Research from the cognitive sciences suggests ways in which learning should move. Two new models, constructivist learning and situated learning, suggest improvements in the design of instructional settings, and revisions to existing teaching models.
Constructivist learning argues for allowing learners to create, or construct, their own understandings by active exploration (see Jonassen, 20021). The instructor creates learning activities for the learner to undertake; activities that require the knowledge to be acquired. In this model, the instructor moves to the role of mentor: choosing appropriate activities, observing learner actions and outcomes, providing support, asking pertinent questions, and choosing new activities based upon learner performance. The learner actively makes decisions and sees the outcomes of those decisions. For example, learners in medicine might be faced with a patient to diagnose, or learners in IT could be looking at a compromised network and have to take action. Learners explore given problems first, and when they encounter difficulties refer to learning materials; they rarely digest the learning materials first, and then attempt to solve problems (see Harold-Barrows’ work on problem-based learning, 19862). Allowing flexibility is supportive of these individual learner differences.
|
|
Situated learning suggests that learners learn best by solving problems that are contextualized (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 19893). Learners should be given problems that are real applications of the knowledge being covered, and that are clearly important and interesting. Abstract problems do not help facilitate learning; learners do better abstracting learning points from a series of concrete problems. John Bransford, et al’s, work on anchored cognition (19904) had learners helping a youth navigate upriver to save a wild bird, and solving a variety of problems along the way. Compelling problems help activate learner interest, and drive them to the learning material.
Our goal, then, is to create contextual and exploratory activities that are aligned with the learning objectives. We want learners to do more than just acquire knowledge; we want them to able to apply that knowledge to solve problems. Learners should be using knowledge to create explanations and predictions.
The sorts of activities we need are designed to require the learners to make choices, and potentially fail. The consequences are delivered in the context of the story setting, and provide motivation to engage with learning resources. These are the sort of learning activities championed by everyone from Roger Schank (19955) to, most recently, Clark Aldrich (20036).
 |
|
|
| 1. |
Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2002) Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective, 2nd. Ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. |
| 2. |
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 6. 481-486. |
| 3. |
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-41. |
| 4. |
Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can hel p. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. |
| 5. |
Schank, R. & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. |
| 6. |
Aldrich, C. (2003). Simulations and the Future of Learning : An Innovative (and Perhaps Revolutionary) Approach to e-Learning. San Francisco: Josey-Bass/Pfeiffer. |
|
|
|
|
