Compare and Contrast Objectivist and Constructivist Technology Supported
Compare and Contrast Objectivist and Constructivist Technology Supported Learning Environments Julie Steward & Eric Reeves EDIT 730 16 October 2012
Agenda Introduction Objectivist Learning Environment Constructivist Learning Environment Summary
Introduction We compare two professional development LMEs One supports a multitude of business learning goals, including project management The other supports learning in a specific field of practice Their LMEs are strikingly different.
The Framework The learning environment The learner The teacher The learning context The learning activity The content The assessment
Objectivist Learning Environment
Objectivism Overview* 1. is a real world (RW) with entities structured according to properties and relations. 2. The RW is fully and correctly structured so it can be modeled. 3. Symbols represent and correspond to reality. 4. The mind processes symbols so that it mirrors nature (like a computer). 5. Thought is symbol-manipulation and independent of the human organism. 6. The meaning of the world exists objectively, independent of the mind; external to the knower. *Vrasidas Jonassen
The Learning Environment http: //www. wbtrain. com/
The Learner A passive recipient of information Participation is pre-specified by the learning environment The learner is “successful” when proper response is demonstrated following the presentation of specific stimulus Reinforcement will increase the likelihood of repeat behavior. Learners are assessed to determine starting point Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland Ertmer & Newby
The Teacher Believes there is one true and correct reality Transmits knowledge Provides stimulus and reinforcement Linear curriculum development model (R. W. Tyler) ◦ ◦ Identify the objectives of the instruction Select the useful learning experience Organize the learning experiences Evaluate the learning Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland Ertmer & Newby Vrasidas
The Learning Context The real world is separate from the learner and the learners experience Lessons, assignments and activities are organized by the learning environment. High degree of structure and guidance Rigorous standards ensure accountability Shaping, chaining and fading Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland Ertmer & Newby Vrasidas
The Learning Context http: //www. wbtrain. com/
The Learning Context http: //www. wbtrain. com/
The Learning Context http: //www. wbtrain. com/
The Learning Activity Highly structured Linear Observable behaviors – “knowledge checks” Consequences and reinforcement
The Learning Activity http: //www. wbtrain. com/
The Learning Activity
The Content Compliance-oriented Lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy Walsh
The Content Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Comprehension Knowledge http: //www. wbtrain. com/
The Content http: //www. wbtrain. com/
The Assessment Objective and unbiased evaluations Answers are either right or wrong Linear sequence of assessment Skill. Soft provides reinforcement when answers are correct (“That’s right!”), and allows “do-overs” when answers are wrong (“Sorry, try again. ”).
The Assessment
The Assessment
Applied to Instructional Design Content analysis Task analysis Learner analysis Performance objectives Input Goal-driven evaluation Document change in behavior Process Output Strategies Organization & sequencing Readings & assignments Vrasidas,
Summary There is a real world separate from leaner Learner is passive recipient Teacher is active transmitter Content is structured & linear Learning = change in behavior One end of a continuum
Constructivist Learning Environment
Constructivism Overview Knowledge is constructed by the learner, with learner control Learning occurs in context and is scaffolded Multiple perspectives are valid Learning is a collaborative, sociocultural process Cognitive apprenticeship/apprenticeship learning with coaching Multiple types of assessment evolve and emerge based on the process of learning Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland Duffy & Cunningham
The Learner Concepts are constructed by the ongoing experience of the learner. Emphasis is on gaining experience within a network of a Co. P, eventually adding the to the Co. P knowledge base Individual is considered part of a whole Co. P and is coached by experts The learner has multiple opportunities to interact and learn, scaffolded by activities of practice The approach to learning has multiple paths (virtual & live events, projects, research) Specifics: Healthcare providers, architects, and Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland builders.
The Teacher Co. P - can be CHD staff, industry experts, peer mentors* and more experienced members At the highest level, academics and researchers collaborate on custom studies Pebble Project Listserv, workshops, EBD checklists, and custom research associate calls Collaborative real-context activities with multiple points of assessment exist. The learner instead of the teacher decides the path Learning is metaphorically “mind as rhizome”* *Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland Dennen Duffy & Cunningham
The Learning Context Real-world experience within the culture of health care facility EBD Activity (practice), advancing concept (knowledge) and culture (context) are essential elements* Actual use of cognitive tools in real-world situations The Co. P networks knowledge across disciplines to assess and improve outcomes with EBD Knowledge outcomes vary with each learner Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland * Ertmer & Newby
Learning Context: Co. P Overview http: //www. healthdesign. org
Learning Context: encouraging EBD http: //www. healthdesign. org/clinic-design
Learning Context: LME: The Center for Health Design’s Pebble Project http: //www. healthdesign. org/pebble
The Learning Activity Projects and knowledge evolve through interaction with CHD knowledge base and Co. P network Learner’s real-world, in-progress projects are the basis for activities An EBD checklist is always available, as are cross-disciplinary experts to validate or critique a design choice
The Learning Activity http: //www. healthdesign. org/sites/default/files/pebb lebrochure_archdes_v 9 final_single 1_0. pdf
The Learning Activity http: //ripple. healthdesign. org/
The Learning Activity http: //www. healthdesign. org/clinic-design/design-process
The Learning Activity http: //www. healthdesign. org/clinic-design/design-process
The Learning Activity http: //www. healthdesign. org/sites/default/files/pebble brochure_archdes_v 9 final_single 1_0. pdf
The Content Flexible: Customized by the learner’s needs, based on chosen depth of participation Includes case studies, forums, industry guidelines, manuals, and checklists along with Co. P coaching input Context-based Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland
The Content http: //www. healthdesign. org/clinic-design/forum
The Content http: //www. healthdesign. org/edac
Content http: //www. healthcaredesignmagazine. com/conference/healthcaredesign-leading-conference-healthcare-design-planning-and-research
The Assessment The assessment depends on the learner’s goals, and can varies from peer critique to expert feedback Learner has the option to have a CHD case manager assess/critique their design No pre-determined sequence of assessment
Constructivist Checklist CHARACTERISTIC SUPPORTED Multiple perspectives X Student-directed goals X Teachers as coaches X Metacognition X Learner control X Authentic activities & contexts X Knowledge construction X Knowledge collaboration X Previous knowledge constructions X Problem solving X Consideration of errors X Exploration X Apprenticeship learning X Conceptual interrelatedness X Alternative viewpoints X Scaffolding X Authentic assessment X Primary sources of data X NOT SUPPORTED NOT OBSERVED
An n sig De aly sis Applied to Instructional Design* Evaluation *Vrasidas, p. 346
Summary Pragmatic view of Objectivism: ◦ Learners comfort zone – objective, skills-based, competency-based ◦ As close to black and white as possible ◦ Lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy Pragmatic view of Constructivism: ◦ Stretches learners with conundrums, dilemmas and questions without answers ◦ Learner can construct meaning ◦ Multiple versions of truth and knowledge can coexist ◦ Higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy Walsh (2004)
References Dabbagh, N. & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online Learning: Concepts, Strategies, and Application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Dennen, V. P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed. ), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2 nd ed. , p. 813 -828). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duffy, T. , & Cunningham D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed. ), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, New York: Simon and Schuster, 170 -198. . Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50 -72. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5 -14. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339 -362. Walsh, A. (2004). Constructivism and Objectivism: are they mutually exclusive http: //community. flexiblelearning. net. au/Teaching. Training. Learners/content/article_5233. htm
Questions?
- Slides: 48