Learning theories have changed in response to, and because of, advancing theories of cognitive development. However, even though some of the advances in cognitive studies came, in the case of vygotsky, over half a century ago, these advances could not, and did not, immediately change the way things were done in America's huge educational institution. And so the changes have come slowly, perhaps more because a critical mass was achieved than any organization was willing to try something different based on new research.
The American industrial complex was committed to mass public education__and more and more students spent greater numbers of years in school. A similarly mechanized and industrial method of getting information into students was what was suited to educating the large numbers of children in public schools across the country. By the 50's the American method of systematically education its children was codified by B.F. Skinner in his content_centered, behavioral, preprogrammed method of teaching. For a number of reasons this mold has been very hard to break. Decades before Skinner's Walden II (1948) L.F. Vygotsky's work had suggested that this decontextualized way of teaching was not necessarily conducive to children's cognitive development. However, it was not until the decade of the 60's that others such as Piaget and Bruner, whose work was informed by and sympathetic with Vygotsky's that the seeds for change could even be planted.
It was the social and cultural turmoil of the 60's and 70's that was the seedbed for the beginnings of change in so many of the American institutions, of which, education was one. The 80's and 90's has seen the ideas of the social construction of knowledge (and all that goes along with it), along with the focus on the learner rather than the curriculum, combine with a growing Postmodern awareness of culture and all its myriad parts. The result has been the development of the theory of Constructivism whose main claims are that: 1) "knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner", 2) that "knowledge cannot be represented symbolically", 3) that "knowledge can only be communicated in complex learning situations"and 4) that "it is not possible to apply standard evaluations to assess learning"(Anderson, Reder, & Simon). This shift seems only to be enhanced by the implementation of technology into the classroom. It may never be know, though, whether it is the nature of technology (e.g., CMC, the Web, etc.) that makes the social construction of knowledge a given or if the theories of learning that are part of Constructivism lead to the development and use of technology that is driven by its ideas of social construction.
The espousal of Constructivism and the disavowal of Behaviorism (especially as championed by Skinner)seems to be under way. But Constructivism is not universally accepted, but is even thought by some to have some arguably extreme proponents. One such critic says this: "there seems to be a readiness to polarise one theory of learning (behaviorism) with a metatheory (constructivism), and, further, to present the former as grossly deficient and the latter as the only credible explanation of student learning"(Kearsley). The Constructivists have many complaints against the Behaviorists. The Behaviorists aren't saying they're totally right, in fact, they admit that "the main components of behaviourism (or at least the behavioural theory of Skinner) were largely discredited as general truths in the 1970s,"a but they maintain that "the principles of contiguity, repetition, reinforcement through feedback and motivation are still recognised as important in processes of learning (Entwhistle, 1987, 10)"(Kearsley). The Behaviorists claim that there are other elements to this theory that still hold true and are valuable in teaching today. Some of these claims are: 1) some skills do transfer from one context to another, 2) knowledge does transfer between tasks, 3) abstract training can be effective when taught under the right circumstances, and 4) not all instruction need be done in a highly social environment because not all real_world situations are (Anderson, Reder, & Simon).
When it comes down to it it really does matter what learning theories inform he designing of online instruction. As has been suggested, the way that Constructivists and Behaviorists are depicted by each other tends toward the extremes. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, there are certainly more and less appropriate times to apply the ideas from each camp. What is important is that, whatever theories or ideas we apply that they do the most to enhance the learning possibilities in the given environment and particular domain. Also, there are more and less appropriate uses for Behaviorist and Constructivist theories of learning. People are not machines and do not live in isolation from the real world. Neither can students be left entirely on their own to haphazardly find/not find what is important to grasp in a particular learning situation. Guidance is still needed.
And guidance can still be found. The bigger_than_ever institution of education is expanding from an entirely classroom_based form out into the world of the Internet and World Wide Web (the international aspects of this change makes for many possibilities). Examples of Constructivist and Behaviorist theory_informed sites can be found on the Web. Those that tend toward the Behaviorist model are more practically_ or scientifically_oriented. For example, Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (S.E.D.S.) has several programs that teach about the planets, astronomy, aerospace and aeronautics, and the future of space travel. They have a particular vision and information to share, and though they are student_oriented, their sites are more concerned with the dissemination of information than interaction.
Other Behaviorist_oriented sites are: The"Virtual Frog Dissection Kit" , allows interaction, but not the kind that allows for any co_creation. It follows a specific course and has very specific steps to follow. The "Interactive Physics Problem Set", out of Berkeley is available to teach students the "correct" answers to physics problems: "This web contains almost 100 practice problems for physics students. They're accompanied by detailed solutions and interactive computer experiments." One final example: "Teaching Web Composition" is a site done by Bacon & Allyn which takes instructors straight through a list of "how_to's" meant to teach Web composition. It's simply a straightforward presentation of their idea without any interaction at all.
However, there are many, many sites that tend much more toward the Constructivist way of doing
things. Generally, they're much more conducive to following individualized links, interaction, and
having choices the "learner" can make along the way. Marc Esher, at Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Secondary English Education, has created the "Student_Centered Guide to Education".
The name says it all. And though it's not necessarily a site that allows a lot of interactivity,
everything there indicates the author's focus on the learner. Other's like this are: focuses on interactive "International Telecommunications Programs," a
collaborative "Case Writing Program" and many other programs that take advantage of distance
learning and collaborative ventures. Another,, is a great
example of an interactive site that "feels" more like a game when, in fact, it is a "real_world" way
of learning math. It's just what the Constructivists would appreciate.
References Online