In exploring the three theoretical frameworks, behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, described by Ertmer and Newby (2013), I found that the constructivism approach fits well within my current work. Although I value pieces of both behaviourism and cognitivism theories, what stood out for me in constructivism is that the learner’s mind “filters input from the world” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 55) and creates meaning and personal interpretation.
For this assignment, I decided to wear my “team lead” hat, wherein I coach and support team members to enjoy increased job satisfaction through a solid understanding of job tasks and expected deliverables, coupled with fulsome on-going training and support initiatives. With a constructivist approach, learners have increased control over their learning and are best supported when allowed to construct their own meaning and when encouraged to collaborate with others. In leading a team, I cannot be the solver of all problems, nor can I be available to all team members all of the time. I chose to further explore constructivist frameworks as they afford that instruction shifts from “teaching to learning” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 58) in environments where learning outcomes are not pre-designed.
Our team faces unique problems every day, but many of these problems contain core themes that recur. For example, a customer may need support in interpreting a rule around late charges. Team members who have successfully interpreted rules with customers in the past will have increased confidence in describing rules and in negotiating successful outcomes, built from past real-world experiences. From Ertmer and Newby (2013), because learners create meaning based on their individual experiences and validate them through negotiation, a constructivist framework to learning works when learners are encouraged to share their perspectives. As a team member interprets additional rules, especially when encouraged and supported to discuss the various cases with colleagues or leaders, they are able to use accrued knowledge to solve other problems on the job.
I was interested to read Merrill’s (2002) description of the five principles of instruction, including how they help to create effective learning environments and that they can be applied in all learning design types. After reading Merrill’s (2002) four instructional phases, I realize that I need to spend more time considering treatment of the Activation phase. For learners to be successful, it is important that instructional design lays a sufficient foundation for learners, so that they can activate prior knowledge and build off of it. This can be achieved through encouraging learners to recall and demonstrate previous experiences or by the provision of experience in learning design. In my own studies, I remember memorizing formulae for Newton’s laws of motion in first-year Physics. Although memorizing formulae was enough to get me through the course, it wasn’t until second-year Physics, when I began to understand how the variables in the formulae worked together, that I was able to effectively structure the learning into a mental model that I could use.
Moving forward, I must ensure that all team members have access to and support in understanding core business practices. Instead of providing a guide on how to handle specific problems, I should encourage collaboration and mentorship between novice and experienced team members, again encouraging the shift from teaching to learning, including demonstrations by experienced team members (Merrill, 2002), who model expected performance standards. In constructivist environments, learners are supported to monitor, evaluate and update their constructions based on new knowledge or perspectives presented (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). This partnership between novice and experienced team members will provide an on-going source of support for both.
Finally, one thing I must watch for was around the use of media, wherein the use of combinations of multimedia in a learning intervention can cause the learner to split their attention, resulting in increased cognitive load (Merrill, 2002). As always, there is a balance to be had and the challenge is to find that balance, while maintaining the ability to flex as environmental changes occur.
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. Retrieved from: https://doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
