Being presented with the many theoretical frameworks contained in both articles was overwhelming and having to select just one theoretical position was easier said than done. Each theory seems to align with a specific objective, whether it be the creation of subject matter, or teaching and learning of said topic. Because of this, I found it difficult to decide which framework resonated with both my own learning style, as well as my day-to-day work as an educator. As Ertmer and Newby so eloquently stated, “individuals addressing practical learning problems cannot afford the luxury of restricting themselves to only one theoretical position . . .” (2013, P.45).

In my experience, Behavioural Learning Theory seems most common and best being applied to the current classroom/learning environment, as it is a measurable theory where “the learner is characterized as being reactive to conditions in the environment as opposed to taking an active role in discovering the environment” (Ertmer and Newby, 2013, P.48). Although I feel this stimulus – response learning is most common, it is one that I try to stay away from in my role as an educator as I feel it is a dated instructional design that does not help with learning, merely memorizing and testing. With that being said, my hands are often tied regarding what the college I teach at dictates as learning material and teaching method, and I notice I still must follow the path of Behavioural Learning Theory.

Upon reviewing all the theories presented, I felt that Collaborative Problem-Solving theory was more my speed, though I was also pulled towards Learning by Doing (Merrill, 2002), though both these theories apply only to a small section of my life and I found they were not conducive in my day-to-day work. I don’t always have the luxury of collaborating with others in my current role, nor practicing all work-related tasks prior to integration. I am currently not working, so I had to take a step back and evaluate what my actual day-to-day activities are, which means I was looking at the theories from the perspective of a learner and student opposed to my regular full-time position.

After lots of back and forth and some mild soul searching, Cognitivism Learning Theory is where I aligned myself as both a student and within my profession, as it resonated the most in my day-to- day life. I feel that Cognitivism offers a well-rounded learning experience by focusing on how an individual can learn and store knowledge, how to retrieve and process the information, and how to rationalize the thought process with feedback being a key factor. I feel it makes more sense to implore this learning theory in my day to day life, whether it be as a student, or instructor. When it comes to teaching, it is said that there is not much difference between Behaviourism and Cognitivism theories (Merrill, 2002). However, my role continually adapts as an educator and I feel that looking at learning through the lens of a student allows me to remain alert and cognizant to the wants and needs of the classroom environment. As a leaner, knowing that my “thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values are also considered” (Ertmer and Newby, 2013, p.52) within the theoretical framework makes me feel more valued, therefore it makes me more eager to learn and apply the knowledge. Cognitivism Learning Theory expands and develops on “complex forms of learning” (Ertmer and Newby, 2013, P.52), which infers that this theory is more focused on the learner and what they take away from their education and overall experience. Knowing I must follow a behavioural model at work, allows me to have a little bit of freedom and autonomy by introducing a bridge into Cognitivism for both myself and my students.

References

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26, 43–71.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.