We realize that much of this lesson deals with topics that you may or may not have been exposed to in EDF 6215 Learning Principles. Admittedly, there is some overlap. For you the focus for reviewing this lesson, should be to see how you can apply the learning theories to instructional design.
Having said that…. you are all probably asking this burning question:
What does learning theory have to do with Instructional Design?
The answer is not all that complex really…
Shiffman (1995) stated that providing a solid foundation in learning theory during Instructional Systems Design (ISD) training is essential because it permeates all dimensions of ISD.
Depending on the learners, the content and circumstance, different learning theories may apply at different times. As an instructional designer, you must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each theory to optimize their use in an appropriate instructional design strategy . The so-called ‘recipes’ that are contained in various ID theories may have value as theory are associated with their corresponding theoretical basis.
Last, theories are useful because they open our eyes to other possibilities and ways of seeing the world use in an appropriate instructional design strategy . The best design decisions are most certainly based on our knowledge of learning theories.
Ok, so.. you have answered that one pretty easily.. now what?
The real confusion surrounds the fact that the theories are not all mutually exclusive … nor are they clear cut. So, we have to take a stab at simplifying it…
The following review has been adapted from the wonderful work of Brenda Mergel, written over 15 years ago as a graduate student in the Educational Communications and Technology program at the University of Saskatchewan. Thanks to this wonderful stuff, we do not have to purchase a textbook…
The introduction and subsequent “sorting out” of the various learning theories and associated instructional design strategies can be somewhat confusing. For example:
- Why does it seem so difficult to differentiate between the three basic theories of learning?
- Why do the names of many theorists appear to be connected to more than one theory?
- Why do the terms and instructional strategies of each theory appear to overlap?
There are myriads of articles in the literature and Internet sites that deal with learning theory and ID.making it very difficult to know when and where to draw the line.
So we begin with what are known as the three basic categories under which most theories fall:
- behaviorism
- cognitivism
- constructivism.
To be honest, besides behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism one could also discuss such additional topics as connoisseurship, semiotics, and contextualism, (in fact we will be doing just that throughout the term). But, unless we turn this whole semester into a discussion about learning theory, it is probably a better course of action to stick to the basics.. so here goes…. the following discussions are grouped by context. Click each tabs after you feel you you have digested the previous section
What is a theory?
A theory provides a general explanation for observations made over time.
A theory explains and predicts behavior.
A theory can never be established beyond all doubt.
A theory may be modified.
Theories seldom have to be thrown out completely if thoroughly tested but sometimes a theory may be widely accepted for a long time and later disproved.
What is a model?
A model is a mental picture that helps us understand something we cannot see or experience directly. (In fact the concept of a ‘model’ (as opposed to a ‘rule’) is the centerpiece of its own emerging theory (see Chaos Theory). You may be interested in learning more about this concept….
Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism – The Basics
Click the spoiler to view the definition
These three are the prevalent theories being taught in most universities today:
Behaviorism, as a learning theory, can be traced back to Aristotle, whose essay “Memory” focused on associations being made between events such as lightning and thunder. Other philosophers that followed Aristotle’s thoughts are Hobbes , Hume, Brown, Bain, and Ebbinghause.
The theory of behaviorism concentrates on the study of overt behaviors that can be observed and measured. It views the mind as a “black box” in the sense that response to stimulus can be observed quantitatively, totally ignoring the possibility of thought processes occurring in the mind. Some key players in the development of the behaviorist theory were Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike and Skinner.
Let’s Look at some Behaviorists:
Pavlov (1849 – 1936)
For most people, the name “Pavlov” rings a bell (sorry for the pun). This Russian physiologist is best known for his work in classical conditioning or stimulus substitution. Pavlov’s most famous experiment involved food, a dog and a bell.
- Before conditioning, ringing the bell caused no response from the dog. Placing food in front of the dog initiated salivation.
- During conditioning, the bell was rung a few seconds before the dog was presented with food.
- After conditioning, the ringing of the bell alone produced salivation.
Other Observations Made by Pavlov
- Stimulus Generalization: Once the dog has learned to salivate at the sound of the bell, it will salivate at other similar sounds.
- Extinction: If you stop pairing the bell with the food, salivation will eventually cease in response to the bell.
- Spontaneous Recovery: Extinguished responses can be “recovered” after an elapsed time, but will soon extinguish again if the dog is not presented with food.
- Discrimination: The dog could learn to discriminate between similar bells (stimuli) and discern which bell would result in the presentation of food and which would not.
- Higher-Order Conditioning: Once the dog has been conditioned to associate the bell with food, another unconditioned stimulus, such as a light may be flashed at the same time that the bell is rung. Eventually the dog will salivate at the flash of the light without the sound of the bell.
Ok ok the big question is .. did the dog have a name? (sorry I am a bit ADHD (lol))
Thorndike (1874 – 1949)
Edward Thorndike researched animal behavior before becoming interested in human psychology. He set out to apply “the methods of exact science” to educational problems by emphasizing “accurate quantitative treatment of information”. “Anything that exists, exists in a certain quantity and can be measured” (Johcich). His theory, Connectionism, stated that learning was the formation of a connection between stimulus and response.
- The “law of effect” stated that when a connection between a stimulus and response is positively rewarded it will be strengthened and when it is negatively rewarded it will be weakened. Thorndike later revised this “law” when he found that negative reward, (punishment) did not necessarily weaken bonds, and that some seemingly pleasurable consequences do not necessarily motivate performance.
- The “law of exercise” held that the more an S-R (stimulus response) bond is practiced the stronger it will become. As with the law of effect, the law of exercise also had to be updated when Thorndike found that practice without feedback does not necessarily enhance performance.
- The “law of readiness” : because of the structure of the nervous system, certain conduction units, in a given situation, are more predisposed to conduct than others.
Thorndike’s laws were based on the stimulus-response hypothesis. He believed that a neural bond would be established between the stimulus and response when the response was positive. Learning takes place when the bonds are formed into patterns of behavior.
Watson (1878 – 1958)
John B. Watson was the first American psychologist to use Pavlov’s ideas. Watson is credited with coining the term “behaviorism”. Like Thorndike, he was originally involved in animal research, but later became involved in the study of human behavior.
Watson believed that humans are born with a few reflexes and the emotional reactions of love and rage. All other behavior is established through stimulus-response associations through conditioning.
Skinner (1904 – 1990)
Like Pavlov, Watson and Thorndike, Skinner believed in the stimulus-response pattern of conditioned behavior. His theory dealt with changes in observable behavior, ignoring the possibility of any processes occurring in the mind. Skinner’s 1948 book, Walden Two , is about a utopian society based on operand conditioning. He also wrote, Science and Human Behavior, (1953) in which he pointed out how the principles of operand conditioning function in social institutions such as government, law, religion, economics and education.
Skinner’s work differs from that of his predecessors (classical conditioning), in that he studied operand behavior (voluntary behaviors used in operating on the environment).
Skinner’s Operand Conditioning Mechanisms
- Positive Reinforcement or reward: Responses that are rewarded are likely to be repeated. (Good grades reinforce careful study.)
- Negative Reinforcement: Responses that allow escape from painful or undesirable situations are likely to be repeated. (Being excused from writing a final because of good term work.)
- Extinction or Non-Reinforcement: Responses that are not reinforced are not likely to be repeated. (Ignoring student misbehavior should extinguish that behavior.)
- Punishment: Responses that bring painful or undesirable consequences will be suppressed, but may reappear if reinforcement contingencies change. (Penalizing late students by withdrawing privileges should stop their lateness.)
…the mind is like a computer…
As early as the 1920’s people began to find limitations in the behaviorist approach to understanding learning. Edward Tolman found that rats used in an experiment appeared to have a mental map of the maze he was using. When he closed off a certain portion of the maze, the rats did not bother to try a certain path because they “knew” that it led to the blocked path. Visually, the rats could not see that the path would result in failure, yet they chose to take a longer route that they knew would be successful.
In addition, Behaviorists were unable to explain certain social behaviors. For example, children do not imitate all behavior that has been reinforced. Furthermore, they may model new behavior days or weeks after their first initial observation without having been reinforced for the behavior. Because of these observations, Bandura and Walters departed from the traditional operand conditioning explanation that the child must perform and receive reinforcement before being able to learn. They stated in their 1963 book, Social Learning and Personality Development, that an individual could model behavior by observing the behavior of another person. This theory lead to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory.
What is Cognitivism?
“Cognitive theorists recognize that much learning involves associations established through contiguity and repetition. They also acknowledge the importance of reinforcement, although they stress its role in providing feedback about the correctness of responses over its role as a motivator. However, even while accepting such behavioristic concepts, cognitive theorists view learning as involving the acquisition or reorganization of the cognitive structures through which humans process and store information.” (Good and Brophy, 1990, pp. 187).
As with behaviorism, cognitive psychology can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, Plato and Aristotle. The cognitive revolution became evident in American psychology during the 1950’s. One of the major players in the development of cognitivism is Jean Piaget, who developed the major aspects of his theory as early as the 1920’s. Piaget’s ideas did not impact North America until the 1960’s after Miller and Jermone Bruner founded the Harvard Center for Cognitive studies.
Key Concepts of Cognitive Theory
- Schema – An internal knowledge structure. New information is compared to existing cognitive structures called “schema”. Schema may be combined, extended or altered to accommodate new information.
- Three-Stage Information Processing Model– input first enters a sensory register, then is processed in short-term memory, and then is transferred to long-term memory for storage and retrieval.
- Sensory Register – receives input from senses which lasts from less than a second to four seconds and then disappears through decay or replacement. Much of the information never reaches short term memory but all information is monitored at some level and acted upon if necessary.
- Short-Term Memory (STM) – sensory input that is important or interesting is transferred from the sensory register to the STM. Memory can be retained here for up to 20 seconds or more if rehearsed repeatedly. Short-term memory can hold up to 7 plus or minus 2 items. STM capacity can be increased if material is chunked into meaningful parts.
- Long-Term Memory and Storage (LTM) – stores information from STM for long term use. Long-term memory has unlimited capacity. Some materials are “forced” into LTM by rote memorization and over learning. Deeper levels of processing such as generating linkages between old and new information are much better for successful retention of material.
- Meaningful Effects – Meaningful information is easier to learn and remember. (see Cofer). If a learner links relatively meaningless information with prior schema it will be easier to retain. (see Wittrock, Marks, & Doctorow)
- Serial Position Effects – It is easier to remember items from the beginning or end of a list rather than those in the middle of the list, unless that item is distinctly different.
- Practice Effects – Practicing or rehearsing improves retention especially when it is distributed practice. By distributing practices the learner associates the material with many different contexts rather than the one context afforded by mass practice.
- Transfer Effects – The effects of prior learning on learning new tasks or material.
- Interference Effects – Occurs when prior learning interferes with the learning of new material.
- Organization Effects – When a learner categorizes input such as a grocery list, it is easier to remember.
- Levels of Processing Effects – Words may be processed at a low-level sensory analysis of their physical characteristics to high-level semantic analysis of their meaning. (see Craik and Lockhart). The more deeply a word is process the easier it will be to remember.
- State Dependent Effects – If learning takes place within a certain context it will be easier to remember within that context rather than in a new context.
- Mnemonic Effects – Mnemonics are strategies used by learners to organize relatively meaningless input into more meaningful images or semantic contexts. For example, the notes of a musical scale can be remembered by the rhyme: Every Good Boy Does Fine.
- Schema Effects – If information does not fit a person’s schema it may be more difficult for them to remember and what they remember or how they conceive of it may also be affected by their prior schema.
- Advance Organizers – Ausebel – advance organizers prepare the learner for the material they are about to learn. They are not simply outlines of the material, but are material that will enable the student to make sense out of the lesson.
Bartlett pioneered what became the constructivist approach. Constructivists believe that “learners construct their own reality or at least interpret it based upon their perceptions of experiences, so an individual’s knowledge is a function of one’s prior experiences, mental structures, and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events.” “What someone knows is grounded in perception of the physical and social experiences which are comprehended by the mind.” .
If each person has their own view about reality, then how can we as a society communicate and/or coexist? Jonassen, addressing this issue in his article Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model, makes the following comments:
- “Perhaps the most common misconception of constructivism is the inference that we each therefore construct a unique reality, that reality is only in the mind of the knower, which will doubtlessly lead to intellectual anarchy.”
- “A reasonable response to that criticism is the Gibsonian perspective that contends that there exists a physical world that is subject to physical laws that we all know in pretty much the same way because those physical laws are perceivable by humans in pretty much the same way.”
- “Constructivists also believe that much of reality is shared through a process of social negotiation…”
If one searches through the many philosophical and psychological theories of the past, the threads of constructivism may be found in the writing of such people as Bruner, Ulrick, Neiser, Goodman, Kant, Kuhn, Dewey and Habermas. The most profound influence was Jean Piaget‘s work which was interpreted and extended by von Glasserfield.
Realistic vs. Radical Construction
- Realistic constructivism – cognition is the process by which learners eventually construct mental structures that correspond to or match external structures located in the environment.
- Radical constructivism – cognition serves to organize the learners experiential world rather than to discover ontological reality
The Assumptions of Constructivism – Merrill
- knowledge is constructed from experience
- learning is a personal interpretation of the world
- learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of experience
- conceptual growth comes from the negotiation of meaning, the sharing of multiple perspectives and the changing of our internal representations through collaborative learning
- learning should be situated in realistic settings; testing should be integrated with the task and not a separate activity
So, are you good and confused yet? Well, you should be!!!!!
It is really difficult to pin down what theory a certain theorist belongs to. Just when you think you have it all categorized… a name you originally thought was in the behavioral category shows up in a constructivism article!!!
This problem is often the result of theorists and their ideas that evolve over time (I mean they are just THEORIES after all!!!) Here is a good example:
Davidson (1998) includes the following example in an article she wrote:
“Considered by most to be representative of behaviorist learning paradigm, Robert Gagne’s theory of learning and events of instruction have evolved progressively to approach a more cognitive theory. His discussion of relating present information and past knowledge (event #3) and the inclusion of learning transfer (event#9) are indicative of this shift toward constructivism.”
The following series of discussions cover the relationship between theories and Instructional Design (ID)
Behavioral Objectives:
A behavioral objective states learning objectives in “specified, quantifiable, terminal behaviors”. Behavioral objectives can be summed up using the mnemonic device ABCD:
Example: After having completed the unit the student will be able to answer correctly 90% of the questions on the post-test.
- A – Audience – the student
- B – Behavior – answer correctly
- C – Condition – after having completed the unit, on a post test
- D – Degree – 90% correct
To develop behavioral objectives a learning task must be broken down through analysis into specific measurable tasks. The learning success may be measured by tests developed to measure each objective.
Taxonomic Analysis of Learning Behaviors
- Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning – In 1956 Bloom and his colleagues began development of a taxonomy in the cognitive, attitudinal (affect) and psycho-motor domains. Many people are familiar with Bloom’s Cognitive taxonomy:
- knowledge
- comprehension
- application
- analysis
- synthesis
- evaluation
of course this has been added to and adjusted over time, but this still remains the seminal structure that we still follow today…. these have also been translated to the affect and the psycho-motor domains
- Gagne’s Taxonomy of Learning – Robert Gagne developed his taxonomy of learning in 1972. Gagne’s taxonomy was comprised of five categories:
- verbal information
- intellectual skill
- cognitive strategy
- attitude
- motor skill
Mastery Learning
Mastery learning was originally developed by Morrison in the 1930s. His formula for mastery was “Pretest, teach, test the result, adapt procedure, teach and test again to the point of actual learning.” (Morrison, 1931, in Saettler, 1990). Mastery learning assumes that all students can master the materials presented in the lesson. Bloom further developed Morrison’s plan, but mastery learning is more effective for the lower levels of learning on Bloom’s taxonomy, and not appropriate for higher level learning (Saettler, 1990).
By the late 1960’s most K-12 teachers were writing and using behavioral objectives. There were, of course, people who questioned the breaking down of subject material into small parts, believing that it would lead away from an understanding of the “whole”.
Accountability Movement
A movement known as scientific management of industry arose in the early 1900s in response to political and economic factors of that time. Franklin Bobbitt proposed utilization of this system in education stressing that the standards and direction of education should stem from the consumer – society. (WOW ! does this sound familiar??????)
Bobbitt’s ideas exemplified the idea of accountability, competency-based education and performance-based education, which because of similar economic and political factors, experienced a revival in America during the late 1960s and 1970s (back to the future!!!!!).
Teaching Machines
Although the elder Sophists, Comenius, Herbart and Montessori used the concept of programmed instruction in their repertoire, B.F. Skinner is the most current and probably best known advocate of teaching machines and programmed learning. Contributors to this movement include the following:
- Pressey – introduced a multiple-choice machine at the 1925 American Psychological Association meeting.
- Peterson – a former student of Pressey’s who developed “chemosheets” in which the learner checked their answers with a chemical-dipped swab.
- W.W.II – devises called “phase checks”, constructed in the 1940s and 1950s, taught and tested such skills and disassembly-assembly of equipment.
- Crowder – designed a branched style of programming for the US Air force in the 1950s to train troubleshooters to find malfunctions in electronic equipment.
- Skinner – based on operand conditioning Skinner’s teaching machine required the learner to complete or answer a question and then receive feedback on the correctness of the response. Skinner demonstrated his machine in 1954.
Other concepts:
- Programmed instruction
- CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction
- Program for Learning
- Systems Approach – yes,.. the dawn of ISD Instructional Systems design still being used in the military… but think about it.. in the psych
Although cognitive psychology emerged in the late 1950s and began to take over as the dominant theory of learning, it wasn’t until the late 1970s that cognitive science began to have its influence on instructional design. Cognitive science began a shift from behavioristic practices which emphasized external behavior, to a concern with the internal mental processes of the mind and how they could be utilized in promoting effective learning.
The design models that had been developed in the behaviorist tradition were not simply tossed out, but instead the task analysis andlearner analysis parts of the models were embellished. The new models addressed component processes of learning such as knowledge coding and representation, information storage and retrieval as well as the incorporation and integration of new knowledge with previous information.
Cognitivism and Behaviorism are both governed by an objective view of the nature of knowledge and what it means to know something, so the transition from behavioral instructional design principles to those of a cognitive style was not entirely difficult.
The goal of instruction remained the communication or transfer of knowledge to learners in the most efficient, effective manner possible (Bednar et al., in Anglin, 1995). For example, the breaking down of a task into small steps works for a behaviorist who is trying to find the most efficient and fail proof method of shaping a learner’s behavior. The cognitive scientist would analyze a task, break it down into smaller steps or chunks and use that information to develop instruction that moves from simple to complex building on prior schema.
The influence of cognitive science in instructional design is evidenced by the use of advance organizers, mnemonic devices, metaphors, chunking into meaningful parts and the careful organization of instructional materials from simple to complex.
Computer-Based Instruction
Computers process information in a similar fashion to how cognitive scientists believe humans process information: receive, store and retrieve. This analogy makes the possibility of programming a computer to “think” like a person conceivable, i.e.. artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence involve the computer working to supply appropriate responses to student input from the computer’s data base. A trouble-shooting programs is one example of these programs. Below is a list of some programs and their intended use:
- SCHOLAR – teaches facts about South American geography in a Socratic method
- PUFF – diagnoses medical patients for possible pulmonary disorders
- MYCIN – diagnoses blood infections and prescribes possible treatment
- DENDRAL – enables a chemist to make an accurate guess about the molecular structure of an unknown compound
- META-DENDRAL – makes up its own molecular fragmentation rules in an attempt to explain sets of basic data
- GUIDION – a derivative of the MYCIN program that gave a student information about a case and compared their diagnosis with what MYCIN would suggest
- SOPIE – helps engineers troubleshoot electronic equipment problems
- BUGGY – allows teachers to diagnose causes for student mathematical errors
- LOGO – designed to help children learn to program a computer
- Davis’ math programs for the PLATO system – to encourage mathematical development through discovery
The shift of instructional design from behaviorism to cognitivism was not as dramatic as the move into constructivism appears to be, since behaviorism and cognitivism are both objective in nature.
Behaviorism and cognitivism both support the practice of analyzing a task and breaking it down into manageable chunks, establishing objectives, and measuring performance based on those objectives. Constructivism, on the other hand, promotes a more open-ended learning experience where the methods and results of learning are not easily measured and may not be the same for each learner.
While behaviorism and constructivism are very different theoretical perspectives, cognitivism shares some similarities with constructivism. An example of their compatibility is the fact that they share the analogy of comparing the processes of the mind to that of a computer.
Other examples of the link between cognitive theory and constructivism are:
- schema/Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Bartlett/Spiro)
- connectionism (Bereiter)
- hypermedia (Tolhurst)
- multimedia (Dede)
Despite these similarities between cognitivism and constructivism, the objective side of cognitivism supported the use of models (rather than rules) to be used in the systems approach of instructional design. Constructivism is not compatible with the present systems approach to instructional design, as Jonassen points out :
- “The conundrum that constructivism poses for instructional designers, however, is that if each individual is responsible for knowledge construction, how can we as designers determine and insure a common set of outcomes for leaning, as we have been taught to do?” (Jonasson) In the same article, Jonassen lists the following implications of constructivism for instructional design:
“…purposeful knowledge construction may be facilitated by learning environments which:
- Provide multiple representations of reality – avoid oversimplification of instruction by by representing the natural complexity of the world
- Present authentic tasks – contextualize
- Provide real-world, case-based learning environments, rather than predetermined instructional sequences
- Foster reflective practice
- Enable context- and content-dependent knowledge construction
- Support collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation, not competition among learners for recognition
- “Although we believe that constructivism is not a prescriptive theory of instruction, it should be possible to provide more explicit guidelines on how to design learning environments that foster constructivist learning”
-
Constructivism and Instructional Media
The technological advances of the 1980s and 1990s have enabled designers to move toward a more constructivist approach to design of instruction. One of the most useful tools for the constructivist designer is hypertext and hypermedia because it allows for a branched design rather than a linear format of instruction. Hyperlinks allow for learner control which is crucial to constructivist learning; however, there is some concerns over the novice learner becoming “lost” in a sea of hypermedia.
To address this concern, Jonassen and McAlleese (Jonnassen & McAlleese, [On-line]) note that each phase of knowledge acquisition requires different types of learning and that initial knowledge acquisition is perhaps best served by classical instruction with predetermined learning outcomes, sequenced instructional interaction and criterion-referenced evaluation while the more advanced second phase of knowledge acquisition is more suited to a constructivist environment.
If a novice learner is unable to establish an “anchor” in a hypermedia environment they may wander aimlessly through hypermedia becoming completely disoriented. Reigeluth and Chung suggest a prescriptive system which advocates increased learner control. In this method, students have some background knowledge and have been given some instruction in developing their own metacognitive strategies and have some way to return along the path they have taken, should they become “lost”. (Davidson, 1998)
Most literature on constructivist design suggests that learners should not simply be let loose in a hypermedia or hypertext environment, but that a mix of old and new (objective and constructive) instruction/learning design be implemented. In other words, perhaps an eclectic approach is best.
Not everyone agrees with this approach however… many are impassioned by the constructivist approach almost militant about it….
What is the difference between the learning theories in terms of the practice of instructional design?
Is one approach more easily achieved than another?
To address this, one may consider that cognitive theory is the dominant theory in instructional design and many of the instructional strategies advocated and utilized by behaviorists are also used by cognitivists, but for different reasons. For example, behaviorists assess learners to determine a starting point for instruction, while cognitivists look at the learner to determine their predisposition to learning.
With this in mind, the practice of instructional design can be viewed from a behaviorist/cognitivist approach as opposed to a constructivist approach.
- When designing from a behaviorist/cognitivist stance, the designer analyzes the situation and sets a goal.
- Individual tasks are broken down and learning objectives are developed.
- Evaluation consists of determining whether the criteria for the objectives has been met.
In this approach the designer decides what is important for the learner to know and attempts to transfer that knowledge to the learner. The learning package is somewhat of a closed system, since although it may allow for some branching and remediation, the learner is still confined to the designer’s “world”.
To design from a constructivist approach requires that the designer produce a product that is much more descriptive and facilitative in nature than prescriptive. The content is not pre-specified, direction is determined by the learner and assessment is much more subjective because it does not depend on specific quantitative criteria, but rather the process and self-evaluation of the learner.
The standard pencil-and-paper tests of mastery learning are not used in constructive design; instead, evaluation is based on notes, reflections, early drafts, final products and journals.
(ok now the secret is out.. this course is at least approaching the constructivist point of view.. sorry all you behaviorist out there!)
Because of the divergent, subjective nature of constructive learning, it is easier for a designer to work from the systems, and thus the objective approach to instructional design. That is not to say that classical instructional design techniques are better than constructive design, but it is easier, less time consuming and most likely less expensive to design within a “closed system” rather than an “open” one.
Perhaps there is some truth in the statement that “Constructivism is a ‘learning theory’, more than a ‘teaching approach’.
Jonnassen in Manifesto for a Constructive Approach to Technology in Higher Education identifies the following types of learning and matched them with what he believes to be appropriate learning theory approaches.
- Introductory Learning – learners have very little directly transferable prior knowledge about a skill or content area. They are at the initial stages of schema assembly and integration. At this stage classical instructional design is most suitable because it is predetermined, constrained, sequential and criterion-referenced. The learner can develop some anchors for further exploration.
- Advanced Knowledge Acquisition – follows introductory knowledge and precedes expert knowledge. At this point constructivist approaches may be introduced.
- Expertise is the final stage of knowledge acquisition. In this stage the learner is able to make intelligent decisions within the learning environment. A constructivist approach would work well in this case.
Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory organizes instruction in increasing order of complexity and moves from prerequisite learning to learner control may work in the eclectic approach to instructional design, since the learner can be introduced to the main concepts of a course and then move on to more of a self directed study that is meaningful to them and their particular context.
In order to make sense of all of this, we need to contextualize your decision process by answering in your mind, the following questions:
- How does learning occur?
- Which factors influence learning?
- What is the role of memory?
- How does transfer occur?
- What types of learning are best explained in the theory?These questions then cascade down to the designer:
- What are the basic assumptions are relevant to the design of my instruction?
- How should the instruction be structured to facilitate learning?
Write a short white paper that helps you crystallize your thinking. In it think about your final project (a unit of instruction)… attempt to identify up to three theories upon which you will base your instruction (the Tip data base (the link is below) is the best source) …
Answer the above questions to justify the structure of your unit. In other words your unit must be theory based… this assignment is practice (or a way to get good feedback, if you have your final unit all figured out already)
Now, it is understood that you may not have your final project figured out yet. So, to do this activity, you will need to create a hypothetical one just for practice.
In the paper describe the unit, a summary of the goals and objectives, then select at least three learning theories from the TIP Data Base and identify your rationale for picking them and how they relate to the principles of the lesson and how they will be applied. Being concise is the real problem here.. because I am asking you to be as concise as possible.. maybe think it out BEFORE you write anything…
Post your paper on the Drop Box
Less is more here…