You are here:

Some Thoughts About Applying Constructivist Theories of Learning to Guide Instruction
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Washington

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper addresses two issues: the basic assumptions and characteristics of constructivist theories of learning (CTL), and the circumstances under which it is appropriate or inappropriate to apply them to guide instruction. Constructivist theories of learning grew from cognitive theories which have roots in objectivism, but they reject the objectivist tradition. Objectivism is the philosophical source of behaviorism and most cognitive theories that have guided most educational practice (Winn, 1990; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). In order to answer questions that may arise around those issues, it is necessary to clarify the differences between objectivism and constructivism. Also, it is necessary to understand the differences among various schools of CTL before drawing on any of them to guide instruction. Objectivism as the Target of the

Citation

Feng, Y. (1995). Some Thoughts About Applying Constructivist Theories of Learning to Guide Instruction. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 1995--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 816-819). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 15, 2019 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991, September). Some thoughts about constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 39(9), 16-18.
  2. Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1991, May). Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 39(5), 7-12.
  3. Goodman, N. (1984). Of mind and other matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jonassen, D.H. (1991a, September). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 39(9), 28-33.
  4. Molenda, M. (1991, September). A philosophical critique of the claims of “constructivism.” Educational Technology, 39(9), 44-48.
  5. Perkins, D.N. (1991, September). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 39(9), 9-21.
  6. Reigeluth, C.M. (1991, September). Reflection on the implications of constructivism for educational technology. Educational Technology, 39(9), 34-37.
  7. Spiro, R., Feltovish, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991, September). Knowledge representation, content specification, and the development of skill in situation-specific knowledge assembly: Some constructivist issues as they relate to cognitive flexibility theory and hypertext. Educational Technology, 39(9), 22-25.
  8. Striebel, M. (1986). A critical analysis of the use of computers in education. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 34(3), 137-161.
  9. Tobias, S. (1991, September). An eclectic examination of some issues in the constructivist-ISD controversy. Educational Technology, 39(9), 41-43.
  10. Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.
  11. Winn, W.D. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional Science, 19, 53-69.
  12. Winn, W.D. (1991, September). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 39(9), 38-40.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References