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.
Thank you Lorri.
You give some fantastic examples of the different ways that learners are exposed to new knowledge for the Flight Test Sponsor course. We have seen before that elements of each of the learning theories do have their place and can compliment each other to maximize the learner’s experience. Merrill also states “Applying knowledge to a single problem is insufficient for learning a cognitive skill. Adequate practice must provide multiple opportunities for learners to use their new knowledge or skill for a variety of problems (Merill, p. 50). You have given great examples of those multiple opportunities.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Thanks Laura! I am a bit behind reading other’s posts, but I will hop over to your tonight!
Nicely detailed in how cognitivism fits within your pedagogical domain. I teach media and design courses at the college level. For me, it was difficult to narrow down my alignment to only one learning theory. For you, this must be the same. I aligned with behaviorism. While cognitivism is quite broad in its description, could you not add a mixture of other learning theories within your teaching methods or development of learning material? In the broadest sense, one can not just rely on one theory. Even Ertmer & Newby (2013) state that “the task of translating learning theory into practical applications would be greatly simplified if the learning process were relatively simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Learning is a complex process that has generated numerous interpretations and theories of how it is effectively accomplished” (p.44). Even the theories presented by Merrill (2013), I find somewhat too specific.
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
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Thanks for your comments! I think that you are right and in actuality there are bits other theories that are employed during the course, although I think for an application course, cognitivism is the basis. That said, Ertmer and Newby (2013) point out that some of the techniques and goals of cognitivism and behaviourism are the same (p. 52), so it really comes down to the way you are looking at the situation and your focus as an ID. From my perspective, I will use whatever I think will work best in a given situation.
Excellent post, Lorri.
As I am reading this, I am wondering about a couple of things: Has this blend of theoretical approaches changed over time, or at least since you’ve been there? To what degree are the designers reflective of this blend of behaviourism, constructivism, and cognitivism? Are there conversations about applying these theories to practice or, are, for example, Merrill’s principles applied universally?
Hi George,
These are good questions and I need to caveat my response by saying that it is only representative of my experience and what I know based on my current job. Although I have instructed in various capacities throughout my time in the military, my current job is the first one that I am truly involved in course design.
Since I have entered the military, I have experienced behaviourist training methods (e.g. basic training), cognitive training methods (e.g. the models and mnemonics that are incorporated into most training programs in the military) and constructivist training methods (e.g. mentoring through on the job training (as I did for my trades training), peer mentoring (happens on an informal basis all the time), etc). So, from my perspective use of all of these theories within the military is not new (I have been in 18 years now).
I just finished an “Advanced Instructional Techniques” course which focused on activity and scenario based learning, but also taught Merrill’s principles and Gagne’s Nine. So, I can say that personnel involved in training are being taught principles of instruction and some basic learning theory as a minimum. I can not tell you how long these have been taught (as I don’t have the historical perspective of this course). That said, from my experience, most people involved in training are there because training and teaching is something they enjoy and this interest usually spurs people to gain additional knowledge in the area of instruction. We also have Training Development Officers who provide advice on training development (normally for large or significant training programs).
The military has an extremely rigorous process for course development and when it is followed, I feel it produces good quality training programs where the principles of instruction and learning theory have been thoughtfully considered. Not every course has been developed properly and not all of our training is well designed (this is sometimes true of local training which is developed on a smaller scale by people with good intentions, but not familiar with training development).
I am not certain if I answered your question, but I think that how we apply learning theory likely evolves with the rest of the training industry (although our course development process is less flexible). That said, my perspective is limited by my own experiences (I am not a Training Development Officer and I don’t know the overall picture from the Canadian Forces perspective, I just see my piece of the puzzle). I can tell you that within my team, we are always talking about ways that we can improve training and better structure our courses, so we have a lot of fun conversations about learning theory and course design.