comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective',Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4): 50-72. PerfOT'mfJlu:e Improvement Qu.c:wterly. 6(4) pp. 6(}"12 Peggy A. Ertmer Purdue University Timothy J. Newby Poroue University Abstract 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 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 familiarise designers with three relevant positions on learning (behavioural, cognitive and constructivist) which provide structural foundations for planning and conducting instructional design activities. Each learning perspective is discussed in terms of its specific interpretations 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 illustrate how these differences might be translated into practical applications in instructional situations. The need for a bridge between ba- sic learning research and educational practice has long been discussed. To ensure a strong connection between these two areas, Dewey (cited in Reigeluth, 1983) called for the cre- ation and development of a "linking science"; Tyler (1978) a "'middleman position"; and Lynch (1945) for em- ploying an "engineering analogy" 88 an aid for translating theory into practice. In each case, the respective author highlighted the information and potential contributions of avail- able learning theories, the pressing problems faced by those dealing with practicalleaming issues, and a gen- 50 aral lack of WJing the former to facili- tate 801utionsforthe latter. The value of such a bridgi,ng 'function would be its ability to tranldate relevant as- pects of the learning theories into optimal instructional actions. As de- scribed by Reigeluth (1983, p. 6), the field of Instructional Design per- forms this role. Instructional designers have been charged with "translating prindples ofleamingand instruction into epeci- fications for instructional materials and activities" (Smith & Ragan. 1995) p. 12). To achieve this goal, two sets of skills and lm.owledge are needed. First, the designer must understand the position of the practitioner. In this regard, the rollowiq questions would be relevant: What are the situational and contextual con- straints of the application? What is the degree of individual clliferences among the learners? What form. of solutions will or wiD not be accepted by the learners as well as by those actually teaching the materiaia? The designer must have the ability to di- agnose and analyze practical learn rog problems. Just as a doctor cannot prescribe an eft'ective remedy with- out a proper diagnosis, the instruc- tional designer caMot properly rec- ommend an effective prescriptive so- lution withoutanaceurate analysiBof the instructional problem. In addition to understanding and analyzing the problem. a second oore of knOWledge and skills is needed to "bridge" or "link" application with :research-that of undemanding the potential sources of80lutions (i.e., the theories of human learning). Through thie understanding, a proper prescriptive solution can be matched with a given diagnosed problem. The critical link. therefore, is not between the design ofinetruc- tion and. an autonomous body of knowledge about instructional pbe. nomena, but between instructional de&ip inues and the theories ofhu- man learning. Why this emphasis on leaming theory and :reselU'Ch? First, teaming theories are a source of verified in- stroctional strategies, tactics, and techniques. Kuowledgeofa varietyof such strategies is critical when at- tempting to select an effective pre. scription for overooming a given in- structional problem. Second, learn- ing theories provide the foundation for intelligent and reasoned strategy VOLUME 6, NUMml4/1993 selection. Designers must have an adequate repertoi1"6 of strategies available. and possess the knowledge of when and why to employ each. This knowledge depends on the designers ability to match the demands of the task with an instructional strategy that help; the leamer. Third, inte- gration of the selected strategy within the instructional context is of critical importance. Learning theo- ries and :research often provide infor- mation about relationships among instructional components and the design of instruction, indicating how specific techniques/strategies might best fit within a given context and with specific learners (Keller, 1979). Finally, the ultimate role of a theory is to allow for reliable prediction (Richey, 1986). Effective solutions to practical instructional problems are ofl:enconstrained by limited time and resources. It is paramount that those strategies selected and implemented have the highest chance for success. As suggested by Warnes (1990), a selection based on strong research is much more reliable than one based on "instructional phenomena." The tuk of translating leaming theory into practical applications would be greatly simplified if the learning process were relatively simple and straightforward. Unfor- tunately, this is not the case. Learn- ing is a oomplex process that has generated numerous interpretations and theories of how it is effectively accomplished. Of these many theo- ries, which should receive the atten- tion of the instructional designer? Is it better to choose one theory when designing instruction or to draw ideas from different theories? This article presents three distinct per- spectives of the learning process (be- 51 haviorai, cognitive, and oonstructivist) and although each. many unique features, it is OW' belief that each still describes the same phe- nomena Uearning). In selecting the theory whose associated instruc@ tionsl strategies offers the optimal means for achieving desired ont- comes, the degree of cognitive p r o ~ cessing required of the learner by the specific task appears to be a critical factor. Therefore, as emphasized by Snelbeeker our knowledge of modem l ~ theories. The mam. intent iB to pm- vide dempeN with some familiarity with three relevant positions on leaming (behavioral, cOlllitive. and constructivist) which should provide a more structured fooodation for planning and conducting instruc- tional design activities. The idea is that if we understand some of the deep principles of the theories of learning. we can extrapolate to the particulars (1983), indi- viduals ad- dressing practical learning problems cannot af- ford the "luxury of restricting themselves to only one Less than two perce",t of the courses offered. in university cu,.,..;.crila. in the geruJral area. of educa.ti.onal teehnol.ol1Y empluuliu "theory" a OM of their he, cOilwept as needed. As Bruner (1971) states, "You don't need to encounter everything in nature in order to know na- ture" (p. 18). theoretical position... [They] are urged to examine each of the basic science theories which have been de- veloped by psychologists in the study of learning and to select those prin. ciples and conceptions which seem to be ohalne for one's particular educa- tional situation" (p. 8), lfknowledge of the various leam- ing theories is so important for in- structional designers, to what degree are they emphasized. and promoted? As reported by Johnson (1992), less than two percent of the courses of- fered in university curricula in the general area of educational technol- ogy emphasize "theory" as one of their key concepts. It appears that the real benefits of theoretical knowledge are, at present, not being realized. This article is an attempt to "fill in some of the gaps" that may exist in 52 A basic 00- derstanding of the learning theories can provide you with a "canny strat- egy whereby you could know a great deal about a lot of things while keep- ing very little in mind" (p. 18). It is expeeted that after reading this article, instructional designers and educational practitiOD.eN should be better informed "consumers" of the strategies suggested by each. view- point. The concise information pre- sented here can serve as an initial bue oCknowledge for making impor- tant decisions regarding instruc- tional objectives and strategies. Lean1iD1 Defined Learning has been defined in nu- merous ways by many different theo- rists, researchers and educational praeti.tioners. Although universal agreement on any single definition is n.onemtent, many definitions em- ploy common elements. The follow- ing definition by Shull (as inter- preted by Schunk, 1991) incorporates these main ideas: "LeIU'Ding is an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fash- ion, which resulte from practice or other forms of experience" (p. 2). Undoubtedly, some leaming the0- rists will disagree on the definition of learning presented here. However, it is not the definition itself that sepa- rates a given theory from the rest. The differences among theo- ries lie more in interpretation than they do in definition. These differ- ences :revolve around a number ofkey issues that ultimately delineate the instructional prescriptions that flow from each theoretical perspective. Schunk (1991) lists five definitive questions that serve to distinguish each leamingtheory from the others: (1) How does learning occur? (2) Which factors (S)What is the role ofmemo:ry? (4) How does transfer occur? and (5) What types ofleaming are best explained by the theory? Expanding on this original list, we have included two additional ques- tions important to the instructional designer: (S)What basic assumptions/prin- ciples of this theory are relevant to instructional design? and (7) How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning? In this article. each of these ques- tions is answered from three distinct viewpoints: behaviorism. oognitivism, and constructivism. Although. learn- VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4/1993 ingtheories typically are divided into two categories-behavioral and cog- nitive-a third category, construc- tive, is added here because of its :re- cent emphasis in the instructional design literature (e.g., Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Peny, 1991; Duffy &: Jonassen, 1991; Jonassen, 1991b; Winn, 1991). In many ways these viewpoints overlap; yet they are distinctive enough to be treated as separate approaches to under- standing and describing learning. These three particular positions were chosen because of their importance, both historically and cUlTently. to the field of instructional design. It is hoped that the answers to the first five questions will provide the reader with a basic understanding of how these viewpoints differ. The answers to the last two questions will trans- late these differences into practical suggestions and recommendations for the application of these principles in the design of instruction. These seven questions provide the basis for the article's structure. For each of the three theoretical posi- tions, the questions are addressed and an example is given to illustrate the application of that perspective. It is expected that this approach will enable the reader to compare and contrast the different viewpoints OD. each of the seven issues. As is common in any attempt to compare and contrast similar prod- ucts, processes, or ideas, differences are emphasized in order to make dis- tinctions clear. 'This is not to suggest that there are no similarities among these viewpoints or that there are no overlapping features. In fact, differ- ent learning theories will often pre- scribe the same instructional meth- ods (or the same situ.a.tions (only with 53 different terminology and pouibly with different intentions). This 8.1'- tide outlines the major differences between the three positions in an at- tempt to facilitate comparison. It is OW' hope that the reader will pin greater insight into what each view- point offers in terms of the design and. presentation of materials. as weD as the types of les:ming activities that might be prescribed. Historical FoundatioDB Current learning theories have roots that extend far into the put. The prob- B.C.), empiricists have the view that knowledge it derived from S8W3Ol'Y impressions. ThoH impres- sions when associated o n ~ y in time and/or space. can be hooked together to form compleJ: ideas. For ex.ampls, the complex idea of a tree, as illustrated by Hulse, Egeth, and Deese (1980), can be built from the less complex ideas of branches and leaves, which in tum are built from the ideas olwood and fiber. which are .built from basic sensations such as greenn.esa, woody odor, and so forth. From this perspective, critical in- structional lems with w hie h today's theo- rists and re- searchers grapple and struggle are not new but simply variations The gOGl ofiutnuJoon; for the behavion,t is to elicit the desired re'poue from the kamer who is presen.ted with a tareet stimulus. design is- sues focus on how to manipulate the environ- ment in or- der to im- prove and ensure the on a timeless theme: Where does knowledge come from and how do people come to know? Two opposing positions on the origins of knowl- edge-empiricism and rationalism- have existed for centuries and are still evident, to varying degrees, in the learning theories of today. A brief description of these views is included here as a background for comparing the "modem" learning viewpoints of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Empiricism is the view that expe- rience is the primary soUl'ceofknowl- edge (Schunk, 1991). That is, organ- isms are born with basically no knowledge and anything learned is gained through interactions and as- sociations with the environment. Beginning with Aristotle (884322 54 occurrence of proper associations. Rationalism is the view that knowledge derives from reason with out the aid of the senses (Schunk, 1991). This fundamental beliefin the distinction between mind and matter originated with Plato (e. 427-347 B.C.), and is reflected in the view- point that humans learn by recalling or "discovering" what already exists in the mind. For example, the direct experience with a tree duril:lg one's lifetime simply serves to reveal that which is already in the mind. The "real nature of the tree (greenness, woodiness, and otherchar&etemties> beeomes known, not through the ex- perience, but through a reflection on one's idea about the given instance of a tree. Although later rationalists differed on some of Plato's other ideo, the central beliefremam.ed. the Ilmle: thatknowledp arises through the mind. From this perspective, m- structional design issues focus on how best to structure new informa- tion in order to facilitate (1) theleam- m enood.ing of this new information, as well as (2) the recalling of that which is already known. The empiricist, or associationist, mindset provided the framework for many learning theories during the first half of thiIB century. and it was against this background that behav- iorism became the leading psycho-- logical viewpoin.t (Schunk, 1991). Because behaviorism was dominant when instructional theory wu initi- ated (around 1950), the instructional design. (ID) technology that arose alongside it was naturaDy influenced by many or its basic assumptions and characteristics. Since ID has its roots in behavioral theory. it seems appro- priate that we turn oW' attsntion to behaviorism first. Behaviomm Bow Behaviorism equates learning with changes in either the form or frequency of observable performance. teaming is aecompUshed when a proper response is demonstrated fol lowing the presentation of a specific environmental stimulus. For Imlple. when presented with a math flashcard showing the equation "'2 + 4 :::: 1" the learner replies with the an- swer of "S." The equation is the stimulus and the proper ruwweris the associated response. The by ele- mente are the stimulus, the response. and the association between the two. Ofprimmy ooncem is how the 8SSr ciation between the stimulW!l and :re- VOLuME 6, NUMl1ER 4/1993 IllPOnse ill made, strengthened, and maintained. Behmorismfocu.seson the impor- tance of the consequences of those performances and contends that reo IPO:nses that are fonowed by rein- forcement are more likely to recur in the future. No attempt is made to determine the stru.ctu.re ofa student's knowledge nor to assess which men- tal processes it ia necessary for them to use (Winn, 1990). The learner is characterized as being reactive to conditions in the environment as op- posed to taking an active role in dis- covering the en.vironment. Which facton mtluu.ee leanWlg? Although both learner and envi- ronmental factors are considered im- portant by behaviorists, environmen- tal conditions receive the greatest emphasis. Behaviorists assess the learners to determine at what point to begin instruction as well as to de- termine which reinforcers are most effective for a particular student. The most critical factor, however, is the arrangement of stimuli and conse- quences within the environment. What is t.he role of memory? Memory, as oommonly defined by the layman, is not typicaJ1y addressed by behaviorists. Although the acquisi- tion of "habits" is discussed, little at- tention is given as to how these habits are stored or rsca1led for future use. Forgetting is attributed to the "nonuse" of a response over time. The Wile of periodic practice or review serves to maintain a leamer's readi- ness to respond (Schunk, 1991). Bow dou occur? Tnmsf'er refers to the application ofleamed knowledge in new ways or 55 behaviorism is derived from empiricism, a focus on knowledge derived from environment situations, as well as to how prior learning affects new learning. In be- havioralleamingtheories, transferia a result of generalization. Situationa involving identical or similar fea- tures allow behaviors to transfer across common elements. For ex- ample, the student who has leamed to recognize and classify elm trees demonstrates transfer when (8)he classifies maple trees using the same process. The similarities between the elm and maple trees allow the leamer to apply the previous elm tree classi- fication learning experience to the maple tree classification task. What t:ypM of ieam.ml ue but expJamed by this position? Behaviorists attempt to prescribe strategies that are most useful for building and strengthening stimu- lus-response associations (Winn, 1990), including the use of instruc- tional cues, practice, and reinforce- ment. These prescriptions have gen- erally been proven reliable and effec- tive in facilitating learning that in- volves discriminations (recalling facts), generalizations (defining and illustrating concepts), associations (applying explanations). and chaining (automatically performing a specified. procedure). However, it is generally agreed that behavioral principles can- not adequately explain the acquisition of higher level skills or those that r& quire a greater depth of processing (e.g., language development, problem solving, inference generating, critical thinking) (Schunk, 1991). What basic auumptiou I prmcipiea of thh!I theory U'e relevant to iutmetionai design? Many of the basic assumptions and characteristics of behaviorism 56 ate embedded in CW'T8nt. instruc- tional deIrip practices. Beha:riorism was used as the basis for ~ many of the early audio-visual mate m rials and gave rise to many related teaching strategies, such as Skinners teachin.g machines Imd programmed texts. More :recent ex- amples include principles utilized within computer-asaistedinstruction (CAl) and mastery leammg. Specific assumptions or principles that have direct relevance to inst;ruc.. tional design include the following (possible current ID applications are listed in brackets [] fonowing the listed principle): .. 1m. emphasis on producing ob- servable and measurable out;.. comes in students [behavioral objectives, task analysis, crite- rion-referenced assessment] (9 Pre-assessment ofstudents to de termine where instruction should begin [learner analysis] lIP Emphasis on mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of performance [sequencing of iMtructional pI'&- sentation, mastery learning] Use of reinforcement to impact performance {tangible rewards, informative feedback] Use of cues, shaping and practice to ensure a strong stimulut-re- aponas auociation [simple to complex sequencing of practice. use of prompts] Bow d iutnlciion be ~ ? The goal ofinatruction for the be- haviorist is to elicit the desired re- sponse from the learner who is pre- sented with a target stim:w.u. To aecomplish this, the learner must knoW' hoW' to execute the proper re- spmwEI. u well u the conditions un- der wbicb that response should be made. Therefore, instrudion is structured around the presentation oCtile target stimulus Md the provi- sion ofoppommitiesfortheleamel'to practice making the proper re- sponse. To facilitate the linking of stimu.lus-response pairs, in- struction frequently uses cues (to initiaUy prompt the delivery of the re- manager have the capability to make the correct response. However. with the repeated presentation of cues (e.g . completed templates of past agendas. bltmk templates ammgen in standard format) paired with the verbal command stimulus, the man- ager begins to make the appropriate responses. Although the initial re- aponsesmaynot be in the final proper form, repeated practice and rein-
is correctly sponss) and reinforce ment (to strengthen correct re- sponding in the presence of the target stimulus). Behav- ioral theo- ries imply Cognitive theone, emphmriu mriking kMwledge meonillKfu,1 and kelpin.g learM'I"$ orgell;'. and relate new
knowledge ill memory. executed. Finally, learning is demon- strated when, upon the com- mand to for- mat a meet- ing agenda, the manager that tb.ejob oftha teacher/desiper is to (1) determine which cues can elicit the desired responses; (2) liIl'l'ange practice situations in which prompts are paired with the target stimuli that imtially have no eliciting power but which will be expected toelicitthe responses in the "natmal" (perfor- mance) setting; and (3) arrange envi- ronmental conditions so that stu- dents can make the correcl'. responses in thepresence of those target stimuli and receive reinforcement Cor those responses (Gropper, 1987). For example, a newly-hired mIll- apr of human resources may be ex- pected to organize a meeting agenda according to the company's specific format. The target stimulus (the ver- bal command "to format a meeting agenda") does not initially elicit the correct response nor does the new . VOLUME 6, NUMER 4/1993 reliably or- ganizes the agenda according to com- pany standards and does so without the use of previous examples or mod- els. Copitivism In the late 1950's, learning theory began to make a shift; away from the use of behavioral models to an ap- proach that relied on leaming theo- ries and mode1s from. the cognitive sciences. Psychologists and educa- tors began to de-emphasize a concern with overt, observable behavior and stressed instead more complex cogni- tive processes such as thinking, prob- lem solving, language, concept for- mation and information processing (Snelbecker,1983). Within the past decade, a number of authors in the field of instructional design have openly and consciously rejecteti many of ID's traditional behavioristic u- sumptions in favor of a new set of psychological assumptions about learning drawn &om the cognitive sciences. Whether viewed as an open revolution or simply a gradual evolu- tionary process, there seems to bethe general acknowledgment that cogni- tive theory has moved to the forefront of current learning theories (Bednar et al., 1991). This shift 1981). with chanps betwMn statM of knowledge rather than with ehanps in the probabilityofll:elPOMe. Copitive theories focus on the conceptlltaiir.ation of students' 'leam- theiuuesof how information is received, orp.- nized. stoNd, and retrieved by the mind. Leaming is concerned not so much with what learn- from a be- havioral ori- entation (where the emphasis is on promot- ing a student's overt perfor- mance by the manipu. lation of stimulus material) to a cognitive orientation (where the emphasis is on promot- CopUive tleorie. litre. II the acqug'tlon of knowledge aad intemol ers do but with what they know and how they come to acquire it (Jonassen, 1991b). Knowledge acquisition is described liS a mental activity that entails nal coding and struc 1MB'"' .,""cturelJ; they focu,fJ on the
.tudents'learning P"I"OOeIJlJe. and a.ild.rea tIw iaue, ofhow in{ornudltm is received, orgtm&ed, Btored, and by the mind. turing by the leamer. The ing mental processing) has created a similar shift. from procedures for manipulat- ing the materials to be presented by an instructional system to proce- dures for direeting student process- ing and intemetion with the instroc- tional design system (Merrill, Kowalis, " Wilson, 1981).
Cognitive theories stress the ac- quisition of knowledge and internal mental stmctures and, as such, are closer to the rationalist end of the epistemology continu.um (Bower " 58 learner is viewed liS a very active participant in the learning process. WhlohfMton
Cognitivism, lib behaviorilm. em- phasizes the role that conditions play in faci]jtatingleaming. mstru.ctional explanations. strations. illustmtive examples and matched non-aamples are an OOMid- ered to be inmumental m guiding stu- dent lea:mmg. Similarly, empbam is placed on the:role ofpractice with cor- rectivefeedback. Up totbis point, little dift'enmce can be dei;ecl;ed between thee two theories. However. the 41ae- tive" uture of the leuneris perceived quite differently. The cognitive 8.p- proachfocuses on the mental activities ofthelearnertMtleaduptoarespoW!le and aclmowledps the processes of mental plmming. and pnizationai strategies (Shull. 1986). Cognitive theories contend that envi- ronmental 4Ieueslt and instructional components alone cannot accwn.t for aU the learning that :results from an iMt:rnctional situation. Additional key elements include the way that learners attend to, code. transform, :rehearse, store and retrieve informa- tion. Learners' thoughts, beliefs, atti- tudes. and values are also considered tobemfiuentialintheleamingp:rocess (winne, 1985). The real fOCl.lB of the cognitive app:roac.h is on changing the byencourcging him I her to use appropMte learning stmtegies. What Us the role of memory? As indicated above, memory is liven a prominent role in the lear:ning procesa. Leamingresults when infor- mationis stored in m.emory in an Dized. Teacheml designers are responsible for usisting lea:mers in organizing that informa- tion in some optimal way. Designers use techniques such as advance orga- nizers, analogies, hierarchical rem D tionships, and matrices to help learn- ers relate new information to prior knowledge. Forgetting is the inability to :retrieve information from memory because of interi'erenee. memory loss, 01' missing or madequate cues needed to access information.
According to cognitive theories, transfer is a function of how infol'1.'l18- . VOLUME 6, NUMBEl4./1993 tiOD. is stored in memory (Schunk, 1991). When a learner undel'Stlmds how to apply knowledge in different contexts, then transfer has occurred. Understanding is seen as being com- posed of a lmowledgebase in the form of rules, concepts, and discrimina- tions (Duffy & Jonassen,l99!). Prior knowledgeia used to establish bound- ary constraints for identifying the Bimilinities and differences of novel information. Not only must the mowledge itselfbe stored in memory but the uses of that knowledge as well. Specific instructional or real- world events will. trigger particular responses, but the learner must be- lieve that the knowledge is useful in a given situation before he will activate it. What are best hJ thlI poRtion? Because of the emphasis on men- tal strnctures, cognitive theories are UBually considered more appropriate for explaining complex forms of learning (reasoning, problem-sol v- mg, information-processing)thanare those of a more behavioral perspec- tive (Schunk. 1991). However, it is important to indicate at this point that the actual goal ofinst:ruction for both of these viewpoints is often the same: to communicate or transfer knowledge tothe students in the most effi.ci.ent. effective manner possible {Bednar et al . 1991). Twoteclmiques used by both camps in achieving this effectiveD.eas and efficiency of know 1- edge transfer are simplification and standardization. That is, knowledge can be analyzed, decomposed, and simplified into basic building blocks. KnOWledge transfer is expedited if irrelevant information is eliminated. For e:mmple, trainees attending a 59 workshop on effective management skills would be presented 'With :Infor. mation that is "sized" and "chmlked" in such a way that they can aumu- late and/or accommodate the new in- formation as quickly and as easily as possible. Behaviorists would focuson the design of the environment toopti- mize that transfer, while cognitivists would stress efficient processing strategies. What basic unmptiou /prin_ ciples of thla theol')' an NI- eVmlt to atru.dicm.al Many of the instructional strat& gies advocated and utilized by cognitivists are also emphasized by behaviorists, yet usually for different reasons. An obvious commonality is the use of feedback. A behaviorist uses feedback (reinforcement) to modify behavior in the desired direc- tion. while cognitivists make use of feedback (knowledge of results) to guide and support aOOW'ate mental connections (Thompson. Simonson. & Hargrave. 1992). Leamer and task analyses are also critical to both cognitivists and behaviorists, but once again. for dif- ferent reasons. Cognitivists look at the learner to determine hislher pre- disposition to learning, (i.e., How does the learner activate, maintain, anddirecthlslher leanrlng?) (Thomp- son at at, 1992). Additionally. cognitivists examine the leamer to determine how to design instruction so that it can be readily assimilated (i.e., What are the leamer's existing mental structures?). In contrast, the behaviorists look. at learners to deter mine where the lesson should begin ( i.e., At what level are they currently performing successfully?) and which :reinforcers should be most effective 60 (i.e., What ccmsequeneu are moat desired by the learner?). Specific assumptioWl or principles that have direct relevance to tional design include the following (possible current m applications are listed in brackets [] fonowing the listed principle); 9 Emphasis on the active involve- ment of the learner in the leam a ing process [leamer control, metacognitive traiWng(e.g., self- plmming, and revis- ing teclmiques)] 411 Use of hlemrehical analyses to identify and illustrate prerequi- site relationships [cognitive task analysis procedures] III Emphasis on structuring. orga- nizing, and sequencing informa- tion to facilitate optimal proceu- ing [use of cognitive strategies such as outlining. summaries, synthesizers t advance organiz w ers, etc.l $ Creation of leaming environ ments that allow and encourage students to make connections with previously learned material [recall of prerequmte skills; use of relevant examples. analogies] Bow mould 'be
Behavioral theories imply that teachers ought to arrange environ- mental conditions 10 that students reBpond properly to presented stimuli. Cognitive theories empha D size making knowledge m.emingful and. helping learners organize and :relate new information to eDsting knowledge in memory. Instruction must be based on a studemts msting mental structures. or schema, to be effective. It should organize inform&.- tion in such a manner that learners are able to oonned; new information with existing knowledge in some meaningful way. Analogies and metaphors are examples of this type of cognitive strategy. For eumple, inatmetional design textbooks fre quanay draw an analogy between the familiar architect's profUsion and the unfamiUar instruetio'Ml design profMlion to help the novice learner conceptualize, organize and retain the major auimilated and/or accommodated within the leamer's cognitive struc- ture (Stepich & Newby. 1988). Conmderthe fonowing example of a leaming situation utilizing a cogni- tive approach: A manager in the training departm.ent of a large corpo- ration had been asked to teach a new intern to complete a cost-benefit analysis for an upcoming develop- ment project. In this ease, it is as- sumed that the intern bas no pl'evi- ous experi- duties and functions of an instruc- tional de- signer (e.g., Reigeluth, 1983, p. 7). Other cogni- tive strate- gies may in- clude the use of framing, outlining. mnemonics, concept mapping, advance 01'- Although the emphui8 on end imtruetion htH proven effective in teeching beMic .killEl in relatively BtrI.u!tured knowledge domai'lU, mueh of what needs to be learned involves advanced luaowledee in ill .. .tructured domai:M. ence with cost-benefit analysis in a business setting. However, by relating this new task to highly simi- lar proce- dures with which the intern bas had more ex- perience. the manager ganizers and 1110 forth (West. Farmer, & Wolft'. 1991). Such cognitive emphases imply that taw of the teacher/de- signer include (1) undentandi,ng that individuals b:ring vari01.US leam- ing experiences to the teaming situa- tion which can impact learning auto comes; (2) determining the moat ef- fective manner in which to organize and structure new information to tap the learners' previously acquired knowledge. abilities. and experi- ences; and (3) IU'l"aDging practice with feedback 10 that the new infor- mation is effectively and efficiently VOLUME 6, NtJMIBR 4/1993 can facili- tate a smooth and efficient assimilation of this new procedure into memory. These familiar procedures may in- clude the process by which the indi- vidual allocates his monthly pay- check, bow (e)he makes a huy/noobuy decision Ngarding the purchase of a 1'I.'IXID'Y item" or even how one's week- end spending activities might be de- termined and prioritized. The proce- dures for such activities may not ex- actly match those of the cost..benefi.t analysis, but the si:milarlty between the activities allows for the unfamil. iar information to be put within a familiaroontext. ThUll processingre- 61 quirements are reduced and the p0- tential effectiveness of recaD cues is increased. Coutmctinsm The philosophical assumptions underlying both the behavioral and cognitive theories are primarily ob- jectivistic; that is: the world is real, external to the leamer. The goal of instruction is to map the structure of the world onto the leamel' (Jonassen, 1991b). A Bow dOH leam.m, o ~ is a theory that equatesleamingwithcreatingmeu- ing from experience (Bednar et aI., 1991). Eventhoughconstruetivismis considered to be a branch of cognitivism (both conceive of learn- ing as a mental activity), it distin guishes itself from traditional cogni- tive theories in a number of ways. Most cognitive psychologists think of the mind as a referencetool tub real world; number of contempo- rary cogni* tive theo- rists have begun to question this basic objectivis- tic assump- tion and are start- ingtoadopt a more con- structivist approach to AB one 1IWve" aJong the behavwmt......."opitivi.t- COMtnwti.vuf continuum, the foeus ofin"traction shills from teach;;"g to !eami:nll, from the passive ~ believe that the mind fil- ters input from the world to pr0- duce its own unique reality (Jonassen, 1991a). Lib with t.be ra- tionalists of Plato's time. the mind is transfer of foc'ltl aM routi.nes to the active application of i.deo.s to problems .. learning and understanding: knowledge "is a function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her own experiences" (p.lO). Constructivism is not a totally new approach to learning. Like most other learning theo- ries, constructivism has multiple roots in the philosophical and pay. chological viewpoints of this century, specifically in the works of Piaget. Bruner, and Goodman (Perkins, IS9l). In recent years, however. con- structivism has become a "hot" issue as it has begun to receive increased attention in a number of different disciplines, including instructional design (Bednar at al., 1991). 62 believed to be the source of all meaning, yet like the empiricists, individual, direct ex- periences with the environment are considered critical. Constructivism crosses both categories byemphasiz- ingtheinteracticm between thesetwo variables. Constructivists do not share with cognitivists and behavi.oriD the be- liefthat knowledge is mind-indepen- dent and can be "mapped onto a leamer. Constructivists do not deny the existence of the real world but contend that what we know of the world stems from ourowuinterpreta- tiona of our experiences. Humans create meaning as opposed to (6,C(Juir. me it. Since there are many possible meuinp to glean from any experi- ence, we cmmot achieve a predeter- mined, meaning. Leam.ers do not tnmsfer knowledge from the extemal world into their memories; rather they build personal interpre- tations of the world based on indi- vidual experiences and interactions. Thus, the internal representation of knowledge is constantly open to change; there is not lUl objective real ity that learners strive to know. Knowledge emerges in contexts within which it is relevant. There- fore,inordertounderstandtheleam- ins which has taken place witbin an individual, the actual experience must be examined (Bednar et at. 1991). Which faeton
Both leamer and environmental factors are critical to the constructivist, al it is the specific in- teraction between these two vari- ables that creates knowledge. Constructivists argue that behavior is situationaUy determined (JOllallHn, 1991a). Just as the learn- ing of new vocabulary words is enD banced by eJq)owre and subsequent interaction with those words in con- text (as opposed to learning tbeir meanings from a dictionary), liken wise it is essential that content knowledge be embedded in the situa- tion in which it is used. Brown. Collins, and Duguid (1989) suggest that situations actually co-produce knowledge (along with cognition) througb activity. Every action is viewed 88 "an interpretation of the cUm!!nt situation hued on an entire history of previous interactions" (Clancey. 1986). Just 8S shades of meaninp of given words are con- VOLUME 6, NUMB 4/1993 stantly changing a leamer's "cur- rent" undenta:nding of a word, so too will concepts continually evolve with each new use. For this reason, it is critical that leaming occur in realis- tic settings and that the selected. learning taW be relevant to the stu- dents' lived experience. w.bat u the 1'0118 of memory? The goal of instruction is not to ensure that individuals know partic- war facts but rather that theyelaoo. rate on and interpret information. "Understanding is developed through continued, situated use ... and does not crystallize into a categorical definition" that can be called up from memory (Brown et al., 1989, p. 33). As mentioned earlier, a concept will continue to evolve with each new use as new situations, nego- tiations, and activities recast it in a different, more densely textured form. Therefore, "memory" is always under constrocl.ion as a cumulative history of interactions. Representa- tions of experiences are not formal- ized or st:rm:tured into a single piece of declarative knowledge and then stored in the head. The em.phasis is not on retrieving intact knowledge structures, but on providing learners with the m.eans to create novel and situation-specific understandings by "assembJ.ing prior knowledge from diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand. For example, the knowledge of "design" activities has to be used by a practitioner in too many dift'erentways for them all to be anticipated in advance. Constructiv- iats empbuize the flexible use of pre- existing knowledge rather than the recall of prepackaged schemas (Spi- ro, Feltovich. Jacobson, " Coulson, 1991). Mental representations devel- 63 all this emphasis on situated, context-specific meaning is very much Gee ??? need for skill-building, differentiation, and learner- specific knowledge activation in a problem oped through task-enppment are likely to mcrease the efficiency with which subsequent tasks are per- formed to the estent that puts of the environment remain the same: "Re-- euning features of the environment may thus afford recurring sequences ofactions"(Brownetal.,p.37). Mem- ory is not a context-independent pro- cess. Clearly the focusof'constmctiviam is on creating cognitive tools which reflect the view is that always tUes placG in a oontezt and that the context forms an inexomble link with the knowledge embedded in it (Bednar !!It aI . 1991). Therefore, the goal of'instru.etion is to accurately portray tasb, not to define the Itruc- tme ofleaming required to achieve a task. Ifleaming is deoontextulized, there is little hope for transfer to occur. One does not leam to use a set of tools simply by following a list of rules. Ap- wisdom of the culture in which they are used as well as the in- sights and experiences of individu- als. There is no need for the mere ac- quisition of fixed, ab- The crilicGl quemon instructional de_lIMn mUllt uk is not "Which ;'s the bellt theory'" but "Which tluwlr,1 is the moat effective in. fOBten;"'6 mutery of specific tuis by specific leamen'" propriate and effec- tive use comes from engaging the learner in the actual use of the tools in real- world situa- tions. Thus. the ultimate stract, self-contained concepts or de- tails. To be successful, meaningful. and lasting, leaming must include aU three of these crucial factors: ac- tivity (practice), concept edge), and culture (context) (Brownet al.,1989). How does tnnder oeeur? The constructivist position as- sumes that transfer can be facilitated by involvement in authentic tasks anchored in meaningful contexts. Since understanding is "indexed" by experience (just as word meanings are tied to specific instances of use), the authenticity of the experience becomes critical to the individuafs ability to use ideas (Brown et al., 1989). An essential concept in the 64 measure of learning is based on how eft'ective the learners knowledge structure is in facilitating thinking and performing in the sys- tem in which those tools are used. What typu an bfit explaiDed by tid, The constructivist view does not accept the assumption that types of learning em be identified indepen- dent oltha content and the context of learning (Bednar et at, 1991). Constl'lletivists believe that it is im- possible to isolate units of informa- tion or divide up knowledge domains accordingto a hierarchical analysis of relationships. Although the empha- sis on performance and instruction has proven effective in teaching basic skills in relatively structured mowl- no need for content at all? this author thinks that it is all about skills because knowledge is not objective and has to be situationally constructed.. pretty bold essentials: *authentic situations (never decontextualized) *relevancy to student *clear bond between situation and knowledge *interdisciplinary, as you can't "chop up" information domains
edge dome.ms, much ofwhaineeds to be leamed involves advanced knowl- edge in ill-structured domains. Jonassen (1991a) has described three stages of knowledge acquisition (in- troductory, advanced, and expert) and argues that conatru.etive leam- ing envircmmenta are most effective for the stage of advanced. knowledge acquisition, where initial misconcep- tions and biases acquired during the introdw::tory stage can be discovered, negotiated, and if necessary, modi fied andlor removed. JonasssD agrees that introductory lm.owledge acquisition is better supported by more objectivistic approaches (be- havioral and/or cognitive) but sug- gests Ii transition to constructivistic approaches as leamers acquire more knowledpwhich provides them. with the conceptual power needed to deal with complex Maiill-structured prob- lems. What bale uwmptimulpriD- cipkil of thU theory He rel- evant to i:utnetioDal deadp? The constru.etivist designer speci- fies o n l methods and strat- egies that will assist learners in ac- tively exploring complex topics/envi- ronments and that will move them into thinking in a given content area as M expert user of that domain might think. Knowledge is not ab- stract but is linked to the context Wlder study and to the experiences that the participants bring to the con- text. As such, learners are encour- aged to construct their own under- standings and then to validate, through social negotiation, these new perspectives. Content is not pre- specified; information from mmy sources is essential. For example, a typical constructivist's goal would . VOLUME 6, NUMBml4/1993 not be to teach novice m students straight facti about instructional de- sign, but to prepare students to use ID facts as an instructional designer might u.ee them. As such. perfor- mance objectives are not related so much to the content as they are to the processes of construction. Some of the specific strategies uti- lized by COnli1tru.ctivists include situ- atingtasks in:real world contexts, USe of cognitive apprenticeships (model- ing and coaching a student toward expert performance), presentation of multiple perspectives <collaborative leaming to develop and share alter- native views), social negotiation (de- bate, discussion, evidence-giving), u.ee of examples as real "slices onife. It retlective awareness, and providing considerable guidance on the 'USe of constructive processes. The fonowing are several specific assumptions or principles from the constructivist position that have di- rect relevance for the instructional designer (possible ID applications are listed in brackets [ ] following the listed principle: e kn emphasis on the identifica- tion of the context in which the skills will be learned and subse- quently applied [anchoring leaminginmeaningfuloon"texts]. An emphasis on learner control and the capability of the learner to manipulate information [ac- tively u.eing what is learned]. The need for information to be presented in a variety of different ways [revisiting content at differ- ent times, in rearranged con- texts. for different purposes, and from different conceptual per- spectives]. Supporting the use of problem- 65 Yes!! this is a new way to think about it; construct your own meaning but then refine it by comparing it with others definitely me yes! many learners can't handle without learning skills solving skills that allow learners to go "beyond the information given." [developm, pattern-rec- ognition skills, presenting alter- nativewsys ofrep:resentingprob- lems]. It Assessment fOCWled on t.rarud'er of knowledge and skills (present- ing new problems and situations that differ from the conditions of the initial instruction]. Bow should iutrudion be m.mctured? As ons moves along the behavior- ist-cognitivist-constructivist con- tinuum, the focus of instruction shifts from teaching to learning, from the passive transfer offsets and routines to the active application of ideas to problems. Both cognitiviats and constructivists view the leamer as being actively involved. in the learn- ing process, yet the constructivists look at the leamsr as more than just an active processor of information; the learner elaborates upon and in- terprets the given information (Duffy & Jonassen. 1991). Meaning is cre- ated by the learner: leaming objec- tives are not pre-specified nor is in- struction predesigned. "The role of instruction in the constructivist view is to show students how to construct knowledge, to promote collaboration with others to show the multiple per- spectives that can be brought to bear on a particuiarproblem. and to arrive at self-chosen positions to which they can commit themselves, while realiz- ing the basis of other views with which they may disagree" (Cunningham., 1991. p. 14). Even though the emphasis is on learner construction, the instruc- tional designer/teacher's role is still critical fReigeluth, 1989). Here the 66 tub of the desjp.erare twG-fold: (1) to instruct the student on 'bow to construct meaning, as well as how to effectively monitor, evaluate, and update those constructions; and (2) to align and design u:periences for the learner so that authentic, l'elevu.t ooniut8 can be experienced. Although constructivist ap- proaches are used quite frequently in the preparation of lawyers, doctors, architects, and businessmen through the use of apprenticeships and on- the-job training, they are typically not applied in the educational arena (Resnick, 1987). If they were, how- ever, a student placed in the hands of a constructivist would likely be im- mersed. in an "apprenticeship" expe- rience. FOl'6xample, a noviceinstn1c- tiona! design student who desires to leam about needs assessment would be placed in a situation that requires BUch an assessment to be completed. Through the modeling and coaching of experts involved in authentic cases, the novice designer would ex- periencethe process embedded in the true context of an actual problem situation. Over time, several addi- tional situations would be experi- enced by the student, aU requiring similar needs assessment abilities. Each experience would serve to build. on and adapt that which bas been previously experienced and con- structed. As the student gained. more confidence and experience. (e)ha would move into a collaborative phase of leaming where diecusion becomescrucial Bytalkingwithoth- ers (peers, advanced students. pro- fessors, and designers), students be- come better able to articulate their own understandinp of the needs as- Belil8ment process. AB they uncover their naive theories, they begin to see me again build situations, help students develop skills to build understanding and evaluate their own and others' perspectives the way our grad classes are run such activities in a new light. which guides them towards conceptual reframing (learning). Students gain familiarity with analysis and action in: complex situations and conse- quently begin to expand their hori- zons: they encounter relevant boob, attend conferences and seminars, discwas issues with other students, and use their knowledge to interpret numerous situations around them (not only re- lea:m.ing pr'OCeSIlI itself is constantly ~ both in nature and diver- sity, as it progresses (Shuell, 1990>. What might be most effective for nov- ice learners encountering a complex body of knowledge for the first time, would not be effective, efficient or stimwatingfor a learner who is more fa.miliar with the content. Typically, one does not teach facts the same way that concepts or problem-solving are taught; like- lated to spe- cific design issues). Not only have the learners been in- volved in dif- ferent types of learning as they moved from being nov- ices to "bud- ding ex- perts,'" but the nature of What might be moBt effective for novice leamen encoun,teri,n,a a comples body of knowledge for the first time, would not be effective, eflkien,t 0.,. wise, one teaches dif- ferently de- pending on the profi- ciency level of the leam- ers involved. Both the in- structional strategies employed and the con- tent ad- dressed (in Btimulating for a kame,. who iB more familia,. with the con.ten.t. the lem:ning process has changed as well. Ge:n.eral DiseWMion It is apparent that students ex- posed to the three instructional ap-- preaches described in the examples above would gain differentcompeten- eiea. This leads instructom/designers to ask two significant questions: Is there a single "best" approach and is one approach more efficient than the others? Given that learning is a o m ~ plex, dl'awn-out process that seems to be strongly influenced by ooe'8 prior knowledge, perhaps the best answer to these questions is "it depends." Because learning is influenced by many facton from many sources, the VOLUM 6, NUMDU 4/1993 both depth and breadth) would very based on the level of the leaman. So how does a designerfacilltate Ii proper match between leamer, con- tent, and strategies? Consider, lint of aU, how learners' knowledge changes as they become more famil- iar with a given content. As people acquire more experience with a given content, they progress along a low-to- high knowledge continuum from 1) being able to recognize and apply the standard mies, facts, and operations of a profession (knowing what), to 2) thinking like a professional to exo trapolate from these general rules to particulu, problematic cases (know- inghow), to S)developing and. testing new forms of understanding and Be- 67 confirmation of my own prior thoughts about the role of context in determining which approach is most appropriate tions when familiar categories md ways of thinking fail (reftection-in action) (Schon, 1987). In a HMe, the points along this continuum mirror the points of the leamingtheory tinuumdescribedearlier. Depending on where the learners "sit" on the continuum in terms of the ment of their professional knowledge (knowing what VB. knowing how VB. reflectionGin-action), the most appro- priate insl:ructional approach for ad- vancing the learners' knowledge at that particular level would be the one advocated by the theory that corre- sponds to that point on the con- tinuum. That is, a behavioral ap- proach can effectively facilitate mas- tery of the content of a profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solv- ing tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situa- tions (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are espe- cially suited to dealing with ill-de M fined problems through reflection-in- action. A second consideration depends upon the requirements of the task to be learned. Based on the level of cognitive processing required, strate- gies from different theoretical per- spectives may be needed. For ex- ample, tasks requiring alowdegreeof processing (e.g., basic paired associa- tions, discriminations, rote memori- zation) seem to be facilitated by strat- egies moot frequently associated with a behavioral outlook (e.g., stimulus- response, contiguity of feedback/re- inforcement). Tasks requiring an in .. creased level of processing (e.g., clas- sifications, rule or procedural execu- tions) are primarily associated with strategies having a stronger tiveemphasis (e.g., 68 zation, analogical reuonma. algo.. ritbmie problem solving), Tub de- manding high lev. of prooeum, (e.g., heuristic problem solving, per- sonal nlecticn and monitoring of cog- nitive strategies) are frequently best learned with strategies advanced by the oonstmetivist perspective (e.g., situated learning, cognitive appren- ticeships, social negotiation). We believe that the critical que. tioninst:ructional desipersmWlt ask is not "Which is the best theory?" but -which theory is the most eft'ective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific learners?" Prior to strategy(ies) selection, consideration must be made of both the learners and the task. An attempt is made in Figure 1 to depict these two continua (learners" level of mow ledge and cog- nitive processing demands) and to illustrate the degree to which strate- gies offered by each altha theoretical perspectives appear applicable. The figure is useful in demonstrating: (a) that the strategies promoted by the different perspectives overlap in cer- tain instances (i.e., one strategy may be relevant for each of the different perspectives. given the proper amount of prior knowledge and the cor:responding amount of cognitive processing), and (b) that strategies are concentrated along different points of the continua due to the unique focus of each of the leaming. theories. This means that when inte- grating my strategies into the in- structional design process, the na- ture of the learning task (i.e., the level of cognitive processing re- quired) and the proficiency level of the learners involved must both be conJidered before selecting one proach over another. Depending on the demands of the task and where High 0 cO A C 0 iii. 0 0 ffigh Level of CopiUve bytheT.uk fisure 1. CompaND" of the inmudiooal strategies of the beMvioml, mpitWe, and cOMtrudMlt viewpoints baRd 00 the le&'lmers level of wac lmowIedp II'Id the level of cognitive Pl"oceumg requfimfi by tM wk. the leamers are in terms of the con- tent to be delivered/discovered, dif- ferent strategies based on different theories appear to be necessary. Pow- erful frameworks for instruction have been developed by designers in- spired by each of these perspectives. In fact, succ:essful instructional prac- tices have features that are sup- ported by virtually aU three perspec- tives (e.g., active participation and interaction. practice and feedback). For this reason, we have con- sciously chosen not to advocate one theory over the others, but to mess instead the usefulness of being well- versed in each. This is not to suggest that one should work without a theory, but rather that one must be able to intelligently choose, on the basis of information gathered about the learners' present level of compe- tence and the type of leaming tok, VOLuME 6, NUM"BER 4/1993 the appropriate methods for aehiev- ingoptimW inltructionaloutcomesin that situation. As stated by Smith and. Ragan (1993, p. viii): "Reasoned and vali- dated theoretical eclecticism has been a key strength of our field be- cause no single theoretical base pro- vides complete prescriptive prin- ciples for the entire design process." Some of the most crucial design tasks involve being able to decide which strategy to use, for what content, for which students. and at what point during the instruction. Knowledgeo! this sort is an example of conditional knowledge, where "thinking like" a designer becomes a neceasary compe- tency. It mould be noted however. that to be an eelectic. one :must know a lot, not a little, about the theories being combined. A thorough under- standing of the learning theories pre- 69 sented above seems to be essential for professional designers who must con- stantly make decisions for which no design model provides precise rules. Being knowledgeable about each of these theories provides designers with the flexibility needed to be spon- taneous and creative when a first attempt doesn't; work or when they find themselves limited by time, get, and/or personnel constraints. The practitioner cannot afford to ig- nore any theories that might provide practical implications. Given the myriad of potential design situations. the designer's "best" approach. may not ever be identical to any previous approach, but will truly "depend upon the context." This type of in- structional "cherry-picking" has been termed "systematic eclecticism'" and has had a great deal of support in the instructional design literature (Snelbecker, 1989). Inclosing, we would liketoexpanci on a quote by P. B. Drucker, (cited in Snelbecker, 1983): "These old centro.. versies have been phonies all along. We need the behaviorist's triad of practice/reinforcementlfeedback to enlarge learning and memory. We need purpose, decision, values, un- derstanding-the cognitive catego- ries-lest learning be mere behav- ioral activities rather than action" (p. 203). And to this we would add that we also need adaptive learners who are able to function well when optimal conditions do not exist, when situa- tions are unpredictable and task de.- mands change, when the problems are messy and and the 80 lutions depend on inventiveness, im- provisation, discussion, and social negotiation. 70 Wenneu DUftY. T. M., & Perry,J. D. (1991). Themymto practice: How do we link? In O. J. Anglin (Ea.), InBtruetional technol- ogy: Past. present, and future. Englewood, CO: Libmriea Unlimited. Bower, G. H., " Hilgard, E. B. (1981). Theories of learning (6th ed.>. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Brown, J. S CoDins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of leaming. Educctional Re- searcher, 18(1).3242. Bnmer.J. S. (1971). The proceu ofedu- cation revisited. Phi Delta KGppcm, 53,1821. Clancey, W. J. US8S). Review of Winograd aM Flores' untknttmdiNil compute1'8 OM cognition: A ftworable interpretation. (STAN..cS.87U73) Palo Alto, CA: Department of Com puter Science. Stanford University. Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing u- 86ssmente: A dialogue. EducatioiU1.l Teclmolol3l. 31(5),13-17. Duffy, '1'. M., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: Newimplicationa for instructional technology? Educa- tional Teckno/,olJy. 31(5},812. Gropper, G. L. (1987). A lesson baaed on a behaviOl'al approaen to inatruetional design. In C. M. Reigeluth (M), In structional theories in action (pp. 45- 112). Hillsdale, NJ: LaW1'ence Erlbaum Associates. Hulse,S.H.,Egeth,H., & Deese,J. (1980). The psychology of learning (5th eel.). New York: McGraw-Bill. Jo'lmaon. J. K. (1992). Advancing by de-- grees: Trends in muter'sanddoetoral programs in educational oommUl'1ica- tions and technology. Tech Trends, 31(2), 13-16. Jonusen, D. H. (1991&). Evaluating construetiviatic learning. Educa- tioiU1.l Technology, 81(9).28-33. Jonassen. D. H. (1991b). Objeetivimn va constTuct.ivism: Do we need Ii new philosophical paradigm. Educational Techno10m' &'fcrcb. cmd Deuelop- ment, 39(3), 514. J. M. (1979). Motivation and in- structionai desip: A theoretical per- spective. De- velopment. 2(4), 26-34.. Lynch, J. M. (1945). The applicability of psychological research. to education. of Ed.u.t:ational PlYChology, 48,289-296. MenilJ.. M. D., &Walia, T., & Wilson, B. G. (1981). Instructiorml design in transition. In F. B. Farley, I; N. J. GoNon (Ede.), PlYCholojJy andeduca- oon: The &tate of the union (pp. 298- 348). Berkeley: McCutchan. Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a mar- riage? Educational Techno10m'. 31(5), 18-23. Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). InstrnctioMl Design: What ill it and why is it? In C. M. Reigelutb (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbllnm AellOOiatu. Reigeluth, C. M. (1989). Educational technology at the crouroade: New min.tIs and new directions. Educa- tional Technology Baea.rch and lJe- velopment, 37(1), 6780. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Research.er, 16(9), 1320. Richey, R. D. (1986). The theoretical and coneepmal base, of instr1.wtional de- sign. New York: Nichobi. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan. ShueU, T. J. (1986). Cognitive concep- tions of learning. Reuiew of .1.lduca- tional Research. 56. 411-436. Shuell, T.J.(l990). Plw6lll0fmeaningM learning. Review of Educational Re search. 60,581-547. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1998). In- structional deaiBn. New York: Macmillan. &hon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflec- tive practitioner. Sm Francisco! Jouey-Bass. VOLuMa 6, NUIvJ.IlBR 4/1993 Sneibeeker, O. E. (1983). Learning theory, instructional theory, and PlIYchoedw:a.tional design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Snelbecker, G. E. (1989). Contrasting and complementary approaches to in structioMl design.. In C. M. Reigeluth <Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp. 321-387). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., I; Coulson. R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in illstructured domains. Educational Technol08Y. 31(5), 24-33. Stepich. D. A. t &: Newby, T. J. (1988). Analogical instruction within the in- formation processing paradigm: effec- tive means to facilitate learning. In- structional Science, 11. 129-144. Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., Hargrave, C. P. (1992). Education.a.l technoloBY: A review of the research. Washington DC: Association!o!' Edu- catioMl Communications and Tech- nology. Tyler, R. W. (l97S). How schools utilize educational researeb and develop- ment. In R. GlueI' (Eel), Research and deuelcJpment and school change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wa:rries, E. (1900). Theory and the sys- tematic design of instruction. In S. Dijbtra, B. van Bout Wolters, & P. C. van del' Sijds, {Eds.), Research on in- struction: Design and effects (pp. 1- 19). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educa- tional Technology. West, C. K.. Fanner, J. A., I; Wolff, P. M. (1991).lnstruction.a.ldesign: Implica- tions from cognitive science. Englewood CWfs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Wum., W. (1991). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional de- sign. Educatwnal Technology, 31(9), 38-40. Wiml, W. (1900). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional de- sign. Instructional Science. 19. 53-69. 71 Winne, P. H. (1985). Cognitive proc:euing in the claslll'OOm. In T.Husen 6; T.N. Postlethwaite (Eels.), The In"rM- tional Encyclopediaof'Education (Vol. 2, pp. 795-8(8). Oxford: Pergamon. PEGGY A. ERTMEBhuaMuters Degree in Special Education- Learning Disabilities and is cur- rently a doctoral student in In- structional Development. MotUne address: Educational Computing and Instroctional Research and Development. 1442 L E B ~ Room 3134, Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN 47907-1442. 72 'fIMOTBY J. NEQ'f hi an Auooi- ate Professor in Educational Com- puting and Instru.etiOMl Develop- ment at Purdue University. He CWTently conducts research in the areas of human motivation and in- structional strategies. Mailinead dress: Educational Computing and Instructional Development, 1442 LAEB, Room 3146. Purdue Univer- sity, West Lafayette, IN 47907- 1442.