Al Suqri Chapter 1_ Theory of Cognitive Constructivism - Information Seeking Behavior and Technology...

7/24/2019 Al Suqri Chapter 1_ Theory of Cognitive Constructivism - Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/al-suqri-chapter-1-theory-of-cognitive-constructivism-information-seeking 1/19

22-1-2016 Chapter 1: Theory of Cognitive Constructivism - Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/information-seeking-behavior/9781466681569/978-1-4666-8156-9.ch001.xhtml 1/19

CHAPTER 1

Theory of CognitiveConstructivism

Kijpokin Kasemsap

Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand

ABSTRACT

This chapter reveals the theory of cognitive constructivism that represents

significant perspectives on information seeking, information retrieval and

knowledge formation. Regarding theory of cognitive constructivism, the

perspecti ve of information seeking assists organizations in f acilitating

constructivists’ instructional access to emphasize students' practical roles

in knowledge management through independent information seeking and

implementation. The utilization of cognitive constructivism is necessary

for modern organizations that seek to serve suppliers and customers,

increase business performance, strengthen competitiveness, and achieve

continuous success in global business. Therefore, it is essential for

modern organizations to examine t heir cognitive constructivism

applications, develop a strategic plan to regularly check their practical

advancements, and immediately respond to the cognitive constructivism

needs of customers in modern organizations. Applying the theory of

cognitive constructivism will favorably enhance o rganizational

performance and reach strategic goals in the information age.

INTRODUCTION

In order for sustainable knowledge societies to grow and thrive, humans

must have the ability to access information from which they can create

knowledge as well as the capacity to share that knowledge globally with

others who can build upon this new information in a virtuous circle of

knowledge building if economic development and the resultant social

progress are to proceed in a more equitable manner around the globe,

education based upon new methods of teaching and learning w ill be a key

factor (Porcaro, 2011). Kasemsap (2014a) indicated that perception of

learning emerges as the most important predictor of training transfer.

Educational efforts to create new social networks are made in order to

minimize the lack of knowledge and improve knowledge sharing in higher

education institutions (Kasemsap, 2014b).

Various learning philosophies, such as humanistic, constructivist, and

socio-cultural approaches, have accentuated the importance of emotion in

learning (Naude, van den Bergh, & Kruger, 2014). Cognitive

constructivism theory is of great value to teachers in their efforts to help

students grasp the substantive and syntactic components of the subjects

they are teaching (Amarin & Ghishan, 2013). Constructivism is an

approach to knowledge and learning that focuses on the active role of

learners (Baerveldt, 2013). Cognitive constructivism theory supports e-

Learning (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Agamba, 2014). Cognitive

constructivism emphasizes the active role of students in making sense of

the information (Kalpana, 2014).

As a result of the influence of constructivist ideas about learning on

education, teaching has become increasingly understood as the

facilitation of learning rather than as a process where teachers have

something to give to their students (Biesta, 2013). Students’ perceptions

of their constructivist learning are positively related to their critical

thinking ability (Kwan & Wong, 2014). Modern constructivism entails the

idea that the construction of knowledge occurs within the mind as per the

individual’s internal mental processes (Saade, Nebebe, & Mak, 2011).

Information science is an interdisciplinary field primarily concerned with

the analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval,

PREV

Section 1: Metatheories⏮

NEXT

Chapter 2: Social Constructionism ⏭

Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption Recent

Topics

Highlights

Settings

Feedback

Sign Out

Settings

10 days left in your trial. Subscribe.

Feedback

Sign Out

Tutorials

⚙

Enjoy Safari? Subscribe Today

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/accounts/logout/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/u/



https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/information-seeking-behavior/9781466681569/978-1-4666-8156-9.chs01.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/information-seeking-behavior/9781466681569/978-1-4666-8156-9.ch002.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/u/001o000000jbOASAA2/



https://www.safaribooksonline.com/tutorials/


https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics


https://www.safaribooksonline.com/recent/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/subscribe/


https://community.safaribooksonline.com/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/subscribe/





https://www.safaribooksonline.com/u/001o000000jbOASAA2/






https://www.safaribooksonline.com/s/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/r/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/home/





movement, and dissemination of information (Stock & Stock, 2013).

The strength of this chapter is on the thorough literature consolidation of

cognitive constructivism. The extant literature of cognitive constructivism

provides a contribution to practitioners and researchers by describing a

comprehensive view of the functional applications of cognitive

constructivism to appeal to different segments of cognitive constructivism

in order to maximize the business impact of cognitive constructivism.

BACKGROUND

Information seeking is the process or activity of attempting to o btain

information in both human and technological contexts. Information

seeking is related to, but different from, information retrieval. Studies

have been carried out into the information-seeking behaviors of librarians

(Brown & Ortega, 2007), academicians (Hemminger, Lu, Vaughan, &

Adams, 2007), medical professionals (Davies & Harrison, 2007),

engineers (Robinson, 2010), and lawyers (Kuhlthau & Tama, 2001). The

cognitive constructivism viewpoint has undergone significant changes

since the late 1970s, when it was proposed for the first time (Talja,

Tuominen, & Savolainen, 2005). The call for more ecolo gically valid

research served to bring on the widespread acceptance of psychology's

metaphor of learning as knowledge construction in the 1980s and 1990s

(Mayer, 1996).

The early attempts to develop cognitive approaches to information

behavior are inspired by natural scientific ideas of measuring the

processes of information reception and use (Talja et al., 2005). Cognitive

constructivism emerged in information science in the late 1970s and

1980s as a reaction against the predominant information transfer model

(Mokros, 1993; Cornelius, 1996; Day, 2001; Tuominen, Talja, &Savolainen, 2003). Gergen (1999) reflected the metatheory of cognitive

constructivism existing in the fields of psychology and education. Gergen

(1999) defined cognitive constructivism as a view in which an individual

mind constructs reality but within a systematic relationship to the

external world. The cognitive constructivism ideas are commonly labeled

under the cognitive viewpoint (Talja et al., 2005).

The constructivist approach to learning has become accepted in the

educational community (Dalgarno, 2001; Saade & Huang, 2009).

Cognitive constructivism is an approach that informs artificial intelligence

in drawing straightforward analogies between human information

processing and computing (Ingwersen, 1992). The core of constructivism

is that learners actively construct their own kno wledge and meaning from

their experiences by perceiving various things around them and making

sense out of those objects in particular learning situation (Williams &

Chinn, 2009).

THEORY OF COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM

Constructivists believe that knowledge is constructed when an individual

attaches meaning to an experience or activity (Torre, Daley, Sebastian,

Elnicki, 2006; Merriam, Caffarella, & B aumgartner, 2007). Cognitive

constructivism has been described as a vague concept but has

nevertheless been discussed in many schools as the best method for

teaching and learning (Powell & Kalina 2009). Cognitive constructivism

theory emphasizes the active role of learners in building their own

understanding of reality. Cognitive constructivism theory in e ducation

rooted in neo-Piagetain thought is personal constructivism (Von

Glasersfeld, 1989). Rutherford-Hemming (2012) distinguished between

personal constructivism and social constructivism. With personal

constructivism, learning is constructed within the individual and based on

prior knowledge, whereas social constructivism posits that learning is

constructed in a social environment (Rutherford-Hemming, 2012).

Constructivism is defined as a theory for generating rules of social

cooperation (Ross, 2009). Constructivism is rooted in two fields,

psychology of cognitive development and epistemology, which leads to

two ways of describing the construction process: either as a process of

enrichment and/or reorganization of the cognitive structures at the

mental level, or as a process of building or development of models or

theories at the symbolic level (Bachtold, 2013). The notion of cognitive act

is of importance for an epistemology that is apt for constructive type

theory and for epistemology (van der Schaar, 2011).

There are important synergies for the next generation o f ethical leaders

based on the alignment of modified or adjusted mental models (Werhane,

Hartman, Moberg, Englehardt, Pritchard, & Parmar, 2011). Technologies

are significant in research not only as instruments for gathering data and

analyzing information (Friesen, 2010). Scientific concepts and conceptual

systems are the particular forms of higher mental activity (Azeri, 2013).

The theory of mental models accounts for how people conceptualize

problem situations (Kim, 2012). Mental models are recognized as the

relatively stable conceptual structures (Talja et al., 2005).

With personal constructivism, the learner attaches meaning using

previous knowledge and experience. An internal change in cognitive

scheme occurs as a result of the learner’s connection to the current

environment. However, social constructivism results from individuals

dialoguing about problems in a social environment (Rutherford-

Hemming, 2012). Piaget (1932) stated that students construct their own

meaning of reality regarding theory of cognitive constructivism. Piaget’s

approach is central to the school of cognitive theory also known as

cognitive constructivism (Kalpana, 2014). Children go through active





participation and involvement (Piaget, 1970). Piagetian constructivism is

related to cognitive constructivism and appears externally quite similar to

forms of cognitivism (Porcaro, 2011). Leinhardt (1992) stated that the

essence of cognitive constructivism theory is the idea that learners must

individually discover and transform complex information if they are to

make it their own.

Although a popular topic in education, cognitive constructivism theory

represents a broad variety of disparate learning theories and pedagogical

practices (Phillips, 1995; Prawat, 1996; Kivinen & Ristela, 2003). While

some have derided cognitive constructivism’s benefits and proclaimed its

weaknesses (Fox, 2006; Meyer, 2009), other researchers have

enthusiastically promoted constructivism (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996;

Palincsar, 1998; Jonassen, Cernusca, & Ionas, 2007). There is much

confusion surrounding the nature and applications of constructivism

(Tobias & Duffy, 2009).

Jonassen et al. (2007) stated that constructivism is not an instructional or

learning theory, but simply an epistemology. However, Jonassen et al.

(2007) described constructivist-based pedagogies in instructional design

but fail to name this category of educational practices other than claiming

that they shall not be called constructivism. In this way, comparing two

metaphors of learning (Sfard, 1998) on a macro level can assist

academicians in understanding how contextual factors of constructivism

lead to the adoption of innovative practice (Palincsar, 1998). Robinson,

Molenda, and Rezabek (2008) explained that facilitating learning puts the

emphasis on the learners and their interests with defining their learning

problems and controlling their internal mental processes, and teachers

supporting this learning process and the need for student motivation.

Learner models have emerged from the research laboratory and researchclassrooms into the wider world (Desmarais & Baker, 2012). Many

challenges remain in developing a strong, brain-based theory of human

learning, especially in complex environments such as educational settings

(Anderson, 2014). Learning is recognized to be free from t ime,

geographical, and participation constraints (Own, 2010). Learning

phenomenon is a way to bring forward a process of continuous

improvement supported by social software (Ramirez, Hine, Ji, Ulbrich, &

Riordan, 2009). Individual learning is practically associated with

organizational learning (Bell, Menguc, & Widing, 2010).

Learning study has been used by many to develop exemplary teaching in

school (Mosvold & Bjuland, 2011). Learning study helps to improve

students’ learning outcomes, enhance teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge, and change teachers’ attitudes about professional

development (Lau & Yuen, 2013). Learning study model seems to be a

powerful model with which to develop teachers’ understanding of

theoretical framework (Holmqvist, 2011). Learning study model may be

applied and adjusted to preschool settings to deepen the t eachers’

understanding of children’s learning (Ljung-Djarf & Olander, 2013).

Learning motivation is effectively related to learning transfer in global

education (Kasemsap, 2013a). Organizational learning, knowledge

management, and knowledge-sharing behavior are practically correlated

with organizational performance (Kasemsap, 2013b). Learning motivation

is enhanced through a teaching and learning environment with eight

supportive conditions, namely, establishing relevance, establishing

interest, allowing choice of courses, learning activities, teaching for

understanding, assessment of learning activities, close teacher–student

relationships and sense of belonging between classmates (Kember, Ho, &

Hong, 2010). Learning cultures are different from learning environments

in that they are to be understood as the social practices through which

people learn (Biesta, 2011).

Numerous theoretical studies scrutinize the hypothesis that a non-

evolving ability of adaptive learning accelerates evolution of genetically

determined behavior (Sznajder, Sabelis, & Egas, 2012). Regarding a

transfer learning setting, the labeled students required for learning with

transfer are often significantly smaller than that required for learning

each target independently (Yang, Hanneke, & Carbonell, 2013). Children,

as educational stakeholders, are aware of the potential of modern schoolsand of the different aspects that would enhance their ability to learn and

their satisfaction with schooling (Kangas, 2010).

Behaviorists learning models may be helpful in understanding and

influencing what students do, but teachers usually want to know about the

thought process which the students are undergoing and want to enrich

their thought processes (Kalpana, 2014). For the aspect of te aching, the

best help comes from cognitive constructivism (Kalpana, 2014). In order

to understand constructivism in practice, it is important to examine how

it is applied institutionally as we ll as individually (Arnseth & Ludvigsen,

2006). Depending on the distance between current practice and

innovation, some cultures, systems, and personalities may align better

with constructivism, where in others there may be conflict between the

ideals of the learning environment and the student (Catterick, 2007).

Cognitive constructivism theory has exerted a powerful influence on

policy and research related to the education of students (Stoddart,

Connell, Stofflett, & Peck, 1993). Learners are increasingly viewed as

active participants in the learning process, actively constructing meaning

through experience. The view of cognitive constructivism is one of the

traditions in educational psychology that rest on the views that a learner's

existing ideas are all important in responding to, and making sense of,

stimuli. The learner makes sense of experience by actively constructing





meaning (Osborne & Wittrock, 1985). When answering the question of

whether cognitive constructivism is primarily an epistemology, Von

Glasersfeld (1992) stated that cognitive constructivism confronts

questions of knowledge. Von Glasersfeld (1995) stated that the cognitive

constructivism view is an attempt to explain a way o f thinking and makes

no claim to describe an independent reality.

Much of the constructivism confusion appears to come from the fact that

the term constructivism is used to describe an instructional theory, a

learning theory, and an epistemology (Porcaro, 2011). The te rm cognitive

constructivism encompasses a variety of theoretical positions (Geelan,

1997) and has mainly been applied to learning theories, focusing on

learning as a conceptual change (Driver & Oldham, 1986) and to

curriculum development and teaching, mainly in science (Osborne &

Wittrock, 1985). Von Glasersfeld (1992) considered cognitive

constructivism as an approach to knowing. Von Glasersfeld (1992) tried to

avoid the terms epistemology or theory of knowledge for constructivism.

Fischler (1999) stated that teaching should not be regarded as an

arrangement of instructional strategies, but more a situation in which

learning processes need to be recognized and supported.

The knowledge base of te aching creates demands on the teachers as they

need to be sensitive to students' learning difficulties; be patient through

the process of students' construction of new knowledge; take into account

the students' existing knowledge; create a classroom climate in which

students are willing to express and discuss their ideas; create situations in

which students can present their own opinions; and accept a teaching role

that is not so much that of a communicator and an examiner, but more as

a person who advises and helps students to develop knowledge (Scott,

Asoko, & Driver, 1992). Niche construction theory can be applied to

examine the influence of culturally constructed learning environments on

the acquisition and retention of beliefs, values, role expectations, and

skills (Kendal, 2011).

Cognitive constructivism theory considers learning as a dynamic and

social process in which learners actively construct meaning from their

experiences in connection with their prior understandings and the social

setting (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). The cognitive

constructivism view of learning stated that students do not come to the

science classroom empty-headed but arrive with lots of strongly formed

ideas about how the natural world wo rks (Driver et al., 1994). Cognitive

constructivism has done a service to science and mathematics education

by alerting teachers to the function of prior learning and extant concepts

in the process of learning new material, by stressing the importance of

understanding as a goal of science instruction, and by fostering student

engagement in lessons, (Matthews, 2002).

In order to effectively apply cognitive constructivism, teachers have to

know where the students are at a given learning point or what previous

knowledge they possess about a subject, in order for them to create

personal meaning when new information is given to them (Powell &Kalina 2009). The goal of learning from a constructivist perspective is not

for students to process discrete facts but to create the interpretation of

information (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Regarding cognitive constructivism,

students should no longer be passive recipients of knowledge supplied by

teachers and teachers should no longer be the purveyors of knowledge

and classroom managers (Fosnot, 1996). The cultivation of dialogue

should be a key priority in classrooms, because dialogue drives each

individual to seek meaning in the context of seeing her/himself as one

among others (Splitter, 2009).

From the perspective of cognitive constructivism, learning is a process of

acquiring new knowledge, which is active and complex. This is the result

of cognitive constructivism process (Glynn, Yeany, & Britton, 1991).

Cognitive constructivism emphasizing discovery, experimentation, and

open-ended problems has been successfully applied in science (Neale &

Smith, 1990). Wildy and Wallace (1995) stated that good science teachers

are those who teach for deep understanding: they use students' ideas

about science to guide science lessons, providing experiences to test and

challenge those ideas to help students arrive at more sophisticated

understanding. Approaches to classroom instruction have considerably evolved over the past 50 years (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). The

classrooms of such teachers are learner-centered places where group

discussion, exploration and problem solving are universal.

Cognitive constructivism is a meta-theory position t hat considers

knowledge production as the creation of mental models (Talja et al.,

2005). Knowledge construction occurs between students with same or

similar learning abilities (Rozenszayn & Assaraf, 2011). Individuals build

their knowledge through their experiences that enable them to build

mental models of the world. Mental models include schemas, scripts, and

knowledge structures. Students with different levels of prior knowledge

perceive different aspects of educational examples that are critical for

their learning (Guo, Pang, Yang, & Ding, 2012). Workplace le arning is

considered as an effective strategy for the development of vocation, career

and professional identity (Poortman, Reenalda, Nijhof, & Nieuwenhuis,

2014).

Cognitive constructivism relates to knowledge resource and information

retrieval system (Talja, 1997). Fear of knowledge critically challenges

contemporary trends in academic thinking (Fogel, 2010). Dervin (1983)stated about the understanding of information as the direct

communication of messages between senders and receivers, thus

criticizing the way in which the information transfer model emphasized





the authoritative role of the sender and viewed information as an entity-

like, objective and neutral informing brick. Cognitive constructivism

provides clear pointers toward teaching strategies that assist students in

conceptual reconstruction to identify students' ideas, create opportunities

for students, and provide stimuli for students (Hodson & Hodson, 1998).

An information user is not a passive information processing system but

actively makes sense of the surrounding reality and attaches personal

meanings to information. Ingwersen (1982) developed a model of

information retrieval interaction that incorporates the socio-

organizational environment and shows information seeking to be affected

especially by the nature of the work task to be acco mplished by individual

information searcher. Constructivists display a variety of ontological and

epistemological perspectives (Porcaro, 2011). Concerning cognitive

constructivism perspective, the learner still processes the objective reality

in the mind, but creates his or her own understanding based on individual

apperceptions, which may or may not correspond with reality (Porcaro,

2011). Von Glasersfeld (1987) suggested that subjective reality of cognitive

constructivism is individualistic, creating the ontology that borders on

solipsistic. The epistemology does not preclude the existence of an

external reality, only that it is epistemologically interpreted (Kivinen &

Ristela, 2003). Thus, cognitive constructivism represents the

epistemological intersection of empiricism and rationalism (Ertmer &

Newby, 1993).

Significance of Cognitive Constructivism Theory

Hjørland (1992) stated that cognitive constructivism theories are

generally unhelpful in solving the problems of knowledge organization, as

representations and interpretations of reality are seen as entities residing

within rather than between individuals. Hjørland (1992) indicated thatinformation processes should be approached from the viewpoint of the

social discovery and construction of knowledge, meanings and

representations, and equated the cognitive viewpoint’s focus on subjective

knowledge structures with idealism. Gergen and Wortham (2001) stated

that if individuals are considered as knowledge originators, this raises a

question of how internal and external realities are connected, because the

mental sphere seems to remain opposed to social and material processes.

Cognitive constructivism viewpoint is characterized by the deletion of the

social system (Frohmann, 1992). Sampson (1993) suggested that the

cognitive constructivism viewpoint is decontextualized in assuming that

the development of cognitive constructivism models is an ingrained

biological process that is the same for all individuals, regardless of gender,

class, race and the social and cultural cont ext in which learning and living

takes place. The role of interaction in learning is essential (Hooker, 2009).

Criticism of cognitive constructivism is not l imited to discussions in

discursive psychology (Edwards, 1997) or in information science

(Frohmann, 1992; Talja, 1997; Tuominen & Savolainen, 1997).

Although the theoretical assumptions of cognitive constructivism may bechallenged from the vantage point of other positions, studies drawing on

cognitive constructivism have in fact been successful in presenting

solutions to central research problems. The results of empirical studies

based on the assumptions of cognitive constructivism can be very useful

and open up new important researchable questions (Talja et al., 2005). As

Kuhn’s (1962) original notion of scientific paradigms suggests, whenever

this happens, there is a period of scientific advance. Each scientific

paradigm of cognitive constructivism is in its own way limited and directs

empirical research efforts to focus on specific aspects of reality (Talja et

al., 2005).

Concerning cognitive constructivism theory, the teacher-knowledge

perspective has become an important way to think about teachers and

their work (Chapman, 2013). The level of performance, expected from the

teachers’ perspective as those who instruct in educational curriculum, is

very high (Sahin, 2010). Cognitive constructivism overturns the

information transfer model’s conception of language as a mere vehicle for

transmitting messages from senders to receivers (Talja et al., 2005).

Excellent teaching effectively facilitates and maximizes the learning

(Wong, 2012). Organizational learning is an underlying condition which isexpressed by teacher perceptions of psychological safety,

experimentation, and leadership toward facilitating learning (Higgins,

Ishimaru, Holcombe, & Fowler, 2012).

The notion of metacognition deals with people’s ability to be aware of and

control their own thinking (Barak, 2010). Preservice teachers with high

teacher efficacy tend to employ constructivist approach in their teaching

while preservice teachers with low teacher efficacy tend to use traditional

approach, lecturing in their teaching (Temiz & Topcu, 2013). Preservice

early childhood teachers with high motivational beliefs are more likely to

use cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Saçkes & Trundle, 2014). One

aspect of metacognition is the monitoring of memory or comprehension

measured with retrospective confidence judgments after test taking

(Mengelkamp & Bannert, 2010).

Application of Cognitive Constructivism Theory

As cognitive constructivism is a theory of learning and not teaching,

implementing a constructivist approach in the classroom requires

teachers to identify the implications and applications of constructivist

philosophy for teaching (O’Shea & Leavy, 2013). Empirical researchers

have to be aware of the fact that cognition or other mental activities such

as emotions and volitions are not directly observable and therefore, much





harder to survey (Reihlen & Apel, 2007). Bates (2002) stated that the

theory of cognitive constructivism constitutes a distinctive type of

learning, research and understanding, so that there is a valuable role for

theory of cognitive constructivism. Many recent models of learning and

instruction practically concentrate the learning on real-world t asks and

problems to support knowledge application and transfer (Francom &

Gardner, 2014).

Cognitive load theory is intended to provide instructional strategies

derived from experimental, cognitive load effects (Paas & Sweller, 2012).

According to cognitive load theory, the limitations of working memory

(WM) in the learning of new tasks together with its ability to cooperate

with an unlimited long-term memory (LTM) for familiar tasks enable

human beings to effectively deal with complex problems and acquire

highly complex knowledge and skills (Paas & Ayres, 2014). Prior research

on cognitive skill learning has shown that algorithmic and direct memory

retrieval strategies are not executed in parallel if the algorithm entails a

series of LTM retrieval steps (Bajic & Rickard, 2011). An explicit learning

theory adds value to lesson study, as the variation theory of learning

serves as a source of guiding principles for the teachers when they engage

in pedagogical design, lesson analysis and evaluation (Pang & Ling, 2012).

Concerning cognitive constructivism theory, many educational

researchers have investigated how best to support conceptual learning in

science education (Ulen, Cagran, Slavinec, & Gerlic, 2014). Considering

the aim of science education to foster an appreciation of science, the

implications of constructivist pedagogy are of great concern to science

educators (Mugaloglu, 2014). Cognitive constructivism has formed a

background for information needs, seeking and use studies, user-oriented

and interactive information retrieval research, Internet search behavior

studies and conceptualizations of information literacy (Talja et al., 2005).

The applications of learning theory include the best response process,

fictitious play, imitation, reinforcement learning, and a trial-and-error

process (Duersch, Kolb, Oechssler, & Schipper, 2010).

Science education is envisioned to incorporate values and morals within

an ideology of educational reform (Mitchell & Mueller, 2011). Using

radical listening in science education classroom helps stakeholders learn

from each other’s educational values and viewpoints and contributes to

bridging divides (Alexakos & Pierwola, 2013). The corresponding classes

of object localization and recognition problems are efficiently learnable

under a learning strategy, promoting a polynomial upper bound on the

minimum number of examples necessary to correctly localize targets

under the given models of uncertainty (Andreopoulos & Tsotsos, 2013). In

cognitive constructivism, uncertainty is an important concept, referring

both to the cognitive and affective states of the user in specific stages of

problem-solving processes (Kuhlthau, 1993), and to task uncertainty

regarding the degree and structuredness of knowledge available for

decision making (Bystrom & Jarvelin, 1995; Vakkari, 1999; Bystrom,

2000).

Cognitive constructivism has been applied in user modeling and user

requirement elicitation aiming at user interfaces and user-system

interaction (Talja et al., 2005). Cognitive constructivism is suited as a

background theory for studies aiming at the development of personal

information management systems and personalized digital libraries

(Kuhlthau & Tama, 2001; Bergman, Beyth-Marom, & Nachmias, 2003).

The essence of cognitive constructivism on individual actors makes this

approach less appropriate for studying broader social aspects o f

information seeking and use, cooperative information seeking and

information retrieval, and the formation of meanings, representations,

and classifications (Talja et al., 2005).

Activities of cognitive constructivism focus on learning through artifact

creation (Papert, 1993), authentic tasks (Herrington & Oliver, 2000),

cognitive constructivism apprenticeships, demonstration of multiple

perspectives through learning cases (Choi & Lee, 2009) and social

negotiation through argumentation (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003),

as well as anchoring learning in the meaningful contexts (Cognition and

Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992) and problem solving (Jonassen,

2000; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007; Schmidt, Loyens, Van Gog,& Paas, 2007). According to cognitive constructivism, the goals of the

learner are central as the learner takes an active and reflexive role

(Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1991), moving from the periphery

of a community of practice to its educational e ssence (Lave & Wenger,

1991).

Methods of cognitive constructivism are well-suited to procedural

execution (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Many educators question the

effectiveness and efficiency of cognitive constructivism’s pedagogies and

philosophies (Porcaro, 2011). For instance, instructors fear the loss of

control in their classroom (Hung, Bailey, & Jonassen, 2003), while other

instructors fear that students will not assume control of their own

learning (Jonassen, 1991). Students have a positive perception toward the

teaching sequences, which allow them to be involved more actively during

lectures (Narjaikaew, Emarat, Arayathanitkul, & Cowie, 2010). Students

who are given the possibility to experience variation in the locations of

components in the orthographic structures significantly outperform those

who are not (Lam & Tsui, 2013).

Some researchers criticize cognitive constructivism for its inability toproduce meaningful results in education (Fox, 2006) and its

disconnection to research in cognitive constructivism science (Kirschner,

Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Sweller, Kirschner, & Clark, 2007), while other





researchers state that cognitive constructivism may disadvantage non-

Western students who are unfamiliar with cognitive constructivism

education (Catterick, 2007). The concepts of personal and social reality

are strongly inspired by constructivists’ ideas (Hennig, 2010).

Interdisciplinary research collaborations are fraught with challenges,

including the need to overcome paradigmatic differences (Gardner, 2013).

The collaborative information processing model provides a theoretical

basis for understanding learning principles associated with social

interaction and explains why peer-to-peer discussion is potentially more

effective than instructor-student discussion (Jorczak, 2013).

Cognitive constructivism change only takes place when previous

conceptions go through a process of disequilibrium with the new

information (Slavin, 1994). Educators should advocate the use of

contextually rich settings such as authentic assessment, performance

assessment, and portfolio assessment (Reeves & Okey, 1996; Palm, 2008).

The role of the teacher is recognized as the mediation of knowledge

(Schur & Galili, 2009). Teachers can promote self-regulated learning

either directly by teaching learning strategies or indirectly by arranging a

learning environment that enables students to organize self-regulation

(Kistner, Rakoczy, Otto, Dignath-van Ewijk, Buttner, & Klieme, 2010).

Learning by doing and knowledge accumulation may ignore the

interruptive nature of technology advancement (Chen, 2014).

Regarding cognitive constructivism theory, the concept comprehension is

an important foundation for more complex thoughts. To enhance the

concept comprehension, teachers of traditional classrooms have been

using instructional strategies and specific course designs, which have

been proven effective (Hsu & Wang, 2014). The sufficient conditions for

sustainable instructional changes within a school are an authentic

professional learning community among teachers and whole school

arrangements to provide a peaceful learning environment in the

classrooms and an individualized education program for students in need

(Tam, 2009). Student engagement is significantly related to learning

outcomes (Pike, Smart, & Ethington, 2012). Many academicians are ill-

equipped to prepare students for a world of work in teams (Albon &

Jewels, 2014).

Biggs’ 3P (Presage–Process–Product) model, a key framework in Student

Learning Theory, provides a powerful means of understanding relations

between students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment,

learning strategies, and learning outcomes (Ginns, Martin, & Papworth,

2014).

The effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) has focused on its

theoretical conception and students’ learning outcomes (Hung, 2011). A

formal account of the relationship between students’ attention and

associative learning is presented within the framework of a configural

theory of discrimination learning (George & Pearce, 2012). The self-

reported learning gains (SRLG) are the valid measures of learning

because gains in specific content areas vary across academic disciplines astheoretically predicted (Porter, 2013).

The human ability to flexibly adapt to novel circumstances is

extraordinary (Cole, Laurent, & Stocco, 2013). Students’ learning

outcomes are enhanced by the fulfillment of novel learning strategy

(Stupans, Scutter, & Pearce, 2010). Learning outcomes cover a broad

range of areas, including sustainability framework, environment, skills,

community work, interpersonal engagement, and faith development

(Moyer, Sinclair, & Diduck, 2014). Schaap, Baartman, and de Brujin

(2012) stated that students’ learning processes in vocational schools and

workplaces are related to six main themes (i.e., students’ expertise

development, students’ learning styles, students’ integration of knowledge

acquired in school and workplace, processes of knowledge development,

students’ motivations for learning, and students’ professional identity

development).

Technology provides an opportunity to expand the learning environment

outside the classroom (Liljestrom, Enkenberg, & Pollanen, 2013). Web 2.0

is increasingly utilized and integrated with e-learning applications (Wang,

2011). Web 2.0 is developed to support a community of practice and sociallearning structures are created to support building of relations between

educational members on several levels in the community (Ekberg,

Ericson, Timpka, Eriksson, Nordfeldt, Hanberger, & Ludvigsson, 2010).

Allowing an arbitrarily small chance of using an alternative learning style

can shift educational population to select a different equilibrium

concerning learning rules (Golman, 2011).

An integration of mentoring with self-regulated learning seems valuable

because self-regulated learning researchers have employed methodologies

to assess its dynamic nature (Schunk & Mullen, 2013). Self-regulated

learning is predictive of improved academic outcomes and motivation

because students acquire the adaptive and autonomous learning

characteristics required for an enhanced engagement with the learning

process and subsequent successful performance (Clark, 2012). Many

researchers have focused on the beneficial effects of using multimedia

(i.e., text and pictures) for educational learning (Schuler, Scheiter, & van

Genuchten, 2011). Regarding game-based science learning, the functions

of digital games are to bridge science learning between real and virtual

worlds, to promote collaborative problem-solving, to provide affective

learning environments, and to facilitate science learning for youngerstudents (Li & Tsai, 2013).

The higher education institutions should ensure that their learning





community designs enhance the students’ feelings of relatedness

(Beachboard, Beachboard, Li, & Adkison, 2011). Learning models are

concerned with the endogenous search for a better performance at the

individual level (Walliser, 2011). Social and emotional learning programs

are designed to improve the quality of social interactions in schools and

classrooms in order to positively affect students’ social, emotional, and

academic development (Mashburn, Downer, Rivers, Brackett, & Martinez,

2014). The theory of distributed cognition provides a framework to aid in

the analysis of the conceptual affordances and constraints of tree-based

diagrams, and to develop new ways to visualize evolution (Stephens,

2012).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The strength of this chapter is on the thorough literature consolidation of

cognitive constructivism. The extant literature of cognitive constructivism

provides a contribution to practitioners and researchers by describing a

comprehensive view of the functional applications of cognitive

constructivism to appeal to different segments of cognitive constructivism

in order to maximize the business impact of cognitive constructivism. The

classification of the extant literature of cognitive constructivism theory

will provide the potential opportunities for future research. Future

research direction should broaden the perspectives in the implementation

of cognitive constructivism theory to be utilized in the knowl edge-based

organizations based on the industry such as hospitals, hotels, and higher

education institutions.

Practitioners and researchers should recognize the applicability of a more

multidisciplinary approach toward research activities in implementing

cognitive constructivism theory in terms of knowledge management-

related variables (i.e., knowledge-sharing behavior, knowledge creation,organizational learning, learning orientation, and motivation to learn). It

will be useful to bring additional disciplines together (i.e., strategic

management, marketing, finance, and human resources) to support a

more holistic examination of cognitive constructivism theory in order to

combine or transfer existing theories and approaches to inquiry in this

area.

CONCLUSION

This chapter revealed the theory of cognitive constructivism concerning

information seeking, information retrieval and knowledge formation, thus

exploring the differences between currently essential theory by utilizing

the information views of the origin and production of knowledge as

criteria. Cognitive constructivism approaches the information processes

by describing how information needs. Cognitive constructivism takes

individual information searchers and their information interaction with

information retrieval systems regarding the primary contexts for

information behavior in modern organizations. It is important to

understand how to introduce constructivist elements to students’ learning

cultures. Academicians and instructional designers need to collaboratively work with local practitioners to diminish the misalignment between

educational philosophies of teachers, students and institutional systems

in order to create the knowledge-based organizations.

The utilization of cognitive constructivism is necessary for modern

organizations that seek to serve suppliers and customers, increase

business performance, strengthen competitiveness, and achieve

continuous success in global business. Therefore, it is essential for

modern organizations to examine t heir cognitive constructivism

applications, develop a strategic plan to regularly check their practical

advancements, and immediately respond to the cognitive constructivism

needs of customers in modern organizations. Applying the theory of

cognitive constructivism will greatly improve organizational performance

and gain sustainable competitive advantage in modern organizations.

REFERENCES

Albon, R., & Jewels, T. (2014). Mutual performance monitoring:

Elaborating the development of a team learning theory. Group Decision

and Negotiation , 23(1), 149–164. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9311-9

Alexakos, K., & Pierwola, A. (2013). Learning at the “boundaries”: Radical

listening, creationism, and learning from the “other.” . Cultural Studies of

Science Education , 8(1), 39–49. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9470-7

Amarin, N. Z., & Ghishan, R. I. (2013). Learning with technology from a

constructivist point of view. International Journal of Business . Human

Technology , 3(1), 52–57.

Anderson, O. R. (2014). Progress in application of the neurosciences to an

understanding of human learning: The challenge of finding a middle-

ground neuroeducational theory. International Journal of Science and

Mathematics Education , 12(3), 475–492. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9455-3

Andreopoulos, A., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2013). A computational learning

theory of active object recognition under uncertainty. International

Journal of Computer Vision , 101(1), 95–142. doi:10.1007/s11263-012-

0551-6

Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. D. (2003). Arguing to learn:

Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning

environments . New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-

0781-7





Arnseth, H., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts:

Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 1(2), 167–185.

doi:10.1007/s11412-006-8874-3

Azeri, S. (2013). Conceptual cognitive organs: Toward a historical-

materialist theory of scientific knowledge. Philosophia , 41(4), 1095–1123.

doi:10.1007/s11406-013-9460-3

Bachtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according to

constructivism in science education? Research in Science Education ,43(6), 2477–2496. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9369-7

Baerveldt, C. (2013). Constructivism contested: Implications of a genetic

perspective in psychology. Integrative Psychological & B ehavioral Science

, 47(1), 156–166. doi:10.1007/s12124-012-9221-z

Bajic, D., & Rickard, T. C. (2011). Toward a generalized theory of the shift

to retrieval in cognitive skill learning. Memory & Cognition , 39(7), 1147–

1161. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0114-z

Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology

education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education ,

20(4), 381–401. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9092-x

Bates, M. J. (2002). Toward an integrated model of information seeking

and searching. New Review of Information Behaviour Research , 3(1), 1–

15.

Beachboard, M. R., Beachboard, J. C., Li, W., & Adkison, S. R. (2011).

Cohorts and relatedness: Self-determination theory as an explanation of

how learning communities affect educational outcomes. Research in

Higher Education , 52(8), 853–874. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9221-8

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory

into practice: How do we link? In Anglin, G. (Ed.), Instructional

technology: Past, present and future (pp. 100–112). Englewood, CO:

Libraries Unlimited.

Bell, S. J., Menguc, B., & Widing, R. E. (2010). Salesperson learning,

organizational learning, and retail store performance. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science , 38(2), 187–201. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-

0149-x

Bergman, O., Beyth-Marom, R., & Nachmias, R. (2003). The user-

subjective approach to personal information management systems.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology ,

54(9), 872–878. doi:10.1002/asi.10283

Biesta, G. (2011). From learning cultures to educational cultures: Values

and judgements in educational research and educational improvement.

International Journal of Early Childhood , 43(3), 199–210.

doi:10.1007/s13158-011-0042-x

Biesta, G. (2013). Receiving the gift of teaching: From “learning from” to

“being taught by.” . Studies in Philosophy and Education , 32(5), 449–

461. doi:10.1007/s11217-012-9312-9

Brown, C. M., & Ortega, L. (2007). Information seeking behavior of

physical science librarians: Does research inform practice. College &

Research Libraries , 66(3), 231–247. doi:10.5860/crl.66.3.231

Bystrom, K. (2000). The effects of task complexity on the relationship

between information types acquired and information sources used. New

Review of Information Behaviour Research , 1, 85–101.

Bystrom, K., & Jarvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information

seeking and use. Information Processing & Management , 31(2), 191–213.

doi:10.1016/0306-4573(94)00041-Z

Catterick, D. (2007). Do the philosophical foundations of online learning

disadvantage non-Western students? In Edmundson, A. (E d.), Globalized

e-learning cultural challenges (pp. 116–129). Hershey, PA: Information

Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-301-2.ch007

Chapman, O. (2013). Investigating teachers’ knowledge for teaching

mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education , 16(4), 237–

243. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9247-2

Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based

learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving:

Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational

Technology Research and Development , 57(1), 99–129.

doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9089-2

Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated

learning. Educational Psychology Review , 24(2), 205–249.

doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper

experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.

Educational Technology Research and Development , 40(1), 65–80.

doi:10.1007/BF02296707

Cole, M. W., Laurent, P., & Stocco, A. (2013). Rapid instructed task

learning: A new window into the human brain’s unique capacity for

flexible cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience ,





13(1), 1–22. doi:10.3758/s13415-012-0125-7

Cornelius, I. (1996). Meaning and method in information studies .

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Technologies supporting highly interactive learning

resources on the web: An analysis. Journal of Interactive Learning

Research , 12(2-3), 153–171.

Davies, K., & Harrison, J. (2007). The information-seeking behaviour of

doctors: A review of the evidence. Health Information and Libraries

Journal , 24(2), 78–94. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00713.x

Day, R. E. (2001). The modern invention of information: Discourse,

history, and power. Carbondale and Edwardsville . IL: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Dervin, B. (1983). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts,

methods, and results to date. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX.

Desmarais, M. C., & Baker, R. S. J. D. (2012). A review of recent advances

in learner and skill modeling in intelligent l earning environments. User

Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , 22(1-2), 9–38.

doi:10.1007/s11257-011-9106-8

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994).

Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational

Researcher , 23(7), 5–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007005

Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum

development in science. Studies in Science Education , 5(1), 6 1–84.doi:10.1080/03057267808559857

Duersch, P., Kolb, A., Oechssler, J., & Schipper, B. C. (2010). Rage against

the machines: How subjects play against learning algorithms. Economic

Theory , 43(3), 407–430. doi:10.1007/s00199-009-0446-0

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for

the design and delivery of instruction . In Jonassen, D. H. (E d.),

Handbook of research for educational communications and technology

(pp. 170–198). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

Dutot, V., Bergeron, F., & Raymond, L. (2014). Information management

for the internationalization of SMEs: An exploratory study based on a

strategic alignment perspective. International Journal of Information

Management , 34(5), 672–681. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.006

Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition . London, UK: Sage.

Ekberg, J., Ericson, L., Timpka, T., Eriksson, H., Nordfeldt, S., Hanberger,

L., & Ludvigsson, J. (2010). Web 2.0 systems supporting childhood

chronic disease management: Design guidelines based on information behaviour and social learning theories. Journal of Medical Systems ,

34(2), 107–117. doi:10.1007/s10916-008-9222-0

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism,

constructivism: Comparing critical features from a design perspective.

Performance Improvement Quarterly , 6(4), 50–72. doi:10.1111/j.1937-

8327.1993.tb00605.x

Fischler, H. (1999). The impact of teaching experiences on student-

teachers' and beginning teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning

science . In John, L. (Ed.), Researching teaching: Met hodologies and

practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 172–197). London, UK: Falmer

Press.

Fogel, C. (2010). Paul A. Boghossian, fear of knowledge: Against

relativism and constructivism. Minds and Machines , 20(1), 149–153.

doi:10.1007/s11023-009-9163-5

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivist: A psychological theory of learning . In

Fosnot, C. T. ( Ed.), Constructivisim: Theory, perspective and practice (pp.

8–13). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Fox, E. (2006). Constructing a pragmatic science of learning and

instruction with functional contextualism. Educational Technology

Research and Development , 54(1), 5–36. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-6491-5

Francom, G. M., & Gardner, J. (2014). What is task-centered learning?

TechTrends , 58(5), 27–35. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0784-z

Friesen, N. (2010). Mind and machine: Ethical and epistemological

implications for research. AI & Society , 25(1), 83–92.

doi:10.1007/s00146-009-0264-8

Frohmann, B. (1992). Knowledge and power in library and information

science: Toward a discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint . In

Vakkari, P., & Cronin, B. (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information

science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135–146).

London, UK: Taylor Graham.

Gardner, S. K. (2013). Paradigmatic differences, power, and status: A

qualitative investigation of faculty in one interdisciplinary research

collaboration on sustainability science. Sustainability Science , 8(2), 241–

252. doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0182-4





Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of

constructivism. Science and Education , 6(1-2), 15–28.

doi:10.1023/A:1017991331853

George, D. N., & Pearce, J. M. (2012). A configural theory of attention and

associative learning. Learning & Behavior , 40(3), 241–254.

doi:10.3758/s13420-012-0078-2

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction . London, UK:

Sage.

Gergen, K. J., & Wortham, S. (2001). Social construction and pedagogical

practice . In Gergen, K. J. (Ed.), Soc ial construction in context (pp. 115–

136). London, UK: Sage.

Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., & Papworth, B. (2014). Student Learning Theory

goes (back) to (high) school. Instructional Science , 42(4), 485–504.

doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9291-4

Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B . K. (1991). A constructive view o f

learning science . In Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (E ds.),

The psychology of learning science (pp. 3–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Golman, R. (2011). Why learning doesn’t add up: Equilibrium selection

with a composition of learning rules. International Journal of Game

Theory , 40(4), 719–733. doi:10.1007/s00182-010-0265-3

Guo, J. P., Pang, M. F., Yang, L. Y., & Ding, Y. (2012). Learning from

comparing multiple examples: On the dilemma of “similar” or “different.”

. Educational Psychology Review , 24(2), 251–269. doi:10.1007/s10648-

012-9192-0

Hemminger, B. M., Lu, D., Vaughan, K. T. L., & Adams, S. J. (2007).

Information seeking behavior of academic scientists. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology , 58(14), 2205–

2225. doi:10.1002/asi.20686

Hennig, C. (2010). Mathematical models and reality: A constructivist

perspective. Foundations of Science , 15(1), 29–48. doi:10.1007/s10699-

009-9167-x

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for

authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and

Development , 48(3), 23–48. doi:10.1007/BF02319856

Higgins, M., Ishimaru, A., Holcombe, R., & Fowler, A. (2012). Examining

organizational learning in schools: The role of psychological safety,

experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. Journal of

Educational Change , 13(1), 67–94. doi:10.1007/s10833-011-9167-9

Hjørland, B. (1992). The concept of “subject” in information science. The

Journal of Documentation , 48(2), 172–200. doi:10.1108/eb026895

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and

achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist , 42(2),

99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368

Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social

constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning

science. The School Science Review , 79(2), 33–41.

Holmqvist, M. (2011). Teachers’ learning in a learning study. Instructional

Science , 39(4), 497–511. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9138-1

Hooker, C. A. (2009). Interaction and bio-cognitive order. Synthese ,

166(3), 513–546. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9374-y

Hsu, C. C., & Wang, T. I. (2014). Enhancing concept comprehension in a

web-based course using a framework integrating the learning cycle with

variation theory. Asia Pacific Education Review , 15(2), 211–222.

doi:10.1007/s12564-013-9311-8

Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing

problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and

Development , 59(4), 529–552. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1

Hung, W., Bailey, J. H., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Exploring the tensions

of problem-based learning: Insights from research. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning , 95(95), 13–23. doi:10.1002/tl.108

Ingwersen, P. (1982). Search procedures in the library: Analyzed from the

cognitive point of view. The Journal of Documentation , 38(3), 165–191.

doi:10.1108/eb026727

Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information retrieval interaction . London, UK:

Taylor Graham.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a

new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and

Development , 39(3), 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF02296434

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving.

Educational Technology Research and Development , 48(4), 63–85.

doi:10.1007/BF02300500

Jonassen, D. H., Cernusca, D., & Ionas, G. (2007). Constructivism and





instructional design: The emergence of the learning sciences and design

research . In Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in

instructional design and technology (pp. 45–52). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Kalpana, T. (2014). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning:

A conceptual framework. International Research Journal of Social

Sciences , 3(1), 27–29.

Kangas, M. (2010). Finnish children’s views on the ideal school and

learning environment. Learning Environments Research , 13(3), 205–223. doi:10.1007/s10984-010-9075-6

Kasemsap, K. (2013a). Practical framework: Creation of causal model of

job involvement, career commitment, learning motivation, and learning

transfer. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and

Management, 21(1), 29-35.

Kasemsap, K. (2013b). Synthesized framework: Establishing a causal

model of organizational learning, knowledge management, knowledge-

sharing behavior, and organizational performance. International Journal

of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 21(2), 29-34.

Kasemsap, K. (2014a). Constructing a unified framework and a causal

model of occupational satisfaction, trainee reactions, perception of

learning, and perceived training transfer . In Hai-Jew, S. (Ed.), Remote

workforce training: Effective technologies and strategies (pp. 28–52).

Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5137-1.ch003

Kasemsap, K. (2014b). The role of social capital in higher education

institutions . In Baporikar, N. (Ed.), Handbook of research on higher

education in the MENA region: Policy and practice ( pp. 119–147).

Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6198-1.ch007

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, C., & Agamba, J. (2014). Promoting effective e-

learning practices through the constructivist pedagogy. Education and

Information Technologies , 19(4), 887–898. doi:10.1007/s10639-013-

9260-1

Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2010). Characterising a teaching and

learning environment capable of motivating student learning. Learning

Environments Research , 13(1), 43–57. doi:10.1007/s10984-009-9065-8

Kendal, J. R. (2011). Cultural niche construction and human learning

environments: Investigating sociocultural perspectives. Biological Theory

, 6(3), 241–250. doi:10.1007/s13752-012-0038-2

Kim, M. K. (2012). Theoretically grounded guidelines for assessing

learning progress: Cognitive changes in ill-structured complex problem-

solving contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development ,

60(4), 601–622. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9247-4

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance

during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of

constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based

teaching. Educational Psychologist , 41(2), 75–86.

doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Buttner, G., &

Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms:

Investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student

performance. Metacognition and Learning , 5(2), 157–171.

doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3

Kivinen, O., & Ristela, P. (2003). From constructivism to a pragmatist

conception of learning. Oxford Review of Education , 29(3), 363–375.

doi:10.1080/03054980307442

Kuhlthau, C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and

information services . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kuhlthau, C. C., & Tama, S. L. (2001). Information search process of

lawyers: A call for “just for me” information services. The Journal of Documentation , 57(1), 25–43. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007076

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Kwan, Y. W., & Wong, A. F. L. ( 2014). The constructivist classroom

learning environment and its associations with critical thinking ability of

secondary school students in Liberal Studies. Learning Environments

Research , 17(2), 191–207. doi:10.1007/s10984-014-9158-x

Lam, H. C., & Tsui, B. M. A. (2013). Drawing o n the variation theory to

enhance students’ learning of Chinese characters. Instructional Science ,

41(5), 955–974. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9264-7

Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2013). Learning study in mathematics: It

is for students, teachers, and teacher educators. The Asia-Pacific

Education Researcher , 22(4), 377–388. doi:10.1007/s40299-012-0034-0

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated le arning . Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Leinhardt, G. (1992). What research on learning tells us about teaching.

Educational Leadership , 49(7), 20–25.





Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education:

A review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and

Technology , 22(6), 877–898. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9436-x

Liljestrom, A., Enkenberg, J., & Pollanen, S. (2013). Making learning

whole: An instructional approach for mediating the practices of authentic

science inquiries. Cultural Studies of Science Education , 8(1), 51–86.

doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9416-0

Ljung-Djarf, A., & Olander, M. H. (2013). Using learning study to

understand preschoolers’ learning: Challenges and possibilities.International Journal of Early Childhood , 45(1), 77–100.

doi:10.1007/s13158-012-0067-9

Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Martinez,

A. (2014). Improving the power of an efficacy study of a social and

emotional learning program: Application of generalizability theory to the

measurement of classroom-level outcomes. Prevention Science , 15(2),

146–155. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0357-3

Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further

appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 11(2), 121–134.

doi:10.1023/A:1014661312550

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and

limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational

Psychologist , 31(3-4), 151–161. doi:10.1080/00461520.1996.9653263

Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2010). Accuracy of c onfidence

judgments: Stability and generality in the learning process and predictive

validity for learning outcome. Memory & Cognition , 38(4), 441–451.

doi:10.3758/MC.38.4.441

Merriam, S., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in

adulthood . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, D. L. (2009). The poverty of constructivism. Educational

Philosophy and Theory , 41(3), 332–341. doi:10.1111/j.1469-

5812.2008.00457.x

Mitchell, D. B., & Mueller, M. P. (2011). A philosophical analysis of David

Orr’s theory of ecological literacy: Biophilia, ecojustice and moral

education in school learning communities. Cultural Studies of Science

Education , 6(1), 193–221. doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9274-6

Mokros, H. B. (1993). The impact of a native theory of information on two

privileged accounts of personhood . In Schement, J. R., & Ruben, B. D.

(Eds.), Between communication and information (pp. 57–79). New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Mosvold, R., & Bjuland, R. (2011). An activity theory view on learning

studies. International Journal of Early Childhood , 43(3), 261–275.

doi:10.1007/s13158-011-0048-4

Moyer, J. M., Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2014). Learning for

sustainability among faith-based organizations in Kenya. Environmental

Management , 54(2), 360–372. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0289-8

Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2014). The problem of pseudoscience in science

education and implications of constructivist pedagogy. Science &

Education , 23(4), 829–842. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9670-x

Narjaikaew, P., Emarat, N., Arayathanitkul, K., & Cowie, B. (2010).

Magnetism teaching sequences based on an inductive approach for first-

year Thai university science students. International Journal of Science

and Mathematics Education , 8(5), 891–910. doi:10.1007/s10763-009-

9191-x

Naude, L., van den Bergh, T. J., & Kruger, I. S. (2014). “Learning to like

learning”: An appreciative inquiry into emotions in education. Social

Psychology of Education , 17(2), 211–228.

Neale, D. C., Smith, D., & Johnson, V. G. (1990). Implementing

conceptual change teaching in primary science. The Elementary School

Journal , 91(2), 109–132. doi:10.1086/461641

O’Shea, J., & Leavy, A. M. (2013). Teaching mathematical problem-

solving from an emergent constructivist perspective: The experiences of

Irish primary teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education ,

16(4), 293–318. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9235-6

Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1985). The generative learning model

and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education ,

12(1), 59–87. doi:10.1080/03057268508559923

Own, Z. (2010). The application of an adaptive, web-based learning

environment on oxidation-reduction reactions. International Journal of

Science and Mathematics Education , 8(1), 1–23.

Paas, F., & Ayres, P. (2014). Cognitive load theory: A broader view on the

role of memory in learning and education. Educational Psychology

Review , 26(2), 191–195. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9263-5

Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load

theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the

learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review ,

24(1), 27–45. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2





Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and

learning. Annual Review of Psychology , 49(1), 345–375.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345

Palm, T. (2008). Performance assessment and authentic assessment: A

conceptual analysis of the literature. Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation , 13(4), 1–11.

Pang, M. F., & Ling, L. M. (2012). Learning study: Helping teachers to use

theory, develop professionally, and produce new knowledge to be shared.

Instructional Science , 40(3), 589–606. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9191-4

Papert, S. A. (1 993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful

ideas . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of

constructivism. Educational Researcher , 24(7), 5–12.

doi:10.3102/0013189X024007005

Piaget, J. (1932). Moral judgment of the child . London, UK: Kegan Paul,

Trench, Trubner and Co.

Piaget, J. (1970). In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Piaget’s theory (pp. 703–732).

Handbook of child psychologyNew York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2012). The mediating effects

of student engagement on the relationships between academic disciplines

and learning outcomes: An extension of Holland’s t heory. Research in

Higher Education , 53(5), 550–575. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9239-y

Poortman, C. L., Reenalda, M., Nijhof, W. J., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. M.

(2014). Workplace learning in dual higher professional education. Vocations and Learning , 7(2), 167–190. doi:10.1007/s12186-014-9111-2

Porcaro, D. (2011). Applying constructivism in instructivist learning

cultures. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal , 5(1), 39–54.

doi:10.1108/17504971111121919

Porter, S. R. (2013). Self-Reported Learning Gains: A theory and test of

college student survey response. Research in Higher Education , 54(2),

201–226. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9277-0

Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism:

Developing tools for an effective classroom. Journal of Education , 130(2),

241–242.

Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern.

Educational Psychologist , 31(3-4), 215–225.

doi:10.1080/00461520.1996.9653268

Ramirez, A., Hine, M. J., Ji, S., Ulbrich, F., & Riordan, R. (2009).

Learning to succeed in a flat world: Information and communication

technologies for a new generation of business students. Learning Inquiry ,3(3), 157–175. doi:10.1007/s11519-009-0043-y

Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for

constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning

environments: Case studies in instructional design . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Educational Technology Publications.

Reihlen, M., & Apel, B. A. (2007). Inte rnationalization of professional

service firms as learning: A constructivist approach. International Journal

of Service Industry Management , 18(2), 140–151.

doi:10.1108/09564230710737790

Robinson, M. A. (2010). An empirical analysis of engineers’ information

behaviors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology , 61(4), 640–658.

Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2008). Facilitating learning .

In Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.), Educational technology: A

definition with commentary (pp. 15–48). New York, NY: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Ross, S. (2009). The end of moral realism? Acta Analytica , 24(1), 43–61.

doi:10.1007/s12136-009-0045-5

Rozenszayn, R., & Assaraf, O. B. Z. (2011). When collaborative learning

meets nature: Collaborative learning as a meaningful learning tool in the

ecology inquiry based project. Research in Science Education , 41(1) , 123–

146. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9149-6

Rutherford-Hemming, T. (2012). Simulation methodology in nursing

education and adult learning theory. Adult Learning , 23(3), 129–137.

doi:10.1177/1045159512452848

Saade, G. R., & Huang, Q. (2009). Meaningful learning in discussion

forums: Towards discourse analysis. Issues in Informing Science and

Information Technology , 6, 87–99.

Saade, R., Nebebe, F., & Mak, T. (2011). Knowledge management systems

development: Theory and practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Information, Knowledge, and Management , 6, 35–72.

Saçkes, M., & Trundle, K. C. (2014). Preservice early childhood teachers’

learning of science in a methods course: Examining the predictive ability

of an intentional learning model. Journal of Science Teacher Education ,





25(4), 413–444. doi:10.1007/s10972-013-9355-y

Sahin, 2010). Curriculum assessment: Constructivist primary

mathematics curriculum in Turkey. International Journal of Science and

Mathematics Education, 8(1), 51-72.

Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating the ot her: A dialogic account of

human nature . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schaap, H., Baartman, L., & de Brujin, E. (2012). Students’ learning

processes during school-based learning and workplace learning in

vocational education: A review. Vocations and Learning , 5(2), 99–117.

doi:10.1007/s12186-011-9069-2

Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007).

Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture:

Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational

Psychologist , 42(2), 91–97. doi:10.1080/00461520701263350

Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., & van Genuchten, E. (2011). The role of working

memory in multimedia instruction: Is working memory working during

learning from text and pictures? Educational Psychology Review , 23(3),

389–411. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9168-5

Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2013). Toward a conceptual model of

mentoring research: Integration with self-regulated learning. Educational

Psychology Review , 25(3), 361–389. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9233-3

Schur, Y., & Galili, I. (2009). Thinking journey: A new mode of teaching

science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education ,

7(3), 627–646. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9119-2

Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Driver, R. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change:

A review of strategies . In Duit, R., Goldberg, F., & Niedderer, H. (Eds.),

Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies

(pp. 310–329). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.

Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching:

Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods.

Educational Psychology Review , 24(4), 569–608. doi:10.1007/s10648-

012-9199-6

Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice .

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Splitter, L. J. (2009). Authenticity and constructivism in education.

Studies in Philosophy and Education , 28(2), 135–151.

doi:10.1007/s11217-008-9105-3

Stephens, S. (2012). From tree to map: Using c ognitive learning theory to

suggest alternative ways to visualize macroevolution. Evolution:

Education and Outreach , 5(4), 603–618.

Stock, W. G., & Stock, M. (2013). Handbook of information science .

Berlin, Boston, MA: De Gruyter Saur. doi:10.1515/9783110235005

Stoddart, T., Connell, M., Stofflett, R., & Peck, D. (1993). Reconstructing

elementary teacher candidates' understanding of mathematics and

science content. Teaching and Teacher Education , 9(3), 229–241.

doi:10.1016/0742-051X(93)90040-N

Stupans, I., Scutter, S., & Pearce, K. (2010). Facilitating student learning:

Engagement in novel learning opportunities. Innovative Higher

Education , 35(5), 359–366. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9148-6

Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided

teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational

Psychologist , 42(2), 115–121. doi:10.1080/00461520701263426

Sznajder, B., Sabelis, M. W., & Egas, M. (2012). How adaptive learning

affects evolution: Reviewing theory on the B aldwin effect. Evolutionary

Biology , 39(3), 301–310. doi:10.1007/s11692-011-9155-2

Talja, S. (1997). Constituting “information” and “user” as research

objects: A theory of knowledge formations as an alternative to the

information man-theory. Paper presented at the International

Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in

Different Contexts, Tampere, Finland.

Talja, S., Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (2005). “Isms” in information

science: Constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. The Journal of

Documentation , 61(1), 79–101. doi:10.1108/00220410510578023

Tam, F. W. M. (2009). Sufficient conditions for sustainable instructional

changes in the classroom: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Educational

Change , 10(4), 315–336. doi:10.1007/s10833-008-9091-9

Temiz, T., & Topcu, M. S. (2013). Preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy

beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practice. European Journal of

Psychology of Education , 28(4), 1435–1452. doi:10.1007/s10212-013-

0174-5

Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or

failure? New York, NY: Routledge.

Torre, D. M., Daley, B. J., Sebastian, J. L., & Elnicki, M. ( 2006). Overview

of current learning theories for medical educators. The American Journal





of Medicine , 119(10), 903–907. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.06.037

Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (1997). Social constructionist approach

to the study of information use as discursive action . Paper presented at

the International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking

and Use in Different Contexts, Tampere, Finland.

Tuominen, K., Talja, S., & Savolainen, R. (2003). Multiperspective digital

libraries: The implications of constructionism for the development of

digital libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science

and Technology , 54(6), 561–569. doi:10.1002/asi.10243

Ulen, S., Cagran, B., Slavinec, M., & Gerlic, I. ( 2014). Designing and

evaluating the effectiveness of Physlet-based learning materials in

supporting conceptual learning in secondary school physics. Journal of

Science Education and Technology , 23(5), 6 58–667. doi:10.1007/s10956-

014-9492-x

Vakkari, P. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information

actions: Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval.

Information Processing & Management , 35(6), 819–837.

doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00028-X

van der Schaar, M. (2011). The cognitive act and the first-person

perspective: An epistemology for constructive type theory. Synthese ,

180(3), 391–417. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9708-4

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). The construction of knowledge: Contributions

to conceptual semantics . Salinas, CA: Intersystems Publications.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and

teaching. Synthese , 80(1), 121–140. doi:10.1007/BF00869951

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). A constructivist's view of learning and

teaching . In Duit, R., Goldberg, F., & Niedderer, H. (Eds.), Research in

physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 29–39).

Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing

and learning . London, UK: Falmer Press. doi:10.4324/9780203454220

Walliser, B. (2011). Learning versus evolution: From biology to game

theory. Biological Theory , 6(4), 311–319. doi:10.1007/s13752-012-0071-1

Wang, M. (2011). Integrating organizational, social, and individual

perspectives in Web 2.0-based workplace e-learning. Information

Systems Frontiers , 13(2), 191–205. doi:10.1007/s10796-009-9191-y

Werhane, P. H., Hartman, L. P., Moberg, D., Englehardt, E., Pritchard,

M., & Parmar, B. (2011). Social constructivism, mental models, and

problems of obedience. Journal of Business Ethics , 100(1), 103–118.

doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0767-3

Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (1995). Understanding teaching or teaching for

understanding: Alternative frameworks for science classrooms. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching , 32(2), 143–156.

doi:10.1002/tea.3660320205

Williams, J., & Chinn, S. (2009). Using 2.0 to support the active learning

experience. Journal of Information Systems Education , 20(2), 165–174.

Wong, A. (2012). Review article: Teaching, learning, and the pursuit of

excellence in anesthesia education. Canadian Journal of

Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 59(2), 171-181.

Yang, L., Hanneke, S., & Carbonell, J. (2013). A theory of transfer learning

with applications to active learning. Machine Learning , 90(2), 161–189.

doi:10.1007/s10994-012-5310-y

ADDITIONAL READING

Brandon, A. F., & All, A. C. (2010). Constructivism theory analysis and

application to curricula. Nursing Education Perspectives , 31(2), 89–92.

Brown, T. H. (2006). Beyond constructivism: Navigationism in the

knowledge era. On the Horizon , 14(3), 108–120.

doi:10.1108/10748120610690681

Bull, P. H. (2013). Cognitive constructivist theory of multimedia:

Designing teacher-made interactive digital. Creative Education , 4(9),

614–619. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.49088

Efran, J. S., McNamee, S., Warren, B., & Raskin, J. D. (2014). Personal

construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism:

A dialogue. Journal of Constructivist Psychology , 27(1), 1–13.

doi:10.1080/10720537.2014.850367

Enonbun, O. (2010). Constructivism and web 2.0 in the emerging era: A

global perspective. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability ,

6(4), 17–27.

Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, E. F. (2005). Theories of

information behavior: A researcher's guide . Medford, NJ: Information

Today.

Fosnot, C. T. ( 2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice .

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.





Foster, A. E. (2004). A nonlinear model of information seeking behavior.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology ,

55(3), 228–237. doi:10.1002/asi.10359

Given, L. M. (2002). Discursive constructions in the university context:

Social positioning theory and mature undergraduates’ information

behaviour. New Review of Information Behaviour Research , 3, 127–142.

Hjørland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in

information science. Journal of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology , 53(4), 257–270. doi:10.1002/asi.10042

Hjørland, B. (2004). Arguments for philosophical realism in library and

information science. Library Trends , 52(3), 488–506.

Hjørland, B., & Sejer Christensen, F. (2002). Work tasks and socio-

cognitive relevance: A specific example. Journal of the American Society

for Information Science and Technology , 53(11), 960–965.

doi:10.1002/asi.10132

Julien, H., Pecoskie, J., & Reed, K. (2011). Trends in information behavior

research, 1999-2008: A content analysis. Library & Information Science

Research , 33(1), 19–34. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.07.014

Kenny, V. (2010). Exile on mainstream. Constructivism in psychotherapy

and suggestions from a Kellian perspective. Constructivist Foundations ,

6(1), 65–76.

Massironi, C., & Guicciardi, M. (2011). Investment decision making from

a constructivist perspective. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets ,

3(3), 158–176. doi:10.1108/17554171111176895

McKenzie, P. J. (2002). Connecting with information sources: How

accounts of information seeking take discursive action. New Review of

Information Behaviour Research , 3, 161–174.

McKenzie, P. J. (2003). A model of information practices in accounts of

everyday-life information seeking. The Journal of Documentation , 59(1),

29–40. doi:10.1108/00220410310457993

Morato, J., Llorens, J., Genova, G., & Moreiro, J. A. (2003). Experiments

in discourse analysis impact on information classification and retrieval

algorithms. Information Processing & Management , 39(6), 825–851.

doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(02)00081-X

Panke, D. (2006). The differential impact of communicated ideas:

Bridging the gap betwe en rationalism and constructivism. Hamburg

Review of Social Sciences , 1( 3), 312–342.

Radford, G. P. (2003). Trapped in our own discursive formations: Toward

an archaeology of library and information science. The Library Quarterly ,

73(1), 1–18. doi:10.1086/603372

Riegler, A. (2005). The constructivist challenge. Constructivist

Foundations , 1(1), 1–8.

Riegler, A., Stewart, J., & Ziemke, T. (2013). Computation, cognition and

constructivism: Introduction to the special issue. Constructivist

Foundations , 9(1), 1–6.

Saurugger, S. (2013). Constructivism and public policy approaches in the

EU: From ideas to power games. Journal of European Public Policy ,

20(6), 888–906. doi:10.1080/13501763.2013.781826

Vavrus, F. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies:

Teacher education reform in the United Republic of Tanzania.

International Journal of Educational Development , 29(3), 303–311.

doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.05.002

Wilson, T. D. (2002). Alfred Schutz, phenomenology and research

methodology for information behaviour research. New Review of

Information Behaviour Research , 3, 71–81.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Behavior: The response of an individual or group to an action,

environment, person, or stimulus.

Cognition: The mental process in judging, knowing, learning,

perceiving, recognizing, remembering, thinking, and understanding that

lead to the awareness of the real world.

Constructivism: The teaching philosophy based on the concept that

learning of mental construction by reflecting on students’ personal

experiences, and by relating the new knowl edge with what they already

know.

Information: The data that is specific and organized for a practical

objective.

Information Science: The body of knowledge that provides theoretical

basis for information technology and includes subjects such as computer

science, library science, artificial intelligence, mathematics of

programming, and theory of problem solving.

Knowledge: The sum of what is known and resides in the intelligence

and the competence of people.





Learning: The measurable and permanent change in behavior through

experience, instruction, or study.

Theory: A set of assumptions and propositions for providing a functional

explanation of cause-and-effect relationships among a group of observed

phenomenon.

Chapter 5Groupthink

Business & Management

Chapter 10: MediaNarratives of theInteractionsbetween Religionsand Cultures in

Canada

Management Communication

Chapter 5 Thailand

Entrepreneurship

Chapter 9 Cancodes of conducthelp home-basedworkers?

Business & Management /

Politics & Global Issues

An 802.11pCompliant SystemPrototypeSupporting RoadSafety and Traffic

Management Applications

Computer Networking

Chapter 4: Movingfrom QuantitativeGrowth toQualitativeEvolution

Entrepreneurship

Chapter 3:Communities of Interest: BenefitCorporations andCertified B Corps

Entrepreneurship

Working with the BILaunch Pad

SAP

Chapter 1:DevelopingCorporate SocialResponsibilityProjects

Social Media

PREV

Section 1: Metatheories⏮

NEXT

Chapter 2: Social Constructionism ⏭

␡



https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/empowering-organizations-through/9781466672949/978-1-4666-7294-9.ch001.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/social-media

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/empowering-organizations-through/9781466672949/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/empowering-organizations-through/9781466672949/978-1-4666-7294-9.ch001.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/sap-businessobjects-reporting/9781782172437/ch01.html

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/sap

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/sap-businessobjects-reporting/9781782172437/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/sap-businessobjects-reporting/9781782172437/ch01.html

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-mission-driven-venture/9781118416792/c03.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/entrepreneurship

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-mission-driven-venture/9781118416792/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-mission-driven-venture/9781118416792/c03.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/big-vision-small/9781576751886/xhtml/ch04.html


https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/big-vision-small/9781576751886/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/big-vision-small/9781576751886/xhtml/ch04.html

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/international-journal-of/9781466657366/ijwnbt.2014010101.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/computer-networking

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/international-journal-of/9781466657366/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/international-journal-of/9781466657366/ijwnbt.2014010101.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/corporate-responsibility-and/9781853839306/18_ch9.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/politics-global-issues

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/business-management

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/corporate-responsibility-and/9781853839306/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/corporate-responsibility-and/9781853839306/18_ch9.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/venture-capital-in/9781606497760/ch5.xhtml


https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/venture-capital-in/9781606497760/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/venture-capital-in/9781606497760/ch5.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/new-media-and/9781466650350/978-1-4666-5035-0.ch010.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/management-communication

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/new-media-and/9781466650350/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/new-media-and/9781466650350/978-1-4666-5035-0.ch010.xhtml

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/blind-spots-biases/9781606490709/ibe-merchant008.html

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/business-management

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/blind-spots-biases/9781606490709/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/blind-spots-biases/9781606490709/ibe-merchant008.html




Recommended / Queue / Recent / Topics / Tutorials / Settings / Blog / Feedback / Sign Out

© 2016 Safari.

Terms of Service / Privacy Policy

How the Poor CanSave Capitalism

Finance & Economics

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/how-the-poor/9781626560321/xhtml/pref01.html

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics/finance-economics

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/how-the-poor/9781626560321/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/how-the-poor/9781626560321/xhtml/pref01.html

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/privacy/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/terms/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/



https://www.safaribooksonline.com/blog/



https://www.safaribooksonline.com/topics?q=*&limit=21


https://www.safaribooksonline.com/s/

https://www.safaribooksonline.com/r/

Date post:	23-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joost-vanmaele
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Al Suqri Chapter 1_ Theory of Cognitive Constructivism - Information Seeking Behavior and Technology...

Documents