I often say to my students that their future jobs as Concept Artists will be solving problems. The Algonquin College certificate program, Concept Art Fundations, was designed to give students many experiences similar to those they would have if working in studios. I have long embraced a problem-based approach to instructional design. When asked to read Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective (Ertmer & Newby, 2013), and First principles of instruction (Merrill, 2002), two articles that summarize and compare instructional design theory, I was surprised by how much application of the theories I was familiar with, without being aware of the histories of the theories or of their respective terminology. As an educator, I apply many of the principles of the various theories described within the two articles on a daily basis.

Constructivism resonated most strongly with my historical stance on instructional design. Through personal experience with alternative educational models and an indulgent fascination with cognitive science, I learned to embrace my own preference for holistic learning activities. It just made sense. Despite trusted teachers, the “learn it now and thank me later” approach was never particularly helpful for me nor did it yield results with my students. This connects with the constructivist view that “Knowledge is not abstract but is linked to the context under study and to the experiences that the participants bring to the context” Ertmer and Newby (2013). It is less likely that knowledge will be accurately constructed without appropriate context.

Despite my partiality for problem-based learning, in reading and critically reflecting on my pedagogical stance, I have broadened my appreciation for a time and place for the instructional design principles of Behaviorism. In Rethinking the Boundaries of Cognitive Load Theory in Complex Learning, Kalyuga & Singh, (2016) describe the expertise reversal effect as referring to “stable patterns of interactions between levels of learner prior knowledge (expertise) and effectiveness of alternative instructional techniques. They further suggest that one such pattern is in the effectiveness of exploring or problem-solving compared to more guided, step by step instruction. Ertmer and Newby (2013) assert that the level of cognitive processing required by the task also has implications on which instructional design strategies best fit a given context. This prompted me to question whether some of my experiences with non-problem-based approaches were simply not the appropriate context for the instructional design practices used.

I recently was tasked with facilitating an online course in Colour Theory; a subject that requires a depth of understanding to effectively solve design problems. Students had historically complained about the workload in the course. Without much time to redesign the curriculum or activities, I set about cutting down some of the activities and simplifying the material. At the end of the course, however, my students were not able to see the value in the work they had completed throughout. I had broken my own guidelines in my attempt to keep only what was necessary and I had taken the work too far out of context. The result was added frustration on the part of the student and an inability to apply the knowledge in appropriate contexts.

Ideally, I have my students practice various skills within the context of real-world problems. When time or resources do not allow for this, I typically take every opportunity in the classroom to emphatically drive home how and why the activities we undertake will prepare students for real-world work. This is typically reinforced by the faculty throughout the program, which, I believe, helps to build students trust in facilitators. I have difficulty imagining certain subject matter taught efficiently without resorting to the principles of Behaviorism, but I also wonder if this model can be strengthened by building at least some sense of context and trust in the instructor.

This activity helped me to look beyond my personal biases. While I did not align myself with one particular theory, I gained a better understanding of the potential for more tailored use of specific practices. Ertmer and Newby (2013) say it well: “…the critical question instructional designers must ask is not ‘Which is the best theory?’ but ‘Which theory is the most effective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific learners?’”

References

Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A.-M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educ Psychol Rev, 28, 831–852.

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.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development, 50(3), 43-59.