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).<\/p>\n
A few years ago my program \u2018Early Childhood Care and Education\u2019 participated in a program outcomes project. This meant using the occupational standards and professional competencies for our profession and realigning our program \u00a0\u201cto create observable and measurable outcomes\u201d the first of Ertmer and Newby\u2019s 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 \u201crevisiting content at different times\u201d through the presentation of concepts in different courses, offering \u201cdifferent conceptual perspectives\u201d (p. 58). The later design decisions are anchored in the principles of constructivism by Ertmer and Newby.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cefficient processing strategies\u201d (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 \u201creflection in action\u201d (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.<\/p>\n
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). \u201cThe critical question instructional designers must ask is not \u2018Which is the best theory?\u2019 but \u2018Which theory is the most effective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific learners?\u2019\u201d(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.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013).\u00a0Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective<\/a>.\u00a0Performance Improvement Quarterly<\/i>,\u00a026<\/i>(2), 43-71.<\/p>\n