1. Constructivism and Instructional Design Are they compatible? Summary and Presentation by Anna Ignatjeva

2. Introduction Instructional designers use various theories. Constructivism has been dominant theory of last decade. This presentation addresses the following: – Basic principles of constructivism – Implications of constructivism on instructional design

3. Constructivism-an overview Constructivists believe that learners actively create knowledge based on their own experiences, goals and beliefs. Concepts of “Teaching” and “Learning” not synonymous. Knowledge cannot be transferred but only constructed. Meaning is created by individual not imposed on individual.

4. Constructivism in video Click on the link below to learn more general information about constructivism theory in education http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00R3pOXz uk

5. Two groups of Constructivists Radical constructivists Non-radical or moderate constructivists

6. Implications for Instructional Design My research presents constructivism in terms of three major phases of instructional design Analysis Development Evaluation

7. Analysis Traditional Approach- analyze who is the learner, content and setting. Constructivist Approach- does not break environment into traditional components; no predetermined content or tasks. Constructivists analyze learning environment as whole and provide rich context to negotiate meaning.

8. Development Traditional Approach- set and achieve specific performance objectives. Constructivist Approach-no predetermined content and objectives. Constructivists concentrate on student- centered, student directed, collaborative, supported and cooperative learning.

9. Development cont There are 4 major strategies preferred by constructivists in this stage 1. Active Learning 2. Authentic Learning 3. Multiple Perspectives 4. Collaborative Learning

10. Evaluation Traditional Approach-evaluate the outcomes and results of learning. Constructivists evaluate thinking process, metacoginitive and reflective skills. Constructivist learners need to explain what they have learned and make connection to previous experiences.

11. Challenges Pre-specification of knowledge Evaluation Learner Control Underlying philosophy not a strategy

12. Solution based on Merrill’s second generation instructional design theory – Mental models are constructed by learners based on their experience – Each mental model may be different, but their structure is the same – Teaching authentic tasks in a context is desirable – But there is also need to teach abstractions that are taken out of context – Subject matter and instructional strategy are somewhat independent – But both of these can be adapted to different contexts separately, if needed – There is class content that is appropriate for all learners – When learning is active not necessarily collaborative, an individual learning is as effective – Testing can be incorporated and aligned with learning objectives – But other type of assessment is also possible (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005 p.23).

13. Technology tools Hypermedia, multimedia and Internet can allow for non-linear learning with increased learner control. Toolkits, coaching, scaffolding, role-playing games, simulations, case studies, storytelling promote active constructive learning. In the future micro worlds and virtual reality can simulate authentic learning.

14. Conclusion Constructivism can become guiding theoretical foundation of the future. Two issues to consider: – Moderate not extreme constructivism fits into instructional design framework – Many new technologies can implement and facilitate constructivist environments. Go to Journal of Educational Technology and Society online to read more http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_1/5.pdf http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_1/5.pdf

15. References Gordon, M. (2009). Toward A Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reflections on Lessons from Practice. Educational Studies, 45, 39–58. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potentials and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1),17-27. Kafai, Y., & Resnik, M (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. G. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext. In Nix, D. & Spiro, R. (Eds.), Cognition, education, multimedia, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 165-202. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe, L. P. & Gale, J. (Eds.),Constructivism in education, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3-15. Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning – Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 254–266. Kala, S. et. al (2009).et al. Electronic learning and constructivism: A model for nursing education. Nurse Education Today. Retrieved on October 12, 2009 from www.elsevier.com/nedtwww.elsevier.com/nedt

16. Questions?