Photo by Sweet Ice Cream Photography on Unsplash
The articles by Ertmer and Newby and Merrill were quite thought provoking. Ertmer & Newby (2013) describe the three different learning theories of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism in relation to the design of instructional situations to enable learning. Ertmer & Newby (2013) claim that “[l]earning theories provide instructional designers with verified instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning as well as a foundation for intelligent strategy selection” (p.43). Merrill (2002), on the other hand, looks at prescriptive design principles that are common to the various instructional design theories (p. 43). The five principles that Merrill (2002) discusses are the following: (1) problem-centred, (2) activation, (3) demonstration, (4) application and (5) integration. When looking at the different perspectives, I feel that I can align with Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” because this emulates what we presently do in our clinical setting. However, when actually deconstructing each of the phases in Merrill’s model, the learning theories that Ertmer and Newby discussed in their article is interwoven in them. The following will depict examples and explanations of how this is applied.
In the context of our clinical setting, the instructors discuss real-life examples of patient care and present case scenarios to the groups of students. The groups are then expected to work together to try and solve an issue while facing different obstacles that may arise in the care of their case patients. This is based on the knowledge that was learned in previous theoretical courses. This aligns with the following principles and learning theories:
- Merrill (2002) describes Principle 1 as problem-centred where “learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems [and solve a progression of problems]” (p. 45). This concept of the principle also relates to the constructivism learning theory where “[l]earners build personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions…. Knowledge emerges in contexts within which it is relevant” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
- Principle 2 – activation phase where “learning is promoted when learners are directed to recall, relate, describe, or apply knowledge from relevant past experience that can be used as a foundation for the new knowledge” (Merrill, 2002, p. 46). This correlates with the learning theory of cognitivism. “Cognitive theories stress the acquisition of knowledge and internal mental structures…[they] focus in the conceptualization of students’ learning processes and address the issues of how information is received, organized, stored and retrieved by the mind” (Bower & Hilgard, 1981 and Jonassen, 1991B, as cited by Ertmer & Newby, 2013)
The instructors demonstrate technical skills to their groups of students. The instructors first explain the purpose of the skills, demonstrate the specific skills and then ask the students to apply the skills to certain situations. While the students are performing the skills, the instructor will offer feedback to improve the skill or offer positive reinforcement if the learner is doing well. Once the instructor observes that the student is doing well, then another approach/method of the skill will be demonstrated to address any difficulties that may arise in a situation. Instructor demonstrations supports the following:
- Principle 3 – “learner guidance” concept of demonstration where “(a) learners are directed to relevant information, (b) multiple representations are used for the demonstrations, or (c) multiple demonstrations are explicitly compared” (p. 47).
- Principle 4 – application phase where “learning is promoted when learners are required to use their new knowledge or skill to solve problems” (p. 49).
- Behaviourism learning theory emphasizing on having “observable and measurable outcomes in learners”, “mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of performance” and “use of reinforcement to impact performance” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 49).
- Cognitivism emphasizes that the learner is actively involved in the learning process in an environment that allows and encourages students to make connections with acquired knowledge. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013
The case scenarios and demonstrations presented to the students during the clinical setting all lead up to the last Principle of Integration where “learning is promoted when learners are encouraged to integrate (transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their everyday life”. The new knowledge and skills attained and the reflections of these experiences (experiential learning) can then be applied when the students treat real patients in the clinic and in the community. The learning theories which align to this phase are behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism.
As one moves along the behaviourist-cognitivist-constructivist continuum, the focus of instruction shifts from teaching to learning, from the passive transfer of facts and routines to the active application of ideas to problems (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 58)
As demonstrated above, Merrill’s “first principle of instruction” as well as the learning theories discussed by Ertmer and Newby are used in the instructional design of our clinical setting. Referring to Weller (2018), he mentioned that “education is a complex, highly interdependent system” (p. 48). Ertmer & Newby (2013) state in their discussions that the question instructional designers should ask is “Which theory is the most effective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific learners?” (p. 61). There are various types of learners with various learning needs who come with different prior knowledge and experiences who are taught by many educators with various teaching styles and expertise; therefore, there is not one best theory.
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.
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of EdTech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4).
Hi Joyce, really enjoyed reading your post. You really highlighted for me how Ertmer & Newby’s and Merrill’s theories intertwined. Through a reflection paper we are allowed to really examine how we teach and how we use theories, this is not something I would necessarily do every day. What it did remind me of though, is to be more thoughtful during the first semester, when students are still trying to find their grounding in a new field. Using more behaviourist based activities may be helpful to students in order to gain the necessary knowledge to built upon. You address the different needs of learners at the end of your post and I wonder how you deal with this in regards to the theories we just read about.
Hi Anita, thank you for your comments and great question.
Prior to the clinical component, students do have theory classes where they can build upon their prior knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dental field. When they have the clinical aspect, the instructors build upon the knowledge that was acquired in theory classes and tie the information into the practical skills. In terms of students’ learning styles and needs in connection to the theories, I found that constructivism ties in with the kinetic learner where they are actively learning – hands-on approach, learning from demonstrations and then doing. I found that cognitivism ties in with all the different learning styles. Cognitivism is the way learners process and acquire knowledge. An educator can determine a learner’s style of learning and introduce an activity geared to that, so that the learner can acquire the knowledge concept, understand it and synthesize. This ties in with Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory (here is a link http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/MI%20Theory.htm). As for behaviourism and learning needs, I found that behaviourism can help a learner especially with proper positive reinforcements as well as good constructive feedback. I hope I answered your question. Cheers!
Hi Joyce, thank you for answering my question in such depth and detail. I appreciated you mentioning Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and I agree with your last sentence “that behaviourism can help a learner especially with proper positive reinforcements as well as good constructive feedback”. I found that many strategies from the behaviourist perspective work very well for students with learning disabilities. Ertmer and Newby (2013) mention “chaining” (p. 49) as a learning strategy. I have used chaining with children very successfully and was interested to see it mentioned in the article. I think what you refer to as reinforcement and feedback could fit well with chaining. Are you familiar with chaining?
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Hi Anita,
Thanks for telling me more about chaining when we spoke online. It always is interesting to learn about techniques that have been implemented in instruction. Just in case, others would like to know about chaining, Anita explained to me that chaining involves breaking down a task into small steps and then teaches each step within the sequence by itself by using cues. Anita finds that this instructional design helps students who may have difficulties with processing to perform a certain task. Thanks for broadening my horizon, Anita! 🙂
Hi Joyce
Completely agree with the non-committal stance. My thoughts throughout these two readings were, it really is a continuum and context based. I could see elements of interdependency throughout with perspective principles in common. Depending on the goal it might be totally appropriate to change your pedagogical stance. The important take away from me is the many options as no model encapsulates it all. What truly is important is that practices are grounded in a theoretical framework and we translate this into our own unique practice. I enjoyed your post.
Lorne
Hi Lorne,
Thanks so much for your comment and sharing your perspective. This exercise helped me to realize and confirmed that we cannot depend on just one model for instructional design.
Cheers!
Hi Joyce, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I also find it is a an ever changing method depending on the topic and context. I find a significant difference when I am teaching a hands on lab class, versus a theory class and that the methods vary depending on the content. However, someone suggested to me that it may be that my students are ‘hands on’ type students, and that it is the student, not the content that dictates this. I am wondering if you have an opinion on that? Do you find that your program attracts a certain type of learner? – Tanya
Hi Tanya,
Thanks for sharing your experience and great question!
We are finding that the dental hygiene program attracts a variety of learners – some are coming straight from high school, some have volunteered or observed in a dental office, some have no dental background at all and have attained a bachelor’s degree or certificate in a field totally different from healthcare. I find that a few of them feel that when they become a dental hygienist, they will make a great income, but then realize that working in the mouth is not really their “cup of tea”. We have a variety of learners – visual learners, auditory learners, kinetic learners, higher processing learners. When we teach them in clinic, we are teaching them skills to critically think and the skills that they need in order to provide the proper dental hygiene services (assessing the health history, assessing the oral condition, planning on what treatment is needed and then implementing the treatment i.e. scale, polish, apply sealants, take impressions, etc.). Therefore, for us, content really dictates. We just have to adjust our teaching styles to the types of learners. I hope I answered your question, Tanya. Please let me know if I didn’t because I can sometimes go on a tangent! 🙂
Cheers!
Thanks Joyce. I could not agree more!