Act+6

Act 6 Reflection about Instructivism and Constructivism and how they influence course activities. (Analysis, different points of view)

 As the world becomes smaller, knowledge disperses more. It seems like the world is shrinking as people are able to go to far-away places more easily these days. Business is conducted in many countries often times several time zones different. With increased travel comes the exchange of knowledge on both parties, the visiting party learning about the hosting country and the locals learning about the foreigner. Another way the world has become smaller is through the advancement of communications technology. We see images of revolutions in countries half way around the world, we learn of economies and governments so different from ours. We have gained knowledge, knowledge is not kept only in these places - knowledge has dispersed around the planet.  Back when communication and transportation were not as easily accessible as they are these days, knowledge was also confined to smaller areas and kept only by certain people. The people who possessed the knowledge were viewed as holders of power: judges, philosophers, teachers, and the like. It was important to pass knowledge on to others, but it was a done in a way that the one who had the knowledge was delivering it in a one-way communication, similar to the way traditional teaching has taken place. These teachers instructed their students, they gave information. Instructivism followed this model: the teacher has all the knowledge and the students passively receive this information.  Instructivism (Baylor, 2005) focuses on teaching in a systematic, linear way. Followers of this theory believe on clearly identifying goals and methodically designing teaching activities to meet their academic goals. Baylor describes the activities in this traditional teaching style as favoring a more teacher-directed approach translated in lectures, worksheets and videos, for example. Baylor’s study of tools using instructivism theory and constructivism theory found that there was no significant difference in teachers’ performance, motivation or perceived value of the different tools.  The theory developed after instructivism is constructivism. It is centered on students, not on the teacher (Baylor, 2005). Activities using constructivism theory help build knowledge (not only receiving it passively) and create learning. Constructivist methods foster meaningful learning activities and have students exercise higher order thinking. Driscoll (2000, in Baylor) indicates that constructivist teaching places learning in complex and realistic situations, provides for social negotiation, supports different perspectives, urges ownership in learning and celebrates students’ awareness that they are building their knowledge.  Gulati (2008) adds that constructivism supports diverse ways to viewing and knowing the world. As we mentioned at the beginning of this paper, in the past knowing about other parts of the world was not as easy as it is today. Advancement in technology and ease of international travel have provided man with an opportunity to learn of other cultures. It is quite possible that these changes in technology have influenced how we teach and learn. As Li (2010) states, “the technologies of communication, internet and multimedia have penetrated all aspects of education.” Larochelle & Bednarz (1998, in Gulati, 2008) go further and state that constructivism is not a teaching model but rather it is a philosophy. Enonbun (2010) explains the influence of technology at the turn of the century. He describes the influence Web 1.0 (monopolistic) and Web 2.0 (democratic) had on the way we teach and learn. While Web 1.0 provided more information than ever before, it still remained still as there was no opportunity to modify this information. But Web 2.0, says Enonbun (wikis, blogs, podcasts, social networks, etc.) offers opportunities to modify and interact. While he finds these communication platforms useful, he encourages educators to continuously find better ways to use them in teaching.  Li (2010) explains that in constructivism learners build knowledge from their experience and that people form their understanding and knowledge of the world when they encounter and reflect on those experiences. She adds that, “constructivism is often connected with teaching methods that promote active learning, learning by doing .” Online instruction bases its activities on these thoughts. The activities in online classes are intended for the student to construct their knowledge from experience and reflection. But Gulati (2008) critiques online instructors because many of them believe they are following constructivist theory. He states that educators in online classes need to go deeper into how they conduct their activities to truly adhere to constructivist theory. For example, in the cases he examined for his study, the decisions or suggestions made by the learners on the topics discussed were not considered important. While Gulati (2008) does not completely negate the positive impact of participation in online class discussions, he does encourage instructors to take a closer look at what constructivism means and therefore provide more opportunities for experiencing trust, safety and power when they design their online classes. These are good pointers for those of us who wish to make online instruction more meaningful to learners.  Tracey (2009) offers a brief evolution from instructivism to constructivism to connectivism. He defines instructivist teaching as an authoritarian experience where teachers imparted knowldege and learners were passive. With constructivism, continues Tracey, learners became participants who now had the power to seek new knowledge for themselves, based on their individual experiences. So then teachers became facilitators, rather the sole keepers or possessor of knowledge. In their new exciting roles they guide and coach learners and encourage them to explore, discover, and inquire. This indeed is an exciting and honorable role.  As mentioned earlier, technology pervades our world. New technology is making its difference. Years ago, a popular slogan for a phone book said, “Let your fingers do the walking.” A few decades later we can say the same thing. Let your fingers do the walking when you want to find how to get to a destination, let your fingers do the walking when you need to buy a pink and white poka-dot shirt, let your fingers do the walking when you need to find information about learning theories, let your fingers do the walking when you want to watch the latest video by your favorite folk artist, let your fingers do the walking when you want to share your assignment with your instructor. As before, it seems, that our fingers are the instruments we use to get where and what we need to get – our fingers connect us to an almost limitless world out there. So connectivism comes into the picture.  With the advent of Web 2.0 we have increased the ways in which we communicate, learn, and live. Tracey (2009) explains that there is too much knowledge to retain. Also, the information changes too quickly. He suggests giving up on attempting to learn everything, but rather he advises us to build our “network of knowledge sources.” Once we have our sources saved, we can access them at any time we need them. Although Tracey’s proposition is tempting, I am not completely ready to abandon learning and retention – I do not want my brain to become a mere storage place for where I placed my iPhone, or what my password is. I still want to bring up facts, be able to intelligently maintain a conversation on subject matters I read about, I want to be a human who uses her brain quite often. But who knows, maybe the person of the future will be able to do all these things and more by staying connected.
 * Theoretical Perspectives on Learning **

References Baylor, A. (2005). A comparative analysis and validation of instructivism and constructivism self-reflective tool (IPSRT and CPSRT) for novice instructional planners. //Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 13//(3): 433-457. Retrieved from []

Enonbun, O. (2010). Constructivism and web 2.0 in the emerging learning era: A global perspective. //Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 6//(4), 17-27. Retrieved from []

Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in online discussions: Is this constructivism or normalisation of learning? //Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45//(2), 183-192. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Li, Z. (2012). Application of online multimedia courseware in college English teaching based on constructivism theory. //English Language Teaching, 5//(3), 197-201. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Tracey, R. (2009). Instructivism, constructivism or connectivism? //Training and Development in Australia, 36//(6), 8-9. Retrieved from []