Ertmer and Newby (2013) postulated that many instructional designers are inhibited by an inadequate understanding of foundational learning theories, and in their paper, intended to familiarize designers with three original learning positions.  Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are dissected and evaluated for practical applications in learning environments.

The authors convincingly argued that instructional designers possess two requisite skills and knowledge: understanding the position of the practitioner and using evidence-based research to implement solutions (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.43). Exploration of these three foundational theories was not a new exercise; however, the way the authors analyzed the theories through comprehensive comparison allowed for a fresh review and contemplation.  Although not only one theory can apply to all situations, within my past teaching practice, I have aligned most closely with a constructivist approach.  Learning to work in a healthcare setting, requires that students are reflective, self-directed, critical thinkers in real-world (often in crisis) situations. According to Ertmer and Newby (2013), constructivism links experiences and meaning-making, and does not merely passively obtain knowledge, but rather create and interpret meaning from their interactions and experiences.  When teaching medical language foundations, I would collaborate with nursing instructors and design simulated patient scenarios where students in different programs could practice speaking the medical language to each other and interact in context. In these simulated scenarios, students could reflect and decide what they might do differently based on previous interactions. During the simulations, there were plenty of opportunities to pause, reflect, and make meaning.  Brandon and All (2010) suggested that healthcare instructors who allow for regular assessments of activities and debriefing through questioning, enable students to learn strategies that help them actively learn, and to become life-long learners. This constructivist approach in my previous healthcare education teaching experiences seemingly adheres to the first principles of instruction identified by Merrill (2002, p.43).

Merrill (2002) identified five principles of instruction which are arguably commonplace in a variety of learning theories. In using a constructivist design, healthcare instructors planning simulation activities are supporting learners in solving real-world problems, in accessing and applying previous knowledge, in the demonstration of new skills by instructors and peers, and by integrating new knowledge into an experiential world; which aligns with Merrill’s (2002) identified principles of instruction.

Both articles argued that learning theories are needed to underpin the instructional design and to implement appropriate teaching and learning strategies. Surprisingly, neither article heavily emphasizes the need for connectedness, peer interaction, or social schemas.  Philosophically, I feel that this interaction and exposure to peers and instructors is crucial, and much research has emerged that supports building classroom community and that creating student connections with each other and with instructors has a beneficial impact on the learning. McInnis Brown and Starrett (2017, para.3) surveyed students who answered questions on connectedness and their academic experience overall and found that almost all (94%) of those surveyed revealed they felt that connectedness improved their overall academic performance, provided a sense of safety and security, was motivating and assist with memory retention.  Vygotsky (1978) argued that all mental functions be explained as products of social interactions, and I tend to agree with his theory; I have never seen students as energized and keen to learn as when they are in interactive learning situations: simulations, role plays, group collaboration and problem-solving activities.  In my new role, I will be working with faculty from various programs and subject areas, and as an instructional strategist will be mindful that not all learning theories will apply to all situations; but I will carry forward Merrill’s first principles of instruction as a starting point in my hunt for the appropriate theory.

References

Brandon, A., & All, A. (2010). Constructivism theory analysis and application to curricula. Nursing Perspectives, 31(2), 89-92. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/202a/292c5625ef9abfb8e611e71677626d2cea11.pdf

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26, 43-71. doi:10.1002/piq.21143

McInnis Brown, M., & Starrett, T. (2017, April). Fostering student connectedness: Building relationships in the classroom. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/fostering-student-connectedness-building-relationships-classroom/

Merrill, D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 50, 43. doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/BF02505024

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press.