Photo by Stephen Crowley on Unsplash

Much of the work that is done in not for profit organizations is done with volunteers, and we are no different (OCE Volunteer Manual, 2011).  If it were not for our volunteer base, many of the programs and services our clients rely on would be reduced or even lost.  In my particular area of the not for profit world, emergency housing, and homelessness programs, we also incorporate volunteer placement students from various local colleges and universities in our programs.  Not only are our placement students a valuable asset to the smooth operation of our programs, but we also hire from this pool of individuals thus making the education and training all the more critical.  As I am responsible for the education, training as well as hiring and coaching of all program staff, I have taken time to reflect on where I stand pedagogically.  From the required readings, I am able to recognize the value of behaviorist, cognitivist and constructivist approach to education and training as they relate to the stage of readiness that the learner is in at the time.  As Ertmer & Newby (2013) explain, students who are instructed from each pedagogical approach will develop different proficiencies.    Due to our standards and practices, the placements students, and the hired staff for that matter, all come with a base education in the social services field.  The colleges and universities require field practicums for graduation, and my job is to provide a valuable learning experience which is my reason for aligning with a constructivist approach.  I can see the value in utilizing a behaviorist approach for training individuals to respond to stimuli in the desired manner.  This approach may be sufficient for tasks such as data entry and medication supervision, however, when working with a vulnerable population, this approach may be insufficient for a function such as assessment, case management and developing therapeutic rapport.  As Ertmer & Newby (2013) indicate, a behaviorist approach is best achieved when the instructor can create situations that will elicit the desired response and much of our work requires out of the box thinking.  I can also see the benefit in utilizing a cognitivist approach in our work for building new knowledge on to existing knowledge as this assists in the creation of meaningful knowledge and would assist in the acquisition of therapeutic rapport particularly in those students with a lived experience of homelessness.   Ertmer & Newby (2013) remind us that both of these approaches are focused on the successful transfer of knowledge which is best delivered with simplification and standardization (p.10).  Because not all students and new hires have lived experience and because the work with the vulnerable population can be extremely varied and widely diverse, I am partial to a constructivist real-world problem-based approach.   Although we do create policies and procedures to guide our work, ultimately these policies and procedures are based on legislation and best practices which change over time and must be critically analyzed to ensure that the voice of those with lived experience is represented.  From a constructivist approach, we are able to immerse students into authentic real-world problems to solve, and because we take on multiple students in each cycle, we are able to assign tasks to be completed collaboratively.  As Merrill (2009) points out in First Principles, problem-centered learning is principle number one and is recognized as promoting learning by involving students in authentic real-world problems that are progressively complex through a collaborative process.  There may be times when a behaviorist or cognitivist approach may need to be employed in certain situations.  Due to the nature of the work that we do with and on behalf of the clients that we serve; however, I am confident that a constructivist approach that employs collaborative problem solving and critical thinking best prepares our students for their work with us in our environment.

 

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.

The Salvation Army, Canada and Bermuda Territory. (2011). OCE Volunteer Manual. Unpublished Internal Document.