I recently read an article by Ertmer & Newby entitled Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from a Design Perspective (2013), which – as one expects from the title – explains three essential perspectives of the learning process: behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist. This article was a very helpful introduction to the three perspectives, including an explanation of their essence (e.g. how learning occurs, how transfer occurs, the role of memory), as well as a limited discussion of their application in the design of instruction. It was through reading and reflecting upon this article that I discovered my first inclination is toward Constructivist Learning Theory.
Constructivist Learning Theory rejects the objectivist assumption (entrenched in behaviorism and constructivism) that the world is “real” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 54), independent of the learner. In other words, constructivists reject the notion that there is an objective reality and a learner’s mind is merely “a reference tool to the real world” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 55). Instead, constructivism sees learners as important actors in the learning process, wherein they interact with the environment to create meaning.
The notion that learners are important co-creators of meaning aligns with my experience in corporate training, as both a learner and facilitator. Often, learners who have an objectively similar learning experience walk away with very different interpretations, knowledge, and capabilities. Further, the notion that “what we know of the world stems from our own interpretation of our experiences” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 55) resonates with me, as I have often walked away from personal and professional interactions with very different impressions than those alongside me.
Under constructivism, the goal of instruction is for learners to construe and build upon information – not to know specific concepts or details (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). The intent is to arm learners with the ability to “assemble prior knowledge from diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 56). This is particularly appropriate to a key aspect of my work: the design of learning curriculum, including activity design. Specifically, I can see immediate application for several of the principles suggested by Ertmer & Nemby, including ensuring learning is always anchored in meaningful contexts (particularly in activities); ensuring learning content is presented at different times, in different contexts, and for different purposes; and focusing on learning transfer through assessment. Luckily, our current learning programs employ these principles; however, there are opportunities to further embed them in both learning design and delivery.
Will my affinity for constructivism continue? Only time will tell. In the meantime, I will focus on learning design that suits the needs of modern, technologically-savvy learners – design that is “highly contextualized, personal, and collaborative” (Herrington & Herrington, 2007, as cited in Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007). Authentic Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Paper presented at the International Education Research Conference. Retrieved from: http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5413