Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di

8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di

1/23

Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (1993) 'Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective',Performance

Improvement Quarterly, 6(4): 50-72.

PerfOT mfJlu:e

Improvement

Qu.c:wterly.

6(4)

pp

6(} 12

PeggyA

rtmer

Purdue

University

Timothy

J.

Newby

Poroue

University

bstract

The

way we

define learning and what we believe about the way learning occurs has

important implications for situations in which we want to facilitate changes in what

people know and do. Learning theories provide instructional designers with verified

instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning, as well as a foundation for

intelligent strategy selection. Yet many designers are operating under the constraints of a

limited theoretical background. This paper is an attempt to familiarise designers with

three relevant positions

on

learning (behavioural, cognitive and constructivist) which

provide structural foundations for planning and conducting instructional design activities.

Each learning perspective is discussed in terms

of

its specific interpretations

of

the

learning process and the resulting implications for instructional designers and educational

practitioners. The information presented here provides the reader with a comparison

of

these three different viewpoints and illustrate how these differences might

be

translated

into practical applications in instructional situations.

The need

for

a bridge betweenba-

sic

learningresearch

and

educational

practice has long been discussed. To

ensure

a

strong

connection between

these

two

areas,

Dewey (cited

n

Reigeluth, 1983) called for the

cre-

ation and development of a linking

science ;

Tyler

(1978) a 'middleman

position ; and Lynch (1945) for em

ploying

an

engineering analogy

88

an aid for translating

theory

into

practice.

In each

case, the respective

author highlighted the information

and

potential contributions of avail

able learning theories, the

pressing

problems faced

by those dealingwith

practicalleaming issues,

and

a gen-

50

aral lack of

W ing

the former to facili

tate

801utionsforthe

latter.

The

value

of such a bridgi,ng 'function would be

its ability

to tranldate

relevant as

pects

of

the learning theories into

optimal instructiona l actions. As

de

scribed

by

Reigeluth (1983, p. 6), the

field

of Instructional

Design per-

forms this role.

Instructiona l designers

have been

charged with

translating

prindples

ofleamingandinstruction intoepeci

fications for instructional materials

andactivities (Smith& Ragan.

1995)

p. 12 . To achieve this goal,

two

sets

of

skills and lm.owledge

are

needed.

First,

the designer

must

understand


2/23

the

position

of the

practitioner.

n

this regard, the rollowiq questions

would e relevant: What are the

situational and contextual con-

straints of

the

application?

What is

the degree of individual clliferences

among

the

learners?

What form.

of

solutions will or wiD

not

e accepted

by the

learners as well as

by those

actually teaching the materiaia?

The

designer

must

have the ability to di-

agnose and analyze practical learn

ro problems. Just as a doctor cannot

prescribe

an

eft'ective remedy with-

out a proper diagnosis, the instruc-

tional designer caMot properly rec-

ommend

an

effective prescriptive so-

lution

withoutanaceurate

analysiBof

the

instructional problem.

n

addition to understanding and

n lyzing the problem. a second oore

of knOWledge and

skills

is

needed

to

bridge or link application with

:research-that

of undemanding

the

potential sources of80lutions (i.e.,the

theories of human learning).

Through

thie

understanding,

a

proper prescriptive solution

can be

matched

with

a given diagnosed

problem.

The

critical link. therefore,

is not between the design ofinetruc-

tion and. an autonomous body of

knowledge about instructional pbe.

nomena, but between instructional

de ip inues and the theories ofhu

man

learning

Why this emphasis

on

leaming

theory and

:reselU Ch?

First, te ming

theories are a source

of

verified in-

stroctional

strategies, tactics,

and

techniques. Kuowledgeofavarietyof

such

strategies

is

critical when

at

tempting to select

an

effective

pre.

scription for overooming a given

in

struct ional problem. Second, learn-

ing

theories provide

the

foundation

for intelligent

and

reasoned strategy

VOLUME 6,

NUMml4/1993

selection

Designers

must

have

an

adequate repertoi1 6

of strategies

available.and possess

the

knowledge

of when andwhy to employ each.

This

knowledge depends on the designers

ability to match the demands

of

the

task with an

instructional

strategy

that

help; the leamer. Third,

inte-

gration

of

the selected strategy

within the instructional context

is

of

critical importance. Learning theo-

ries

and

:research often provide infor-

mation

about relationships among

instructional

components

and

the

design

of instruction, indicating how

specific techniques/strategies might

best fit within a

given context

and

with specific learners (Keller, 1979).

Finally, the ultimate role

of

a theory

is

to allow for reliable prediction

(Richey, 1986). Effective solutions to

practical instructional problems

are

ofl:enconstrained

by

limited

time

and

resources. It

s paramount

that those

strategies selected and implemented

have

the

highest

chance for success.

As

suggested

by

Warnes

(1990), a

selection based on strong research

is

much

more reliable th n one based

on

instructional

phenomena.

The tuk of

translating

leaming

theory into

practical

applications

would be greatly simplified if the

learning process were relatively

simple and straightforward. Unfor-

tunately, this is not the case. Learn-

ing is a oomplex process

that

has

generated numerous interpretations

and theories

of

how it

is

effectively

accomplished.

Of

these many

theo-

ries, which should receive the

atten

tion of he instructional designer?

Is

it better to choose one theory

when

designing

instruction

or to

draw

ideas from different theories? This

article presents

three

distinct per-

spectives of the learning process

(be-

51


3/23

haviorai,

cognitive,

and

oonstructivist)

and

althougheach.

many unique features,

it is

OW belief

that each stilldescribes the same phe-

nomena Uearning).

In

selecting the

theory whose associated instruc@

tionsl strategies offers

the

optimal

means for

achieving

desired ont-

comes,

the

degree

of

cognitive

p r ~

cessing required of

he learner

by the

specific task

appears

to

be a critical

factor. Therefore, as emphasized

by

Snelbeeker

our

knowledge

of

modem

l ~

theories. The mam.

intent iB

to

pm-

vide dempeN with some familiarity

with

three relevant positions on

leaming (behavioral, cOlllitive. and

constructivist) which should provide

a more

structured

fooodation for

planning

and

conducting

instruc-

tional

design

activities. The idea is

that i we understand some of the

deep principles

of the

theories of

learning. we can extrapolate to

the

particulars

(1983), indi-

viduals

ad-

dr e s s ing

prac t ica l

l e a r n i ng

problems

cannot

af-

ford

the

luxury

of

restricting

themselves

to only one

Less

th n

two perce ,t of

the courses offered.

in

university cu . ..;.crila.

in the

geruJral area.

of

educa.ti.onal

teehnol.ol1Y

empluuliu

theory

a OM

of heir he

cOilwept

as

needed.

As Bruner

1971)

states,

You

don't

need to

encounter

everything

in nature in

order to

know na-

ture (p. 18).

theoretical position...

[They] are

urged

to

examine

each

of

the

basic

science theories which have

been

de-

veloped

by

psychologists in

the

study

of learning and to select those

prin.

ciples and conceptions which

seem

to

be ohalne for one's particulareduca-

tional situation (p. 8),

lfknowledge

of

he various

leam-

ing theories is so important for in-

structional designers,

to what

degree

are

they

emphasized. and promoted?

As reported by Johnson

(1992), less

than two percent of the courses of-

fered

in

university curricula

in

the

general area of educational technol-

ogy

emphasize theory

as

oneof

heir

key concepts.

It

appears

that the

real

benefits of heoretical knowledge are,

at present, not being realized.

This

article is an attempt

to

fill in

some of

the

gaps that

may

exist in

5

A basic 00

derstanding of the learning theories

can

provide

you

with

a canny strat-

egy whereby you could know a great

deal about a lot

of

hings while keep-

ing very little in

mind

(p.

18).

It

is expeeted

that

after reading

this article, instructional designers

and educat ional practitiOD.eN should

be

better informed consumers of

he

strategies

suggested by each. view-

point.

The

concise information pre-

sented here can serve as an initial

bue

oCknowledge for making impor-

tant decisions regarding instruc-

tional objectives

and

strategies.

Lean1iD1 Defined

Learning

has

been defined in

nu-

merous

ways

bymany different theo-

rists,

researchers

and

educational

praeti.tioners. Although universal

agreement on

any

single definition is


4/23

n.onemtent, many

definitions

em-

ploy common elements. The follow-

ing

definition by Shull (as inter

pretedby Schunk, 1991) incorporates

these

main ideas: LeIU'Ding

is an

enduring change in behavior, or in

the

capacity

o

behave

n

a

given fash

ion, which resulte from practice or

other

forms ofexperience (p.

2).

Undoubtedly, some

leaming

the0-

ristswill disagree on the definitionof

learning presented here. However, it

is

not

the definition itselfthat sepa

rates a

given theory from

the

rest.

The m ~ o l differences among theo

ries lie more

in

interpretation

than

they do in definition. These differ

ences :revolve around a

number

ofkey

issues

that

ultimately delineate the

instructional prescriptions that flow

from each theoretical perspective.

Schunk (1991) lists five definitive

questions

that

serve

to

distinguish

each leamingtheoryfrom the others:

(1)How does learning occur?

(2)

Which

factors

n l ~

(S)What is the role ofmemo:ry?

(4) How does transfer occur? and

(5)What types

ofleaming are best

explained by the theory?

Expanding on this original list, we

have

included two additional ques

tions important to the instructional

designer:

(S)What basic assumptions/prin

ciples

of this

theory are relevant to

instructional design?

and

(7) How should instruction be

structured to facilitate learning?

n this article. each of these ques

tions is answered from three distinct

viewpoints: behaviorism. oognitivism,

and constructivism. Although. learn-

VOLUME

6,

NUM ER 4/1993

ingtheories

typically

are

divided into

two

categories-behavioral

and

cog-

nitive-a third category, construc

tive,

is

added

here

because of its :re-

cent emphasis

in the

instructional

design

literature e.g.,

Bednar,

Cunningham, Duffy,

Peny,

1991;

Duffy

: Jonassen, 1991; Jonassen,

1991b; Winn, 1991). n many ways

these viewpoints overlap; yet they

are

distinctive enough to be treated

as

separate approaches

to

under

standing and describing learning.

These

three

part icular positions were

chosen because of their importance,

both

historically and cUlTently. to the

field of instructional design.

It

is

hoped that the

answers to

the first

five questions will provide

the

reader

with

a basic understanding of how

theseviewpoints differ. The answers

to

the last two questions will trans

late these differences into practical

suggestions

and

recommendations

for the applicationof hese principles

in

the design

of

instruction.

These

seven questions

provide

the

basis for the article's structure. For

each

of

the three theoretical posi

tions, the questions

are

addressed

and an example

is

given to illustrate

the application

of hat

perspective.

It

is

expected

that

this approach will

enable

the

reader to compare and

contrast

the different viewpoints

OD.

each

of the seven issues.

As

is

common

in

any

attempt to

compare and contrast similar prod

ucts,

processes,

or

ideas, differences

are

emphasized

in

order

to

make

dis

tinctions clear. 'This

is

not

to

suggest

that

there are no similarities among

these

viewpoints or that

there are

no

overlapping features.

n fact,

differ

ent

learning theories will often pre

scribe

the

same instructional meth

ods or the same situ.a.tions (only with

53


5/23

different terminology

and

pouibly

with different intentions).

This

8.1 -

tide

outlines the major differences

between

the

three

positions in an at

tempt

to

facilitate comparison. It is

OW hope that the reader will p n

greater

insight into

what

each view

point offersin terms of he designand

presentation of materials. as weD as

the types of les:ming activities

that

might be prescribed.

Historical FoundatioDB

Current learning

theories

have

roots that extend far into the put.

The prob-

B.C.),

empiricists have

the

view

that

knowledge

t

derived from

S8W3Ol Y

impressions.

Tho

impres

sions when associated o n ~ y

in time and/or space. can be hooked

together to form compleJ: ideas. For

ex.ampls,

the complex

idea

of

a tree,

as illustrated by Hulse, Egeth, and

Deese (1980), can be built

from

the

less complex ideas of branches and

leaves,

which

in

tum

are built from

the ideas olwood and fiber. which are

.built

from basic sensations such as

greenn.esa,

woody

odor,

and

so forth.

From this perspective, critical in-

structional

lems with

w

hi h

today's theo

rists and

re

searchers

grapple

and

struggle are

not

new but

simply

variat ions

The

gO l

ofiutnuJoon; for

the behavion,t

is

to

elicit

the desired

re poue

from

the kamer w o is

presen ted with a tareet

stimulus

design is

sues

focus

on how

to

manipulate

the environ

ment

in

or-

der

to

im

prove and

ensure the

on a timeless theme: Where

does

knowledge come

from

and

how do

people come to know? Two opposing

positions on

the

origins of knowl

edge-empiricism and rationalism

have

existed for centuries

and are

still evident, to varying degrees, in

the learning theories

of

oday. Abrief

description of these views is included

here as a background for comparing

the

modem learning viewpoints of

behaviorism, cognitivism, and

constructivism.

Empiricism

is

the

view

that

expe-

rience isthe primary soUl'ceofknowl

edge (Schunk, 1991).

That is,

organ

isms are born with basically no

knowledge

and

anything learned is

gained through interactions and

as-

sociations with the environment.

Beginning with Aristotle (884322

54

occurrence

of

proper

associations.

Rationalism

is the view

that

knowledge derives from

reason

with

out the

aid of the senses (Schunk,

1991). This fundamental beliefin the

distinction between mind

and

matter

originated with Plato

(e.

427-347

B.C.), and is reflected

in

the view

point that humans learn by recalling

or discovering what already exists

in the

mind. For example,

the

direct

experience with a tree duril:lg one's

lifetime simply serves

to

reveal

that

which

is

already

in

the

mind.

The

real

nature

of the

tree

(greenness,

woodiness, and otherchar&etemties>

beeomes known,

not

through

the

ex

perience, but

through

a reflection on

one's idea about the given instance of

a tree. Although later rationalists

differed

on

some

of Plato's

other


6/23

ideo, the

centra l beliefremam.ed.

the

Ilmle: thatknowledp arises

through

the

mind. From

this

perspective,

structional design issues focus on

how best to structure new informa-

tion in order

to

facilitate

(1)

theleam-

enood.ing

of hisnew

information,

as

well

as

(2)

the

recalling of that

which is

already

known.

The empiricist, or associationist,

mindset

provided

the

framework

for

many learning theories during the

first

half of

thiIB century. and it was

against

this

background

that

behav-

iorism became

the

leading psycho-

logical viewpoin.t (Schunk, 1991).

Because behaviorism

was

dominant

when instructional theory

wu

initi-

ated (around 1950), the

instructional

design. (ID) technology that arose

alongside

it

was naturaDy influenced

by many orits basic assumptions

and

characteristics. Since ID has its roots

in

behavioral theory.

it seems

appro-

priate that we turn

oW'

attsntion

to

behaviorism first.

Behaviomm

Bow o e l I l e ~ o e c v

Behaviorism

equates

learning

with changes in

either

the form or

frequencyofobservable performance.

teaming

is

aecompUshed when a

proper response is demonstrated fol

lowing the presentation of a specific

environmental

stimulus.

For

Imlple. when presented with a math

flashcard

showing the

equation

"'2

+4

1

the

learner

replies

with

the

an-

swer of

"S."

The equation is the

stimulusand the proper ruwweris the

associated response. The

y

ele-

mente

are

the stimulus, the response.

and the association between the two.

Ofprimmy ooncem

is

how the

8SSr

ciation between

the

stimulW l and

:re-

VOLuME 6 NUMl ER

4/1993

IllPOnse

ill

made,

strengthened, and

maintained.

Behmorismfocu.seson the impor-

tance of the consequences of those

performances and contends that reo

IPO:nses that are

fonowed by rein-

forcement are more likely to

recur

in

the future. No attempt is made

to

determine the stru.ctu.re

ofa

student s

knowledge

nor

to assess which

men-

tal

processes it

ia

necessary for

them

to use (Winn, 1990). The learner is

characterized as being reactive to

conditions

in

the

environment

as

op-

posed to

taking an

active role in

dis-

covering the en.vironment.

Which

facton

mtluu.ee leanWlg?

Although

both learner and

envi-

ronmental factors

are

considered m-

portantbybehaviorists, environmen-

tal conditions receive the greatest

emphasis. Behaviorists assess the

learners to

determine at what point

to begin instruction

as

well as to de-

termine which reinforcers

are most

effective for a

particular student.

The

most

critical factor, however,

is

the

arrangement of stimuli and conse-

quences

within the environment.

What

is t.he role of

memory?

Memory, as oommonly defined by

the layman, is

not

typicaJ1y addressed

by behaviorists.

Although the

acquisi-

tion of habits is discussed, little at-

tention is given

as

to how these habits

are stored or

rsca1led

for

future

use.

Forgetting is attributed

to the

"nonuse" of

a

response over

time.

The

Wile of periodic practice or review

serves to maintain a leamer s readi-

ness

to

respond (Schunk, 1991).

ow dou 1 occur?

Tnmsf er refers

to the application

ofleamedknowledge

in

new ways or

55

behaviorism is

derived from

empiricism, a focuson knowledge

derived from

environment


7/23

situations,

as

well

as

to

how prior

learning affects new

learning. In be-

havioralleamingtheories, transferia

a result ofgeneralization. Situationa

involving identical

or

similar fea

tures allow behaviors to transfer

across common elements.

For

ex

ample, the

student

who has

leamed

to

recognize and classify elm

trees

demonstrates

transfer

when

8)he

classifies maple trees using

the

same

process.

The

similarities between

the

elmand maple trees allow the leamer

to

apply

the

previous elm

tree

classi

fication learning experience

to

the

maple tree classification task.

What t :ypM

of

ieam.ml u e bu t

expJamed by this position?

Behaviorists attempt

to

prescribe

strategies that are

most useful

for

building and

strengthening stimu

lus-response associations Winn,

1990), including

the

use of instruc

tional cues, practice, and reinforce

ment. These prescriptions have gen

erally been proven reliable

and

effec

tive in facilitating learning

that in-

volves discriminations recalling

facts), generalizations defining and

illustrating concepts), associations

applying explanations). and chaining

automatically performing a

specified.

procedure). However, it is generally

agreed that

behavioral principles can

not adequately explain the acquisition

of higher level skills or those that r

quire a greater depth of processing

e.g., language development, problem

solving,

inference generating, critical

thinking)

Schunk,

1991).

What basic auumptiou

prmcipiea of

thh I theory U e

relevant to iutmetionai

design?

Many of the basic assumptions

and characteristics of behaviorism

56

ate

embedded

in

CW T8nt.

instruc

tional deIrip practices. Beha:riorism

was

used as the basis

for

many

of

he early audio-visual

mate

m

rials

and gave rise

to

many related

teaching strategies, such as

Skinners

teachin.g machines md

programmed texts. More :recent ex-

amples include principles utilized

within

computer-asaistedinstruction

CAl) and mastery leammg.

Specific assumptions

or

principles

that have direct relevance

to

inst;ruc..

tional design include

the

following

possible current ID applications are

listed

in

brackets [ ]

fonowing the

listed principle):

1m. emphasis on producing ob

servable

and

measurable

out;..

comes in

students

[behavioral

objectives, task analysis, crite

rion-referenced assessment]

9 Pre-assessment ofstudents

tode

termine where instruction

should begin [learner analysis]

l P

Emphasis on mastering

early

steps

before

progressing

to more

complex levels

of

performance

[sequencing of Mtructional pI'&-

sentation, mastery learning]

Use of reinforcement to

impact

performance {tangible rewards,

informative feedback]

Use

of

cues, shapingand practice

to ensure a strong stimulut-re

aponas auociation [simple to

complex sequencing of practice.

use of prompts]

Bow iutnlciion be

~ ?

The

goal ofinatruc tion for the

be-

haviorist

is

to elicit

the

desired re

sponse from

the

learner who

is

pre

sented with

a target stim:w.u. To

aecomplish this, the learner must


8/23

knoW

hoW

to execute

the

proper

re-

spmwEI. u well u the conditions un

der wbicb

that

response should

be

made. Therefore, instrudion

is

structured around the presentation

oCtile

target stimulus

Md the provi-

sionofoppommitiesfortheleamel'to

practice making the proper re

sponse.

To facilitate the

linking

of stimu.lus-response

pairs,

in

struction frequently uses cues to

initiaUy prompt the

delivery

of

the

re-

manager have

the

capability to

make

the correct

response.

However.

with

the repeated presentation

of

cues

(e.g completed templates of

past

agendas. bltmk

templates ammgen

in standard format) paired wi th the

verbal command stimulus, the man

ager begins

to make

the appropriate

responses. Although the initial re

aponsesmaynotbe in

he final

proper

form, repeated practice

and

rein

f ~ e n t s h a p e t h e r e s p o n s e u n t i l i t

is correctly

sponss)

and

reinforce

ment to

strengthen

correct

re

sponding in

the presence

of the

target

stimulus).

Behav

ioral

theo

ries imply

Cognitive

theone,

emphmriu mriking

kMwledge meonillKfu,1

nd kelpin.g

learM'I $

orgell; .

nd relate

new

i n f o n n a t i o l l t o ~ t i n g

knowledge ill memory.

executed.

F in a l l y

learning is

d em o n -

str ted

when, upon

the com

mand to for

mat

a

meet

ing agenda,

the

manager

that

b.ejoboftha

teacher/desiper is

to

1)

determine

which

cues

can

elicit

the desired responses; (2)

liIl l ange

practice situations in

which

prompts

are

paired with

the

target stimuli

that imtially have no eliciting power

butwhich

will

beexpected

toelicitthe

responses in

the natmal

(perfor

mance) setting; and (3) arrange envi

ronmental conditions so that

stu

dentscan make the

correcl .

responses

in hepresence of hose

target

stimuli

and receive

reinforcement or those

responses (Gropper, 1987).

For

example, a newly-hired

m -

apr of

human

resources

may

be ex

pected

to

organize a meeting agenda

according to the company's specific

format. The target stimulus (the ver

bal command

to

format a meeting

agenda )

does not initially elicit the

correct

response

nor does

the

new

.

VOLUME 6,

NUMER

4/1993

reliably -

ganizes the agenda according

to

com

pany

standards

and

does so without

the use of previous examples or

mod-

els.

Copitivism

In

the

late 1950's,

learning

theory

began

to

make a shift; away from the

use of behavioral models to

an

ap

proach

that

relied on leaming theo

ries and mode1s

from. the

cognitive

sciences. Psychologists

and

educa

tors began to de-emphasize a concern

with overt, observable behavior and

stressed insteadmore com plex cogni-

tive processes suchas thinking, prob

lem solving, language, concept for

mation and information processing

(Snelbecker,1983). Within the

past

decade, a number

of

authors

in

the

field of instructional design have

openlyandconsciously rejecteti many


9/23


10/23

dift enmce

can

be

dei;ecl;ed

between

thee two theories. However. the 41ae-

tive" utureo he leunerisperceived

quite differently. The

cognitive

8.p

proachfocuses

on

themental

activities

ofthelearnertMtleaduptoarespoW le

and

aclmowledps

the processes

of

mental plmming. o a J . ~ and

pnizationai strategies(Shull. 1986).

Cognitive theories contend

that

envi

ronmental

Ieues l t

and instructional

components alone cannot

accwn.t

for

aU the learning that :results from an

iMt:rnctional

situation. Additional

key elements include the way that

learners attend

to,

code.

transform,

:rehearse,

store and retrieve informa-

tion. Learners'

thoughts,

beliefs, atti

tudes. and values are also considered

tobemfiuentialintheleamingp:rocess

(winne,

1985). The

real

fOCl lB of the

cognitive app:roac.h

is on ch nging

the

byencourcging him her touse

appropMte

le rning

stmtegies

What Us the role of memory?

As

indicated above,

memory

is

liven a prominent role

in the

lear:ning

procesa. Leamingresultswhen infor-

mationis

stored

in m.emory in an

r p ~

Dized. m a n n e : r Teacheml

designers

are

responsible forusisting

lea:mers in organizing that informa

tion in some optimal way. Designers

use techniques such as advance orga

nizers, analogies, hierarchical rem

D

tionships, and matrices to

help

learn

ers relate

new

information

to

prior

knowledge.

Forgetting is the inability

to

:retrieve information

from

memory

because o interi'erenee. memory loss,

01

missing or madequate cues needed

to access information.

B o w d . ~ r ~

According to cognitive theories,

transfer sa function ofhow

infol 1. l18-

.

VOLUM

6, NUMBEl4./1993

tiOD

is

stored

in

memory

(Schunk,

1991). When

a

learner undel'Stlmds

how to apply knowledge in different

contexts, then transfer has occurred.

Understandingis seen as being

com

posedo a lmowledgebase

in

the form

of

rules,

concepts, and discrimina-

tions (Duffy&Jonassen,l99 ). Prior

knowledgeiaused o establishbound

ary constraints

for

identifying the

Bimilinities and differences of novel

information. Not only

must

the

mowledge itselfbe stored nmemory

but

the

uses

of that

knowledge

as

well. Specific instructional or real

world events will. trigger particular

responses, but the learner must be

lieve

that

the knowledge

is

useful

n

a

given situation before

he

willactivate

it.

What

o l l ~

are

best

~ hJ thlI poRtion?

Because of the emphasis on men

tal strnctures, cognitive theories are

UBually considered more appropriate

for explaining complex forms

of

learning

(reasoning, problem-sol

v-

mg,

information-processing)thanare

those of a more behavioral perspec

tive (Schunk.

1991).

However, it is

important

to indicate

at

this point

that

the

actual goal ofinst:ruction for

both of these viewpoints is often the

same:

to communicate

or

transfer

knowledge tothe students in the most

effi.ci.ent.

effective manner

possible

{Bednaretal

1991). Twoteclmiques

used by bothcamps in achieving this

effectiveD.eas

and efficiency of know

1

edge transfer

are

simplification and

standardization

That is, knowledge

can be

analyzed, decomposed, and

simplified into basic building blocks.

KnOWledge

transfer

is expedited i f

irre levant information

is

eliminated.

For e:mmple, trainees attending a

59


11/23

workshop on effective management

skills would be presented With

:Infor.

mation

that

is

sized and chmlked

in such

a way that

they can

aumu-

late and/or accommodate the new in-

formation

as quickly

and as

easily as

possible.

Behaviorists

would

focuson

the design of he environment toopti-

mize

that

transfer,

while

cognitivists

would stress efficient processing

strategies.

What basic unmpt iou /prin_

ciples

of

thla

theol')'

a n

NI-

eVmlt

to

atru.dicm.al

Many

of

the

instructional strat&

gies

advocated

and

utilized

by

cognitivists

are also emphasized

by

behaviorists, yet usually for different

reasons.

An

obvious commonality is

the use of

feedback.

A

behaviorist

uses feedback (reinforcement) to

modify

behavior in the desired

direc-

tion. while cognitivists make use of

feedback

(knowledge of results)

to

guide and support aOOW'ate

mental

connections (Thompson. Simonson.

Hargrave. 1992).

Leamer

and

task analyses are

also critical

to

both cognitivists and

behaviorists,

but

once again. for dif-

ferent

reasons.

Cognitivists look at

the

learner

to determine hislher

pre-

disposition to

learning, (i.e.,

How

does the learner activate,

maintain,

anddirecthlslher eanrlng?) (Thomp-

son

at at 1992).

Additionally.

cognitivists examine the

leamer

to

determine

how to

design

instruction

so

that it can be readily assimilated

(i.e., What are

the leamer's

existing

mental

structures?).

In contrast, the

behaviorists look. at earners

to

deter

mine where the

lesson

should

begin

( i.e.,

At what level are they currently

performing successfully?)

and

which

:reinforcers should be most effective

60

(i.e., What

ccmsequeneu

are

moat

desired by the learner?).

Specific assumptioWl

or principles

that

have direct relevance

to n s t r u ~

tional design

include the

following

(possible current

m

applications are

listed in

brackets

] fonowing the

listed principle);

9 Emphasis on

the

active involve-

ment of he learner

in

the

leam

a

ing process [leamer

control,

metacognitive traiWng(e.g., self-

plmming,

o m t o r i n ~

and

revis-

ing teclmiques)]

4

Use

of

hlemrehical analyses

to

identify

and illustrate prerequi-

site

relationships [cognitive task

analysis procedures]

III

Emphasis on structuring. orga-

nizing,

and sequencing

informa-

tion

to facilitate

optimal proceu-

ing

[use of cognitive strategies

such

as

outlining. summaries,

synthesizers

t

advance

organiz

w

ers, etc.l

$

Creation of leaming environ

ments that allow and

encourage

students to

make

connections

with

previously learned

material

[recall

of prerequmte skills; use

of relevant examples. analogies]

Bow mould

t i o D . 'be

~ U f t d ,

Behavioral theories

imply that

teachers ought

to

arrange environ-

mental conditions

1 that

students

reBpond properly to presented

stimuli.

Cognitive

theories empha

D

size making knowledge m.emingful

and.

helping

learners

organize

and

:relate new

information

to eDsting

knowledge

in

memory. Instruction

must

be

based on a studemts msting

mental structures. or schema,

to

be

effective.

It should

organize

inform .-


12/23

tion

in

such

a manner

that

learners

are able to oonned; new information

with existing knowledge

in

some

meaningful way. Analogies

and

metaphors

are

examples of this

type

of

cognitive

strategy. For

eumple,

inatmetional design textbooks

fre

quanay

draw

an analogy between the

familiar architect s profUsion

and

the

unfamiUar instruetio Ml design

profMlion to help the novice learner

conceptualize, organize and retain

the major

auimilated

and/or accommodated

within

the leamer s cognitive struc

ture

(Stepich

& Newby.

1988).

Conmderthe fonowing

example

of

a

leaming situation

utilizing a

cogni

tive

approach:

A manager in the

training

departm.ent

of a large corpo

ration

had

been asked

to teach a new

intern to complete a cost-benefit

analysis

for an

upcoming

develop

ment project. In this ease, it

is

as

sumed that

the

intern bas

no pl evi-

ous experi

duties

and

functions

of

an instruc-

tional

de

signer (e.g.,

Reigeluth,

1983, p. 7).

Other

cogni-

tive strate-

gies may

in

clude

the use

of framing,

outl ining.

mnemonics,

c o n c e p t

mapping

advance

01 -

Although

the

emphui8

on

p e r b ~ c e

end

imtruetion htH proven

effective in teeching

be ic

.killEl

in

relatively

BtrI.u tured

knowledge

domai lU, mueh ofwhat

needs to be learned

involves advanced

luaowledee

in

ill

tructured

domai:M.

ence

with

cost-benefit

analysis in a

bus iness

s e t t i n g .

However, by

relating

this

new

task to

highly

simi

lar proce

dures

with

which the

intern

bas

had

more ex

per ience.

the manager

ganizers and

111

forth (West. Farmer,

& Wolft'.

1991).

Such

cognitive

emphases imply

that

~ r taw of the teacher/de

signer include

1)

undentandi,ng

that individuals b:ring vari01.US leam

ingexperiences

to

the teamingsitua-

tion

which can impact learning auto

comes; (2)

determining

the

moat ef-

fective

manner in

which to

organize

and

structure

new information to

tap

the learners previously acquired

knowledge. abilities.

and

experi

ences;

and (3)

IU'l aDging practice

with feedback 10 that the

new

infor

mation is effectively and efficiently

VOLUME 6 NtJMIBR 4/1993

can facili

tate

a

smooth and efficient assimilation of

this new procedure into memory.

These

familiar

procedures

may

in

clude

the

process

by which

the

indi

vidual allocates

his monthly

pay

check, bow (e)he makes a

huy/noobuy

decision

Ngarding the

purchase of a

1 I. IXID Y

item or even how one s week-

end

spending activities might

be

de

termined and

prioritized.

The proce

dures for such activities may

not ex

actly

match those of the cost..benefi.t

analysis, but the si:milarlty between

the

activities allows for

the

unfamil.

iar

information

to

be put within a

familiaroontext.

ThUll

processingre-

61


13/23

quirements

are

reduced

and

the

p0-

tential effectiveness

of recaD

cues is

increased.

Coutmctinsm

The philosophical

assumptions

underlying

both

the behavioral

and

cognitive

theories

are primarily ob

jectivistic;

that

is the

world

is

real,

external to

the

leamer. The goal

of

instruction

is to

map

the

structure

of

the world onto

the

leamel' (Jonassen,

1991b). A

Bow

dOH

leam.m,

o ~

is a

th ory that

equatesleamingwithcreatingmeu

ing

from experience (Bednar

et

aI.,

1991).

Eventhoughconstruetivismis

considered

to

be a

branch

of

cognitivism

(both

conceive

of learn

ing as a mental activity), it distin

guishes

itself

from traditional

cogni-

tive theories in a

number

of ways.

Most

cognitive

psychologists thinkof

the

mind

as

areferencetool tu

eal

world

number

of

contempo

rary cogni*

t ive

theo

rists have

begun to

qu s t i on

this

basic

objectivis

tic

assump

t ion and

are start

ingtoadopt

a more con

structivist

approach

to

AB one 1IWve

aJong

the

behavwmt....... opitivi.t-

COMtnwti vuf

continuum,

the

foeus

ofin traction

shills from teach;; g to

eami:nll, from

the passive

believe

that

the

mind

fil-

ters input

from the

world to

pr0-

duce its

own

u n i q u

reality

Jonassen,

1991a . Lib

with t be ra-

tionalists

of

Plato's

time.

the mind is

transfer

of oc'ltl a

routi.nes to the active

application of .deo.s to

problems

learning and understanding:

knowledge

is a function of how

the

individual creates

meaning

from his or her own experiences

p.lO). Constructivism

is not a

totally

new approach to learning.

Like

most

other

learning

theo

ries,

constructivism

has multiple

roots

in

the philosophical and

pay.

chological viewpoints

of his

century,

specifically in

the

works of Piaget.

Bruner, and

Goodman

Perkins,

IS9l).

In

recent years, however. con

structivism has become a hot issue

as

it has

begun to receive increased

attention

in

a number of different

disciplines, including instructional

design Bednar

at al., 1991).

62

believed to

be the

source of

all

meaning, yet

like

the

empiricists, individual, direc t ex

periences

with the

environment

are

considered critical. Constructivism

crosses both

categories byemphasiz

ingtheinteracticm between

thesetwo

variables.

Constructivists do not share with

cognitivists

and

behavi.oriD

the be-

liefthat knowledge

is

mind-indepen

dent

and

can

be

mapped

onto a

leamer.

Constructivists

do

not deny

the

existence of

the real

world

but

contend

that what

we know of the

world stems from

ourowuinterpreta

tiona

of our

experiences.

Humans

create

meaning

as

opposed

to

6,C Juir.

m it.

Since

there are

many possible


14/23

meuinp

to

glean from

any

experi

ence, we cmmot achieve a

predeter

mined,

I I ~ meaning. Leam.ers

do not tnmsfer

knowledge

from the

extemal

world into

their

memories;

rather they

build personal interpre

tations

of the

world

based

on indi

vidual experiences

and

interactions.

Thus, the

internal

representation of

knowledge

is

constantly open

to

change;

there snot

Ul

objective real

ity that learners strive

to

know.

Knowledge emerges in contexts

within which

it

is relevant. There

fore,inordertounderstandtheleam-

ins which has taken place witbin an

individual, the actual

experience

must be examined (Bednar et at.

1991).

Which faeton

m f i _ D e ~

oth

leamer

and environmental

factors are critical to the

constructivist,

al i t s the

specific -

ter ction between these two vari

ables

that

creates

knowledge.

Constructivists argue that behavior

is situationaUy determined

(JOllallHn,

1991a).

ust as the learn

ing

of

new vocabulary words

is

en

banced by eJq)owre and subsequent

interaction with

those words in

con-

text

(as

opposed to learning

tbeir

meanings from a dictionary), liken

wise

it is essential

that

content

knowledge

be

embedded

in the

situa

tion

in which it is

used. Brown.

Collins, and Duguid (1989) suggest

that

situations

actually

co-produce

knowledge (along with cognition)

througb

activity. Every action is

viewed 88 an interpretation of

the

cUm nt

situation hued

on an

entire

history

of

previous interactions

(Clancey. 1986).

Just

8S shades of

meaninp

of given words

are

con-

VOLUME 6, N U M B

4/1993

stantly

changing a

leamer's

cur

rent undenta:nding

of

a word, so

too

will

concepts continually evolvewith

each new use.

For

this reason,

it

is

critical

that

leaming occur in realis

tic settings

and

that

the

selected.

learning taW be relevant to

the

stu-

dents ' lived experience.

w.bat

u the 1'0118

of memory?

The goal of instruction is not to

ensure

that

individuals know partic

war facts but rather that theyelaoo.

rate on

and

interpret

information.

Understanding

is

developed

through

continued,

situated

use

..

and does not crystallize into a

categorical definition that can be

called

up from memory (Brown

et

al.,

1989, p. 33). As mentioned earlier, a

concept

will continue to

evolve

with

each new useas new situations, nego

tiations,

and

activities recast

it in

a

different, more densely textured

form. Therefore, memory is always

under constrocl.ion

as

a

cumulative

history

of

interactions. Representa

tions

of

experiences

are not

formal

ized or st:rm:tured into a single piece

of declarative knowledge and then

stored

in the

head. The em.phasis

is

not on retrieving int ct knowledge

structures,but on

providing

learners

with the m.eans to create novel and

situation-specific understandings by

assembJ.ing prior

knowledge from

diverse sources appropriate

to the

problem

at

hand.

For

example,

the

knowledge

of

design activities

has

to

be

used

by a practitioner in

too

many

dift'erentways for them all tobe

anticipated

in

advance. Constructiv

iatsempbuize the flexible use ofpre

existing

knowledge

rather than the

recall of

prepackaged

schemas (Spi-

ro, Feltovich. Jacobson, Coulson,

1991). Mental representat ions devel-

63

all this emphasis on

situated, context-specific

meaning is very much Gee

???

need for skill-building,

differentiation, and learner-

specific knowledge

activation in a problem


15/23


16/23

edge

dome.ms

much

ofwhaineeds

to

be leamed involves advanced knowl

edge in ill-structured domains.

Jonassen (1991a) has described three

stages of knowledge acquisition (in

troductory, advanced, and

expert

and argues that conatru.etive leam

ing

envircmmenta are

most

effective

for the stage of advanced. knowledge

acquisition, where initial misconcep

tions and biases acquired during the

introdw::tory stage can

be discovered,

negotiated,

and

if necessary, modi

fied

andlor

removed.

JonasssD

agrees

that introductory lm.owledge

acquisition is better supported by

more objectivistic approaches (be

havioral and/or cognitive) but sug

gests I i transition to constructivistic

approaches

as

leamers

acquire

more

knowledpwhich provides them.with

the conceptual power needed

to

deal

withcomplex Maiill-structured prob

lems.

What bale uwmptimulpriD

cipkil

o

thU

theory

e

rel

evant

to

i:utnetioDal deadp?

The constru.etivist designer speci

fies

o n l

methods and strat

egies

that

will assist learners

in

ac

tively exploring complex topics/envi

ronments and that

will

move them

into thinking in a given content

area

as M

expert

user of that

domain

might think. Knowledge

is

not ab

stract but is

linked

to

the context

Wlder study and to the experiences

that

the

participants

bring to

thecon

text.

As

such,

learners

are

encour

aged

to construct their own under

standings

and then to validate,

through

social negotiation,these

new

perspectives. Content is

not

pre

specified; information from mmy

sources

is

essential.

For

example, a

typical constructivist's goal would

VOLUME 6 NUMBml4/1993

not

be

to

teach

novice

m

students

straight facti about

instructional de

sign, but to prepare students to use

ID facts

as an

instructional designer

might

u.ee

them. As such. perfor

mance

objectives

are

not related so

much to

the

content as they are

to the

pro esses

of

construction.

Some

of he

specific s trategies uti

lized by COnli1tru.ctivists include situ

atingtasksin:realworld contexts,

USe

of cognitive apprenticeships (model

ing and coaching a student toward

expert

performance), presen tation

of

multiple perspectives


17/23


18/23

such activities

in

a new

light

which

guides them towards conceptual

reframing

(learning).

Students gain

familiarity

with analysis and action

in: complex

situations

and conse

quently

begin to expand their hori

zons: they encounter relevant

boob,

attend conferences and seminars,

discwas issues with other students,

and

use their knowledge

to

interpret

numerous situations around them

(not

only re-

lea:m.ing

pr OCeSIlI

itself

is

constantly

~ both in nature

and

diver

sity,

as it progresses (Shuell,

1990>.

What

mightbe most effective for nov

ice learners encountering a complex

body

of knowledge for the

irst

time,

would not be effective, efficient or

stimwatingfor a learner who is more

fa.miliar

with

the content. Typically,

one does not teach facts

the

same way

that concepts or problem-solving are

taught; like-

lated to spe

cific

design

issues). Not

only have

the

learners

been in -

volved in dif-

ferent

types

of learning

as they

moved from

being

nov-

ices to bud

ding ex-

perts,'

but

the nature

of

What

might

be

mo t

effective for novice

leamen

encoun teri n a a

comples

body

of

knowledge for the first

time would

not

be

effective eflkien t

0. .

wise, one

teaches dif

ferently

de

pending

on

the profi

ciency level

of

the leam-

ers involved.

Both the in

structional

strategies

employed

and

the

con

tent

ad-

dressed (in

Btimulating for

a kame .

who

i

more familia .

with

the

con.ten.t.

the lem:ning process

has

changed as

well.

Ge:n.eral DiseWMion

It is

apparent that

students ex

posed to the three instructional ap-

preaches described in the examples

abovewouldgaindifferentcompeten

eiea. This

leads nstructom/designers

to

ask

two significant questions:

Is

there

a single best

approach

and is

one approach more efficient

than the

others? Given

that

learning is a

o m ~

plex, dl'awn-out process

that

seems to

be

strongly influencedby

ooe 8

prior

knowledge, perhaps the best answer

to these questions is

it

depends.

Because learning is influenced by

many

facton

from many sources,

the

VOLUM 6, NUMDU 4/1993

both

depth

and breadth)

would

very based on the

level of the

leaman.

So how does a

designerfacilltate i

proper match between leamer, con

tent, and strategies? Consider,

l in t

of aU, how

learners'

knowledge

changes

as

they become more famil

iar

with

a

given content. As people

acquire more experience

with

a given

content, they progressalong a low-to

high knowledge continuum from 1)

being

able

to

recognize

and

apply

the

standard

mies, facts,

and

operations

o a profession (knowing what), to 2)

thinking like a professional to ex

o

trapolate from these general rules to

particulu,

problematic cases (know

inghow),

to

S)developing

and.

testing

new forms of understanding and Be-

67

confirmation of my

own prior thoughts

about the role of

context in

determining which

approach is most

appropriate


19/23

tions

when familiar categories m d

ways of

thinking

fail (reftection-in

action) (Schon, 1987).

In

a

HMe ,

the

points along this continuum mirror

the points of

he

leamingtheory o n ~

tinuumdescribedearlier. Depending

on where

the

learners sit on the

continuum

in

terms of

the d e v e l o ~

ment of heir professional

knowledge

(knowing

what VB

knowing

how VB

reflectionGin-action), themost appro

priate insl:ructional approach for ad

vancing

the learners'

knowledge

at

that

particular level would

be

the

one

advocated

by the

theory

that

corre

sponds to that point on

the

con

tinuum.

That

is, a behavioral ap

proach can effectively facilitate mas-

tery of the content of a profession

(knowing what); cognitive

strategies

are

useful

in

teaching problem-solv

ing tactics

where defined

facts and

rules are applied in unfamiliar situa

tions

(knowing

how); and

constructivist strategies

are

espe

cially suited

to

dealing

with

ill-de

M

fined problems

through

reflection-in

action.

A

second consideration depends

upon

the

requirementso

he task to

be learned. Based on

the

level of

cognitive processing required,

strate-

gies from

different theoretical

per-

spectives may be needed. For ex

ample, tasks requiringalowdegreeof

processing (e.g., basic paired associa

tions, discriminations, rote memori

zation) seem

tobe

facilitatedby

strat-

egies

moot

frequently associated

with

a behavioral outlook (e.g., stimulus

response, contiguity of feedback/re

inforcement). Tasks

requiring an in

creased levelo processing (e.g., clas

sifications, rule

or

procedural execu

tions) ar e primarily associated with

strategies having a stronger

o g n i ~

tiveemphasis (e.g., C h e m a t i C o r g a n i ~

68

zation, analogical

reuonma

algo

ritbmie problem solving),

Tub

de

manding

high

l e v of

prooeum,

(e.g., heuris tic problem solving, per

sonal nlecticn andmonitoringofcog-

nitive strategies) are frequently best

learned with strategies advanced

by

the oonstmetivist perspective (e.g.,

situated

learning, cognitive appren

ticeships,

social

negotiation).

We

believe

that the

critical

que.

tioninst:ructional desipersmWlt

ask

is

not

Which is the best theory? but

-which

theory

is

the

most

eft'ective

in

fostering mastery

of

specific

tasks by

specific learners? Prior to

strategy(ies) selection, consideration

must

be

made

of

oth the learners

and

the task. An attempt is made in

Figure

1

to

depict

these

two continua

(learners level

ofmow

edge and cog

nitive processing demands) and to

illustrate

the

degree to which strate-

gies offered

by

each

altha

theoretical

perspectives appear applicable. The

figure is useful

in

demonstrating: (a)

that

the

strategies promoted

by

the

different perspectives overlap

in

cer

tain instances (i.e., one strategy may

be relevant for each of

the

different

perspectives. given

the

proper

amount of

prior knowledge

and the

cor:responding amount of cognitive

processing),

and (b) that strategies

are

concentrated along different

points of the

continua

due to the

unique

focus

of each of the leaming.

theories. Thismeans

that

when inte

grating

my strategies

into the

in

structional design process,

the

na-

ture

of

the

learning

task

(i.e.,

the

level of cognitive

processing re-

quired)

and the

proficiency level

of

the learne rs involved must both be

conJidered before selecting one

~

proach

over another. Depending on

the demands of the task and where


20/23

High

0

cO

A

C

0

iii.

0

0

ffigh

Level

of CopiUve i l l l e q W r e d

bytheT.uk

fisure

1.

CompaND" of the t e inmudiooal strategies of the

beMvioml, mpitWe, and cOMtrudMlt viewpoints baRd the

le&'lmers level

of

wac lmowIedp II'Id the

level

of cognitive Pl oceumg

requfimfi

by tM

wk.

the leamers are

in terms

of

the

con

tent to be

delivered/discovered,

dif-

ferent strategies

based

on

different

theories appear obe

necessary.

Pow-

erful

frameworks for

instruction

have been developed by designers

in

spired

by each of

these perspectives.

In fact, succ:essful instructional prac

tices have features that are

sup

ported by virtually

aU

three perspec

tives

(e.g., active

participation

and

interaction. practice and feedback).

For

this reason,

we

have con

sciously

chosen

not to

advocate

one

theory over

the

others, but to

mess

instead

the usefulness of

being

well

versed in each. This is not to suggest

that one should work without

a

theory,

but rather that

one must be

able

to intelligently choose, on the

basis of

information

gathered about

the learners' present level of compe

tence and the

type

of leaming

tok

VOLuM 6 NUM BER 4/1993

the

appropriate methods for aehiev

ingoptimW inltructiona loutcomesin

that

situation.

As stated by Smith and. Ragan

(1993,

p. viii : "Reasoned and

vali

dated theoretical

eclecticism

has

been

a

key

strength of

our field be-

cause no single theoretical base

pro

vides complete prescriptive prin-

ciples for the entire design process."

Someof he

most crucial

design

tasks

involve being able to decide which

strategy to use, for

what

content, for

which

students. and

at

what point

during

the instruction. Knowledgeo

this sort

is

an

example of conditional

knowledge, where "thinking like" a

designer

becomesa

neceasary

compe

tency. It

mould

be noted however.

that to be an

eelectic.

one :must

know

a lot, not a little, about the theories

being

combined.

A thorough

under

standingof he learning

theories pre-

69


21/23

sentedabove seems to

be

essential for

professional designers whomustcon

stantly

make

decisions for

which

no

design model provides precise rules.

Being knowledgeable about each

of

these

theories provides designers

with

the flexibility needed tobe spon

taneous and creative

when

a first

attempt doesn't; work or

when

they

find themselves limitedby time, u d ~

get, and/or personnel

constraints.

The practitioner cannot afford to ig

nore any theories that might provide

practical implications.

Given the

myriad

of

potential

design situat ions.

the

designer's best approach.

may

not ever be identical

to any

previous

approach,

but will truly depend

upon the context. his type of in

structional cherry-picking has been

termed systematic eclecticism' and

has had

a great deal

of

support in the

instructional design literature

(Snelbecker, 1989).

Inclosing, we would liketoexpanci

on a quote by P. B. Drucker, (cited in

Snelbecker, 1983): These old centro..

versies have

been

phonies all along.

We need the behaviorist's triad of

practice/reinforcementlfeedback to

enlarge learning

and

memory.

We

need purpose, decision,

values, un

derstanding-the cognitive catego

ries-lest learning be mere behav

ioral activities rather

than

action (p.

203).

And

to

this we would add that we

also need adaptive

learners

who are

able to function well

when

optimal

conditions do

not

exist,

when

situa

tions

are unpredictable and

task de.

mands change, when

the

problems

are

messy and ~ f o r m e d and the

80

lutions depend on inventiveness,

im-

provisation, discussion, and social

negotiation.

70

Wenneu

B e d I W , A . K , ~ , D

DUftY T.

M., Perry,J. D.

(1991).

Themymto

practice:

How do

we link? In

O.

J.

Anglin (Ea.), InBtruetional technol-

ogy: Past. present, and future.

Englewood, CO: Libmriea Unlimited.

Bower, G. H., Hilgard,

E.

B. (1981).

Theories

of

learning

(6th

ed.>.

Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall

Brown, J. S

CoDins,

A., Duguid,

P.

(1989). Situated cognition and the

culture

of leaming. Educctional

Re-

searcher,

18(1).3242.

Bnmer.J.

S.

(1971).

The

proceu

ofedu

cation revisited. Phi Delta

KGppcm,

53,1821.

Clancey, W. J. US8S). Review of

Winograd a

Flores untknttmdiNil

compute1 8

OM

cognition: A ftworable

interpretation. (STAN..cS.87U73)

Palo Alto,

CA:

Department of Com

puter

Science. Stanford

University.

Cunningham, D.

J.

(1991).

Assessing

constructions

and

constructing u -

86ssmente: A dialogue. EducatioiU1.l

Teclmolol3l.

31(5),13-17.

Duffy, '1'. M., Jonassen,

D.

(1991).

Constructivism: Newimplicationafor

instructional technology?

duca-

tional

Teckno/,olJy.

31(5},812.

Gropper, G. L.

(1987).

Alesson baaed on

a

behaviOl'al

approaen to inatruetional

design. In C. M. Reigeluth

M) ,

In

structional theories in action (pp. 45-

112). Hillsdale, NJ:

LaW1'ence

Erlbaum Associates.

Hulse,S.H.,Egeth,H., &Deese,J. (1980).

The psychology of learning

(5th eel.).

New Y ork: McGraw-Bill.

Jo'lmaon. J. K. (1992). Advancingby de -

grees:

Trends inmuter'sanddoetoral

programs

in educational

oommUl'1ica-

tions and technology. Tech

Trends,

31(2), 13-16.

Jonusen, D.

H.

(1991 ).

Evaluating

construetiviatic learning. duca-

tioiU1 l Technology, 81(9).28-33.

Jonassen. D.

H.

(1991b). Objeetivimn va

constTuct.ivism:

Do

we need i new

philosophical paradigm.

Educational


22/23

Techno10m

&'fcrcb.

cmd

Deuelop-

ment,

39(3), 514.

~ n e r

J.

M.

(1979). Motivation

and

in

structionai desip: A theoretical per

spective. o u m o l o f l ~ i o n a l De

velopment. 2(4),

26-34..

Lynch,

J.

M. (1945). The applicability of

psychological research. to

education.

o u ~

of

Ed.u.t:ational PlYChology,

48,289-296.

MenilJ.. M. D.,

&Walia,

T., Wilson, B.

G.

1981).

Instructiorml

design n

transition.

In F. B. Farley, I

N. J.

GoNon (Ede.),

PlYCholojJy andeduca

oon:

The

tate of

he

union

(pp. 298-

348). Berkeley: McCutchan.

Perkins, D.

N.

(1991).

Technology

meets

constructivism:

Do

they

make

a mar

riage?

Educational

Techno10m .

31 5),

18-23.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1983).

InstrnctioMl

Design: What ll i t and

why

s it? In C.

M. Reigelutb (Ed.),

Instructional

theories

in

action

(pp.

3-36). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbllnm AellOOiatu.

Reigeluth,

C.

M. (1989). Educational

technology at

the

crouroade: New

min.tIs

and

new directions.

Educa

tional Technology Baea rch and

lJe

velopment,

37(1), 6780.

Resnick,

L.

B.

1987).

Learning in school

and out.

Educational

Research.er,

16(9), 1320.

Richey, R. D.

1986).

The

theoretical and

coneepmal

base, of

instr1.wtional

de

sign. New York: Nichobi.

Schunk,

D. H.

1991).

Learning theories:

n

educational perspective.

New

York:

Macmillan.

ShueU, T.

J.

(1986). Cognitive concep

tions

of

learning.

Reuiew

of 1.lduca-

tional Research.

56. 411-436.

Shuell, T.J.(l990).

Plw6lll0fmeaningM

learning. Review

ofEducational Re

search. 60,581-547.

Smith, P. L.,

& Ragan,

T. J. (1998).

In

structional deaiBn.

New York:

Macmillan.

hon,

D. A. (1987). Educating

the

reflec

tive

practitioner. Sm

Francisco

Jouey-Bass.

VOLuMa

6,

NUIvJ IlBR 4/1993

Sneibeeker,

O.

E. (1983).

Learning

theory, instructional theory, and

PlIYchoedw:a.tional

design. New

York:

McGraw-Hill.

Snelbecker,

G. E.

(1989). Contrasting

and

complementary approaches to

in

structioMl

design.. In

C. M. Reigeluth


23/23

Winne, P.

H.

(1985). Cognitive

proc:euing

in the

claslll OOm.

InT.Husen

6;

T.N.

Postlethwaite

(Eels.), The

In rM-

tionalEncyclopediaof Education

(Vol.

2, pp. 795-8(8). Oxford: Pergamon.

PEGGYA ERTMEBhuaMuters

Degree in Special Education-

Learning Disabilities

and

is cur

rently a doctoral student n In

structional Development. otUne

address: Educational Computing

and Instroctional Research and

Development.

1442

L E B ~

Room

3134, Purdue University. West

Lafayette, IN 47907-1442.

72

fIMOTBY

J

N E Q f

hi

an

uooi-

ate Professor n Educational Com-

puting

and

Instru.etiOMl

Develop-

ment

at

Purdue University. He

CWTently conducts research

n the

areas

of

humanmotivation

and

in-

structional strategies.

ailinead

dress: Educational Computingand

Instructional Development, 1442

LAEB,

Room

3146. Purdue Univer

sity,

West Lafayette, IN 47907-

1442.

Documents

Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di