Through reading Ertmer and Newby (2013) and Merrill (2002), the two articles introduced me to a variety of instructional theoretical approaches that can be applied to my day-to-day work. To select one

one instructional theoretical perspective to align with was a challenge, as no single learning theory can be applied to all contexts of learning. Nevertheless, the theoretical approach from the two articles that most strongly corresponds with my work is Jonassen’s Constructivist Learning Environment (CLE). I chose this theory because it is problem based, which reflects my work within an academic department focused on art and design programs. Though my college does not have a specific learning model that the school universally follows, CLE closely aligns with how the content in my specific department is taught.

Selecting a single approach required reflection and consideration, as one of my major takeaways from the articles was that instructional theories can be very contextual, thus, more than one approach may be relevant to a learning environment. Ertmer and Newby (2013) stated that “given the myriad of potential design situations, the designer’s best approach may not ever be identical to any previous approach, but will truly depend upon the context” (p. 62), which emphasizes how varied methods of learning design are necessary to be effective. Furthermore, selecting an individual approach is challenging, as many instructional theories are similar, in that they share essential principles (Merrill, 2002). Though an educational institution may root their instructional approach in a specific theory, having a solid grasp of a variety of theories and being able to use different elements of them as needed, may be the best approach for an instructional designer (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Constructivist Learning Environment is the theoretical position I feel is most relevant to the disciplines in which I work. Constructivism is were students use their own experiences and interpretation of the world to create meaning from what they are being taught (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). As Ertmer and Newby (2013) explained “constructivists believe that the mind filters input from the world to produce its own unique reality” (p. 55), which reflects my experience working with students who are in highly artistic and imaginative fields of study. The instructor provides the context for the learning and uses multiple examples and problems to convey how what is being taught can be applied. The professor monitors, coaches and adjusts tasks as needed, with the goal that students will take the information and situations presented, developing their own contextualized learning, reflect on their productivity and move beyond the initial teachings.

The art and design programs in my department all teach creative content, whether it is analog such as, painting or sculpting, or digital like, 3D modelling or digital video effects. Moreover, the students are experienced artists with their own aesthetic, coming from diverse artistic backgrounds, and requiring strong portfolios to enter the programs. Learning is approached through problem solving, which is why most courses consist of working through different projects that have progressively more difficult techniques and elements added to them. Within these projects, students work independently, as well as collaboratively, while assimilating the information provided in a way that creates meaning for them. Even though, arguably, all students receive the same information and observe the same demonstrations by faculty, each student’s individual experience, artistic expression and visual aesthetic lead them to discover and use artistic mediums, such as paint or software, in different ways. These varying outcomes allow for students to reflect on their output, as well as to gain valuable insight by observing what others have created.

In selecting constructivism as presented in the two articles, it most aligned as an instructional design approach with how I have experienced students day-to-day in creative industries engaging in meaningful learning. With that said, it is important to recognize that many design approaches have overlapping elements, and thus can be applied to varied environments. As well, understanding that learning is a highly contextual experience, is imperative to the design process.

 

References:

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. doi: 10.1002/piq

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