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.
Hi Amber,
I like how easy to read your article is! And yes, it is frustrating to realise that the employers care more for the compliance component of the training than the actual learning of their personnel. Compliance is important, granted. But that should not make the human component meaningless for the company functions thanks to the humans doing the work.
Cheers!
Alfonso
Thanks for your comment Alfonso. I do think many employers do care about their employees’ learning; it just depends on the context. Workplace training is usually focused on performance and business needs, which is what I typically do, but many employers also make a significant investment in their employees by paying for them to take continuing education courses, attend conferences, or participate in workshops.
Hi Amber, great to see behaviourism applied to more complex real world scenarios. I definitely agree with the Merrill quote you mention on the missed focus on behavioural learning. Just because behaviouralism involves as you say “repeated learning”, doesn’t mean that it is restricted to simple problems such as multiple choice questions. More complicated tasks will need more time and thought put into the instructional learning, but I can see it be the most logical method to training in a corporate work environment where many tasks or projects can follow a similar structure or process (though I’m not sure if this applies in your scenario).
You nailed behaviorism on the proverbial theoretical head. Behaviourism is the predecessor to cognitivism and constructivism. I also agree with your point on how your clients “looking for is tangible, observable results.” I receive similar feedback from our learners. In my case, the student receives tangible results in the form of grades. Consequences or rewards are used in the learning process to reinforce or correct the behaviour (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Excellent overview! One question. Do you use more than one learning theory in all situations?
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
Hi Darin, thanks for the comment. Sorry it’s taken so long to get back to you. Loved your comment about whether I use more than one learning theory. Before starting this program, I didn’t know any learning theories. One of my goals in taking MALAT is to have a formal theory that I can ground my recommendations in for clients, rather than relying solely on previous experience and my communications background. Going forward, I will definitely draw on multiple theories, but I will probably only explain one at a time to my clients to keep them from being overwhelmed.
What exactly are you training people to do? From my experience as a business trainer in Europe and as a Teacher Trainer in China, behaviorism is most suited to repetative tasks. In the workplace I would apply it in industrial and manufacturing settings… and maybe in the service industry. Since you say your training involves your clients’ “workers” I am assuming this to be the case.
The first training job ever had was when I was a sales manager at the tender age of 19. I had trained and supervised factory workers previously, but sales was a totally different ballgame. Sometimes I’d have someone in training that just wanted to know “the right way” to sell. They would want to know “what do I put in (words) to get what I want out (a sale)”. They looked at training as a behaviorist would and something as dynamic as sales that was so dependent on an astonishing variable amount of factors simply cannot be trained in that way. Factory processes or machine operation on the other-hand, can be trained best in this way.
Thanks for the comment. I use the term “workers” because many companies are moving away from the traditional employment model. I’m seeing a shift in the workforce that now includes contractors working alongside employees, so it’s no longer accurate for me to say I do “employee training.” I do some training for field workers, but a lot of my work is also for knowledge workers based out of the head offices in Calgary. “Workers” just sounds less formal to me than “personnel.”
HI Amber.
Interesting post, thank you. I completely agree with your last thought around recommending that employers give their learners time to practice tasks learned after training sessions. So often I organize a learning session with our team and they are engaged and excited by the opportunity. However, when we’re back in daily operations, the learning quickly fades away and we fall back into pre-training patterns.
What are your best practices around follow up that helps to ensure that learners are able to incorporate lessons learned from training?
Thanks, Karen.
Thanks for the comment Karen. Compliance training, sadly, does not often have a lot of follow up other than annual completion of the course. Technology training is usually related to specific applications people need to use, so follow-up comes in the form of on-the-job practice, and usually there is a “super user” or champion that learners can go to for additional support if they get stuck. For business process training, I’ve found responsibility checklists for specific roles have been the most requested job aid from learners, because it reminds them of the specific tasks they need to complete, and in which order.