When reflecting on this activity-to take a stance aligning myself with a single theoretical position- I found myself torn.
Similar to how Ertmer & Newby (2013) discussed behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism as a continuation, I agree that it is very much dependent on where you currently are in your learning journey. As described in Ertmer & Newby, it is dependent on the experience of the learner, and where they fall on the introductory to expert learning spectrum. Therefore, I was not able to pick only one specific theory to get behind. However, in my position as a secondary school teacher, I would argue that the majority of my students are closer to the introductory- low knowledge side of the spectrum, and therefore techniques based on behavior and cognitive theory are often used more and more relevant.
For instance, Ertmer & Newby description of behaviorism immediately leads me to think of final exams, especially provincial exams:
“Behaviorism focuses on the importance of the consequences of this performance and contends that responses that are followed by reinforcement are more likely to recur in the future (2013, p. 48)”
Using English as an example, students are often given exam like essay questions ( previous exams) to answer. After completing this essay, their teacher will give feedback that will allow them to make improvements to that style of writing in the future. In their example, Ertmer & Newby’s discussion of behaviorism that “(a)lthough the initial responses may not be in the final proper form, repeated practice and reinforcement shape the response until it is correctly executed”(p. 50).
By having the practice similar to the final, it is aligning with fourth design principle for instruction, application.
“Learning is promoted when the practice is consistent with the learning goal” (Merrill, 2002, p.49).
Behaviourism further corresponds with Merrill’s (2002) second and third principle- activation which promotes learning “when relevant previous experience is activated” (p. 46) and demonstration of “what is to be learned” (p. 47). By being able to get practice and feedback on a specific task, it is the hope that the student will become more comfortable with that in the future. This can often be negatively referred to as ‘kill and drill’, but when there is the need to practice (final or provincial exam) but not necessary the drive from the student (lack of interest, only doing the exam because they have to), it becomes a necessary learning tool to aid in students’ success.
Similar to behaviorism, cognitive theory uses feedback, and relates to Merrill’s second and third principle. However, cognitivism differs in the tools and strategies that it employs: “framing, outlining, mnemonics, concept mapping, advance organizers, and so forth” (West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991, as cited in Ertmer, & Newby, 2013, p. 54) as well as the amount of active involvement by the learner. I am often using this type of instructions to help guide my students when specific terms or ideas are needed (ex. Classification). Furthermore, learning the different tools allow the students to grow their knowledge base, which will hopefully allow for their knowledge to be transferred to similar like task and problems.
However, to correctly use those learning tools, student buy in is necessary but not always present. The lack of involvement by the learner (by student lack of interest and lack of flexibility in course/curriculum design) makes cognitive theory not always possible and further explains why constructivism is not used as often as it requires even more learner involvement in the process.
Overall, as the learner progress and gain more knowledge, changing learning theories will only help them grow. However, in the relatively rigid secondary setting, learners knowledge is still low and the theories most often used ( behaviourism and cognitivism) are reflective of that.
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.