Abstract
Educational technology is an instantiation of technical rationality. Technical rationality depends on an objectivist epistemology and a representational model of mind. Currently, a growing number of practitioners in the field of educational technology consider themselves constructivists. Because their epistemological position conflicts with that of technical rationality, these practitioners must currently find a warrant for their practice outside the field. However, a warrant for a strong form of constructivism (enactive constructivism) can be located in recent developments in systems theory, one of the foundational pillars of educational technology. These developments have the potential to provide practitioners a philosophical mooring within the field itself. One of these developments, autonomous systems theory, with its rejection of the representational model of mind, is described, and implications of its application to educational technology are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnheim, R. (1969).Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bailey, K.D. (1994).Sociology and the new systems theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Banathy, B.H. (1994).Systems design of education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Banathy, B.H. (1996).Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum.
Bereiter, C. (1985). Toward a solution of the learning paradox.Review of Educational Research, 55 (2), 201–226.
Bereiter, C. (1993).Surpassing ourselves. Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's World 3.Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 21–23.
Berlo, D.K. (1960).The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bertalanffy, L. von (1968).General system theory. New York: George Braziller.
Bopry, J. (1998).Systems theory in educational technology: A shift in perspective from technical rationality to enactive constructivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Brooks, R.A. (1987). Intelligence without representation. (MIT Artificial Intelligence Report).
Brown, A.L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters.American Psychologist, 52 (4), 399–413.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 13–20.
Churchman, C.W. (1968).The systems approach. New York: Delacorte.
Feldman, D.H. (1988). Creativity: dreams, insights, and transformations. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),The nature of creativity (pp. 271–297). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fleischaker, G.R. (1988). Autopoiesis: The status of its system logic.BioSystems, 22, 37–49.
Freire, P. (1970).The pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.
Gattegno, C. (1972).Teaching foreign languages in schools the silent way. New York: Educational Solutions.
Glasersfeld, E. von. (1995).Radical constructivism. London: The Falmer Press.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989).Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Heidegger, M. (1962).Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.
Held, R., & Hein, A. (1958). Adaptation of disarranged hand-eye coordination contingent upon re-afferent stimulation.Perceptual-Motor Skills, 8, 87–90.
Johnson, J.B., & Taylor, W.D. (1991). Instructional technology and unforeseen value conflicts. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology (pp. 82–87). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Knuth, R., & Cunningham, D.J. (1993). Tools for constructivism. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.),Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 163–188). NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences (Vol. 105). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Krippendorff, K. (1994). A recursive theory of communication. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.),Communication theory today (pp. 78–104). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J.A. Whitson (Eds.),Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Livingstone, B. (1978).Sensory processing, perception, and behavior. New York: Raven Press.
Maturana, H.R. (1974). Cognitive strategies. In H. Von Foerster (Ed.),Cybernetics of cybernetics (pp. 457–469). Urbana, IL: Biological Computer Library, University of Illinois.
Maturana, H.R. (1980). Man and society. In F. Benseler, P.M. Hejl, and W.K. Köck (Eds.),Autopoiesis, communication and society (pp. 11–31). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. (1980).Autopoiesis and cognition. London: D. Reidel.
Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. (1987).The tree of knowledge (R. Paolucci, Trans.). Boston: Shambhala.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat?The Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.
Pask, G. (1978). A conversation theoretic approach to social systems. In R.F. Geyer & J. Van Der Zouwen (Eds.),Sociocybernetics, (Vol. 1, pp. 15–26). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Perkins, D.N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prawat, R.S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning.Educational Researcher, 22 (6), 5–16.
Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). (1983).Instructional-design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rowland, G. (1991). Problem solving in instructional design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Schön, D.A. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm & D.F. Roberts (Eds.),The process and effects of mass communication (pp. 3–26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Seels, B.B., & Richey, R.C. (1994).Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949).The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Streibel, M.J. (1991). Instructional plans and situated learning. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology (pp. 117–132). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Teubner, G. (1993).Law as an autopoietic system. Oxford: Blackwell.
Uexküll, J. von. (1957). A stroll through the world of animals and men. In C.H. Schiller (Ed. & Trans.),Instinctive behavior (pp. 5–80). London: Methuen.
Varela, F.J. (1977). On being autonomous: The lessons of natural history for systems theory. In G.J. Klir (Ed.),Applied general systems research (pp. 77–84). New York: Plenum.
Varela, F.J. (1979).Principles of biological autonomy. New York: North Holland.
Varela, F.J. (1981). Autonomy and autopoiesis. In G. Roth and H. Schwegler (Eds.),Self-organizing systems (pp. 14–23). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Varela, F.J. (1992). Whence perceptual meaning? A cartography of current ideas. In F.J. Varela & J. Dupuy (Eds.),Understanding origins (pp. 235–271). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991).The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Von Foerster, H. (1972). Notes on an Epistemology for Living Things. (BCL Report No. 9. 3). Urbana, IL: Biological Computer Library, University of Illinois.
Winn, W. (1975). An open-system model of learning.AV Communication Review, 23 (1), 189–212.
Winn, W. (1993). A constructivist critique of the assumptions of instructional design. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.),Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 189–212). NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences (Vol. 105). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986).Understanding computers and cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Additional information
This article is a revised version of a manuscript selected as a co-winner of the 1999 Young Scholar Award, presented at the 1999 AECT National Convention held February 10–14, 1999 at the George R. Brown Convention Center, Houston, Texas.
The Young Scholar Award is sponsored by the ECT Foundation of AECT.
Jeanette Bopry prepared this article at the Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, and may currently be reached via e-mail at TBopry@aol.com.
This manuscript is based in part on the author's dissertation, (Bopry, 1998). Many of the main ideas were presented in a short paper at the European Conference on Educational Research in Ljubljana, Slovenia, September 17–20, 1998. The author wishes to thank Leena Lestinen for her comments on an early draft. The preparation of this manuscript was supported by the Academy of Finland (Grant No. 37189).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bopry, J. The warrant for constructivist practice within educational technology. ETR&D 47, 5–26 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299594
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299594