520093

Article

An Introduction to Constructivism and Authentic Activity

Michael Cholewinski

Introduction
Most modern instruction and learning methods are premised on one of two cognitive paradigms, objectivism or constructivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Until the cognitive revolution in psychology of the 60s (Voss, 1995), the dominant theory of instruction was behaviorism, which is based upon an objectivist epistemology (Kanselaar, 2002). This revolution saw constructivism develop as a powerful challenge to behaviorist instructional design methodology and began a paradigm shift in educational design and practices away from traditional methods (based upon behaviorist principles) toward those based upon constructivist theories of learning. This paradigm shift is currently evolving in Japan as educational institutions strive toward more constructivist-based instruction (Monbusho, 2001; 2003). My own investigation of instructional methods that show promise toward facilitating learners efficient and effective learning in such environments impelled me to review the history and structure of constructivist theory. In this article, I will provide a summary exploration of the literature of the two primary theories that make up the constructivist paradigm, focusing on the principle founding theorists and each theorys concept

283

of knowledge, learning, instruction, and motivation. This will be followed by a description and explanation of Authentic Activity, an important methodological construct in present day education, which evolved from constructivist design theory.

Constructivist theory
Constructivism is a theory that aims to explain what knowledge is and how it is acquired. The literature reveals that a general set of constructivist learning principles have evolved from the theorys initial development in the early 20th century to the present: a) that learning is an active process; b) that learning is a social activity; c) that learning is contextual; d) that learning consists both of constructing meaning and constructing systems of meaning; e) that prior knowledge is needed for an individual to learn; f) that learning involves language; g) that learning is a longitudinal, adaptive, recursive process; h) that the development of meaning is more important than the acquisition of a large set of concepts or skills; and, i) that motivation is essential for learning (see for example, Black, 1995; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Brown et al., 1989; Bruner, 1966, 1978; Fosnot, 1996; Leontev, 1978; Newmann et al., 1995; Piaget, 1976; Resnick, 1985; Vygotsky, 1986). The constructivist paradigm which is made up of two major strands, Cognitive Constructivist Theory and Social Constructivist Theory, each with its own core emphases is complex, with tightly interwoven explanations for phenomena in its many constituent parts. The literature reveals that much educational research and many variations of instructional design that make use of these constructivist principles, or that use the generalized terms constructivist or constructivism in their titles, co-opt elements from both strands of the paradigm (see Biggs, 1979; Cunningham, 1996). Table 1 below provides a summary

284

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

matrix of the two main cognitive theories.

Table 1: Summary matrix of constructivist theories Concepts Concept of Knowledge Cognitive Constructivism Social Constructivism Vygotsky, Dewey

Principle Theorists Piaget, Perry, Bruner

Knowledge is actively con- Knowledge is a product of structed by individuals through social interaction (authentic a series of internal intellectual tasks in meaningful, realistic settings). stages or steps. Learning is an ongoing effort Understandings are created by to adapt to the environment assembling knowledge from through assimilation and diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand. accommodation. Emphasis on identifying pre- Learners build personal, siturequisite relationships of con- ation-specific interpretations of the world based on expetent. riences and interactions, with the potential for development limited to the ZPD. Links to prior knowledge Explanations, demonstrations, examples Schema Theory Outlining & Concept Mapping Generative Learning Repetition Interactivity Corrective feedback Modeling Problem-based learning Scaffolding Coaching Collaborative learning

Concept of Learning

Instructional Strategies

Concept of Motivation

Motivation is intrinsically driven Motivation is intrinsically and extrinsically driven

Principle theorists
The development of present day constructivist theory is considered to originate in the work of two early 20th century contemporary epistemological theorists, Jean Piaget (1976) and Lev Vygotsky (1986), whose cognitive theories

285

of learning were developed as reactions to the dominant science of the time, Behaviorism. Piagets research focused on the cognitive nature of constructivist learning, and Vygotskys on its social nature. Numerous related learning theories and instructional methods have since evolved from their initial research (see for example, social Learning Theory, situated Learning, Anchored Instruction, Authentic Learning, Collaborative Learning and Inquiry- and Project-based Learning). The swiss biologist, philosopher, and behavioral scientist, Jean Piaget (1970; 1976), is considered the principle architect of cognitive constructivism, with a number of succeeding researchers offering variations on his structuralist approach to cognitive and educational psychology. Jerome Bruners cognitive constructivist theory (1960; 1966; 1996), which closely follows Piagets theory and which has brought many of its ideas into the working education world, continues to have considerable influence on educational research and practice since its development in the early 60s. The principle architect of social constructivism is the soviet psychologist, Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky (1986) and his colleagues formulated a Sociohistorical Theory of Psychological Development, which argues that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition (Cole, 1978; engestrm et al., 1999; Wertsch, 1985). As with Piaget, numerous subsequent researchers have developed theories that represent variations on Vygotskys sociohistorical approach (see for example, Bandura, 1986; engestrm et al., 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Leontev, 1978; van Lier, 2000). It is widely recognized that much of the American psychologist and philosopher John Deweys (1933; 1944) early 20th century progressive educational reform work, which presaged many of Vygotskys theoretical principles, paved the way for the

286

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

widespread acceptance of Vygotskys works upon their introduction to the West in the early 60s (huitt, 2004; Vanderstraeten, 1998).

Cognitive and social constructivist principles

Cognitive constructivism is a structuralist learning theory that explains how a learner develops knowledge of his or her world through staged, mental adaptation (Bruner, 1960; Piaget, 1970; 1976). It argues that optimal learning environments are those that provide dynamic interaction between instructors and learners, and that have sequenced, recursive tasks that allow opportunities for learners to build a mastery of knowledge and skills through a process of stepped reflective interpretation (Gruber, 1995). social constructivism, in contrast, is a cognitive theory of learning that argues that learning is a situated, social, and collaborative activity in which learners are responsible for constructing their own knowledge (Vygotsky, 1986). It asserts that optimal learning environments are those in which a dynamic interaction between instructors, learners and tasks provide opportunities for learners to construct their own knowledge through social interaction with others. excepting the specifically social aspect of learning, social constructivism shares many similarities and overlaps with cognitive constructivism.

Concept of knowledge
Piagets cognitive constructivism asserts that knowledge is a result of a mechanism of self-construction that processes existing mental representations to obtain an equilibrium between the existing mental representations and new environment (huitt, 2004). Knowledge is seen as something that individuals actively construct through a series of intellectual stages or steps (Bruner, 1960; Piaget, 1970) or positions (Perry, 1968) based on their existing cognitive structures rather than as something passively absorbed. Learners use such factors as

287

their existing knowledge, their particular stage of cognitive development, cultural background and personal history, to interpret new information or experience and adapt it to their existing mental representations (Bruner, 1960; Piaget, 1976). In Bruners (1991; 1990; 1986) more recent work, he has expanded his theoretical framework to encompass the social and cultural aspects of learning, bringing his theory closer to social constructivism. social constructivist theory, in contrast, maintains that knowledge is structurally and internally formulated by learners in response to interactions with their environment. social constructivist theory maintains that because language and culture are the frameworks through which humans experience, communicate, and understand reality cognitive structures must be explained as products of social interaction (Vygotsky, 1986).

Concept of the learning process

Piaget (1970; 1976) believes that individuals learn by finding, organizing, and assimilating knowledge into the information they already have. his theory asserts that individuals posses a innate mechanism driven by biological impulse that allows them to interact with, and adapt to, the environment, and that this adaptation is a continuous activity of self-construction. For Piaget, the adaptation occurs through the processes of assimilation and accommodation. As a person interacts with the environment, knowledge is formed into mental structures. When differences between existing mental structures and the environment occur, one of two things can happen: 1) the perception of the environment can be changed to match existing mental structures (assimilation), or 2) the mental structures themselves can change (accommodation). In either case, the individual adapts to the environment through the interaction and knowledge develops through the adaptation and organization of mental representations (Driscoll,

288

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

1994; huitt, 2004). Piaget believes that this active ongoing adaptation produces increasingly complex mental organization, which results in the formation of the adult mind (huitt, 2004). In contrast to cognitive constructivist theory, in which learning is considered to be the internal assimilation and accommodation of information, social constructivist theory uses social interaction as the framework for all learning and development. According to Vygotsky (1986):
every function in the childs cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level and, later on, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals. (57)

Vygotsky asserts that two levels of mental functions exist, elementary functions, such as sensing, with which we are born, and higher functions, which include self-generated stimulations such as memory, attention, abstraction, and language (Cole, 1978). The transition from elementary to higher mental functions is accomplished through the individuals use of cultural tools, which Vygotsky claims are semiotic in nature (Wertsch, 1991). such tools are not inherited genetically, but are instead developed and preserved in our culture as signs, symbols, numbers, musical notation, writing, pictures and, the most universal of all tools, language (Galina, 2004). Children initially develop these tools to serve solely as social functions, ways to communicate needs. Vygotsky believes, however, that it is their continual internalization that leads to higher thinking skills. In summary, Vygotskys social constructivist theory is based upon the view that humans create culture through the use of tools, and culture, in turn, dictates what is valuable to learn and how it is learned. In this view, society (culture)

289

becomes the driving force behind cognitive development. Cognitive development is the internalization of culture (social functions) and the conversion of those social functions into (higher) mental functions. An essential tenet of Vygotskys (1986) theory is the assertion that each person has an individual range for potential cognitive development known as is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). In social-constructivist thought, the goal of educators is to promote work that falls within the learners ZPD and that extends the learners area of self-regulation by drawing them into challenging but attainable areas of problem solving (Cole, 1978; van Lier, 2000). Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), in their elaboration of the role of tutoring on problemsolving behavior, developed a supportive instructional mechanism known as scaffolding, arguing that the social context of tutoring goes beyond modeling and imitation and involves a kid of scaffolding process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts (90) (see Figure 1). since the mid-80s, the concept of scaffolding has been adapted to any number of processes whereby a teacher moves students to independent use of skills and concepts while gradually fading his or her assistance. Donato (1994) offers a succinct working definition of the term:
scaffolding is a mechanism whereby in social interaction a knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech, supportive conditions in which a novice can participate in, and extend, current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence. (40)

290

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

Figure 1: Scaffolding paradigm

Duffy and Cunningham (1996: 183) report that some critics of the scaffolding metaphor claim that its rigid use of structure is objectivist in nature and therefore conflicts with constructivism in general. The critics claim that with scaffolding the instructor chooses and arranges the environment to help the learner acquire prespecified knowledge. Duffy and Cunningham (ibid) have responded that scaffolding is not a teaching environment in which knowledge is transmitted, but rather is a learning environment in which knowledge is learned through the process of mediated and collaborative participation. Aside from the basic background on the concept of scaffolding provided above, literature related to it consists of an extensive range of interpretations of how the concept has been applied to various learning and instructional situations, an exhaustive listing of which is outside the scope of this summary review. Because the concept of scaffolding has become a fundamental element of the constructivist paradigm, most literature devoted to applications of core constructivist principles in instructional or learning processes include as part of their explanation a treatment of the concept. For a representative sampling of literature concerned with scaffolding as it has been applied to various instructional domains, see for example hogan and Pressleys (1998) comprehensive

291

guide to the development of instructional approaches that utilize scaffolding, Wengers (1998) explanation of scaffoldings role in communities of practice, Lantolfs, (2000) discussion of the role of scaffolding in sociocultural theory and L2 learning, Turner & Berkowitzs (2006) application of scaffolding to the instruction of moral development and character education, Azevedo, et al., (2004) and Puntambekar & hubschers (2005) recent work on scaffoldings role in hypermedia applications, and Donatos (1994), DeGuerrero & Villamil (2000) and Cotteralls (2003) research on the use of scaffolding in L2 contexts.

Concept of instruction
A key element of cognitivist instruction strategies is an emphasis on the formation of connections between new and prior knowledge (Piaget, 1976). As learners are believed to construct their own knowledge, constructivist teaching methods should present a hands-on environment that encourages exploration while facilitating learners adaptation of new information into existing knowledge (Fosnot, 1989; huitt, 2004; Resnick, 1986; sigel, 1978). To do this, instructors must first take into account their learners knowledge levels, and then use this information to determine how to present, sequence and structure new learning material and tasks (Fosnot, 1989, 1996; Resnick, 1986). social constructivist theory, in contrast to cognitive constructivism, maintains that language and culture are the frameworks through which humans experience, communicate, and understand reality. Instructional strategies that support this are based upon a minimal number of characteristics or guidelines: a) that cognitive development is situated in a social context; b) that language plays a central role in cognitive development; c) that instruction provides experiences that are in advance of a learners independent functioning but still within his/her ZPD; and d) that instructors encourage and create opportunities for collabora-

292

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

tion and problem solving (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Brown et al., 1989; CTGV, 1993; Fosnot, 1989; Vygotsky, 1986).

Concept of motivation
Throughout their works, cognitive constructivists Piaget, Bruner, and others (see for example, Kegan, 1982; Perry, 1968) continually stress that learning requires significant personal investment on the part of the learners because it is an ongoing process of active discovery in which the learner is continually setting new goals and modifying or abandoning existing cognitive structures. such personal investment is thought by them to be driven by intrinsic motivation as external rewards and punishments such as grades are considered to be to be insufficient motivators to effectively maintain such activity. social constructivism, in contrast, sees motivation as both extrinsically and intrinsically driven. social constructivism asserts that because learning is a social phenomenon, learners are partially motivated by the extrinsic rewards provided by the knowledge community into which they are being integrated; however, because knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, learning depends to a significant extent on the learners internal drive (intrinsic) to understand and promote the learning process. Furthermore, Deci & Ryan (2001; 1985; 2002; 1999) report that external motivators, which initially lay outside a learners locus of control (deCharms, 1981), may become internalized or co-opted into a learners intrinsic motivation schema depending upon various personal and cultural factors.

Contrasting methods of instruction

As was mentioned at the outset of this article, most modern instruction and learning methods are premised on one of two cognitive paradigms, objectiv-

293

ism or constructivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The foundations of modern day constructivism can be found in the learning theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey, but the influence of these theories on instruction did not become widespread until after the cognitive revolution in psychology of the 60s was well under way (Voss, 1995). This revolution saw constructivism develop as a powerful challenge to the dominant theory of behaviorism, which is based upon an objectivist epistemology (Kanselaar, 2002). educational psychologist Lauren Resnicks (1988) 1987 address to the American educational Research Association, in which she outlined the major criticisms of traditional education in America, marks a signal point in a paradigm shift in educational design and practices away from traditional methods toward those based upon constructivist theories of learning. Important in effecting this paradigm shift was Barr and Taggs (1995) celebrated Learning Paradigm article, which began,
A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything. It is both needed and wanted. (13)

In this article, the authors define the general state of higher education in America and offer their speculation about how such a pedagogical paradigm shift might play out in shaping future educational design, practices and outcomes. Fear (2003, p. 152) writes that although there was already a longstanding, deep, and diverse literature about learner- and learning-centered education at the time of their publication, Barr & Taggs article is credited with establishing a widely accepted label and image of a constructivist learning paradigm. In their contrast of the constructivist learning paradigm with the traditional instructional paradigm, Barr & Tagg succinctly summarized the central ideas at

294

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

work in both paradigms and offered an easy-to-read, systematic framework and proposal for how to proceed with the transition to learner-centered and learningcentered education. The impact that such critical literature (see also, Biggs, 1996; herrington & oliver, 2000; herrington et al., 2002; Jonassen, 1996a; Jonassen, 2004; Resnick, 1988; von Glasersfeld, 1989) effected is evident in the present state and direction of constructivist educational design in the West, influences of which are now being felt in the Japanese educational environment (Monbusho, 2003). As traditional and constructivist instructional design and methods are central to an overall discussion of constructivism, I will provide summary definitions and matrixes of both approaches below.

Traditional
Traditional instructional methods appear throughout the literature under a number of different labels; for example, the behaviourist model of instruction, the transmission method, the quantitative method, teacher-fronted teaching or learning, teacher-centered teaching or learning (e.g., Bigge & shermis, 1999; Tynjala, 1999). Though these approaches to teaching and learning vary, they share a common foundation in objectivist educational principles. In traditional approaches, instructors assume an overall responsibility for the activities and information content that the learners engage in within the classroom. The instructors responsibility is to package the knowledge as carefully as possible so as to ensure the efficient digestion of the content by the learners. In general, the students role is restricted to passively absorbing the knowledge offered by the instructor. In such approaches, the locus of control (deCharms, 1981) and the manner in which knowledge is processed lies with the instructor, with learners attempting to reproduce correct answers based upon the knowledge transmitted by the instructor (e.g., Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Cuban, 1983; schuh, 2004).

295

Constructivist
As was discussed earlier, constructivist is a generalized term that indicates that a pedagogy is grounded in either cognitive or social constructivist theory, or a hybridized form of them. Constructivist methods of instruction and learning are variously labeled in the literature as student-centered, authentic, problem- or project-based, cooperative, collaborative, inquiry-based, transformative, generative, situated, anchored (e.g., Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996; Gagn, 2005; Tynjala, 1999). Although these methods express a diversity of approaches to instruction and learning, they share a common foundation in constructivist educational principles that assert that learning is a situated, social, and collaborative activity in which learners are responsible for constructing their own knowledge by testing concepts based on their prior knowledge and experience (Bruner, 1996; Collins et al., 1989). In contrast with traditional approaches, constructivist approaches place the locus of control and the manner in which knowledge is processed with the learner, who is encouraged to generate selfrelevant knowledge through critical, interactive and collaborative inquiry. To illustrate key differences between the paradigms, I provide an outline by Jonassen et al. (1999) that illustrates the fundamental differences between traditional and constructivist views of learning and instruction through a contrast of their attributes of knowledge, reality, meaning, symbols, learning and instruction (see Table 2 below).

296

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

Table 2: Traditional and constructivist differences (from Jonassen, et al., 1999) Attributes Knowledge Traditional Constructivist

Transmitted, external to knower, Constructed, emergent, situated objective, stable, fixed, decon- in action or experience, distributed. textualized. external to the knower. Reflects external world. Represents word. Knowledge transmission, reflecting what teacher knows, wellstructured, abstract-symbolic, encoding-retention-retrieval, product-oriented. simplify knowledge, abstract rules, basics first, top-down, deductive, application of symbols (rules, principles), lecturing, tutoring, instructor derived and controlled, individual competitive. Product of mind. Reflect perceptions and understanding of experiences. Tools for constructing reality. Knowledge construction, interpreting word, constructing meaning, ill-structured, authenticexperiential, articulation-reflection, process oriented. Reflecting multiple perspectives, increasing complexity, diversity, bottom-up, inductive, apprenticeship, modeling, coaching, exploration, learner-generated.

Reality Meaning Symbols Learning

Instruction

Moursund (2003) provides more detailed comparisons between traditional and constructivist teaching and learning environments, showing the differences in terms of educational components in three areas of learning and instruction: curriculum (Table 3), instruction (Table 4), and assessment (Table 5).

297

Table 3: Traditional and constructivist differences: Curriculum Educational Component Concept of knowledge Traditional Curriculum Constructivist- based Curriculum

Facts. Memorization. Discipline Relationship. Inquiry and specific. Lower-order thinking Invention. higher-order thinking skills. solve complex problems, skills. drawing on multiple resources over an extended period of time. Taught in specific time blocks or Integrated into all content areas courses that focus on IT. as well as being a content area in its own right. Teacher, textbooks, traditional reference booksand CD-RoMs, use of a limited library, controlled access to others information. Paper, pencil, and ruler. Mind. All previously available information sources. Access to people and information through the Internet and Word Wide Web. All previously available aids to information processing. Calculator, computer.

IT as content

Information sources

InformationProcessing aids Time schedule

Careful adherence to prescribed Time scheduling is flexible, makamount of time each day on spe- ing possible extended blocks of time to spend on a project. cific disciplines. students work alone on problems presented in textbooks. Problems are usually of limited scope. Modest emphasis on higher-order thinking skills. students work individually and collaboratively on multidisciplinary problems. Problems are typically broad in scope, and students pose or help pose the problems. substantial emphasis on higher-order thinking skills.

Problem-solving, higher-order thinking skills

Curriculum

Focus on specific discipline and Curriculum is usually interdisa specific, precharted pathway ciplinary, without a precharted pathway. Different students study through the curriculum. different curriculum.

(Moursund, 1999, pp. 20-21)

298

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

Table 4: Traditional and constructivist differences: Instruction Educational Component Traditional Instruction Constructivist-based Instruction

Classroom activity Teacher-centered. Teacher driv- Learner-centered (student cenen. Teacher is responsible for ter). Cooperative. Interactive. covering a set of curriculum. student has increased responsibility. Teacher role Teacher-student instruction Instruction Dispenser of knowledge. expert. Collaborator, facilitator, learner. Fully in charge. Teacher lectures and ask ques- Teacher works with groups. tions, student recite. Lecture/demonstration with quick recall and student recitation of facts. seatwork, quizzes, and exams. single-discipline oriented. sage on the stage. Computer-assisted learning (drill and practice, tutorial, simulations). Tools used for amplification. Guide on the side. Mentoring. Discovery-based learning. Peer instruction & collaboration. Interdisciplinary orientation. Communication, collaboration, information access, information processing, multimedia documents and presentations.

Technology Use

Physical layout of classrooms

Chairs arranged in rows in a Movable furniture to facilitate fixed format. Chairs may be bolt- easy regroupings of furniture and students. ed to the floor.

(Moursund, 1999, p. 21)

299

Table 5: Traditional and constructivist differences: Assessment Educational Component Student role as a learner Traditional Assessment Listener (often passive). Quiet, well behaved. Raises hand when prepared to respond to a teachers question. studies directed toward passing tests and completing required work. Quantity and speed of recall. Constructivist-based Assessment Collaborator, teacher, peer evaluator, sometimes expert. Actively engaged. Active learning. Problem poser. Active seeker after knowledge. students learn as they help each other learn. Quality of understanding.

Demonstration of success Use of technology during assessment

Allow simple tools, such as students assessed in environment paper, pencil, and private, shared in which they learn. only with the teacher. occasional oral presentation. Most student work-products are written and private, shared only with the teacher. occasional oral presentation. Norm referenced. objective and short answer. Focus on memorization of facts. Discipline specific. Lower-order thinking skills. Most student work-products are public, subject to review by teachers, peers, parents, and others. Multiple forms of products. Criterion referenced. Authentic assessment of products, performances, and presentations. Portfolio. self-assessment. Peer assessment.

Student work-products

Assessment

(Moursund, 1999, p. 22)

The Authentic-Constructivist connection

The term authentic, as it is relevant to educational psychology and instructional practices, appears in the literature with two distinct definitions and uses. In L2 instruction, though not restricted to it, authentic is commonly used as a synonym for classroom realia any material not specifically designed for instruction (e.g., newspapers, movies, song lyrics) (see for example, Candlin et al., 1982; Nunan, 1993; Porter & Roberts, 1981). With regard to literature on constructivist instructional design, the term authentic has a more compli-

300

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

cated meaning, history and use. This is due largely to its neologistic origins in Cognitive Apprenticeship Theory (Brown et al., 1989), a construct that emanated from both strands of the constructivist paradigm. Literature concerned with the constructivist concept authentic or authenticity covers many different fields of learning. I will first provide a graphic (see Figure 2) that broadly illustrates the theoretical lineage of the concept of

Figure 2: Authentic Activity

301

Authentic Activity including key instructional methods and activity concepts associated with it. This will be followed by an historical overview of the literature that reveals the origins and definition of the concept as well as that which illustrates the fields which served to bring it into widespread use and acceptance as a constructivist instructional design concept. Finally, I provide a 10-point concept-and-source summary framework that synthesizes characteristics of authentic activities and learning environments that currently serve to guide to instructional designers and educators (see Table 6). The literature reveals that the late 1980s produced a watershed of development in cognitive research. Drawing on the wave of late 80s research into cognition as it is manifested in everyday activity (e.g., Lave, 1988; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Resnick, 1988; Rogoff & Lave, 1984; Slavin, 1983; von Glasersfeld, 1989), educational researchers, Brown et al. (1989), proposed a constructivist approach to instruction called cognitive apprenticeship as an alternative to conventional educational practices based on the transmission paradigm of instruction. The authors argued that their theory of cognitive apprenticeship marked the beginning of a new theoretical perspective for successful learning, one they claim cognitive theorists had, to date, been unable to adequately explain. In clarifying terminology for their theory, they codified authentic as those activities that are situated in a social framework and whose coherence, meaning, and purpose are socially constructed through negotiations among present and past members (34). This is the earliest appearance in constructivist literature for the neologism, authentic. The term has since developed widespread use and extended meaning with regards to instructional design premised on elements from both strands of the constructivist paradigm. Proponents of cognitive apprenticeship theory assert that masters of a skill often

302

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

fail to take into account the implicit processes involved in performing skills when teaching them to novice learners (see for example, Brown et al., 1989; Collins et al., 1987; Lave & Wenger, 1991). To confront this tendency, they assert that cognitive apprenticeship is designed to bring such tacit processes into the open, where students can observe, enact, and practice them with help from the teacher (Collins et al., 1989, p. 456). As with traditional apprenticeships in which the apprentice learns by working under a master, cognitive apprenticeship allows the instructor (master) to model behaviors in a realworld context by means of cognitive modeling (Bandura, 1977). By following the instructors explanation as the learner looks at the model, s/he can identify relevant behaviors and develop a conceptual model of the component processes involved. The learner then attempts to imitate those behaviors with the instructor observing, and if needed, offering coaching. Coaching includes additional modeling as necessary, corrective feedback, and reminders, all intended to bring the learners performance as close to the instructors as possible. The coaching technique provides assistance at the most critical point in the learning process, the ZPD the skill level just beyond what the novice learner could accomplish by him/herself (Cole, 1978). As the learner becomes more skilled through the repetition of this process, the instructor fades the coaching until the learner is, ideally, independently performing the skill at a level approximating that of the instructor (Bandura, 1977). Modeling and coaching techniques share many similarities with Bruner (1975) and Wood et al.s, (1976) process of scaffolding and the function of near peers. Brown et al. (1989) claim that with the contextualization of learning that occurs in cognitive apprenticeships situations might be said to co-produce knowledge through activity[because]learning and cognitionare fundamentally situated (32). The conveyance of the success of this early research dealing with constructivist learning situations in the literature was instrumental in further directing cognitive and educational research

303

away from traditional, decontextualized instruction and learning practices and into the realm of authentic learning (oxford, 1997). The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) (1993), under the direction of John Bransford (1990), continued research into the situated nature of authentic learning environments (ALes) with the development of anchored instruction techniques for media-based learning materials. Anchored instruction is formulated upon both Lave and Wengers (1991) theory of situated learning, which emphasizes learning in situated contexts, and spiro et al.s (1992) cognitive flexibility theory, which emphasizes the spontaneous restructuring of knowledge in adaptive response to radically changing situational demands. Bransfords (1990; CTGV, 1993) anchors consisted of stories, placed on interactive videodiscs, that encouraged learners to explore complex problem-solving scenarios that were situated in interesting, realistic contexts (i.e., authentic) as a means to promote the active construction of knowledge. Anchored instruction has been found to be an effective instructional design because of its contextdependency and stress on the importance of giving learners opportunities to construct their own knowledge from the presentation of information from multiple perspectives. With the continuing proliferation and growing ubiquity of information and communication technology in both educational and industrial learning environments in recent years, the research literature has been dominated by issues concerned with how best to contextualize, or situate learning in media-based problemsolving (Jonassen, 1996b). An overview of this literature reveals that there are a number of major themes concerning researchers and educators as they attempt to further understand the interplay between authenticity and the learning environments and materials that make use of emerging technologies (e.g., interactive

304

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

software and videoware, web-based intelligent tutoring, elearning applications); in addition, within these themes research covers a wide range of topics. Primary themes include media-based problem-solving instructional design methodology (Jonassen, 2000; 2003a; 2003b), issues concerning cognitive load and achievement levels in such environments (Mayer, 2001; slavin, 2006), the design and implementation of IT-based constructivist problem-solving learning environments (see for example, herrington & oliver, 2000; herrington et al., 2002; oliver, 1999; Reeves et al., 2002; Reeves, 1996), educational technology and knowledge-building communities (see for example, Cathcart & samovar, 1992; hirokawa, 1992; scardamalia, 1994; scardamalia, 2002; scardamalia et al., 1989), values inherent in authentic IT-based learning environments (Gulikers et al., 2005) and lastly, the efficacy of online inquiry-based mechanisms (e.g., WebQuests) for self-regulated learning (Dodge, 1997; Marzano, 1992). The literature also reveals that concerns exist about the manner in which the term authentic is being used in such learning environments (Gillespie, 1998; Petraglia, 1998). Petraglia (1998) focuses the argument as such:
Constructivist educational technologists have been guided by the implicit (and increasingly explicit) desire to create authentic environments for learning: environments that correspond to the real world.I argue that technologists have tended to paper over the critical epistemological dimension of constructivism by pre-authenticating learning environments: creating environments that are predetermined to reflect the real world even though constructivist theory contraindicates precisely this. (1)

Kupritz and McDaniel (1999) counter this concern by claiming that such generalizations confuse the contextual role of information resources (e.g., the Internet and the World Wide Web) with the contextual level of instruction needed to communicate meaning. They state that the question is not just the real world context that students have ready access to, but also, in what social and physical

305

context is learning being delivered (120). Research literature concerning authentic non-technology-based classroom instructional design is as equally broad as that of technology-based literature as constructivist pedagogies continue to diffuse into various educational domains. Though more than 10 years have passed since its publication, oxfords (1997) Constructivism: Shape-Shifting, Substance, and Teacher Education Practices still provides perhaps the most comprehensive overview of issues related to authentic non-technology-based instructional design and practices, focusing primarily on questions of epistemological interpretation within constructivist theories, and the great many variations of constructivist instructional practices that have proliferated. In addition, the work of Resnick (1986; 1989; 1991), Brooks (1993), Newmann (1996; 1996; 1995), Moll and Greenburg (1990), Wiggins (1993), and Nicaise (2000) amply serve to illustrate the major themes in the literature, broadly focusing on the development of authentic curriculum design, assessment, and learner and instructor perceptions of ALes. As constructivist-authentic practices have diversified, developed and matured, the literature (most notably, Brooks & Brooks, 1993; herrington & oliver, 2000; Newmann et al., 1996; Reeves et al., 2002) has begun to reveal a catalog of defining characteristics for ALes. I have synthesized this catalog of characteristics into a 10-point concept-and-source matrix, elements of which have informed the present study (see Table 6 below).

306

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

Table 6: 10-point concept and source matrix for ALEs

307

Concluding comments
The discussion of the history and structure of constructivism and authenticity presented here was intended not as an exhaustive explanation of these concepts, but rather as an introductive overview. As constructivist pedagogies continue to both diffuse into various educational domains and evolve, readers from various fields will need to make their own more detailed investigations into constructivist theoretical developments.

References
Azevedo, R., et al. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344-70. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall. Barr, R., and Tagg, John. (1995). From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate education. Change, 27(6). Bigge, M. L., & shermis, s. s. (1999). Learning theories for teachers (6th ed.). New york: Longman. Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual Differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-94. Biggs, J. B. (1996). enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 1-18. Black, J. B., and McClintock, Robert o. (1995). An interpretation construction approach to constructivist design. In Wilson, B. (ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments. englewood Cliffs, NJ: educational Technology Publications. Bransford, J. D., et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In Nix, D., & spiro, R. (ed.), Cognition, education and multimedia (pp. 115-41). hillsdale, NJ: erlbaum Associates. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case For Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and Curriculum Development. Brown, J. s., et al. (1989). situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational

308

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

Researcher, 18, 32-42. Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21. Bruner, J. s. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press. Bruner, J. s. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass.,: Belknap Press of harvard University. Bruner, J. s. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2, 1-40. Bruner, J. s. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard University Press. Bruner, J. s. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S., & Garton, Alison. (1978). Human growth and development. oxford: Clarendon Press. Bruner, J. s., et al. (1986). A study of thinking. New Brunswick, N.J., U.s.A.: Transaction Books. Candlin, J., et al. (1982). Video in English language teaching: an inquiry into the potential uses of video recordings in the teaching of English as a foreign language. Birmingham, UK: Language studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham. Cathcart, R. s., & samovar, L. A. (eds.). (1992). Small Group Communication. Dubuque, IA.: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Cole, M., John-steiner, V., scribner, s., & souberman, e. (ed.). (1978). L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The development of higher processes. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press. Collins, A., et al. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Cambridge, Mass.: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Collins, A., et al. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (ed.), Knowledge, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-94). hillsdale, NJ: erlbaum. Cotterall, s. C., R. (2003). scaffolding for second language writers: producing and academic essay. ELT Journal, 57(2), 158-66. CTGV. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 52-70. Cuban, L. (1983). how did teachers teach. Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 160-65. Cunningham, D. J., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. h. (ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 170-98). New york: Macmillian Library Reference UsA. deCharms, R. (1981). Personal causation and locus of control: Two different traditions and

309

two uncorrelated measures. In Lefcourt, h. M. (ed.), Research with the locus of control construct: Vol. 1. Assessment methods (pp. 337-58). New york: Academic Press. Deci, e., et al. (2001). extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1-27. Deci, e., & Ryan, R. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-34. Deci, e., & Ryan, R. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, Ny: University of Rochester Press. Deci, e. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The undermining effect is a reality after all: extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 692-700. DeGuerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(i), 51-68. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, y. s. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: DC heath. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New york: The Macmillan company. Retrieved July, 4, 2004, from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.html [originally published in 1916] Dodge, B. (1997). some Thoughts About WebQuests. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Appel, J. P. L. G. (ed.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing. Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. (ed.), Educational Communications and Technology: simon and schuster. engestrm, y., et al. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge; New york: Cambridge University Press. Fear, F., Doberneck, D., Robinson, K., Barr, R., Van Den Berg, h., smith, J., and Petrulis, R. (2003). Meaning Making and The Learning Paradigm: A Provocative Idea in Practice. Innovative Higher Education, 27(3), 151-68.

310

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: a constructivist approach for teaching. New york: Teachers College Press. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New york: Teachers College Press. Gagn, R. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth. Galina, D., & Palmer, Sue. (2004). Lev Vygotsky [Electronic Version]. Key to Learning. Retrieved August 17, 2005 from http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=10 &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.suepalmer.co.uk%2Farticles%2FLEV%2520VYGO TsKy.pdf&ei=2WrcRafshau2wghV0MsuBw&usg=__a3JyPk61KffeICzVCty2uTcLxI=&sig2=f98ZN-ukwpN5TQ8_LirPsQ. Gillespie, F. (1998). Instructional Design for the New Technologies. In Gillespie, K. H. (Ed.), The impact of technology on faculty development, life, and work: New directions for teaching and learning, (Vol. 76, pp. 39-52). san Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gruber, H., & Voneche, J. J. (Ed.). (1995). The essential Piaget (100th Anniversary Ed.). New york: Jason Aronson. Gulikers, J., et al. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 509-21. herrington, J., & oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48. Herrington, J., et al. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In Goody, A., herrington, J., & Northcote, M. (ed.), Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education (Vol. 25, pp. 562-67). Jamison, ACT: heRDsA. hirokawa, R. y. (1992). Communication and group decision-making efficacy. In Cathcart, R. s. & samovar, L. A. (eds.), Small Group Communication (pp. 165-77). Dubuque, IA.: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (eds.). (1998). Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches and Issues. New york: University of Albany, state University of New york. huitt, W., & Lutz, s. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67-90. Jonassen, D. (1996a). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. (ed.), Foundations for research in educational communications and technology.

311

Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. Jonassen, D. (2003a). Designing Research-Based Instruction for story Problems. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 267-96. Jonassen, D. (2003b). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 35(3), 362-81. Jonassen, D. (ed.). (1996b). The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications Technology. New york: simon & schuster MacMillan. Jonassen, D. h. (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence erlbaum. Jonassen, D. h., et al. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective. Upper saddle River, N.J.: Merrill. Kanselaar, G. (2002). Constructivism and socio-constructivism. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from http://edu.fss.uu.nl/medewerkers/gk/files/Constructivism-gk.pdf [electronic Version]. Igitur. Retrieved February 27, 2007 from http://edu.fss.uu.nl/medewerkers/gk/ files/Constructivism-gk.pdf. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press. Kupritz, V., and McDaniel, stanley. (1999). Pedagogical reflections from an instructional technology workshop. Educational Technology and Society, 2(4), 119-21. Lantolf, J. P. (ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. oxford: oxford University Press. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, e. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge [england]; New york: Cambridge University Press. Leontev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, Personality. englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice hall. Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria VA: Association for supervision and Curriculum Development. Mayer, R., and Chandler, Paul. (2001). When Learning is Just a Click Away: Does simple User Interaction Foster Deeper Understanding of Multimedia Messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390-87. Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating Zones of Possibilities: Combining Social Contexts for Instruction. In Moll, L. C. (ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology (pp. 319-49). Cambridge,

312

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

UK: Cambridge University Press. Monbusho. (2001). The education Reform Plan for the 21st Century: the Rainbow Plan, the seven Priority strategies. Retrieved March 23, 2005, from http://www.mext.go.jp/ english/topics/21plan/010301.htm Monbusho. (2003). Regarding the establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with english Abilities. Retrieved october 15, 2005, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm Moursund, D. G. (2003). Project-based learning using information technology (2nd ed.). eugene, oR: International society for Technology in education. Newmann, F. M. (1996). Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. san Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Newmann, F. M., et al. (1996). Authentic Pedagogy and student Performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280-312. Newmann, F. M., et al. (1995). A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards, and Scoring. Madison: Center on organization and Restructuring of schools, Wisconsin Center for education Research, University of Wisconsin. Nicaise, M., et al. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: student perceptions of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 79-94. Nunan, D. (1993). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. oliver, R., and omari, A. (1999). Using online technologies to support problem based learning: Learners responses and perceptions. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15, 158-79. oxford, R. (1997). Constructivism: shape-shifting, substance, and Teacher education Practices. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 35-66. Palinscar, A. s., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-75. Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years. san Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: the rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum. Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New york: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget sampler : an introduction to Jean Piaget through his own words. New york: Wiley.

313

Porter, D., & Roberts, J. (1981). Authentic listening activities. English Language Teaching Journal, 36(1), 37-47. Puntambekar, s., & hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. Reeves, T., et al. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual International Conference of the higher education Research and Development society of Australasia (heRDsA), Perth, Australia. Reeves, T. C., and okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In Wilson, B. G. (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Cases studies in instructional design (pp. 191-202). englewood Cliffs, NJ: educational Technology Publications. Resnick, L. B. (1985). Comprehending and learning: implications for a cognitive theory of instruction. Pittsburg, Pa.: Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburg. Resnick, L. B. (1986). Cognition and instruction: recent theories of human competence and how it is acquired. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburg. Resnick, L. B. (1988). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20. Resnick, L. B. (ed.). (1989). Introduction. In Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. hillsdale, NJ: erlbaum. Resnick, L. B., et al. (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: harvard University Press. scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In smith, B. (ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: open Court. scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for Knowledge-building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-83. scardamalia, M., et al. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51-68. schuh, K., L. (2004). Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 833-46.

314

AN INTRoDUCTIoN To CoNsTRUCTIVIsM AND AUTheNTIC ACTIVITy

sigel, I. (1978). Constructivism and teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 78, 333-38. slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychology Bulletin, 99, 429-45. slavin, R. (2006). Achievement effects of embedded Multimedia in a success for All Reading Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 232-37. spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L.. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In Duffy, T., and Jonassen, D. (ed.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. hillsdale, NJ: erlbaum. Turner, V. D., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2006). scaffolding morality: Positioning a socio-cultural construct. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 174-84. Tynjala, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 367-442. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. oxford: oxford University Press. Vanderstraeten, R., and Biesta, G. (1998). Constructivism, Educational Research, and John Dewey. Paper presented at the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Boston, August 10-15. Retrieved November 22, 2005, from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Amer/ AmerVand.htm. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism. In Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (1st ed., Vol. 1). oxford: Pergamon. Voss, J., Wiley, J., Carretero, M. (1995). Acquiring intellectual skills. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 155-88. Vygotsky, L. s. (1986). Thought and language (Translation newly rev. and edited/Kozulin, Alex ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wenger, e. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New york: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard University Press.

315

Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance. san Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wood, D., et al. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

316