I have read both Ertmer & Newby (2013) and Merrill (2002) in the past, using both to help me understand learning theory. I have agreed with the conclusion in Ertmer & Newby (2013) that “the designer’s ‘best’ approach may not ever be identical to any previous approach, but will truly ‘depend upon the context'” (p. 62). I also believe strongly in the veracity of Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (2002) based on how they align with learning theory as well as my own experience as a student, a parent and teacher of adult learners.
Despite this, we are asked to read and align ourselves with one theoretical position and describe how it is applied in our day-to-day work. As Airworthiness Training Lead within the Directorate of Technical Airworthiness and Engineering Support, I could choose any theory as I see applications of all of the theories in both our training and day-to-day work. However, I will focus on cognitivism as the majority of the courses that we provide teach to the application level, in other words, they teach the “knowing how” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 60), so this is most often the learning theory employed.
- providing a strong organiser for the flight test process (used many times throughout the training session);
- the emphasis on student participation in the training, directly drawing on their past experience and knowledge. The majority of students have considerable experience in aviation and are therefore able to provide examples to illustrate concepts during the course;
- the gradual introduction of concepts from basic to advanced (for example, introducing the types of activities that you might need tested, then introducing the specific action words that can be used and finally teaching how to build an objective); and
- providing follow-up after the course utilising the “test effect” (Adesope, Trevisan, & Sundararajan, 2017) to improve course content retrieval.
All of this is focused on ensuring learners know enough to act as the project sponsor. However, I said that we employed behaviorism and constructivism as well. The prerequisite for the Flight Test Project Sponsor Course is the Airworthiness Familiarisation training, a 3 hour online course that provides basic airworthiness knowledge (students must recall basic information and define terms). This course is a knowledge level course, focusing on the “knowing what” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 60) and thus behaviourism is applied through the use of repetition, quizzes with informative feedback and a requirement for students to master one topic prior to moving on to the next (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). After students complete the Flight Test Project Sponsor Course, they will be mentored on their first project. This mentoring relies on constructivist theory as students gradually create their own understanding through the act of doing (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). So, in the end even though I have focused on cognitivism, I am really a systematic eclectic and so the theoretical position I am aligned with is using the learning theories and principles that best fit the situation.
References:
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659-701.
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.