Ertmer and Newby (2013) do an excellent job of breaking down the structure of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. I believe each of these learning theories have their own merits and validity in suitable situations, hence why we still study them. The authors point to the idea that problems that don’t need much thinking should be best taught through a behavioural lens and problems that require more cognitive ability should be explored via a cognitive or constructivist approach. I find this to be a tad bit of an oversimplification of the theories and downplaying the usefulness of behaviourism.
Constructivism has been a method of choice for many in instructional design as mentioned by the authors. The idea that “humans create meanings as opposed to acquiring it” (p. 55) seems to resonate well, but one cannot forget the fundamentals. In Ontario, the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) run standardized tests for Grades 3, 6, 9, and 10 students. This year, mathematics results for various grades have either flat-lined or decreased (Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2017). I feel that basic fundamentals in subjects such as mathematics (e.g. multiplication) should be taught under a behavioural lens. It is only when the basics can be recalled, that you can tackle the more complex problems. Working in the K-12 system, I see the demand for newer and better ways for teaching, but there is no one size fits all. Like Ertmer and Newby put it, “it depends” (p. 60).
Merrill (2002) provides support for behaviourism in his analysis of instructional theories that exemplify the first principles of instruction. He identifies the first principles as:
- Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems
- Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge
- Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner
- Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner
- Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated in the learner’s world.
These are the principles that facilitate learning. Two of the theories, Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center – Star Legacy and McCarthy – 4-MAT both have cyclical phases which in my mind encourages the behaviour of following a certain path to finding the solution (e.g,, generating ideas, followed by research and revision, followed by looking ahead and reflection, etc.).
While technology affords us many more tools to teach, tried fundamentals should not be discarded, especially if the results from the new methods are not to standard. Both constructivism and cognitivism have their place as do most learning theories. With the saturation of e-learning, it’s hard not to tap into online resources that are utilized by many constructivist or cognitive theories. What I hope is that we don’t forget the lessons that need to be taught and not be dazzled by the next shiny object.
This blog post may seem to be a little biased towards behaviourism, but in actual fact I’m an advocate for many and varied learning and instructional theories. I believe there is a time and place for each method, which makes sense in complex learning. What I don’t agree on is the one size fits all model that some feel constructivism can accomplish. Adopting the words of former Prime Minister of Canada William Lyon Mackenzie King a bit, I say ‘Constructivism if necessary, but not necessarily constructivism’.
References
Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2017, September 20). [Provincial Assessment Results 2017] [Infographic]. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/en/about_eqao/media_room/communication-docs/infographic-2017-elementary-results.pdf
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.