Unit 2, activity 4 asked me to read the Ertmer & Newby and Merill articles, reflect on how these readings apply in my own work, and align with one of the learning theories (cognitivism, behaviourism, constructivism) by explaining why.
First, it is important to define some key terms since they can be confusing. In his article First Principles of Instruction, Merill (2002) attempts to identify common principles among representative instructional design theories. Hence, I believe it is important to define what instructional design theories are and what is their relationship with instructional design models.
Instructional design theory is a theory that provides prescriptive guidance on how to better help people learn and develop their abilities which may include cognitive, emotional, social, physical, and spiritual learning and development (Reigeluth, 1992). It offers guidance on what the instruction should include fostering cognitive learning (Perkins, 1992, as cited in Reigeluth, 1999). Merill (2002) suggests that there are “various instructional design theories” (p. 43). Instructional design theories are design-oriented, meaning they focus on the means to attain given learning goals, rather than being description-oriented (focusing on the results of given events). They utilize an Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model, which according to Andrews and Goodson (1980), it is a defined system or process that educators refer to when building the instruction based on one or more instructional theories.
I have utilized Gagne’s (1992) nine instructional events and corresponding cognitive processes (Figure 1), which I found that overlap with Merill’s 5 principles of instruction.
Figure 1. Gagne’s nine events of instruction.
Gagne identifies five major categories of learning: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes. While Gagne’s theoretical framework covers all aspects of learning, the focus of the theory is on intellectual skills. However, the theory has been applied to the design of instruction in all domains (Granger & Driscoll, 1988). In my opinion, the value of Merrill’s phases of instruction is that it focuses on problem-solving. Merill (2002) argues that problem-centred instruction is more effective than topic-centred instruction because learners are “immediately engaged in resolving the task rather than discussing the task itself” (p.45). Nonetheless, instructional design models underpin learning theories of cognitivism, behaviourism, and constructivism.
The area of proficiency-based learning I’ve been working in the last few years requires the development and implementation of an ISD methodology to ensure learners demonstrate competency in performing procedure-oriented tasks. Consequently, the ADDIE ISD model (Figure 2) consisting of a prescriptive set of instructional design processes has been widely used in this field.
Figure 2. The ADDIE ISD model.
Instructional theories of cognitivism and behaviourism are used to design and develop performance-oriented learning objectives. During the analysis phase, learning objectives are determined using cognitive, affective, and psychomotor taxonomies. However, higher-order cognitive skills related to synthesis and evaluation tasks are challenging to acquire using cognitive and behavioural theories. In my view, constructivism theory supplements cognitivism theory, the former best suited when designing training for developing critical thinking and analysis, demonstrated through tasks requiring synthesis and evaluation skills. In that sense, I would agree with Ertmer and Newby (2013) that instructional designers should view the three theories in a “continuum” (p. 60) rather than in isolation. On the other hand, when knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSAs) are inexistent, it would be futile to utilize constructivist theories in learning design because it would take much longer to acquire such KSAs through constructivist-only design practices. For example, problem-solving requires higher order skills of cognitive synthesis and evaluation that “novice learners do not possess” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 60) due to lack of comprehension and application of basic knowledge required to solve that problem. Therefore, at this point, I will not be taking any position towards a learning theory, as it will be up to me to identify which theory is the most effective in transferring the specific KSAs to the specific group of learners (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 61).
References
Andrews, A., & Goodson, L. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3, 2-16.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviourism, 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.
Reigeluth, C. (1999). What is Instructional Design Theory and How Is it Changing? (93). ID Theories and Models. 2. 5-29.
September 23, 2018 at 10:18 pm
That’s fair, but here’s a followup question: Are there particular skills or behaviours that some theories are better aligned with? To put it concretely, would any of these theories provide more appropriate guidance in training pilots to respond to an aircraft emergency?
September 24, 2018 at 12:48 pm
Thank you for your comments and the follow-up question. Although this is going to be a candidate area for my MA’s exit option, I wouldn’t want to leave your question unaddressed. As you probably noticed, I discussed this topic from a generic competency/proficiency-based learning perspective (think of other aviation or other procedure-driven professions) rather than pilot-specific learning. As you probably know, this category of training requires high-degree-adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs) and requires training the tasks to proficiency, including emergency response scenarios.
As strange it may sound to most, pilots rarely take decisions on their own initiative, especially in the age of very technologically advanced aircraft. In exceptional situations when those SOPs have been fully addressed, a pilot may take some initiative. For example, when Capt. Sully Sullenberger of flight US1549 decided to “land” on the Hudson instead of heading to LaGuardia following a bird strike that disabled both engines, Sully, followed all SOPs (automated and manual) and only then he decided not to divert to LaGuardia as he would have crashed the aircraft probably killing all onboard before making it to the airport. That type of decision, called aeronautical decision-making (ADM), required the higher order thinking skills (HOTS) I referred to in my post. As stated, using cognitivist theories to analyze, synthesize and evaluate learning, and related life-experience scenarios is challenging to achieve with Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive domain. Constructivist theories assist in this area. Teaching the HOTS which is essential to judgment, decisionmaking, and critical thinking is important to aviation because of a common thread in aviation accidents in the absence of higher order thinking skills.
A constructivism-type theory is embedded in pilot debriefings after a simulator training event (McDonnell, Jobe, & Dismukes, 1997), to help trainees reconstruct that event and create a learner-centered learning environment in which learners assume responsibility for their own learning. However, instructors need to teach the cognitive skills used in problem-solving from early stages in training until these techniques become automated and transferable to future situations or training events. While the student is at the center of the learning process, an experienced teacher is necessary to guide them through the information landscape.
Nonetheless, my personal assessment after reading this unit’s articles is that constructivism techniques are good for some types of learning, some situations, and some learners, but not all.
Reference
McDonnel, L., Jobe, K., & Dismukes, K. (1997). Facilitating LOS debriefings: A Training Manual. NASA Technical Memorandum 112192. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970015346.pdf
September 23, 2018 at 11:06 pm
Hi Dino,
I really enjoyed your blog post and have to agree that it is hard to pick just one theory. I agree that describing the different theories as a continuum makes the most sense, to me at least. Building blocks are essential in learning. I also really liked your images, especially Gagne’s 9 events of instructions. Considering what I see in my classroom, I would add an extra loop to that diagram at the guidance- practice- feedback. I am curious if that would be similar to what you see in the private sector. Thanks,
Amanda
September 24, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Thank you, Amanda, for your comment and I appreciate the importance of building block approach which I use as well. Thanks as well for commenting re the images. I would agree with you regarding adding an extra loop at the guidance-practice-feedback level but it all depends whether the topic comes again further down in the training footprint. It is true however that workplace learning is budget and time restricted and some topics that are either “nice to know” or less critical, tend not to be repeated again…unfortunately.