Post on 02-Jun-2018
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
1/23
Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (1993) 'Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective',Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 6(4): 50-72.
PerfOT mfJlu:e
Improvement
Qu.c:wterly.
6(4)
pp
6(} 12
PeggyA
rtmer
Purdue
University
Timothy
J.
Newby
Poroue
University
bstract
The
way we
define learning and what we believe about the way learning occurs has
important implications for situations in which we want to facilitate changes in what
people know and do. Learning theories provide instructional designers with verified
instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning, as well as a foundation for
intelligent strategy selection. Yet many designers are operating under the constraints of a
limited theoretical background. This paper is an attempt to familiarise designers with
three relevant positions
on
learning (behavioural, cognitive and constructivist) which
provide structural foundations for planning and conducting instructional design activities.
Each learning perspective is discussed in terms
of
its specific interpretations
of
the
learning process and the resulting implications for instructional designers and educational
practitioners. The information presented here provides the reader with a comparison
of
these three different viewpoints and illustrate how these differences might
be
translated
into practical applications in instructional situations.
The need
for
a bridge betweenba-
sic
learningresearch
and
educational
practice has long been discussed. To
ensure
a
strong
connection between
these
two
areas,
Dewey (cited
n
Reigeluth, 1983) called for the
cre-
ation and development of a linking
science ;
Tyler
(1978) a 'middleman
position ; and Lynch (1945) for em
ploying
an
engineering analogy
88
an aid for translating
theory
into
practice.
In each
case, the respective
author highlighted the information
and
potential contributions of avail
able learning theories, the
pressing
problems faced
by those dealingwith
practicalleaming issues,
and
a gen-
50
aral lack of
W ing
the former to facili
tate
801utionsforthe
latter.
The
value
of such a bridgi,ng 'function would be
its ability
to tranldate
relevant as
pects
of
the learning theories into
optimal instructiona l actions. As
de
scribed
by
Reigeluth (1983, p. 6), the
field
of Instructional
Design per-
forms this role.
Instructiona l designers
have been
charged with
translating
prindples
ofleamingandinstruction intoepeci
fications for instructional materials
andactivities (Smith& Ragan.
1995)
p. 12 . To achieve this goal,
two
sets
of
skills and lm.owledge
are
needed.
First,
the designer
must
understand
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
2/23
the
position
of the
practitioner.
n
this regard, the rollowiq questions
would e relevant: What are the
situational and contextual con-
straints of
the
application?
What is
the degree of individual clliferences
among
the
learners?
What form.
of
solutions will or wiD
not
e accepted
by the
learners as well as
by those
actually teaching the materiaia?
The
designer
must
have the ability to di-
agnose and analyze practical learn
ro problems. Just as a doctor cannot
prescribe
an
eft'ective remedy with-
out a proper diagnosis, the instruc-
tional designer caMot properly rec-
ommend
an
effective prescriptive so-
lution
withoutanaceurate
analysiBof
the
instructional problem.
n
addition to understanding and
n lyzing the problem. a second oore
of knOWledge and
skills
is
needed
to
bridge or link application with
:research-that
of undemanding
the
potential sources of80lutions (i.e.,the
theories of human learning).
Through
thie
understanding,
a
proper prescriptive solution
can be
matched
with
a given diagnosed
problem.
The
critical link. therefore,
is not between the design ofinetruc-
tion and. an autonomous body of
knowledge about instructional pbe.
nomena, but between instructional
de ip inues and the theories ofhu
man
learning
Why this emphasis
on
leaming
theory and
:reselU Ch?
First, te ming
theories are a source
of
verified in-
stroctional
strategies, tactics,
and
techniques. Kuowledgeofavarietyof
such
strategies
is
critical when
at
tempting to select
an
effective
pre.
scription for overooming a given
in
struct ional problem. Second, learn-
ing
theories provide
the
foundation
for intelligent
and
reasoned strategy
VOLUME 6,
NUMml4/1993
selection
Designers
must
have
an
adequate repertoi1 6
of strategies
available.and possess
the
knowledge
of when andwhy to employ each.
This
knowledge depends on the designers
ability to match the demands
of
the
task with an
instructional
strategy
that
help; the leamer. Third,
inte-
gration
of
the selected strategy
within the instructional context
is
of
critical importance. Learning theo-
ries
and
:research often provide infor-
mation
about relationships among
instructional
components
and
the
design
of instruction, indicating how
specific techniques/strategies might
best fit within a
given context
and
with specific learners (Keller, 1979).
Finally, the ultimate role
of
a theory
is
to allow for reliable prediction
(Richey, 1986). Effective solutions to
practical instructional problems
are
ofl:enconstrained
by
limited
time
and
resources. It
s paramount
that those
strategies selected and implemented
have
the
highest
chance for success.
As
suggested
by
Warnes
(1990), a
selection based on strong research
is
much
more reliable th n one based
on
instructional
phenomena.
The tuk of
translating
leaming
theory into
practical
applications
would be greatly simplified if the
learning process were relatively
simple and straightforward. Unfor-
tunately, this is not the case. Learn-
ing is a oomplex process
that
has
generated numerous interpretations
and theories
of
how it
is
effectively
accomplished.
Of
these many
theo-
ries, which should receive the
atten
tion of he instructional designer?
Is
it better to choose one theory
when
designing
instruction
or to
draw
ideas from different theories? This
article presents
three
distinct per-
spectives of the learning process
(be-
51
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
3/23
haviorai,
cognitive,
and
oonstructivist)
and
althougheach.
many unique features,
it is
OW belief
that each stilldescribes the same phe-
nomena Uearning).
In
selecting the
theory whose associated instruc@
tionsl strategies offers
the
optimal
means for
achieving
desired ont-
comes,
the
degree
of
cognitive
p r ~
cessing required of
he learner
by the
specific task
appears
to
be a critical
factor. Therefore, as emphasized
by
Snelbeeker
our
knowledge
of
modem
l ~
theories. The mam.
intent iB
to
pm-
vide dempeN with some familiarity
with
three relevant positions on
leaming (behavioral, cOlllitive. and
constructivist) which should provide
a more
structured
fooodation for
planning
and
conducting
instruc-
tional
design
activities. The idea is
that i we understand some of the
deep principles
of the
theories of
learning. we can extrapolate to
the
particulars
(1983), indi-
viduals
ad-
dr e s s ing
prac t ica l
l e a r n i ng
problems
cannot
af-
ford
the
luxury
of
restricting
themselves
to only one
Less
th n
two perce ,t of
the courses offered.
in
university cu . ..;.crila.
in the
geruJral area.
of
educa.ti.onal
teehnol.ol1Y
empluuliu
theory
a OM
of heir he
cOilwept
as
needed.
As Bruner
1971)
states,
You
don't
need to
encounter
everything
in nature in
order to
know na-
ture (p. 18).
theoretical position...
[They] are
urged
to
examine
each
of
the
basic
science theories which have
been
de-
veloped
by
psychologists in
the
study
of learning and to select those
prin.
ciples and conceptions which
seem
to
be ohalne for one's particulareduca-
tional situation (p. 8),
lfknowledge
of
he various
leam-
ing theories is so important for in-
structional designers,
to what
degree
are
they
emphasized. and promoted?
As reported by Johnson
(1992), less
than two percent of the courses of-
fered
in
university curricula
in
the
general area of educational technol-
ogy
emphasize theory
as
oneof
heir
key concepts.
It
appears
that the
real
benefits of heoretical knowledge are,
at present, not being realized.
This
article is an attempt
to
fill in
some of
the
gaps that
may
exist in
5
A basic 00
derstanding of the learning theories
can
provide
you
with
a canny strat-
egy whereby you could know a great
deal about a lot
of
hings while keep-
ing very little in
mind
(p.
18).
It
is expeeted
that
after reading
this article, instructional designers
and educat ional practitiOD.eN should
be
better informed consumers of
he
strategies
suggested by each. view-
point.
The
concise information pre-
sented here can serve as an initial
bue
oCknowledge for making impor-
tant decisions regarding instruc-
tional objectives
and
strategies.
Lean1iD1 Defined
Learning
has
been defined in
nu-
merous
ways
bymany different theo-
rists,
researchers
and
educational
praeti.tioners. Although universal
agreement on
any
single definition is
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
4/23
n.onemtent, many
definitions
em-
ploy common elements. The follow-
ing
definition by Shull (as inter
pretedby Schunk, 1991) incorporates
these
main ideas: LeIU'Ding
is an
enduring change in behavior, or in
the
capacity
o
behave
n
a
given fash
ion, which resulte from practice or
other
forms ofexperience (p.
2).
Undoubtedly, some
leaming
the0-
ristswill disagree on the definitionof
learning presented here. However, it
is
not
the definition itselfthat sepa
rates a
given theory from
the
rest.
The m ~ o l differences among theo
ries lie more
in
interpretation
than
they do in definition. These differ
ences :revolve around a
number
ofkey
issues
that
ultimately delineate the
instructional prescriptions that flow
from each theoretical perspective.
Schunk (1991) lists five definitive
questions
that
serve
to
distinguish
each leamingtheoryfrom the others:
(1)How does learning occur?
(2)
Which
factors
n l ~
(S)What is the role ofmemo:ry?
(4) How does transfer occur? and
(5)What types
ofleaming are best
explained by the theory?
Expanding on this original list, we
have
included two additional ques
tions important to the instructional
designer:
(S)What basic assumptions/prin
ciples
of this
theory are relevant to
instructional design?
and
(7) How should instruction be
structured to facilitate learning?
n this article. each of these ques
tions is answered from three distinct
viewpoints: behaviorism. oognitivism,
and constructivism. Although. learn-
VOLUME
6,
NUM ER 4/1993
ingtheories
typically
are
divided into
two
categories-behavioral
and
cog-
nitive-a third category, construc
tive,
is
added
here
because of its :re-
cent emphasis
in the
instructional
design
literature e.g.,
Bednar,
Cunningham, Duffy,
Peny,
1991;
Duffy
: Jonassen, 1991; Jonassen,
1991b; Winn, 1991). n many ways
these viewpoints overlap; yet they
are
distinctive enough to be treated
as
separate approaches
to
under
standing and describing learning.
These
three
part icular positions were
chosen because of their importance,
both
historically and cUlTently. to the
field of instructional design.
It
is
hoped that the
answers to
the first
five questions will provide
the
reader
with
a basic understanding of how
theseviewpoints differ. The answers
to
the last two questions will trans
late these differences into practical
suggestions
and
recommendations
for the applicationof hese principles
in
the design
of
instruction.
These
seven questions
provide
the
basis for the article's structure. For
each
of
the three theoretical posi
tions, the questions
are
addressed
and an example
is
given to illustrate
the application
of hat
perspective.
It
is
expected
that
this approach will
enable
the
reader to compare and
contrast
the different viewpoints
OD.
each
of the seven issues.
As
is
common
in
any
attempt to
compare and contrast similar prod
ucts,
processes,
or
ideas, differences
are
emphasized
in
order
to
make
dis
tinctions clear. 'This
is
not
to
suggest
that
there are no similarities among
these
viewpoints or that
there are
no
overlapping features.
n fact,
differ
ent
learning theories will often pre
scribe
the
same instructional meth
ods or the same situ.a.tions (only with
53
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
5/23
different terminology
and
pouibly
with different intentions).
This
8.1 -
tide
outlines the major differences
between
the
three
positions in an at
tempt
to
facilitate comparison. It is
OW hope that the reader will p n
greater
insight into
what
each view
point offersin terms of he designand
presentation of materials. as weD as
the types of les:ming activities
that
might be prescribed.
Historical FoundatioDB
Current learning
theories
have
roots that extend far into the put.
The prob-
B.C.),
empiricists have
the
view
that
knowledge
t
derived from
S8W3Ol Y
impressions.
Tho
impres
sions when associated o n ~ y
in time and/or space. can be hooked
together to form compleJ: ideas. For
ex.ampls,
the complex
idea
of
a tree,
as illustrated by Hulse, Egeth, and
Deese (1980), can be built
from
the
less complex ideas of branches and
leaves,
which
in
tum
are built from
the ideas olwood and fiber. which are
.built
from basic sensations such as
greenn.esa,
woody
odor,
and
so forth.
From this perspective, critical in-
structional
lems with
w
hi h
today's theo
rists and
re
searchers
grapple
and
struggle are
not
new but
simply
variat ions
The
gO l
ofiutnuJoon; for
the behavion,t
is
to
elicit
the desired
re poue
from
the kamer w o is
presen ted with a tareet
stimulus
design is
sues
focus
on how
to
manipulate
the environ
ment
in
or-
der
to
im
prove and
ensure the
on a timeless theme: Where
does
knowledge come
from
and
how do
people come to know? Two opposing
positions on
the
origins of knowl
edge-empiricism and rationalism
have
existed for centuries
and are
still evident, to varying degrees, in
the learning theories
of
oday. Abrief
description of these views is included
here as a background for comparing
the
modem learning viewpoints of
behaviorism, cognitivism, and
constructivism.
Empiricism
is
the
view
that
expe-
rience isthe primary soUl'ceofknowl
edge (Schunk, 1991).
That is,
organ
isms are born with basically no
knowledge
and
anything learned is
gained through interactions and
as-
sociations with the environment.
Beginning with Aristotle (884322
54
occurrence
of
proper
associations.
Rationalism
is the view
that
knowledge derives from
reason
with
out the
aid of the senses (Schunk,
1991). This fundamental beliefin the
distinction between mind
and
matter
originated with Plato
(e.
427-347
B.C.), and is reflected
in
the view
point that humans learn by recalling
or discovering what already exists
in the
mind. For example,
the
direct
experience with a tree duril:lg one's
lifetime simply serves
to
reveal
that
which
is
already
in
the
mind.
The
real
nature
of the
tree
(greenness,
woodiness, and otherchar&etemties>
beeomes known,
not
through
the
ex
perience, but
through
a reflection on
one's idea about the given instance of
a tree. Although later rationalists
differed
on
some
of Plato's
other
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
6/23
ideo, the
centra l beliefremam.ed.
the
Ilmle: thatknowledp arises
through
the
mind. From
this
perspective,
structional design issues focus on
how best to structure new informa-
tion in order
to
facilitate
(1)
theleam-
enood.ing
of hisnew
information,
as
well
as
(2)
the
recalling of that
which is
already
known.
The empiricist, or associationist,
mindset
provided
the
framework
for
many learning theories during the
first
half of
thiIB century. and it was
against
this
background
that
behav-
iorism became
the
leading psycho-
logical viewpoin.t (Schunk, 1991).
Because behaviorism
was
dominant
when instructional theory
wu
initi-
ated (around 1950), the
instructional
design. (ID) technology that arose
alongside
it
was naturaDy influenced
by many orits basic assumptions
and
characteristics. Since ID has its roots
in
behavioral theory.
it seems
appro-
priate that we turn
oW'
attsntion
to
behaviorism first.
Behaviomm
Bow o e l I l e ~ o e c v
Behaviorism
equates
learning
with changes in
either
the form or
frequencyofobservable performance.
teaming
is
aecompUshed when a
proper response is demonstrated fol
lowing the presentation of a specific
environmental
stimulus.
For
Imlple. when presented with a math
flashcard
showing the
equation
"'2
+4
1
the
learner
replies
with
the
an-
swer of
"S."
The equation is the
stimulusand the proper ruwweris the
associated response. The
y
ele-
mente
are
the stimulus, the response.
and the association between the two.
Ofprimmy ooncem
is
how the
8SSr
ciation between
the
stimulW l and
:re-
VOLuME 6 NUMl ER
4/1993
IllPOnse
ill
made,
strengthened, and
maintained.
Behmorismfocu.seson the impor-
tance of the consequences of those
performances and contends that reo
IPO:nses that are
fonowed by rein-
forcement are more likely to
recur
in
the future. No attempt is made
to
determine the stru.ctu.re
ofa
student s
knowledge
nor
to assess which
men-
tal
processes it
ia
necessary for
them
to use (Winn, 1990). The learner is
characterized as being reactive to
conditions
in
the
environment
as
op-
posed to
taking an
active role in
dis-
covering the en.vironment.
Which
facton
mtluu.ee leanWlg?
Although
both learner and
envi-
ronmental factors
are
considered m-
portantbybehaviorists, environmen-
tal conditions receive the greatest
emphasis. Behaviorists assess the
learners to
determine at what point
to begin instruction
as
well as to de-
termine which reinforcers
are most
effective for a
particular student.
The
most
critical factor, however,
is
the
arrangement of stimuli and conse-
quences
within the environment.
What
is t.he role of
memory?
Memory, as oommonly defined by
the layman, is
not
typicaJ1y addressed
by behaviorists.
Although the
acquisi-
tion of habits is discussed, little at-
tention is given
as
to how these habits
are stored or
rsca1led
for
future
use.
Forgetting is attributed
to the
"nonuse" of
a
response over
time.
The
Wile of periodic practice or review
serves to maintain a leamer s readi-
ness
to
respond (Schunk, 1991).
ow dou 1 occur?
Tnmsf er refers
to the application
ofleamedknowledge
in
new ways or
55
behaviorism is
derived from
empiricism, a focuson knowledge
derived from
environment
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
7/23
situations,
as
well
as
to
how prior
learning affects new
learning. In be-
havioralleamingtheories, transferia
a result ofgeneralization. Situationa
involving identical
or
similar fea
tures allow behaviors to transfer
across common elements.
For
ex
ample, the
student
who has
leamed
to
recognize and classify elm
trees
demonstrates
transfer
when
8)he
classifies maple trees using
the
same
process.
The
similarities between
the
elmand maple trees allow the leamer
to
apply
the
previous elm
tree
classi
fication learning experience
to
the
maple tree classification task.
What t :ypM
of
ieam.ml u e bu t
expJamed by this position?
Behaviorists attempt
to
prescribe
strategies that are
most useful
for
building and
strengthening stimu
lus-response associations Winn,
1990), including
the
use of instruc
tional cues, practice, and reinforce
ment. These prescriptions have gen
erally been proven reliable
and
effec
tive in facilitating learning
that in-
volves discriminations recalling
facts), generalizations defining and
illustrating concepts), associations
applying explanations). and chaining
automatically performing a
specified.
procedure). However, it is generally
agreed that
behavioral principles can
not adequately explain the acquisition
of higher level skills or those that r
quire a greater depth of processing
e.g., language development, problem
solving,
inference generating, critical
thinking)
Schunk,
1991).
What basic auumptiou
prmcipiea of
thh I theory U e
relevant to iutmetionai
design?
Many of the basic assumptions
and characteristics of behaviorism
56
ate
embedded
in
CW T8nt.
instruc
tional deIrip practices. Beha:riorism
was
used as the basis
for
many
of
he early audio-visual
mate
m
rials
and gave rise
to
many related
teaching strategies, such as
Skinners
teachin.g machines md
programmed texts. More :recent ex-
amples include principles utilized
within
computer-asaistedinstruction
CAl) and mastery leammg.
Specific assumptions
or
principles
that have direct relevance
to
inst;ruc..
tional design include
the
following
possible current ID applications are
listed
in
brackets [ ]
fonowing the
listed principle):
1m. emphasis on producing ob
servable
and
measurable
out;..
comes in
students
[behavioral
objectives, task analysis, crite
rion-referenced assessment]
9 Pre-assessment ofstudents
tode
termine where instruction
should begin [learner analysis]
l P
Emphasis on mastering
early
steps
before
progressing
to more
complex levels
of
performance
[sequencing of Mtructional pI'&-
sentation, mastery learning]
Use of reinforcement to
impact
performance {tangible rewards,
informative feedback]
Use
of
cues, shapingand practice
to ensure a strong stimulut-re
aponas auociation [simple to
complex sequencing of practice.
use of prompts]
Bow iutnlciion be
~ ?
The
goal ofinatruc tion for the
be-
haviorist
is
to elicit
the
desired re
sponse from
the
learner who
is
pre
sented with
a target stim:w.u. To
aecomplish this, the learner must
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
8/23
knoW
hoW
to execute
the
proper
re-
spmwEI. u well u the conditions un
der wbicb
that
response should
be
made. Therefore, instrudion
is
structured around the presentation
oCtile
target stimulus
Md the provi-
sionofoppommitiesfortheleamel'to
practice making the proper re
sponse.
To facilitate the
linking
of stimu.lus-response
pairs,
in
struction frequently uses cues to
initiaUy prompt the
delivery
of
the
re-
manager have
the
capability to
make
the correct
response.
However.
with
the repeated presentation
of
cues
(e.g completed templates of
past
agendas. bltmk
templates ammgen
in standard format) paired wi th the
verbal command stimulus, the man
ager begins
to make
the appropriate
responses. Although the initial re
aponsesmaynotbe in
he final
proper
form, repeated practice
and
rein
f ~ e n t s h a p e t h e r e s p o n s e u n t i l i t
is correctly
sponss)
and
reinforce
ment to
strengthen
correct
re
sponding in
the presence
of the
target
stimulus).
Behav
ioral
theo
ries imply
Cognitive
theone,
emphmriu mriking
kMwledge meonillKfu,1
nd kelpin.g
learM'I $
orgell; .
nd relate
new
i n f o n n a t i o l l t o ~ t i n g
knowledge ill memory.
executed.
F in a l l y
learning is
d em o n -
str ted
when, upon
the com
mand to for
mat
a
meet
ing agenda,
the
manager
that
b.ejoboftha
teacher/desiper is
to
1)
determine
which
cues
can
elicit
the desired responses; (2)
liIl l ange
practice situations in
which
prompts
are
paired with
the
target stimuli
that imtially have no eliciting power
butwhich
will
beexpected
toelicitthe
responses in
the natmal
(perfor
mance) setting; and (3) arrange envi
ronmental conditions so that
stu
dentscan make the
correcl .
responses
in hepresence of hose
target
stimuli
and receive
reinforcement or those
responses (Gropper, 1987).
For
example, a newly-hired
m -
apr of
human
resources
may
be ex
pected
to
organize a meeting agenda
according to the company's specific
format. The target stimulus (the ver
bal command
to
format a meeting
agenda )
does not initially elicit the
correct
response
nor does
the
new
.
VOLUME 6,
NUMER
4/1993
reliably -
ganizes the agenda according
to
com
pany
standards
and
does so without
the use of previous examples or
mod-
els.
Copitivism
In
the
late 1950's,
learning
theory
began
to
make a shift; away from the
use of behavioral models to
an
ap
proach
that
relied on leaming theo
ries and mode1s
from. the
cognitive
sciences. Psychologists
and
educa
tors began to de-emphasize a concern
with overt, observable behavior and
stressed insteadmore com plex cogni-
tive processes suchas thinking, prob
lem solving, language, concept for
mation and information processing
(Snelbecker,1983). Within the
past
decade, a number
of
authors
in
the
field of instructional design have
openlyandconsciously rejecteti many
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
9/23
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
10/23
dift enmce
can
be
dei;ecl;ed
between
thee two theories. However. the 41ae-
tive" utureo he leunerisperceived
quite differently. The
cognitive
8.p
proachfocuses
on
themental
activities
ofthelearnertMtleaduptoarespoW le
and
aclmowledps
the processes
of
mental plmming. o a J . ~ and
pnizationai strategies(Shull. 1986).
Cognitive theories contend
that
envi
ronmental
Ieues l t
and instructional
components alone cannot
accwn.t
for
aU the learning that :results from an
iMt:rnctional
situation. Additional
key elements include the way that
learners attend
to,
code.
transform,
:rehearse,
store and retrieve informa-
tion. Learners'
thoughts,
beliefs, atti
tudes. and values are also considered
tobemfiuentialintheleamingp:rocess
(winne,
1985). The
real
fOCl lB of the
cognitive app:roac.h
is on ch nging
the
byencourcging him her touse
appropMte
le rning
stmtegies
What Us the role of memory?
As
indicated above,
memory
is
liven a prominent role
in the
lear:ning
procesa. Leamingresultswhen infor-
mationis
stored
in m.emory in an
r p ~
Dized. m a n n e : r Teacheml
designers
are
responsible forusisting
lea:mers in organizing that informa
tion in some optimal way. Designers
use techniques such as advance orga
nizers, analogies, hierarchical rem
D
tionships, and matrices to
help
learn
ers relate
new
information
to
prior
knowledge.
Forgetting is the inability
to
:retrieve information
from
memory
because o interi'erenee. memory loss,
01
missing or madequate cues needed
to access information.
B o w d . ~ r ~
According to cognitive theories,
transfer sa function ofhow
infol 1. l18-
.
VOLUM
6, NUMBEl4./1993
tiOD
is
stored
in
memory
(Schunk,
1991). When
a
learner undel'Stlmds
how to apply knowledge in different
contexts, then transfer has occurred.
Understandingis seen as being
com
posedo a lmowledgebase
in
the form
of
rules,
concepts, and discrimina-
tions (Duffy&Jonassen,l99 ). Prior
knowledgeiaused o establishbound
ary constraints
for
identifying the
Bimilinities and differences of novel
information. Not only
must
the
mowledge itselfbe stored nmemory
but
the
uses
of that
knowledge
as
well. Specific instructional or real
world events will. trigger particular
responses, but the learner must be
lieve
that
the knowledge
is
useful
n
a
given situation before
he
willactivate
it.
What
o l l ~
are
best
~ hJ thlI poRtion?
Because of the emphasis on men
tal strnctures, cognitive theories are
UBually considered more appropriate
for explaining complex forms
of
learning
(reasoning, problem-sol
v-
mg,
information-processing)thanare
those of a more behavioral perspec
tive (Schunk.
1991).
However, it is
important
to indicate
at
this point
that
the
actual goal ofinst:ruction for
both of these viewpoints is often the
same:
to communicate
or
transfer
knowledge tothe students in the most
effi.ci.ent.
effective manner
possible
{Bednaretal
1991). Twoteclmiques
used by bothcamps in achieving this
effectiveD.eas
and efficiency of know
1
edge transfer
are
simplification and
standardization
That is, knowledge
can be
analyzed, decomposed, and
simplified into basic building blocks.
KnOWledge
transfer
is expedited i f
irre levant information
is
eliminated.
For e:mmple, trainees attending a
59
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
11/23
workshop on effective management
skills would be presented With
:Infor.
mation
that
is
sized and chmlked
in such
a way that
they can
aumu-
late and/or accommodate the new in-
formation
as quickly
and as
easily as
possible.
Behaviorists
would
focuson
the design of he environment toopti-
mize
that
transfer,
while
cognitivists
would stress efficient processing
strategies.
What basic unmpt iou /prin_
ciples
of
thla
theol')'
a n
NI-
eVmlt
to
atru.dicm.al
Many
of
the
instructional strat&
gies
advocated
and
utilized
by
cognitivists
are also emphasized
by
behaviorists, yet usually for different
reasons.
An
obvious commonality is
the use of
feedback.
A
behaviorist
uses feedback (reinforcement) to
modify
behavior in the desired
direc-
tion. while cognitivists make use of
feedback
(knowledge of results)
to
guide and support aOOW'ate
mental
connections (Thompson. Simonson.
Hargrave. 1992).
Leamer
and
task analyses are
also critical
to
both cognitivists and
behaviorists,
but
once again. for dif-
ferent
reasons.
Cognitivists look at
the
learner
to determine hislher
pre-
disposition to
learning, (i.e.,
How
does the learner activate,
maintain,
anddirecthlslher eanrlng?) (Thomp-
son
at at 1992).
Additionally.
cognitivists examine the
leamer
to
determine
how to
design
instruction
so
that it can be readily assimilated
(i.e., What are
the leamer's
existing
mental
structures?).
In contrast, the
behaviorists look. at earners
to
deter
mine where the
lesson
should
begin
( i.e.,
At what level are they currently
performing successfully?)
and
which
:reinforcers should be most effective
60
(i.e., What
ccmsequeneu
are
moat
desired by the learner?).
Specific assumptioWl
or principles
that
have direct relevance
to n s t r u ~
tional design
include the
following
(possible current
m
applications are
listed in
brackets
] fonowing the
listed principle);
9 Emphasis on
the
active involve-
ment of he learner
in
the
leam
a
ing process [leamer
control,
metacognitive traiWng(e.g., self-
plmming,
o m t o r i n ~
and
revis-
ing teclmiques)]
4
Use
of
hlemrehical analyses
to
identify
and illustrate prerequi-
site
relationships [cognitive task
analysis procedures]
III
Emphasis on structuring. orga-
nizing,
and sequencing
informa-
tion
to facilitate
optimal proceu-
ing
[use of cognitive strategies
such
as
outlining. summaries,
synthesizers
t
advance
organiz
w
ers, etc.l
$
Creation of leaming environ
ments that allow and
encourage
students to
make
connections
with
previously learned
material
[recall
of prerequmte skills; use
of relevant examples. analogies]
Bow mould
t i o D . 'be
~ U f t d ,
Behavioral theories
imply that
teachers ought
to
arrange environ-
mental conditions
1 that
students
reBpond properly to presented
stimuli.
Cognitive
theories empha
D
size making knowledge m.emingful
and.
helping
learners
organize
and
:relate new
information
to eDsting
knowledge
in
memory. Instruction
must
be
based on a studemts msting
mental structures. or schema,
to
be
effective.
It should
organize
inform .-
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
12/23
tion
in
such
a manner
that
learners
are able to oonned; new information
with existing knowledge
in
some
meaningful way. Analogies
and
metaphors
are
examples of this
type
of
cognitive
strategy. For
eumple,
inatmetional design textbooks
fre
quanay
draw
an analogy between the
familiar architect s profUsion
and
the
unfamiUar instruetio Ml design
profMlion to help the novice learner
conceptualize, organize and retain
the major
auimilated
and/or accommodated
within
the leamer s cognitive struc
ture
(Stepich
& Newby.
1988).
Conmderthe fonowing
example
of
a
leaming situation
utilizing a
cogni
tive
approach:
A manager in the
training
departm.ent
of a large corpo
ration
had
been asked
to teach a new
intern to complete a cost-benefit
analysis
for an
upcoming
develop
ment project. In this ease, it
is
as
sumed that
the
intern bas
no pl evi-
ous experi
duties
and
functions
of
an instruc-
tional
de
signer (e.g.,
Reigeluth,
1983, p. 7).
Other
cogni-
tive strate-
gies may
in
clude
the use
of framing,
outl ining.
mnemonics,
c o n c e p t
mapping
advance
01 -
Although
the
emphui8
on
p e r b ~ c e
end
imtruetion htH proven
effective in teeching
be ic
.killEl
in
relatively
BtrI.u tured
knowledge
domai lU, mueh ofwhat
needs to be learned
involves advanced
luaowledee
in
ill
tructured
domai:M.
ence
with
cost-benefit
analysis in a
bus iness
s e t t i n g .
However, by
relating
this
new
task to
highly
simi
lar proce
dures
with
which the
intern
bas
had
more ex
per ience.
the manager
ganizers and
111
forth (West. Farmer,
& Wolft'.
1991).
Such
cognitive
emphases imply
that
~ r taw of the teacher/de
signer include
1)
undentandi,ng
that individuals b:ring vari01.US leam
ingexperiences
to
the teamingsitua-
tion
which can impact learning auto
comes; (2)
determining
the
moat ef-
fective
manner in
which to
organize
and
structure
new information to
tap
the learners previously acquired
knowledge. abilities.
and
experi
ences;
and (3)
IU'l aDging practice
with feedback 10 that the
new
infor
mation is effectively and efficiently
VOLUME 6 NtJMIBR 4/1993
can facili
tate
a
smooth and efficient assimilation of
this new procedure into memory.
These
familiar
procedures
may
in
clude
the
process
by which
the
indi
vidual allocates
his monthly
pay
check, bow (e)he makes a
huy/noobuy
decision
Ngarding the
purchase of a
1 I. IXID Y
item or even how one s week-
end
spending activities might
be
de
termined and
prioritized.
The proce
dures for such activities may
not ex
actly
match those of the cost..benefi.t
analysis, but the si:milarlty between
the
activities allows for
the
unfamil.
iar
information
to
be put within a
familiaroontext.
ThUll
processingre-
61
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
13/23
quirements
are
reduced
and
the
p0-
tential effectiveness
of recaD
cues is
increased.
Coutmctinsm
The philosophical
assumptions
underlying
both
the behavioral
and
cognitive
theories
are primarily ob
jectivistic;
that
is the
world
is
real,
external to
the
leamer. The goal
of
instruction
is to
map
the
structure
of
the world onto
the
leamel' (Jonassen,
1991b). A
Bow
dOH
leam.m,
o ~
is a
th ory that
equatesleamingwithcreatingmeu
ing
from experience (Bednar
et
aI.,
1991).
Eventhoughconstruetivismis
considered
to
be a
branch
of
cognitivism
(both
conceive
of learn
ing as a mental activity), it distin
guishes
itself
from traditional
cogni-
tive theories in a
number
of ways.
Most
cognitive
psychologists thinkof
the
mind
as
areferencetool tu
eal
world
number
of
contempo
rary cogni*
t ive
theo
rists have
begun to
qu s t i on
this
basic
objectivis
tic
assump
t ion and
are start
ingtoadopt
a more con
structivist
approach
to
AB one 1IWve
aJong
the
behavwmt....... opitivi.t-
COMtnwti vuf
continuum,
the
foeus
ofin traction
shills from teach;; g to
eami:nll, from
the passive
believe
that
the
mind
fil-
ters input
from the
world to
pr0-
duce its
own
u n i q u
reality
Jonassen,
1991a . Lib
with t be ra-
tionalists
of
Plato's
time.
the mind is
transfer
of oc'ltl a
routi.nes to the active
application of .deo.s to
problems
learning and understanding:
knowledge
is a function of how
the
individual creates
meaning
from his or her own experiences
p.lO). Constructivism
is not a
totally
new approach to learning.
Like
most
other
learning
theo
ries,
constructivism
has multiple
roots
in
the philosophical and
pay.
chological viewpoints
of his
century,
specifically in
the
works of Piaget.
Bruner, and
Goodman
Perkins,
IS9l).
In
recent years, however. con
structivism has become a hot issue
as
it has
begun to receive increased
attention
in
a number of different
disciplines, including instructional
design Bednar
at al., 1991).
62
believed to
be the
source of
all
meaning, yet
like
the
empiricists, individual, direc t ex
periences
with the
environment
are
considered critical. Constructivism
crosses both
categories byemphasiz
ingtheinteracticm between
thesetwo
variables.
Constructivists do not share with
cognitivists
and
behavi.oriD
the be-
liefthat knowledge
is
mind-indepen
dent
and
can
be
mapped
onto a
leamer.
Constructivists
do
not deny
the
existence of
the real
world
but
contend
that what
we know of the
world stems from
ourowuinterpreta
tiona
of our
experiences.
Humans
create
meaning
as
opposed
to
6,C Juir.
m it.
Since
there are
many possible
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
14/23
meuinp
to
glean from
any
experi
ence, we cmmot achieve a
predeter
mined,
I I ~ meaning. Leam.ers
do not tnmsfer
knowledge
from the
extemal
world into
their
memories;
rather they
build personal interpre
tations
of the
world
based
on indi
vidual experiences
and
interactions.
Thus, the
internal
representation of
knowledge
is
constantly open
to
change;
there snot
Ul
objective real
ity that learners strive
to
know.
Knowledge emerges in contexts
within which
it
is relevant. There
fore,inordertounderstandtheleam-
ins which has taken place witbin an
individual, the actual
experience
must be examined (Bednar et at.
1991).
Which faeton
m f i _ D e ~
oth
leamer
and environmental
factors are critical to the
constructivist,
al i t s the
specific -
ter ction between these two vari
ables
that
creates
knowledge.
Constructivists argue that behavior
is situationaUy determined
(JOllallHn,
1991a).
ust as the learn
ing
of
new vocabulary words
is
en
banced by eJq)owre and subsequent
interaction with
those words in
con-
text
(as
opposed to learning
tbeir
meanings from a dictionary), liken
wise
it is essential
that
content
knowledge
be
embedded
in the
situa
tion
in which it is
used. Brown.
Collins, and Duguid (1989) suggest
that
situations
actually
co-produce
knowledge (along with cognition)
througb
activity. Every action is
viewed 88 an interpretation of
the
cUm nt
situation hued
on an
entire
history
of
previous interactions
(Clancey. 1986).
Just
8S shades of
meaninp
of given words
are
con-
VOLUME 6, N U M B
4/1993
stantly
changing a
leamer's
cur
rent undenta:nding
of
a word, so
too
will
concepts continually evolvewith
each new use.
For
this reason,
it
is
critical
that
leaming occur in realis
tic settings
and
that
the
selected.
learning taW be relevant to
the
stu-
dents ' lived experience.
w.bat
u the 1'0118
of memory?
The goal of instruction is not to
ensure
that
individuals know partic
war facts but rather that theyelaoo.
rate on
and
interpret
information.
Understanding
is
developed
through
continued,
situated
use
..
and does not crystallize into a
categorical definition that can be
called
up from memory (Brown
et
al.,
1989, p. 33). As mentioned earlier, a
concept
will continue to
evolve
with
each new useas new situations, nego
tiations,
and
activities recast
it in
a
different, more densely textured
form. Therefore, memory is always
under constrocl.ion
as
a
cumulative
history
of
interactions. Representa
tions
of
experiences
are not
formal
ized or st:rm:tured into a single piece
of declarative knowledge and then
stored
in the
head. The em.phasis
is
not on retrieving int ct knowledge
structures,but on
providing
learners
with the m.eans to create novel and
situation-specific understandings by
assembJ.ing prior
knowledge from
diverse sources appropriate
to the
problem
at
hand.
For
example,
the
knowledge
of
design activities
has
to
be
used
by a practitioner in
too
many
dift'erentways for them all tobe
anticipated
in
advance. Constructiv
iatsempbuize the flexible use ofpre
existing
knowledge
rather than the
recall of
prepackaged
schemas (Spi-
ro, Feltovich. Jacobson, Coulson,
1991). Mental representat ions devel-
63
all this emphasis on
situated, context-specific
meaning is very much Gee
???
need for skill-building,
differentiation, and learner-
specific knowledge
activation in a problem
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
15/23
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
16/23
edge
dome.ms
much
ofwhaineeds
to
be leamed involves advanced knowl
edge in ill-structured domains.
Jonassen (1991a) has described three
stages of knowledge acquisition (in
troductory, advanced, and
expert
and argues that conatru.etive leam
ing
envircmmenta are
most
effective
for the stage of advanced. knowledge
acquisition, where initial misconcep
tions and biases acquired during the
introdw::tory stage can
be discovered,
negotiated,
and
if necessary, modi
fied
andlor
removed.
JonasssD
agrees
that introductory lm.owledge
acquisition is better supported by
more objectivistic approaches (be
havioral and/or cognitive) but sug
gests I i transition to constructivistic
approaches
as
leamers
acquire
more
knowledpwhich provides them.with
the conceptual power needed
to
deal
withcomplex Maiill-structured prob
lems.
What bale uwmptimulpriD
cipkil
o
thU
theory
e
rel
evant
to
i:utnetioDal deadp?
The constru.etivist designer speci
fies
o n l
methods and strat
egies
that
will assist learners
in
ac
tively exploring complex topics/envi
ronments and that
will
move them
into thinking in a given content
area
as M
expert
user of that
domain
might think. Knowledge
is
not ab
stract but is
linked
to
the context
Wlder study and to the experiences
that
the
participants
bring to
thecon
text.
As
such,
learners
are
encour
aged
to construct their own under
standings
and then to validate,
through
social negotiation,these
new
perspectives. Content is
not
pre
specified; information from mmy
sources
is
essential.
For
example, a
typical constructivist's goal would
VOLUME 6 NUMBml4/1993
not
be
to
teach
novice
m
students
straight facti about
instructional de
sign, but to prepare students to use
ID facts
as an
instructional designer
might
u.ee
them. As such. perfor
mance
objectives
are
not related so
much to
the
content as they are
to the
pro esses
of
construction.
Some
of he
specific s trategies uti
lized by COnli1tru.ctivists include situ
atingtasksin:realworld contexts,
USe
of cognitive apprenticeships (model
ing and coaching a student toward
expert
performance), presen tation
of
multiple perspectives
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
17/23
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
18/23
such activities
in
a new
light
which
guides them towards conceptual
reframing
(learning).
Students gain
familiarity
with analysis and action
in: complex
situations
and conse
quently
begin to expand their hori
zons: they encounter relevant
boob,
attend conferences and seminars,
discwas issues with other students,
and
use their knowledge
to
interpret
numerous situations around them
(not
only re-
lea:m.ing
pr OCeSIlI
itself
is
constantly
~ both in nature
and
diver
sity,
as it progresses (Shuell,
1990>.
What
mightbe most effective for nov
ice learners encountering a complex
body
of knowledge for the
irst
time,
would not be effective, efficient or
stimwatingfor a learner who is more
fa.miliar
with
the content. Typically,
one does not teach facts
the
same way
that concepts or problem-solving are
taught; like-
lated to spe
cific
design
issues). Not
only have
the
learners
been in -
volved in dif-
ferent
types
of learning
as they
moved from
being
nov-
ices to bud
ding ex-
perts,'
but
the nature
of
What
might
be
mo t
effective for novice
leamen
encoun teri n a a
comples
body
of
knowledge for the first
time would
not
be
effective eflkien t
0. .
wise, one
teaches dif
ferently
de
pending
on
the profi
ciency level
of
the leam-
ers involved.
Both the in
structional
strategies
employed
and
the
con
tent
ad-
dressed (in
Btimulating for
a kame .
who
i
more familia .
with
the
con.ten.t.
the lem:ning process
has
changed as
well.
Ge:n.eral DiseWMion
It is
apparent that
students ex
posed to the three instructional ap-
preaches described in the examples
abovewouldgaindifferentcompeten
eiea. This
leads nstructom/designers
to
ask
two significant questions:
Is
there
a single best
approach
and is
one approach more efficient
than the
others? Given
that
learning is a
o m ~
plex, dl'awn-out process
that
seems to
be
strongly influencedby
ooe 8
prior
knowledge, perhaps the best answer
to these questions is
it
depends.
Because learning is influenced by
many
facton
from many sources,
the
VOLUM 6, NUMDU 4/1993
both
depth
and breadth)
would
very based on the
level of the
leaman.
So how does a
designerfacilltate i
proper match between leamer, con
tent, and strategies? Consider,
l in t
of aU, how
learners'
knowledge
changes
as
they become more famil
iar
with
a
given content. As people
acquire more experience
with
a given
content, they progressalong a low-to
high knowledge continuum from 1)
being
able
to
recognize
and
apply
the
standard
mies, facts,
and
operations
o a profession (knowing what), to 2)
thinking like a professional to ex
o
trapolate from these general rules to
particulu,
problematic cases (know
inghow),
to
S)developing
and.
testing
new forms of understanding and Be-
67
confirmation of my
own prior thoughts
about the role of
context in
determining which
approach is most
appropriate
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
19/23
tions
when familiar categories m d
ways of
thinking
fail (reftection-in
action) (Schon, 1987).
In
a
HMe ,
the
points along this continuum mirror
the points of
he
leamingtheory o n ~
tinuumdescribedearlier. Depending
on where
the
learners sit on the
continuum
in
terms of
the d e v e l o ~
ment of heir professional
knowledge
(knowing
what VB
knowing
how VB
reflectionGin-action), themost appro
priate insl:ructional approach for ad
vancing
the learners'
knowledge
at
that
particular level would
be
the
one
advocated
by the
theory
that
corre
sponds to that point on
the
con
tinuum.
That
is, a behavioral ap
proach can effectively facilitate mas-
tery of the content of a profession
(knowing what); cognitive
strategies
are
useful
in
teaching problem-solv
ing tactics
where defined
facts and
rules are applied in unfamiliar situa
tions
(knowing
how); and
constructivist strategies
are
espe
cially suited
to
dealing
with
ill-de
M
fined problems
through
reflection-in
action.
A
second consideration depends
upon
the
requirementso
he task to
be learned. Based on
the
level of
cognitive processing required,
strate-
gies from
different theoretical
per-
spectives may be needed. For ex
ample, tasks requiringalowdegreeof
processing (e.g., basic paired associa
tions, discriminations, rote memori
zation) seem
tobe
facilitatedby
strat-
egies
moot
frequently associated
with
a behavioral outlook (e.g., stimulus
response, contiguity of feedback/re
inforcement). Tasks
requiring an in
creased levelo processing (e.g., clas
sifications, rule
or
procedural execu
tions) ar e primarily associated with
strategies having a stronger
o g n i ~
tiveemphasis (e.g., C h e m a t i C o r g a n i ~
68
zation, analogical
reuonma
algo
ritbmie problem solving),
Tub
de
manding
high
l e v of
prooeum,
(e.g., heuris tic problem solving, per
sonal nlecticn andmonitoringofcog-
nitive strategies) are frequently best
learned with strategies advanced
by
the oonstmetivist perspective (e.g.,
situated
learning, cognitive appren
ticeships,
social
negotiation).
We
believe
that the
critical
que.
tioninst:ructional desipersmWlt
ask
is
not
Which is the best theory? but
-which
theory
is
the
most
eft'ective
in
fostering mastery
of
specific
tasks by
specific learners? Prior to
strategy(ies) selection, consideration
must
be
made
of
oth the learners
and
the task. An attempt is made in
Figure
1
to
depict
these
two continua
(learners level
ofmow
edge and cog
nitive processing demands) and to
illustrate
the
degree to which strate-
gies offered
by
each
altha
theoretical
perspectives appear applicable. The
figure is useful
in
demonstrating: (a)
that
the
strategies promoted
by
the
different perspectives overlap
in
cer
tain instances (i.e., one strategy may
be relevant for each of
the
different
perspectives. given
the
proper
amount of
prior knowledge
and the
cor:responding amount of cognitive
processing),
and (b) that strategies
are
concentrated along different
points of the
continua
due to the
unique
focus
of each of the leaming.
theories. Thismeans
that
when inte
grating
my strategies
into the
in
structional design process,
the
na-
ture
of
the
learning
task
(i.e.,
the
level of cognitive
processing re-
quired)
and the
proficiency level
of
the learne rs involved must both be
conJidered before selecting one
~
proach
over another. Depending on
the demands of the task and where
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
20/23
High
0
cO
A
C
0
iii.
0
0
ffigh
Level
of CopiUve i l l l e q W r e d
bytheT.uk
fisure
1.
CompaND" of the t e inmudiooal strategies of the
beMvioml, mpitWe, and cOMtrudMlt viewpoints baRd the
le&'lmers level
of
wac lmowIedp II'Id the
level
of cognitive Pl oceumg
requfimfi
by tM
wk.
the leamers are
in terms
of
the
con
tent to be
delivered/discovered,
dif-
ferent strategies
based
on
different
theories appear obe
necessary.
Pow-
erful
frameworks for
instruction
have been developed by designers
in
spired
by each of
these perspectives.
In fact, succ:essful instructional prac
tices have features that are
sup
ported by virtually
aU
three perspec
tives
(e.g., active
participation
and
interaction. practice and feedback).
For
this reason,
we
have con
sciously
chosen
not to
advocate
one
theory over
the
others, but to
mess
instead
the usefulness of
being
well
versed in each. This is not to suggest
that one should work without
a
theory,
but rather that
one must be
able
to intelligently choose, on the
basis of
information
gathered about
the learners' present level of compe
tence and the
type
of leaming
tok
VOLuM 6 NUM BER 4/1993
the
appropriate methods for aehiev
ingoptimW inltructiona loutcomesin
that
situation.
As stated by Smith and. Ragan
(1993,
p. viii : "Reasoned and
vali
dated theoretical
eclecticism
has
been
a
key
strength of
our field be-
cause no single theoretical base
pro
vides complete prescriptive prin-
ciples for the entire design process."
Someof he
most crucial
design
tasks
involve being able to decide which
strategy to use, for
what
content, for
which
students. and
at
what point
during
the instruction. Knowledgeo
this sort
is
an
example of conditional
knowledge, where "thinking like" a
designer
becomesa
neceasary
compe
tency. It
mould
be noted however.
that to be an
eelectic.
one :must
know
a lot, not a little, about the theories
being
combined.
A thorough
under
standingof he learning
theories pre-
69
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
21/23
sentedabove seems to
be
essential for
professional designers whomustcon
stantly
make
decisions for
which
no
design model provides precise rules.
Being knowledgeable about each
of
these
theories provides designers
with
the flexibility needed tobe spon
taneous and creative
when
a first
attempt doesn't; work or
when
they
find themselves limitedby time, u d ~
get, and/or personnel
constraints.
The practitioner cannot afford to ig
nore any theories that might provide
practical implications.
Given the
myriad
of
potential
design situat ions.
the
designer's best approach.
may
not ever be identical
to any
previous
approach,
but will truly depend
upon the context. his type of in
structional cherry-picking has been
termed systematic eclecticism' and
has had
a great deal
of
support in the
instructional design literature
(Snelbecker, 1989).
Inclosing, we would liketoexpanci
on a quote by P. B. Drucker, (cited in
Snelbecker, 1983): These old centro..
versies have
been
phonies all along.
We need the behaviorist's triad of
practice/reinforcementlfeedback to
enlarge learning
and
memory.
We
need purpose, decision,
values, un
derstanding-the cognitive catego
ries-lest learning be mere behav
ioral activities rather
than
action (p.
203).
And
to
this we would add that we
also need adaptive
learners
who are
able to function well
when
optimal
conditions do
not
exist,
when
situa
tions
are unpredictable and
task de.
mands change, when
the
problems
are
messy and ~ f o r m e d and the
80
lutions depend on inventiveness,
im-
provisation, discussion, and social
negotiation.
70
Wenneu
B e d I W , A . K , ~ , D
DUftY T.
M., Perry,J. D.
(1991).
Themymto
practice:
How do
we link? In
O.
J.
Anglin (Ea.), InBtruetional technol-
ogy: Past. present, and future.
Englewood, CO: Libmriea Unlimited.
Bower, G. H., Hilgard,
E.
B. (1981).
Theories
of
learning
(6th
ed.>.
Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall
Brown, J. S
CoDins,
A., Duguid,
P.
(1989). Situated cognition and the
culture
of leaming. Educctional
Re-
searcher,
18(1).3242.
Bnmer.J.
S.
(1971).
The
proceu
ofedu
cation revisited. Phi Delta
KGppcm,
53,1821.
Clancey, W. J. US8S). Review of
Winograd a
Flores untknttmdiNil
compute1 8
OM
cognition: A ftworable
interpretation. (STAN..cS.87U73)
Palo Alto,
CA:
Department of Com
puter
Science. Stanford
University.
Cunningham, D.
J.
(1991).
Assessing
constructions
and
constructing u -
86ssmente: A dialogue. EducatioiU1.l
Teclmolol3l.
31(5),13-17.
Duffy, '1'. M., Jonassen,
D.
(1991).
Constructivism: Newimplicationafor
instructional technology?
duca-
tional
Teckno/,olJy.
31(5},812.
Gropper, G. L.
(1987).
Alesson baaed on
a
behaviOl'al
approaen to inatruetional
design. In C. M. Reigeluth
M) ,
In
structional theories in action (pp. 45-
112). Hillsdale, NJ:
LaW1'ence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hulse,S.H.,Egeth,H., &Deese,J. (1980).
The psychology of learning
(5th eel.).
New Y ork: McGraw-Bill.
Jo'lmaon. J. K. (1992). Advancingby de -
grees:
Trends inmuter'sanddoetoral
programs
in educational
oommUl'1ica-
tions and technology. Tech
Trends,
31(2), 13-16.
Jonusen, D.
H.
(1991 ).
Evaluating
construetiviatic learning. duca-
tioiU1 l Technology, 81(9).28-33.
Jonassen. D.
H.
(1991b). Objeetivimn va
constTuct.ivism:
Do
we need i new
philosophical paradigm.
Educational
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
22/23
Techno10m
&'fcrcb.
cmd
Deuelop-
ment,
39(3), 514.
~ n e r
J.
M.
(1979). Motivation
and
in
structionai desip: A theoretical per
spective. o u m o l o f l ~ i o n a l De
velopment. 2(4),
26-34..
Lynch,
J.
M. (1945). The applicability of
psychological research. to
education.
o u ~
of
Ed.u.t:ational PlYChology,
48,289-296.
MenilJ.. M. D.,
&Walia,
T., Wilson, B.
G.
1981).
Instructiorml
design n
transition.
In F. B. Farley, I
N. J.
GoNon (Ede.),
PlYCholojJy andeduca
oon:
The
tate of
he
union
(pp. 298-
348). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Perkins, D.
N.
(1991).
Technology
meets
constructivism:
Do
they
make
a mar
riage?
Educational
Techno10m .
31 5),
18-23.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1983).
InstrnctioMl
Design: What ll i t and
why
s it? In C.
M. Reigelutb (Ed.),
Instructional
theories
in
action
(pp.
3-36). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbllnm AellOOiatu.
Reigeluth,
C.
M. (1989). Educational
technology at
the
crouroade: New
min.tIs
and
new directions.
Educa
tional Technology Baea rch and
lJe
velopment,
37(1), 6780.
Resnick,
L.
B.
1987).
Learning in school
and out.
Educational
Research.er,
16(9), 1320.
Richey, R. D.
1986).
The
theoretical and
coneepmal
base, of
instr1.wtional
de
sign. New York: Nichobi.
Schunk,
D. H.
1991).
Learning theories:
n
educational perspective.
New
York:
Macmillan.
ShueU, T.
J.
(1986). Cognitive concep
tions
of
learning.
Reuiew
of 1.lduca-
tional Research.
56. 411-436.
Shuell, T.J.(l990).
Plw6lll0fmeaningM
learning. Review
ofEducational Re
search. 60,581-547.
Smith, P. L.,
& Ragan,
T. J. (1998).
In
structional deaiBn.
New York:
Macmillan.
hon,
D. A. (1987). Educating
the
reflec
tive
practitioner. Sm
Francisco
Jouey-Bass.
VOLuMa
6,
NUIvJ IlBR 4/1993
Sneibeeker,
O.
E. (1983).
Learning
theory, instructional theory, and
PlIYchoedw:a.tional
design. New
York:
McGraw-Hill.
Snelbecker,
G. E.
(1989). Contrasting
and
complementary approaches to
in
structioMl
design.. In
C. M. Reigeluth
8/10/2019 Ertmer & Newby 1993 Teo Apr y Di
23/23
Winne, P.
H.
(1985). Cognitive
proc:euing
in the
claslll OOm.
InT.Husen
6;
T.N.
Postlethwaite
(Eels.), The
In rM-
tionalEncyclopediaof Education
(Vol.
2, pp. 795-8(8). Oxford: Pergamon.
PEGGYA ERTMEBhuaMuters
Degree in Special Education-
Learning Disabilities
and
is cur
rently a doctoral student n In
structional Development. otUne
address: Educational Computing
and Instroctional Research and
Development.
1442
L E B ~
Room
3134, Purdue University. West
Lafayette, IN 47907-1442.
72
fIMOTBY
J
N E Q f
hi
an
uooi-
ate Professor n Educational Com-
puting
and
Instru.etiOMl
Develop-
ment
at
Purdue University. He
CWTently conducts research
n the
areas
of
humanmotivation
and
in-
structional strategies.
ailinead
dress: Educational Computingand
Instructional Development, 1442
LAEB,
Room
3146. Purdue Univer
sity,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-
1442.