For this blog I was asked to read the articles by Ertmer and Newby (2013) and Merrill (2002), examine how the perspectives of the articles are reflected in my work and how I identify with the theoretical position. My work as an educator is rooted in the early years, specifically working with children in the age range of zero to five, which in terms of educational theory has been informed by cognitivism and constructivism, and if asked I would identify as a constructivist. I am an early childhood educator, however, today I am also an educator of adults. I am actively involved in the design of my program, my courses and my individual classes in a digital and face to face delivery. Reflecting on my involvement at different stages of instructional design, I realize each stage employs several theoretical lenses and the design of instructional materials moves me along a continuum, using one theory and then another in order to achieve different objectives (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 61).
A few years ago my program ‘Early Childhood Care and Education’ participated in a program outcomes project. This meant using the occupational standards and professional competencies for our profession and realigning our program “to create observable and measurable outcomes” the first of Ertmer and Newby’s principles under behaviorism in instructional design (p. 49). We started out by assessing at which point students would be allowed to enter the program, which aligns with the second principle of behaviorism (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 49). During the design of the three semester certificate level program we needed to make decisions about scaffolding courses, creating a sequence of complexity from novice to mastery (p. 49). We also focused on “revisiting content at different times” through the presentation of concepts in different courses, offering “different conceptual perspectives” (p. 58). The later design decisions are anchored in the principles of constructivism by Ertmer and Newby.
I use a similar approach when I design a course. I use the behaviorism lens to decide what content I believe should be taught before another, however, I also apply cognitivism because I use my students prior knowledge in order to relate new information to them and I focus on “efficient processing strategies” (p. 52). I attempt to apply most of the principles, outlined by Ertmer and Newby, under cognitivism by creating meaning through real world examples which learners can then add to their existing knowledge, reorganizing their schema if necessary (p. 53). “Learning is promoted when learners are encouraged to integrate (transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their everyday life” (Merrill, 2002, p. 50). I also provide the opportunity for my students to apply learned material through authentic assessments, a constructivist approach (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 59). I notice I move back and forth on the continuum of all three theories as presented by Ertmer and Newby. I also realize that I apply one theory over another depending on which level program I am teaching, certificate or diploma and therefore I agree with the Ertmer and Newby when they explain how the instructional design approach depends on where the learner is situated. I need to ask, are they a novice and need to learn the what, before they can move onto the how, in order to arrive at “reflection in action” (p. 60). Overall my program is structured, both in the certificate and diploma level, to move students from the what to the how, ending in final practicum where they need to prove their ability to reflect on their practice in relation to what they have learned in class.
Through my experience as an educator I agree with Ertmer and Newby that design strategies need to be selected depending on the objective, the content, the task and the location of the learner (P. 61). “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?’”(p. 61). I found this exercise very revealing in how I view myself as an educator. I realize that I can philosophically proclaim my allegiance to a particular theory, as I did in my introduction; but in the practice of instructional design, I apply all three theories, behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism.
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.
Hi Anita, great post! Thanks for sharing your experiences and thoughts. As I was doing this exercise as well, I found myself waffling from one place to another, but then realized that somehow or another there were connections, correlations, etc. as you have pointed out in your experiences. As I mentioned in my post, Weller (2018) stated that “education is a complex, highly interdependent system” (p. 48); therefore, it cannot be one theory over another to be successful. There is a complex web of learning theories in education; therefore, we, as educators, must learn when to apply them appropriately.
Cheers!
Thank you Joyce. This reflection was a good reminder to be more intentional when using the different theories. I find that I get caught up in the every day tasks of teaching and don’t always pay attention to the ‘why’ I am doing what I am doing.
Great post Anita,
I really liked your use of personal examples to demonstrate how you apply each of the theories and why. Your program outcomes project sounds like a really interesting experience in examining and mapping out a whole program to determine appropriate scaffolding and where to teach and revisit concepts.
Hi Jessica, the outcomes project was a fantastic experience and a lot of work. Especially leading into it we had stakeholder input which was extremely valuable, it also lead to a greater buy in from the community. Our program was the pilot and over a two year period every program at our college had gone through the process. I really appreciated the opportunity to really examine how we move our students through the learning experience of becoming an early childhood educator. We identified some gaps and misalignments and the correction of these issues led to a smoother experience for the students. Has your college entertained the idea of a program outcomes project?
Hello Anita,
I really enjoyed reading your post! As you and many others have mentioned, which theories an instructional designer bases their instructional activities upon should depend on “which seem to be of value for one’s particular educational situation” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 45). They also mention that those individuals who work in the field should be informed “consumers” of the various strategies posited by each theory (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). As an early childhood educator you would have learned about different learning theories, however many college teachers are hired as they are experts in their fields, and I would hazard a guess that many of them have never had exposure to learning theories. In addition, much of the time, faculty have to create their own course content. Given that they have no theoretical knowledge of how learning occurs or should be delivered, coupled with the task of trying to understand the shared learning experience of a diverse group of students can be challenging even for a seasoned instructor. As training is not mandatory, and many faculty teach part-time, there is no incentive for them to engage in professional development. Given this scenario, do you think faculty should be responsible for developing curriculum? What has your experience been at the institution where you teach?
Cheers,
Sue
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Hi Sue, thank you for your thoughts and comments. You bring up an excellent point. You are correct that as an early childhood educator I am fairly familiar with learning theories, specifically cognitivism and constructivism. You are also correct in your assumption that educators who are hired because of their experience within a given field do not necessarily come equipped to teach within a theoretical framework. I understand that the program outcomes project was not always received with enthusiasm and I think it leads back to your comment “that they have no theoretical knowledge of how learning occurs or should be delivered”. Which brings me to your very good question, should teachers be allowed to develop curriculum if they have no training in instructional design, or no background on how to teach with educational theories as a framework for their curriculum. Philosophically, I would have to say no. Realistically, its happening all the time. However, at my institution we have mandatory PD days and all instructors are strongly encouraged to take the Provincial Instructors Diploma of BC. It is an excellent program and will change anyones approach to teaching. Because we all teach the way we were taught, until someone tells us we can do it differently. The Instructors Diploma supports educators to approach teaching from a social constructivist perspective and it gives educators the foundation to develop their own teaching philosophy. With this in mind, I am confident that our institution recognized the disconnect between teaching and learning when the foundational pieces were missing and for the past 10 years has strongly encouraged all instructors to take this diploma program. I wonder if you have such a program in Ontario?
Hello Anita,
So great to hear that BC has mandatory PD days to take the Provincial Instructors diploma of BC! Do you know if it is well attended?
In Ontario, there is no mandatory or regulated formal training for college faculty that I am aware of. It is largely left up to the individual colleges as to what type of training they require. All of our part-time faculty are required to have a degree, however, preference is given to faculty that have completed their Masters. They also value a certificate in Teaching and Training Adults.
All colleges in Ontario (including mine) provide excellent support and training for their faculty, however it is not usually mandatory unless the faculty is hired on a full-time basis. Given that the majority of faculty at most colleges are part-time, this means that most of the faculty are probably in need of additional supports. Time seems to be the biggest deterrent! Despite the fact we pay our part-time faculty for attending training (1 1.2 days) they are still reluctant to give up the time to attend.
Hi Sue, just wanted to make a quick comment. Not all of the colleges offer the same support to their faculty. I have been surprised to hear the absolute lack of support some of our colleagues receive. As I have met some faculty from other institutions they have expressed jealousy at the mandatory training I have received. As you said it is up to each college to decide. I absolutely agree about the training for part time faculty. However, as I was there not too long ago, I found it challenging to balance my two part time positions at two different colleges. A majority of our part time faculty have full time jobs in industry that they can not risk, so time is definitely a factor. I am not sure what the solution is. It is interesting to note that I was not aware of the paid PD for part time. Perhaps that information is not widely known? -tanya
Hi Tanya, I agree that support varies across the province and across Canada! I was very impressed to hear that BC has province wide training. I also want to clarify that I by no means meant to imply that part-time faculty simply don’t want to give up their time…..it is that they cannot. In my haste to get my post up this may have been misinterpreted : ( The faculty I have the pleasure of working with are juggling full-time employment, teaching, families and other duties as required! Although, I am sure they would love to take part in the training, they simply don’t have the time to do so. The training for PD is called Jumpstart. It is a 1 1/2 day training session (Saturday/Sunday). Typically, Associate Deans share the information with any new contract staff they hire. http://cafe.durhamcollege.ca/index.php/pd/contract-faculty