ConstructivismInfluences on constructivist "theories" of instruction
Some points to ponder about constructivist approaches
2. Apprenticeship is a model of teaching that is closely associated with constructivism. Apprenticeship would seem to suggest "real-time" interactions with individuals in order to coach and guide them toward mastery of some set of skills. Doesn1t this raise some problems for the concept of instructional design, which is usually understood to require predetermining the most appropriate "path" toward mastery? If all of these teaching "moves" must be determined during instruction, rather than in advance of instruction, where does that leave the field of instructional design? 3. It1s interesting that, of all the theories and approaches we1ve discussed, the two that seem to make the strongest case for the use of computer-based teaching are behaviorism and constructivism?which seem to be as far apart conceptually as one could imagine. Are there similarities between the two theories that could account for this mutual interest in instructional technology, or is it just coincidence? Constructivism: Opposing viewpoints"[Constructivism] holds that learning is infinite and not subject to the sorts of analyses favored by objectivists except in the most trivial cases [emphasis added]. Things can be known from a variety of sign systems (verbal, mathematical, visual, musical, gestural, etc.), a variety of metaphors ... , and with varying degrees of self awareness of the processes by means of which constructions are made. The role of education in a constructivist view is to show students how to construct knowledge, to promote collaboration with others to show the multiple perspectives that can be brought to bear on a particular problem, and to arrive at self-chosen positions [emphasis added] to which they can commit themselves, while realizing the basis of other views with which they may disagree." (from Cunningham, Assessing constructions and constructing assessments, 1992)"... [C]onstructivists argue that specific learning objectives are not possible--that meaning is always constructed by, and unique to, the individual; that all understanding is negotiated. In our opinion this is a very extreme position. Let me speak up for the vast amount of "trivial cases," those situations where shared meaning is not only possible but necessary. Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" with regard to the sound of letters in learning to read? Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" about the meaning of the integers. Will a machine allow us to have a "self-chosen position" about how it works? ... Do we want students to have a "self-chosen position" ... about how to solve a linear equation? Do we want drivers to have a "self-chosen position" about the meaning of a red light? ... If I hire a surgeon to do heart surgery, PLEASE let me have one who has learned the trivial case and knows that my heart looks like every other human heart. Please don1t let him negotiate new meanings and hook up my veins in some "self-chosen position to which [she/he] can commit [herself/himself]." I want her/him committed to the standard objective view. The trivial case is not so trivial. To dismiss so casually the objective case is perhaps the greatest danger of radical constructivism." (from Merrill, Constructivism and instructional design, 1992)
Learning activitiesOpposing viewpointsConsider the two preceding excerpts. In your opinion, are Merrill's criticisms of constructivism valid? Why / why not? How do you think a constructivist would respond to his critique?
Last Updated: 10/99 |