AAH GRAPHICS, INC.

/ 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 11-27-2005 / 12:31

TITLE

Functional Contextualism in
Learning and Instruction: Pragmatic
Science or Objectivism Revisited?
AUTHOR

Michael J. Hannafin

Keywords: functional contextualism, constructivism, instructional design

Eric Fox presents an interesting case for applying functional contextualism

(FC) constructs and principles to learning and instruction. He draws on sev-
eral well-debated issues related to the instructional design and technology
(IDT) field’s shifting philosophical-epistemological roots and pedagogical
practices. His is not the first attempt to question the foundations of the field or
propose pragmatic alternatives to reconciling constructivist-inspired practices
with time-tested, traditional instructional design methods (see, for example,
Lebow, 1993; Rieber, 1993); it will not be the last.
However, Fox raises several issues that require clarification. This is perhaps
the nature of straw-man arguments: To strengthen the face validity of a partic-
ular perspective, the legitimacy of competing perspectives must first be under-
mined. In this case, Fox provides a selective and somewhat limited analysis of
constructivist-inspired approaches to bolster the case for and significance of
FC advocacy. While I will not revisit the largely unproductive objectivist-con-
structivist debates of the past decade, I question several of Fox’s assertions and
argue that while FC has value for the IDT field, it is consistent with and an
extension of objectivist-inspired instructional engineering rather than an alter-
native to constructivist-inspired approaches.

Which IDT Field?

As documented repeatedly during the past three decades, there really is no

unitary IDT field, but a metafield of sorts drawn from diverse disciplines,
reflecting the values of different communities, and engaged in the creation of
learning environments that manifest those values and beliefs (Hannafin,
Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 1997). Fox’s definition of IDT as a field that seeks “to

ETR&D, Vol. 54, No. 1, p. 37–41, 2006

© 2006 Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 37
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 10-24-2005 / 18:49

38 HANNAFIN

predict and influence psychological events in certain contexts using certain

methods” follows the logic of his own argument, but represents only one of
the many views of the field and its members. Those who develop tools for
independent inquiry, or seek to guide student-centered inquiry in open learn-
ing environments, define “their” IDT field differently. So, while Fox’s defini-
tion might be well suited to some in the IDT field such as those interested in
direct instruction environments, it is not consistent with the values and prac-
tices of others.

Have Constructivists Lost Their Way?

Fox describes as problematic how constructivists “borrow indiscriminately

from the full range of constructivist perspectives,” suggesting that identifying
oneself as a constructivist reveals little about philosophical and theoretical ori-
entation. Constructivism certainly has fallen victim to some bandwagon
effects—fashionable and trendy without meaningfully affecting practice. Vari-
ants, both historical and manufactured, have surfaced employing different ter-
minology and, in some cases, specific distinctions. Yet, each philosophical,
epistemological, and psychological distinction does not, by itself, warrant a
corresponding variation in practice, including the so-called pragmatic per-
spectives advocated by Fox. Some distinctions are more semantic than princi-
pled in nature, justifying their evolutionary consolidation into more inclusive,
pragmatic wholes. Others suggest distinctions in principle that have no dis-
cernable impact on how they are operationalized in practice. The phrase used
in this commentary, constructivist-inspired approaches, acknowledges the
diversity of applications but recognizes adherence to shared philosophical and
theoretical foundations and assumptions embodied in their practices
(Hannafin, et al, 1997). The goal is not to preserve all variants, but to retain
those for which meaningful variations in practice are likely to emerge. Inter-
estingly, Gagné (1984) adapted behavioral and cognitive psychology princi-
ples in a similar manner in developing the Events of Instruction. In the
evolution and refinement of any principled process, we should not be alarmed
by or critical of culling and consolidation; we should expect it.

Have Constructivists Struggled to Legitimize Approaches?

Fox suggests that constructivists have struggled “to move beyond theory to
practice or to empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach.”
Approaches to guide development, akin to the instructional design process,
have been admittedly slow to emerge. However, to suggest that constructiv-
ists have not affected practices or demonstrated effectiveness is simply
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 10-24-2005 / 18:49

FUNCTIONAL CONTEXTUALISM 39

inaccurate. Contrary to these statements, many have provided compelling evi-

dence of the effectiveness of constructivist-inspired learning environments
(Jacobson & Kozma, 2000). Constructivist-inspired strategies and principles
are included among the key recommendations of the National Research
Council’s Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning (Bransford,
Brown, & Cocking, 1999).
Likewise, systems and methods focused explicitly on disciplined
approaches to creating learning environments and formalizing design systems
have emerged. Design experiments have been applied to simultaneously
address local learning-performance needs, ensure the applicability of the envi-
ronments to related target populations, document the effectiveness in terms of
student and/or teacher performance, and better understand and refine the
processes involved in designing and developing innovations. Indeed, leading
journals have recently devoted entire issues to the emergence and refinement
of such approaches (see, e.g., Educational Researcher [2003], 32(1); Journal of the
Learning Sciences [2004], 13(1); Educational Psychologist [2004], 39(4)).

Do Constructivists and Functional Contextualists Really Mean the

Same Things?

Equating FC with constructivism may be the most misleading stretch in the

article. Characterizing contextualism as familiar and appealing to constructiv-
ists, and the link between them as obvious, marginalizes and obscures funda-
mental differences. Although parallels can be drawn, constructing knowledge
is not a simple reformulation of pragmatic views; rejecting truth as absolute
goes well beyond a functional truth criterion. While arguing that constructivist
epistemology effectively demands acceptance of contextualism, Fox later
states that functional contextualists seek to predict and influence events using
empirically based concepts and rules derived through experimental research.
Would constructivists agree that the foundations and assumptions of their
practices really coincide with these statements? Are behavior analysis and util-
ity-based truth criteria really consonant with constructivism philosophy, epis-
temology, and pedagogy? I suspect that rather than being parsimonious (as
Fox suggests), FC may instead solidify the argument for approaches inconsis-
tent with those espoused by constructivists (which he also states). Indeed, FC
has bolstered the emphasis on behaviorally inspired approaches (e.g., Moran
& Malott, 2004).
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 10-24-2005 / 18:49

40 HANNAFIN

Is Functional Contextualism Really an Alternative to Constructivism?

One puzzling issue is the manner in which Fox characterizes and applies “sci-
ence” to FC, then to the IDT field. While stating that “weaknesses make [con-
structivism] a poor philosophy of science and an even poorer basis on which
to build an applied academic discipline,” he notes that FC has “proven
remarkably successful in allowing humans to interact with their world more
effectively.” He further describes FC as “pragmatic” and “useful.” Given his
own characterizations, is FC a philosophy of science or an engineering frame-
work? The foundations and assumptions underlying the framework are more
akin to objectivism than constructivism, and the research implications and
associated instructional activities more behaviorally and cognitively inspired.
Fox has detailed an alternative to and extension of objectivist-inspired prac-
tices. Unfortunately, although these are indeed useful, they are not the contri-
butions he touts.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Many in the IDT field have sought what Robert Glaser (1976) described as “a
science of design.” This goal has proven elusive because of both the diversity
and the legitimacy of different perspectives within the field. Not all are drawn
from the same community of practice, adhere to the same values and beliefs,
or strive for the same end goals. Those who believe they have found a unifying
“new best way” and attempt to convert the masses become frustrated by the
competing epistemological and philosophical perspectives of those who
adhere to alternative IDT perspectives. We need not become embroiled in
counterproductive winner-loser, right-approach–wrong-approach intellectual
exercises when well-formulated implementations, such as detailed for func-
tional contextualism, offer useful ways to extend our craft. Although it is
important that we understand and ground learning and instruction practices,
the reality has been, and will remain, that diverse practices reflecting funda-
mentally different foundations and assumptions can be grounded effectively.
In Fox’s article, advances are obvious even if “losers” are not.

Michael J. Hannafin [hannafin@uga.edu] is Professor of Instructional Technology in the

Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology and Director of the
Learning & Performance Support Laboratory at The University of Georgia.
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 10-24-2005 / 18:49

FUNCTIONAL CONTEXTUALISM 41

REFERENCES

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, expe-
rience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Gagné, R. (1984). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York :
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of
design. Review of Educational Research, 46, 1–24.
Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and
the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 45(3), 101–117.
Jacobson, M., & Kozma, R. (Eds.) (2000). Innovations in science and mathematics education:
Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles
toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4–16.
Moran, D., & Malott, R. (Eds.) (2004). Evidence-based educational methods. San Diego:
Elsevier Academic Press.
Rieber, L. (1993). A pragmatic view of instructional technology. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The
practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.