bednar Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions The Copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyright material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction not be "used for any purposes other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. jl : i . # Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation Edited by Thomas M. Duffy Indiana University David H. Jonassen University of Colorado LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS 1992 Hillsdale, New Jersey Hove and London ( Contents With special assistance from Peggy Cole. Copyright 8 1992 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other means, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 365 Broadway Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642 Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation edited by Thomas M. Duffy, David H. Jonassen p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN O- 8058- 1272- 5 I. instructional systems- Design. 2 Constructivism (Education) I. Duffy, Thomas M. II. Jonassen, David H., 1947- LB1028.38. C66 1992 370.15'2Sdc20 92- 22781 CIP Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acid- free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durability. Printed in the United States of America 109876543 Preface Acknowledgments ix . . . Xl11 I Introduction 1 Constructivism: New Implications for Inshvctional Technology Thomas M. Dujfy and David H. Jonassen 1 II Constructivist Perspectives 2 Theory into Practice: How Do We Link? Anne K. Bednar, Donald Cunningham, Thomas M. Duffy, and 1. David Perry 17 3 Assessing Constructions and Constructing Assessments: A Dialogue Donald 1. Cunningham 35 4 Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage? David N. Perkins 45 5 Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext: Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in Ill- structured Domains Rand 1. Spiro, Paul 1. Feltovich, Michael 1. lacobson, and Richard L. Coulson 57 vi Contents 6 Technology and the Design of Generative Learning Environments Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University 77 III. Instructional Technology Perspectives 7 An Instructional Designer's View of Constructivism Walter Dick 8 Constructivism and Instructional Design M. David Merrill 91 10 Knowledge Representation, Content specification, and the Development of Skill in Situation Specific Knowledge Assembly: Some Constructivist Issues as They Relate to Cognitive Flexibility Theory and Hypertext Rand 1. Spiro, Paul J. Feltovich, Michael 1. Jacobson, and Richard L. Coulson 11 Author Index 211 Attempting to Come to Grips with Alternative Perspectives Thomas M. Duffy and Anne K. Bednar 129 / Subject Index 217 Contents vii IV. Clarifying the Relationship 9 Some Thoughts About Constructivism and Instructional Design Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University 115 12 Evaluating Constructivistic Learning David H. Jonassen I 13 Reflections on the Implications of Constructivism for Educational Technology Charles M. Reigeluth 149 14 In Defense of Extremism Donald 1. Cunningham 15 What Constructivism Demands of the Learner David N. Perkins V, Reflections on the Conversation 99 121 16 Constructing Constructivism Catherine Fosnot 17 The Assumptions of Constructivism and Instructional Design William Winn 157 161 18 Constructive Criticisms Brockenbrough S. Allen 19 An Eclectic Examination of Some Issues in the Constructivist- ISD Controversy Sigmund Tobias 183 205 I 137 167 177 2 Theory into Practice: How Do We Link? Anne K. Bednar Donald Cunningham Thomas M. Duffy J. David Perry Indiana University The field of Instructional Systems Technology (IST) prides itself on being an eclectic field, Dewey's proverbial "linking science" between theories of the behavioral and cognitive sciences and instructional practice. This view of the relationship between theory and the field of IST takes the perspective that it is appropriate to select principles and techniques from the many theoretical perspectives in much the same way we might select international dishes from a smorgasbord, choosing those we like best and ending up with a meal which represents no nationality exclusively and a design technology based on no single theoretical base. That is, the primary strategy for providing this "link" between theory and practice has been to collect concepts and strategies suggested by the theories and make them available to the practitioners. The concepts and strategies are abstracted out of their theoretical framework, placed within a practitioner's framework, and grouped based on their relevance to a particular instructional design task (i. e., positioned in some form of a general systems model). In the case of instructional concepts and strategies, these are grouped based on their relevance to the particular learning goal, category of learning, or performance objective. An eclectic approach is clearly preferred by the field of IST. Practitioners, it is argued, need the best guidance possible for their design and development efforts, and that guidance should be sought from the widest array of research and theory on human learning and cognition (Fleming & Levi% 1978). It seems unreasonable to presume that each individual could 18 Bednar et al. continually maintain an awareness of all of the research (empirical and theoretical) that is potentially relevant and synthesize that research to arrive at its practical implications. Thus, abstracting the techniques from the theories is a practical mechanism for providing the guidance that practitioners require. While one might be concerned with mixing techniques from different theoretical perspectives, advocates of this strategy simply point to the fact that the instructional moves derived from one learning theory are often very similar to those derived from another learning theory even when the theoretical explanations of those moves may differ (Banner, 1988; Fleming & Levie, 1978; Reigeluth, 1987). The techniques that lead to instruction seem separable from their theoretical framework. The field of instructional systems technology currently draws principles of instructional design and development from empirical studies conducted within the traditions of an incredible variety of paradigms and disciplines: behavioral learning theory, cybernetics, information- processing cognitive theory, media design/ production, adult learning, systems theory, and so forth. As we acquire more and more tools with which to work, interesting mixtures of theories and practice begin to emerge. A striking example is Keller's (1987) ARCS theory which draws on theories based pn a premise of free will as well as behavioral theories based on the premise of determinism. However, even more unified approaches, such as elaboration theory (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983), reflect this eclecticism in that while they may draw from theories which share common epistemological assumptions, they borrow from the wide array of alternative, and sometimes significantly different, theoretical representations. Until recently the field of IST has tended to rely for a theory of learning most heavily on the field of behavioral learning theory. The overwhelming focus of IST on behavioral learning outcomes and on the design of maximally effective and efficient learning environments is incontrovertible evidence of this influence. But, as cognitive theory has moved to the forefront of learning theories, the question arises more and more frequently in the field as to whether and how instructional systems designers can add to their arsenal of concepts and strategies by integrating the ideas basic to current cognitive theory into professional practice (Bonner, 1988; DiVesta & Rieber, 1987; Gagn6 & Dick, 1983; Low, 1981). The perspectives expressed so far on this question suggest that theories and research on cognitive information processing (the currently most popular version of cognitive psychology), while not currently included as part of instructional design models, could be incorporated into those existing systems to improve their effectiveness. And so instructional designers are encouraged to learn techniques of protocol analysis and knowledge representation, to examine the literatures on expert/ novice problem solving, metacognition, imagery processes and so on as they consider instructional problems within the context of a traditional instructional design model. In this chapter we wish to challenge the concept that the eclectic nature of the field of IST is necessarily a strength, We will illustrate our argu- 2. Theory into Practice 19 ment by reference to the implications of various versions of cognitive science for the field of IST but we wish to emphasize that our argument applies to theories of all varieties which have been assumed to inform instructional design and development. In brief, we will argue that abstracting concepts and strategies from the theoretical position that spawned them strips them of their meaning. Theoretical concepts emerge in the context of certain epistemological assumptions which underlie the theory. To use a concept like knowledge of results stripped from the assumption that learning is the strengthening of S- R bonds strips the concept of its fundamental basis. We propose that: Instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of learning and/ or cognition; effective design is possible only if the developer has developed refltxive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design. In other words, we will argue that effective instructional design emerges from the deliberate application of some particular theory of learning. While we certainly have our preferences for some theories as opposed to others, in this paper we simply wish to promote the idea that developers need to be aware of their personal beliefs about the nature of learning and select concepts and strategies from those theories which are consistent with those beliefs. We will begin by presenting the basic characteristics of the information processing and constructivist viewpoints within cognitive psychology. We will then contrast the implications of these views for instruction and the instructional design process. Finally, we will reflect on the implications of the discussion for the future directions of the field. In general, the conclusion we will come to is that our instructional methods and our methods of analysis reflect a theory of learning and, more fundamentally, reflect an epistemology. The theory and methods simply cannot be separated. The epistemology gives meaning to the methods both globally and in any detailed implementation: l Globally, theory reflects epistemology. Any theory must of necessity embody a perspective on what we mean by knowing. As we shall see, adoption of a particular epistemological view has far ranging implications. We think it is essential that a designer be aware of the epistemology her instruction embodies. We also think that it is inconceivable to mix epistemologies in an instructional program. l In detailed implementation, the way in which a technique or concept is realized in its application is a reflection of the theoretical interpretation of that technique or concept. The theoretical framework from which that method or concept was abstracted is essential for guiding the designer in her decision making. 20 Bednar et al. THE COGNITIVE SCIENCES There are many approaches to the study of cognition and we will limit our discussion to two general ones: traditional (often referred to as the Turing, symbol- manipulation, or information- processing view) and constructivist (experiential, semiotic, etc.). Traditional Cognitive Science. Howard Gardner (1987, p. 6) defines cognitive science as "a contemporary, empirically based effort to answer longstanding epistemological questions -particularly those concerned with the nature of knowledge, its components, its sources, its development, and its deployment," Gardner lists five features generally associated with cognitive science, three of which are relevant to our purposes here. First, cognitive science is explicitly multidisciplinary, drawing especially upon the disciplines of psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. Second, a central issue for this discipline is cognitive representation, its form, structure, and embodiment at various levels (neurological, linguistic, sociological, etc.). And third is the faith that the electronic computer will prove central to the solution of problems of cognitive science, both in the conduct of research to investigate various cognitive representations and in providing viable models of the thought process itself. While certainly interdisciplinary, it should be obvious that cognitive science as described above is unanimous in its agreement on certain fundamental assumptions underlying the discipline. And, we would argue that in spite of their many differences, this version of cognitive science shares many of these assumptions with behaviorism, making its uneasy alliance as a linking science for IST possible. The most crucial of these fundamental assumptions is labeled abjectivism by George Lakoff (1987). Objectivism is a view of the nature of knowledge and what it means to know something. In this view, the mind is an instantiation of a computer, manipulating symbols in the same way (or analogously, at least) as a computer. These symbols acquire meaning when an external and independent reality is "mapped" onto them in our interactions in the world. Knowledge, therefore, is some entity existing independently of the mind which is transferred "inside the mind." Cognition is the rule- based manipulation of these symbols via processes that will be ultimately describable through the language of mathematics and/ or logic. Thus, this school of thought believes that the external world is mind independent (i. e., the same for everyone) and we can say things about it that are objectively, absolutely and unconditionally true or false. Of course, since we are human, we are subject to error (illusion, errors of perception, errors of judgment, emotions and personal and cultural biases). These subjective judgments can be avoided, however, if we rely on the methodologies of science and logical reasoning. The use of these will allow us to rise above such limitations SO that we will eventually be able to achieve understanding from a 2. Theory into Practice 21 universally valid and unbiased point of view. Science can ultimately give a correct, definitive, and general account of reality, and, through its methodology, it is progressing toward that goal. Objectivity is a goal we must constantly strive for. Consistent with this view of knowledge, the goal of instruction, from both the behavioral and cognitive information- processing perspective, is to communicate or transfer knowledge to learners in the most efficient, effective manner possible. Knowledge can be completely characterized using the techniques of semantic analysis (or its second cousin, task analysis). One key to efficiency and effectiveness is simplification and regularization; that is, thought is atomistic in that it can be completely broken down into simple building blocks which form the basis for instruction. Thus, this transfer of knowledge is most efficient if the excess baggage of irrelevant content and context can be eliminated. Because behaviorism and cognitive information processing share this objectivist epistemology, they are the source of insights for those in the field of IST who share their assumption. Behaviorist applications will focus on the design of learning environments which optimize knowledge transfer while cognitive information processing stresses efficient processing strategies. However, in a process somewhat akin to religious conversion, we have X come to question objectivist epistemology. We have adopted what we will call a constructivist view and begun to explore the implications of such a view for the field of IST. While we are very early in this process, there is one thing which is very clear: Constructivism is completely incompatible with objectivism. We cannot simply add constructivist theory to our smorgasbord of behaviorism and cognitive information processing. Constructivist Cognitive Science. The constructivist view of cognition is not new but is receiving increasing attention because of an amazing convergence of disciplines which are coming to recognize it: connectionist approaches to cognitive science (Rummelhart & McClelland, 1986), semiotics (Cunningham, 1987), experientialism (Lakoff, 1987), intertextuality (Morgan, 1985), relativism (Perry, 1970), and so forth. In this view, learning is a constructive process in which the learner is building an internal representation of knowledge, a personal interpretation of experience. This representation is constantly open to change, its structure and linkages forming the foundation to which other knowledge structures are appended. Learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of experience. This view of knowledge does not necessarily deny the existence of the real world and agrees that reality places constraints on the concepts that are knowable, but contends that all we know of the world are human interpretations of our experience of the world. Conceptual growth comes from the sharing of multiple perspectives and the simultaneous changing of our internal representations in re* sponse to those perspectives as well as through cumulative experience. 22 Bednar et al. Consistent with this view of knowledge, learning must be situated in a # rich context, reflective of real- world contexts for this constructive process to occur and transfer to environments beyond the school or training classroom. Learning throughrcognitive apprenticeship: reflecting the Eollaboration of real- world problem solving and using theTiools available in problem- solving situations' are key (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989a,. 1? 89b). *How effective or instrumental the learner's knowledge structure IS m fa- cilitating thinking in the content field is the measure of learning. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN PROCESS Traditional behavioral theory and cognitive science contrast dramatically to the constructivist theories in terms of the underlying epistemological assumptions. As should be clear from the discussion thus far, these epistemological differences have significant consequences for our goals and strategies in the instructional design process. The objectivist approach to instructional design is well documented and thus we will not dwell on it here. The interested reader may see Dick and Carey (1985), cagnband J Briggs (1979), and Romiszowski (1981) for views of instructional design which emerge from the ,behavioris& tradition. The cognitive objectivist view is perhaps best described in Poison and Richardson (1988); Mumaw and Means (1988); Schlager, Means, and Roth (1988); and Lesgold, LaJoie, Bunzo, and Eggan (1992). We will focus here on the implications for instructional design derived from a constructivist view. We see the view of learning as a constructive process having wide- ranging implications for virtually all aspects of the design process: the concept of the learning objective, the specification of goals outcomes, and methodologies for analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Indeed, it even calls into question the traditional separation of method from content. Analysis In the traditional approach to instructional design, the developer analyzes the conditions which bear on the instructional system (such as content, the learner, and the instructional setting) in preparation for the specification of intended learning outcomes. Analysis of Content. The traditional approach to content analysis has two J: goals. First, there is an attempt to simplify and regularize, or systematize, the components to be learned, to translate them into process or method. This is done by identifying content components and classifying the com- 2. Theory into Practice 23 ponents based on the nature of the content and the goals of the learner. For example, one system would see components as facts, principles, concepts, and procedures, while the goals would be to remember, use, or find. Second, the analysis specifies prerequisite learning. In essence the analysis $ prespecifies all of the relevant content and the logical dependencies between the components of the content. The constructivist view is very different. Since the learner must construct an understanding or viewpoint, the contentcannot be prap. ccified. * Indeed, while a core knowledge domain may be specifi& the stud&$% enw._ Sea__ rc_ h for other knowledge domains that may be relevant to the issue. It is clear that knowledge domains are not readily separated in the world; information from many sources bears on the analysis of any issue. Further, it is often the case that the most successful individual in x; nonschool related environments is the one who can bring a new perspective, new data, to bear on an issue. In school, we must also encourage students to seek new points of view; to consider alternative data sources. Please note that we are not arguing that there can be no specification of relevant domains of information. We can and must define a central or core body of information; we simply cannot define the boundaries of what may be relevant (Lakoff, 1987; Wittgenstein, 1953). Indeed, we would argue strenuously that the traditional segregation of knowledge domains contributes to the development of much "inert" knowledge. Students simply do not see the use of information outside of the traditional limits 4f of the domain or the setting in which it was learned (e. g., school). The constructivist view also does not accept the assumption that types of learning can be identified independent of the content and the context of learning. Indeed, from a constructivist viewpoint it is not possible to isolate units of information or make a priori assumptions of how the information will be used. Facts are not simply facts to be remembered in isolation. %urely there is no reason to learn a fact by itse1f. J Instead of dividing up the knowledge domain based on a logical analysis of dependencies,& e k constructivist view turns toward a consideration of what real people in a particular knowledge domain and real life context typically dqdBrown et al., 1989a; Resnick, 1987). fihe overarching goal of such an approach is to move the learner into thinking in the knowledge domain as an expert user of that domain might thinki Hence, designers operating under these assumptions must identify the variety of expert users and the tasks they do. For example, our goal should not be to teach students geography principles or geography facts, but tolfeach students to use the domain of geo"u'$ ~ graphic information as a geographer, navigator, or cartographer might doA Of course, we may not be able to start the student with the authentic !& n task. In some way, Kve must simplify the task while still maintaining its essence3 Reigeluth and Stein's (1983) notion of an epitome seems to fit well here as a means of task definition. However, and most importantly, the goal is to portray tasks, not to define the structure of learning required to achieve that task. Just as the cartographer or geographer must bring 24 Bednar et al. new perspectives to bear and construct a particular understanding or an interpretation of a situation, so too must the student. And just as different geographers identify different relevant information and come to different conclusions, so too must we leave the identification of relevant information and "correct" solutions open in the instructional situation. qt is the ;I( process of constructing a perspective or understanding that is essential to learning; no meaningful construction (nor authentic activity) is possible if all relevant information is prespecified. J Analysis of Learners. When designing instructional systems from a traditional instructional design perspective, the "learner" is most often the pool of learners, the average conditions and range under which the system must function. Certainly some adaptive models for instructional design measure individual progress toward learning goals as part of the system; however, those models are not the norm in instructional design. Further, even in adaptive models there is a concept of the general learner which guides the original design of the materials. Then the individuals are placed within the materials through pretest. The constructivist approach will also identify the skills of the learner. However, just as we did not identify content units in the domain, we also do not seek a detailed accounting of deficiencies. The focus will be on skills of reflexivity, not remembering. Traditional approaches to learning skills stress the efficient processing of information- the accurate storage and retrieval of externally defined information. Constructivists focus on the process of knowledge construction and the development of reflexive awareness of that recess: the possibility of alternative sign systems, the imaginative (e. g., metaphorical) laspects of much of our knowledge, the ? JF; development of &elfconscious manipulation of the constructive process? etc. Since every learner will have a unique perspective entering the learning experience and leaving the experience, the concept of global learner is not part of the constructivist perspective. Specification of Objectives. In the traditional instructional design approach, the product of the analysis phase is the specification of intended learning outcomes. Throughout the analysis phase the developer classifies the characteristics of the content and learner so as to facilitate their translation in the synthesis phase to instructional method. The categories used by the developer are applied across contents, regardless of the nature of the domain. Similarly, in the synthesis phase the instructional process or methods which are drawn from to comprise the design are considered applicable across domains. From the constructivist perspective, every field has its unique ways of knowing, and the function of analysis is to try to characterize this. If the field is history, for example, we are trying to discover ways that historians think about their world and provide means to promote such thinking in the learner. pur goal is to teach how to think like a historian, not to teach 2. Theory into Practice 25 any particular version of histord Thus constructivists do not have learning and performance objectives that are internal to the content domain + (e. g., apply the principle), but rather we search for authentic tasks and the more specific objectives emerge and be realized as they are to the individual learner in solving the realworld task. Synthesis Traditionally, the design (or synthesis) phase of the instructional design process applies principles derived from psychology and media research to design an instructional sequence (macrolevel) and message (microlevel) which are optimal treatments to achieve a specified performance objective. The design principles are considered to be generally applicable across content and across context. The sequence of instruction is specified based on logical dependencies in the knowledge domain and on the hierarchy of learning objectives. Examined from a perspective which views knowing as a constructive process, these design principles are called into question. Indeed, the approach is simply antithetical to the constructivist viewpoint. rWhat is central, in our view, is the development of learning environments which en* courage construction of understanding from multiple perspectives. "Effective" sequencing of the information or rigorous external control of instructional ev& i& imply precluconstructive activity. Also precluded is the possibility of developing alternative perspectives since the relevant information and the proper conclusion are predefined in traditional instruction. J In the same way that macro design strategies are inappropriate, so too are design strategies at the microlevel. For example, fii is inappropriate to w idi control or focus the attention of the learner in a manner distinct from a ,+, realworld contexti Instead, the instruction is based on techniques which are drawn from the constructivist's epistemological assumptions and which are consistent with their theory of learning, for example, situating cognition in real- world contexts, teaching through cognitive apprenticeship, and construction of multiple perspectives. Situating Cognition. There is a need for the learning experience to be situated in real- world contexts (Brown et al. 1989a, 1989b; Resnick, 1987; Rogoff & Lave, 1984). By "real- world contexts" we mean that: l The task is not isolated, but rather is part of a larger context (Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinzer, & Williams, 1990). We do not simply ask students to do word problems in the book. Rather we create projects, or create environments, that capture a larger context in which that problem is relevant. 26 Bednar et al. . The "real worldness" of the context refers as much to the Sk of the learner as it does to the surrounding environment or information base (Brown et al., 1989a; Resnick, 1987). We are not simply talking about critical and incidental attributes of the environment. We also + argue thatrhe reason for solving the problem must be authentic to the context in which the learning is to be app1ied. J Thus, we do not have learning and performance objectives that are internal to the content domain (e. g., apply the principle), but rather we search for authentic tasks and let the more specific objectives be realized as they are appropriate to that task. l The environmental context is critical. An essential concept in the constructivist view is that the information cannot be remembered as independent, abstract entities. Eearning always takes place in a context and the context forms an inexorable link with the knowledge embedded within it. Most simply stated, an abstract, simplified envi+ ronment (school learning) is not just quantitatively different from the real- world environment but is also qualitatively different. The reason that so much of what is learned in school fails to trans er 3 to nonschool environments or even from one subjeYt? natter to another is due, in part, to the fact that the school context is, o different --- from the nonschool environment. fience, Spiro (1988) argues that we must not simplify environments as we typically do in school settings, but rather we must mnintain the complexity of the environment and help the student to understand the concept embedded in the multiple complex environments in which it is found. Salomon and Perkins (1989) make a similar point in their discussion of high- level transferd -- I Authentic * earning environments may be expected to vary in complexity with the expertise of the learner. That is, the child would not be confronted with the complexity of the adult's world- indeed, the child's world is not that complex. Similarly, the economic world seen by the average citizen is far less complex than the world seen by the economist. Hence, when we propose an authentic environment and a complex environment, weare referring to authenticity and complexity within a proximal range of the learner's knowledge- and prior experience. -- -- --... A related issue is the tendency in traditional instructional design to separate the content from the use of the content. Hence we learn about something so that we can use that knowledge later. We believe, however, the learning of a content must be embedded in the use of that content. Sticht and Hickey (1988) have nicely demonstrated this approach in their design of basic electricity training. The traditional approach to this particular course was to prepare an electricity curriculum, based on an analysis of the facts, procedures, concepts, and procedures in the knowledge domain and 2. Theory into Practice 27 taught in a traditional textbook fashion. Once learned, the thinking went, the students could go off to their particular specialties and apply the knowledge. This approach was taken by numerous experts in instructional design, in numerous revisions of this particular course. Sticht and Hickey (1988), in contrast, focused on the functional context of the electricity knowledge. They identified authentic tasks and provided instruction in the context of those tasks. Thus, for example, students were asked to diagnose why a flashlight would not light. Then the class discussed how the various diagnoses might be represented in an overall picture (i. e., a functional analysis). From context to context, they moved the students to more complex and less familiar systems- but always maintaining the functional context of the task. In a similar fashion, adult reading instruction has always been seen as a ", skill one acquires before using it. Thus, the reading curriculum for a job ,, h precedes job training, and the content of that reading curriculum is seen as independent of the use of reading on the job. Duffy (1985, 1990), Sticht f+ v (1975), and Mikulecky (1982), among others, have argued, consistent with the constructivist view, that the reading instruction, as well as the job i E! knowledge, must be taught in the context of job tasks. The tasks and con;,, b tent combine qualitatively to provide an authentic context in which the o rr learner can develop integrated skills. t CT& {yuw + Cognitive Apprenticeship. The constructivist .teacher must model the process for students and coach the students toward expert performance. Collins, Brown, and Newman (1988) provide an excellent discussion of cognitive apprenticeship and summarize three approaches that are well documented in the literature. A critical feature of these approaches is that the teacher's responses are not scripted. The teacher cannot serve as an ef# fective model if he has prepared responses and strategies achead of time and onlyxals an idealized path to the correct solution. Rather, students must come to understand the authentic ways in which the teacher (expert) attempts to represent an issue. For example, Schoenfeld (1985), in teaching university level mathematics, invites students to bring him word problems- brain teasers. The problems are given to him in class and he thinks outloud as he searches for a solution. Of course there are numerous blind alleys and errors in thinking. The class discussion afterward focuses on the strategies that were used, the ways in which the problem was represented, how various sources of information were called upon, and how errors were a natural occurrence of trying alternative representations or strategies. Multiple Perspectives. The constructivist view emphasizes that& udents should learn to construct multiple perspectives on an issueej They must attempt to see an issue from different vantage points. It is essential that students make the best case possible from each perspective; that is, that they % truly try to understand the alternative views. If we focus on constructing 28 Bednar et al. an understanding and if we are providing authentic contexts, then these multiple perspectives can even be applied to content domains that seem very well structured, such as arithmetic (Bransford et al., 1990; Schoenfeld, 1985). Of course, the students must also evaluate those perspectives, identifying the shortcomings as well as the strengths. Finally, they adopt the perspective that is most useful, meaningful, or relevant to them in the particular context. A central strategy for achieving these perspectives is to create a collaborative learning- environment. Note that while cooperative learning has a long history, the focus in that literature has been on the behavioral principles of learning that can be realized in the group environment. We wish to emphasize, instead, the use of collaboration to develop and share alter- . . m. It is from the views of other group members that alternative perspectives most often are to be realized. Thus, sharing a workload or co_ ming~ I_ o a consensus is not the goal of collaboration; rather, it is to develop, compare, and understand m% ltipleperspectives on an issue. This is not meant to be simply a "sharing" experience, though respect for other views is important. Rather, the goal is to search for and evaluate the evidence for the viewpoint. Different sorts of evidence and different arguments will support the differing views. It is the rigorous process of de- and evaluating the arguments that is the goal, Fur- is --._ petitive endeavor, where groups deba1eeach other to se; who is "right." Rather, it is a cooperative effort in which each student is seen as coming to understand each perspective and even contributing to the development of each perspective. A second important strategy for achieving multiple perspectives and a rich understanding has to do with the use of examples. In traditional instructional approaches the examples are carefully chosen to highlight critical attributes and systematically manipulate the complex of irrelevant attributes. Like word problems at the end of a chapter, there is little that is authentic about the examples: There is a clear correct answer and it is the student's job to find that answer. Of course that is not the nature of the real world- there is little in real life in the way of clear cut examples with only one correct solution. As an alternative to that approach, we would explore the use of real "slices of life." For example, to support teacher education, we would consider recording entire class periods to provide rich contexts for developing perspectives on teaching. The traditional approach to instructional design might instead select clips that represented correct or incorrect examples of a particular concept or principle. We prefer, as students are exposed to the perspectives of experts and peers, to permit the students to select particular instances and bring to bear whatever perspective is useful rather than learn to classify according to some archetypal, decontextualized categories. Our goal, then, is to have students& see the alternative views of how a concept is seen in actual instruction. Most importantly, students must learn to develop and evaluate the evidence to support each contention. Note that this task supports a construc- 2. Theory into Practice 29 tion of understanding and provides authenticity to the instruction as well as supporting the development of multiple perspectives. From the traditional instructional design perspective it may be tempting to equate learning in a constructivist sense as pure discovery learning and to criticize that approach for its lack of efficiency. It should be apparent, however, from the previous discussions of situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship that we are not espousing an unstructured discovery environment devoid of learning goals or learning events. In con-trast to discovery learning, there is considerable guidance. It is simply not % guidance on mastering a particular content element. .a [EvaluationJ In traditional instructional design, evaluation assumes a universal goal or objective for the instruction. An exam measures progress toward the goal and the data across many students indicate the relative effectiveness of the system in terms of achievement of the goal. With a constructive view of knowledge, the goal is to improve the ability to use the content domain in authentic tasks (Brown et al., 1989a). Instruction is the act of providing students with these tasks and providing them with the tools needed to develop the skills of constructing an informed response and for evaluating alternative responses. Evaluation in the constructivist perspective must examine the thinking process. This is not to suggest, however, that the issue of thinking is independent of the content domain- quite the contrary. As the extensive- t CUE research on expert and novice strategies indicates, effective problem- solv*tJ ing strategies are intimately tied to the content domain. Experts are ex$2 perts because of their understanding of the content domain. 2 d. 4- f -3f: One possible type of student evaluation activity would ask learners to sd address a problem in the field of content and then defend their decisions. 2 Another might ask the learners to reflect on their own learning and dot*& t- t ument the process through which they have constructed their view of the &: content. The strategies common to the problem- solving approach in writI. ing (Hayes & Flower, 1986) clearly reflect this constructivist view and the pJ important blending of content and process. C" Two elements seem to be important: (a) that the persuective that e& tb. + LC'. J, student develops in the content area is effective in working in that area ylv. ' and (b) that t&,& u& m c .v--- an defend ?I=[ Judgments. The first element 5% might be referred to as ino what degree does the learner's constructed knowledge of the field permit him/ her to function effectively in the discipline ? The most obvious application of the concept of instrumentality might be in problem solving. Can the learner arrive at reasoned solutions to problems in the field? But the concept equally applies in contents which are not traditionally considered to be problem- solving fields; for example, a literature student analyzing a body of literature, an art stu- - Bednar et at. 2. Theory into Practice 31 dent critiquing a painting, or an elementary school student learning how different cultures in the world share universal concerns from differing perspectives. The second element, the ability to explain and defend decisions, is related to the d& ment of metacou * ' skills, thinking about thinking. Reflexive awareness of one's own -plies monitoring both the develoument of the structure of knowledge being studied and the process ---- ~1 of constructing that knowledge representation. While either of these student evaluation mechanisms might suggest a viable system evaluation method, that method would certainly contrast to instructional design's traditional mastery model. One of the issues woul Js be how to operationalize the concept of instrumentality, given that no two ,qrLd*) ' students would be expected to make the same interpretations of learning f,~&! 4 experiences nor to apply their learning in exactly the same way to real- world problems which do not have one best answer. CONCLUSIONS l- From our perspective, it appears that the implications of constructivism for instructional design are revolutionary rather than evolutionaryl_) Viewed from contrasting epistemologies, the findings of constructivism replace rather than add to our current understanding of learning. With a new view of what it means to know, it is imperative to reexamine all of the assumptions of any field and particularly one which purports to improve the human condition. One of the basic assumptions underlying the professional practice of instructional design is the separation of instructional process from content, a belief that general principles of learning apply across contents to a significant enough degree that basic principles of instruction can be successfully applied regardless of content. From a view of knowledge as constructed, the process emerges from the content. In- depth understanding of the content arises from, and is essential to, understanding disciplinary thinking. ISince influencing how learners think in a content domain is Jtt the goal of instruction, the learning process must reflect those thought pr0cesses. A One of the most far reaching implications of constructivism for instructional design is thattiesigners must attach themselves to content domainsin much the same way secondary teachers specialize in a content area or the way faculty at the university refer to pedagogy in their discipline. The next generation of instructional designers may be specialists in the design of instruction for teaching reading, or language, or biology. Certainly the relationship between instructional consultant and subject matter expert must be reexamined. Many issues remain. Is critical thinking the goal of all learning? Do the contexts in which learning is to be applied relate to the nature of the learning experience ? Are there contexts where it is appropriate to apply traditional instructional development models and others where it is not? Does a distinction exist between training and education such that a training environment is more appropriate for instruction based on traditional instructional design principles than a school? fAt what level of schooling is critical thinking a reasonable goalJIs it reasonable to differentiate levels of learning- for example, introductory learning from advanced knowledge acquisition (Spiro, 1988) or memory from problem solving- and to apply different instructional techniques based on different theories, or does that imply that you must believe the nature of knowing, what it means to know, changes between introductory and advanced levels? Where must we go now as a field? First, we must examine the assumptions which underlie the theories upon which our field is based. nurning toward a view of knowledge as constructed requires a major reconceptualization of our assumptions and practices4 But even if such a view is ultimately rejected, we must not delay a full analysis of the assumptions which support our field. In those situations where the assumptions lack consistency, we must adopt a consistent set of assumptions and reject the findings of research and the development of theory based on different assumptions. We must constantly reexamine our assumptions in light of new findings about learning. As a field we must ground ourselves in theory. One of the practices which requires scrutiny is the practice of drawing from fields with different theoretical bases without examining the conflict between the basic assumptions of those theories. Optimally, we would tie our prescriptions for learning to a specific theoretical position- the prescriptions would be the realization of a particular understanding of how people learn, Minimally, we must be aware of the epistemological underpinnings of our instructional design and we must be aware of the consequences of that epistemology on our goals for instruction, our design of instruction, and on the very process of design. NOTE This chapter appeared in Anglin (1991). This work was funded in part by AT& T through a grant to the Center for Excellence in Education, Indiana University. 32 Bednar et al. REFERENCES Anglin, G. (Ed.). (1991). Instructional fechno~ o~: Past, Present, and future. Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Bonner J. (1988). Implications of cognitive theory for instructional design: F& sited. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36, 3- BraLtford J D Sherwood, R .D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams; S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and h, ow technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (EdA, Cognition, educafron, + and multimedia: Exploring Ideas in high technology (pp. 115- 139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989a). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32- 42. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989b). Debating the situation: A re- joinder to Palincsar and Wineburg. Educational Researcher, 18, 10- 12. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L B. Resmck (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453- 494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cunningham, D. (1987). Outline of an educational semiotic. The American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 201- 216. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985). The sysfemafic design of instruction. Glen- view, IL: Scott, Foresman. DiVesta, F. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1987). The next generation of instructional systems. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35, 2X3- 230. Duffy, T. M. (1985). Literacy instruction in the armed forces. Armed Forces and Society, 11,437- 467. Duffy, T. M. (1990). What makes a difference in instruction? In T. G. Sticht, B. McDonald, & M. Beeler (Ed%), The infergenerational transfer of cog- nitive skills. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1978). Instructional design: Principles from the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Gag&, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gag&, R. M., & Dick, W. (1983). Instructional psychology. Annual Reviezu of Psychology, 34, 261- 295. Gardner, H. (1987). The mind's new science. New York: Basic Books. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. Ameri- can Psychologist, 42, 1106- 1103. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motiva- tional design. journal of Instructional Development, 10, 2- 10. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2. Theory into Practice 33 Lesgold, A., LaJoie, S., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, G. (1992). Sherlock: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In J. Larkin & R. Chebay (Eds.), Computer assisted instruction and intelli- gent tutoring systems: Shared goals and complementary approaches (pp. 201- 238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Low, W. C. (1981). Changes in instructional development: The aftermath of an information processing takeover in psychology. Journal of In- structional Development, 4( 2), 10- 18. Mikulecky, L. (1982). Job literacy: The relationship between school prepara- tion and workplace actuality. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 400- 419. Morgan, T. (1985). Is there an intertext in this text?: Literary and inter- dis- ciplinary approaches to intertextuality. The American journal of Semi- otics, 3, l- 40. Mumaw, R., & Means, B. (1988). Cognitive analysis of expert knowledge: Input to test design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the col- Iege years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Polson, M. C., & Richardson, J. J. (Eds.). (1988). Foundations of intelligent tutoring sysfems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 67- 80. Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruc- tion. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional- design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Resnick, L. (1987) Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13- 20. * Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. New York: Nichols Publishing. Rummelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1986). Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky road to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113- 142. Schlager, M., Means, B., & Roth, C. (1988). Cognitive analysis of expert knowledge: Input info design of training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Or- leans, LA. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Aca- demic Press. Spiro, R. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisi- tion in ill- structured domains (Tech. Rep. No. 441). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. 34 Bednar et al. Sticht, 'I. G. (1975). Reading JOY working: A functional literacy anthology. Alexandria VA: Human Resources Research Organization. Sucht T. G., & Hickey, D. T. (1988). Functional context theory, literacy, and elictronics training. In R. Dillon & J. Pellegrino (Eds.), Instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives. New York: l'raeger Publishers. Wittgenstein, L. (19531. Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmil- lan. 3 Assessing Constructions and Constructing Assessments: A Dialogue Donald J. Cunningham Indiana University, Bloomington What follows is my attempt to explore some of the issues that emerge out of the constructivist perspective related to the issue of assessment. I have chosen the form of a "Galilean Dialogue," modeled after Galileo's famous "Two Major Systems of the World" (see Jauch, 1973, for a more recent in- carnation of this format). The topic of Galileo's dialogue was the compari- I I son of the Ptolemaic and Copernican views of the universe. To some, a discussion of objectivist and constructivist views of assessment may seem trivial in comparison, but I would disagree. The issues raised here go to the heart of our world view, to the heart of what we believe it means to be human. I have retained the names of the original participants (Salviati, Sagredo, and Simplicio), although their role in the dialogue is trans- formed to accommodate the issue at hand. SALVIATI. I am pleased, my friends, that we could meet again after so- long a time. As I remember, we last met during the year 1973 to debate quantum versus classical views of physics. Much has happened since then in the world of scholarship generally that could occupy us here today. But I propose that we focus our discussion on the emerging issues surround- ing the constructivist view of learning and instruction that seems to have attracted more and more advocates recently. But perhaps we should begin with a brief summary of the views. Please interrupt me if you feel that I have misrepresented a position or made an error. The first position, that I will call objectivism, conceives of learning and instruction as phenomena amenable to scientific analysis. I believe it was Edward Thorndike (19051 who said something to the effect "If something exists, it exists in some quantity, and if it exists in some quantity it can be measured and submitted to scientific analysis." (I may have that wrong, my memory is not what it used to be.) If the methods of science can be applied to learning and in- struction, then we will have a powerful means of understanding these