Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset

Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five Principles Toward New Mindset

a

[ ] David Lebow

In this article, the implications of constructivism for instructional systems design (ISD) are summarized as five principles that inte- grate the affective and cognitive domains of learning. In contrast to current views, it is suggested that constructivist philosophy offers instructional designers an alternative set of values that may significantly influence the emphasis of ISD methods without undermin- ing the coherence and consistency of the ISD model. Distinguishing characteristics of the two approaches are described, based on a review of recent literature. The article concludes with the assertion that the influence of constructivist philosophy on ISD should be to focus attention on critical enabling objectives traditionally overlooked by instructional designers.

[] Educational technologists hold a variety of positions on the implications of constructivist philosophy for instructional systems design (ISD). Many argue from a pragmatic perspective that the time has come to focus on how we can combine objectivist and constructivist elements in our instructional models (Mer- rill, Li, &Jones, 1990; Reigeluth, 1989). Others maintain that ISD and constructivism are fundamentally incompatible due to differences in assumptions about the nature of knowledge and its acquistion (Carroll, 1990; Streibel, 1989). Moreover, on this basis, some theorists rec- ommend that ISD make significant changes in its theory base and commonly acknowl- edged procedures in order to conform with constructivist principles (Jonassen, 1991; Winn, 1990).

From another perspective, Dick (1991) maintains that there are two distinct roles for educational technology: one for formal instructional design within an ISD paradigm and the other for situated practice within a constructivist framework. Dick suggests that process-oriented constructivist educational in- terventions, though potentially desirable, are fundamentally different from instructional in- terventions. He warns that attempts to apply constructivist principles to ISD threaten to transform the model into something that no longer produces systematically designed instruction.

ETR&O, Vol. 4t, No. 3, PP, 4 - t6 ISSN t042-1629

CONSTRUCTMSTVAIUES FOR ISD 5

Although Kember (1991) also distinguishes between packaged instruction typical of what instructional designers traditionally prepare and learning environments aimed at developing independent learners, he has no such res- ervations. Kember advocates that instructional designers adopt a new set of guidelines and strategies that will support meaningful learning regardless of the format.

Underlying these various positions is a tendency for theorists to treat constructivism as a method when it is actually a philosophy, and to treat ISD as a philosophy when it is actually a method. This confusion sometimes leads to the condusion that ISD is inherently antithetical to constructivist approaches to education, since many of the theorists who contributed to its development come from a positivist tradition. Arguably, such reasoning is animistic by appearing to project the world view of the tool-maker onto the tool. On the basis of this same logic, self-regulated learning strategies such as self-monitoring and self- consequences, which are advocated by social- learning theorists (Mahoney & Thorensen, 1974), would also be viewed as incompatible with constructivist principles. Yet, a teacher who helps students apply behavioral design principles in the service of supporting self- chosen behavior change may do so in a way that is quite consistent with constructivist educational practices.

With the above distinction in mind, and in contrast to current views, it is suggested here that constructivist philosophy offers instructional designers an alternative set of values. Further, these values form the basis for a new mindset that may significantly influence the emphasis of ISD methods without undermin- ing the coherence and consistency of the ISD model. From this perspective, it is the values and priorities of practitioners rather than paradigmatic issues that are at stake in the debate over the compatibility of the two approaches. Indeed, the traditional educational technology values of replicability, reliability, communication, and control (Heinich, 1984) contrast sharply with the seven primary constructivist values of collaboration, perSonal autonomy, generativity, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and pluralism.

FIVE PRINCIPLES FOR CONSTRUCTMST ISD

Viewed as the product of an alternative set of values rather than as a competing paradigm, the implications of constructivist philosophy for ISD emerge as th e five principles given be- low. From another perspective, these five principles represent a response to the question, "For what problems is constructivist philosophy the solution?"

1. Maintain a buffer between the learner and the potentially damaging effects of instructional practices.

2. Provide a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness.

3. Embed the reasons for learning into the learning activity itself.

4. Support self-regulation through the promo- tion of skills and attitudes that enable the learner to assume increasing responsibility for the developmental restructuring process.

5. Strengthen the learner's tendency to engage in intentional learning processes, especially by encouraging the strategic exploration of e l I 'OrS .

The bases for each of these principles are described in the following discussion. It should be noted that the first principle takes prece- dence over the others in the event of conflict.

Principle 1. Maintain a buffer between the learner and the potentially damaging effects of instructional practices.

There is ample evidence to support the argument that many of our commonly accepted child-rearing and educational practices can have disastrous consequences for learners. Miller (1984), a German psychoanalyst who has studied pedagogy as practiced in Europe over the past three centuries, coined the phrase "poisonous pedagogy" in referring to such negative effects. She maintains that efforts by parents and teachers to mold the child into a form that they believe reflects the world "as it really is" are destructive to the child's development. She further reminds us that the prevailing credo of pedagogy in the not-so- distant past was "spare the rod and spoil the

6 EI~&D, Vol, 41, No. 3

child." Theorists in the field of educational psychology echo similar sentiments in suggest- ing that many of our standard educational practices undermine the development of autonomous self-regulation to the extent that such practices are experienced by learners as efforts to control their behavior (Deci, Val- lerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991).

In light of these concerns about the potentially detrimental side effects of instructional practices, the first principle for ISD based on constructivist values suggests several directions for instructional designers:

• Increase emphasis on the affective domain of learning.

• Make instruction personally relevant to the learner.

° Help learners develop skills, attitudes, and beliefs that support self-regulation of the learning process.

° Balance the tendency to control the learning situation with a desire to promote personal autonomy.

Arguably, none of these goals is incompatible with ISD practices.

The standard prescription of the systems approach for enhancing learners' self-esteem, supporting a positive attitude toward learning, and developing the ability to self-regulate the learning process is to build competence through effective and efficient instruction. ISD continuously refines its methods through an empirical-analytic approach to ensure that outcomes achieved at the end of the process conform to the original objectives. In contrast to Miller (1984), who implores us to abandon pedagogy altogether, instructional designers ask, "Why leave learning to chance?" Thus, implicit within the ethos that underlies the systems approach to instructional design is an interest in controlling student learning.

Consistent with this perspective, the concerns of ISD include not only the effect of instructional practices on skill acquisition, but also their effect on motivation to learn and self-efficacy. One of Mager's (1984) many aphorisms expresses this recognition rather elegantly:

In general, any condition or consequence may be considered aversive if it causes a person to

feel smaller or makes his or her world dimmer. (p. 49)

Keller's (1983) ARCS model for motivational design further reflects this theme in its four categories of conditions that may increase a learner's motivation to learn and further im- prove performance. In particular, Keller believes that instruction must relate to the interests, experiences, and personal goals of the learner in order to adequately support motivation.

Even though instructional designers are concerned with the motivational attributes of instruction, thus far they have focused primarily on the development of intellectual skills and have failed to address the components of affective learning (Martin & Briggs, 1986; Reigeluth, 1989). Furthermore, despite the eclectic nature of ISD, its practitioners have largely ignored humanistic education as a source of ideas and theories of learning (Ho- llis, 1991). These conditions are, in part, the consequences of a bias in the theory base of ISD, which places far more emphasis on the processing and uses of knowledge than on how learners acquire now knowledge and understanding. Additionally, as Martin and Briggs (1986) note, affective objectives are (a) difficult to identify, specify, operationalize, mea- sure, and evaluate; (b) often immersed in highly complex social contexts; (c) often long range and intangible; and (d) frequently con- troversial, especially in the context of public education.

As instructional designers begin to recognize that they should focus more attention on the affective components of learning (Dick, 1991; Martin & Briggs, 1986; Reigeluth, 1989), an increasing number of theorists and educators are advocating holistic approaches to education. For many, the traditional split between cognition and affect is viewed as an often unproductive application of reductionist thinking (Sigel, 1986). They believe that learning and motivation are interdependent processes that should be treated as part of a unified whole (Zimmerman, 1990). Moreover, they see the process of acquiring now knowledge and understanding as firmly embedded in the social and emotional context in which learning takes place.

CONSTRUCTMST VALUES FOR ISD 7

Such holistic beliefs are further reflected in constructivist notions of authentic activity and situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) and in constructivist theories of learning and teaching such as cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) and cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). These approaches generally embrace the ideas that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and that an individual learns best from experiences characterized by a high degree of personal relevance. On this basis, most constructivists are opposed to approaches that break down the content of what is to be learned into its con- stituent parts and then attempt to promote learning in a piecemeal fashion (Poplin, 1988).

Some critics argue that performance objectives, as the dominant element within the ISD process, and associated methods of task analysis and criterion-referenced testing are largely incompatible with const~ctivist practices (Car- roll, 1990; Cunningham, 1991). They suggest that the process of establishing objectives and then separating tasks into isolated pieces that can later be reassembled is inherently reduc- tionistic and too restrictive. Moreover, some assert that systematic approaches to instructional design undermine meaningful learning and inhibit its transfer to the global task environment (Honebein, Duffy, & Fishman, in press; Kember, 1991; Winn, 1990).

From a more sympathetic perspective, Reigeluth (1989) maintains that instructional designers can accommodate both affective outcomes and constructivist principles within our current model. He claims that this can be accomplished by cultivating an interest in construction as well as instruction and by implementing a shift in concern from validity to optimality. He condudes that we need not abandon our views, but should merely expand on them by adding an understanding of what we need to make happen inside the learner's head.

To put these positions in other terms, ISD continues to embrace Mager's (1962) original proposition that "'if you're not sure where you're going, you're liable to end up some- place else---and not even know it" (p. vii). It is considered axiomatic that instructional designers must first define desired results be-

fore they can make any sense out of the means used to accomplish them (Kaufman, 1988). Constructivists, on the other hand, insist that when learning is understood as a construc- tive, individually mediated process, objectives of an instructional system can no longer serve as predetermined end-points for learning. In- stead, they should be viewed as expectancies and constraints (Brown, 1988). In moving from ISD to a constructivist approach, some theorists suggest that the outcome goal of dem- onstrating tangible evidence of achieving predetermined objectives changes to a process goal of "'experiencing the changes in perceptions, understandings, beliefs, and feelings as a function of new information" (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989, p. 494).

Other theorists take this argument a step further, asserting that ISD practices undermine the development of ability to self-regulate learning as a consequence of an implicit interest in controlling student learning (Grundy, 1987; Suchman, 1987). Indeed, similar criti- dsm has commonly been directed at traditional classroom educational practices. As Groisman, Shapiro, and WiUinsky (1991) suggest, a care- ful reading of signs and symbols reveals "the extent to which authority, power and control condition the production of meaning in the everyday affairs in the classroom" (p. 225). Ironically, it appears that the greatest strength of ISD--its ability to prescribe what steps to take, in what order, and under what conditions (DiVesta & Rieber, 1987)--is also the big- gest target for its critics.

Hannafin (1992), for example, believes that the systems approach can be effective when learning of dearly specified content and procedures is required, but that it is largely irrelevant when desired outcomes are not so compatible with a quanl~tative perspective. He concludes that the requirement that students demonstrate observable evidence of learning in order to assess subsequent instructional re- quirements reflects an anemic view of the learning process. Further, ISD, as an accountability-based process that functions according to external precepts of importance and relevance, is in danger of becoming obsolete as emerging technologies offer the potential for developing increasingly sophisticated student- centered learning environments.

8 E1T~&,D, Vol, 4t, No, 3

According to Resnick (1989), research suggests that people engage in active, purposeful learning activities to the extent that they see themselves as being in charge as opposed to relying on others to direct them. Ryan and Powelson (1991) contend that numerous in- vestigations in the classroom context support the conclusion that "the affordance of autonomy versus the attempt to externally control behavior will differentially affect the expres- sion of volition, interest, and mastery motives among learners" (p. 54). Consistent with these claims, Deci and Ryan (1987) report that support of autonomy (as opposed to control) is positively associated with a variety of factors relevant to the initiation and regulation of intentional learning activities. According to them, environments that provide choice, minimize performance pressure, and encourage initiation tend to support intrinsic motivation, meaningful learning, and self-esteem.

Just as in Mager's (1984) parable about the king who drove his subjects away from him, our pedagogical practices frequently drive students away from learning. The first principle for ISD based on constructivist values is a meta- objective that says, "First, do no harm." This edict does not necessarily require that we abandon performance objectives and our other preferred methods; rather, it reminds us that the goals of education should include not only cognitive outcomes, but also affective ones. It also recalls the adage that, ultimately, teaching is a process of giving up control.

Principle 2: Provide a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness.

According to Joyce and Weil (1986), methods of teaching define the emphasis that a particular model of teaching gives to subject matter, social climate, and relationships among participants. For constructivists, teaching is less the sequencing of instructional events and more the application of principles for re- sponding to the needs of the situation. From this perspective, the interpersonal atmosphere of the learning situation is of central concern to the educator, and the focus of attention shifts cognitive standards to enhancing interest, en-

gagement, and personal responsibility for the learning process.

One way that the teacher in a constructivist classroom supports development of personal autonomy is to offer coached practice at problem solving. In the language of the cognitive apprenticeship paradigm, the teacher provides scaffolding to extend the potential development of the learner within the "zone of proximal development." By engaging students in using knowledge, by modeling problem-solving processes, and by coaching students in self- questioning and other metacognitive skills, the teacher helps the student take control of the learning process (Collins, 1985).

In the area of relations among students, constructivists favor methods that support both personal autonomy and relatedness or belong- ingness. Preferred methods require both collaboration and positive interdependence and emphasize personal responsibility and individual accountability. Such approaches as cooperative group learning, reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), and computer- assisted intentional learning environments (Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989) strongly support such constructivist priorities. Cooperative learning, in particular, enhances elaboration and the use of metacognitive strategies, high-level reasoning, and interpersonal skills 0ohnson & Johnson, 1990)--all areas of interest to constructivists. Moreover, cooperative learning methods can help students understand the bases of views with which they disagree as well as the benefits of considering multiple perspectives when solving problems (Cun- ningham, 1991).

Constructivist educators try to promote knowledge construction as a communal en- terprise and to avoid controlling relationships (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989). Since constructivists believe that motivation to learn cannot be separated from the social context in which it is embedded, they seek to structure student relations to promote collaboration. At the same time, they believe that the educational process should emphasize nurturing each student's own capacity for transformation and self-regulation. This does not mean, however, that the learner should have complete control

c ~ VAmES FOR ~ 9

over the events of instruction. Constructivists recognize that the support of autonomy, in contrast to permissiveness, requires an element of stewardship.

From another perspective, constructivist epistemology forms the basis for a theory of ethics that provides a model for human relations (von Glasersfeld, 1992). At its foundation resides the axiom that truth is replaced with viability, and knowledge is seen as gen- erated within a consensual domain (von Glasersfeld, 1988). This principle, which is frequently associated with the aphorism that "there are no wrong answers, only alternative frameworks," does not imply, as some have interpreted, that all answers have equal value. Rather, it suggests that each individual should be interested in every other individual because "reality" is, ultimately, the product of intersubjective agreement. In a sense, the constructivist theory of ethics offers a solution to perhaps the single most press- ing problem facing humanity, described by Triandis (1972) as follows:

The major social-psychological problem of the next century, then, is to learn how people with different subjective cultures can respect one another, cooperate together, and live in harmony. (p. 372)

Principle 3. Embed the reasons for learning into the learning activity itself.

As constructivists are known to reflect, "Life works for the farmer in a fiat world." In other words, each person makes sense of experience within the context of his or her current world view. World view, according to Hlynka and Beiland (1991), is "a 'new pragmatist' concept which acknowledges alternatives to the scien- tific paradigm" (p. 519). Bereiter and Scarda- malia (1989) suggest that students find much of what is presented in school to be inconsis- tent with the experiential beliefs that form the bases of their world views. They also argue that when students experience schoolwork as irrelevant to their goals and interests, much of what they learn does not transfer to other, applicable settings. For example, Kozma and Croninger (1992) have observed that low- income students often disengage from learn-

ing because what they learn in school cannot be applied to their lives outside school.

Examined from a variety of viewpoints, the assumption underlying most traditional educational practices--that knowledge is context-independent--is increasingly difficult to support. There is much evidence to suggest that unless students learn something in a way that indudes an understanding of its signifi- cance or function, they may experience re- stricted access, even when applicable situations arise (Bransford, Sherwood, Vye, & Reiser, 1986). This condition, variously referred to as a transfer problem or as the problem of inert knowledge, has stimulated interest in instructional models that permit learners to practice skills in environments similar to those in which the skills will be used.

Such approaches as cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1989), project-based learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991), and experiential learning (Clinchy, 1989) recognize authentic- ity as an element of transfer. What these approaches share is the idea that meaning is indexed by experience and that "understanding is developed through continued and situated use" (Brown et al., 1989, p. 33), and, thus, the learning situation should promote application and manipulation of knowledge within the context of the ordinary practices of the target culture. As Bransford et al. (1989) remind us, experiencing the relevance of new information is very different from being told about its relevance.

Constructivists tend to favor problem-solving activities that are linked to student interests, that have at least some of the "messy" attributes of real-world problems, and that are meaningful and satisfying for students to solve. They further recognize that personal goals, motives, expectations, and attitudes critically influence the learner's experience of the learning situation. Taken together, such factors represent an individual's learning orientation 0&rmunt, 1989), which exerts its influence on the learner's "volitional mindfulness" (Sato- mon, 1986, p. 207) and on the learning strategies the individual employs.

Honnebein et al. (in pres~s) argue that it is the structure of the global task environment and the goals adopted by the learner that give

meaning to local learning tasks and support transfer. Carroll (1990) recommends that we accommodate the learner's desire for meaningful interaction by minimizing overt structure and by providing training on authentic tasks. Therefore, rather than impose structure on the learning environment, instructional designers should design environments that provide strong linkages to the world outside the classroom. Wager (1992) suggests that the constructivist interest in having students acquire and practice new knowledge and skills in authentic domain activities is not incompatible with the requirement of ISD for instructional strategy and assessment to parallel "real- world" performance objectives.

Principle 4. Support self-regulated learning by promoting skills and attitudes that enable the learner to assume increasing responsibility for the developmental restructuring process.

Constructivist philosophy not only emphasizes different values from ISD, but represents a different kind of change strategy. In the limited sense intended, a change strategy includes underlying assumptions about how people learn and a plan for making learning happen. On this basis, ISD is an empirical-rational change strategy operating with the conviction that people are essentially reasonable and moved by self-interest, and that they will adopt a pro- posed change if they can rationally justify it (Chin & Benne, 1976). This sense of rational- ity, in contrast to the adaptive meaning of "rational" as used in economics, reflects its normative meaning as used in philosophy: "in which human behavior is matched against some model that is supposed to represent sound reasoning" (Anderson, 1990, p. 250). Inherent in the ISD approach, then, is the assumption that desired changes in behaviors and capabilities will occur as a result of students' successful execution of lesson-controlled instructional strategies.

On the other hand, constructivist practices represent a normative re-education strategy that treats change as involving much more than changes "in knowledge, information or

intellectual rationales for action and practice" (Chin & Benne, 1976, p. 23). In other words, the feelings, intuitions, attitudes, values, interests, significant relationships, and commit- ment of learners cannot be separated from the learning process. Constructivists recognize that people can develop the capacity to exercise control over their own thought processes, mo- tivations, and actions so as to effect desired changes in themselves and their situations (Bandura, 1989). From this perspective, the ultimate goal of education is to help students become masters of their own learning by supporting the progressive acquisition of the ca- pability to self-regulate learning. By influencing the normative orientation of the learner, constructivist practices aim at helping the individual take over his or her own developmental restructuring.

Another way to think about differences in change strategy between constructivism and ISD is in terms of Rumelhart and Norman's (1978) phases of learning. Instructional designers tend to gear ISD methods toward dispens- ing new information in order to support learning by accretion. Constructivist practices tend to nurture processes of restructuring and transformation by acting as "disturbers of equi- librium" (Fosnot, 1984). By helping the learner experience how his or her naive model is insufficient for solving meaningful and personally relevant problems, constructivist practices challenge the learner to construct new models (Strike & Posner, 1985).

Differences in underlying assumptions about how people change are further revealed by the ways in which the two approaches treat prior knowledge. Instructional systems designers recognize that entry behaviors and characteristics, including learner abilities and motivation, have critical implications for the design of instruction. This interest generally reflects their traditional concern that instructional materials effectively match students" abilities and enable students to acquire the capabilities identified. It is further consistent with a perspective of the knowledge-acquisition process as a journey through a hierarchy from lower- to higher-level learning and from simple to progressively complex activities.

CONSTRUCTMST VALUES FOR ISD 1_1

In contrast, constructivist educators attempt to infer the mental models that each student brings to the learning situation and to understand the experiential beliefs that underly those models. Two assumptions about the learning process provide the basis for this focus, both of which are compatible with the systems approach: the learner creates new meanings within the context of current knowledge, and the best predictor of what the learner will learn next is what he or she already knows. Such thinking is generally consistent with research on conceptual change and knowledge restructuring, which suggests that to promote con- ceptuat change, instruction should support meaningful interaction and deep processing (Champagrie, Gunstor~e, & Klopfer, 1985; Kember, 1991; Strike & Posner, 1985).

Constructivists propose that one way to influence students' experiential beliefs and mental models is to find ways for students to discover how their everyday knowledge may be insufficient for solving personally relevant problems. This also requires helping students make their knowledge-construction activities overt and raising their awareness about how they learn (Scardamalia et al., 1989). Within this framework, learning is understood as a social process of making sense of experience in terms of extant knowledge. It is also seen as a series of constructions that occur as a result of progressive self-regulation. The role of the educator is not to control the learning process, but to support self-regulation by providing a bridge between student understanding and canonical knowledge (Tobin, 1992).

For example, Narode (1989) suggests that to nurture learning and build confidence in a constructivist mathematics program, the teacher must first identify what the students already know and then help them represent and re- structure their mental models and understanding by challenging them to solve applied problems that demonstrate powerful mathe- matical concepts. The teacher here is gaug- ing the size of the gap between the student's current understanding and canonical knowledge in order to provide support for greater understanding. In this way, the student's engagement is maintained and his or her per-

sonal agency is enhanced. Moreover, such practices tend to place a premium on deep learning rather than surface learning, and on meaningful orientation rather than reproduction or performance (Schmeck, 1988).

Principle 5. Strengthen the learner's tendency to engage in intentional learning processes, especially by encouraging the strategic exploration of errors.

According to Bereiter & Scardamalia (1989), intentional learning refers to cognitive processes that involve purposeful processing of information to achieve a learning goal actively desired by the learner. The strength of this tendency within an educational setting primarily depends on three interacting factors: the learner's conception of knowledge and the learning process, the learner's theory or self- assessment of his or her own ability and effort, and the influence of the learning situation. Bereiter and Scardamalia further suggest that, in coping with the traditional school environment, children often develop impoverished conceptions of knowledge and learning. As a result, they are hampered in learning situations because they lack adequately developed strategies for managing their own cognitive behavior. In the face of challenge or failure, many such individuals exhibit a maladaptive motivational pattern which characteristically includes unfavorable or unrealistic self-assessments of their own ability and effort.

Exploring the underlying processes that give rise to such attributional styles and their consequences is currently of great interest to researchers of motivational processes that affect learning. One relatively new approach in this area, which pulls together various aspects of achievement research, is sometimes referred to as "goal theory" (Weiner, 1990). This theory holds that the type of goal a learner is pur- suing influences how that learner interprets and responds to the learning situation. Dweck and Leggett (1988) believe that learners who think of intelligence as a fixed entity tend to pursue the performance goal of documenting that entity, whereas those who think of intelligence as a malleable quality tend to

12 ETR~D, Vol. 41, No. 3

pursue the learning goal of developing that quality. Thus, the type of goal pursued affects both the self-regulatory mechanisms and intentional learning activities of learners.

Paris and Brynes (1989) offer a complemen- tary perspective from the related area of at- tribution theory. They suggest that children construct theories of their own ability and effort in academic learning based on self-assessments of the reasons for their success or failure. Over time, children's progressing theories begin to influence their preferences for investing effort in favor of ways that minimize risk of failing and loss of self-esteem. In such instances, motivation serves, paradoxically, both as a mech- anism for preserving self-worth and an obstacle to learning and self-development (McCombs & Whisler, 1989). From this perspective, the ability to transform errors and failures into cues for increasing effort and opportunities for problem solving is an essential ingredient of developing and maintaining an adaptive motivational pattern.

It is noteworthy that one of the most strik- ing differences between the systems approach and constructivist practices is in the way practitioners treat errors. Within an ISD model, errors play a variety of strategic roles: In the context of lesson execution, errors trigger de- livery of additional instruction or remediation; in the context of a formative evaluation process, they provide data for improving the quality of instruction; and in the context of assessing instructional outcomes, they provide a quantitative indicator of performance. Thus, instructional designers are particularly concerned that criterion-referenced test results ac- curately reflect student performance (Dick & Carey, 1990). On the other hand, they do not generally use such tests as part of a broader affective learning strategy aimed at directing the student's attention away from the negative consequences of failing and toward understanding why his or her strategies did not work (Clifford, 1984).

In constructivist terms, errors are seen as positive stimulants for the kinds of perturba- tions that create disequilibrium necessary for self-reflection and conceptual restructuring. Consistent with this perspective, construc-

tivist educational practices focus on error- recovery procedures. For example, in the face of "wrong" answers, constructivist teachers are apt to ask students additional questions for at least four purposes: to better construct and diagnose the learner's mental model, to assist students in understanding their own alternative frame of reference, to help maintain learners within their "zone of proximal development" and provide a bridge to new understanding, and to model self-questioning processes necessary for self-regulation of the learning process. Encouraging strategic explor- ations of errors becomes a primary strategy for strengthening the learner's tendency to engage in intentional learning processes.

In accordance with such ideas about knowledge deficits, constructivists are primarily concerned with the learner's ability to apply and manipulate knowledge within the authentic task environment. They are far less interested in the learner's ability to simply acquire knowledge and to produce "righf' answers. This po- sition, however, does not imply that standards should be eliminated from the assessment process. Rather, within a constructivist framework, standards serve the interests of the learner in goal-setting activities and self-assessment, which, research shows, provide critical support for continuing motivation (Locke & Latham, 1990; Schunk, 1990).

Constructivists recognize that the negative connotations of error are deeply embedded within our cultural milieu. Constructivist educational practices are especially sensitive to the potentially negative impact of errors on learners" motivation. Arguably, the systems approach offers no such built-in protection, despite its long-standing principle that educators should never attribute poor instructional outcomes to flawed students, but rather to flawed instruction. Instructional designers are most concerned with providing tL, nely feedback and accurate assessments, whereas constructivists concentrate on how the subjective meaning of errors may adversely influence the learner's perceptions of self-efficacy. As Bandura (1990) writes, "Those who harbor self-doubts about their capabilities are easily dissuaded by failure" (p. 83).

CONSTRUCTMST VALUES FOR ISD 13

CONCLUSION

In this article, the implications of constructivist philosophy for ISD are represented as five principles based on an alternative set of values that can significantly expand our view of the learning situation. This broader perspective not only includes the structure and content of the subject area to be learned but also the learning environment and world view of the learner. Although it is argued that instructional designers need not abandon the systems approach in order to accommodate constructivist values, significant modifications are suggested for both research and practice. To illustrate this point, an example from each of these two areas is offered here.

Although learner control is one of the most heavily researched aspects of computer-based instruction, few researchers have offered a theoretical basis for understanding the often con- flicting results of such inquiry (Milheim & Martin, 1991; Steinberg, 1989). In general, learner control refers to a wide range of computer-based options that allow the learner to exercise a degree of control over the flow or path of the lesson. Ross and Morrison (1989) contend that "learner control is not a unitary construct, but rather a collection of strategies that function in different ways depending on what is being controlled by whom" (p. 29). Some theorists suggest that most of the research in this area is so flawed as to constitute a form of "pseudoscience" (Reeves, 1993). Con- structivism provides a much-needed framework for interpreting the disparate results of previous research and for guiding future inquiry.

From a constructivist perspective, research does not sufficiently account for how a learner's appraisal of the learning situation influences his or her motivational orientation. In most studies of learner control, the instructional treatments have low personal relevance for the subjects and, further, fail to engage the learners in deep processing or meaningful learning. These observations appear to be consistent with Steinberg's (1989) main conclusions from her literature review: that students in learner-control groups tend to leave instruction

too early, before mastering an objective; that high-ability learners use learner control more effectively than low-ability learners; and that a high level of domain knowledge correlates with more effective use of learner-control options. Indeed, if the instructional options over which the learner has control are perceived as inconsequential or trivial, then choosing to exit the program early can become the most attractive option. If a lesson fails to support reflectivity and metacognitive awareness, chances are the learner will not think about how to use learner-control options effectively.

From a constructivist perspective, strategic availability of learner-control options provides structural support for the values of personal autonomy, personal relevance, active engagement, and reflectivity. With this in mind, researchers should focus attention on how to better assess students' personal interests and goals and how to support those interests within the learning environment. Research into identifying strategies that encourage intentional learning and enhance the learner's motivation to engage in self-regulated learning processes also should receive primary consideration.

Among the changes in the practices of instructional designers that constructivist philosophy suggests are those pertaining to developing instructional goals. Typically, this first step in the ISD process is accomplished by per- forming a needs assessment to determine the gap between the present state of the system and the desired state. Critics of ISD observe that the systems approach has no basis for making the value judgments necessary for this type of analysis (Kember & Murphy, 1990). In practice, most instructional designers consider such value-laden decisions as falling within the province of the curriculum designer, subject matter expert, or client. When constructivist values inform the instructional design process, however, the seven constructivist values of collaboration, personal autonomy, generativity, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and pluralism provide an integrated basis for prioritizing needs.

To put this in other terms, constructivist values focus attention on enabling objectives fre-

14 ETR&D, Vol. 41, No. 3

quently overlooked by instructional designers. For example, guided by constructivist values, the instructional designer builds in support for the ability to think reflectively through modeling, Socratic dialog, and various strategies for helping learners make their thinking processes overt. In a sense, under the influence of constructivist values, means and ends become isomorphic and the desired results and preferred techniques appear as reflections of the same whole.

An apt analogy can be drawn from the mod- ern s tudy of chaos. Gleick (1987) has noted that small changes in systems such as weather are readily magnified and eventually lead to large consequences. This phenomenon , termed "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," suggests, by analogy, that students' feelings, attitudes, values, goals, doubts, and concerns are involved in every learning situation and affect future learning in ways that cannot be reliably predicted. From this perspective, the ultimate concern of educators should be to help the learner develop an enduring faith that persistent effort guided by purposeful reflection will result in reach- ing meaningful personal goals. Such are the implications of constructivist phi losophy for ISD. [ ]

David Lebow is with the Department of Educa- tional Research at Florida State University.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175- 1184.

Bandura, A. (1990). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69-164). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 361- 392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Moti- vating project-based learning: Sustaining the

doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psy- chologist, 26(3 & 4), 369-398.

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., ~ye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Be- cause wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp, 470-497). Cambridge, England: Cam- bridge University Press.

Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., "v~e, N. J., & Reiser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078-1089.

Brown, J. S., (1988). Steps toward a new epistemology of situated learning. Proceedings of the ITS-88 International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Sys- tems. University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada, June 1-3.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Sit- uated cognition and the culture of learning. Ed- ucational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnbergfunnel: Designing minimaIist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. E, & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physics students. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 163-187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Chin, R., & Benne, K. D. (1976). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In K. D. Benne, W. G. Bennis, & R. Chin (Eds.), The plan- ning of change (3rd ed., pp. 22-45). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Clifford, M. M. (1984). Thoughts on a theory of con- structive failure. Educational Psychologist, 19, 108-120.

Clinchy, E. (1989). Education in and about the real world. Equity and Choice, 3, 19-29.

Collins, A. (1985). Teaching reasoning skills, in S. E Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Think- ing and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions (pp. 65-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum.

Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing construction and constructing assessments: A dialogue. Jour- nal of Educational Technology, 5, 13-17.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (6), 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., VaUerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self- determination perspective. Educational Psycholo- gist, 26(3 & 4), 325-346.

Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism. Educational Technology, 5, 41-44.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of

CONS]RUCTMST VALUES FOR ISD 15

instruct/on (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. DiVesta, E J., & Rieber, L. P. (1987). Characteristics

of cognitive engineering: The next generation of instructional systems. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35(4), 213-230.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psy- chology Review, 95(2), 256-273.

Fosnot, C. T. (1984). Media and technology in education: A constructivist view. Educational Com- munication and Technology Journal, 32(4), 195-205.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.

Groisman, A., Shapiro, B., & Willinsky, J. (1991). The potential of semiotics to inform understanding of events in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 217-226.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? New York: Palmer Press.

Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Emerging technologies. ISD and learning environments: Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49-63.

Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational Communication and Technol- ogy Journal, 32(2) 67-87.

Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (Eds.) Paradigms re- gained (pp. 515-520). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Edu- cational Technology Publications.

Hollis, W. (1991). Humanistic learning theory and instructional technology: Is reconciliation possi- ble? Educational Technology, 11, 49-53.

Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (in press). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructivist learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Coopera- tive learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 22-37). New York: Praeger.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and De- velopment, 39(3), 5-14.

Joyce, B., & Well, M. (1986). Models of teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kaufman, R. (1988). Means and ends: Fixing the quick fix. Educational Technology, 1, 35-36.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction: A theoretical perspective. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383-433). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kember, D. (1991). Instructional design for meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 20(4), 289-310.

Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design. Educational Tech- nology, 8, 42--47.

Kozma, R. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1992). Technol- ogy and the fate of at-risk students. (Award No. USE-9150617). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.

Mager, R. F. (1984). Developing attitude toward learning (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.

Mahoney, M. J., & Thorensen C. E. (1974). Self control: Power to the person. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1986). The affective and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and research. Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1989). The role of affective variables in autonomous learning. Ed- ucational Psychologist, 24(3), 277-306.

Merrill, D. M., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Sec- ond generational instructional design (ID2). Edu- cational Technology, 2, 7-14.

Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. L. (1991). Theoreti- cal bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, •8(3), 99-105.

Miller, A. (1984). For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence (2nd ed.) (H. Hildergarde, Trans.) New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. (Original work published 1980)

Narode, R. (1989). A constructivist program for college remedial mathematics at the University of Massa- chusetts, Amherst. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 988)

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension: Fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1, 117-175.

Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B.J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk, (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic theory, research, and practice (pp. 169-199). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Poplin, M. S. (1988). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learn- ing Disabilities, 21(7), 401-416.

Reeves, T. C. (1993, January). Pseudoscience in instructional technology: The ease of learner control research. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communica- tions and Technology, New Orleans, LA.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 1042-1629.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16 E ~ , Vol. 41, No. 3

Ross, S. M., & Morrison G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19-33.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accre- tion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ryan, R., & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to motivation and education. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(1), 49-66.

Salomon, G. (1986). Information technologies: What you see is not (always) what you get. Educational Psychologist, 20, 207-216.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer- supported intentional learning environments. Jour- nal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51-68.

Schmeck, R. (1988). Strategies and styles of learning: An integration of varied perspectives. In R. Schraeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 317-346). New York: Plenum.

Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol- ogist, 2a(1), 71-86.

Sigel, I. E. (1986). Cognition--Affect: A psychological riddle. In D. Bearison & H. Zimiles (Eds.), Thought and emotion: Developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.

Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117-121.

Streibel, M. J. (1989). Instructional plans and situated learning: The challenge of Suchman" s theory of situated action for instructional designers and instructional systems. Dallas, TX: Association for Educational

Communications and Technology. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. ED 308 844)

Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (p. 163-187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human~machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tobin, K. (1992, February). Constructivism and the teaching of college science. In K. Tobin (Chair), Symposium on teaching and learning science and math. Symposium conducted by the Department of Cur- riculum and Instruction at Florida State Univer- sity, Tallahassee.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.

Vermunt, D. H. (1989). The interplay between inter- nal and external regulation of learning, and the design of process-oriented instruction. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 820)

yon Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Environment and communication. Paper presented at the ICME-6, Buda- pest, Hungary. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295 850)

von Glasersfeld, E. (1992, February). Untitled. In K. Tobin (Chair), Symposium on teaching and learning science and math. Symposium conducted by the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Wager, W. W. (1992, March 15). Personal communication.

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Education Psychology, 82(4), 616-622.

Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional Science, 19, 53-69.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Documents

Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset