In the course, Systematic Instructional Development, we were tasked with moderating a weekly discussion. The image below, chart 1, was designed to clarify differences in two deviations of Constructivist learning theory using Lucidchart software.
From my background in language, I generalized minimum to roughly equate a lesser amount of instructional guidance and maximum to equate more instructor input. An example of how imperfect semantic definition sometimes influence design decisions and can over-generalize the core meaning. Chart 1 was voluntarily designed and presented in a course discussion involving about 20 peers, moderated by myself and academic partner Kelly Grimes. The visual was intended to simplify concepts presented by Dick, Carey and Carey.
After most peers participated, by 3-16-19, I was tasked with making a plain text summary of Part 1 and posted it before Part 2 of the discussion began. On 3-18-19 I had noticed some confusion through peer posts, I decided to make another visual aid to clarify similarities and divergences.
I created table 1 to highlight semantic differences, synthesize peer examples and posted it to help illustrate areas where overlap exists between branches of Constructivism (cognitive, social, and blended).
Reference
Dick, Carey, & Carey “Systematic Design of Instruction”, 8th edition (2015)