realities. The mind is the instrument of thinking which interprets events, objects, and perspectives rather than seeking to remember and comprehend an objective knowledge. The mind filters input from the world in the process of making those interpretations.

Defining the Relationships Between Constructivism and Learning Environments

Crotty (1994) defined the type of environment a constructivist will try to create, where learners "are required to examine thinking and learning processes; collect, record, and analyze data; formulate and test hypotheses; reflect on previous understandings; and construct their own meaning" (p.31)

Jonassen (1992) researched constructivism as the philosophical foundation for situated learning. Later, Jonassen (1994) further defined constructivist learning environments as those that are best designed for "advanced learners" � "constructivistic environments stress situated problem-solving tasks, because those are the nature of tasks that are called on and rewarded in the real world" (p.2).

The Implementation of Constructivist Characteristics in ISD

Duffy and Jonassen (1992) began defining characteristics of constructivistic instructional design by clarifying the contrasting instructional paradigm assumptions of paradigms between traditional learning and constructivist learning environments. Using the tenants of symbolic reasoning and situated learning, Duffy and Jonassen compared six mental processes: 1) knowledge acquisition; 2) learning process; 3) memory configuration; 4) knowledge representation; 5) instruction processes; and 6) the computational model. Table 1 summarizes those contrasting assumptions.



Table 1

Contrasting Assumptions of Paradigms


Symbolic Reasoning Situated Learning
Objective
Independent

Stable

applied
Knowledge
Acquisition Subjective
Contextualized

Relative

Situated in action

Objectivist
Product-oriented

Abstract

Symbolic
Learning
Process Constructivist
Process-oriented

Authentic

Experiential

Stored representations Memory
Configuration
Connections, potential
Functionally equivalent to real world
Replication of expert

Symbolic, generalized
Knowledge Representation Embedded in experience
Personally constructed

Personalized

Top down
Deductive

Application of symbols
Instruction
Processes Bottom up
Inductive

Apprenticeship

Symbolic reasoning
Production rule

Symbol manipulation
Computational
Model Connectionist
Neural network

Probabilistic, embedded



Because constructivism is based in mental models, Jonassen (1994) later proposed operationalizable representations of mental models that could then be used as a basis for assessing what may result from complex interactions within constructivist learning environments. In Table 2, Jonassen presented his rationalized criteria for evaluating mental models by defining eight characteristics and their measures (p.5).



Table2

Rationalized Criteria for Evaluating Mental Models


Characteristic Measure
Coherence Structural knowledge, Think-aloud
Purpose/Personal Relevance Self-report, Cognitive interview
Integration Cognitive simulation
Fidelity with Real World Comparison to expert
Imagery Generating metaphors, analogies
Complexity Structural knowledge
Applicability/Transferability Teach back, think aloud
Inferential/Implicational Ability Running the model


After studying student responses to initial distance education offerings in two courses, Driscoll (1994) also defined five constructivist characteristics that should form the pedagogical foundation for designing learning.

Provide complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity.
Provide for social negotiation as an integral part of learning.
Juxtapose instructional content and include multiple modes of representation
Nurture reflexivity (reflect on learning)
Emphasize student-centered instruction
By emphasizing teamwork and situated learning, Driscoll (1994) further found that when students worked in teams on major projects they gained skills and experience in leadership, teamwork, communication and organization. Students elected to form organizing committees and subcommittes and carried out tasks to prepare for a conference, including development of a web site, multimedia presentations, used email accounts for communication with peer, the teaching team and others.
Challenges in the Implementation of Constructivist Learning Environments

In an evaluation of the implementation of constructivist characteristics in a distance learning environment, Remmington and Gruba (1997) found the largest challenge was for the instructor or convenors to:

resist taking control of student activities when they appear to be going astray.
become learning facilitators rather than knowledge transfer controllers.
not underestimate the effects of peer pressure.
re-evaluate the grading system to allow higher marks for students who improve their work on the basis of earlier feedback, or to formally negotiate marks with students.
Jonassen (1991) suggests that in order for technology (distance education) to accommodate constructivistic assumptions, changes in instructional design practices would have to occur. Some of these changes would include:
Instructional goals and objectives would be negotiated, not imposed
Task and content analysis would focus less on identifying and prescribing a single, best sequence for learning.
The goal of the systems design process would be less concerned with prescribing specific instructional strategies necessary to lead learners to specific learning behaviors.
Evaluation of learning would become less criterion-referenced.

The Challenge of Finding Constructivist ISD Models

Most of the literature, on constructivist approaches to educational technology, focuses on instructional theory rather than instructional systems design (ISD) models. There is a healthy literature, for example, on anchored instruction, situated cognition, and cognitive flexibility hypertext. Very little, however, has been written on the instructional design process itself.

Most widely-used ISD models are objectivist rather than constructivist. For example the 4D model of Thiagarajan (1974), Dick and Carey�s (1985) model, and Criswell�s (1989) model take a similar approach to common issues. They reflect the "core" of objective-rational thinking on procedural instructional design models. Bagdonnis & Salisbury (1994) define procedural ISD models as ones that "describe how to perform a task and are formulated to simplify and explain a series of complex processes" (p.27).

Traditional ISD Models are viewed by individuals as representing a linear process -- a plan of separate steps that proceed in a linear sequence. Bagdonis & Salisbury (1994) indicated the typical ISD model is divided into five stages: analysis, design, production/development implementation, and maintenance/revision. The five stages consist of an integrated set of components that are sequenced so that each component within the process must be completed before continuing to the next.

Wilson (1997) advocated for changes in the analysis of instruction based on a model of progression of practice environments, derived from Bunderson�s work models. Table 3 presents the Bunderson work model with Wilson�s suggested changes in the instructional analysis (p. 9).



Table 3

Wilson�s Summarization of Changes in Instructional Analysis Based on Bunderson�s Work Models


The Lexical Loop Work Models
Translation to goal statements through goal/job analysis Master performance is documented through multiple media
Translation to objectives list through task analysis Work models are designed of progressively increasing difficulty.
Translation to print-based tests through test item technologies Learning environments simulate real-life environments
Translation to print-based media using text-design principles. Students practice holistic as well as parts skills.
Student expected to transfer text material into skills of the master. Authentic tools are available.
(Actually, negligible transfer occurs to everyday life.) Info can be accessed through job aids, help systems, and other resources.
Coaching, mentoring, and peer consultation is available as needed.
Students complete work models
1�n.

Student demonstrates master�s knowledge/skill in real-life performance environment.


From this work model, Wilson (1997) advocates that the role of the designer is to design a series of "experiences-interactions or environments or products-intended to help students learn effectively." (p. 9). He suggests the design role is less analytical, more holistic, more reliant on the cooperation of teachers and materials and learners to fill the gaps left by the limitations of our analytical tools. And thus the instruction becomes much more integrally connected to the context and the surrounding culture. "ID thus becomes more truly systemic in the sense that it is highly sensitive to the conditions of use." (p.9).



Wilson (1997) does not suggest throwing away the taxonomies, but rather to keep in mind the following during the ISD process:

Admit the tentativeness of any conceptual scheme applied to content
Realize that no matter how thorough the task-analysis net, it doesn�t come close to capturing true expertise
Realize that since content representation is so tentative, designed instruction should offer holistic, information-rich experiences, allowing opportunities for mastery of un-analyzed content.
Always allow for a lack of fit between the conceptual scheme and any given content
Realize that the very points of lack of fit can be the most critical to understanding that content area
Always be on the lookout for those critical points of idiosyncratic content demands. (p.10).
Willis (1995) also suggests that there are possible constructive-interpretive ISD models that share certain perspectives:
The ISD process is recursive, non-linear, and sometimes chaotic
Planning is organic, developmental, reflective, and collaborative
Objectives emerge from design and development work
General ISD experts don�t exist
Instruction emphasizes learning in meaningful contexts (The goal is personal understanding within meaningful contexts)
Formative evaluation is critical
Subjective data may be the most valuable
Responding to a backlash of critics, Dick (1995) also slightly revised his more traditional ISD approach. Some of his suggestions now seem to reflect some of the positions put forth by Willis (1995). Dick�s new revision of his model included:

Extensive formative evaluation
Broad subject matter knowledge, or access to it
Extensive use of learner analysis
Knowledge of the context
Use of various instructional strategies
Results of Email Interviews with Constructivism Researchers
As indicated previously, the writer selected five well-known constructivism researchers to interview. The writer was unable to reach any of the researchers via the phone, so an email survey of three questions was sent to each of the researchers. The writer limited the questions to only three, with the hope that it would not be too time consuming for the respondents. Due to short time limits and travel/vacation plans of the participants, the writer received only three responses. The respondents were Dr. Brent Wilson, Dr. Philip Duchastel, and Dr. Piet Kommers.

The email explained the purpose of the questions, and asked the researchers to answer the questions in regard to providing a constructivist environment for learning on the web. A copy of the individual answers from each respondent is available in Appendix A.

The three questions submitted to the researchers were:
How do you balance fact dissemination with problem-based or case-based teaching?
What determines the level of online participation for a given individual and how does that relate to required course outcomes?
What are the respective value and contribution to learning in synchronous vs. asynchronous interaction models?
In answer to the first question, all three researchers agreed that the preference is to present facts as a part of a problem or case study, not to present them simply as facts for memorization. Kommers added to this mix the suggestion of allowing discussions between the student(s) and teacher regarding prior knowledge (the student�s current context) to enable the problem cases to be more meaningful and reflective of student needs. Wilson suggested making facts available in various information resources � "job aids, helps, references, manuals, etc" and concentrating the instruction on providing a variety of activities or opportunities for the student to construct their own knowledge.
The second question provided a diversity of answers from the respondents. Duchastel related levels of participation to course requirements and raised an interesting additional question: "Would students pursue their learning if there were no grades?" Wilson agreed with Duchastel that some level of participation is required to achieve course outcomes, though he doesn�t like to quantify expectations. However, he also pointed out the necessity of communicating specific expectations for participation, with the reflection that he does prefer students to "join the flock" and participate extensively. Kommers made the point that "from a learning perspective, participation and communication do not guarantee high learning effects." However, he also discussed the need for the experience of the learning community and its own culture. Kommers also warns that concerns for participation should not dominate the concern for gains in knowledge.

Both Duchastel and Kommers found agreement in answering the final question. Both agreed that both synchronous and asynchronous are useful. Kommers particularly contrasted the two types of learners and why the gravitate to one or the other model. The learners who are more communicative or social selecting the synchronous environment compared to the learners needing to nurture mental concentration selecting the asynchronous environment. Interestingly, Kommers reflects that it is important for instructors to provide both options. It is Kommers belief that most students find it easier to join a group process rather than start the confrontation with themselves on how to learn.


Conclusions

Objectivists would argue against constructivism from the pragmatic perspective that any nonobjectivist or nonrealist position is inoperable, that constructivism is antecedent to academic chaos. In fact, within the writer�s institution, math and computer science distance instructors more clearly identify with this objectivist view. The example put forth, to bolster this belief, is the need for foundational knowledge (e.g., basic calculations for Math) that would likely not be attained in an individualistic or primarily constructed design process. Furthermore, not gaining that foundational knowledge would then impact the students ability to progress to higher level courses. This argument would seem to support Jonnassen�s (1994) statement that constructivist environments are for "advanced" learners.

A primary difficulty in supporting the constructivist view as a systems design process is that the epistemology underlying a constructivist approach to ISD does not permit the creation of a single ISD model that represents this theoretical perspective. On the surface, it would seem that this leads us to an ISD model that is less rigid, less prescribed, less confident of decisions, and more than a little fuzzy. As Willis (1995) stated:

"In a recursive, non-linear model, many decisions are made over and over, and developers begin the process of instructional design without a crisp, clear definition of where they are headed�A team that can tolerate a process in which many things remain fluid and changeable, however, will gain opportunities for fine-tuning and artistic enhancement." (p.21)


The key to living with constructivism appears to be in feeling comfortable with the constant "fine-tuning" aspect of the ISD process. We do not need to fear that a loss of objectivism leads us to a relativism that treats every opinion and theory equally. Since we cannot escape our own backgrounds and experiences, we will each individually assign weight to our practice, design, research, and development of ISD processes.
For today, and from this author�s own background and experience, this writer concludes that learning entails both constructivistic and objectivistic activities. The most realistic model of learning lies somewhere on the continuum between these two positions � keeping in mind the continuum that exists between the objectivist approach for foundational knowledge and the constructivist approach for advanced knowledge. However, by striving to continually "step out of the box" in design efforts, one can capitalize on both approaches by building instructional activities with the considered use of both synchronous and asynchronous interaction.

It appears healthy and even constructivistic to not prescribe an ISD theory of constructivism, but rather to consider the implications of constructivism for instructional systems and to reflect upon and articulate conceptions of knowing and learning and adapt methodology accordingly. In the end, when asked to commit to either the objectivist or constructivist camp, the designer will be best served by replying that it depends upon the context.




References



Bagdonis, A. and Salisbury, D. (1994, April). Development and validation of models in instructional design. Educational Technology, 34(4), 26-32.

Criswell, E. (1989). The design of computer-based instruction. New York: Macmillan.

Crotty, T. (1994). Integrating distance learning activities to enhance teacher education toward the constructivist paradigm of teaching and learning. In Distance Learning Research Conference Proceedings, 31-37. College Station, TX: Department of Education and Human Resource Development, Texas A&M University.

Dick, W. (1995, July/August). Instructional design and creativity: A response to the critics. Educational Technology, 35(4), 5-11.

Dick, W. and Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Available online at http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/MCTP/WWW/Essays.html

Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. Eds. (1992) Constructivism and Instructional Design. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fodor, J. (1981). Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gropper, G. (1987). A lesson based on a behavioral approach to instructional design. In C. Reigelulth (Ed.) Instructional theories in action (pp. 45-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. (1992) Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? ETR&D, Vol. 39, No.3, pp.5-14.

Jonassen, D. (1994) Operationalizing mental models: Strategies for assessing mental models to support meaningful learning and design � supportive learning environments. Available online at http://www-csc195.indiana.edu/csc195/jonassen.html

Merrill, M. (1988). Don�t bother me with instructional design � I�m busy programming! Suggestions for more effective educational software. Computers in Human Behavior, 4(1), 37-52.

Reigeluth, C. (1983). Introduction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: The current state of the art. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Remmington, B. and Gruba, P. Constructivism in communication and informatics. Edited by Graeme Hard at Melbourne IT. Available online at http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/online-ed/

Willis, J. (1995, November/December) A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational Technology.

Wilson, B. (1997) Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. Available online July 7, 1998 at http://www..cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html





APPENDIX A
Researchers Email Responses to Questions



Dr. Philip Duchastel

All questions relate to providing a constructivist environment for learning on the web:

1. How do you balance fact dissemination with problem-based or case-based teaching?

Subsume the first under the latter. ONly the latter is contextified.

2. What determines the level of online participation for a given individual and how does that relate to required course outcomes?

Course requirements, like all pedagogy, are a forcing mechanism to keep students going. The question : would students pursue their learning if there were no grades? Interesting, eh?

3. What are the respective value and contribution to learning in synchronous vs. asynchronous interaction models?

Not comparable - just like apples and oranges. Both are useful - they just taste differently.



Dr. Brent Wilson

1. How do you balance fact dissemination with problem-based or case-based teaching?

I think 'balance' is the wrong idea. I rarely present facts and then expect students to remember them as facts. Facts are best presented within the context of a problem or case. Facts need not be presented and expected to be remembered. Rather, it's best to make facts available in various information resources--job aids, helps, references, manuals, etc. Then students can find the facts when they need them.

If by 'facts' you mean the kind of information found in instructional presentations, then you make sure the presentation helps students see the material in a new light, think more clearly. Then students are given opportunities to try out their new understandings through various activities. I don't use cases or problems exclusively; sometimes students read, reflect, and discuss what they're learning, beyond the confines of a specific case.

2. What determines the level of online participation for a given individual and how does that relate to required course outcomes?

Students need a level of participation, or they won't accomplish the course outcomes. I hate to quantify expectations (three times a week, etc.), and only do it when nothing else is working. Even then, once people begin contributing effectively, then I drop the initial requirement.

I do communicate general expectations. Online, you have to be quite specific in helping students get a clear idea of what's expected, because they've usually never done this kind of work before, exactly.

As you say, people participate differently for a number of reasons. Usually a person's low level of participation has more to do with lack of access than resistance to learning. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt initially, but put pressure on to get their problems resolved and "join the flock."

Actually, I do often think of my online classes as a flock of something--geese, sheep, whatever. To establish an effective community, everyone needs to stick together, invest the time, listen to each other and respond back. These are very herd-like, group-oriented behaviors.

The "stray" student who drops out for awhile, or shows resistance--These students need some extra attention and persuasion of various means, to get them to return to the fold.

3. What are the respective value and contribution to learning in synchronous vs. asynchronous interaction models?

That's a question for the literature; probably best to do a quick lit review and report on it yourself. It's kind of boring to me--Sorry.



Dr. Piet Kommers

1. How do you balance fact dissemination with problem-based or case-based teaching?

There is a fundamental new approach to teaching in my mind: Information transfer is essential in the relation between teacher and student as it comes to direct orientation and letting the student know about regulations, other partners in the network, new sources of information etc. But essentially it is meta-information.

The learning process itself is now seen as quite a delicate balance in the student between what (s)he can derive from prior knowledge, intuition, experts etc, and what still has to be mastered, understood and memorized for a smooth and flexible performance in the next future. This very process can be discussed with the teacher of course, and also the teacher can make students aware of the main mechanism. However essentially the student has to learn to handle these decisions.

In this respect I think teachers are far more effective as they convey students in semi-real problem cases as it is then the student who feels a natural tendency to 'consult' the teacher, instead of the teacher who takes the role of a missionary. This saves a lot of needless information overload and the weakness of teachers who try to convince students of the need of certain knowledge.

2. What determines the level of online participation for a given individual and how does that relate to required course outcomes?

Purely seen from a learning perspective, participation and communication do not guarantee high learning effects. One may say that without commitment and participation it is not likely to have learning effects, but more is needed than that; See my reflection in the previous answer).

But there is also another element: Learning communities have their culture in itself; they depend on the participation of its members. This implies that teachers and co-students tend to reward intense participations on top of the perceived learning result. If this added criterion is made explicit as a coarse goal and assessment criterion, students will be eager to demonstrate their participation. However it should never dominate the concern for the gain in knowledge and skills itself.

3. What are the respective value and contribution to learning in synchronous vs. asynchronous interaction models?

Though asynchronous communication has many benefits like the reduction in dispersed attention etc., there are strong indications that synchronous transactions involve a vital personal, emotional and realistic element in both teachers and students. This has to do with the fact that social reality and the 'here and now' principle is the best way 'to open our mind'.

So again, here we have the same distinction between a. the communicative and informational requisites at one side, and b. the learners' need to nurture mental concentration and achieve a higher control on his/her own thinking.

At this moment the theories are still weak how to exactly balance between the two elements. Intuitively I would say that once b becomes more dominant, also a has to be optimized. This is the best condition for learning, both from cognitive and communicative perspectives. Once teachers focus too much on a, then b is likely to become marginal. It is for most of the students generally less endangering to throw oneself into group processes rather than start the confrontation with oneself 'how to learn'.

Copyright, Maggie McVay, 1998