Tension between Objectivism and Constructivism in Organizing and Enacting Student Learning in Online STEM Education

References

• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17–34). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce, S., & Moss, D. (2022). The role of representation in supporting prospective teachers’ understandings of fractions as measures. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 23(1), 64–93. https://www.cimt.org.uk/ijmtl/index.php/IJMTL/article/view/402
   Google Scholar
• Carlile, O., & Jordan, A. (2005). It works in practice but will it work in theory?: The theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy. In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching (pp. 11–25). AISHE.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S. J. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist- constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 72–86. http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v6/n1/instructional-design-strategies-for-intensive-online-courses-an-objectivist-constructivist-blended-approach.html
   Google Scholar
• Chval, K. B., Lannin, J. K., & Jones, D. (2013). Putting essential understanding of fractions into practice in grades 3–5. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (2009). Constructivist learning and teaching. In D. Chambers (Ed.), Putting research into practice in the elementary grades: Readings from journals of the NCTM (pp. 6–8). NCTM.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2302_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: The case of statistical data analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0101_1
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302315
   Google Scholar
• Cook, D. A. (1993). Behaviorism evolves. Educational Technology, 33(10), 62–77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428114
   Google Scholar
• Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9605-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dick, W., & Carey, L. M. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1–16). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabhorn, J. (2022). Functions and their derivatives. Desmos Classroom. https://teacher.desmos.com/activitybuilder/custom/607236d09e4df76f6a2aea9e
   Google Scholar
• Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 443–471. http://doi.org/10.2307/749485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hackenberg, A. J. (2010). Students’ reasoning with reversible multiplicative relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 28(4), 383–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2010.511565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackenberg, A. J., Norton, A., & Wright, R. J. (2016). Developing fractions knowledge. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428173
   Google Scholar
• Keller, J. B., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2004). Revolutionizing school reform for educational transformation. Educational Technology, 44(5), 17–23.
   Google Scholar
• Lamberg, T. (2007). Take time for action: Student approaches to unitizing in fair-share problems. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(2), 114–116. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.13.2.0114
   Google Scholar
• Lamberg, T. D., & Middleton, J. A. (2009). Design research perspectives on transitioning from individual microgenetic interviews to a whole class teaching experiment. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09334206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leidner, D., & Jarvenpaa, S. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/249596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovin, L. H., Stevens, A. L., Siegfried, J., Wilkins, J. L. M., & Norton, A. (2018). Pre-K–8 prospective teachers’ understanding of fractions: An extension of fractions schemes and operations research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(3), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9357-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrill, M. D. (2004). The science of instruction and the technology of instructional design. Educational Technology, 44(3), 45–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428908
   Google Scholar
• Moallem, M. (2001). Applying constructivist and objectivist learning theories in the design of a web-based course: Implications for practice. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 113–125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.4.3.113
   Google Scholar
• Norton, A., & Wilkins, J. L. (2010). Students’ partitive reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(4), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.10.001
   Google Scholar
• Pegues, H. (2007). Of paradigm wars: Constructivism, objectivism, and postmodern stratagem. The Educational Forum, 71(4), 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720709335022
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177059
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. W.W. Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Ragan, T., & Ragan, P. (2004). False dichotomies, red herrings, and straw men: Overcoming barriers to facilitating learning. Educational Technology, 44(3), 50–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428910
   Google Scholar
• Schell, G., & Janicki, T. J. (2013). Online course pedagogy and the constructivist learning model. Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, 1(1), 26–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/jsais.11880084.0001.104
   Google Scholar
• Siebert, & Gaskin, N. (2006). Creating, naming, and justifying fractions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(8), 394–400.
   Google Scholar
• Spector, J. M. (2004). Instructional technology and the learning sciences: Multiple communities and political realities. Educational Technology, 44(3), 47–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428909
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. W., & Carlson, M. P. (2017). Variation, covariation, and functions: Foundational ways of thinking mathematically. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 421–456). NCTM.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. W., Ashbrook, M., & Milner, F. (2019). Calculus: Newton, Leibniz, and Robinson meet technology. http://patthompson.net/ThompsonCalc/.
   Google Scholar
• von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of learning and knowing. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Farewell to objectivity. Systems Research, 13(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3%3C279::AID-SRES91%3E3.0.CO;2-L
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar