You are here:

Toward Combining Programmed Instruction and Constructivism for Tutorial Design PROCEEDINGS

, Cameron University

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

The suggestion that programmed instruction and Constructivism might be combined in the creation of tutorial software seems contradictory when one considers the differences between the two theories. Programmed instruction, which is based on operant conditioning, is reductionist focuses on external control and reinforcement. On the other hand, constructivist approaches view learning a process in which individual students construct or build their own internal interpretations of external events. These assumptions about learning are very different and indicate the two theories are incompatible. However, if one considers the type of knowledge the learner is expected to acquire, then there is room to consider what each theory can contribute.

Citation

Smith-Gratto, K. (1995). Toward Combining Programmed Instruction and Constructivism for Tutorial Design. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 1995--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 828-830). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Brooks, J.G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 6871.
  2. Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design. Instructional Science, 13, 141-158.
  3. Cognition and Technology Group. (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34-40.
  4. Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for technology?. Educational Technology, 31(5), 7-12.
  5. Griest, G. (1993). You say you want a revolution: Constructivism, technology, and language arts. The Computing Teacher, 20(7), 8-11.
  6. Jonassen, D.H. (1990). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34.
  7. Matthew, K.I. & Williams, N.L. (1994). Authentic uses of technology for curriculum planning within a language arts curriculum. In J. Willis, B. Robin, and D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1994 (pp. 611614).
  8. Papert, S. (1993). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel and S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. (2nd ed). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
  9. Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books.
  10. Poppen, L., & Poppen, R. (1988). The use of behavioral principles in educational software. Educational Technology, 28(2), 3741.
  11. Ross, S.M. And Morrison, G.R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19-33.
  12. Skinner, B.F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  13. Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Sythese, 80, 121-140
  14. Winn, W.D. (1991). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(9), 38-40.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.