Les Howles (llhowles@doit.wisc.edu)
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:34:42 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:34:42 -0500 From: Les Howles <llhowles@doit.wisc.edu> Subject: Pedagogy, instructional design & constructivism
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Matt Folley,Lancaster University, UK writes:
>If you have been successful using a largely behavioural model in teaching
then
>stick with it. By the way, are your behavioural objectives the actual course
>objectives, or do they just closely match your construction of the required
>learning. e.g. if the learning objectives are a set of statements such as
"able
>to run with a football (soccer ball) under control" is this accurate or
are you
>more interested in whether the learner can play effectively in the
mid-field of
>a football team?
The way I generally do it is to start with some goals which describe
desired target learning outcomes in a general way. These are usually not
behavioral but instead describe a specific skill set, a prescribed body of
knowledge an attitude or perhaps a combination of all of these. These
outcome descriptions are usually not "constructed" by me alone. After I
have a fairly clear picture (I visualize a lot) of what the learner should
be able to know or do after they complete the learning experience (in most
cases it will be a class, workshop or part of a course). I then get more
precise and behavioral when focusing on developing instruction for specific
learning units. In answer to your question, I get behavioral when writing
objectives for smaller chunks or units of a course (ie. the students will
be able to look at several visual representations and identify the three
key components of a visual language.) The instructional methods I select
are determined by the nature of the objective or learning outcome with
consideration of additional factors such as learner characteristics, time,
instructional context and type of content etc. I have never found
precision in terms of being able to clearly define a learning outcome to be
liability. In fact, I have found just the opposite. I've seen a lot of
sloppy instructional programs (learners wandering all over the place)
because the teacher/designer was not clear as to where they were going.
I find it interesting that most pure constructivists get attached to
instructional methods or one particular method, usually some form of
discovery learning. I've worked in an environment with instructional
designers from the constructivist camp. I learned a lot by watching how
they designed and evaluated instructional projects. Some of their methods
are commendable but a large part it is not well suited for all learning
contexts or outcomes. Try working in a corporate environment as an
instructional designer with a mandate from upper management to produce
results in the form of new skills and behaviors within a given period of
time and a limited budget. If you don't produce you get fired!!
Flexibility is the key. The more options I have to employ in terms of
selecting instructional methods the more influence I can have on learners.
I'll even cheat and do unorthodox things (even orthodox things such as
lecturing) to produce desired learning outcomes. Constructivists in a way
are doing a disservice to the field of instructional design by telling us
that we shouldn't use certain methods because they are not philosophically
sound. The Chinese have used mastership (sage on the stage) methods for
thousands of years in martial arts training and it appears to have worked
nicely. Coach Barry Avarez (U.W. Madison football coach) trained a
championship football team and I doubt very much he used a constructivist
philosophy in training his players. And, for those of you have young
daughters, would you advocate a constructivist philosophy in teaching her
about sexuality?
The point is that we instructional designers need to get real. A variety
of instructional methods can work depending on the context, desired
outcomes and learners.
Please forgive me for lecturing to you. But after all, I'm not a
constructivist.
Les Howles
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 18 Jun 1999 - 01:37:30 MEST