My struggle through Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction

Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction was honestly very difficult for me. Once I waded through epistemological, empirically, priori and an inordinate myriad of vocabulary words, I was met with some comprehensive difficulties. There was often no coherency in the references made to other dialogues. After five days I noted several comments that could lead to discussion or a fuller understanding for me.


Duffy and Jonassen state that knowledge is believed to exist independently of instruction (p.3).

Kember and Murphy (1990) state much of current instructional design is based on the presumption that we can give individuals plans of action, and success is simply a matter of following the plans (p.4).

Cunningham argues that skills cannot be considered independently of the problems to which they are applied (p.7).

Vanderbilt shares that the learner has the information available in memory, but simply never recognizes it when it is relevant. The learner must be immersed in the environment (p.8).

Spiro and his colleagues emphasize that if we focus on only the critical features of a concept – we will have limited understanding (p. 8) We cannot simplify the context by removing the complex environment, experiencing (exploring, evaluating) the complex interrelationships in that environment that determine how and when the concept is used (p.8). Spiro’s chapter also highlights that perhaps the greatest difference between designers and constructivists is that designers focus on skills to be learned and constructivists focus on learning a “domain” of knowledge (p. 9)

Perkins argues that a constructivist approach need not be discovery learning (Without the Information Given WIG), but can also focus on more direct instruction as long as the emphasis is ongoing “Beyond the Information Given” (BIG) (p.7).

Cunningham shares that the most distinguishing feature of constructivism is its emphasis on argument, discussion, and debate, because from that debate emerges some socially constructed meaning (p. 11)

Does this have a familiar ring to our class?

The evaluation section of Chapter Two had particular interest to me, especially with the problem-solving approach. Evaluation in the constructivist perspective must examine the thinking process. Instruction is the act of providing student with these tasks and providing them with the tools needed to develop the skills of constructing an informed response and for evaluating alternative responses (29). Examples were given where students might be asked to address a problem in the field of content and then defend their decisions. (This brings me back to my thoughts on the Obesity project). Another example was to have the learner reflect on his or her own learning and document the process through which they have constructed their view of the content (p. 29)

I end with Cunningham’s indication that the teacher should be the judge as to whether a task has been successfully completed (learned). Reigeluth replies that putting the teacher in the role of judge is an industrial-age mindset that establishes an adversarial relationship between the teacher and the learner (p.153). He goes on to state that to meet the needs of learners in the information age are calling for outside evaluators – often a panel of evaluators that include community members and other students, as well as teacher – so that the teacher assumes the role of coach or facilitator, someone who is on the learner’s side (153).

I found this concept fascinating, but wonder the practicality of application. Most schools would have a hard time with the time constraints. What qualifies these people on the panel to evaluate the process? I see this application from a doctoral committee of experts – but for middle school students ? We cannot always be in real-world situations. Limited access to technology tools that could take us there are often not in place. Is there never a time when we need to “test” for individual learning? I would like to continue a discussion on these aspects.



Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J.D.. (1992). Theory into practice: how do we link?Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.



Duffy, T.M & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology. Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.



Reigeluth, C.H. (1992). Reflections on the implications of constructivism for educational technology. Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.