In this chapter, I focus on one of the aspects of constructivist theory that Glasersfeld (Ch. 1) identifies as in need of further development. This aspect of the theory involves locating students’ mathematical development in social and cultural context while simultaneously treating learning as a process of adaptive reorganization. In addressing this issue, I illustrate the approach that I and my colleagues currently take when accounting for the process of students’ mathematical learning as it occurs in the social context of the classroom. In the opening section of the chapter, I clarify why this is a significant issue for us as mathematics educators. I then outline my general theoretical orientation by discussing Glasersfeld’s constructivism and Bauersfeld’s interactionism. Against this background, I develop criteria for classroom analyses that are relevant to our interests as researchers who develop learning environments for students in collaboration with teachers. Next, I illustrate the interpretive framework that I and my colleagues currently use by presenting a sample classroom analysis. Finally, in the concluding sections of the chapter, I reflect on the sample analysis to address four more general issues. These concern the contributions of analyses of the type outlined in the illustrative example, the relationship between instructional design and classroom-based research, the role of symbols and other tools in mathematical learning, and the relation between individual students’ mathematical activity and communal classroom processes.

Constructivist learning theory predicts that knowledge encoded from data by learners themselves will be more flexible, transferable, and useful than knowledge encoded for them by experts and transmitted to them by an instructor or other delivery agent. If this prediction is correct, then learners should be modeled as scientists and use the reasoning and technologies of scientists to construct their own knowledge. However, it cannot be taken for granted that the prediction is correct, or correct in every knowledge domain. The present study attempts to establish conditions in which the prediction can be operationalized and tested. It reports on the adaptation of constructivist principles to instructional design in a particular domain, second language vocabulary acquisition. Students learning English for academic purposes in the Sultanate of Oman followed one of two approaches to vocabulary expansion, learning pre-encoded dictionary definitions of words, or constructing definitions for themselves using an adapted version of the computational tools of lexicographers. After 12 weeks, both groups were equal in definitional knowledge of target words, but lexicography group students were more able to transfer their word knowledge to novel contexts.

Our goal in this paper is to focus on two issues that were raised in the discussion in this journal by Dick (1991) and Merrill (1991). The first involves the general concept of constructivism and our way of thinking about it. The second involves concerns raised by Dick (1991) regarding the complexity of our Jasper problems. At the heart of our response on both issues is (perhaps) a fundamental departure from more traditional instructional design conceptions of the nature of knowledge, the teaching-learning process, and the implications of these for the design of instruction.

Examines the history, characteristics, and value of designed instruction that is grounded in behaviorist, cognitive science, and constructivist theory. Changes that have allowed developmental phases of instructional design are considered, including instructional design methodology, physical technology, and programing mechanisms used to develop instructional software.

Key words: behaviorism, instructional design, constructivism, conceptual frameworks, computer software, cognitive models, machine learning, computer based instruction, cognitivism, learning modules.

Excerpt: Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of constructivism, as I view it, is its emphasis on argument, discussion, and debate. The special issue of Educational Technology upon which these remarks are based (and the present special section) is a perfect example of the value of this emphasis. It is very clear that we so-called experts have different perspectives on the type and role of theory in the instructional design process. Even under a common theoretical heading, the readers of the special issue were treated to divergent viewpoints: Within constructivism, for example, the articles ranged from “moderate” to “extreme,” to use Merrill’s (1991) characterization. This sort of diversity characterizes all knowledge domains, and the extent to which we can accommodate to this fact and avoid the dogmatism associated with any particular position, the healthier a field will be.

In the last two decades, one can clearly observe a boom of interest for e-learning and web-supported programs. However, one can also notice that many of these programs focus on the accumulation and delivery of content generally as a business industry with no much concern for theoretical underpinnings. The existing research, at least in online English language teaching (ELT), has demonstrated a lack of an effective online teaching pedagogy anchored in a well-defined theoretical framework. Hence, this paper comes as an attempt to present constructivism as one of the theoretical bases for the design of an effective online language teaching pedagogy which is at the same time technologically intelligent and theoretically informed to help envision how education can best take advantage of the information and communication technology (ICT) tools. The present paper discusses the key principles underlying constructivism, its implications for online language teaching design, as well as its limitations that should be avoided in the e-learning instructional design. Although the paper is theoretical in nature, essentially based on an extensive literature survey on constructivism, it does have practical illustrations from an action research conducted by the author both as an e-tutor of English using Moodle online educational platform at the Virtual University of Tunis (VUT) from 2007 up to 2010 and as a face-to-face (F2F) English teaching practitioner in the Professional Certificate of English Language Teaching Training (PCELT) at AMIDEAST, Tunisia (April-May, 2013).

There is no question that the major principles of instructional design have been derived from Skinnerian psychology and Gagne ‘s conditions of learning. These theories have been integrated, along with other principles, into systematic models for designing instruction. Instructional designers are now being challenged by constructivists to reconsider the theories they use in their design work. That challenge is well represented in the papers by Perkins, Bransford, Cunningham, and Spiro that appear in this issue of Educational Technology. The purpose of this paper is to review the work of each of these authors from the point-of-view of an instructional designer and to explore several general reactions that emerge from a review of all of the papers.

Key words: constructivism, learning, constructivist literature, instructional design, learner controlled instruction, educational environment, electronic classrooms, public schools, outcomes of education, educational strategies.

Excerpt: The May 1991 issue of Educational Technology was devoted to an examination of the implications of constructivism for instructional theory and practice. We asked researchers who we considered to be constructivist to describe their theories and relate them to issues in instructional design: front-end analysis, selection and design of instruc-tional strategies, and assessment. We then asked two leading instructional designers, Walter Dick and David Merrill, to reflect on those papers. In this issue of Educational Technology we have invited the authors of the “constructivist” papers to reflect on the comments provided by Dick and Merrill. These authors are: Duffy and Bednar, Spiro et al., the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV), Perkins, Jonassen, and Cunningham. We also sought to engage a broader spectrum of the instructional design and technology community to reflect on the May issue. We are delighted with these additional contributions provided by Charles Reigeluth, William D. Winn, Sigmund Tobias, and Michael Molenda.

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/ or 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 familiarize designers with three relevant positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) which provide structured foundations for planning and conducting instructional design activities. Each learning perspective is discussed in terms of its specific interpretation 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 illustrates how these differences might be translated into practical applications in instructional situations.