2.1.1. Constructivism and Constructionism
The traditional approach to education reflects the behaviorist and
programmed instruction model, where students learn by accumulating
pieces of information transmitted by the teacher. This approach to
learning still dominates curriculum and instruction, and is supported
by the standardized tests. It is recognized in the field of education
as instructional design \cite{Reigeluth83}. Collins (1996) notes that
the goal of instructional delivery is to design an educational system
that transmits content and skills in a clear, well structured, and
efficient manner \cite {Collins96}. Similarly, Dick defines
instructional design as an educational intervention ``driven by
specific outcome objectives, materials, or procedures that are targeted
on these objectives, and assessments that determine if the desired
changes in behaviors (learning) have occurred'' \cite {Duffy92}. A few
cognitive scientists call for a ``mental model,'' where understanding
is seen as an acquisition of a knowledge base as in an expert system
model \cite {Duffy92}. The goal of the instruction is to help the
learner acquire structure. The goal of evaluation is to examine if
mastery has been achieved and that everyone has acquired the same
information. Evaluation is thus performed with tests that stand
separate from the instruction.
An alternative epistemological basis to the objectivist tradition is constructivism \cite {Duffy92}. The constructivist view argues that the goal of education is to help students construct their own understandings \cite {Collins96}. Constructivism is concerned with learner creation of meaning and linking of new ideas to existing knowledge, and therefore involves a large degree of student autonomy and initiative. The emphasis is on facilitative environments, rather than instructional goals, where the teacher takes on the role of mentor, or facilitator.
Piaget, Dewey, and Vygotsky have influenced the development of constructivist theory. Piaget's constructivism is rooted in discovery, play, and imagination as fundamental activities for the development of the child's learning \cite{Piaget73,Labinowicz80}. Piaget, famous for his research on the psychological development of the child, believed that children have to go through stages in which they accept ideas they may later see as wrong. Understanding is gradually built up step by step through active involvement. Piaget called for teachers to understand these steps in the development of the child's mind. The teacher's role becomes one of guiding mentor stimulating initiative, play, experimentation, reasoning, and social collaboration \cite {DeVries87}. Dewey argued that education depended on action, that children must actively construct knowledge by drawing it out of experiences that have meaning and importance to them \cite {Dewey66}.
Although not considered necessarily a constructivist, Vygotsky's theory combines both instructional design and constructivism. Effective instruction, according to Vygotsky, takes place in the ``zone of proximal development,'' which he defines as the discrepancy between the child's actual development as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of ``potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers'' \cite{Vygotsky78}. His views of social negotiation, the social nature of meaning supported by collaborative construction of knowledge, will be discussed in the next section.
Seymour Papert calls for further distinction of the constructivist views, by focusing on the involvement of the student in the actual designing, constructing and erecting of ``external'' products or artifacts \cite {Papert80,Papert93,HarelPapert}. The idea behind using raw data, primary sources, physical, and interactive materials in real-world possibilities is to help learners generate the abstractions that bind phenomena together. Researchers at MIT use the word ``constructionism'' to describe the knowledge construction process that arises from the physical creation of objects \cite{Harel91}.
On the negative side, there are extreme implementations of constructivism, which have provoked reactions against it. Constructivism is considered by the behaviorists ``a label for fuzzy, unscientific thinking'', as Cunningham notes in his dialogue assessing the two teaching approaches \cite{Duffy92}. The breadth of applicability of constructivism led some to believe that it supports spontaneous, uncontrolled learning, in contrast to the systematic, organized instruction of knowledge employed by the objectivist tradition. The open-endedness of constructivist problems can be daunting for the entry-level learner. Similarly, it might be difficult for the teacher to incorporate constructivism into her teaching methods. Required course content and externally applied assessments are realities that teachers must accommodate. Changing to constructivist instruction will mean finding the appropriate balance between the existing instructional methods and this new educational practice. Finally, the efficiency and reliability of evaluation methods are questioned, as constructivist learning environments are difficult to evaluate.
Constructivism has emerged in the last decade as an alternate pedagogy closely related to the advances in educational technology. Interest in constructivism has blossomed considerably while conventional instruction and assessment techniques have been criticized for their inflexibility. There is a turn to more flexible, open-ended, adaptive, and multi-dimensional instructional techniques as well as more qualitative, observation-based methods of evaluation. As a result, constructivism is embraced by many educational technologists and this is reflected in the plethora of multimedia and computer-based software that draw from the constructivist premises. As such, it makes an ideal basis for building a theory of learning for open, informal, and virtual learning environments.