With regard to Linda Gilbert's [13 Apr 95] pragmatic guidelines in response to Mike Vanhala's [12 Apr 95] questions about designing a course from a constructivist perspective:
I find it interesting that Linda's practical advice acknowledges the value of the so-called objectivist perspective. In fact, she implies that a well-conceived course or lesson plan might well incorporate a blend of activities based on each perspective (e.g., some definitions and some more open-ended exploratory activities). She even used that dreaded term "BALANCE" in her well-reasoned practical advice.
My point is that I like the tone of this discussion in contrast with some of the more polemical and brow-beating discussions that have occurred in the literature. We do very much need more balanced approaches and less extremist and polarizing grand-standing--both in Instructional Science as well as in politics!
I am left thinking that Linda's description of teaching from a constructivist perspective could serve equally well as good advice to teachers in most instructional settings. I already think that many so-called objectivists believe that learners actively construct meaning--this is in fact the motivation for several of Gagné's nine events. Undergraduate philosophy classes might seem like they are filled with ho-hum abstractions, but they might well have provided the theoretical underpinning for the so-called constructivist perspective (although it is admittedly difficult to stay awake for Kant's Critique of Pure Reason wherein that foundation is well-specified). Ho-hum.
I am curious about how objectivists and constructivists might approach teaching pi. Linda seemed to imply that this was an appropriate place for an objectivist definition of the value of pi. I am not so certain. I don't know the value of pi. One could conceivably think of pi as a function or even a procedure, in which case there are opportunities to provide for learner-centered activities (e.g., motivate the activity by indicating that even the ancients noticed a constant relationship between the radius and the circumference of a circle, convince learners that such a relationship does exist and possibly even provide an early approximation, and then challenge learners to determine the so-called value of that relationship). There are alternative methods for calculating the expansion of pi, which so far as I know has no exact value--allowing learners to discover these methods might prove to be an interesting exercise. Of course I have said nothing about why these activities might be of value--that would depend on a variety of things in the instructional situation, including goals and objectives.
Mike Hannafin and Craig Hall have created a prototype called GOLDIE for Armstrong Laboratory which provides guidance about designing open-ended, student-centered learning environments. Armstrong Lab already had a system called GAIDA designed by Gagné for designing lessons according to the nine events of instruction. As it happens, there is no apparent conflict in the guidance contained in these two systems. In fact, they are nicely complementary--so much so that the Consortium for Courseware Engineering (CYBER Learning Corp, University of Minnesota, and Armstrong Lab) is merging the two systems into a more general purpose instructional design advisor (named GUIDE). Both GOLDIE and GAIDA contain case-based elaborations of the guidance and rationale provided by Gagné and Hannafin--leaving users and learners with plenty of exploratory space and even the opportunity to modify and re-construct the guidance! As a last word I want to say that it was GAIDA (Gagné's system) which originally provided these opportunities for user/learner exploration, individualized elaboration, and reconstruction of the guidance rationale.