Choosing a theoretical position in which to align to in instructional design is akin to choosing which tool to use to repair a car. It depends. It depends on the context, the situation, the learners, the teacher, and the application. My perspective and shared by Snelbecker (1983), (as cited in Ertmer & Newby, 2013) “individuals addressing practical learning problems cannot afford the “luxury of restricting themselves to only one theoretical position”. (p. 45). The approach must be consistent with the context and the level of the learners. No one theory can provide a complete answer to a learning problem, and as such, I align with eclecticism in instructional design.

My military carer involved diverse subject matter teaching. I instructed weapons classes informed by a strict behaviorist instructional strategy aimed to strengthen stimulus/ response to a programmed degree.  The consequences of poor performance demanded this approach and regular training as reinforcement.  Any military member can easily articulate a word of command (target stimulus), the execution of the drill (response) and have a memory of the immediate feedback provided by these classes. Behaviorism design approach is relevant in providing mastery in early steps before proceeding to more complex concepts. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.49)  Behaviorism modeling design principles noted in (Merrill, n.d., p.13)  involve demonstration of each activity by a skilled performer and the phrase “pay attention to my demonstration here” is forever etched in memory from demonstrating component skills during these classes.

To understand when to apply force, rules of engagement (ROE) training conducted before a specific mission required a less behavioral perspective. How to teach the skills needed in a complex environment necessitates quite a different approach. The ability to understand and correctly apply knowledge in circumstances that cannot be fully anticipated is served by a cognitive design approach. Moving the leaner from familiar to the unfamiliar in cognitive design recognizes the learner prior skill and promote linkages to existing student learning processes. New knowledge is stored and retrieved utilizing existing structures. Success is determined when a learner understands how to apply knowledge in a different context.(Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.52) Military exercises concerning the use of force conducted before a mission involved scenarios were based on problem-solving, developing reasoning skills, and decision making, they were invaluable in encouraging efficient processing strategies. An example is in the simplification of complex conceptions so it can be processed rapidly. Demonstrated by the use an ROE card taped to the butt of your personal weapon, this card contained a list of principles as reinforcement and a recall cue rather than specific directions or orders. The use of feedback another important aspect of both behaviorism and cognitivism instructional strategy is evident in the debriefings after exercises and was standard operating procedure.   Sharing a reverence for feedback in the learning process with behaviorism cognitivism’s goal is not to modify behavior, rather it seeks to promote accurate mental connections and reasoning. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.53) In practice using the same instruction design principles derived from different theoretical approaches is common.

The two learning theories discussed above share the view that the learner is external to their environment and they do not create their own subjective representations of the world. Constructivism theory does not share this view, but it has commonality with cognitivism theory as they both conceive of learning as a mental activity. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.55) Where constructivism and cognitivism depart is in the interaction between the learner environment and its role in the learning process. Constructivism builds upon the previous knowledge and making meaning through experience equates to learning. As described by (Ertmer & Newby, 201, p.56) critical learning needs realistic settings and be relevant to the previous lived experience.  Military field exercises and training were valued, and great attention to detail was given to create environments so soldiers can perform their roles in a real world situation they could expect to encounter in missions. Success in knowledge transfer is indicated by the performance of tasks in the environment rather than any alternative assessment techniques. Like cognitivism, it prepares the learner to apply knowledge in different contexts by building direct experience.  As most of my teaching has been in military and trades, I am very familiar with the coaching aspect of constructivism and its prowess when anchored in real-world scenarios. Learning is scaffolded upon previous experience, learner-centered and where the demonstration is stressed. In my military and later in trades teaching I incorporated a “tell, show, do” model always referencing subordinated tasks and describing of where the knowledge is likely to be employed, demonstrating the skill and then coaching through the practice.

Instructional Design Perspectives need to link theory and practice. No model of instructional design incorporates all educational design principles; it is however critically important that they are not contrary to them. The context is the differentiator, and educational technology theory and the principles common to them are available as design elements.  The context determines the selection of appropriate resources which are informed behavioral cognitive and constructivist positions on learning.

References

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2),                           43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143

Merrill, M. D. (n.d.). First Principles of Instruction. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF02505024.pdf