Month: September 2017

Over the last several months I have been exposed to many different learning theories. Two recent articles Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) and First principles of instruction (Merrill, 2002) have led me to reflect on which of these theories I agree or do not agree with.

My theoretical position

In general, I agree with the authors’ stance on learning theory outlined in both articles. That is, one theory may be better suited to a specific context than another, so limiting yourself to just one may limit your effectiveness as an instructional designer (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Further, you can call a learning theory whatever you want, but the underlying principles of learning do not change (Merrill, 2002).

Exploring Behaviourism

I have come across cognitivism and constructivism quite a bit in my readings, but I have not yet read much about behaviourism, so keeping my general position in mind, I’m going to look at how that theory relates to my own work in more detail below.

Behaviourism at work

As an instructional designer who works with large companies in the private sector, my work is driven by a client’s business needs. In the past, this has included fulfilling regulatory compliance obligations, showing employees how to use proprietary in-house technologies, and helping various operational departments be more productive through business process training. All of these business needs are focused on specific behaviours that my clients need their workers to take.

As much as my clients value the mental processes that enable learning (constructive and cognitive viewpoints), what they are really looking for is tangible, observable results. Enter: behaviourism.

Characteristics of behaviourism

Ertmer and Newby (2013) define behaviourism as “learning with changes in either the form or frequency of observable performance” (p. 48). For better or worse, many of my clients are less interested in how their workers learn; they are more interested in how to get workers to perform the actions required of them.

This is exactly the view behaviorism takes on learning. Training developed through a behavioural lens focuses on how best to stimulate a learner to take a particular action, such as allowing for repeated practice of a task and positive reinforcement for correct behaviours (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Underlying principles of behaviourism

Merrill (2002) does not focus on behaviourism explicitly, but several underlying principles support the theory. Merrill (2002), outlines five phases of learning, one of which is activation. The author says,”Activation also involves stimulating those mental models that can be modified or tuned to enable learners to incorporate the new knowledge into their existing knowledge” (2002, p. 47).  Stimulating correct responses in learners is a key element of behaviourism, so it is not a significant leap to see how activating previous experience and knowledge can help trigger desired behaviours. In the application phase of learning, Merrill (2002) also discusses how providing learners with multiple opportunities to practice what they have learned, especially using real-world scenarios, can improve learning outcomes.

Sadly, Merrill (2002) acknowledges that this behavioural focus is often missed by many, saying:

It is astounding that with this almost universal agreement on the importance of applying knowledge to real-world tasks, so much instruction merely includes a few multiple-choice questions that are labeled practice. Such remember-what-you-were-told questions do little to promote learning. (p. 49)

My takeaway from behaviourism is this: I need to remind my clients that if they want to see observable behaviours in the workplace, they need to provide their workers with the time and opportunity to practice the tasks that will be expected of them after training is complete.

References

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.

Right now I’m taking a course called “Foundations of Learning and Technologies,” and we were asked to read two articles on the history of instructional design and technology, both by Robert Reiser. The first article focused on instructional media and the second article focused on instructional design. This blog post is a reflection on these two articles.

Relevancy

Both articles were written in 2001, and we were asked for our opinion on whether what the author writes about is still relevant today, 16 years later. Because Reiser writes about events that have already taken place, I would find it hard to say that history is no longer relevant. A better question might be whether his interpretation of history is accurate. It’s still too early in the course for me to provide an informed opinion on that question, but I expect I’ll be able to comment on Reiser’s historical interpretations after going through more readings. In any case, his account was certainly well-researched.

Lessons from the Past

We were also asked to identify two “lessons from the past” that might apply to our work today. The general theme of the first article is that new technology seems to come out with great fanfare and promise of wonderful benefits… only to fail to live up to expectations, or be adopted much slower than anticipated. Looking forward, we might consider applying this lesson to m-learning (mobile learning) and virtual reality, both of which are hot topics right now.

The second article showed how incremental developments in instructional design built upon one another to create several robust models for instructional design, and how the field continued to expand as workplace needs continued to evolve. Going forward, I can see how learning and development departments will continue to expand the scope of their responsibilities, as organizations increasingly rely on human capital (i.e., their workforce) to differentiate themselves from competitors.

Conflicting Lessons

Taking both articles together, it’s obvious instructional media has affected instructional design throughout history, but I would like to see instructional design influence instructional media, more than the other way around. (Sadly, Reiser’s articles suggest this will not be the case anytime soon.)

I see instructional design as being a broader, more encompassing solution to learning and development problems faced by organizations, while technology may be only one small component of the solution.

Unfortunately, many organizations identify training solutions like e-learning modules as the default solution, without first examining all the root causes of an issue and considering whether the technology proposed is actually the right solution. I sometimes call this shiny object syndrome, because fascination with new technology sometimes distracts people from their strategic objectives.

I’m curious what “shiny objects” are currently being touted as the next great thing in workplace learning, and how instructional designers are responding. What are your thoughts?