Grounded Practice and the Design of Constructivist ... - CiteSeerX

Grounded Practice and the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments Author(s): Michael J. Hannafin, Kathleen M. Hannafin, Susan M. Land, Kevin Oliver Source: Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1997), pp. 101-117 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220188 Accessed: 27/04/2010 17:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Technology Research and Development.

http://www.jstor.org

and Grounded Practice Constructivist Learning

the

Design

of

Environments

Michael J. Hannafin Kathleen M. Hannafin Susan M, Land KevinOliver

hasbeen A varietyof instructionalapproaches studiedandimplemented acrosseducational andtrainingsettings.Vastlydifferentdesign practiceshavebeenproposedthatreflectfundabeliefs,and mentallyd-iferentphilosophies, biases.Yet,evidenceof mismatched frameThishas worksandmethodsarewidespread. in becomeparticularly problematic advancing emergingconstructivistlearningenvironments.In thispaper,we advancetheconceptof groundeddesign,a processthatinvolveslinking thepracticesof learningsystemsdesign withrelatedtheoryandresearch.Thepurposes of thispaperareto introducethefundamentals ofgroundeddesign,to describehowunderlyingfoundationsandassumptionscanbe methods,and alignedwiththecorresponding to introduceexamplesofgroundedconstructivist learningenvironments.

Vol.45, No. 3, 1997,pp. 101-117 ISSN1042-1629 ETR&D,

0 Muchhas been written about the psychological bases of learning and their implications for instruction.Instructionaldesign traditionshave been influencedheavily by behavioristsinitially (Burton, Moore, & Magliaro, 1996), then cognitivists (Winn & Snyder, 1996), and currently by a host constructivist approaches (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). To some, recent shifts toward constructivism have been perceived as promising developments in an evolving instructional design field (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,1991;Collins, 1996;Kember& Murphy,1990;Reigeluth,1997). Others, however, have voiced skepticism as to the necessity for, or value of, constructivismand the design of constructivist learning environments (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996; Braden, 1996;Dick, 1991;Merrill,Drake, Lacy, Pratt, and ID2 Research Group at Utah State University,1996;Tripp,1993). While the clamor for alternative models to support the unique requirementsof varied epistemological perspectives has risen, the implications for instructional design practice have not always been clear. Evidence of mismatched instructionalgoals versus methods are widespread. It is not unusual, for example, for schools to proclaim an emphasis on critical thinking or problem solving, but focus largely on mastery of declarativeknowledge. Universities often espouse virtues such as "discovering science as a scientist"but teach and test for rote learning. Trainers proclaim "lean and mean" systems that differentiate nice-to-know from need-to-know knowledge and skills, but rou-

101

102

Vol45, No. 3 ETR&D,

tinely include non-essential informationor fail to provide sufficient support to promote effective performance. Significantgaps divide the rhetoricand theory related to what should happen and the design practices that influence what actually happens in technology-enhancedlearningenvironments (Perkins,1985;Salomon,1986).Learning environments are routinely mismatched with their espoused epistemological roots. Insufficient grounding is evident in the design practices that affect all approaches, including long-standingdirectedlearningmethodsas well as the host of contemporaryteaching-learning perspectives. However, because of their formative nature,the problemmay be most acutewith emerging constructivist approaches. The purposes of this paper are to introducethe concept of grounded design, to describe how varied underlyingfoundationsand assumptionscanbe aligned with the corresponding methods, to demonstrate the relevance of grounded design for constructivistlearningenvironments,and to introduce examples of grounded constructivist design practice.

DESIGN THECASEFORGROUNDED Rowland (1993,p. 80) defined designgenerically as ". .. a disciplined inquiry engaged in for the

purpose of creatingsome new thing of practical utility"and designingas ". .. requiringa balance of reason and intuition ...

and an ability to

reflect on actions taken."Many designs exist to support learning; the distinctions among them arenot simply semanticin nature.One approach emphasizes directed learning that is consistent with time-tested instructional design methods and models (Hannafin,1992).Thereis, however, debate aboutwhat instructionis and is not. Merrill et al. (1996),for example, note that much of what is described as instructionaldesign today likely does not adhere to the assumptions of rationalism; that is, a process driven and informed by known rules, established principles, and reliableprocedures. Clearly, then, not all learning materials should be considered instructionalmaterials. While many learning systems do not adhere to

the values or traditionsof instructionaldesign, they areseldom differentiatedaccordingly.Constructivist approaches,for example, emphasize different kinds of learning, feature different kinds of methods, and are rooted in different epistemologicalframeworks.If we seek systems that support otherkinds of learning, then we need to betterdifferentiatemethods accordingto their consistencywith various perspectives.For constructivist learning environments, it is importantto understandhow the core epistemological beliefs can be reconciledwith, or necessarilydepartfrom,otherdesign practices. In the present context,grounded-learning systems design is defined as the systematic implementation of processes and procedures that are rooted in established theory and research in human learning. Winn (1997) suggested that while theory-based approaches do not provide discrete, algorithmic instructional prescriptions,they do better equip designers to addressthe ambiguitiesinherentin theircraft.In effect,theory-basedapproachesprovide designers with powerful heuristics that guide design processes and procedures rather than provide explicit prescriptions. Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, and Perry(1995,p. 101-102)stated that ". .. effectiveinstructionaldesign is possible only if the developerhas reflexiveawarenessof the theoretical basis underlying the design .

.

. [it]

emerges fromthe deliberateapplicationof some particulartheory of learning."Grounded-learning systems design is theory-based in that designers recognize the utility of various approachesand perspectives.It assists designers in synthesizing across, as well as recognizing importantdistinctionsamong, various theoreticalperspectives. Simply promoting learning does not necessarily mean that a design is grounded, and failure to learn does not necessarilyreflecta lack of grounding.If all approacheswere universaland algorithmicin nature,then success could be universally assured.Such is not the case in learning systems design broadly, and for the design of constructivistlearningenvironmentsin particular. The very goals that reflectimportantdifferences and values vary according to their contexts and theoreticalframes.Learningis not a unitary concept;learning-systemsdesign can-

GROUNDEDDESIGN

not be either. Learning activities encompass a broad array of endeavors, involving a wide rangeof activities,rooted in a host of psychological and pedagogical frameworks.Design practices must do more thanmerelyaccommodateor tolerate a perspective;they need to support the creationof powerful learningenvironmentsthat optimizethe value of the underlyingdifferences. Grounded-learning systems design argues not for the inherentsuperiorityof one theoretical position or methodology over another,but for articulationof and alignmentamong the underlying principles that define them. It does not marginalize differences among perspectives, where such differences exist, but supports approaches that enable them. Four conditions must be met for design practiceto be considered grounded.First,design must be based in a defensible theoretical framework. The framework must be public;that is, it can be both articulated clearly and differentiatedfrom other perspectives. Multiple frameworks are available from which designs can be rooted; they must, however, establish connectionsamong key foundations, identify the assumptions consistentwith the corresponding foundations, and lead to methods consonant with them. For constructivist as well as otherlearningenvironments,foundations and assumptions vary according to particular epistemological nuances associated with individualcontexts. Next, methods must be consistent with the outcomes of researchconductedto test, validate, or extend the theories upon which they are based. Thesourcesof groundedmethodsexist in instances,cases, and researchin which strategies have been tested. In effect, grounded designs reflect a close link between empiricallyverified approaches and those employed in a given learningsystem. In addition, grounded designs are generalizable, that is, the methods can be applied more broadly than only to a specific setting or problem. They can be the product of systematic application of grounded-learning systemsdesign processes and proceduresor such can be readily derived from a given design. They transcend the individual instancesin which isolated success may be evident, and can be adapted or adopted by other designers. This does not sug-

103 gest a literal, algorithmicmapping of methods accordingto strictlydefined conditions,but the heuristics-basedidentificationor applicationof design processes that can be applied in comparablecircumstances. Finally, grounded designs and their frameworks are validated iterativelythrough successive implementation. Methods are proven effective in ways that support the theoretical frameworkupon which they are based, and the framework itself is refined as implementation clarifies or extends the approach. The design processes and methods continuously inform, test,validate,or contradictthe theoreticalframework and assumptions upon which they were based, and vice-versa. Clearly,not all design practiceis grounded. Some approaches,constructivistand other,may prove effective,yet still lack grounding. Design practiceis frequentlyinfluencedby factorssuch as personal preferences, pragmatic concerns, experience with "what works," and familiarity (see, e.g., Bednar, et al. (1995)). These do not inherently promote poor design, ineffective learning, or inadequate performance. Indeed, many approachesappearto work, but designers are unable to determine why they are effective or, more importantly, if similar methods are likely to prove effective in subsequent applications. Many designs reflect the evolved preferences of the designerwith particularmethods or technologies.Again, the approachesmay prove successful, but cannot be readily replicated or generalized by others or reconciled with available researchand theory. It is equally clearthat not all frameworkscan meet each of the grounded design conditions. This has proven especially problematic in the design of constructivistlearning environments. As noted previously, constructivismis a multifaceted epistemology, with disagreementseven among supporters as to what constructivismis and is not (Phillips,1995).Implementationsmay be highly formativein nature,and lack maturity or compelling empirical or theoreticalroots. In some cases, the presumed tenets of an approach have not been tested, the methods attributedto the perspectivesmay prove highly idiosyncratic in application, or the assumptions underlying the perspectivemay be unclear.The approaches

104 may be interesting,even effective and provocative, but lack completenessand validation. How can vastly different approaches be equally grounded? For traditionalinstructional approaches,there exist numerous and powerful theoretical frames, research on instructional strategies, and tests of the generalizabilityof design methodologies to establish the groundedness of many approaches.For example, Gagnd(Gagnd,1968,1985;Gagnd,Briggs,& Wager, 1988; Gagne & Glaser, 1987) has provided highly grounded approaches consistent with objectivist-directedlearningepistemology. The underlying foundations and assumptions may not be consistentwith those of constructivists, but the methods and design systems are well articulated and generalizable,rooted in a defensible theoreticalframework,and based on and consistentwith relatedresearch. Unfortunately,the same often cannotbe said for emerging learning environments. Frequently, the foundations of given efforts are unclear, the methods inconsistent with presumed underlying assumptions,and the design methodologies arenot well-articulated.Yet,constructivist approachesoften can begrounded as well as, but differently from, directed learning approaches. A series of articles related to constructivist-situatedlearningtheory and practice were published in EducationalTechnology,several of which were subsequentlyincluded in an edited volume (McClellan,1996).A number of other edited volumes have been published recently illustrating links between emerging frameworks and associated teaching-learning methods (e.g., Kafai&Resnick,1996;Schauble& Glaser,1996;Wilson, 1996).Reigeluth(in preparation) is compiling a companion volume to andModels,in which Instructional DesignTheories authors influential in advancing "next-generation" frameworks for teaching and learning detail theory-to-design implications of their respectiveframeworks.Verydifferentgrounded approaches are possible between and within instructionistand constructivistdesign practices. Grounded learning systems employ methods thatarerootedin correspondingfoundationsand assumptions,not by which epistemologyis presumed to be inherentlycorrect.Grounded-learning systems-design approachesensure that, by

Vol45, No. 3 ETR&D,

design, methods are linked consistently with given foundationsand assumptions.

INTHEDESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS LEARNING SYSTEMS The design of learningsystems is rooted in several foundations,includingpsychological,pedagogical, technological,cultural,and pragmatic. (See Hannafin & Land (1997) for a detailed explanationand illustrationof the relationships among foundations.) While these foundations are not all-inclusive,in principlethey represent the roots of any learning environment. A comprehensive review is not possible in this paper; therefore,a brief descriptionof each foundation is provided.

Psychological Psychological foundations represent beliefs about how individuals think and learn. Historically, learning environments were rooted psychologically in behaviorism;later, in cognitive approaches featuring information-processing (see, for example, Gagnd & Glaser, 1987; Hannafin & Rieber, 1989). Many emerging learning environmentsderive their foundations from areas such as constructivism (Jonassen, 1991) and situated cognition (Brown,Collins, & Duguid, 1989).The specificbiases and manifestations have varied, but the importanceof psychological rooting has been consistently supported(see, for example,Bednar,et al., 1995; Brown & Campione, 1996; Gagnd & Glaser, 1987).

Pedagogical Pedagogical foundationsemphasize how to-belearned domains are representedand affordances are provided to support learning. Direct instruction, for example, typically emphasizes explicit identification of objective outcomes, hierarchical structures and objective-based activities,and assessmentconsistentwith objectivist epistemology. Student-centeredlearning

105

GROUNDEDDESIGN

environments are often rooted in contextuallybased pedagogical approachessuch as anchored instruction(Cognitionand TechnologyGroupat Vanderbilt,1992),and scaffolded inquiry (Linn, 1995). Psychological and pedagogical foundations are inextricablytied. Takentogether,they reflect underlying beliefs about the nature of learning, the methods and strategiesemployed, and the ways in which the to-be-learneddomain should be organized and made availableto the learner.

Technological Technologicalfoundations emphasize the capabilities and limitationsof availablemedia to support learning. Technological capabilities vary widely, but it is the manner in which they support or hamper efforts,not their mere availability, that influences learning. For example, print media and computersprovide differenttechnological capabilitiesand limitations,but theirutility depends on the extent to which they support learning in a given environment:Some features are availablebut not needed or appropriatein a given learning system, while other featuresare desirablebut inherentlylimited by the available media options. Technologicalcapabilities,therefore, indicate the extent to which features are available to support learning, but learning requirements dictate how, or if, capabilities should be integrated. Technologies can constrain or enhance learning depending on their availability and capability, and the manner in which they are utilized.

Cultural Culturalconsiderationsare among the most pervasive of foundations in learning systems design. Culturesexist at multiple levels, ranging from the mores shared by large segments of a nation to the values manifested in given classrooms or work settings. They reflect such characteristicsas beliefs about education, the role of individuals in society, traditionsin how different disciplines teach and learn, and the prevailing practicesof a given professionalcommunity,

school system, or classroom. They affect the design of learning systems by defining the contextual values of a given setting. For instance, the rapid growth of technology in educational systems reflects the perceived importanceof an increasinglytechnology-and information-based culture; schools, in turn, mirror the values of their culture.In many cases, particularbeliefs or priorities drive learning organizations toward specific kinds of designs. For example, learning communities that reflect a "backto basics" culture tend to emphasize clear specification of basic knowledge and skill requirements;medical education tends to stress apprenticeships and mentoring in the form of internships; schools that are "child-centered"tend to emphasize the importance of exploration; training environments that differentiate nice-to-know from need-to-know knowledge and skills tend toward directed performanceapproaches. The learningenvironmentis both a reflectionand an extension of the culturein which it exists.

Pragmatic Finally, pragmatic foundations reflect practical concerns. Whereas technological foundations influence what is possible, pragmatic foundations dictatethe extent to which various alternatives can be implemented. Each setting has unique situational constraintsthat affect learning systems design. Collins (1996),for example, described competing consequences involved in making practicaltradeoffs,such as determining what should be taught, assessing costs and benefits, and evaluating sequencing alternatives. Issues such as hardwareand software type and availability and costs routinely influence the adoption and diffusion of innovations. They establish, from a practical perspective, why a particularapproachmay or may not be feasible in a given learningenvironment. While isolated for clarity,the foundationsare interdependent in practice. Each foundation encompasses a wide array of potential influences that are determined based on their relevance to the learning context as well as their relationship to other foundations. For instance, all learning systems design emphasizes peda-

106

Vol45, No. 3 ETR&D,

Figure1 D: Intersectionsamong foundations and assumptionsinthe design of learning environments.

Psychological

Pedagogical

ITechnotogical Alignment Among All Foundations & Assumptions

Cul

gogy, but direct instructiondraws upon different psychological and pedagogical foundations than do open-ended and learner-centeredenvironments (Hannafin,Hall, Land, & Hill, 1994). Similarly, environments geared toward critical analysis and evaluation of informationwould not likely utilize reinforcementtheory and drilland-practiceactivitiesas theircorepsychological and pedagogical foundations. All foundations are considered, but the coincidence among the foundations represents the unique ways in which they ultimately impact any given learning environment. For any learning system, root foundationsneed to be aligned in orderto maximize theircoincidenceand sharedfunctions.

INTHEDESIGN ASSUMPTIONS OF LEARNING SYSTEMS Assumptions define how foundations are linked; they influence how beliefs ultimately become operational in any environment. Assumptions reflectthe beliefs attendant,explicitly or tacitly, to particularfoundation subsets

Prag9tfatic

and intersections.As illustratedin Figure 1, differentsets of assumptionscorrespondto unique intersectionsattributableto constructivistlearning environmentswhich, in turn, reflect beliefs about the interplay among learning, pedagogy, technology, culture, and pragmatics.Since the assumptionsattendantto many foundations are not readilyreconciled(e.g.,learningas relatively durable changes in behavior strengthened via reinforcement versus learning as individually constructedmeaning),it is not possible to establish complete concentricityacross foundations and assumptions. As different combinationsof foundations are considered and the common assumptions identified, coincidence between and among foundations and assumptions is established. Individual foundations may coincide with one another to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the extent to which they ascribe to compatible assumptions. Alignment may be partial, reflecting coincidence between two or more foundations,or involve all foundations. The goal is not necessarily to increase the amountof coincidencebetween individual foun-

DESIGN GROUNDED

dations, but to ensure some degree of coincidence acrossall foundations. Consider, for example, variations in how education and training are provided. Figure 1 canbe used to illustratefoundationintersections and assumption differencesfor two approaches employed in private airplanepilot schools:bottom-up, using directed approachesand experientially-anchored, using situated approaches. Often, prospectivepilots enroll in several hours of ground school in which basicconceptsrelated to aerodynamics,navigation, FAA regulations, and so forth are covered. They emphasize directed methods to promote learning of presumably hierarchically-dependentknowledge and skills priorto theirapplicationduringactual flight training. A psychological assumption underlying this approach is that enabling knowledge and skill arerequisiteto higher-level understanding and performance. Therefore, pedagogical and technological considerations are aligned in support of the same assumption. The requisite knowledge and skills are identified and taught bottom-up in a "safe,"risk-free classroom learning environment.Typically,relatively inexpensive media areused, such as videotapes illustrating procedures, handbooks of key concepts,sample test items, and maps. However, not all privatepilot schools adhere to the same foundations,assumptionsand methods. Some view the organizingtask as the experience of flying itself, and the associated knowledge and skills as being integrally interwoven. Prospectivepilots participatein instructor-supervised flight activities from the outset, using actual performancetechnology (aircraft) in conjunctionwith parallelground school activities. In these cases, authenticcontext and experienceare seen as integralto the knowledge and skills to be developed. The flightinstructormentors the apprenticepilot, making key cognitive and procedural aspects of flying visible. Both knowledge and performance, in effect, are scaffolded. Cognition is situated in authentic contexts and tasks; pedagogy emphasizes the scaffolding of learning and performance;and technologyis integralto, not separatedfrom,the environment.

107 RECONCILING DIFFERENT GROUNDED DESIGNS: AND INSTRUCTIONAL CONSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN Vastlydifferentdesign practicesare exemplified by contrasting grounded instructionist-instructional design approaches with constructionistconstructional design approaches (see, e.g., Jonassen (1991) for distinctionsbetween objectivism and constructivism,Grabinger(1996)for differentiations between "old" and "new" assumptions about learning and learning environments,Winn (1993)for distinctionsbetween the assumptionsof instructionaldesign and situated cognition, and Phillips (1995)for distinctions among constructivist theorists). Instruct, accordingto the AmericanHeritageCollege Dictionary (1993, p.705), is ". . . to provide with

knowledge, esp. in a methodical way;" instruction is ". . . an imparted or acquired item of

knowledge; a lesson." Gagne et al.'s (1988) approach is consistent with these definitions and clearly promotes grounded designs. They view realityas objectiveand independent of the individual learner, and learning principally from an information-processing perspective. Consistentwith this view, they propose a model wherein key cognitive operations associated with learningcanbe facilitatedby systematically engineeringstimuli,which they call internaland externalconditionsof learning. Resnick's (1996) concept of constructional design, on the other hand, is rooted in constructivist epistemology, and more specifically Papert'snotions of constructionism.To construct is ". .. to form by assembling or combining parts; to build"; constructionis the "... the act or pro-

cess of [building]"(AmericanHeritage College Dictionary,1993,p.299). Constructionaldesign, then,focuses on the creationof learningenvironments that enable and support individual construction by engaging in design and invention tasks. The design task is to create an environment where knowledge-building tools (affordances) and the means to create and manipulate artifactsof understanding are provided, not one in which concepts are explicitly taught.The diverse examples describedin Kafai in Practice and Resnick's(1996) Constructionism each address the grounded design criteria.The Schoolsfor Thoughtinitiatives(Lamonet al., 1996)

108 focus on school-based implementations of grounded activities featuring the Jasperseries, the CSILE (Computer Supported Intentional LearningEnvironment)system which facilitates social knowledge construction, and the guidance and scaffoldingmethods embodied in FCL (Fostering a Community of Learners). The underlying foundations and assumptions of these perspectives are not consistentwith those of Gagne; they are grounded differently,but they are no less grounded. It is unlikely that instructionistswould embracethe foundations, assumptions, and methods of constructionists (orvice-versa),but competingapproachescanbe well-aligned if linked with their corresponding foundationsand assumptions. In the following sections, operationaldifferences between the perspectives of objectivists and constructivistsare developed by focusing on the role of context.

and Grounded Design:A Instructionism Directed LearningEnvironment Instructionismemphasizes methods that establish and convey the meaning of objects and events consistently and efficientlyacross learners. The learner's task is to recognize and label relevant objectsand events, organize them into coherent chunks, and integratenew with existing knowledge. The learneraccomplishesthese tasks principally by decoding the established meaning of various objectsand events, and by using mathemagenic strategies, such as cueing and amplification,provided by the learningsystems designer. Many instructionaldesigners draw upon the traditions of experimental psychology to accountfor the transitionof understandingfrom initial,declarativeknowledge to deeper,autonomous performance.Anderson'sACT (Adaptive Control of Thinking) Etheory (1983), for instance,suggests that declarativeknowledge is available in a form (e.g., from text or oral instruction)without accompanyingknowledge of whenand howto use it; the knowledge is contextually independent. Accordingto ACT,new knowledge in a domain begins as declarative knowledge; learning the conditions under

Vol 45, No. 3 ETR&D,

which knowledge is used (i.e., procedural knowledge) is believed to requireautomaticand proficient execution of previously acquired declarativeknowledge. Methods consistent with these assumptions tend to emphasize learning contexts that support the transition from initial propositional knowledge to signalingwhen and how it can be used. Instructionalanalysis procedures can be used to analyze the informationrequirements and conditionalstructuresof performance.Consistent with Gagne's (1968)views on the learning of intellectual skills, complex skills such as problem solving are seen as hierarchically dependent on prerequisite, lower-order skills. Thus,declarativeor verbalinformationrequired for complex conceptualknowledge is identified, frequently isolated, and taught in a particular sequence or sequences.This approachis widely accepted among direct-instructionproponents and is consonantwith traditionalcognitive psychologicalfoundationsemphasizing learningas an incremental, mathemagenically-facilitated process. Technologicalfoundationslink both psychological and pedagogical foundations. For instance, a computer-mediateddrill might be provided to automate requisite subskills (e.g., multiplication facts) needed for more complex applications (Salisbury, 1988). Tutorial programs that isolate, simplify, and sequence concepts and skills according to identified task milestones and learning hierarchiesmight also be consistentwith objectivist-instructionist epistemology. Instructionist cultural foundations generally stress well-defined and explicit learning aims and methods, where knowledge and skill requirementscan be articulated,progress evaluated, and mastery demonstrated. Such systems often reflectbottom-up,basics-firstcurriculum and teaching methods and need-toknow knowledge and skill training. Pragmatically,instructioniststend to reconcile theoretically ideal solutions with those best suited to available resources and constraints. These are manifested in learning systems that, for example,provide internallyconsistent,modular approachesto accommodatediscrete subject offerings and brief, fixed-duration class periods in traditionalschools.

GROUNDED DESIGN

Selection and incorporationof these foundations are guided by an implicit assumption that efficient subskill mastery is requisite for subsequent depth of understanding (Dick & Carey, 1996;Gagne, 1985).Learningis defined in terms of attainmentof clearly-articulatedenablingand terminal objectives; depth of understanding results from highly practiced,successfulperformance in carefully isolated, systematically sequenced, and externally-engineeredlearning activities. The approachexplicitly assumes that requisite skills and associated cognitive processes can be broken down and learned separately from holistic contexts. Information deemed nonessentialto the specificinstructional goal and readinesslevel of the learneris considered "deadwood" (Smith& Ragan, 1993,p. 65) and as detractingfrom the learninggoal. External engineering of the learningprocess presumably reduces cognitive load, frees working memory, and eliminates unproductive efforts during the learningprocess.

Constructivismand Grounded Design: A Situated LearningEnvironment For constructivists,objects and events have no absolute meaning; rather,the individual interprets each and constructs meaning based on individual experience and evolved beliefs. The design task, therefore,is one of providing a rich contextwithin which meaningcanbe negotiated and ways of understanding can emerge and evolve. Constructivists tend to eschew the breakingdown of context into componentparts in favor of environments wherein knowledge, skill, and complexityexist naturally. Constructivistdesigners draw upon psychological foundations from theories such as situated learning (Brown,Collins, & Duguid, 1989) and socially-sharedcognition (Resnick,Levine, & Teasley, 1991). Situated cognition theorists suggest thatknowledge and the conditionsof its use are inextricably linked. Social cognitivists assert that learningis integralto social contexts, including people, in which it occurs or is ultimately applied. Bothviews promote learningin realistic, complex contexts that link knowledge and skills with the circumstancesin which they

109 are applied (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,1992). Pedagogies such as anchored instruction, which emphasizesembedding skills and knowledge in holistic and realisticcontexts (Cognition and TechnologyGroup at Vanderbilt,1992),are consistent with situated-cognitionperspectives. Anchored contexts support complex and illstructuredproblems wherein learners generate new knowledge and subproblemsas they determine how and when knowledge is used. Apprenticeshipmodels are similarly aligned as they promote scaffolding and coaching of knowledge, heuristics,and strategies,while students carryout authentictasks (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). Technology is often used as a tool to explore resources and integrate knowledge while solving problems or pursuing individual learning goals. Vast information databases, such as the World Wide Web, can be browsed to locate informationneeded to solve a problemor satisfy an informationneed (Hill & Hannafin,in press). Telecommunicationstools can be used to communicatewith othersor promotedialog within a community of learners (Linn, Bell, & Hsi, in press). Technologytools might also prompt for reflection or guide learners to understand or solve problems.In such a system, technology is part of a larger social context that shapes, constrains, and enhances how information is processed and used. Cultural considerations are evident where far-reaching agendas are established, such as engendered in the 1960s in the aftermathof the successfullaunchingof Sputnik or when scientific communities establish standards in areas such as mathematics (National Councilof Teachersof Mathematics)and science (National Science Teachers' Association). In each case, priorities are established that influence, or are influenced by, beliefs about learning, pedagogy, and technology. Pragmatic foundations become aligned when reasonable accommodations are based on unique situationalresourcesand constraints. Context,in this example, is viewed as critical to influencing how information is processed, negotiated, and used, and how understanding evolves. It is assumed that lesson content and heuristicsfor performancearebest embedded in

Vol45, No. 3 ETR&D,

110

the task itself, and are interpretedby the learner rather than an external agent (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). Errors and limitations in understanding form the unique basis for establishing relevance and the need to reconcilepriorbeliefs with current observations (Papert, 1993); they are encouraged rather than avoided. Consequently, learners are expected to assume additional controlover the learningprocess.It is also assumed that, with the help of teachers, students, or technology to scaffold performance, complex tasks are made more manageablewithout simplifying the task itself (Glaser, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978). Methods consistentwith constructivistfoundations and assumptions typically emphasize teacher-studentor student-studentinteractions to model or scaffold understandingand performance (see, for example, Linn,1995;Palincsar& Brown, 1984). Technology affords additional alternativesto supportthe interactions.Teachers and students coach strategies within complex, authenticcontexts (Collins,Brown,& Newman, 1989) which are designed to support the learning of progressively complex concepts. Similarly, problem-basedlearning activities (Savery & Duffy, 1996)requirelearnersto draw on technological, cognitive, and social resources in order solve complex, open-endedproblems.The problemprovides the orientingcontextfor interpretation as understanding and skills are constructedand refined throughuse. INPRACTICE: GROUNDED DESIGN THREE EXAMPLES FROM CONSTRUCTIVISM In the following section, three grounded-constructivist designs, representingdifferentfoundations, assumptions, and approaches, are describedbriefly:JasperWoodbury,Knowledge Integration Environment, and Microworlds Project Builder. They are significantnot solely for their grounding, but for the diversity of learningdomains they represent. Situated Cognition/Anchored Instruction The Jasperseries was developed by Bransford and his associatesat the Cognitionand Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). This series

includes a range of problemspresentedthrough vivid stories.Eachstory featuresthe lead character, Jasper,as he encounterssituations in which problems surface naturally. The problems are posed in the form of video vignettes-contextually-rich stories wherein broad problems and surrounding circumstancesare presented. The informationneeded to address the problems is situated within, ratherthan from, the story line. Students are challenged to find solutions to the dilemmasJasperfaces. Consistent with situated cognition theory, the system immerses participants in realistic mathematics-relatedproblems. Learners analyze story vignettes to determine the relevance of various elements. They generate subproblems,decidingwhich informationto gather and where it might be found. In addition, they decide when more data are needed, why they are important, and how they will be used to guide their actions and decisions. The problem vignettes, in effect, provide contexts wherein learners interpret, reason, generate alternative approaches, and develop and test their ideas. Relevant details are anchored realistically within the vignettes. Theirsignificancemust be detected as integral to possible solutions and verified through testing rather than isolated as "given" problem data. Pedagogical strategies (i.e., anchored instruction, guidance) are wellaligned with a well-articulatedperspective on how thinking and learning occur (i.e., situated cognition). Technology featuresand cultural factors are aligned in ways that strengthenthe psychological-pedagogical links. For example, videodisc technology helps to simplify and speed-up access to various vignette segments. Since the stories include a good deal of problem-relevant, as well as problem-irrelevantinformation,students need to reference the video story frequently to identify and evaluate various data. High-speed, random-accessvideodisc technology affords the opportunity to manipulate the vignette in accordancewith the students' ongoing understanding and needs. As various elements in the problem context assume greater perceived relevance, potentially important anchoredinformationcan be located readily Supplementary materials are also provided

GROUNDEDDESIGN

to accommodatedifferencesin both technology availabilityand user preferences.In some cases computersmay be available,which furthersimplifies navigation of the system. Graphicalrepresentations of story-line maps and events are provided, which serve as "hotspot"links to corresponding video segments. In cases where computers are unavailable, print workbooks supply similargraphicalrepresentations,as well as scaffolding the recording and organizing of events and data.

111

itive, naive, or incomplete (Land & Hannafin, 1997). It is important, therefore, that students reconcile their personal beliefs with potentially conflicting canonical explanations of scientific phenomena. Rather than assuming that scientific truth can be simply "told," KIEfacilitates the connectingof scientificconceptswith everyday observations and applications. Students sampleand test varied explanatoryor predictive models while they attempt to reconcile their interpretationswith those of scientists,teachers, and peers. identified several Jasper'sdesigners pragmatic factors likely to influence usage in realPedagogically,KIEhelps students to identify world settings.In orderto accommodatea range learninggoals and make their thinking"visible" of styles, preferences,and readiness in schools, (Collins,Brown,& Hollum, 1991).Goal identifialternative methods for implementation were cation involves sampling a variety of models to enable the testing, rather than discounting, of provided. While the methods most consistent with the underlying assumptions were advostudent intuitions. Goal identification emphacated over other approaches, a continuum of sizes the process of constructing and revising options, ranging from teacher-directedthrough personalmodels based on available alternatives. student-centered,were provided. Consistent with cognitive apprenticeship theory, the rationale associated with alternative models needs to become apparent,including the Social Constructivism/Problem thinking of individual students, peers, and Scaffolding experts. The process is designed to promote of both one's own ideas and the The Knowledge IntegrationEnvironment(KIE), deep thinking ideas of others.The goal is not simply to adopt a developed at the Universityof California-Berkeparticularposition or belief, but to generateand ley (Linn, Bell, & Hsi, in press), is an electroni- test individual conclusions through reflection. cally-enhanced Internet learning community KIE's social support functions provide a safe designed to help K-12 students interpretscienenvironment for the free expression of ideas. tificmaterial,understandcomplexscientificconStudents become resources to one another as cepts, and connect science knowledge with each samples, tests, and generates models of everyday phenomena.KIEis a virtualclassroom theirunderstanding. that supports students from varied geographic In a culturalsense, students acquire lifelong locationsas they investigatescientificproblems. It includes collaborative,networkablesoftware, learning skills as well as strategiespracticedin the communityof scientistsand experts.Science provides virtual access to "real"on-line scienand evaluative processes are seen as integralto tists, and supplies on-line scaffoldingto support the integrationof "web science"with classroom everyday life, not as isolated or domain specific. Since teachers may be reluctant to implement and everyday science. "canned"materialsand frequently add considKIE builds upon considerable research and erable value by adapting them, tools are protheory on the role of student models in scientific vided which teachers can customize through understanding, constructivistepistemology on or createtheir own. existing projects the nature of truth, and the importanceof scafLearners are considered active agents in folding. Students, especially children, tend to scientific notions with or fail to confuse, connect, exploring and refining a repertoire of incomtheireveryday observations(Bell&Davis, 1996). plete models or ideas. The classroomand Internet provide opportunitiesto access and share a They form relatively powerful and enduring multitudeof scientificideas. Methodsto support beliefs aboutscientificphenomenathroughtheir such beliefs include providing opportunitiesto everyday experiences,many of which are intu-

112 identify new learning goals and make thinking visible, and sharing and evaluating personal and alternativemodels. Students are provided with, for instance, Networked Evidence Databasesthat characterizethe pedagogicalfeatures of science informationrepositoriesresiding on the Internet.They pursue problemssuch as "How far does light travel?"to collect, critique, and organize evidence from the database. Students can then support or refutepersonallygenerated theories, using such tools as a Netbook and Sense Maker to organize and critique evidence. Students can then publish their beliefs and evidence by posting documents to the Web. This, in turn, provides additional source material for others to evaluate. The process of "evidence sharing"encouragesstudents to consider a variety of ideas (e.g., theirown, those based on evidence, otherstudents',experts')and compare their usefulness and consistencywith their own theories. Electronic exchanges, involving students, teachers,and scientistsaroundthe world, are facilitatedusing the on-line SpeakEasyprogram. The purpose is to introduce a variety of models for evaluation that can be progressively refined throughreflectionand collaboration. Constructionism/Microworlds MicroworldsProjectBuilder(1993)is an interactive environment for elementary-and middlegrade students. The programincorporatesLogo programming and authoring tools that enable learnersto create interactivemicroworlds.Project Builder is one in a series of programs that seeks to promote problem-solvingand creativethinkingstrategies.It provides a varietyof shells for students to create unique artifactsof their understanding.They can convertPapert'sLogo "turtle" into any of a variety of icons or imported graphics. Students also programbuttons and sliders into their products so that others can explore and manipulate aspects of their microworld. Project Builder functions as a content-free shell, yet it provides a context for open-ended study (e.g., maps, newspapers). Pedagogically, it is consistent with project-based learning approaches (Blumenfeld, et al., 1991) that

Vol45, No. 3 ETR&D,

emphasizetwo essentialcomponents: 1. the presenceof organizingquestions or problem context;and 2. the development of student-generatedartifacts or products that representtheir understanding and address the problemcontext. By completingprojects,students use a varietyof metacognitive, creative, and problem-solving skills. Microworlds Project Builder provides technology tools for students to representtheir understanding in complex, non-linear ways. Logoprogramming,for example,allow students to externalize their thinking, solve problems, and "debug" solutions-all of which require extensive cognitive and strategic engagement (Papert, 1993). Pragmatic foundations are reflected in the provision of shells that supply structure,but can be easily adapted by teachers and students to support new activities and curricula. In ProjectBuilder,learning is assumed to be an active, constructive process. Presumably, meaningful learning is supported when multiple representationsare provided or can be generated, and when it is rooted in personal, concrete experience (Hannafin & Land, 1997). Thus, students generate meaning by creating products or by proposing and defending possible solutions to ill-structured problems. Students are encouraged to persist in problemsolving and to develop strategiesfor communicating and representingunderstanding(Papert, 1993). Learners are believed to be capable of developing the metacognitive knowledge and strategicskills necessary to guide their inquiry. Many solutions are possible, and students are encouraged to experiment and learn from mistakes.They are given the means to originateand manipulatenovel ideas ratherthanonly to recreate or restateconventionalbeliefs. ProjectBuilder'smethods are consistentwith constructive,project-centeredviews of learning. It provides open-ended tools for accessing resourcesand modeling new ideas. To illustrate, a languageartsinstructormight use the newspaper context provided by the program, and encouragehis or her students to researchtopics for stories. Students might be asked to utilize local newspapers and study the structure of these local resources,both aestheticallyand in

GROUNDEDDESIGN

terms of writing style. Once story lines have been developed, ProjectBuilderprovides structures to support their development. Storiescan be typed onto various pages, and by attaching basic scripts to words and objects, the display can be made interactive.Students must decide which stories warrantfront-pagecoverage,and can link words and phrases via hypertext. By planning for and programminghypertextlinks, students begin to understand connections and naturaldividing points between ideas separated onto differentscreens.Otherbuttonscan be programmed that, for example, animate concepts, play sound clips of student voices to elaboratea chart or diagram, or enable pop-up windows and illustrations.Thus, learnersderive not only formal understandings from their experience, but insights into both the subtleties of the concepts under study and ways to representthem. Such use provides contextsthat are richin experience,knowledge, and opportunitypotential. Each of the above case studies exemplifies different, yet grounded, constructivistlearning systems. Jasper,for example,is groundedin situated cognitiontheorywhich is made operational throughits emphasis on authenticvignettes and anchoring. KIE is consistent with social cognition and learningcommunitiesin which technological tools support learnersin formalizingand testing their beliefs. Microworld's Project Builder emphasizes the constructionof artifacts of understandingwhich both representcurrent understanding and are the bases for subsequently refining understanding. Each is grounded in an establishedconstructivistframework or frameworks,and provides featuresconsistent with its foundations and underlying assumptions. Eachsystem has been the focus of considerableresearch,both during initialformation and since initial development. Numerous applicationshave been reportedthathave either supported or extended the framework. The approaches are generalizable, and have been adapted to address varied learning and performanceproblems.

ANDCONCLUSIONS IMPLICATIONS Several provocative perspectives on learning and the design of learning systems have

113 evolved, and some exceptionally powerful grounded designs have emerged. These perspectives and designs have surfaced in diverse domains ranging from the sciences, to medical education, to language acquisition,to technical training. They reflect both certain similarities and marked differences in how underlying foundations and assumptions are conceptualized, and correspondingmethods are operationalized. Grounded design embracesdiversity in both perspectives and methods, including all practices that are well-founded, not only those that adhere to particularepistemologicalvalues and perspectives. However, not all perspectives or learning environmentshave earned,or warrant,the credibility they have been afforded.While there may be no single correctperspective,the lack of adequate grounding is pervasive. Not all perspectives can be equally defended, nor can all methods be adequately grounded. Alternative perspectives are not supportablesimply by virtue of their"differentness,"nor are conventional approaches inherently superior due to their familiarity.Grounded designs reflect validated applications of different perspectives and their generalized utility, not simply proof of isolated design concepts.Forthe learningsystems design field, this implies that a more complete understanding of the alternatives we consider is needed. It seems reasonableto assume that different foundations and assumptions should result in different teaching-learningmethods. We stand to gain more by understandingthe rationalefor, and potential of, varied perspectives than by attempting to marginalize the differences between and among the approaches. To the extent that genuine differences exist, and the associated methods can be grounded, we expand our toolkit across varied learning and performanceissues. Lackingcompelling empirical evidence as to the superiority of any given approachacrossdiverse learningneeds, it seems wiser to expand than to limit our perspectives and methods. Debatehas surfacedas to the epistemological compatibility between and among learning environments rooted in different foundations and assumptions (Wilson, 1997). To some,

114 instructionism and constructivism represent mutually exclusive perspectiveson teachingand learning. Others have sought a middle ground, suggesting that emerging constructivist views can be reconciledwith more traditionalinstructional design practices.Lebow (1993),for example, suggested that changing the designer's mindset aboutboth the learnerand learningsystems design should promotesufficientflexibility to accommodatepresumed differencesbetween objectivistand constructivistapproaches.Rieber (1993)reportedan example of a learningsystem that merged both constructivistand instructionist epistemology in the learningof physics. Likewise, Winn (1993), and Young (1993) offered pragmatic approaches that link emerging and traditionalinstructionaldesign practices.In certain cases, multiple epistemologiesmay be well supported within a given learningenvironment. It is important to note, however, that advocates who promote the enabling of multiple epistemologies differ from those who either attempt to discredit alternative approaches or fail to recognize basic differencesin their foundations, assumptions, and methods. Groundeddesign practice requires that the methods employed be true to and consistent with the underlying, and substantiated,epistemological roots attendantto a given learningcontext.Simbecause it ply labeling an activity as instructional is objective-referenced does not constitute grounded instruction;likewise, a given activity cannot be reconciled as constructivistsimply because it is student directed.Attempts to support diverse perspectives,and the systems used to design, develop, and evaluate learning environmentsthat embody multiple epistemologies, need to be advanced. However, designs and procedures are needed that optimize and genuinely support the importantdifferences,not simply materials and approaches that diminish them. Implicitin the call for grounded design is the need to advance research to test, validate, and/or alter the wealth of emerging theoretical frameworks.Ultimately, some frameworkswill prove viable, otherswill likely not. As a field, we tend to endorse blindly and adopt quickly despite a lack of compelling theoretical and research evidence. Cheerleading and band-

Vol 45, No. 3 ETR&D,

wagoning have broadened the rift between those who seek provenversus trendylearning systems. At the same time, rigid adherenceto a particularperspectivelimits our capacityto distinguish proven from trendy approaches. We need, as a field, to conduct researchdesigned to test the theories and assumptions that ground the practiceswe advance. Problemsalso arisein assessing the "defensibility" of a framework when credibility is not recognized, or worse, is summarily discounted. Both objectivists and constructivists have advanced one perspective by discrediting the other. Merrill,et al. (1996),for example, characterized constructivist perspectives on learning and instruction as ".

..

wild speculation and

philosophical extremism" (p. 5). Ernst von Glasserfeld (1993), a radical constructivist, stated that realists(objectivists)cause no harm ". .. as long as you don't tell others that the reality you have constructedis the one they ought to, or, worse, must believe in" (p. 28-29). Neither position seems to reflect understanding of the merits-potential or realized-of the other. As Reigeluth (1997) suggested, few designers can position themselves exclusively on one end of a learning-systemscontinuum;fewer still can justify the singular"correctness"of their respective positions. Designers,and the collectivefield of learning systems design, have become increasingly entrenched in the "philosophical extremism" that supportstheirposition. This seems not only unwise but counterproductivein a field where so many disciplines are supported and diverse perspectives on teaching and learning are reflected. It is not necessary to agree with or to adopt perspectives to which one does not subscribe; to understand is not necessarily to endorse. We can disagree and advance the perceived meritsof a given perspectiveover others, but we gain littleby narrowingour perspectives. Nor is it necessarilyproductive to reconcilefundamentally different approaches as variations on the same pedagogical theme; to the extent that genuine differences exist, we may gain more by attemptingto understandthan to minimize them.It has, however,become increasingly important to recognize the pervasiveness of alternative approaches and to understand the

115

GROUNDEDDESIGN

assumptions and methods attendant to them. We need to better understand and evaluate the methods and assumptions appropriate to fundamentally different frameworks, not to singlemindedly discount or diminish them. A quest for the elusive "best" foundations, assumptions, and methods has been underway since the dawn of education, and will undoubtedly continue. The debate among theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners is essential to furthering this quest. It can help to clarify root foundations and assumptions and promote of the merits of understanding differentperspectives and methods. There are countless ways to conceptualize learning systems. The challenge for the design community is to understand and evaluate the worth of different perspectives and methods. Our challenge is to determine the extent to which we are part of and integral to broader education communities, and to evolve our approaches accordingly. To the extent that our perspectives are restricted or rigid, we limit both our capacity to evolve and the breadth of our impact; to the extent that our perspectives broaden, we evolve both in the conceptualization and design of learning systems and the communities we support. O MichaelHannafinis Professorof Instructional Technologyand Directorof the Learningand PerformanceSupportLaboratoryat the Universityof Georgia.KathleenHannafinis AssociateProfessor and Directorof EducationalDesign and Developmentat the MedicalCollegeof Georgia. SusanLandis AssistantProfessorof Instructional Systemsat The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity.Kevin Oliveris a doctoralcandidatein the Instructional Technologyprogramat the Universityof Georgia.

REFERENCES AmericanHeritageCollegeDictionary(3rd Ed.) (1993). Boston:HoughtonMifflin. Anderson,J. (1983).Thearchitecture of cognition.CamPress. MA: Harvard University bridge, Anderson,J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1996).Situated Researcher, 25(4), learningand education.Educational 5-11. Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1995).Theoryinto practice:How do we linkit?InG. Anglin (Ed.), Instructionaltechnology:Past, present, andfuture (2nd ed., p. 100-112). Englewood, CO:

LibrariesUnlimited. Bell, P., & Davis, E. (1996,April). Designingan activity in the knowledgeintegrationenvironment. Paper presented at the AnnualMeetingof the AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.New York:NY. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik,J., Guzdial,M.,& Palincsar,A. (1991).Motivatingproject-basedlearning:Sustainingthe doing, supporting the learning.Educational 26, 369-398. Psychologist, Braden, R. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development:A commentaryon models, 36(2), challenges,and myths. Educational Technology, 5-23. Brown,A., &Campione,J.(1996).Psychologicaltheory and the design of innovativelearningenvironments: On procedures,principles,and systems.In L.Schauble & R. Glaser(Eds.),Innovationsin learning:New environments for education(pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. Brown,A., &Palincsar,A. (1989).Guided,cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition.In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowingand learning:Essaysin honorof RobertGlaser(pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown,J.S.,Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1),32-41. Burton,J.,Moore,M., & Magliaro,S. (1996).Behaviorism in instructionaltechnology.In D. Jonassen(Ed.), Handbookof research for educationalcommunications andtechnology (pp. 46-73). New York:Macmillan. Cognitionand TechnologyGroupat Vanderbilt(1991). Some thoughts about constructivismand instructionaldesign. Educational September,16Technology, 18. Cognitionand TechnologyGroupat Vanderbilt(1992). Emergingtechnologies,ISD,and learning environments: Criticalperspectives.EducationalTechnology andDevelopment, Research 40(1),65-80. Collins, A. (1996).Design issues for learningenvironments. In S. Vosniadou,E. De Corte,R. Glaser,& H. Mandl(Eds.),International onthedesignof perspectives technology-supported learningenvironments (pp. 347361).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Collins,A., Brown,J.S.,&Hollum,A. (1991).Cognitive apprenticeship:Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3),38-46. Collins, A., Brown,J.S.,& Newman, S. (1989).Cognitive apprenticeship:Teachingthe craftsof reading, writing,and mathematics.In L.Resnick(Ed.),Knowing, learning,and instruction(pp. 453-494). Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Erlbaum. Dick, W. (1991).An instructionaldesigner's view of constructivism.Educational Technology, May,41-44. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996).Thesystematicdesignof instruction(4th Ed.).Glenview, IL:Scott,Foresman, and Company. Duffy, T., & Cunningham,D. (1996).Constructivism: Implicationsfor the design and delivery of instrucedution.In D. Jonassen(Ed.),Handbook ofresearchfor

116 andtechnology cationalcommunications (pp. 170-198). New York:Macmillan PsyGagne,R.(1968).Learninghierarchies.Educational chologist,6, 1-9. Gagne, R. (1985). Theconditionsof learning(4th ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart,& Winston. Gagne, R., Briggs,L., & Wager,W. (1988).Principlesof instructionaldesign(3rd ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart,& Winston. Gagne,R., &Glaser,R. (1987).Foundationsin learning research.In R. Gagne (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 49-84). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. Glaser,R. (1990).The reemergenceof learningtheory within instructionalresearch.AmericanPsychologist, 45 (1),29-39. Grabinger,R. S. (1996).Rich environmentsfor active ofresearch learning.In D. H. Jonassen(Ed.),Handbook and technology(pp. for educationalcommunications 665-692).New York:Macmillan. Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments:Critical perspectives. EducationalTechnologyResearchand Development, 40(1),49-63. Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments:AssumpTechtions, methods, and implications.Educational 48-55. 34(8), nology, Hannafin,M.J.,& Land,S.M. (1997).The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhancedstudentcentered learning environments.InstructionalScience,25, 167-202. Hannafin, M.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1989).Psychological foundations of instructionaldesign for emerging computer-basedinstructionaltechnologies:PartsI & and Development, Research II. EducationalTechnology 37, 91-114. Hill, J., & Hannafin,M.J.(in press). Cognitivestrategies and learningfromthe World-WideWeb.EducaandDevelopment. Research tionalTechnology Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivismversus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Research andDevelopment, Educational 39, Technology 5-14. Kafai,Y., & Resnick,M. (Eds.)(1996).Constructionism in practice.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternativenew Techdirectionsfor instructionaldesign. Educational 42-47. nology,August, Lamon, M., Secules, T., Petrosino, A., Hackett, R., Bransford,J., & Goldman, S. (1996). Schools for thought: Overview of the project and lessons learned from one of the sites. In L. Schauble& R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovationsin learning:New environments for education(pp. 243-288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Land,S.M.,& Hannafin,M.J.(1997).Patternsof understanding with open-ended learningenvironments: Research A qualitativestudy. Educational Technology & Development, 45(2),47-73. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivistvalues for instruc-

Vol 45, No. 3 ETR&D,

tionalsystems design:Five principlestoward a new and DevelResearch mindset. Educational Technology opment,41(3),4-16. Linn,M. (1995).Designingcomputerlearningenvironments for engineering and computer science: The ScaffoldedKnowledgeIntegrationFramework.JourandTechnology, 4 (2), 103-126 nalof ScienceEducation Linn,M.C.,Bell,P. &Hsi, S. (in press).Lifelongscience learningon the Internet:TheKnowledgeIntegration Environment.Interactive LearningEnvironments. McClellan,H. (Ed.) (1996). Situatedlearningperspectives.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:EducationalTechnology Publications. Merrill,M.D., Drake, L., Lacy, Pratt,J., and the ID2 Research Group at Utah State University (1996). TechnolReclaiminginstructionaldesign. Educational 5-7. ogy,September-October, MicroworldsProjectBuilder(Version1.02)(Computer program).(1993).HighgateSprings,VT:Logo ComputerSystems,Inc. Palincsar,A., & Brown,A. (1984).Reciprocalteaching of comprehension-fosteringand monitoringactivities. CognitionandInstruction,1 (2), 117-175. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms(2nd ed.). New York: BasicBooks,Inc. Perkins,D.N. (1985).The fingertipeffect:How informationprocessingtechnologyshapes thinking.EducationalResearcher, 14, 11-17. The D. (1995). good, the bad, and the ugly: Phillips, The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7),5-12. C. Reigeluth, (1997).Instructionaltheory,practitioner needs, and new directions:Some reflections.Educa42-47. tionalTechnology, January-February, designtheoReigeluth,C. (in preparation).Instructional riesandmodls(Vol.II).Mahway,NJ:Erlbaum. Resnick,L.,Levine,J.,& Teasley,S. (1991).Perspectives on sociallysharedcognition.Washington,DC:American EducationalResearchAssociation. Resnick,M. (1996).Towarda practiceof constructional design. In L.Schauble& R.Glaser(Eds.),Innovations in learning:Newenvironments for education(pp. 161174).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Rieber,L.P. (1993).A pragmaticview of instructional technology.In K.Tobin(Ed.),Thepracticeofconstructivism in scienceeducation(pp. 193-212). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional and DevelopResearch Technology design. Educational ment,41(1),79-91. Salisbury,D. (1988).Effectivedrill and practicestrategies. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructionaldesignsfor courseware(pp. 103-124). Hillsdale, microcomputer NJ:Erlbaum. Salomon, G. (1986). Informationtechnologies:What you see is not (always) what you get. Educational 20,207-216. Psychologist, Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T.M. (1996). Problem-based learning:An instructionalmodel and its constructivist framework.In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist

117

DESIGN GROUNDED

learningenvironments:Case studies in instructional design.(pp. 135-150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:EducationalTechnologyPublications. Schauble,L., & Glaser,R. (Eds.).(1996).Innovationsin learning:New environments for education.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. Smith,P., &Ragan,T. (1993).Instructional Design.New York:Macmillan. Tripp, S. (1993). Theories, traditions, and situated 33(3)71-77. learning.Educational Technology, of Vygotsky, (1978).Mind in society:Thedevelopment processes.Cambridge,MA: Harhigherpsychological vard UniversityPress. von Glasserfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radicalconstructivism.In K. Tobin (Ed.),The in scienceeducation(pp. 23practiceof constructivism 38). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. Wilson, B. (Ed.) (1996).Constructivist learningenviron-

ments:Casestudiesin instructional design.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:EducationalTechnologyPublications. Wilson, B. (1997). Thoughts on educational technol22-27. ogy. Educational Technology, January-February, Winn, W. (1993). Instructionaldesign and situated learning:Paradoxor partnership?EducationalTechnology,33(3),16-20. Winn,W. (1997).Advantagesof a theory-basedcurriculum in instructionaltechnology. Educational Tech34-41. nology,January-February, Winn,W., & Snyder,D. (1996).Cognitiveperspectives in psychology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbookof research communications andtechnology for educational (pp. 112-142).New York:Macmillan Young, M. (1993). Instructionaldesign for situated Researchand Devellearning. Educational Technology opment,41(1),43-58.

A Message to ETR&DContributors

TR&D is now soliciting manuscripts on disk to enable electronic production of the journal. Disks will be requested when manuscripts are accepted for publication. Requirements are as follows: * Content of disk must precisely match wording of printed manuscript. * Clearly label disk with contact author's last name, platform (PC or MAC) and software employed. * If your platform is PC, provide the disk in DOS format; if MAC, be sure that your disk is in high density format.

E

staffare gratefulfor TheAECTand the ETR&D contributors' cooperationinthiseffort.