Activity 5 in LRNT523 instructs us to read Ertmer and Newby (2013) and Merrill (2002) and reflect on certain aspects. Ertmer and Newby (2013) reviews behavioural, cognitive, and constructivist learning perspectives, while Merrill (2002) discusses five principles that are common to various instructional design theories. These readings apply to my own work in course development, facilitation, and creation of instructional media resources.
It is difficult to align myself with only one of the theoretical positions described in these two readings, as I think each theory makes valid contributions to education. I would align myself most closely with constructivism because many of its core ideas resonate with me, and it is built upon some of the ideas found in behaviourism and cognitivism. The constructivist approach, as explained by Ertmer and Newby (2013), describes learners as constructing their knowledge based on their own perception of the material, environment, and prior knowledge, so the knowledge that each learner constructs will be unique, as opposed to mapping a static set of knowledge into the mind of the learner. I believe this to be true, as provided with the same information two learners may construct conclusions that are very different. Ertmer and Newby (2013) also state that the constructivist approach encourages learners to share their own perspectives with others, allowing for further construction and honing of knowledge, and that the constructivist approach also promotes authentic learning: student learning should mimic real-world problems and progress in a way that is similar to that of an apprentice, starting with simple tasks and moving up to complex tasks.
Merrill (2002) had some theoretical positions that I also aligned with, stating that new knowledge should be connected to existing knowledge and should be applied to real-world problems for effective learning, and these real-world problems should be varied. Merrill (2002) also stated that learning is promoted when new knowledge is shown to the learner, applied by the learner, and is incorporated into the learner’s world. Learning outcomes in a lesson, according to Merrill (2002) should not be abstract and instead should describe whole tasks that learners will be able to accomplish. Merrill (2002) also points out that media used in conjunction with a lesson can either interfere with learning or support learning, depending on what media is used and how this media is used.
Many of these perspectives can be applied to my day-to-day work. Course development and facilitation can ensure that activities are authentic, putting learners in real-world situations. Learners would be encouraged to validate their ideas with others and collaborate with others to expose learners to a wide range of perspectives. Learning activities should give learners strategies to navigate complex material, but also ensure that the material is close enough to learners’ existing knowledge that the new knowledge can make connections to existing knowledge. Course learning outcomes could be written in plain language that describe tasks that the learner will be proficient in at the end of the course. Instructional media should follow best practices to ensure that it supports lessons as opposed to interfere with lessons.
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 Jason.
I had a few of the same thoughts you did when reviewing the article by Merrill, specifically how embedding motivational themes into organizational structure can increase cognitive load of learners. It also stood out for me that using combinations of multimedia can compete for the learner’s attention, again increasing cognitive load.
I have done both in my past work and wonder if, in an effort to design an engaging course, I may have overloaded learners with tasks that competed with my desired outcomes. It’s definitely something I’ll be more mindful of moving forward.
Thanks for the reminder around plain language, too! Karen.
Hi Karen,
The issue with “using combinations of multimedia can compete for the learner’s attention, again increasing cognitive load” is something I see all the time and drives me crazy! Also, many instructional videos have background music that I find distracting.
Thanks for your comment!
Hi Jason. I prefer to learn in noisy environments, like a busy coffee shop or on packed bus. When things are too quiet I find my mind wanders to lunch or laundry. I’ve never really thought about the music that runs in the background of instructional videos, but now that you mention it, it can split your attention as you work to figure out if you know the tune. As I consider it, I’m reminded of Merrill’s article where it is noted that themes may “actually interfere with, rather than promote instructional effectiveness” (p. 47). Perhaps my zeal in trying to develop engaging material is actually producing negative results. This lesson is high on my list for immediate consideration in all future learning interventions I develop.
Hi Jason,
I recently attended a workshop on writing effective course outcomes. While reading Merrill’s article I was disturbed to find the pattern I was taught criticized by Merrill (2002) as being “abstract and often only understood following the instruction” (p. 46). What are your thoughts on strategies for creating meaningful course outcomes after reading these articles?
Hi Sean,
I agree with Merrill (2002). If learners cannot understand the learning outcomes at the beginning of the course then I think the learning outcomes provide less value to the learners. I believe that learning outcomes should give learners a sense of where they’re going and give them an opportunity to become enthusiastic about what they’re going to learn. I think it’s fine to have a set of abstract learning outcomes that are used to develop the course that learners don’t see, but the learning outcomes that learners do see should be learning outcomes that learners can understand at the beginning of the course.
Looking at this from the perspective of Ertmer and Newby (2013), in regards to constructivism, they state that “appropriate and effective use comes from engaging the learner in the actual use of the tools in real-world situations” (p. 57) and that “the-tasks of the designer are…to align and design experiences for the learner so that authentic, relevant contexts can be experienced” (p. 59). In constructivism there is a significant focus on real-world, authentic learning, and I argue that this aligns with giving students learning outcomes that are authentic, real-world, and understandable by the learners.
I agree with you that there are two sets of learning outcomes required: one set that is designed to help prepare the learner for the material and one that designed to prepare the instructional designer. The learning outcomes we use are government mandated and general. I sometimes suggest my students turn to them when writing their resumes to help them consider what employers may be looking for. I do think students have a right to know what objectives the courses are built on even if knowing this does not directly help their learning. Your suggestion of having two sets could be a good solution. Perhaps the abstract VLOs could be further broken down into more specific examples.