‘Behaviorism’… ‘Transfer of knowledge’… These are familiar terms for me. They take me back to a time about ten years ago when my son was immersed in ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) therapy for his autism. It’s a go-to method of learning for kids on the spectrum, and like behaviorism relies heavily and repetition and reinforcement learning.

It’s effective, up to a point. In my experience, it’s a simplistic learning theory, that does have its place. Behavioral learning works for math skills, word comprehension, and other knowledge that requires repetitive teaching strategies in order to forge the neural pathways that allow it to stick in a learner’s brain. I agree with Ertmer and Newby when they state that “it is generally agreed that behavioral principles cannot adequately explain the acquisition of higher level skills or those that require a greater depth of processing (Ertmer, Newby, p. 49) “. I found that my son’s therapists eventually discarded this rote learning strategy when it came to more complex human skills like social interaction. It was just far too nuanced to be broken down into repetitive and measurable tasks.

Similarly, this passage describing the underpinnings of constructivism spurred a lot of thought: “Humans create meaning as opposed to acquiring it. Since there are many possible meanings to glean from any experience, we cannot achieve a predetermined, ‘correct’ meaning (Ertmer, Newby, p.55).” This weekend, our family watched Inside Bill Gates Brain: Decoding Bill Gates on Netflix. Gates’ life is built on looking at things in new ways, and finding fresh ways to solve problems. Gates’ has an ability to create new meaning from the same details that others examine and create conclusions that default to existing thinking. By finding new meaning, Gates’ and his fellow thinkers create innovative and often elegant solutions. One example is how Gates leads engineers and inventors to build a new self-contained and self-powered sewage treatment system designed to work in African cities such as Dakar. The solution came not from repeating patterns which had been trying before, but by going to Dakar, analyzing the problem and coming up with a unique approach.

However, constructivism cannot exist on its own. I agree with Ertmer and Newby’s assessment that behaviorist, cognitivist and constructionist theories form a continuum of learning. The engineers who came up with an elegant solution to the sewage challenges of Dakar began their learning career with simple math skills, most likely taught with a behaviorist approach. Cognitivist learning allowed them to transfer these skills to more complex engineering applications. Constructivist learning allowed them to apply all their learned knowledge in a brand new way to solve a specific problem. They were able to take their previous learning and apply it to a problem which was “messy and ill-formed and the solutions depend on inventiveness, improvisation, discussion, and social negotiation (Ertmer, Newby, p. 62).”

I believe that decreeing that one model of learning is accurate, and superior to another is like saying a pitchfork is always better than a shovel. Models are tools to assist us in understanding learning and designing means of learning. The brain’s complexity defies any simplistic definition or prescription.

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

Guggenheim, Davis (2019). Inside Bill’s Brain: Decoding Bill Gates. Retrieved from www.netflix.com

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024