wilson1 Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictiotls 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, IlkaIies and archives are authorized to fknish 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. Con~ ctivi& learning Environmerrts 1 Case Studies in Instructional Design 1 Educational Technology Publications Engkwood C!‘ rfFs, New Jersey 07632 “Z Brent G. Olson Unibwsity of Colorado at Denver EDITOR Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Constructivist learning environments : case studies in instructional design / Brent G. Wilson, editor ; foreword by David N. Perkins. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN O- 87778- 290- 3 1. Instructional systems-- Design-- Case studies. 2. Constructivism (Education)-- Case studies. 3. Classroom environment-- Case studies. I. Wilson, Brent G. (Brent Gale) LB1028.38. Cti 1996 371.3’078 -- dc20 95- 30145 CIP Copyright 0 1996 by Educational Technology Publica- tions, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo- copying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 95- 30145. International Standard Book Number: o- 87778- 290- 3. Fin- t Printing: /away, 1996 Foreword Minds in the ‘Hood David N. Perkins Suppose you were asked to name something that you had learned really well. What would you mention? Perhaps you would say high school biology or 19th century American history or whatever our + favorite subject was. But let me propose a very different example: $sf# b~ ii’~ hildhood neighborhoods Think about it: You learned where things were- the park with swings two blocks away, the shop on the comer, the gas station opposite. You learned how to get to them all and from each one to another. You learned what every one offered: swinging, sodas, talk about cars. You learned who hung out where and what they did and how to hang out with some of them yourself. To put a phrase to the whole enterprise,, you. knew y~~~~~~ your neighborhood. ,E + s/“‘ ew?& cti{+.. From the standpoint of the present volume, what’s interesting here is that && A your neighborhood was what most school subject matters are not: an qmvironment. It had the dimensions of an environment- length and breadth, _ b, {& places and parts, nonliving and living, simp$ cityar$ Tompl@ y, constancy-_ aa change. You could move through it atid learn your way around it bit by bit. -eetting started wasn’t hard, but you were never done. Then? was always more. In his introduction to this volume, Brent Wilson aptly points out that the idea of a learning environment evokes the notions of place and space, room to move and explore, and generous access. Just like your neighborhood. Wilson also suggests that among the many ways we think of knowledge, the notion of a learning environment resonates best with a vision of knowledge as meaning constructed by interaction with one’s environment. Perhaps we can get even more precise about the kind of knowledge in question. What conception&- knowledge goes best with. an environmental meption of learning? Here’s one way to think about it. There is a tradition in philosophy that looks to our everyday language for insight into the character of knowledge. V . . . vm Constructivist Learning Environments “knowledge object,” a mental representation (not necessarily visual) of a subject area that allows both panoramic overviews and flexible access to the details of any part. One of the most important long- term consequences of this was that I knew what it was to know my way around a subject matter. The experience became a yardstick for me, something to measure degrees of understanding with. I was lucky in my teacher. For me, and many others I think, he created a learning environment within a traditional context. So I not only learned geometry but learned something about learning. Now imagine that we could bring to almost everyone the kinds of well- wrought constructivist- oriented technologically- supported learning environments discussed in this volume. They might give many students a chance not just to know their way around something academic, but to know what it is to know their way around something academic. men you know what this is, you are in a better position to function as a learner. You are more oriented to the enterprise of learning. Knowing what it is to know your way around is a compass for minds in any ‘hood. References Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture o/ cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Entwistle, N. J., & Marton, F. (in press). Knowledge objects: Understandings constituted through intensive academic study. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Howard, V. A. (1982). Artistry: The work of artists. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Perkins, D. N. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: The Free Press. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Toward a post- critical philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson House. Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions o/ knowledge: An infroduction fo epistemology and education. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. David N. Perkins is Co- director of Project Zero, Associate of the Educational Technology Center, and Senior Research Associate, all at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Table of Contents Foreword: Minds in the ‘Hood David N. Perkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction: What Is a Constructivist Learning Environment? Brent G. Wilson . . . . *..* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *...* . . . . . . . . Part One: Computer- Based Microworlds 2. Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments Peter C. Honebein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *.*..* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. An Interpretation Construction Approach to Constructivist Design John B. Black and Robert 0. McClintock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Tutoring for Transfer of Technical Competence Sherrie P. Gott, Alan Lesgold, and Ronald S. Kane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Case- based Teaching and Constructivism: Carpenters and Tools Christopher K. Riesbeck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part Two: Classroom- Based Learning Environments 6. Rich Environments for Active Learning in the Higher Education Classroom Joanna C. Dunlap and R. Scott Grabinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Developing Statistical Reasoning Through Simulation Gaming in Middle School: The Case of ‘The Vitamin Wars’ Helena P. Osana, Sharon Derry, and Joel R. Levin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. From Constructivism to Constructionism: Learning with Hypermedia/ Multimedia Rather ThanJrom It David H. Jonassen, jamie M. Myers, and Ann Margaret McKillop . . . . . . . . . . . ix V 3 11 25 33 49 65 83 93 X Constructivist Learning Environments 9. Epistemic Fluency and Constructivist Learning Environments Donald Morrison and AIlan Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO. Implementing Jasper Immersion: A Case of Conceptual Change Michael F. Young, Bonnie K. Nastasi, and Lynette Braunhardt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework ]ohn R. Savey and Thomas M. Duffy . . . . . . . . . . I ,............................................. part Three: Open, Virtual Learning Environments 12. Constructivism in the Collaboratory Daniel C. Edelson, Roy D. Pea, and Louis Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. The Evolution of Constructivist Learning Environments: Immersion in Distributed, Virtual Worlds Chris Dede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 121 135 151 165 Part Four: Reflections on the Effectiveness of Constructivist Learning Environments 14. Mapping More Authentic Multimedia Learning Environments Brockenbrough S. Allen, Robin T. Chiero, and Robert P. Hoffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 15. Alternative Assessment for Constructivist Learning Environments Thomas C. Reeves and James R. Okzy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 16. Instructional Design and Development of Learning Communities: An Invitation to a Dialogue Xiaodong Lin, john D. Bransford, Cindy E. Hmelo, Ronald 1. Kantor, Daniel T. Hickey, Teresa Secules, Anthony J. Petrosino, Susan R. Goldman, and The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 A Constructivist Sampler May Lowry, Victoria L. Wood, R. Scoff Grabinger, Robert W. Davis, Maggie Trigg, Richard Morse, and Karen M. Myers ,........................................... 221 Author Index ........................................................................................................ 233 Subject Index.. ....................................................................................................... 239 Consbucthdst Learning Environments / Case Studies in Instructional Design / 1 Introduction What Is a Constructivist Learning Environment? Brent G. Wilson My purpose in this Introduction is to clarify what we mean by constructivist learning environments and to explain why the idea is worthy of study. Consider the different assumptions underlying common metaphors for instruction: - Time and place definitions suggest that instruction is what goes on in classrooms during 50- minute intervals. - The product delivery metaphor suggests an information- processing and transmission model of instruction. - Systems and process definitions of instruction tend to emphasize the steps or stages, inputs and outputs, interlocking mechanisms, and control of flow. The constructivism movement in instructional design has shown the correspondence between our underlying views of knowledge and how we think about instruction. Table 1.1 briefly summarizes how different philosophical conceptions can influence our views about instruction. The table suggests that viewing instruction as a learning environment is related to a meaning- construction view of knowledge. A learning environment is a place where people can draw upon resources to make sense out of things and construct meaningful solutions to problems. Adding “constructivist” to the front end of the term is a way of emphasizing the importance of meaningful, authentic activities that help the learner to construct understandings and develop skills relevant to solving problems, 3 Constructiuist Learning Environments IF yo” THINK OF KNOWLEDGE AS... THEN you MAY TEND TO THINK OF INSTRUCTION AS... . a quantity or packet of content waiting l a product to be delivered by a vehicle. to be transmitted . a cognitive state as reflected in a l a set of instructional strategies person’s schemas and procedural aimed at changing an individual’s skills schemas. . a person’s meanings constructed by l a learner drawing on tools and interaction with one’s environment resources within a rich environment. . enculturation or adoption of a group’s l participation in a community’s ways of seeing and acting everyday activities. Table 1.1. How our views of knowledge influence our views of instruction. The Idea of a Learning Environment Thinking of instruction as an environment gives emphasis to the “place” or “space” where learning occurs. At a minimum, a learning environment contains - the learner; - a “setting” or “space” wherein the learner acts, using tools and devices, collecting and interpreting information, interacting perhaps with others, etc. This metaphor holds considerable potential because instructional designers like to think that effective instruction requires a degree of student initiative and choice. An environment wherein stude % s are given “room” to explore, and determine goals and learning activities seems an attractive concept. Students who are given generous access to information resources- books, print and video materials, etc.- and tools- word- processing programs, e- mail, search tools, etc.- are likely to learn something if they are also given proper support and guidance. Under this conception, learning is fostered and supported, but not controlled or dictated in any strict fashion, For this reason, we tend to hear less about “instructional” environments and more about “learning” environments- instruction connoting more control and directiveness, being replaced by the more flexible idea of learning. A learning environment, then, is a place where learning is fostered and supported. Difficulties remain, however, with the idea of a learning environment. For one thing, learning environments seem intrinsically fuzzy and ill- defined. That is, an fnfroducfion environment that is good for learning cannot be fully prepackaged and defined. If students are involved in choosing learning activities and controlling pace and direction, a level of uncertainty and uncontrolledness comes into play. This places the teacher or instructional designer in a condition of continuing tentativeness and guardedness. Despite much care and attention, the system will often appear chaotic to outside observers and even participants. Instructional design theorists would maintain, however, that the complex nature of learning- environments interactions is no excuse for careful planning and design to the extent possible. Teachers must remain vigilant to ensure that an environment includes proper support and guidance, and rich resources and tools. The job of instructional- design theory is to articulate a set of principles or conceptual models to aid teachers and designers in creating supportive, nurturing learning environments where students are successful in attaining learning goals. Another problem lies in the individualist connotation of “environment.” The metaphor of person- in- environment, at least in psychology, tends to isolate individuals and treat other people as objects within the environment to be used or manipulated. The picture comes to mind of a nerdy “surfer” of the Internet, exploring all kinds of resources, yet remaining reluctant to relate to a true peer group of learners- electronic or otherwise. The idea of “learning communities” may be more appropriate in this regard. Communities of learners work together on projects and learning agendas, supporting and learning from one another, as well as from their environment. Thus, in an effective learning environment, an individual’s tool- using and information- using activities need to be complemented by the powerful resources presented by other people and by the surrounding culture. In our use of the term, constructivist learning environments are places where groups of learners learn to use tools of their culture- including language and the rules for engaging in dialogue and knowledge generation (cJ Morrison & Collins, this volume). In summary, a number of metaphors may be appropriate for thinking about instruction, depending on the situation. Process, product, and systems metaphors of instruction continue to dominate the field. At the same time, the idea of learning environments is appealing because it reflects values of the constructivist movement in instructional design. One definition of a constructivist learning environment then would be: a place where learners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in their guided pursuit of learning goals and problem- solving activities. This definition can serve as a launching point for this book, but it has no universal acceptance among the authors contributing to the volume. Different definitions and views of constructivist learning environments are presented by the various authors, depending on their focus and the nature of their projects. _-... 6 Constructivist Learning Environments “Parts” and “Kinds” Analysis A thing can be analyzed into its constituent “parts” and into its various sub- categories or “kinds” (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983). In this section, we analyze key components of a typical learning environment, then present a simple typology suitable for our purposes. Perkins (1991) suggests that all learning environments, including traditional classrooms, include the following key components or functions: - Information banks. Information banks are sources or repositories of information. Examples would include textbooks, teachers, encyclopedias, videotapes, videodiscs, etc. - Symbol pads. These are surfaces for the construction and manipulation of symbols and language. Examples include student notebooks, index cards, word processors, drawing programs, and database programs. - Phenomenaria. Perkins defines phenomenaria as “areas” for presenting, observing, and manipulating phenomena (aquariums, SimCity, physics microworlds, etc.) Of course, SimCity is a simulation of real- world cities, and not the thing itself. The key idea is that aspects of the world are brought and made available to student inspection and exploration. To my understanding, phenomenaria are roughly parallel to instructional simulations. I like Perkins’s term because it emphasizes the instructional nature of the simulation (contrasted to non- instructional simulations intended for scientific or technical purposes). - Construction kits. These are similar to phenomenaria, except they are less tied to natural phenomena. Construction kits are packaged collections of content components for assembly and manipulation. They may have no clear counterpart in the “real” world. Examples include Legos, learning logs, math- manipulation software such as the Geometric Supposer, or authoring tools such as HyperStudio. - Task managers. In any learning environment, a function of control and supervision exists. Task managers are those elements of the environment that set tasks, and provide guidance, feedback, and changes in direction. Task management is often assumed by the teacher, but a variety of tools and documentation supports this role. Task managers may include assignments within textbooks, grading programs, assessment devices, devices for conveying rules and expectations, and computer- based instruction programs. Within constructivist learning environments, the student becomes a co- task manager along with the teacher. With these identified components, Perkins distinguishes between “minimalist” and “rich” learning environments: - Minimalist learning environments emphasize information banks, symbol pads, and task managers. A traditional classroom would be a lean learning environment with relatively few tools for manipulating and observing content, making exploration and problem solving difficult. . - Richer environments contain more construction kits and phenomenaria, and place more control of the environment in the hands of the learners Introduction 7 themselves. Students are typically engaged in multiple activities in pursuit of multiple learning goals, with the teacher serving the role of coach and facilitator. Rich learning environments could more easily be called “constructivist” learning environments, whereas normal class- rooms may be thought of as “traditional” learning environments. Perkins also notes differences in the amount of guidance or direct instruction found in learning environments. Varying degrees of guidance pose different instructional challenges for the learning environment. As the teacher relinquishes control over content, pacing, and specific activities, students need corresponding increases in decision and performance support. Poorly planned learning environ- ments are vulnerable to failure due to lack of support, leaving students feeling stranded and faced with unreasonable performance expectations. This problem is complicated by the fact that learners differ dramatically in their need for support. Managing the support and advisement function within learning environments is one of the challenges addressed repeatedly by the chapters in this volume. I have grouped the chapters in this volume into the three categories of leam- ing environments presented below. In truth, most of the projects reported in the book fit more than one category. The simple typology is not definitive, but instead is designed to elucidate differences in emphasis among different learning environments. - Computer microworlds. Students “enter” a self- contained computer- based environment to learn. These microworlds may be supported by a larger classroom environment, but may also stand alone. Examples in this section include the Sherlock project reported by Gott, Lesgold, and Kane, and the case- based teaching programs reported by Riesbeck. The chapters by Honebein and by Black and McClintock also address issues related to the design of computer microworlds. Their chapters are also helpful in presenting sets of principles to guide the design of constructivist learning environments. - Classroom- based learning environments. In many settings, the class- room is thought of as the primary learning environment. Various technologies may function as tools to support classroom learning activities. Examples of classroom- based environments include Harel’s research on teaching fractions via student- generated computer lessons (Hare1 & Papert, 1990) and Vanderbilt’s anchored instruction modules taught in regular classrooms. Dunlap and Grabinger begin the section with a description of their model of REALS (Rich Environments for Active Learning). They take particular care to define their terms and articulate a set of principles for guiding instructional design. Additional contributors in this section include chapters by Osana, Derry, and Levin on middle- school ‘Vitamin Wars’; Morrison and Collins on knowledge- generating cultural forms they call “epistemic games”; the Young, Nastasi, and Braunhardt field report on the use of the jasper math modules in 5th grade classrooms; and Savery and Duffy on problem- based learning in medical schools and other settings. Jonassen, Myers, and McKillop’s chapter on hypermedia projects as learning activities is included here because of its emphasis on hypermedia as a learning tool rather than a self- contained microworld. Constructivist Learning Environments _ open, virtual environments. Some computer- based learning environments are relatively open systems, allowing interactions and encounters with other participants, resources, and representations. These “virtual” environments are contrasted with the more closed, self- contained microworld environments presented in the first section of the book. Students interact primarily with the computer in a microworld; in a virtual environment, they interact primarily with other networked participants, and with widely disseminated information tools. Open, virtual environments have tremendous potential for learning, but they carry their own set of design challenges and concerns. Edelson, Pea, and Gomez present one model of such environments- the CoVis project [Learning Through Collaborative Visualization)- and Dede presents a vision of the potential for such environments as technology and design models continue to evolve. The final section of the book addresses general issues of design and assessment. Allen, Chiero, and Hoffman reflect on methods for conceptualizing and designing multimedia learning environments that depart from traditional ID models. Reeves and Okey discuss approaches to assessment appropriate for constructivist learning environments. Lin and colleagues from the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt conclude by arguing for an approach to the design of learning environments that draws on both the instructional- design and cognitive- psychology traditions. In closing, I would like to thank the contributors to the volume for their insights and willingness to report their work to a larger audience. Collectively, the chapters presented herein constitute a considerable advancement of our understanding. In future works, I hope to see a continued conversation addressing specific methods for designing constructivist learning environments. References Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Jnleractive Learning Environments, l( 1). l- 32. Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (this volume). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. Perkins, D. N. (1991, May). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educalional Technology, 31( 5), 18- 23. Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, R. (1983). Elaboration theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional- design theories and models: An over& u of their cwren~ stalus. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brent G. Wilson is associate professor of information and learning technologies at the University of Colorado at Denver. His research interests include instructional design theory and assessing the impact of technology in learning organizations. Part One Computer- Based Microworlds