You are here:

Slowing the pendulum: Should we preserve some aspects of instructivism? PROCEEDINGS

, Griffith University, Australia

  • Full Text
  • Citation
  • Save to Collections
  • E-mail
  • Share
  • OpenURL

    • EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-48-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

    Abstract

    As the pendulum swings from instructivist to constructivist implementations of educational technology, we may be at risk of losing sight of some important lessons from classical educational practice. In this paper I will use a project of my own—based upon a constructivist-inspired statistics application—to raise questions about current theorising. In so doing I will refer to literature concerned with situated learning and authentic tasks (e.g., Herrington, Oliver, Herrington & Sparrow, 2000), with the development of understanding (e.g., Perkins, 1998), and with cognitive approaches to learning (e.g., Anderson, Reder & Simon, 1997). My aim is to seek further complementarities between the situated and cognitive approaches (Anderson, Greeno, Reder & Simon, 2000), including whether complex understandings should be decomposed and practised separately, and whether there is sufficient practising of understanding during typical authentic learning tasks.

    Citation

    Bain, J.D. (2003). Slowing the pendulum: Should we preserve some aspects of instructivism?. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2003--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1382-1388). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 17, 2018 from .

    © 2003 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

    Keywords

    View References & Citations Map

    References

    1. Anderson, J.R., Greeno, J.G., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity, Educational Researcher , 29, 11-13.
    2. Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1997). Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Unpublished paper retrieved online in March 2003 at http://act -R.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html Bain, J.D. (1994). Understanding by learning or learning by understanding: How shall we teach? Inaugural Professorial Lecture, Griffith University, September 28, 1994.
    3. Bain, J. D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N. C. (2002). Reflecting on practice: Student teachers’ perspectives . Flaxton: Post Pressed.
    4. Bain, J.D., & Mavor, K. (2002). Collaborative teachback with a statistical cognitive tool: A formative evaluation. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED -MEDIA 2002: World Conference on Educational Media, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Denver, Colorado, USA, June 24-29, 2002. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
    5. Ballantyne, R., Bain, J., & Packer, J. (1997). Reflecting on university teaching: Academics’ stories . ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.
    6. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    7. Conrick, M. (2000). Students’ transitional experiences of problem -based learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
    8. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Herrington, T., & Sparrow, H. (2000). Towards a new tradition of online instruction: Using situated learning theory to design web-based units. In R. Sims, M. O’Reilly & S. Sawkins (Eds.), Learning to choose: Choosing to learn. Proceedings of the 17th Annual ASCILITE Conference (pp. 305-315). Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University Press.
    9. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19, 59-71.
    10. Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 195-205.
    11. Oliver, R. (2000). When teaching meets learning: Design principles and strategies for web-based learning environments that support knowledge construction. In R. Sims, M. O’Reilly, & S. Sawkins (Eds.), Learning to choose: Choosing to learn. Proceedings of the 17th Annual ASCILITE Conference (pp. 17-28). Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University Press.
    12. Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. (pp. 39-57). San Francisco: Jossey -Bass Publishers.
    13. Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education, Volume 25 (pp. 562-567). Jamison, ACT: HERDSA.
    14. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131-175.

    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.

    View References & Citations Map

    Cited By

    1. Authentic E-Learning in Higher Education: Design Principles for Authentic Learning Environments and Tasks

      Jan Herrington, University of Wollongong, Australia

      E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (October 2006) pp. 3164–3173

    These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

    Also Read

    Related Collections