After completing Ertmer and Newby’s (2013) reading on behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism two things became more apparent to me:
- How one shouldn’t marry themselves to a particular learning theory as different theories of learning should be applied in various situations
- How the hell haven’t I wrapped my head around these theories!…We are 8 months into the program!
Let’s focus on point #1 first…
Although as we move through this program I find myself leaning towards a constructivist way of teaching and learning, this reading solidified my beliefs that one needs to be adaptable depending on the context, environment, and stage of learning that the student is in. The authors note that we should recognize stages of knowledge (they draw our attention to Jonassen’s three stages of knowledge acquisition: introductory, advanced, and expert) when we are designing learning and base our design on these. A focus on a behaviorist and cognitivist would be more appropriate for introductory knowledge, and as the learner moves on the continuum towards expert knowledge acquisition a focus on constructivist approaches may be more appropriate. This thought had been in the back of my mind for a while as some of the content I teach is very introductory and a stimulus-response approach seems very applicable and effective. However, as the content moves towards more mastery of skill my approach becomes much more based on immersing my students in real-world experiences. The authors note that using an apprenticeship approach (which I do in our carpentry class) aligns with constructivist theory well.
Now point #2…
This may sound strange but I feel a little lost, although I’m not? Just when I think I have a handle on theories and such, I read another article that slips me up a bit. This reading did help clarify the differences between behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, but it opened a new can of worms and got me thinking that I should be reviewing all learning theories(not just these three) as I design my classes. Considering each one would be way too time-consuming as I can barely keep ahead just thinking about one learning theory.
I am open to any suggestions of a solution that would help save time in this?
Resources
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013 Online). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
I agree that reading and understanding more learning theories is a good idea. It allows us to have a better understanding of learning, or to “construct” our own understanding of what learning is. None of these theories are necessarily correct or wrong—they all contribute something valuable to my understanding of learning. Wikipedia refers to learning theories as conceptual frameworks, which may be a better term (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_theory_(education)). Behaviorism, for example, may be fairly simplistic, but it’s certainly not wrong and can easily be supported by empirical research. Higher level learning theories tend to be much more nuanced and difficult to test.
Jason, this distinction you’ve made is helpful. Though there are different definitions of the two, oxfordictionaries.com resonates with my understanding of a theoretical framework as “A basic conceptual structure underlying a system, study, etc.” (n.d.). Even the relatively simplistic, as you say, theoretical framework of Behaviorism has a long and complex history with different factions: Methodological behaviorism, Psychological behaviorism, and Analytical or logical behaviorism (Graham 2013). The theories, or theoretical frameworks, do not constitute neat, competing methodologies.
The jury is out for me on the most efficient approach to learning and applying these theories as instructional designers, but I think we are in the right place.
References
G. Graham., (2015) Behavioursim, Stanford University.
Center for the Study of Language and Information (U.S.) retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/#2
English Oxford Living Dictionary (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theoretical_framework
Hi Steve.
Thanks for the post – it sure made me smile as I relate so much with the challenges you outline. 😉
One thing that stood out for me was your comment that instructional designers should work to uncover the needs of our learners and flex their style to accommodate those needs. In the work I do, I support learners who have under one year of experience to those with over thirty years of experience. As you can imagine, balancing needs so that all learners are supported can be a challenge.
In coursework for my Essential Skills Practitioner certification, I learned to consider occupational tasks in an essential skills framework and how to determine which skills are required for certain tasks or occupations. Although learning interventions skill require a pedagogical approach, I found that looking at essential skills lens helps in breaking down what learners will need be to be successful when on the job. I imagine that you are familiar with Skill Plan (https://www.skillplan.ca/), but am adding this link for you to review, as it has been a very valuable resource to me in the past.
If you ever want to chat about essential skills, let me know, as they have helped me many times when working to develop learning interventions that support practical, hands-on occupational development.
Karen.
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the reply. I too teach a wide range of students, some are fresh out of high school and 17 years old, while others are 60+ years old and are coming back for a second career. You’re right, it sure does make course design challenge.
I am not familiar with Skill Plan, I’d love to have a chat with you about it sometime.
Thanks
Steve
In answer to your query of “I am open to any suggestions of a solution that would help save time in this?”, I can only suggest that you make behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism your own. I found that Ertmer and Newby’s (2013) article, although highly detailed and in-depth, did a great job of breaking down these three foundational theories of learning.
The two main sub-categories, “How does learning occur?” and “Which factors influence learning?” are used by Ertmer and Newby to explain how each learner learns using these three theories. I suggest re-reviewing these two categories for each and write out in your words how you interpret them. I also suggest writing out a brief example, in your words and thoughts, an example for each.
Other authours and researchers have also attempted to explain the similarities and differences between behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. I have found some articles to be good and some to be not-so-good. However, I have found that Ertmer and Newby offers one of the clearer explanations.
On a semi-related note, I have come to understand that no matter the amount or level of academic papers, there are good writers and poor writers. You have to find one that explains it best for you.
Hi Darrin,
Thanks for the suggestion, I think I will write my own version of them out (after I finish Assignment 4!).
I too found that Ertmer and Newby offer one of the clearer explanations compares to many of the other readings we have had in this course.
Steve, as I read this article I actually thought of you.. we have had many discussions about constructivist theory and it really does seem like the typical “What’s In It For Me” scenario.. meaning authentic scenarios that make sense for the learner and especially as they move from novice to expert making the learning even more relevant for complex problems. I haven’t completed the reading as of yet but found it very interesting and like you, I’ve either got it or I need to read everything .. Great post!