[referring to Vanhala, 12 Apr 97] Interesting questions on constructivism. Just out of curiosity, what have you been reading/discussion on the topic?
Below are a couple of things that I would keep in mind when trying to design "constructivist learning," which seems to be your main concern. These reflections are intended to be pragmatic guidelines based on observation, not a solid grounding in theory base, so there may be disagreement from other members of the list. I hope there will be discussion!
(1) Constructivism is a "learning theory," more than a "teaching approach."
Highly simplified explanation: People learn by connecting to what they already know; we each have a world view shaped by our own life experiences, current knowledge, mental models of how the world works, etc. We "construct" our knowledge from these bits and pieces, and it forms our personal "reality" (and collectively, our "social reality").
This idea is very useful. It acknowledges that different perceptions of the same events can both be accurate and true. It enables us to examine our own "constructs," and how they differ from others. It encourages us to look at how knowledge is constructed--that is, how we know what we know.
Ideally, it also encourages the design of learning experiences that maximize learner involvement, and thus, engagement with the content. Hallmarks of these learning experiences include:
Unfortunately, the theory, like any, can be badly applied. Some "constructivist" approaches leave students floundering in their attempts to construct meaning out of chaos. Another problem is that the idea that alternate world views are valid can be taken to an extreme. Some discussions of constructivism seem to uncomfortably echo my undergraduate philosophy class discussions of "like, so, what is reality?" Many of the criticisms of constructivism stem from a focus on these extremes. ("I don't want to fly with a pilot who's constructing what the instruments mean!," etc.) Which leads to my next point...
(2) In terms of designing learning, behaviorism and constructivism form a spectrum, not a dichotomy. (Read paragraph below before screaming.)
In a course designed exclusively on behaviorist principles, learners still construct meaning. In a course that is based on constructivist principles, some structured presentation of information--and some objectivist definitions (the value of pi, for example)--are still useful. When dealing with adult learners, balancing the two to maximize motivation and involvement is the ideal. I believe it's almost impossible to design a "pure" form of either--and would not be useful to try.
Given this view, I'd suggest you start by examining your current project design in terms of constructivist theory, and look for elements that could be considered constructivist. Then think about how you would expand upon those elements. Also reflect upon the following: what did you learn from completing your project? (That is, what meanings did you construct...)
Cheers! As I said, this is more based on my own pragmatic world view than anything else. Look forward to seeing comments from others on the list.