Excerpt: Where to begin, where to begin? Merrill’s (1991) interpretation of Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, and Perry (1991), in comparison to the ideas we intended to communicate and the interpretations many others have made in reading the paper, is a clear example of the multiple realities that result from constructivist activity. He has, in our opinion, identified some of the clear points of contrast between his own ID#2 and constructivism, for example, the issue as to whether process can be separated from content and the issue of whether learning can be categorized into well-defined types of outcomes which match to various universal instructional strategies exclusive of content domain. We see constructivism, in all of the theoretical representations we have read, offering a clear alternative on these issues. However, much of the remainder of Merrill’s (1991) assertions concerning our perspective on constructivism are simply not consistent with our views.

Excerpt: Constructivism provides an alternative epistemologica! base to the objectivist tradition. Constructivism, like objectivism, holds that there is a real world that we experience. However, the argument is that meaning is imposed on the world by us, rather than existing in the world independently of us. There are many ways to structure the world and there are many meanings or perspectives for any event or concept. Thus, there is not a correct meaning that we are striving for.

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.

It is said that there’s nothing so practical as good theory. It may also be said that there’s nothing so theoretically interesting as good practice. 1 This is particularly true of efforts to relate constructivism as a theory of learning to the practice of instruction. Our goal in this article is to provide a clear link between the theoretical principles of constructivism, the practice of instructional design, and the practice of teaching. We will begin with a basic characterization of constructivism, identifying what we believe to be the central principles in learning and understanding. We will then identify and elaborate on eight instructional principles for the design of a constructivist learning environment. Finally, we will examine what we consider to be one of the best exemplars of a constructivist learning environment – Problem Based Learning, as described by Barrows (1985, 1986, 1992).