TITLE

Theory into Practice. How do we link ?

Authors

A. K. Bednar, D. Cunningham, T. M. Duffy, J. D. Perry.

Open Questions

Is it possible to abstract instructive experiences from theories that contain differents epistemological conjectures in order to apply them to a single instructive project?

Key Words

Constructivism

Instructional design

Remark about epistemology of ITS

Quoted Authors

J. S. Brown, J. Bonner, J. D. Bransford, A. Collins, D. Cunningham, T. M. Duffy, M. Fleming, R. M. Gagne, L. Wittgenstein; J. M. Keller, T. Morgan, G. Lakoff.

ABSTRACT

Instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of learning and/or cognition. The theory and methods simply cannot be separated. The epistemology gives meaning to the methods both globally and in any detailed implementation. There are many approaches to the study of cognition: authors limit the discussion to two general ones: traditional and constructivist. The aim of the first is to transmit knowledge in the best way. Knowledge appears as an entity existing indipendent on individuals mind, it is only transferred inside. The constructivist view considers learning as a constructive process in which the learner builds up an internal representation of knowledge, a personal interpretation of experience. This representation is always opened change, learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of experience. It appears that implications of constructivism to the instructional design are revolutionary rather than evolutive. These epistemological differences lead to significant results for what concerns objectives and strategies in the didactical design. The article describes contents in relation to two differents epistemological paradigm (analysis of content, analysis of learners, specification of objectives, synthesis and evaluation). Authors challenge eclecticism of IST, asking:

Is it right to apply differents instructional techniques based on differents theories?

Is it desirable to make differences in processes of apprehendship distinguished in levels, believing that levels of knowledge can change from one level to another one?

Authors believes it is necessary to be conscious of theories and basis ITS contains and consequently to explain bases to avoid internal contradictions.