DAVID H.

JONASSEN
JULIAN HERNANDEZ-SERRANO
IKSEON CHOI

Chapter 7

INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING

TECHNOLOGIES

Keywords: affordance, collaborative learning, constructivism, distributed cognition,

effectivity, meaning making, mindtools, submissive learning, transmissive teaching

Abstract. This chapter seeks to demonstrate how constructivism and its associated theories
(e.g., activity theory, distributed cognition, situated learning, etc.) can be used as lenses for
examining the potentials of technologies to promote meaningful learning. The systematic
application of technologies for instruction began after World War II. In the beginning,
technologies were employed to help teachers and designers communicate more effectively
with learners. In recent years, technologies have been reconceived as contexts, productivity
tools, and thinking tools (Jonassen, 1997), rather than media for communicating knowledge
(see Goodyear’s chapter for more on this point). How has that change transpired?

INTRODUCTION
We begin this chapter with a brief review of the assumptions about and
beliefs underlying the use of instructional technologies. In the past decade,
the cognitive revolution of the 1960s and 1970s has acceded to a theoretical
revolution that is being driven by constructivism and a number of associated
theories, including situated, socio-cultural, ecological, everyday, and
distributed conceptions of cognition (Jonassen & Land, 2000). These
theories and perspectives represent a paradigm shift for educators and
designers with dramatic implications for the roles for technologies in
supporting learning processes. After describing how these theories
conceptualize learning, we will describe how a number of contemporary
technologies can be used to support these new conceptions of learning. Other
chapters in this volume also provide good examples of effective integration
of technology into meaningful learning environments of the kind that we
advocate here.
103
J.M. Spector and T.M. Anderson (eds.),
Integrated and Holistic Perspectives on Learning, Instruction and Technology, 103-128.
© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
104 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, TRANSMISSIVE

TEACHING, AND SUBMISSIVE LEARNERS

Systematic instructional design emerged during World War II as a

process for producing reliable training. Rooted in behavioral psychology,
communications theory, and information processing theory, instructional
design focused on developing instruction that emphasized the conveyance of
ideas supported by structured and appropriate practice and reinforcement.
These approaches presume that learning involves a process of knowledge
transmission and reception that results in observable changes in learner
behavior. What are the assumptions behind these beliefs?
This kind of traditional instruction is often called transmissive
instruction, because it assumes that information and ideas can be transmitted
from teachers and/or teaching systems to learners. Transmissive instruction
is based on a simplistic communications model of instruction (see Figure 1)
that continues to prevail in many settings. The transmissive instructional
model assumes that improving learning is primarily a function of more
effectively communicating ideas to learners by improving the clarity of the
instructional messages being transmitted. If teachers communicate (transmit)
clearly to students what they know, then students will interpret the messages
correctly and acquire knowledge by processing the information into internal
representations that are similar to those of the transmitter. Therefore,
teaching is a process of conveying ideas to students. Better teachers are
better communicators. Transmissive instruction also assumes that because
teachers, designers, and/or subject experts have studied ideas longer, they
understand them better and are therefore better able to make appropriate
representations and to communicate (transmit) these effectively.
From an ontological perspective, transmissive instruction assumes that
knowledge is a kind of object that can be conveyed and possessed by
individuals. Epistemologically, transmissive instruction assumes that
knowing involves students receiving, processing, and interpreting what
teachers tell them.
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 105

Transmissive instruction further assumes that effectiveness in learning is

a function of communicational efficiency and so instruction discounts the
intentions of learners in fulfilling instructional goals related to performance
goals and objectives. Is this really what it means to be a student? If so, what
does it mean to learn or to intentionally study?
In many modern societies, being a student is a culturally accepted
responsibility and an expected part of the maturing process. It is a right and
responsibility of passage into adulthood — a way of inculcating socially
accepted beliefs. According to Merrill, Drake, Lacy, Pratt, and the ID2
Research Group (1996):
“Students are persons who submit themselves to the acquisition of specific
knowledge and skill from instruction; learners are persons who construct their
own meaning from their experiences. All of us are learners, but only those
who submit themselves to deliberate instructional situations are students.”
(p.6)
The transmissive model of education relies on students submitting
themselves to the acquisition of knowledge. The unstated implication is that
students who are more submissive in that knowledge acquisition process are
better students. It is worth noting that Merrill and the ID2 Research Group
do not necessarily associate submission with passivity. They are making the
point that most humans are naturally learning all kinds of things nearly all
the time. To be a student for them implies that one recognizes an authority in
some area and has committed oneself to study with that authority in some
disciplined and structured manner. To be a successful student, in their view,
implies a high level of engagement in order to acquire the knowledge and
skill possessed by some recognized authority. This model has prevailed for
centuries and must result in some positive outcomes in terms both of
learning and socialization. However, our argument is that the transmissive
model of instruction is not a generalizable model and does not account for all
learning and instruction. Moreover, it fails to account for the most interesting
kinds of instruction to support learning in and about complex domains that
are now possible with advanced technology. Alessi’s chapter concerning the
issues associated with building versus merely using instructional simulations
make the inadequacy of the transmissive model quite clear.
Another shortcoming of the transmissive model is that it fails to account
for students who may be highly motivated but who fail to see the relevance
of submitting to a process which might seem unlikely to them to lead to the
understanding or enlightenment they seek. In short, some students may (and
often do) legitimately decide to acquire something other than that possessed
and defined by a recognized authority. The theories discussed in the
remainder of this chapter recognize that some students may not be sure why
they should submit themselves to instruction or why they need to acquire
knowledge that appears irrelevant, useless, or meaningless to them at the
106 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

time. What does it mean for such non-submissive (or non-compliant, in

Goodyear’s terminology) persons to study? Clearly it is possible for these
people to be students and to become successful in advancing their
understanding about some selected topic. It is our argument that
constructivism, properly articulated, accounts for both kinds of students, and
is, therefore, an improved and consistent way to conceive of all learning.
In instructional design processes, behavioral and information processing
psychologists have focused their efforts on amplifying the communication
(submission-transmission) process by adding practice and feedback.
Behaviorists argued that if learning were marked by a change in behavior,
then that behavior had to be shaped through reinforced and structured
practice. As a result, various practice strategies (e.g., drill, mnemonics,
mathemagenics, algorithimization, automization, and many others with
cognitive explanations) have been appended to the communication process
(see Figure 2) to strengthen the students’ abilities to simulate the knowledge
and skills of their teachers. An especially interesting practice strategy that
bridges the transmissive model and the constructivist approach is a
completion strategy that gradually requires learners to construct more parts
of solutions to increasingly complex problems (backward chaining). This
assumption is implicit in the practice of scaffolding and much of the
cognitive apprenticeship literature. In a sense, these various elaboration
strategies amount to an implicit recognition of the limitations and
inadequacies of the transmissive model.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, cognitive psychologists provided

internal, mentalistic explanations for these learning processes. In a sense,
cognitive psychology opened the black box of the mind. Numerous cognitive
theories evolved to describe those mental processes. However, the elaborated
communications model with practice and feedback was clearly successful in
selected and simpler domains. Moreover, cognitive psychologists had
difficulty in providing clear and convincing accounts for many mental
processes, such as recognizing a familiar face or identifying the composer by
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 107

listening to a piece of music. Additionally, many cognitive psychologists

continued to accept a simple communications model so long as a few
intervening mental boxes were added and elaborate practice/feedback
strategies were included. As a result, in spite of the many achievements and
improvements introduced by cognitive psychologists in the last thirty years,
the transmissive model continued to dominate the field of instructional
design.

CONSTRUCTIVIST CONCEPTIONS OF LEARNING

During the 1990s, we have witnessed arguably the most substantive and
revolutionary changes in learning theory in history. What made this
revolution more substantive than the cognitive revolution of the 1960s and
1970s are the shifts in the underlying ontology, epistemology, and
phenomenology of learning. Contemporary situated, socio-cultural, and
constructivist conceptions of learning are built on different philosophical
foundations than communications theory, behaviorism, and cognitivism. We
have entered a new age in learning theory. Never in the relatively short
history of learning theories (one hundred plus years) have so many
theoretical foundations shared so many assumptions and common
foundations (Jonassen & Land, 2000). Never have alternative theories of
knowledge and learning been so consonant in their beliefs and the methods
they imply. These theories are no longer the alternative; they represent the
dominant paradigm of learning.
Constructivism is an ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology that is
built on a sense of individual and social responsibility, a recognition of the
variety and dynamic nature of beliefs, a commitment to self-determination,
and the perspective that understanding is what learners seek. Humans
interact with and experience their environment and naturally seek to
understand those interactions by developing their own theories in action and
sharing them with others. We naturally work to make sense of experiences
based on prior experience and knowledge and use that newly constructed
knowledge to generalize to new experiences. Constructivism basically
argues that this view of the human as a natural learner should inform the
design of learning environments because it best fits what people, in fact, do.
Constructivism is best viewed as an amalgamation of several theories,
including especially socially shared cognition, situated learning, everyday
cognition and everyday reasoning, activity theory, ecological psychology,
distributed cognition, case-based reasoning, and Deweyian pragmatism
(Jonassen & Land, 2000). While an elaboration of these theories is beyond
the scope of this chapter, we briefly highlight three fundamental shifts in
thinking that are entailed by these theories.
108 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

Meaning Making
First, learning is primarily and essentially a process of meaning making,
not one of mere knowledge transmission. This basic perspective is based on
observations of human activities. What do people do? Humans interact with
other humans and with artifacts in the world and naturally and continuously
attempt to make sense of these interactions. This is the point of departure for
activity theory (Wertsch, 1998). Meaning making is a process of resolving
the dissonance between what we know for sure or believe that we know and
what we perceive, what we would like to know, or what we believe that
others know. On this view, meaning making or learning results from a
puzzlement, perturbation, expectation violations, curiosity, or cognitive
dissonance. Resolving this dissonance ensures some ownership of the
knowledge that is constructed by the learner. Knowledge that is personally
or socially constructed is necessarily owned by and attributed to the meaning
makers because it was constructed by the meaning makers, not acquired
from someone else. When learners clearly recognize that they are personally
and socially involved in making meaning and constructing knowledge, then
it is much more likely that they will become actively engaged in all aspects
of learning (e.g., participating in and contributing to a community of practice
as opposed to merely efficiently completing specific tasks, however
complicated and challenging). So, when encountering a puzzlement or
problem, learners formulate and articulate an intention to make sense of the
situation or phenomenon and then engage in some kind of interaction,
hopefully consciously reflecting on the meaning of those interactions.
Supporting these formulation, articulation and reflective processes is one
way that instructional design then changes in response to a constructive
perspective.
Ontologically, it should be clear that knowledge is not something that is
directly transmitted. Rather, knowledge is something that must be
constructed, and this is most naturally and most effectively done with peers
and others, which is why socially situated learning and distributed cognitions
figure so prominently in much of the constructivist literature. Moreover,
knowledge is not a simple thing, since it is constructed and usually shared. It
is a dynamic process, subject to multiple revisions, elaborations,
representations, interpretations, and so on. In one sense, this conception of
knowledge is more like the understanding sought by Socrates in Plato’s
dialogues.
The underlying epistemological revolution here is the rejection of
dualistic beliefs that mind and behavior are separate phenomena. Rather,
mind and behavior and perception and action are wholly integrated. We
cannot separate our knowledge of a domain from our interactions in that
domain. Nor can we consider the knowledge that is constructed from the
activity outside the context in which we constructed. This is the basic
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 109

perspective found in activity theory (Engeström, 1993), and it serves to

underline the false dichotomies that Goodyear also identified in his chapter.

Social Aspects of Learning

Second, contemporary learning theorists focus increasingly on the social
nature of the meaning making process, as already strongly suggested.
Behavioral and cognitive theories focused on the individual as the primary
mediator of and unit of analysis for learning. They argue that information is
processed, stored, retrieved, and applied by individuals who are able to
compare their representations with others. Knowledge is in the head.
However, just as the physical world is shared by all of us, so is some of the
meaning that we make from it. Humans are social creatures who rely on
feedback from fellow humans to determine their own existence and the
veridicality of their personal beliefs. Language theorists and philosophers
have long recognized the social nature of language and the impossibility of a
completely private language [see Wittgenstein’s Philosophical
Investigations, for example]. Likewise, social constructivists have believed
for many years that meaning making is a process of social negotiation
among participants in an activity. Learning in this perspective is dialogue, a
process of internal as well as social negotiation. Learning is inherently a
social and a dialogical process (Savery & Duffy, 1996).

Distributed Cognitions
The third fundamental shift in assumptions relates to the locus of
meaning making. Many psychologists cling to the belief that knowledge
resides only in the head. Humans are the only information processors who
can make meaning from experience or anything else. However, as we engage
in communities of practice, our knowledge and beliefs about the world are
influenced by that community and their beliefs and values. Through
legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991), we absorb part
of the culture that is an integral part of the community, just as the culture is
affected by each of its members. As we engage in communities of discourse
and practice, our knowledge and beliefs are influenced by those
communities. So is our identity formation, which is also a major outcome of
learning. Not only does knowledge exist in individual minds and in socially
negotiating minds, but it also exists in the discourse among individuals, the
social relationships that bind them, the physical artifacts that they use and
produce, and the theories, models, and methods they use to produce them.
Knowledge and cognitive activity are distributed among the culture and
history of their existence and is also mediated by the tools they use.
110 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

Ontolologically, knowledge is not something that can be solely

possessed by an individual. The assumption of the transmissive model that
knowledge is something that an individual can possess is impoverished,
however well that model may have worked for however many years. Once
again, constructivism provides a richer and more general account of
learning, knowledge, and human activity than what was offered by previous
accounts of learning.
One implication of this aspect of the constructivist perspective is that
when we investigate learning phenomena, we are obligated to consider not
only the performances of the individual and groups of learners, but also the
socio-cultural and socio-historical setting in which their performance occurs
as well as tools and mediation systems that learners use to formulate and
exchange ideas, support reflection and make meaning (see Figure 3).

We have already argued that, from a constructivist perspective, learning

is a process of knowledge construction. The construction process is best
understood as learners or learning agents employing a variety of tools in the
production of artifacts (papers, tests, theories, projects, etc.). The tools
(theories, methods, sign systems, etc.) that learners use in the construction
process affect the nature of their conscious activity as well as the artifacts
mental or physical that they construct). In the latter part of this chapter, we
describe a number of technologies that can be used to mediate the learning
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 111

and construction process. This activity theory conception of learning

(Engeström, 1993; Leont’ev, 1974) also claims that this construction process
is mediated by the socio-cultural and socio-historical context in which the
construction is accomplished. The history, customs (formal and informal
rules), and roles that different actors play in the context also shape the
construction and learning process. The ways that tools are used and learning
occurs in different contexts differ. What activity theory teaches us is that
learning is a far more complex social and intellectual activity than is
conceived by information processing theories. Learning is not merely a
matter of internally processing percepts but rather an interaction of those
percepts with conscious activity and context.

WHAT IS LEARNING FROM A CONSTRUCTIVIST

PERSPECTIVE?
We have briefly reviewed transmissive conceptions of learning and
constructivist critiques of those conceptions. Constructivists, believe that
meaning making (i.e., meaningful learning) involves willful, intentional,
active, conscious, constructive practice that includes reciprocal intention—
action—reflection cycles (see Figure 4). Intentionality, activity, and
reflection are essential to meaningful learning, especially in complex and
new domains. Although individuals may learn some things incidentally and
even accidentally without intention, action, and reflection, those learning
instances will not be transferable without action and reflection (Duffy &
Jonassen, 1992; Rieber, 1989). Let us address each of these in turn.
Humans are distinct from primates in their abilities to articulate an
intention and willfully plan to act on it. As argued before, constructive
learning normally results from a question, curiosity, a perturbation, an
expectation failure, or some other dissonance between what is perceived and
what is understood. When that dissonance occurs, learners seek to
understand the phenomena in a way that resolves that dissonance. That
learning, we argue, is oriented by an intention to resolve the dissonance, to
answer the question, satisfy the curiosity, or figure out the system.
Articulating intentions is a conscious process. It requires the learner to
reflect on what is known and needs to be known.
112 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

Actions are the central learning mechanism. Actions can be physical,

mental, and social all at once and are typically comprised of perception-
action processes. Ecological psychology claims that learning results from the
reciprocal perception of affordances from the environment and actions on
the environment (Gibson, 1977; Young, Barab, & Garrett, 2000). So learning
activity involves perception-action processes (as noted by the links between
perception and action in Figure 4. Activity theory (Jonassen, 2000b) claims
that actions and consciousness are completely interactive and
interdependent. We cannot act without thinking or think without acting
(therefore the link connecting action and consciousness in Figure 4).
Although learning is frequently conceived of as an active process (clearly
the ID2 group accepts this much), the meaning of activity is not always
clear. Activity theory and ecological psychology provide a clear explanation
of what ‘active’ means. In addition to regulating activity, reflection on these
perceptual and conscious actions is necessary for constructing meaning.
While perceiving and experiencing their environment, humans intentionally
act on it. The perception-action and consciousness-action processes engaged
in by experience are the basis for reflection. Those reflections become an
important part of the experience that is used to help explain new experiences
and generate fresh intentions. Conscious activity is guided by intentions and
reflections which are informed by consciousness. The dialectic between
reflections and intentions also accounts for metacognitive activities and self-
regulatory efforts engaged in by learners. The richness of the constructive
perspective makes it a powerful and useful tool in designing instruction for
complex domains precisely because it allows us to view learning as an
integrated and holistic collection of processes and activities.
In the remainder of the chapter, we describe a number of technologies
that can support the intention-action-perception cycles of knowledge
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 113

construction. We examine these technologies for their affordances and for

how learners can use them to act on and mediate the construction process.

WHAT ARE TECHNOLOGIES?

Historically, learning technologies have been conceived as machines that
are used as conveyors of knowledge. Instructional designers encoded
knowledge and intelligence into the machine and used the machine to
mediate the conveyance of knowledge from the teacher to the student.
Technologies have been used as conveyors because educators believed that
they were efficient and that they provided reliable contexts for learning.
However, this conception of learning technologies is inconsistent with the
constructivist assumptions and beliefs that we have stated about learning,
and when one examines how current technologies are in fact used, one
discovers that they can be used for much more then mere conveyers (see
Park & Hannafin, 1993, and Alessi’s chapter, for example).
We have defined conscious learning from a constructivist perspective as
the reciprocal interaction between intentions, actions, and reflections of
learners. In order to carry out those actions, humans use tools and signs to
mediate their actions. Technologies are tools for supporting and amplifying
human activity. Technologies shape the way people act and think. From an
activity theory perspective, technologies may include not only physical
apparatus and tools but also theories, models, or methods for mediating
human activity. Technologies alter the activity and are, in turn, altered by the
activity.
So from a learner-centered, constructivist perspective, learning
technologies are tools for mediating the practice of learning. As such, they
are tools for representing (reflecting and constructing) learner understanding,
tools for socially co-constructing and re-constructing meaning, and
intelligent formalisms that amplify learners’ thinking. When used as tools for
mediating learning, the learning that students do with the technology will
more likely be assimilated into their cognitive repertoires, especially in
complex and new domains. How do we understand the relationship between
learners and learning technologies? If we examine the potential of any
learning technology from the learners’ perspectives, then we must consider
the affordances and effectivities of each technology. That is, technologies
should be examined for the effectivity-affordance relationships that they
have with the learning activities they are mediating. The affordances of any
technology are the properties of that environment that enable the effectivities
of the technology, the abilities of the learner to take learning actions. In the
remainder of this chapter, different technologies will be examined for the
affordances they provide learners for effecting learning activities. Other
114 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

chapters in this book offer extended and elaborated examples of specific

technology affordances in richly constructed learning environments.

TECHNOLOGIES THAT SUPPORT CONSTRUCTIVE

LEARNING?
Table 1 lists technologies that can be used to support constructive
learning. We do not argue that these are the only technologies capable of
affording constructive learning. These are the technologies that have the
most obvious affordances (see, for example, Dede, 1996; Savery & Duffy,
1996).

Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) – Learning by

Working
Technologies that can be used to facilitate, augment and redefine social
interactions among members of a community of practice fall into the realm
of computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) (Koschmann et al.,
1996). CSCW makes use of groupware and other technologies that support
group work for the sake of achieving higher levels of productivity within a
group. These technologies require advanced computer workstations with an
array of multimedia and communication hardware and software, as well as a
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 115

highly integrated network system that supports sophisticated levels of local

and remote interactivity.
Most CSCW systems provide a shared workspace that allows a larger
community of workers to think critically by inquiring, reflecting, sense
making, arguing and building knowledge (individually and within the
community) with the goal of co-constructing an object (Jonassen, 2000a).
CSCW tools provide a structure that facilitates learning to use the tools as
well as the protocols for contributing effectively within group.
For any particular group interaction, any participant may opt to inspect
another participant’s screen, receive and send comments and data to others,
modify the objects of work, and confer with group members who may be
across the office, in another building or on another continent. For all these
situations, CSCW tools provide a structure that inherently scaffolds group
work by providing structure and sequence to the collaborative endeavor.
CSCW supports interactive data sharing and the ability to view a co-
participant’s computer screen. In addition, it provides project management
tools, access to external resources (electronic libraries, Internet, etc.) and
group decision support systems. CSCW provides for the automatic
distribution of the objects of work and related modifications, as well as
electronic conferencing tools that support virtual meetings. These are the
technological affordances of CSCW.
CSCW affords the co-construction of knowledge and products without
the need for formal instruction. CSCW provides an environment in which
participants learn to work within a group by using the CSCW tools, thus
contributing to the group goal—the creation of objects of work. Consistent
with activity theory, the object of work consists of both the knowledge that
is co-constructed and the artifacts of that conscious activity. Those are the
effectivities of CSCW. That is, with powerful tools that scaffold work,
workers can learn to work without instruction. CSCW tools make possible
more effective work activities, that is, constructing products. That is the
ultimate outcome of constructive learning.

Electronic Performance Support Systems: Learning by Performing

According to Gery (1991), Electronic Performance Support Systems
(EPSSs) can electronically:
“provide whatever is necessary to generate performance and learning at the
moment of need [so it can be] universally and consistently available on
demand any time, any place, and regardless of situation, without unnecessary
intermediaries involved in the process” (p. 34).
Based on learners’ needs, EPSSs are designed to provide various types of
information, such as interactive advice, explanations, demonstrations,
descriptions, interactive training, simulations, feedback, directions,
116 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

coaching, procedures, etc. EPSSs include advisory or expert systems for

problem structuring, decision support, analysis, or diagnosis; interactive
productivity software such as spreadsheets, text processors, and job aids;
applications software for performing specific job tasks or functions; and help
systems, among other features (Gery, 1991). These tools scaffold
performance. That is, individuals can perform without being taught. They
learn from performing, once again constructing knowledge without the
benefit or necessity of formal instruction. Just-in-time learning is perhaps the
most constructive form of learning.
Within an EPSS, learners engage various effectivities that can promote
meaningful learning. Given a complex problem situation, learners can ask
questions, or request help, support, explanations, and advice from the EPSS
while successfully performing a task. Some EPSSs even monitor user
activities and offer unsolicited advice (e.g., so-called software wizards).
However, users typically get useful information from an EPSS when they
ask the right questions, and this can happen only if they develop the
necessary higher order thinking processes such as articulating, analyzing,
reflecting, testing, monitoring, and evaluating what they know and what they
don’t know (Dillon, 1986; Miyake & Norman, 1979). So, EPSSs afford
meaningful learning activities. When learners apply the requested
information from the EPSS, they are actively involved in meaningful
learning because they are responsible for performance and the learning
required to achieve it; so learners can elaborate on or analyze the new
information, integrate or relate to previous knowledge, anchor new
knowledge to previous experience, and evaluate it (King, 1989, 1992;
Schank, 1995). Learners can model experts’ behaviors and even internal
processes, such as reasoning, decision-making and problem solving, by
interacting with EPSSs containing experts’ knowledge. Learners can take
systems-initiated information (e.g., advice, help, assessment, feedback, etc.),
analyze the context, and reflect and update their performance. Therefore,
learners can perform better as well as learn better by interacting with EPSSs;
it is emergent (need-based) learning by performing with just-in-time support.
There are several affordances for meaningful learning in EPSSs. First,
EPSSs have various input-mechanisms that allow learners to ask questions,
get support, and seek advice. These features enable learners to reflect on
their own knowledge and to become ready to acquire new knowledge for
achieving goals. Second, EPSSs have just-in-time service features that
enable learners to learn at the moment of need. These features provide a
variety of information to learners when they are most motivated to learn,
leading them to more meaningful learning and better performance. Third,
EPSSs have modeling features that provide advice, examples,
demonstrations, and even reasoning processes to solve problems as the real
experts do. Lastly, EPSSs have various modes of presenting information
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 117

(such as text, graphics, visual images, audio, motion video, etc.) that enable
learners to capture information with the most effective mode depending on
the situation.

Virtual Reality/Microworlds: Learning by Experimenting

Microworlds are “primarily exploratory learning environments, discovery
spaces, and constrained simulations of real-world phenomena in which
learners can navigate, manipulate or create objects, and test their effects on
one another” (Jonassen, et al., 1999, p. 157). That is, microworlds are
simplified models of parts of the world (Hanna, 1986) or constrained
versions of reality which enable learners to manipulate variables and
experiments within the parameters of some systems. The term ‘microworld’
was coined by Papert (1980) to describe explorative learning environments
such as those provided by Logo. Nowadays, various other examples are
available, such as: Interactive Physics for simulating Newtonian mechanics;
SimCalc for simulating calculus concepts; Geometric Supposer for
simulating geometric concepts; and many more. Virtual Reality provides
immersive environments that function like microworlds to the extent that it
provides a controlled real-world environment where people explore and
experience almost the same things that they can do in the real world. Virtual
reality provides a high fidelity simulation of the world that allows users to
interact with the virtual environment in a manner similar to how users do it
in the real world.
Learners effect these environments in different ways. Learners can design
their own experimental environments by creating objects and conducting
experiments by manipulating variables and controlling parameters/factors.
Through these activities, learners engage higher order thinking skills, such as
generating hypotheses, designing experiments and testing them, observing
and analyzing experimental results, regenerating alternative hypotheses, etc.
Eventually, this will lead them to construct their own understanding of the
underlying principles of the microworld through the exploration of the
experimental phenomenon and by (re)building their own mental model of
the world they are experimenting with. They can build concrete
understandings by visualizing abstract concepts after conducting various
experiments.
In Interactive Physics, for example, learners can design their own
experiments by modeling Newtonian phenomena by creating objects,
showing grids, rulers, axes, vectors, masses, etc., and selecting various ways
to measure the effects of changes in the variables. Then, they can conduct
experiments by manipulating factors such as gravity, air resistance, elasticity
of bodies, etc., and observe and measure the results such as changes in
velocity, acceleration, momentum, and other forces. In virtual
118 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

reality/microworlds learners can also practice the newly acquired skills and
knowledge without the unfortunate results of actual failures. Therefore, they
can learn safely by simply doing and experimenting in the environments
provided by virtual reality/microworlds.
There are several affordances for meaningful learning in these
environments. First, a microworld contains a simplified model that is part of
the complex, real world which affords a reduction in cognitive load. Also, by
containing features for controlling the complexity of the models, it allows
users to learn meaningfully according to their learning progress. Second,
microworlds have manipulation-observation features that allow learners to
manipulate parameters and observe certain variables/factors in various ways
(e.g., meters, graph, etc.). These features are very effective in engaging
learners in critical thinking by allowing them to generate, speculate, and test
hypotheses. Lastly, virtual reality/microworlds deliver a certain level of
realism of the world they are based on. This allows learners to interact with
the virtual reality/microworld in a manner similar to the way they would do
in the real world by immersing learners in the environments thus achieving
meaningful learning.

Intentional Information Searching – Learning by Exploring

There are tools that promote learning by exploring especially on the
World Wide Web (WWW). These tools support learners’ intentional
information searching goals by helping them articulate their intentions,
focusing the learners’ attention into effective information searches, finding
useful sources of information on the WWW, and keeping the learners on-
task and away from sources of information that drives them away from the
learning goal. In addition, these tools help learners interpret the information
they find on the WWW while constructing knowledge bases. All that
learners require is the appropriate hardware (computer, basic communication
equipment, etc.), software (WWW browser, access to search engines, etc.)
and basic WWW search skills.
Intentional Information Searching represents a constructivist
environment. After declaring an intention to build knowledge (a desire to
know), the learner must collect and interpret the information that relates to
the declared intention. This process promotes meaning making by constantly
forcing the learners to interpret the information they are finding on the
WWW in response to their intentional search and determining how relevant
it is to their intended purpose (Jonassen, 2000a).
Learners effect their learning in different ways as they approach the
WWW. They must have already defined an information need (develop an
intention). It is necessary for them to clearly articulate that information need
and purpose. It is the learners’ purpose that drives the learning by developing
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 119

search strategies that allow them to find information through social

communication in computer-mediated collaborative work environments,
build temporary repositories of information with a search engine (search
results page) that is organized around a purpose that is congruent with the
learner’s intentions, or configure an intelligent agent according to the
learner’s needs and intentions. Once the learners receive the information,
they need to critically inspect the information contained, verify the author’s
professional credentials, and evaluate any possibilities for biases; in other
words, they need to ensure that the information they are getting is valid.
Considering the enormous amount of information available through the
WWW, learners should pursue a strategy of triangulation, whereby they
need to obtain additional WWW sources that touch upon the issue of interest
and report the information with the same level of accuracy (Jonassen,
2000a).
At the other end, the tools that learners use for satisfying their
information needs provide numerous affordances:

a door to the complex world of information in the Internet by

facilitating a point of entrance to computer chat rooms,
asynchronous conferences and other forms of electronic social
communication;
access to numerous WWW search engines for searching by
category, scaffolding the learner’s search by using the existing
structure within a search engine (e.g., Education K through 12
Curriculum WWW Projects: Activity Structures) or by
searching with keywords, facilitating the dynamic creation of
unique repositories of information with links to specific resources
that respond to the learner’s intentions (e.g., Search the Web:
Curriculum AND “Technology applications”); and,
access to intelligent agents that permit automatic searches, and
information evaluation and collection according to patterns that
responds to the learners’ preferences and needs.

In each case, the result of the intentional search allows learners to

develop another web page with a collection of links to existing web pages
with the information that responds to the learner’s search needs and goals
accompanied by brief summaries of the contents of these pages, or a written
report with citations that refer to these web pages.

Videography: Learning by Visualizing

Videography (Jonassen, et al., 1999) refers to the use of video equipment
for video recording, editing, and replaying, including video cameras,
120 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

monitors/televisions, videocassette recorders (VCRs), editors, and

microphones. Today, this equipment is so small, cheap, and efficient that it
is affordable and usable by all. Video cameras (or camcorders) are small
recording systems that include a lens for visually capturing images, a video
pickup tube for converting the image into a monitor, a cassette transport
system, a video tape recorder for encoding electronic signals of the visual
image into video cassettes, and a small viewer or monitor for viewing the
images being recorded or replayed. VCRs (or a camera’s replay function)
decode magnetic signals from videotapes into electronic signals and send
them to monitors/televisions. Video editing programs allow for the
arrangement of disconnected scenes from different videotapes into a
coherent sequence.
These tools afford different activities for learners. Learners can watch
authentic, complex problems that need to be solved, engage in the problems
deeply, identify and adapt goals, seek important cues from the rich stories
being played, build and justify their expectations or solutions, compare their
solutions to others, and revise their understanding (e.g., Anchored
Instruction, CTGV, 1992; Science in action, Goldman et al., 1996). Learners
can also construct their own understanding of ideas by producing video
programs for a video press conference, newsroom, talk show, documentary,
video theater, etc. Learners can take on the role of directors, producers,
camera operators, set designers, and actors. In these creative activities,
learners engage in a variety of meaningful interactions, including:

analyzing problems, issues and topics;

studying various perspectives, characters and related
information;
generating questions and answers that represent their
understanding about the ideas;
making plans about the program in a way that express
their intention and understanding about ideas; and,
writing scripts, rehearse, videotape and organizing the
scenes.

In short, learners become more active, constructive, intentional, and

cooperative. They also can model complex skills, behaviors or even internal
processes (such as decision making, questioning, or a problem resolving
process) of experts by watching video models. Additionally, they can reflect
on and correct their performance and thinking processes by watching
themselves perform (direct and self-constructed feedback).
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 121

Multimedia/Hypermedia Construction - Learning by Constructing

Multimedia is the incorporation of more than one medium into some
form of communication. Hypertext refers to a non-sequential, nonlinear
method for organizing and displaying text that enables learners to access the
information contained within it in ways that is most meaningful to them.
Hypermedia is hypertext with multiple representation forms (text, graphics,
sounds, video, etc.) (Jonassen, 2000a). One of the most conspicuous
examples of hypermedia is the World Wide Web (WWW). Allowing
learners to represent what they are learning through the use of
multimedia/hypermedia tools will help them integrate this information with
their existing knowledge and provide ways of synthesizing that information
into a meaningful communication. Learners require access to a multimedia
computer equipped with the necessary hardware to incorporate the media,
and software to edit it and complete a production.
The production of multimedia/hypermedia by students promotes
important constructive learning. After having declared an intention to build
knowledge, and having collected and interpreted the information that relates
to the declared intention, multimedia/hypermedia tools help learners build
new understanding by providing them with affordances to represent what
they are learning. In order to accomplish that, learners must focus their
intentions by critically evaluating the underlying structure of the collected
information, generate model cases from it and develop arguments to justify
the hypermedia design used to represent what they have learned (Jonassen,
2000a).
Learners learn as a result of authoring multimedia/hypermedia materials
in ways that best represent their perspectives or evolving understanding of
the subject matter into a design to be shared with others (see Alessi’s chapter
for a discussion of this in the context of constructing simulations). Once a
sufficient amount of information has been collected, the learners’ goal then
becomes representing that into a multimedia document. That means that
learners have to make choices about what topics to represent and in what
form they should be represented so that their understanding is conveyed best
(text, video or audio clip, etc.). They need to construct relationships among
the topics by linking them. And they have to design an interface to their
knowledge base for others to inspect. This is not a simple linear process but
one in which multiple goals emerge and are pursued until satisfied
depending on the dynamics of the learners’ intentions. While engaged in
these knowledge-building activities, learners may also develop project
management, research, organizational, representation, presentation, and
reflection skills.
Multimedia/hypermedia construction tools and web authoring tools
provide affordances to learners by allowing the construction of
representations of abstract ideas into an easily inspectable knowledge base.
122 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

These tools permit learners to structure what they are learning in the form of
nodes (chunks of text, pictures, video clips, and so on), and links that
connect these nodes in meaningful ways. These tools afford the learners with
the ability to transform the collected information into multiple
representations, allow them to keep what’s important and drop what is not,
segment information into nodes, link the information segments by semantic
relationships, and in general allow them the flexibility to represent their
ideas as they see fit.
By having learners engage in the knowledge building process and
supporting that process with appropriate multimedia/hypermedia tools, the
learners will become designers instead of passive learners, and knowledge
constructors instead of knowledge users (Jonassen, 2000a). Learners will
work on creating representations of their own understandings, and this will
afford them a sense of involvement and vested interest that will help them
sustain their intentions for further knowledge construction and learning.

Knowledge-Building Communities: Learning by Conversing

Sometimes the goals of a particular learner can best be met through
collaboration within a larger community of like-minded learners. There are a
number of technologies, called Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL), that can be used to support these knowledge-building communities.
Knowledge-building communities afford conversation social interaction
(Kolodner & Guzdial, 1996). CSCL affords learners with a type of
understanding that leads to learning by having learners work together and
socially co-construct a common understanding. For example, a school
environment that supports collaborative learning is the Living Schoolbook
Project at Syracuse University (http://lsb.syr.edu/lsbweb/index.html).
By having to negotiate sense making with a larger community of learners,
the critical thinking skills of inquiry, reflection, sense making,
argumentation and knowledge building (individually and within the
community) are afforded. In addition, CSCL promotes a high sense of
learner ownership of their contributions (a sense of accomplishment) by
seeing how they influence the group’s learning; ownership motivates
learning and further participation (Kolodner & Guzdial, 1996).
In learning environments that incorporate CSCL technologies, learners
affect their environment by participating within a group’s discussions. Once
there is an intention to participate in a discussion, the learner may ask
questions, as well as respond to other participant’s questions. The learner
may also need to elaborate on and interpret responses and respond to others.
This way, learners provide and are exposed to multiple perspectives, thus
promoting the critical examination of concepts, ideas, issues or dilemmas.
By having to articulate and explain their ideas, learners make ideas more
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 123

concrete and precise. While articulating their arguments and raising learning
issues, the community of learners is driven to reach a consensus about the
knowledge being built.
CSCL software affords learners continuous social discourse (conversing)
while sustaining the knowledge building community. It provides an interface
that promotes collaborative interaction and tools for sharing learner-built
representations of concepts. It provides communication combinations —
synchronous, asynchronous, local and remote —that allow learners to share
their arguments. It facilitates the process of transformative conversation by
allowing learners to ask questions and follow up on inquiries over different
occasions (time-space). In addition, it provides support to the collaboration
process by offering a shared record-keeping space where intentions are
articulated, which is available for inspection by members of the community.
An example of CSCL is Computer-Supported Intentional Learning
Environment (CSILE); it supports the dialectical process by providing
content and rhetorical spaces.
By forming knowledge building communities through CSCLs, learners
are exposed to the subject matter and acquire the social skills necessary for
participating in future knowledge communities (virtual and real). It is
expected that learners will apply what is learned from their collaboration
using CSCL to other situations; this will not only increase knowledge-
building communities but also create favorable attitudes toward them. By
having a high sense of ownership on the discussion, learners will be more
motivated to persevere in the knowledge building process and thus become
better collaborators and inquirers.

Mindtools-Cognitive Tools: Learning by Reflecting

Mindtools are “computer-based tools and learning environments that
have been adapted or developed to function as intellectual partners with the
learner in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher-order
learning” (Jonassen, 2000a). Computer applications that are used or
developed to facilitate critical thinking in learning can be classified as
Mindtools. These include (but are not limited to) semantic organization
tools, dynamic modeling tools, visualization tools, and so on.
Semantic organization tools include databases and semantic networking
tools. Databases are record keeping systems that were designed to allow
users to store, classify, and retrieve information. Semantic networking tools
are applications that help users to draw spatial representations of concepts
and their interrelationships representing the users’ knowledge structures
(Jonassen, Beissner, & Yacci, 1993).
Dynamic modeling tools include spreadsheets, expert systems, and
system modeling tools. Spreadsheets are numerical record-keeping systems
124 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

that were originally designed to help users (like accountants) with

accounting operations (summing, subtracting, and balancing). Expert
systems are artificial intelligence programs designed to simulate expert
reasoning in order to facilitate decision making for all sorts of problems.
System modeling tools are applications allowing users to build models of
dynamics systems and test the models by simulation.
Visualization tools are applications that help learners to interpret abstract
concepts, numeric data, and invisible phenomena and to represent it visually
by converting the original information into visible representations.
Mindtools afford the organization, representation, and expression of what
learners know. Learners correct, update, and reorganize their knowledge or
mental models based on critically thinking about the content (or objects) and
thinking about their own knowledge. For example, when using databases,
learners define “fields” (that describe the class or type of information in the
domain) by identifying their goals and features of information, build records
(that describe objects) by collecting and inserting information into the fields,
and reorganize information by sorting it and making new links among the
fields in order to answer queries and to discovery new relationship among
the fields. With semantic network tools, learners also evaluate information to
build visual-verbal representations of their own ideas or what they learn by
using nodes (concepts or ideas) and links (statements of relationship); they
continuously reorganize the information. With spreadsheets or systems
modeling tools, learners can build and represent their mental models of
dynamic systems or complex phenomena that contain mathematical or
logical relationships, simulate them by manipulating variables or
components, and observe the results. In expert systems, learners evaluate a
current problem situation, seek rules that will provide advice about that
situation, and reflect on the structure of knowledge by simulating it. Learners
can reason visually in certain domains with visualization tools by
manipulating the representation of the idea and articulating the underlying
principles. With Mindtools as intellectual partners, learners become active
designers of objects, constructors of their own knowledge, and critical and
reflective thinkers.
Mindtools have two critical affordances that lead learners to meaningful
learning. First, Mindtools provide various formalisms for representing what
people know. Language is one typical formalism to express and
communicate ideas; but sometimes ideas are hard to represent verbally. The
fields, records, and query functions that link new relationships between
fields and make new criteria for sorting information in databases; cells,
mathematical functions defining relationship between cells and their
structure in spreadsheets; visual maps of relationships between ideas in
semantic networks; visual symbols and causal-loops in system modeling
tools; and rule based expert shells in expert systems are all examples of
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 125

formalisms that allow users to represent and to communicate meaningfully

their knowledge. Second, most Mindtools have manipulation-feedback
features that amplify the cognitive process of learners. Databases have query
functions that enable learners to manipulate relationships between fields and
to sort records with different criteria. System modeling tools or spreadsheets
have functions that enable learners to select and manipulate variables and to
present the results in various ways. Visualization tools also allow learners to
observe the results visually by manipulating factors. These manipulation-
feedback processes engage learners in deep reflection that promotes
meaningful learning. However, the primary affordance of Mindtools is
critical thinking. Using Mindtools engages learners in critical thinking; they
cannot build Mindtool knowledge bases without thinking critically.

Constructivist Learning Environments – Integrating Affordances

Learning environments can be built that integrate most of the other
technologies that have been described, which is a key point of this chapter
and indeed an underlying theme of this book. Constructivist learning
environments (CLEs) are case-, project-, or problem-based environments
that engage learners in articulating, solving, and reflecting on their solutions
of a problem or project space, including a representation of the problem,
descriptions of the context in which the problem occurs, and the ability to
manipulate and test various solutions to the problem (Jonassen, 1999).
Additional affordances include case-based stories about different aspects of
the problem solution, information resources, cognitive tools that scaffold the
performance of required tasks, collaboration tools that scaffold group
decision making, idea sharing, and co-construction of shared knowledge.
Each of these affordances scaffold different steps in the problem solution.
The activities that are being scaffolded are also important parts of the sense-
making process.
An example of such a CLE is one we developed for an operations
management course on how to conduct aggregate planning (Jonassen,
Prevish, Christy, Stavurlaki, 1999). In this environment, we presented two
companies engaged in aggregate planning. In each problem, learners begin
by entering into a conversation with employees of the firm as well as reading
and listening to internal correspondence within the organization. These
conversations help to establish the organizational and operational climate of
the businesses, that is, establish the problem context. The narrative format
for representing the problem context is realistic and illustrates the attitudes
and beliefs of stakeholders in the organization. Learners can get historical
sales information, available inventory, demand, human resources, and
technology. The problem for the learner is to predict demand and sales and
to determine the appropriate levels of technology, inventory, and human
126 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

resources to maintain. Students’ solutions are worked out on a complex and

multifaceted spreadsheet (the cognitive tool for this performance). Students
manipulate the factors such as production rates, employees hired, or
employees fired. These values are integrated into aggregate planning
formulas to allow learners to test the effects of any manipulation. They
continue to manipulate the variables until they have achieved what they
believe to be the maximum levels.
The related cases include several similar planning cases and include
stories about how those similar companies accommodated demand,
technology needs, sales, human resources, and inventory problems in their
companies. By presenting related cases in learning environments, learners
are provided with a set of experiences to compare to the current problem or
issue. Learners retrieve from related cases advice on how to succeed, pitfalls
that may cause failure, what worked or did not work, and why it did not.
The aggregate planning CLE provides a variety of information resources
about the aggregate planning process that help the students to understand the
process and its business procedures well enough to solve the problem.
Students are provided text documents, graphics, and sound resources about
the process.
The aggregate planning cases may be engaged individually or in groups.
In group situations, either synchronous decision making conferences or
asynchronous conferencing may be used. Solving problems like these is an
essential component of synchronous conferences, we believe. Synchronous
conferences are more productive when learners are engaged in an intentional
problem-solving process.
CLEs incorporate most of the other constructivist applications of
technology in the solution of complex and ill-structured problems. Ill-
structured problems are difficult to solve because the solutions and solution
paths are not obvious. CLEs scaffold the solution processes and the
reflection on them. In order to construct them, it is necessary to understand
the activity systems in which work is normally accomplished and to provide
affordances for the activities necessary to solve those problems those
authentic environments.

CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, we have reconceptualized the meaning of learning as
intention-action-reflection cycles. These action cycles represent ways that
learners effect their knowledge and their environments. They are guided and
regulated by articulating intentions and reflecting on their actions.
In this chapter, we have also reconceptualized technologies very broadly
as affordances for learner activity. That is, learning technologies provide
affordances for intentional thinking. The role of technologies in learning can
INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING 127

best be understood by analyzing the effectivity-affordance relationships

between the technologies and the ways they are used, that is, the kinds of
actions taken with them. We have analyzed a variety of technologies for the
ways that they can be used to construct understanding (effectivities) and for
their affordances that support those activities. We hope that this chapter and
other examples discussed in this book help make clear the richness of a
constructivist approach to learning and the various ways that technology can
be integrated in meaningful learning environments. The general notion that
ties these issues together is a holistic view of human activity and it is that
perspective which can and will drive the design of learning environments for
the foreseeable future.

REFERENCES
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in
distributed, virtual worlds. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments:
Case studies in instructional design (pp. 165-175). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Dillon, J. T. (1986). Student questions and individual learning. Educational Theory, 36, 333-
341.
Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A
conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory an individual and social transformation. In Y.
Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.
19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gery, G. J. (1991). Electronic performance support systems. Tolland, MA: Gery Performance
Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hanna, J. (1986). Learning environments criteria. In R. Ennals, R. Gwyn, & L. Zdravchev
(Eds.), Information technology and education: The changing school. Chichester, UK:
Ellis Horwood.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory
(Vol II.) (pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000a). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking.
Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000b). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-
centered learning environments. In D.H. Jonassen & S.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical
foundations of learning environments (pp. 89-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates
Jonassen, D. H. & Land S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. A. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for
representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A
Constructivist perspectives. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
128 JONASSEN, HERNANDEZ-SERRANO, and CHOI

Jonassen, D., Prevish, T., Christy, D., & Stavurlaki, E. (1999). Learning to solve problems on
the Web: Aggregate planning in a business management course. Distance Education: An
International Journal, 20(1), 49-63.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of
lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366-381.
King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated
questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111-126.
Kolodner, J., & Guzdial, M. (1996). Effects with and of CSCL: Tracking learning in a new
paradigm. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice (pp. 307-320). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-
Supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in
collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice (pp. 83-124).
New Jersey: Mahwah.
Leont’ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2),4-33.
Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt J., & the ID2 Research Group (1996). Reclaiming
instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
Miyake, N., & Norman, S. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know
what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 357-364.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Books.
Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive
multimedia. Interactive Multimedia Design, 41 (3), 65-85.
Rieber, L. P. (1989). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and
direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (1), 93-106.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
consructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments:
Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Schank, R. C. (1995). Engines for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wetrsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, M. F., Barab, S., & Garrett, S. (2000). Agent as detector: An ecological psychology
perspective on learning by perceiving-acting systems. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land
(Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 147-171). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This chapter was completed while I was a visiting faculty member in the
Department of Information Science at the University of Bergen. My thanks
to them for their support.