As I continue to gain a deeper understanding of behaviourist, cognitivist, and constructivist learning theories, this knowledge has become a blueprint for me when designing instruction. Utilizing theoretical approaches with practical applications has provided me with a deeper understanding into how humans take in, process, and retain information. As Ertmer and Newby (2013) explain, as one moves along the learning theory 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”. Learning is complex, and constantly evolving, both in “nature and in diversity” (Ertmer and Newby, 2013). Therefore, one approach may not be necessarily be better than the other because the act of designing instruction and learning itself can be influenced by variety of sources and factors (Shuell, 1990 as cited in Ertmer and Newby, 2013). This is where taking an empathetic approach to thinking and designing can open up learning opportunities that focus on the learner and their needs.
Instructional designers can easily lose sight of who their learners are due to the sheer volume of information, strategies, and new technology they have access to. Adopting an approach that is sensitive towards humans, design, techniques, as well as, their means of collaboration can expand the boundaries of creating enriching learning opportunities (Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio, and Koskinen, 2014). Incorporating the empathetic design approach not only keeps designers on track, but also focuses on the foundational needs of learners before incorporating anything else.
The synergy behind applying theoretical knowledge with practical applications can become an exciting opportunity for instructional designers to develop learning opportunities that can promote its learners to be innovate and creative. This can open up new possibilities of challenging them to think outside the box and to disrupt their “normal” means of thinking. How can I better understand the needs of my learners and how can I design training in such a way that helps to promote innovative thinking? As I continue to reflect upon my academic journey, it will be interesting to see how I can incorporate these approach and practices into my professional role.
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77.
January 19, 2020 at 6:09 am
Hi Eunice, great post. Your article has inspired me to wonder:
Could empathizing with the learner possibly involve sharing the underlying learning theories with them? In your post, you’ve highlighted an instructional shift from passive transfer to active application of ideas (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Perhaps a component of active application could involve not only teaching a concept, but also teaching about the way it’s being taught. If the goal of instructional designers is to be sensitive to the needs of the learner, then perhaps a learning theory does not need to be an instructional component applied behind the scenes, but could also be shared transparently along side a learning activity itself. Mattelmäki and Vaajakallio (2014) suggest that in the learning process, students must “become empathic designers on their own, and the task of professional designers is to facilitate this process” (p. 71). One way to facilitate empathic design is to be transparent. As you’ve identified, “instructional designers can easily lose sight of who their learners are due to the sheer volume of information, strategies, and new technology” (Leung, 2020, para. 2). Perhaps greater empathic design could mean involving the learner in the underlying strategies and theories an instructional designer uses.
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.
Leung, E. (2020, January 15). Piecing it All Together [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0104/piecing-it-all-together/
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design? Design Issues, 30(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00249
January 19, 2020 at 2:10 pm
Hi Eunice,
Your post is inspiring and I share your sentiments of a shift in our practice as learning designers. Empathy is important as we work with our SMEs and learners, and often times the pressure to deliver on time with limited resources and budget can pose as a hindrance to include the most important people in the design, which is the learners! Hence, breaking the status quo and traditional practices are vital to empathic design. In one of my blog posts (November 17, 2019), I mentioned that “instructional designers need to focus not only on their technical skills but also on their interpersonal and leadership skills as leaders and proponents of change”. I think as we continue our academic journey, we will also continue to experience a call to action for us to take a stand to choose between our evolving views and values or the traditions that have been in place in organizations.