Toward Combining Programmed Instruction and Constructivism for Tutorial Design

Toward Combining Programmed Instruction and Constructivism for Tutorial Design

Karen Smith-Gratto

Cameron University

The suggestion that programmed instruction and Constructivism might be combined in the creation of tutorial software seems contradictory when one considers the differences between the two theories. Programmed instruction, which is based on operant conditioning, is reductionist focuses on external control and reinforcement. On the other hand, constructivist approaches view learning a process in which individual students construct or build their own internal interpretations of external events. These assumptions about learning are very different and indicate the two theories are incompatible. However, if one considers the type of knowledge the learner is expected to acquire, then there is room to consider what each theory can contribute.

Programmed Instruction
Tutorial and drill and practice, two forms of CAI (computer assisted instruction), are the best known applications of programmed instruction (Jonassen, 1990). Traditional CAI is organized, according to behavioral theory, as a series of stimulus-response patterns. The learner is exposed to a stimulus and responds. The learner then experiences a consequence which can be an aid in the shaping of the learner's behavior. The information or task to be learned is broken down into small segments that are mastered one at a time. Each segment is added to previously learned segments until the final behavior is achieved by the learner. This is the basis for programmed instruction.

Skinner (1968) described programmed instruction as having clearly defined content which is presented in small increments. As small units of the content are presented a the learner is presented with a question that must be answered (stimulus). The student answers (response) and is told whether the answer is correct (consequence). This sequence is similar to the six steps found in the design of CAI by Case and Bereiter (1984). This general model was used to develop much of the current tutorial software, even though it is incorrectly implemented a great deal of the time (Poppen & Poppen, 1988).

Constructivism
Constructivist theorists contend that the learner is an active participant and builds his or her knowledge based on individual experiences. According to Piaget (1954) the individual constructs meaning from experiences by accommodation or assimilation. The individual understands new experiences by relating them to prior experience. If the current experience doesn't make sense in relation to prior experiences, disequilibrium occurs. Disequilibrium requires the individual to readjust existing mental schema or create new schema in order to create meaning or understanding of the event that caused the disequilibrium. When an individual has a flawed understanding of a concept, Brooks (1990) recommends providing opportunities for disequilibrium to occur. Brooks states that these opportunities are more effective for clarifying understanding than alternatives such as trying to verbally explain the flaw in the individual's understanding.

Duffy and Jonassen (1991) suggest that for meaningful learning to occur individuals must work with realistic problems in realistic contexts. Since problems usually have many aspects, multiple viewpoints should be explored by students in order for them to build networks of related ideas. While there are suggestions that the curriculum needs to be changed in order to accommodate this type of learning (Papert, 1993; Griest, 1993), the present reality present for most teachers and students is the need to meet state and district curriculum guide demands.

Computer tools are one of the easiest means of incorporating constructivist theory into educational computer use. Learners are then working in "authentic" situations which should increase their comprehension of how to use ideas and information (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Jonassen (1990) suggests that such things as hypertext, databases, and expert systems can be used as mindtools by individuals. These tools help individuals construct their knowledge in authentic ways. While many educators are using these forms in the classroom in place of other forms of software, they cannot fulfill all of the curriculum needs in the amount of instructional time available.

Constructivism and Tutorial Software Design
Non-linear multimedia and/or hypertext design can be used in the creation of constructivist tutorials. Students can choose not only the pace at which they move through the material but also the paths they will follow through it. Their understanding of the material would be constructed through exploration. Matthew and Williams (1994) created and implemented this type of hypertext tutorial for university students. The tutorial content used semantic maps to focus on three overall topics: early writing, invented spelling, and composition. These were further divided into sub-topics. Learners could then move through the topics using buttons that would take the learner to any topic. In this manner a student could move through the tutorial in both linear and non-linear ways. Certainly, tutorials using non- linear design may be educationally effective in helping students learn. However, students often move more slowly through the material and in K-12 education that may take time away from other important areas of learning. This may not be what educators actually desire because achievement is not always improved as a result (Ross and Morrison, 1989). When actually using software in the K-12 classroom, we need to consider the instructional time used. If one method takes more time and delivers approximately equal achievement, it is not as efficient. Therefore, while we may want to use constructivist methods, we may find it more efficient to combine it with other methods. There is both the demand for factual learning and problem solving in most current curriculum documents. Blending the use of programmed instruction and constructivism may enable tutorial software to address both areas within the curriculum better than strategies based on one or the other theoretical base could alone.

Combining Programmed Instruction and Constructivism
It may seem to be a contradiction to combine programmed instruction with constructivism to create tutorial software. However, it can be seen that programmed instruction is good at helping students learn a set of terms and very structured information, while constructivist approaches help students deal with real problems in ways that enable them to solve problems. There are other views of constructivism and behavioral theory that indicate that each may be useful in different ways during the process of learning.

One idea is that while the parts of the cognitive structure are unique to the individual, the syntax or structure of that information is not. This indicates that a knowledge base can be represented independent of any individual (Merrill, 1991).

Winn's (1991) view suggests that "basic knowledge of well-structured domains" (p. 39) still needs to be taught because the individual needs knowledge from which to begin construction. Merrill (1991) suggests that we can "represent knowledge in a knowledge base" (p.47) which can contribute to a somewhat shared reality. Jonassen (1991) believes constructivist learning may be most appropriate for "advanced knowledge acquisition" (p.31) and that introductory knowledge is best approached in other ways.

According to Von Glaserfeld (1989) there is a difference between training for skill acquisition and helping the learner build understanding. This is because the learner maps objective reality in a way that fits previous experiences. Therefore, it can be argued that for basic information in a content area, some instruction of basic concepts, terms, and skills needs to take place.

Teachers must follow curriculum guides that provide goals and objectives for what students are expected to learn. Some of the objectives involve the learning of facts, basic skills, and concepts. A way other than constructivism may be more productive in helping students learn this type of material. Programmed instruction may be the correct model to use to provide learning experiences which would aid the learner. This would not be sufficient instruction though because more and more curriculum guides are also addressing the need to have learners be problem solvers. Some theorists suggest that one of the strengths of constructivism is that it situates problem solving and prescribes a generative learning environment in which the learner deals with real problems in real or simulated situations (Cognition and Technology Group, 1991).

How can this information be used to inform tutorial software design? Several aspects of constructivism can be incorporated into a tutorial software package. Some of these aspects are: (1) activating student's prior experiences and knowledge; (2) having the learner create knowledge structures as they move through the material (such as graphic organizers); (3) giving the learner a choice of example types and problems; and (4) providing real world problems for structured domains (where one correct answer or a finite number of known answers are expected).

Questions can be used to activate the student's prior knowledge. Key words and phrases could be used to check the student's responses and provide specific feedback. However, even in programs that have many response-feedback matches, there is still the possibility that an individual would answer in an unexpected way. Unexpected answers could be written to a file which could be reviewed and appropriate responses written to be added to the program.

Learners could benefit from consciously building the mental frameworks they will use to retain the new information. Frames could be inserted which require learners to organize the information they are learning. For example, as students work their way through a tutorial in which they are learning about reinforcement schedules, they could be asked to create a graphic organizer or an outline. This graphic organizer or outline would not be checked by the program, but could be called up by the student if the student wanted to refer to it or make changes to it as understanding changed. To create this organizer for reinforcement schedules, students could be asked to give features of each type of reinforcement and place them in whatever order seemed appropriate to them. As each type of reinforcement is introduced each student could be presented with their organizer and could make changes. Periodically, throughout the tutorial students would be asked to revise their graphic organizer. The major purpose of this would be to have the student actively organize the new information into a structure. This structure could then be analyzed by both the learner and the teacher to get a clearer view of how the student is thinking.

As we know, motivation to learn something can be enhanced if the topic is of interest to the students. Not all students required to learn a given topic are interested in it. One way to activate their interest and prior knowledge is to incorporate those interests when something new is being learned. This can be done during the development of the software by considering the general intersts of the target population. If possible, surveys could be conducted to get an idea of the most common areas of interest to that student group. Then several areas of interest could be incorporated into the software.

The last area for inclusion would be real-world problems that fit within the content being taught. When using tutorial software, the problems would need to have only one or a limited number of possible "correct" answers as too much open-endedness would be difficult to monitor in order to give the student appropriate feedback. These types of problems would be appropriate in structured knowledge domains. However, one could include simulations which would allow more open-ended responses for less structured domains. Since simulations are difficult to design and program, this option would require considerably more effort than tutorials.

While basic knowledge delivery would be in a programmed instruction form, adding some aspects of constructivist theory may aid student's in activating prior knowledge and help them become aware of their own construction of knowledge. Allowing students to choose examples and problems and providing real- world problems may also contribute to a more efficient learning environment.

References

Brooks, J. G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 68-71.

Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design. Instructional Science, 13, 141-158.

Cognition and Technology Group. (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34-40.

Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for technology?. Educational Technology, 31(5), 7-12.

Griest, G. (1993). You say you want a revolution: Constructivism, technology, and language arts. The Computing Teacher, 20(7), 8-11.

Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34.

Matthew, K.I. & Williams, N.L. (1994). Authentic uses of technology for curriculum planning within a language arts curriculum. In J. Willis, B. Robin, and D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1994 (pp. 611-614). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. .

Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45- 53.

Papert, S. (1993). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel and S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. (2nd ed). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books.

Poppen, L., & Poppen, R. (1988). The use of behavioral principles in educational software. Educational Technology, 28(2), 37-41.

Ross, S.M. and Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19-33.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Sythese, 80, 121- 140

Winn, W. D. (1991). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(9), 38-40.

Karen Smith-Gratto is an Assistant Professor of Education at Cameron University, Department of Education, 2800 West Gore Blvd., Lawton, OK 70505. Phone: 405 581-2313. E-mail: Karens@cuok.cameron.edu