Post-constructivismo, lenguajes y ambientes de aprendizaje. Del estudio de los media e hipertextos, a la web 2.0, el diseño instruccional, el post-constructivismo y la enacción


  • Pier Giuseppe Rossi Facoltà di Scienze della Formazione Università di Macerata

Palabras clave:

Tecnología educativa, Diseño instruccional, Virtualidad, Ambientes de aprendizaje, Identidad profesional del docente, Constructivismo, Enacción/ Education Technology, Instructional design, Virtuality, Learning management system, Teacher identity, Construc


Este artículo surge con el objetivo fundamental de dar respuesta a dos interrogantes: a) ¿Cómo han cambiado las tecnologías en los últimos veinte años y qué recorrido se ha efectuado desde la Tecnología Educativa?, b) ¿Qué desafíos les esperan en el futuro próximo a los profesores de Tecnología Educativa? Para adentrarnos en su desarrollo, partimos de la siguiente premisa: hoy, más que ayer, los profesores de Tecnología Educativa antes de ser expertos en la introducción de las TIC en la didáctica, están llamados a repensar la didáctica, incluso con las TIC.



This article was born with the purpose of answering two questions: a) How have technologies changed in the last twenty years and which is the path followed by Educational Technology? and b) What are the challenges for educational technology teachers in the next future, what borders do they have to face? To go into detail about its development, we assume that, today more than ever, teachers who teach Educational Technology are called to rethink teaching, even with ICT.


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.


AGOSTINELLI, S. y METGE, M. (2008). Espaces de communication de connaissances: E3C des espaces partagés de communication au partage des connaissances. Pessac: Presses Universitaire de Bordeaudx.

ALTET, M. (2002). Démarche de recherche sur la pratique enseignante: L'analyse plurielle. Revue française de pédagogie, 138, 85-93.

AREA, M. (2009). E-Learning: enseñar y apprender en espacios virtuales. En J. DE PABLOS (ed.), Tecnologìa educativa (391-424). Archidona: Aljibe.

BARSALOU, L.W. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems. En G.R. SEMIN Y E.R. SMITH (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (9-42). New York: Cambridge University Press.

BEGG, A. (2002). Enactivism and Some Implications for Education: a Personal Perspective. Vinculum, 39, 2, 4-12.

BIOCCA, F.; JANNICK, R.; PLANTEGENEST, G.; HARMS, C.; REDDY, C.; OWEN, C.; WEIMIN, M. y TANG, A. (2009). Approaches to the Design and Measurement of Social and Information Awareness in Augmented Reality Systems. En J. A. JACKO, C. STEPHANIDIS, D. HARRIS (eds.) Human-computer Interaction: Theory and Practice. Vol. 2. London: CRC Press.

BROWN, J.S.; COLLINS, A. y DUGUID, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 1, 32-42.

BRU, M. (2001). Pratiques Enseignantes. Toulouse: PUM.

CASTRONOVA, E. (2005). Synthetic worlds: the business and culture of online games. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

DE PABLOS, J. (2009). Historia de la tecnologìa educativa. En J. DE

PABLOS (ed.), Tecnologìa educativa (95-116). Málaga: Aljibe.

DE PABLOS, J. (2010). Higher Education and the Knowledge Society. Information and Digital Competencies. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 7, 2, 6-16.

DIODATO, R. (2005). Estetica del virtuale. Milano: Mondadori.

FERRARIS, M. (2008): ¿Dónde estas?. Ontología del teléfono móvil. Barcelona: Marbot Ediciones.

GAGNÉ, R. M. (1966). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Rinehart & Winston.

GALLESE, V. (2011). Neuroscience and Phenomenology. Phenomenology & Mind, 1, 33-48.

GALLESE, V. y SINIGAGLIA, C. (2011). How the body in action shapes the self. Consciousness Studies, 18, 117-143.

GEE, J.P. (2005). Why Video Games Are Good For Your Soul: Pleasure and Learning. Melbourne: Common Ground.

GESER, H. (2010). Augmenting Things, Establishments and Human Beings. Sociology in Switzerland: Towards Cybersociety and Vireal Social Relations. [Consultado el 31 de enero de 2012] GIBBS, R. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GUATTARI, F. (1992). Chaosmose. Paris: Galilée.

HOLTON, D.L. (2010). Constructivism + Embodied Cognition = Enactivism: Theoretical and Practical Implications for Conceptual Change. Presented at the 2010 AERA Conference.

JONASSEN, D. (1999). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. En C. M. REIGELUTH (ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (217-239). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

JUAN, C.; LLOP, E.; ABAD, F. y LLUCH, J. (2010). Learning Words Using Augmented Reality. 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 422 – 426.

KIRRIEMUIR, J. (2002). Video gaming, education and digital learning technologies. D-Lib Magazine, 8, 2.

KIVERSTEIN, J. y CLARK, K. (2009). Introduction: Mind Embodied, Embedded, Enacted: One Church or Many? Topoi, 28, 1, 1-7.

KRUEGER, M. (1991). Artificial Reality 2. Addison-Wesley Professional. Reading.

LEBLANC, S.; RIA, L.; DIEUMEGARD, G.; SERRES, G. y DURAND, M. (2008). Concevoir des dispositifs de formation professionnelle des enseignants à partir de l’analyse de l’activité dans une approche enactive. @ctivités, 5, 1, 58-78.

LENOIR, Y. y HABBOUB, E.M. (2012). Professional Didactics and Teacher Education: Contributions and Questions Raised. Education Sciences & Society, 2, 1, 11-41 [Consultado el 31 de enero de 2012]

PAQUAY, L.; ALTET, M.; CHARLIER, É. y PERRENOUD, P. (2001). Former des enseignants professionnels. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

LESH, R. y DOERR, H. (2003). Beyond Constructivism. London: LEA.

LÉVY, P. (1995). Qu’est-ce que le virtuel? Paris: La Découverte.

LI, Q. (2008). Digital Games, CMC, and Women: How Enactivism Help Reform E-Learning? Asian Women, 24, 4, 1-20.

LI, Q.; CLARK, B. y WINCHESTER, I. (2010). Instructional Design and Technology Grounded in Enactivism: a Paradigm Shift? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 3, 403-419.

LOZANO, M.D. (2005). Mathematics learning: Ideas from neuroscience and the enactivist approach to cognition. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25, 3, 24-27.

LOZANO, M.D. (2008). Characterising Algebraic Learning Through Enactivism. PME 32 and PME-NA, 3, 331-339.

MA, J.Y. y CHOI, J.S. (2006). Augmented Reality as Perceptual Reality. VSMM, 7-10.

MALDONADO, T. (1992). Reale e virtuale. Milano: Feltrinelli.

MEIRIEU, P. (1998). Frankenstein Educador. Barcelona: Laertes.

MERRILL, M. D. (1994). Instructional Design Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

MILGRAM, P. y KISHINO, F. A. (1994) Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IECE Trans. on Information and Systems (Special Issue on Networked Reality), E77-D, 12, 1321-1329 .

NOË, A. (2010). Fuera de la cabeza. Por qué no somos el cerebro y otras lecciones de la biología de la consciencia. Barcellona: Kairos.

PASTRÉ, P. (2011). La didactique professionnelle. Approche anthropologique du développemnent chez les adultes. Paris: PUF.

PERRENOUD, P. (2001). De la pratique réflexive au travail sur l’habitus. Recherche & Formation, 36, 131-162.

PROULX, J. (2004). The enactivist theory of cognition and behaviorism: An account of the processes of individual sense-making. Paper presented at the Complexity Science and Educational Research conference. Chaffey' Locks. Canada.

PROULX, J. (2008). Some Differences between Maturana and Varela’s Theory of Cognition and Constructivism. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5, 1, 11-26.

PROULX J. (2009). Some Directions and Possibilities for Enactivism and Mathematics Education Research. En M. TZEKAKI, M. KALDRIMIDOU, C. SAKONIDIS (eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 270-275.

REIGELUTH, C. M. (ed.), (1983). Instructional Desing theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

REIGELUTH, C. M. (ed.), (1999). Instructional-design theories and models. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

RHEINGOLD, H. (1991). Virtual Reality. London: Secker & Warburg.

RIVA, G. (2008). Psicologia dei nuovi media. Bologna: Il Mulino.

RIVOLTELLA, P.C. (2012). Neurodidattica. Milano: Cortina.

RIZZOLATTI, G. y CRAIGHERO, L. (2004). The Mirror-Neuron System. Annual Rev. Neurosci, 27, 169-92.

ROSSI, P.G. (2009). Tecnologia e costruzione di mondi. Roma: Armando.

ROSSI, P.G. (2011). Didattica enattiva. Milano: Franco Angeli.

SAMSON, D. (2010). Enactivism and figural apprehension in the context of pattern generalization. En L. SPARROW, B. KISSANE Y C.

HURST (eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33 rd annual conference of the mathematics. Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 501-508.

SENSEVY, G. (2006). L’action didactique. Éléments de théorisation. Revue suisse des sciences de l’éducation, 28, 2, 205-225.

SHELTON, B. E. y HEDLEY, N. R. (2004). Exploring a cognitive basis for learning spatial relationships with augmented reality. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1, 4, 323-357.

SHULMAN, S. L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1.

SKINNER, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969-977.

SKINNER, B. F. (1965). The technology of teaching. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B, 162, 427-443.

SONVILLA-WEISS, S. (2009). (In)Visible: Learning to Act in the Metaverse. New York: Springer.

SELDIN, P. (1997). The Teaching Portfolio. Anker Oublishing Company, Inc. Bolton, MA.

SPIRO, R.; FELTOVICH, F. J.; JACOBSON, J. J. y COULSON, R. R. (1995). Cognitive Flexibility. Constructivism and Hypertext: Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition. En P. STEFFE Y J. GALE (eds.), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale: LEA.

TATE, A.; POTTER, S.; WICKLER, G. y HANSBERGER, J.T. (2011). Virtual Collaboration Spaces and Web 2.0: Bringing Presence to Distributed Collaboration. [Consultado el 31 de enero de 2012]

TOCHON, F.V. (2003). L'effet de l'enseignant sur l'apprentissage en groupe (Teacher's Impact on Group Learning). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

VANTROYS T. y BARBRY B. (2009). Learning With Augmented Reality. Language. July, 1-5.

VERGNAUD. G. (1990). La théorie des champs conceptuels. Récherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 10 (23): 133-170.

WARBURTON, S. (2010). Rhizome – Digital identity matters. London: King’s College London. [Consultado el 31 de enero de 2012]




Cómo citar

Giuseppe Rossi, P. (2013). Post-constructivismo, lenguajes y ambientes de aprendizaje. Del estudio de los media e hipertextos, a la web 2.0, el diseño instruccional, el post-constructivismo y la enacción. Revista Fuentes, (13), 17–42. Recuperado a partir de



Firma invitada