http://www.ibstpi.org/Legacy-Gagne/chapter%205.pdf
I came across this link to an article that is actually a chapter from a documented conversation between Gagne and Merrill about instructional design. I was most interested in how this article dealt with one of the issues we’ve brought up in class: whether or not a lesson can have more than ONE objective. This particular chapter is about how instructional design should encompass integrative goals (a.k.a. multiple objectives) into an “enterprise schema”. From this article’s explanation, I see the enterprise schema as a way to communicate to the learner where they’re at in the big picture, so as to not miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.
This paragraph pretty much sums up the article:
“We propose that integrative goals are represented in cognitive space by enterprise schemas whose focal integrating concept is the integrative goal. Associated with the integrative goal is an enterprise scenario and the various items of verbal knowledge, intellectual skills, and cognitive strategies that must be learned in order to support the required performances. These performances are brought together in a purposeful activity known as enterprise. Examples of enterprises are: operating X equipment, teaching a science topic, counseling someone about applying for a job, giving directions about how to use a weedcutter. The schema representing the goal of the enterprise and including the goal-related knowledges and skills is an enterprise schema” (pg. 9).
Something about the article, revealed in the paragraph above, also caught my attention. If you read close, it sounds really familiar. That’s because it is talking about involving learners in a relevant task to provide context for the content to be learned. Hmm, that sounds like constructivism, but the last time I checked, Merrill and Gagne were NOT constructivists. So, what’s all that talk we always hear about “authentic learning” being one of the characteristics that sets constructivist approaches apart? I’m starting to wonder if there’s really any validity to this whole idea of a “constructivist classroom” or maybe it’s just a catchy phrase some people are using to sell books. Makes you wonder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The difference between behviorism and constructivism does seem a bit intertwined, Yet they are supposed to be two epistomologies at opposit ends of the spectrum. I think the difference is not really the activities but the idea guiding the activity or the purpose of the activity. For constructivism the premis would be to construct the new knowledge and for behaviorism the activity would be for practicing what they have just learned. This is where I get confussed because that sounds like constructivism to me. It will be interesting to read other's comments on this subject.
Post a Comment