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.
Great quote! I think lots of us have found that there is value in each of the 3 main learning theories, and depending on the environment are best applied individually or cohesively. Reading through the various historical paths of instructional design, it is mentioned several times that as we learn more and our society evolves, our understanding of how we learn broadens, “Designers must have an adequate repertoire of strategies available, and possess the knowledge of when and why to employ each” (Ertmer and Newby, p. 44).
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Thanks for the comment Laura. For sure, knowing your audience is key and teachers should adapt to their learners and not the other way around.
Thank you for considering these readings in the context of your own work, George! As I am reading this, I am wondering about the constraints that teachers face and what happens when those constraints conflict with one’s theoretical stance. Some theoretical approaches might be more suited than others in some situations, but to what degree are the standardized tests that you mention guiding teachers’ instructional practices? What happens when ‘teaching to the test’ leads to higher outcomes on the test, but one’s theoretical stance is compromised? Is that the nature of teachers’ work these days?
Those are are very deep questions George. As I’m not a teacher, I can’t really say whether ‘teaching to the test’ has a broad effect, but from my interactions with teachers it’s definitely something to be cognizant about. I suppose that might be a reason behind higher order learning and constructivist theory, which avoids ‘teaching to the test’. I know that in Ontario, the government is in the process of revamping our standardized testing. I don’t think it looks good on us to change the test when scores are not where we want them to be, but I’m curious to see what comes out of the process. Quite a bit to mull on…