Article: Constructivist or instructivist: pedagogical concepts practically applied to a computer learning environment
The study sought to explore differences between constructivism and instructivism by developing alternative computer based learning software packages for the teaching and learning of sampling and quantisation in the Multimedia Computing curriculum. Existing research (Herrington and Standen, 2000; Young et al, 1996 ) suggested that constructivist theory increasingly underpinned learning software development – yet it is often difficult to distinguish with certainty how the two differ in practice, and how constructivist learning software should be designed and developed. Methodologies tend to be limited to reiterations or elaborations of constructivist philosophy – learner control, ‘situated’ learning in authentic contexts, multiple perspectives, and problem-oriented knowledge construction – and do not indicate the means whereby these principles may be realised.
The association of constructivism with ‘deep learning’ (whereby knowledge is internalised because it has been self-constructed) is explored, as is the converse potential association of instructivism with ‘surface learning’ (whereby information is received and reproduced). The question of the relative efficacy of the two philosophies as a base for learning software raises issues of vital interest to computing education, but is itself, for a variety of reasons, not ultimately resolvable.
Three different learning software components were developed: one constructivist, one instructivist, and one hybrid. Three groups of undergraduate Multimedia Technology students were given one each to use, and a fourth was given traditional materials. A summative assessment exercise was conducted via an on-line questionnaire, producing a score; and richer data was then obtained by way of interview.
Results from the assessment were compared to the average performance, earlier in the same module, of the students in each class. Students using the instructivist resource improved most in relation to this previous class average mark. Students also preferred to use the instructivist environment, or the mixture of instructivist and constructivist, rather than relying solely on the constructivist. While any comparison would require identical evaluation, it was observed that both the closed questionnaire and the short time-frame for the evaluation were philosophically conducive to instructivism and could not satisfactorily evaluate a fully constructivist environment; longitudinal research, however, was beyond the scope of the study. In addition, use of the constructivist environment required the student to make more effort. The instructivist material was easier to develop, and easier to digest. A longer study period as well as authentic and longitudinal testing is needed to examine the extent to which each philosophy can facilitate deep and long-term understanding.
Author 1: Peter McKenna [email protected]
Author 2: Ben Laycock [email protected]
Article Link: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1008041&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=9122936&CFTOKEN=32438184