Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When it’s the wrong idea and when it’s the only idea. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This article makes clear the danger in relying on proscriptive direct instructional guidance in a world that has moved away from internal to external memory. In this defense of ill-structured domains (ISDs) and constructivist ideals, the authors propose that the irregularity of ill-structured domains defines the space in which professionals solve problems and develop new ideas. Similarly, today’s media-rich learning environment is an ISD that provides opportunities for  students to make their own connections and construct their own answers, as opposed to well-structured domains (WSDs) which promote one right way of knowing and learning in the form of direct instructional guidance. While direct instructional guidance may indeed make it easier for teachers (to teach) and students (to follow directions and get good grades) by providing specific facts and processes, it is counterproductive in the ISD space. Easier isn’t better; easier means less struggle which results in less creative thought and true problem solving. Some rules are necessary–wear goggles in the science lab, sentences begin with a capital letter and end with punctuation–but choosing how and when to apply those rules is a process that varies situationally. In essence, the article asks readers to adopt the attitude that learning some facts and rules is good practice, but only good when they can be dissected and used in unique ways to construct knowledge.

The authors gave wide and varied examples of both WSDs and ISDs, which was useful in developing clarity about the authors’ message. The structure of the article was interesting; the authors began by sharing the problems of ISDs–a bit confusing when it was apparent that they actually supported ISDs as a framework for learning–but their intent became clear as they incrementally provided evidence that built support for the premise that because the world is not linear, learning should not be linear, either. Along the way, the authors even proposed a middle ground–somewhere in between wholly WSD and wholly ISD. They were nothing if not thorough in the defense of their ideas. Their use of unique word choices made specific concepts memorable; for example “seductively reductive” (p. 111) was used to describe the use of rote processes made the authors’ stance clear–rote processes might be easier to teach and follow, but they’re not always beneficial in creating new ideas. In another example, the authors use the phrase “external memories” (p. 113) to describe the wealth of information found online, a phrase which in itself implies support for the idea that rote memorization is fast becoming obsolete in a digital world where information is growing exponentially. Overall, the article presented well-balanced information in a way that made opinions clear without denigrating the opposition.

In a poll given a year or two ago, less than 20 percent of students who were asked indicated feeling that they were innately creative. More recently, when given a poll about their own creativity versus creativity of their students, a room full of educators ranked themselves very high in creativity and their students very low, a result that mirrored this writer’s own thinking and experience. But the low creativity response was certainly not due to lack of taking risks and embracing change. Multiple iterations of research, writing, and planning processes and strategies shared with students over more than a decade of project-based instruction failed to consistently yield the production of innovative ideas and creative responses that were expected.  And no wonder, because after reading this article, the realization emerged that the project-based learning setting is by nature an ISD–there is no one right way for students (or teachers) to arrive at a common endpoint. Even though processes were revised from project to project, one process simply can’t account for the multiplicity of possible answers to a driving question. With this realization, the authors’ admonition to resist the “straightening of the contours” (p. 117) and instead allow for the natural nonlinear flow of work and ideas is particularly poignant, and one that will be a lens worth looking through in research that applies to enhancing creativity in science and the use of technology.