When I hear the word “theory,” I rarely consider its practical validity or think about how it applies to my real-world experiences. Ertmer and Newby (2013) explore the theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, offering insights not only into their historical development but also into how these theories can be effectively applied in instructional design. The authors argue that theories and instructional design can be used as a prescriptive strategy, like how a doctor prescribes an effective remedy to solve a problem. Ertmer and Newby (2013) argue that instructional designers (IDers) cannot afford the “luxury of restricting themselves to only one theoretical position” (Snelbecker, 1983, as cited in Ertmer and Newby, 2013). They hope that IDers and educators will become more informed “consumers” of the strategies each viewpoint offers, using them as a foundation for making critical decisions about objectives and instructional strategies.
Ertmer and Newby (2013) build on the five distinguishing questions proposed by Schunk (1991) to help identify the characteristics of each learning theory and add two more questions specifically tailored to the needs of instructional designers. Since theories often address broad, overarching questions, it’s logical to distinguish between them using more specific inquiries. Each subtle difference in the answers helps readers identify recommended strategies for learning, considering factors such as the complexity of the skill or the environment, and apply these insights to their own work. The first question, “How does learning occur?” serves as a viable differentiator, as supported by evidence in the article. The following four questions— “Which factors influence learning?”, “What is the role of memory?”, “How does transfer occur?”, and “What types of learning are best explained by the theory?”—are also crucial and have expanded my understanding of the differences between these complex theories.
Ertmer and Newby (2013) add questions specifically geared towards instructional designers, asking: What basic assumptions/principles of this theory are relevant to instructional design, and how should instruction be structured to facilitate learning? Knowledge of these last two questions provides a foundation for instructional designers to apply theoretical knowledge to the process of designing curriculum, with empowering results.
Two additional questions I would propose are: (1) What role do social connections play in learning according to each theory, and how should instructional designers incorporate this? And (2) How do these theories consider long-term retention and transfer of knowledge and skills? The first question touches on the modern theory of connectivism, which posits that learning occurs through networks, particularly social ones (Kroft, 2013). This question is similar to “How should instruction be structured?” but with a focus on social interaction. If behaviorist theories imply that teachers need to arrange environmental conditions, and cognitive theories emphasize making knowledge meaningful by connecting it to existing knowledge (Ertmer & Newby, 2013), then we also need to consider how students create meaning through their social networks and how to incorporate this into instructional design. Emphasizing the relationships and interactions between people could enhance learning and sustain long-term knowledge.
My second question addresses retaining knowledge beyond the instructional period, a topic not explicitly discussed in the article. While it is alluded to in the questions “How does learning occur?” and “Which factors influence learning?”, it is not fully explored. Ertmer and Newby (2013) describe constructivism as an interaction between the mind as the source of meaning and individual experience with the environment, focusing knowledge on the present moment. Even when discussing memory through the constructivist lens, they only briefly touch on lasting learning, mentioning factors such as “activity (practice), concept (knowledge), and culture (context)” (Brown et al., 1989, as cited in Ertmer & Newby, 2013). This deserves further exploration: Which of these factors—practice, knowledge, or context—is most important in creating long-lasting knowledge and behaviors?
Ertmer and Newby (2013) conclude by discussing how designers should balance learner, content, and strategies by offering various approaches from each learning theory along a “low-to-high knowledge continuum.” They argue that tasks requiring a low degree of processing should use behaviorist strategies, tasks requiring more processing should use cognitive strategies, and tasks requiring high levels of processing should use constructivist strategies. This might explain why, in a master’s program, we are in a situated learning environment, applying these learned concepts to real-life situations and projects that instructional designers will use to solve real-world problems.
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
Kroft, D. (2013). Connectivism: 21st century’s new learning theory. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017519.pdf
Leave a Reply