From Anglin, G. (Ed.) (1995) Instructional Technology: Past Present and Future. (2nd ed.) Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. pp 100-112.
Theory into Practice: How Do We Link?*
Anne K. Bednar
Instructional Resources, Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Donald Cunningham
School of Education, Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
Thomas M. Duffy
Instructional Resources, Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
J. David Perry
Learning Resources, Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
INTRODUCTION
The field of instructional systems technology (IST) prides itself on being an eclectic field, Dewey' s proverbial " linking science" between theories of the behavioral and cognitive sciences and instructional practice. This view of the relationship between theory and the field of IST takes the perspective that it is appropriate to select principles and techniques from the many theoretical approaches in much the same way we might select international dishes from a smorgasbord, choosing those we like best and ending up with a meal that represents no nationality exclusively and a design technology based on no single theoretical base.
The primary strategy for providing this "link" between theory and practice has been to collect concepts and strategies suggested by the theories and make them available to the practitioners. The concepts and strategies are abstracted out of their theoretical framework, placed within a practitioner's framework, and grouped based on their relevance to a particular instructional design task (i.e., positioned in some form of a general systems model). Instructional concepts and strategies are grouped based on their relevance to the particular learning goal, category of learning, or performance objective.
An eclectic approach is clearly preferred by the field of IST Practitioners, it is argued, need the best guidance possible for their design and development efforts, and that guidance should be sought from the widest array of research and theory on human learning and cognition(Fleming & Levie, 1978). It seems unreasonable to presume that each individual could continually maintain an awareness of all of the research(empirical and theoretical) that is potentially relevant and synthesize that research to arrive at its practical implications. Thus, abstracting the techniques from the theories is a practical mechanism for providing the guidance that practitioners require. While one might be concerned with mixing techniques from different theoretical perspectives, advocates of this strategy simply point to the fact that the instructional mods derived from one learning theory are often very similar to those derived from another learning theory even when the theoretical explanations of those moves may differ (Bonner, 1988; Fleming & Levie, 1978; and Reigeluth,1987). The techniques that lead to instruction seem separable from their theoretical framework.
The field of instructional systems technology currently draws principles of instructional design and development from empirical studies conducted within the traditions of a variety of paradigms and disciplines: behavioral learning theory, cybernetics, information processing, cognitive theory, media design/production, adult learning, systems theory, and so forth. As we acquire more and more tools with which to work, interesting mixtures of theories and practice emerge. A striking example is Keller's (1987) ARC theory, which draws on theories based on a premise of free will as well as behavioral theories based on the premise of determinism. However, even more unified approaches, such as elaboration theory (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983), reflect this eclecticism in that while they may draw from theories that share common epistemological assumptions, they borrow also from the wide array of alternative, and sometimes significantly different, theoretical representations.
Until recently the field of IST has tended to rely for a theory of learning most heavily on the field of behavioral learning theory. The overwhelming focus of IST on behavioral learning outcomes and on the design of maximally effective and efficient learning environments is incontrovertible evidence of this influence. But as cognitive theory has moved to the forefront of learning theories, the question arises more frequently of whether and how instructional systems designers can add to their arsenal of concepts and strategies by integrating the ideas basic to current cognitive theory into professional practice (Bonner, 1988; DiVesta & Rieber, 1987; Gagne & Dick, 1983; and Low, 1981). The perspectives expressed so far on this question suggest that theories and research on cognitive information processing (currently the most popular version of cognitive psychology),while not currently included as part of instructional design models, could be incorporated into those existing systems to improve their effectiveness. And so instructional designers are encouraged to learn techniques of protocol analysis and knowledge representation, to examine the literatures on expert/novice problem solving, metacognition, imagery processes, etc., as they consider instructional problems within the context of a traditional instructional design model.
In this chapter we challenge the concept that the eclectic nature of the field of IST is necessarily a strength. We illustrate our argument by reference to the implications of various versions of cognitive science for the field of IST, but also emphasize that our argument applies to theories of all varieties which have been assumed to inform instructional design and development.
In brief, abstracting concepts and strategies from the theoretical position that spawned them strips them of their meaning. Theoretical concepts emerge in the context of certain epistemological assumptions that underlie the theory. To use a concept such as knowledge of results apart from the assumption that learning is the strengthening of S-R bonds strips the concept of its fundamental basis. We propose that:
Instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of learning and/or cognition; effective design is possible only if the developer has reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design.
In other words, effective instructional design emerges from the deliberate application of some particular theory of learning. While we certainly have our preferences for some theories as opposed to others, in this chapter we simply promote the idea that developers need to be aware of their personal beliefs about the nature of learning and select concepts and strategies from those theories that are consistent with those beliefs.
We begin by presenting the basic characteristics of the information processing and constructivist viewpoints within cognitive psychology. We then contrast the implications of these views for instruction and the instructional design process. Finally, we reflect on the implications of the discussion for the future directions of the field. In general, our conclusion is that our instructional methods and our methods of analysis reflect a theory of learning and, more fundamentally, an epistemology. The theory and methods simply cannot be separated. The epistemology gives meaning to the methods both globally and in any detailed implementation:
THECOGNITIVE SCIENCES
There are many approaches to the study of cognition; we limit our discussion to two general ones: traditional (often referred to as the Turing, symbol manipulation, or information processing view) and constructivist (experiential, semiotic, etc.).
TraditionalCognitive Science
Howard Gardner (1987, p. 6) defines cognitive science as "a contemporary, empirically based effort to answer long-standing epistemological questions - particularly those concerned with the nature of knowledge, its components, its sources, its development, and its deployment." Gardner lists five features generally associated with cognitive science, three of which are relevant to our purposes here. First, cognitive science is explicitly multidisciplinary, drawing especially upon the disciplines of psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. Second, a central issue for this discipline is cognitive representation, its form, structure, and embodiment at various levels (neurological, linguistic, sociological, etc.). And third is the faith that the electronic computer will prove central to the solution of problems of cognitive science, both in the conduct of research to investigate various cognitive representations and in providing viable models of the thought process itself.
While certainly interdisciplinary, it should be obvious that cognitive science as described above is unanimous in its agreement on certain fundamental assumptions underlying the discipline. We would argue that in spite of the many differences, this version of cognitive science shares many of these assumptions with behaviorism, making its uneasy alliance as a linking science for IST possible. The most crucial of these fundamental assumptions is labeled objectivism by George Lakoff(1987).
Objectivism is a view of the nature of knowledge and what it means to know something. In this view, the mind is an instantiation of a computer, manipulating symbols in the same way (or analogously, at least) as a computer. These symbols acquire meaning when an external and independent reality is "mapped" onto them in our interactions in the world. Knowledge, therefore, is some entity existing independent of the mind of individuals, and is transferred "inside." Cognition is the rule-based manipulation of these symbols via processes that will be ultimately describable through the language of mathematics and/or logic. Thus, this school of thought believes that the external world is mind independent (i.e., the same for everyone) and we can say things about it that are objectively, absolutely, and unconditionally true or false. Of course, since we are human, we are subject to error (illusion, errors of perception, errors of judgment, emotions, and personal and cultural biases). These subjective judgments can be avoided, however, if we rely on the methodologies of science and logical reasoning. The use of these will allow us to rise above such limitations so that we will eventually be able to achieve understanding from a universally valid and unbiased point of view. Science can ultimately give a correct, definitive, and general account of reality, and, through its methodology, it is progressing toward that goal. Objectivity is a goal we must constantly strive toward.
Consistent with this view of knowledge, the goal of instruction, from both the behavioral and cognitive information processing perspectives, is to communicate or transfer knowledge to learners in the most efficient, effective manner possible. Knowledge can be completely characterized using the techniques of semantic analysis (or its second cousin, task analysis).One key to efficiency and effectiveness is simplification and regularization: thought is atomistic in that it can be completely broken down into simple building blocks, which form the basis for instruction. Thus, this transfer of knowledge is most efficient if the excess baggage of irrelevant content and context can be eliminated.
Because behaviorism and cognitive information processing share this objectivist epistemology, they can and should both be the source of insights for those in the field of IST who share this assumption. Behaviorist applications will focus on the design of learning environments that optimize knowledge transfer, while cognitive information processing stresses efficient processing strategies.
In a process somewhat akin to religious conversion, we have come to question objectivist epistemology. We have adopted what we will call a constructivist view and have begun to explore the implications of such a view for the field of IST. While we are still in the early stages in this process, one thing is very clear: constructivism is completely incompatible with objectivism. We cannot simply add constructivist theory to our smorgasbord of behaviorism and cognitive information processing.
Constructivist Cognitive Science
The constructivist view of cognition is not new, but it is receiving increasing attention because of an amazing convergence of disciplines that are coming to recognize it: connectionist approaches to cognitive science (Rummelhart & McClelland, 1986), semiotics (Cunningham, 1987), experientialism (Lakoff, 1987), intertextuality (Morgan, 1985), relativism (Perry, 1970), etc.
In this view, learning is a constructive process in which the learner is building an internal representation of knowledge, a personal interpretation of experience. This representation is constantly open to change, its structure and linkages forming the foundation to which other knowledge structures are appended. Learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of experience. This view of knowledge does not necessarily deny the existence of the real world, and agrees that reality places constraints on the concepts that are knowable, but contends that all we know of the world are human interpretations of our experience of the world. Conceptual growth comes from the sharing of multiple perspectives and the simultaneous changing of our internal representations in response to those perspectives as well as through cumulative experience.
Consistent with this view of knowledge, learning must be situated in a rich context, reflective of real world contexts, for this constructive process to occur and transfer to environments beyond the school or trainingclassroom. Learning through cognitive apprenticeship,
reflecting the collaboration of real world problem solving, and using thetools available in problem solving situations are key (Brown, Collins, &Duguid, 1989a; 1989b). How effective or instrumental the learner's knowledge structure is in facilitating thinking in the content field is the measure of learning.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN PROCESS
Traditional behavioral theory and cognitive science contrast dramatically to the constructivist theories in terms of the underlying epistemological assumptions. As should be clear from the discussion thus far, these epistemological differences have significant consequences for our goals and strategies in the instructional design process. The objectivist approach to instructional design is well documented, and we will not dwell on it here. The interested reader may see Dick and Carey (1985), Gagne and Briggs (1979), and Romiszowski (1981) for views of instructional design which emerge from the behaviorist tradition. The cognitive objectivist view is perhaps best described in Polson and Richardson (1988), Mumaw and Means (1988), Schlager, Means, and Roth(1988), and Lesgold, LaJoie, Bunzo, and Eggan (1991).
We focus here on the implications for instructional design derived from a constructivist view. The view of learning as a constructive process has wide-ranging implications for virtually all aspects of the design process: the concept of the learning objective; the specification of goals outcomes; and methodologies for analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Indeed, it even calls into question the traditional separation of method from content.
Analysis
In the traditional approach to instructional design, the developer analyzes the conditions that bear on the instructional system, such as content and the learner, in preparation for the specification of intended learning outcomes.
Analysis of Content
The traditional approach to content analysis has two goals. First is the attempt to simplify and regularize, or systematize, the components to be learned, to translate them into process or method. This is done by identifying content components and classifying the components based on the nature of the content and the goals of the learner. For example, one system would see components as facts, principles, concepts, and procedures, while the goals would be to remember, use, or find. Second, the analysis specifies prerequisite learning. In essence the analysis pre-specifies all of the relevant content and the logical dependencies between the components of the content.
The constructivist view is very different. Since the learner must construct an understanding or viewpoint, the content cannot be pre-specified. Indeed, while a core knowledge domain may be specified, the student is encouraged to search for other relevant knowledge domains that may be relevant to the issue. It is clear that knowledge domains are not readily separated in the world; information from many sources bears on the analysis of any issue. Further, it is often the case that the most successful individual in non-school related environments is the one who can bring a new perspective, new data, to bear on an issue. We must encourage students also to seek new points of view, to consider alternative data sources. Please note that we are not arguing that there can be no specification of relevant domains of information. We can and must define a central or core body of information; we simply cannot define the boundaries of what may be relevant (Lakoff, 1987; Wittgenstein, 1953). Indeed, we would argue strenuously that the traditional segregation of knowledge domains contributes to the development of much " inert" knowledge. Students simply do not see the use of information outside of the traditional limits of the domain or the setting in which it was learned (e.g., school).
The constructivist view also does not accept the assumption that types of learning can be identified independent of the content and the context of learning. Indeed, from a constructivist viewpoint it is not possible to isolate units of information or make a priori assumptions of how the information will be used. Facts are not simply facts to be remembered in isolation. Surely there is no reason to learn a fact by itself. Instead of dividing up the knowledge domain based on a logical analysis of dependencies, the constructivist view turns toward a consideration of what real people in a particular knowledge domain and real life context typically do (Resnick, 1987; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989a). The overarching goal of such an approach is to move the learner into thinking in the knowledge domain as an expert user of that domain might think. Hence, designers operating under these assumptions must identify the variety of expert users and the tasks they do. For example, our goal should not be to teach students geography principles or geography facts, but to teach students to use the domain of geographic information as a geographer, navigator, cartographer, etc., might do.
Of course, we may not be able to start the student with an authentic task. In some way, we must simplify the task while still maintaining the essence. Reigeluth and Stein's (1983) notion of an epitome seems to fit well here as a means of task definition. However, and most important, the goal is to portray tasks, not to define the structure of learning required to achieve a task. Just as the cartographer or geographer must bring new perspectives to bear and construct a particular understanding or an interpretation of a situation, so too must the student. And just as different geographers identify different relevant information and come to different conclusions, so too must we leave the identification of relevant information and "correct" solutions open in the instructional situation. It is the process of constructing a perspective or understanding that is essential to learning; no meaningful construction (nor authentic activity) is possible if all relevant information is pre-specified.
Analysis of Learners
When designing instructional systems from a traditional instructional design perspective, the "learner" is most often the pool of learners, the average conditions, and range under which the system must function. Certainly some adaptive models for instructional design measure individual progress toward learning goals as part of the system; however, those models are not the norm in instructional design. Further, even in adaptive models there is a concept of the general learner that guides the original design of the materials. Then the placement of individuals within the materials is accomplished through pretest.
The constructivist approach will also identify the skills of the learner. However, just as we did not identify content units in the domain, we also do not seek a detailed accounting of deficiencies. The focus is on skills of reflexivity, not remembering. Traditional approaches to learning skills stress the efficient processing of information: the accurate storage and retrieval of externally defined information. Constructivists focus on the process of knowledge construction and the development of reflexive awareness of that process: the possibility of alternative sign systems, the imaginative (e.g., metaphorical) aspects of much of our knowledge, the development of self-conscious manipulation of the constructive process, etc. Since every learner will have a unique perspective entering the learning experience and leaving the experience, the concept of global learner is not part of the constructivist perspective.
Specification of Objectives
In the traditional instructional design approach, the product of the analysis phase is the specification of intended learning outcomes. Throughout the analysis phase the developer classifies the characteristics of the content and learner so as to facilitate their translation in the synthesis phase to instructional method. The categories used by the developer are applied across contents, regardless of the nature of the domain. Similarly, in the synthesis phase the instructional processor methods which are drawn from to comprise the design are considered applicable across domains.
From the constructivist perspective, every field has its unique ways of knowing, and the function of analysis is to try to characterize this. If the field is history, for example, we are trying to discover ways that historians think about their world and provide means to promote such thinking in the learner. Our goal is to teach how to think like a historian, not to teach any particular version of history. Thus constructivists do not have learning and performance objectives that are internal to the content domain(e.g., apply the principle), but rather we search for authentic tasks and let the more specific objectives emerge and be realized as they are appropriate to the individual learner in solving the real world task.
Synthesis
Traditionally, the design (or synthesis) phase of the instructional design process applies principles derived from psychology and media research to design an instructional sequence (macro level) and message (micro level), which are optimal treatments to achieve a specified performance objective. The design principles are considered to be generally applicable across content and across context. The sequence of instruction is specified based on logical dependencies in the knowledge domain and on the hierarchy of learning objectives.
Examined from a perspective which views knowing as a constructive process, these design principles are called into question. Indeed, the approach is simply antithetical to the constructivist viewpoint. What is central, in our view, is the development of learning environments that encourage construction of understanding from multiple perspectives. "Effective" sequencing of the information or rigorous external control of instructional events simply precludes that constructive activity. Also precluded is the possibility of developing alternative perspectives, since the relevant information and the proper conclusion are predefined in traditional instruction.
In the same way that macro design strategies are inappropriate, so too are design strategies at the micro level. For example, it is inappropriate to control or focus the attention of the learner in a manner distinct from a real-world context. Instead, the instruction is based on techniques drawn from the constructivist's epistemological assumptions and which are consistent with that theory of learning, e.g., situating cognition in real world contexts, teaching through cognitive apprenticeship, and construction of multiple perspectives.
Situating Cognition
There is a need for the learning experience to be situated in real world contexts (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989a;Resnick,1987; and Rogoff & Lave,1984). By "real world contexts" we mean that:
A related issue is the tendency in traditional instructional design to separate the content from the use of the content. Hence we learn about something so that we can use that knowledge later. We believe, however, that the learning of content must be embedded in the use of that content. Sticht and Hickey (1988) have nicely demonstrated this approach in their design of basic electricity training. The traditional approach to this particular course was to prepare an electricity curriculum based on an analysis of the facts, procedures, concepts, and procedures in the knowledge domain and taught in a traditional textbook fashion. Once this was learned, the thinking went, the students could go off to their particular specialties and apply the knowledge. This approach was taken by numerous experts in instructional design, in numerous revisions of this particular course.
Sticht and Hickey (1988), in contrast, focused on the functional context of the electricity knowledge. They identified authentic tasks and provided instruction in the context of those tasks. For example, students were asked to diagnose why a flashlight would not light. Then the class discussed how the various diagnoses might be represented in an overall picture (i.e., a functional analysis). From context to context, they moved the students to more complex and less familiar systems, but always maintaining the functional context of the task. In a similar fashion, adult reading instruction has always been seen as a skill one acquires before using it. Thus, the reading curriculum for a job precedes job training and the content of that reading curriculum is seen as independent of the use of reading on the job. Duffy (1985; 1990), Sticht (1975), and Mikulecky (1982), among others, have argued, consistent with the constructivist view, that the reading instruction, as well as the job knowledge, must be taught in the context of job tasks. The tasks and content combine qualitatively to provide an authentic context in which the learner can develop integrated skills.
Cognitive Apprenticeship
The constructivist teacher must model the process for students and coach the students toward expert performance. Collins, Brown, and Newman (1988) provide an excellent discussion of cognitive apprenticeship and summarize three approaches that are well documented in the literature. A critical feature of these approaches is that the teachers' responses are not scripted. The teachers cannot serve as effective models if they have prepared responses and strategies ahead of time and only reveal an idealized path to the correct solution. Rather, students must come to understand the authentic ways in which a teacher (expert) attempts to represent an issue. For example, Schoenfeld (1985), when teaching university-level mathematics, invites students to bring him word problems(brain teasers). The problems are given to him in class, and he thinks aloud as he searches for a solution. Of course there are numerous blind alleys and errors in thinking. The class discussion afterwards focuses on the strategies that were used, the ways in which the problem was represented, how various sources of information were called upon, and how errors were a natural occurrence of trying alternative representations or strategies.
Multiple Perspectives
The constructivist view emphasizes that students should learn to construct multiple perspectives on an issue. They must attempt to see an issue from different vantage points. It is essential that students make the best case possible from each perspective; that is, that they truly try to understand the alternative views. If we focus on constructing an understanding and if we are providing authentic contexts, then these multiple perspectives can even be applied to content domains that seem very well structured, such as arithmetic (Schoenfeld, 1985; Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinzer, & Williams, 1990). Of course, the students must alsoevaluate those perspectives, identifying the shortcomings as well as the strengths. Finally, they adopt the perspective that is most useful, meaningful, or relevant to them in the particular context.
A central strategy for achieving these perspectives is to create a collaborative learning environment. Note that while cooperative learning has a long history, the focus in that literature has been on the behavioral principles of learning that can be realized in the group environment. We wish to emphasize instead the use of collaboration to develop and share alternative views. It is from the views of other group members that alternative perspectives most often are to be realized. Thus, sharing a workload or coming to a consensus is not the goal of collaboration; rather, it is to develop, compare, and understand multiple perspectives on an issue. This is not meant to be simply a " sharing" experience, though respect for other views is important. Rather, the goal is to search for and evaluate the evidence for the viewpoint. Different sorts of evidence and different arguments will support the differing views. It is the rigorous process of developing and evaluating the arguments that is the goal. Further, this is not a competitive endeavor, in which groups debate each other to see who is" right." Rather, it is a cooperative effort in which each student is seen as coming to understand each perspective and even contributing to the development of each perspective.
A second important strategy for achieving multiple perspectives and a rich understanding has to do with the use of examples. In traditional instructional approaches the examples are carefully chosen to highlight critical attributes and systematically manipulate the complex of irrelevant attributes. Like word problems at the end of a chapter, there is little that is authentic about the examples: there is a clear correct answer and it is the student's job to find that answer. Of course that is not the nature of the real world: there is little in real life in the way of clear-cut examples with only one correct solution. As an alternative to that approach, we would explore the use of real " slices of life." For example, to support teacher education, we would consider recording entire class periods to provide rich contexts for developing perspectives on teaching. The traditional approach to instructional design might instead select clips that represented correct or incorrect examples of a particular concept or principle. We prefer, as students are exposed to the perspectives of experts and peers, to permit the students to select particular instances and bring to bear whatever perspective is useful rather than learn to classify according to some archetypal, decontextualized categories. Our goal then is to have students see the alternative views of how a concept is seen in actual instruction. Most important, students must learn to develop and evaluate the evidence to support each contention. Note that this task supports a construction of understanding and provides authenticity to the instruction as well as supporting the development of multiple perspectives.
From the traditional instructional design perspective it may be tempting to equate learning in a constructivist sense as pure discovery learning and criticize that approach for its lack of efficiency. It should be apparent, however, from the previous discussions of situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship that we are not espousing an unstructured discovery environment devoid of learning goals or learning events. In contrast to discovery learning, there is considerable guidance. It is simply not guidance on mastering a particular content element.
Evaluation
In traditional instructional design, evaluation assumes a universal goal or objective for the instruction. An exam measures progress toward the goal, and the data gathered about many students indicate the relative effectiveness of the system in terms of achievement of the goal. With a constructive view of knowledge, the goal is to improve the ability to use the content domain in authentic tasks (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989a). Instruction is the act of providing students with these tasks and providing them with the tools needed to develop the skills of constructing an informed response and for evaluating alternative responses.
Evaluation in the constructivist perspective must examine the thinking process. This is not to suggest, however, that the issue of thinking is independent of the content domain. Quite the contrary - as the extensive research on expert and novice strategies indicates, effective problem-solving strategies are intimately tied to the content domain. Experts are experts because of their understanding of the content domain.
One possible type of student evaluation activity would ask learners to address a problem in the field of content and then defend their decisions. Another might ask the learners to reflect on their own learning and document the process through which they have constructed their view of the content. The strategies common to the problem solving approach in writing (Hayes &Flower, 1986) clearly reflect this constructivist view and the important blending of content and process.
Two elements seem to be important: that the perspectives that students develop in the content area are effective in working in that area and that the students can defend their judgments. The first element might be referred to as instrumentality: to what degree does learners' constructed knowledge of the field permit them to function effectively in the discipline? The most obvious application of the concept of instrumentality might be in problem-solving. Can learners arrive at reasoned solutions to problems in the field? But the concept equally applies to contents that are not traditionally considered to be problem solving fields, such as literature students analyzing a body of literature or art students critiquing a painting or elementary school students learning how different cultures in the world share universal concerns from differing perspectives.
The second element, the ability to explain and defend decisions, is related to the development of metacognitive skills, thinking about thinking. Reflexive awareness of one's own thinking implies monitoring both the development of the structure of knowledge being studied and the process of constructing that knowledge representation.
While either of these student evaluation mechanisms might suggest a viable system evaluation method, that method would certainly contrast with instructional design's traditional mastery model. One of the issues would be how to operationalize the concept of instrumentality given that no two students would be expected to make the same interpretations of learning experiences nor to apply their learning in exactly the same way to real world problems that do not have one best answer.
CONCLUSION
It appears that the implications of constructivism for instructional design are revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Viewed from contrast in epistemologies, the findings of constructivism replace rather than add to our current understanding of learning. With a new view of what it means to know, it is imperative to reexamine all of the assumptions of any field and particularly one that purports to improve the human condition.
One of the basic assumptions underlying the professional practice of instructional design is the separation of instructional process from content, a belief that general principles of learning apply across contents to a significant enough degree that basic principles of instruction can be successfully applied regardless of content. From a view of knowledge as constructed, the process emerges from the content. In-depth understanding of the content arises from, and is essential to, understanding disciplinary thinking. Since influencing how learners think in a content domain is the goal of instruction, the learning process must reflect those thought processes.
One of the most far-reaching implications of constructivism for instructional design is that designers must attach themselves to content domains in much the same way secondary teachers specialize in a content area or the way faculty at the university refer to pedagogy in their discipline. The next generation of instructional designers may be specialists in the design of instruction for teaching reading or language or biology. Certainly the relationship between instructional consultant and subject matter expert must be reexamined.
Many issues remain. Is critical thinking the goal of all learning? Do the contexts in which learning is to be applied relate to the nature of the learning experience? Are there contexts in which it is appropriate to apply traditional instructional development models and others in which it is not? Does a distinction exist between training and education such that a training environment is more appropriate than a school for instruction based on traditional instructional design principles? At what level of schooling is critical thinking a reasonable goal? Is it reasonable to differentiate levels of learning, for example, introductory learning from advanced knowledge acquisition (Spiro, 1988) or memory from problem-solving, and to apply different instructional techniques based on different theories, or does that imply that one must believe that the nature of knowing, what it means to know, changes between introductory and advanced levels?
Where must we go now as a field? First, we must examine the assumptions that underlie the theories upon which our field is based. Turning toward a view of knowledge as constructed requires a major re-conceptualization of our assumptions and practices. But even if such a view is ultimately rejected, we must not delay a full analysis of the assumptions that support our field. In those situations where the assumptions lack consistency, we must adopt a consistent set of assumptions and reject the findings of research and the development of theory based on different assumptions. We must constantly reexamine our assumptions in light of new findings about learning.
As afield we must ground ourselves in theory. One of the practices that requires scrutiny is the practice of drawing from fields with different theoretical bases without examining the conflict between the basic assumptions of those theories. Optimally, we would tie our prescriptions for learning to a specific theoretical position - the prescriptions would be the realization of a particular understanding of how people learn. Minimally, we must be aware of the epistemological underpinnings of our instructional design and we must be aware of the consequences of that epistemology on our goals for instruction, our design of instruction, and the very process of design.
REFERENCES
Bonner, J. (1988). Implications of cognitive theory for instructional design: Revisited. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36, 3-14.
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., &Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989a). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989b). Debating the situation: A rejoinder to Palincsar and Wineburg. Educational Researcher, 18, 10-12.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cunningham, D. (1987). Outline of an educational semiotic . The American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 201 -216.
Dick, W., & Carey, L.(1985). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
DiVesta, F. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1987). The next generation of instructional systems. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35, 213-230.
Duffy, T. M. (1985). Literacy instruction in the Armed Forces. Armed Forces and Society, 11, 437-467.
Duffy, T. M. (1990). What makes a difference in instruction? In T. G. Sticht, B. McDonald, & M. Beeler (Eds.), The intergenerational transfer of cognitive skills. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1978). Instructional design: Principles from the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Gagne, R. M., & Dick, W. (1983). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 261-295.
Gardner, Howard.(1987). The mind's new science. New York: Basic Books.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1103.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10,2-10.
Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lesgold, A., LaJoie, S., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, G. (1991). Sherlock: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In J. Larkin, R. Chebay, & C. Scheftic (Eds.), Computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: Establishing communications and collaboration. Englewood, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Low, W. C. (1981). Changes in instructional development: The aftermath of an information processing takeover in psychology. Journal of Instructional Development, 4(2),10-18.
Mikulecky, L. (1982). Job literacy: The relationship between school preparation and workplace actuality. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 400-419.
Morgan, T. (1985). Is there an intertext in this text?: Literary and interdisciplinary approaches to intertextuality. The American Journal of Semiotics, 3, 1-40.
Mumaw, R., & Means, B. (1988). Cognitive analysis of expert knowledge: Input to test design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Polson, M. C., & Richardson, J. J. (Eds.). (1988). Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1984). The evolution of instructional science: Toward a common knowledge base. Educational Technology, 20-26.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Educational technology at the crossroads. New mindsets and new directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 67-80.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design: Theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13-20.
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Romiszowski, A. J.(1981). Designing instructional systems. New York: Nichols.
Rummelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1986). Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky road to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113- 142.
Schlager, M., Means, B., & Roth, C. (1988). Cognitive analysis of expert knowledge: Input into design of training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
Spiro, R. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. (Technical Rep. No. 441). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Sticht, T. G. (1975). Reading for working: A functional literacy anthology. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
Sticht, T. G., & Hickey, D. T. (1988). Functional context theory, literacy, and electronics training. In R. Dillon & J. Pellegrino (Eds.), Instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives. New York: Praeger.
Wittgenstein, L.(1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.