BEHAVIORISM, COGNITIVISM, CONSTRUCTIVISM

PEGGY A. ERTMER AND TIMOTHY J. NEWBY

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in 1993 and then republished in 2013
by Performance Improvement Quarterly. © 2013 International Society for Performance
Improvement Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI:
10.1002/piq.21143. The original citation is below:

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:

Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

The need for a bridge between basic learning research and educational
practice has long been discussed. To ensure a strong connection between
these two areas, Dewey (cited in Reigeluth, 1983) called for the creation and
development of a “linking science”; Tyler (1978) a “middleman position”; and
Lynch (1945) for employing an “engineering analogy” as an aid for translating
theory into practice. In each case, the respective author highlighted the
information and potential contributions of available learning theories, the
pressing problems faced by those dealing with practical learning issues, and a
general lack of using the former to facilitate solutions for the latter. The value
of such a bridging function would be its ability to translate relevant aspects of
the learning theories into optimal instructional actions. As described by
Reigeluth (1983, p. 5), the field of Instructional Design performs this role.

Instructional designers have been charged with “translating principles of

learning and instruction into specifications for instructional materials and
activities” (Smith & Ragan, 1993, p. 12). To achieve this goal, two sets of skills
and knowledge are needed. First, the designer must understand the position of
the practitioner. In this regard, the following questions would be relevant:
What are the situational and contextual constraints of the application? What is
the degree of individual differences among the learners? What form of
solutions will or will not be accepted by the learners as well as by those
actually teaching the materials? The designer must have the ability to diagnose
and analyze practical learning problems. Just as a doctor cannot prescribe an
effective remedy without a proper diagnosis, the instructional designer cannot
properly recommend an effective prescriptive solution without an accurate
analysis of the instructional problem.
In addition to understanding and analyzing the problem, a second core of
knowledge and skills is needed to “bridge” or “link” application with research–
that of understanding the potential sources of solutions (i.e., the theories of
human learning). Through this understanding, a proper prescriptive solution
can be matched with a given diagnosed problem. The critical link, therefore, is
not between the design of instruction and an autonomous body of knowledge
about instructional phenomena, but between instructional design issues and
the theories of human learning.

Why this emphasis on learning theory and research? First, learning theories are
a source of verified instructional strategies, tactics, and techniques. Knowledge
of a variety of such strategies is critical when attempting to select an effective
prescription for overcoming a given instructional problem. Second, learning
theories provide the foundation for intelligent and reasoned strategy selection.
Designers must have an adequate repertoire of strategies available, and
possess the knowledge of when and why to employ each. This knowledge
depends on the designer’s ability to match the demands of the task with an
instructional strategy that helps the learner. Third, integration of the selected
strategy within the instructional context is of critical importance. Learning
theories and research often provide information 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 often constrained by limited time and resources. It is paramount
that those strategies selected and implemented have the highest chance for
success. As suggested by Warries (1990), a selection based on strong research
is much more reliable than one based on “instructional phenomena.”

The task of translating learning theory into practical applications would be

greatly simplified if the learning process were relatively simple and
straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Learning is a complex
process that has generated numerous interpretations and theories of how it is
effectively accomplished. Of these many theories, which should receive the
attention of the instructional designer? Is it better to choose one theory when
designing instruction or to draw ideas from different theories? This article
presents three distinct perspectives of the learning process (behavioral,
cognitive, and constructivist) and although each has many unique features, it is
our belief that each still describes the same phenomena (learning). In selecting
the theory whose associated instructional strategies offers the optimal means
for achieving desired outcomes, the degree of cognitive processing required of
the learner by the specific task appears to be a critical factor. Therefore, as
emphasized by Snelbecker (1983), individuals addressing practical Iearning
problems cannot afford the “luxury of restricting themselves to only one
theoretical position… [They] are urged to examine each of the basic science
theories which have been developed by psychologists in the study of learning
and to select those principles and conceptions which seem to be of value for
one’s particular educational situation’ (p. 8).

If knowledge of the various learning theories is so important for instructional

designers, to what degree are they emphasized and promoted? As reported by
Johnson (1992), less than two percent of the courses offered in university
curricula in the general area of educational technology emphasize “theory” as
one of their key concepts. It appears that the real benefits of theoretical
knowledge are, at present, not being realized. This article is an attempt to “fill
in some of the gaps” that may exist in our knowledge of modern learning
theories. The main intent is to provide designers with some familiarity with
three relevant positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist)
which should provide a more structured foundation for planning and
conducting instructional design activities. The idea is that if we understand
some of the deep principles of the theories of learning, we can extrapolate to
the particulars as needed. As Bruner (1971) states, “You don’t need to
encounter everything in nature in order to know nature” (p. 18). A basic
understanding of the learning theories can provide you with a “canny strategy
whereby you could know a great deal about a lot of things while keeping very
little in mind” (p. 18).

It is expected that after reading this article, instructional designers and

educational practitioners should be better informed “consumers”of the
strategies suggested by each viewpoint. The concise information presented
here can serve as an initial base of knowledge for making important decisions
regarding instructional objectives and strategies.

LEARNING DEFINED

Learning has been defined in numerous ways by many different theorists,

researchers and educational practitioners. Although universal agreement on
any single definition is nonexistent, many definitions employ common
elements. The following definition by Shuell (as interpreted by Schunk, 1991)
incorporates these main ideas: “Learning is an enduring change in behavior, or
in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or
other forms of experience” (p. 2).

Undoubtedly, some learning theorists will disagree on the definition of learning

presented here. However, it is not the definition itself that separates a given
theory from the rest. The major differences among theories lie more in
interpretation than they do in definition. These differences revolve around a
number of key issues that ultimately delineate the instructional prescriptions
that flow from each theoretical perspective. Schunk (1991) lists five definitive
questions that serve to distinguish each learning theory from the others:

1. How does learning occur?

2. Which factors influence learning?
3. What is the role of memory?
4. How does transfer occur? and
5. What types of learning are best explained by the theory?

Expanding on this original list, we have included two additional questions

important to the instructional designer:

6. What basic assumptions/principles of this theory are relevant to

instructional design? and
7. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

In this article, each of these questions is answered from three distinct

viewpoints: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Although learning
theories typically are divided into two categories–behavioral and cognitive–a
third category, constructive, is added here because of its recent emphasis in
the instructional design literature (e.g., Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry,
1991; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991; Jonassen, 1991b; Winn, 1991). In many ways
these viewpoints overlap; yet they are distinctive enough to be treated as
separate approaches to understanding and describing learning. These three
particular positions were chosen because of their importance, both historically
and currently, 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 these viewpoints differ. The answers to the last two questions will
translate these differences into practical suggestions and recommendations for
the application of these principles in the design of instruction.

These seven questions provide the basis for the article’s structure. For each of
the three theoretical positions, the questions are addressed and an example is
given to illustrate the application of that perspective. It is expected that this
approach will enable the reader to compare and contrast the different
viewpoints on each of the seven issues.

As is common in any attempt to compare and contrast similar products,

processes, or ideas, differences are emphasized in order to make distinctions
clear. This is not to suggest that there are no similarities among these
viewpoints or that there are no overlapping features. In fact, different learning
theories will often prescribe the same instructional methods for the same
situations (only with different terminology and possibly with different
intentions). This article outlines the major differences between the three
positions in an attempt to facilitate comparison. It is our hope that the reader
will gain greater insight into what each viewpoint offers in terms of the design
and presentation of materials, as well as the types of learning activities that
might be prescribed.

HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS

Current learning theories have roots that extend far into the past. The
problems with which today’s theorists and researchers grapple and struggle are
not new but simply variations on a timeless theme: Where does knowledge
come from and how do people come to know? Two opposing positions on the
origins of knowledge-empiricism and rationalism have existed for centuries and
are still evident, to varying degrees, in the learning theories of today. A brief
description of these views is included here as a background for comparing the
“modern” learning viewpoints of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.

Empiricism is the view that experience is the primary source of knowledge

(Schunk, 1991). That is, organisms are born with basically no knowledge and
anything learned is gained through interactions and associations with the
environment. Beginning with Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), empiricists have
espoused the view that knowledge is derived from sensory impressions. Those
impressions, when associated contiguously in time and/or space, can be
hooked together to form complex ideas. For example, 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 turn are built from the
ideas of wood and fiber, which are built from basic sensations such as
greenness, woody odor, and so forth. From this perspective, critical
instructional design issues focus on how to manipulate the environment in
order to improve and ensure the occurrence of proper associations.

Rationalism is the view that knowledge derives from reason without the aid of
the senses (Schunk, 1991). This fundamental belief in the distinction between
mind and matter originated with Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.), and is reflected in the
viewpoint that humans learn by recalling or “discovering” what already exists in
the mind. For example, the direct experience with a tree during one’s lifetime
simply serves to reveal that which is already in the mind. The “real” nature of
the tree (greenness, woodiness, and other characteristics) becomes known, not
through the experience, 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
ideas, the central belief remained the same: that knowledge arises through the
mind. From this perspective, instructional design issues focus on how best to
structure new information in order to facilitate (1) the learners’ encoding of
this new 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 this century, and it was against this
background that behaviorism became the leading psychological
viewpoint (Schunk, 1991). Because behaviorism was dominant when
instructional theory was initiated (around 1950), the instructional design (ID)
technology that arose alongside it was naturally influenced by many of its basic
assumptions and characteristics. Since ID has its roots in behavioral theory, it
seems appropriate that we turn our attention to behaviorism first.

BEHAVIORISM

HOW DOES LEARNING OCCUR?

Behaviorism equates learning with changes in either the form or frequency of

observable performance. Learning is accomplished when a proper response is
demonstrated following the presentation of a specific environmental stimulus.
For example, when presented with a math flashcard showing the equation “2 +
4 = ?” the learner replies with the answer of “6.” The equation is the stimulus
and the proper answer is the associated response. The key elements are the
stimulus, the response, and the association between the two. Of primary
concern is how the association between the stimulus and response is made,
strengthened, and maintained.

Behaviorism focuses on the importance of the consequences of those

performances and contends that responses that are followed by reinforcement
are more likely to recur in the future. No attempt is made to determine the
structure of a student’s knowledge nor to assess which mental processes it is
necessary for them to use (Winn, 1990). The learner is characterized as being
reactive to conditions in the environment as opposed to taking an active role
in discovering the environment.

WHICH FACTORS INFLUENCE LEARNING?

Although both learner and environmental factors are considered important by

behaviorists, environmental conditions receive the greatest emphasis.
Behaviorists assess the learners to determine at what point to begin
instruction as well as to determine which reinforcers are most effective for a
particular student. The most critical factor, however, is the arrangement of
stimuli and consequences within the environment.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF MEMORY?

Memory, as commonly defined by the layman, is not typically addressed by

behaviorists. Although the acquisition of “habits” is discussed, little attention is
given as to how these habits are stored or recalled for future use. Forgetting is
attributed to the “nonuse” of a response over time. The use of periodic
practice or review serves to maintain a learner’s readiness to respond (Schunk,
1991).

HOW DOES TRANSFER OCCUR?

Transfer refers to the application of learned knowledge in new ways or

situations, as well as to how prior learning affects new learning. In behavioral
learning theories, transfer is a result of generalization. Situations involving
identical or similar features allow behaviors to transfer across common
elements. For example, the student who has learned to recognize and classify
elm trees demonstrates transfer when (s)he classifies maple trees using the
same process. The similarities between the elm and maple trees allow the
learner to apply the previous elm tree classification learning experience to the
maple tree classification task.

WHAT TYPES OF LEARNING ARE BEST EXPLAINED BY THIS

POSITION?

Behaviorists attempt to prescribe strategies that are most useful for building
and strengthening stimulus-response associations (Winn, 1990), including the
use of instructional cues, practice, and reinforcement. These prescriptions
have generally been proven reliable and effective in facilitating learning that
involves 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 cannot adequately explain the acquisition of
higher level skills or those that require a greater depth of processing (e.g.,
language development, problem solving, inference generating, critical thinking)
(Schunk, 1991).

WHAT BASIC ASSUMPTIONS/PRINCIPLES OF THIS THEORY ARE

RELEVANT TO INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN?

Many of the basic assumptions and characteristics of behaviorism are

embedded in current instructional design practices. Behaviorism was used as
the basis for designing many of the early audio-visual materials and gave rise
to many related teaching strategies, such as Skinner’s teaching machines and
programmed texts. More recent examples include principles utilized within
computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and mastery learning.

Specific assumptions or principles that have direct relevance to instructional

design include the following (possible current ID applications are listed in italics
and brackets following the listed principle):
 1. An emphasis on producing observable and measurable outcomes in
students [behavioral objectives, task analysis, criterion-referenced
assessment]
2. Pre-assessment of students to determine where instruction should begin
[learner analysis]
3. Emphasis on mastering early steps before progressing to more complex
levels of performance [sequencing of instructional presentation, mastery
learning]
4. Use of reinforcement to impact performance [tangible rewards,
informative feedback]
5. Use of cues, shaping and practice to ensure a strong stimulus-response
association [simple to complex sequencing of practice, use of prompts]

HOW SHOULD INSTRUCTION BE STRUCTURED?

The goal of instruction for the behaviorist is to elicit the desired response from
the learner who is presented with a target stimulus. To accomplish this, the
learner must know how to execute the proper response, as well as the
conditions under which that response should be made. Therefore, instruction
is structured around the presentation of the target stimulus and the provision
of opportunities for the learner to practice making the proper response. To
facilitate the linking of stimulus-response pairs, instruction frequently uses
cues (to initially prompt the delivery of the response) and reinforcement (to
strengthen correct responding in the presence of the target stimulus).

Behavioral theories imply that the job of the teacher/designer is to (1)

determine which cues can elicit the desired responses; (2) arrange practice
situations in which prompts are paired with the target stimuli that initially have
no eliciting power but which will be expected to elicit the responses in the
“natural” (performance) setting; and (3) arrange environmental conditions so
that students can make the correct responses in the presence of those target
stimuli and receive reinforcement for those responses (Gropper, 1987).

For example, a newly-hired manager of human resources may be expected to

organize a meeting agenda according to the company’s specific format. The
target stimulus (the verbal command “to format a meeting agenda”) does not
initially elicit the correct response nor does the new manager have the
capability to make the correct response. However, with the repeated
presentation of cues (e.g., completed templates of past agendas, blank
templates arranged in standard format) paired with the verbal command
stimulus, the manager begins to make the appropriate responses. Although the
initial responses may not be in the final proper form, repeated practice and
reinforcement shape the response until it is correctly executed. FinaIIy,
learning is demonstrated when, upon the command to format a meeting
agenda, the manager reliably organizes the agenda according to company
standards and does so without the use of previous examples or models.

COGNITIVISM

In the late 1950’s, learning theory began to make a shift away from the use of
behavioral models to an approach that relied on learning theories and models
from the cognitive sciences. Psychologists and educators began to de-
emphasize a concern with overt, observable behavior and stressed instead
more complex cognitive processes such as thinking, problem solving, language,
concept formation and information processing (Snelbecker, 1983). Within the
past decade, a number of authors in the field of instructional design have
openly and consciously rejected many of ID’s traditional behavioristic
assumptions in favor of a new set of psychological assumptions about learning
drawn from the cognitive sciences. Whether viewed as an open revolution or
simply a gradual evolutionary process, there seems to be the general
acknowledgment that cognitive theory has moved to the forefront of current
learning theories (Bednar et al., 1991). This shift from a behavioral orientation
(where the emphasis is on promoting a student’s overt performance by the
manipulation of stimulus material) to a cognitive orientation (where the
emphasis is on promoting mental processing) has created a similar shift from
procedures for manipulating the materials to be presented by an instructional
system to procedures for directing student processing and interaction with the
instructional design system (Merrill, Kowalis, & Wilson, 1981).

HOW DOES LEARNING OCCUR?

Cognitive theories stress the acquisition of knowledge and internal mental

structures and, as such, are closer to the rationalist end of the epistemology
continuum (Bower & Hilgard, 1981). Learning is equated with discrete changes
between states of knowledge rather than with changes in the probability of
response. Cognitive theories focus on the conceptualization of students’
learning processes and address the issues of how information is received,
organized, stored, and retrieved by the mind. Learning is concerned not so
much with what learners do but with what they know and how they come to
acquire it (Jonassen, 1991b). Knowledge acquisition is described as a mental
activity that entails internal coding and structuring by the learner. The learner
is viewed as a very active participant in the learning process.

WHICH FACTORS INFLUENCE LEARNING?

Cognitivism, like behaviorism, emphasizes the role that environmental

conditions play in facilitating learning. Instructional explanations,
demonstrations, illustrative examples and matched non-examples are all
considered to be instrumental in guiding student learning. Similarly, emphasis is
placed on the role of practice with corrective feedback. Up to this point, little
difference can be detected between these two theories. However, the “active”
nature of the learner is perceived quite differently. The cognitive approach
focuses on the mental activities of the learner that lead up to a response and
acknowledges the processes of mental planning, goal-setting, and
organizational strategies (Shuell, 1986). Cognitive theories contend that
environmental “cues” and instructional components alone cannot account for
all the learning that results from an instructional situation. Additional key
elements include the way that learners attend to, code, transform, rehearse,
store and retrieve information. Learners’ thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and
values are also considered to be influential in the learning process (Winne,
1985). The real focus of the cognitive approach is on changing the learner by
encouraging him/her to use appropriate learning strategies.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF MEMORY?

As indicated above, memory is given a prominent role in the learning process.

Learning results when information is stored in memory in an organized,
meaningful manner. Teachers/designers are responsible for assisting learners
in organizing that information in some optimal way. Designers use techniques
such as advance organizers, analogies, hierarchical relationships, and matrices
to help learners relate new information to prior knowledge. Forgetting is the
inability to retrieve information from memory because of interference,
memory loss, or missing or inadequate cues needed to access information.

HOW DOES TRANSFER OCCUR?

According to cognitive theories, transfer is a function of how information is
stored in memory (Schunk, 1991). When a learner understands how to apply
knowledge in different contexts, then transfer has occurred. Understanding is
seen as being composed of a knowledge base in the form of rules, concepts,
and discriminations (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Prior knowledge is used to
establish boundary constraints for identifying the similarities and differences of
novel information. Not only must the knowledge itself be stored in memory
but the uses of that knowledge as well. Specific instructional or real-world
events will trigger particular responses, but the learner must believe that the
knowledge is useful in a given situation before he will activate it.

WHAT TYPES OF LEARNING ARE BEST EXPLAINED BY THIS

POSITION?

Because of the emphasis on mental structures, cognitive theories are usually

considered more appropriate for explaining complex forms of learning
(reasoning, problem-solving, information-processing) than are those of a more
behavioral perspective (Schunk, 1991). However, it is important to indicate at
this point that the actual goal of instruction for both of these viewpoints is
often the same: to communicate or transfer knowledge to the students in the
most efficient, effective manner possible (Bednar et al., 1991). Two techniques
used by both camps in achieving this effectiveness and efficiency of
knowledge transfer are simplification and standardization. That is, knowledge
can be analyzed, decomposed, and simplified into basic building blocks.
Knowledge transfer is expedited if irrelevant information is eliminated. For
example, trainees attending a workshop on effective management skills would
be presented with information that is “sized” and “chunked” in such a way that
they can assimilate and/or accommodate the new information as quickly and
as easily as possible. Behaviorists would focus on the design of the
environment to optimize that transfer, while cognitivists would stress efficient
processing strategies.

WHAT BASIC ASSUMPTIONS/PRINCIPLES OF THIS THEORY ARE

RELEVANT TO INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN?

Many of the instructional strategies 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 direction, while cognitivists
make use of feedback (knowledge of results) to guide and support accurate
mental connections (Thompson, Simonson, & Hargrave, 1992).

Learner and task analyses are also critical to both cognitivists and behaviorists,
but once again, for different reasons. Cognitivists look at the learner to
determine his/her predisposition to learning (i.e., How does the learner
activate, maintain, and direct his/her learning?) (Thompson et al., 1992).
Additionally, cognitivists examine the learner to determine how to design
instruction so that it can be readily assimilated (i.e., What are the learner’s
existing mental structures?). In contrast, the behaviorists look at learners to
determine where the lesson should begin (i.e., At what level are they currently
performing successfully?) and which reinforcers should be most effective (i.e.,
What consequences are most desired by the learner?).

Specific assumptions or principles that have direct relevance to instructional

design include the following (possible current ID applications are listed in italics
and brackets following the listed principle):

1. Emphasis on the active involvement of the learner in the learning

process [learner control, metacognitive training (e.g., self-planning,
monitoring, and revising techniques)]
2. Use of hierarchical analyses to identify and illustrate prerequisite
relationships [cognitive task analysis procedures]
3. Emphasis on structuring, organizing, and sequencing information to
facilitate optimal processing [use of cognitive strategies such as
outlining, summaries, synthesizers, advance organizers, etc.]
4. Creation of learning environments that allow and encourage students to
make connections with previously learned material [recall of prerequisite
skills; use of relevant examples, analogies]

HOW SHOULD INSTRUCTION BE STRUCTURED?

Behavioral theories imply that teachers ought to arrange environmental

conditions so that students respond properly to presented stimuli. Cognitive
theories emphasize making knowledge meaningful and helping learners
organize and relate new information to existing knowledge in memory.
Instruction must be based on a student’s existing mental structures, or schema,
to be effective. It should organize information in such a manner that learners
are able to connect new information with existing knowledge in some
meaningful way. Analogies and metaphors are examples of this type of
cognitive strategy. For example, instructional design textbooks frequently
draw an analogy between the familiar architect’s profession and the unfamiliar
instructional design profession to help the novice learner conceptualize,
organize and retain the major duties and functions of an instructional designer
(e.g. Reigeluth, 1983, p. 7). Other cognitive strategies may include the use of
framing, outlining, mnemonics, concept mapping, advance organizers and so
forth (West, Farmer, & Wolff, 1991).

Such cognitive emphases imply that major tasks of the

teacher/designer include (1) understanding that individuals bring various
learning experiences to the learning situation which can impact learning
outcomes; (2) determining the most effective manner in which to organize and
structure new information to tap the learners’ previously acquired knowledge,
abilities, and experiences; and (3) arranging practice with feedback so that the
new information is effectively and efficiently assimilated and/or
accommodated within the learner’s cognitive structure (Stepich & Newby,
1988).

Consider the following example of a learning situation utilizing a cognitive

approach: A manager in the training department of a large corporation had
been asked to teach a new intern to complete a cost-benefit analysis for an
upcoming development project. In this case, it is assumed that the intern has
no previous experience with cost-benefit analysis in a business setting.
However, by relating this new task to highly similar procedures with which the
intern has had more experience, the manager can facilitate a smooth and
efficient assimilation of this new procedure into memory. These familiar
procedures may include the process by which the individual allocates his
monthly paycheck, how (s)he makes a buy/no-buy decision regarding the
purchase of a luxury item, or even how one’s weekend spending activities
might be determined and prioritized. The procedures for such activities may
not exactly match those of the cost-benefit analysis, but the similarity between
the activities allows for the unfamiliar information to be put within a familiar
context. Thus processing requirements are reduced and the potential
effectiveness of recall cues is increased.

CONSTRUCTIVISM
The philosophical assumptions underlying both the behavioral and cognitive
theories are primarily objectivistic; that is: the world is real, external to the
learner. The goal of instruction is to map the structure of the world onto the
learner (Jonassen, 1991b). A number of contemporary cognitive theorists have
begun to question this basic objectivistic assumption and are starting to adopt
a more constructivist approach to learning and understanding: knowledge “is a
function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her own
experiences” (p.10). Constructivism is not a totally new approach to learning.
Like most other learning theories, constructivism has multiple roots in the
philosophical and psychological viewpoints of this century, specifically in the
works of Piaget, Bruner, and Goodman (Perkins, 1991). In recent years,
however, constructivism has become a “hot” issue as it has begun to receive
increased attention in a number of different disciplines, including instructional
design (Bednar et al., 1991).

HOW DOES LEARNING OCCUR?

Constructivism is a theory that equates learning with creating meaning from

experience (Bednar et al., 1991). Even though constructivism is considered to
be a branch of cognitivism (both conceive of learning as a mental activity), it
distinguishes itself from traditional cognitive theories in a number of ways.
Most cognitive psychologists think of the mind as a reference tool to the real
world; constructivists believe that the mind filters input from the world to
produce its own unique reaIity (Jonassen, 1991a). Like with the rationalists of
Plato’s time, the mind is believed to be the source of all meaning, yet like the
empiricists, individual, direct experiences with the environment are considered
critical. Constructivism crosses both categories by emphasizing the interaction
between these two variables.

Constructivists do not share with cognitivists and behaviorists the belief that
knowledge is mind-independent and can be “mapped” onto a learner.
Constructivists do not deny the existence of the real world but contend that
what we know of the world stems from our own interpretations of our
experiences. Humans create meaning as opposed to acquiring it. Since there
are many possible meanings to glean from any experience, we cannot achieve
a predetermined, “correct” meaning. Learners do not transfer knowledge from
the external world into their memories; rather they build personal
interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions.
Thus, the internal representation of knowledge is constantly open to change;
there is not an objective reality that learners strive to know. Knowledge
emerges in contexts within which it is relevant. Therefore, in order to
understand the learning which has taken place within an individual, the actual
experience must be examined (Bednar et al., 1991).

WHICH FACTORS INFLUENCE LEARNING?

Both learner and environmental factors are critical to the constructivist, as it is

the specific interaction between these two variables that creates knowledge.
Constructivists argue that behavior is situationally determined (Jonassen,
1991a). Just as the learning of new vocabulary words is enhanced by exposure
and subsequent interaction with those words in context (as opposed to
learning their meanings from a dictionary), likewise it is essential that content
knowledge be embedded in the situation in which it is used. Brown, Collins,
and Duguid (1989) suggest that situations actually co-produce knowledge
(along with cognition) through activity. Every action is viewed as “an
interpretation of the current situation based on an entire history of previous
interactions” (Clancey, 1986). Just as shades of meanings of given words are
constantly changing a learner’s “current” understanding of a word, so too will
concepts continually evolve with each new use. For this reason, it is critical
that learning occur in realistic settings and that the selected learning tasks be
relevant to the students’ lived experience.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF MEMORY?

The goal of instruction is not to ensure that individuals know particular facts
but rather that they elaborate 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
use as new situations, negotiations, and activities recast it in a different, more
densely textured form. Therefore, “memory” is always under construction as a
cumulative history of interactions. Representations of experiences are not
formalized or structured into a single piece of declarative knowledge and then
stored in the head. The emphasis is not on retrieving intact knowledge
structures, but on providing learners with the means to create novel and
situation-specific understandings by “assembling” 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
different ways for them all to be anticipated in advance. Constructivists
emphasize the flexible use of pre-existing knowledge rather than the recall of
prepackaged schemas (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). Mental
representations developed through task-engagement are likely to increase the
efficiency with which subsequent tasks are performed to the extent that parts
of the environment remain the same: “Recurring features of the environment
may thus afford recurring sequences of actions” (Brown et al., p. 37). Memory
is not a context-independent process.

Clearly the focus of constructivism is on creating cognitive tools which reflect

the wisdom of the culture in which they are used as well as the insights and
experiences of individuals. There is no need for the mere acquisition of fixed,
abstract, self-contained concepts or details. To be successful, meaningful, and
lasting, learning must include all three of these crucial factors: activity
(practice), concept (knowledge), and culture (context) (Brown et al., 1989).

HOW DOES TRANSFER OCCUR?

The constructivist position assumes that transfer can be facilitated by

involvement in authentic tasks anchored in meaningful contexts. Since
understanding is “indexed” by experience (just as word meanings are tied to
specific instances of use), the authenticity of the experience becomes critical
to the individual’s ability to use ideas (Brown et al., 1989). An essential concept
in the constructivist view is that learning always takes place in a context and
that the context forms an inexorable link with the knowledge embedded in it
(Bednar et al., 1991). Therefore, the goal of instruction is to accurately portray
tasks, not to define the structure of learning required to achieve a task. If
learning is decontextualized, there is little hope for transfer to occur. One does
not learn to use a set of tools simply by following a list of rules. Appropriate
and effective use comes from engaging the learner in the actual use of the
tools in real-world situations. Thus, the ultimate measure of learning is based
on how effective the learner’s knowledge structure is in facilitating thinking
and performing in the system in which those tools are used.

WHAT TYPES OF LEARNING ARE BEST EXPLAINED BY THIS

POSITION?
The constructivist view does not accept the assumption that types of learning
can be identified independent of the content and the context of learning
(Bednar et al., 1991). Constructivists believe that it is impossible to isolate
units of information or divide up knowledge domains according to a
hierarchical analysis of relationships. Although the emphasis on performance
and instruction has proven effective in teaching basic skills in relatively
structured knowledge domains, much of what needs to be learned involves
advanced knowledge in ill-structured domains. Jonassen (1991a) has described
three stages of knowledge acquisition (introductory, advanced, and expert) and
argues that constructive learning environments are most effective for the
stage of advanced knowledge acquisition, where initial misconceptions and
biases acquired during the introductory stage can be discovered, negotiated,
and if necessary, modified and/or removed. Jonassen agrees that introductory
knowledge acquisition is better supported by more objectivistic approaches
(behavioral and/or cognitive) but suggests a transition to constructivistic
approaches as learners acquire more knowledge which provides them with the
conceptual power needed to deal with complex and ill-structured problems.

WHAT BASIC ASSUMPTIONS/PRINCIPLES OF THIS THEORY ARE

RELEVANT TO INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN?

The constructivist designer specifies instructional methods and strategies that

will assist learners in actively exploring complex topics/environments and that
will move them into thinking in a given content area as an expert user of that
domain might think. Knowledge is not abstract but is linked to the context
under study and to the experiences that the participants bring to the context.
As such, learners are encouraged to construct their own understandings and
then to validate, through social negotiation, these new perspectives. Content is
not prespecified; information from many sources is essential. For example, a
typical constructivist’s goal would not be to teach novice ID students straight
facts about instructional design, but to prepare students to use ID facts as an
instructional designer might use them. As such, performance objectives are not
related so much to the content as they are to the processes of construction.

Some of the specific strategies utilized by constructivists include situating

tasks in real-world contexts, use of cognitive apprenticeships (modeling and
coaching a student toward expert performance), presentation of multiple
perspectives (collaborative learning to develop and share alternative views),
social negotiation (debate, discussion, evidencegiving), use of examples as real
“slices of life,” reflective awareness, and providing considerable guidance on
the use of constructive processes.

The following are several specific assumptions or principles from the

constructivist position that have direct relevance for the instructional designer
(possible ID applications are listed in italics and brackets following the listed
principle):

1. An emphasis on the identification of the context in which the skills will

be learned and subsequently applied [anchoring learning in meaningful
contexts].
2. An emphasis on learner control and the capability of the learner to
manipulate information [actively using what is learned].
3. The need for information to be presented in a variety of different ways
[revisiting content at different times, in rearranged contexts, for different
purposes, and from different conceptual perspectives].
4. Supporting the use of problem-solving skills that allow learners to go
“beyond the information given.” [developing pattern-recognition skills,
presenting alternative ways of representing problems].
5. Assessment focused on transfer of knowledge and skills [presenting new
problems and situations that differ from the conditions of the initial
instruction].

HOW SHOULD INSTRUCTION BE STRUCTURED?

As one moves along the behaviorist-cognitivist-constructivist continuum, the

focus of instruction shifts from teaching to learning, from the passive transfer
of facts and routines to the active application of ideas to problems. Both
cognitivists and constructivists view the learner as being actively involved in
the learning process, yet the constructivists look at the learner as more than
just an active processor of information; the learner elaborates upon and
interprets the given information (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Meaning is created
by the learner: learning objectives are not pre-specified nor is instruction
predesigned. “The role of instruction in the constructivist view is to show
students how to construct knowledge, to promote collaboration with others to
show the multiple perspectives that can be brought to bear on a particular
problem, and to arrive at self-chosen positions to which they can commit
themselves, while realizing the basis of other views with which they may
disagree” (Cunningham, 1991, p. 14).
Even though the emphasis is on learner construction, the instructional
designer/ teacher’s role is still critical (Reigeluth, 1989). Here the tasks of the
designer are two-fold: (1) to instruct the student on how to construct meaning,
as well as how to effectively monitor, evaluate, and update those
constructions; and (2) to align and design experiences for the learner so that
authentic, relevant contexts can be experienced.

Although constructivist approaches are used quite frequently in the

preparation of lawyers, doctors, architects, and businessmen through the use
of apprenticeships and on-the-job training, they are typically not applied in the
educational arena (Resnick, 1987). If they were, however, a student placed in
the hands of a constructivist would likely be immersed in an “apprenticeship”
experience. For example, a novice instructional design student who desires to
learn about needs assessment would be placed in a situation that requires such
an assessment to be completed. Through the modeling and coaching of
experts involved in authentic cases, the novice designer would experience the
process embedded in the true context of an actual problem situation. Over
time, several additional situations would be experienced by the student, all
requiring similar needs assessment abilities. Each experience would serve to
build on and adapt that which has been previously experienced and
constructed. As the student gained more confidence and experience, (s)he
would move into a collaborative phase of learning where discussion becomes
crucial. By talking with others (peers, advanced students, professors, and
designers), students become better able to articulate their own understandings
of the needs assessment process. As they uncover their naive theories, they
begin to see such activities in a new light, which guides them towards
conceptual reframing (learning). Students gain familiarity with analysis and
action in complex situations and consequently begin to expand their horizons:
they encounter relevant books, attend conferences and seminars, discuss
issues with other students, and use their knowledge to interpret numerous
situations around them (not only related to specific design issues). Not only
have the learners been involved in different types of learning as they moved
from being novices to “budding experts,” but the nature of the learning process
has changed as well.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is apparent that students exposed to the three instructional approaches

described in the examples above would gain different competencies. This leads
instructors/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 complex, drawn-out process that seems to be strongly influenced
by one’s prior knowledge, perhaps the best answer to these questions is “it
depends.” Because learning is influenced by many factors from many sources,
the learning process itself is constantly changing, both in nature and diversity,
as it progresses (Shuell, 1990). What might be most effective for novice
learners encountering a complex body of knowledge for the first time, would
not be effective, efficient or stimulating for a learner who is more familiar with
the content. Typically, one does not teach facts the same way that concepts or
problem-solving are taught; likewise, one teaches differently depending on the
proficiency level of the learners involved. Both the instructional strategies
employed and the content addressed (in both depth and breadth) would vary
based on the level of the learners.

So how does a designer facilitate a proper match between learner, content,

and strategies? Consider, first of all, how learners’ knowledge changes as they
become more familiar with a given content. As people acquire more
experience with a given content, they progress along a low-to-high knowledge
continuum from 1) being able to recognize and apply the standard rules, facts,
and operations of a profession (knowing what), to 2) thinking like a
professional to extrapolate from these general rules to particular, problematic
cases (knowing how), to 3) developing and testing new forms of understanding
and actions when familiar categories and ways of thinking fail (reflection-in-
action) (Schon, 1987). In a sense, the points along this continuum mirror the
points of the learning theory continuum described earlier. Depending on
where the learners “sit” on the continuum in terms of the development of their
professional knowledge (knowing what vs. knowing how vs. reflection-in-
action), the most appropriate instructional approach for advancing the learners’
knowledge at that particular level would be the one advocated by the theory
that corresponds to that point on the continuum. That is, a behavioral
approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession
(knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving
tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations
(knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing
with ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action.

A second consideration depends upon the requirements of the task to be

learned. Based on the level of cognitive processing required, strategies from
different theoretical perspectives may be needed. For example, tasks requiring
a low degree of processing (e.g., basic paired associations, discriminations, rote
memorization) seem to be facilitated by strategies most frequently associated
with a behavioral outlook (e.g., stimulus-response, contiguity of
feedback/reinforcement). Tasks requiring an increased level of processing (e.g.,
classifications, rule or procedural executions) are primarily associated with
strategies having a stronger cognitive emphasis (e.g., schematic organization,
analogical reasoning, algorithmic problem solving). Tasks demanding high levels
of processing (e.g., heuristic problem solving, personal selection and
monitoring of cognitive strategies) are frequently best learned with strategies
advanced by the constructivist perspective (e.g., situated learning, cognitive
apprenticeships, social negotiation).

We believe that the critical question instructional designers must ask is not
“Which is the best theory?” but “Which theory is the most effective in
fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific learners?” Prior to strategy(ies)
selection, consideration must be made of both the learners and the task. An
attempt is made in Figure 1 to depict these two continua (learners’ level of
knowledge and cognitive processing demands) and to illustrate the degree to
which strategies offered by each of the theoretical perspectives appear
applicable. The figure is useful in demonstrating: (a) that the strategies
promoted by the different perspectives overlap in certain instances (i.e., one
strategy may be relevant for each of the different perspectives, given the
proper amount of prior knowledge and the corresponding 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 learning theories. This
means that when integrating any strategies into the instructional design
process, the nature of the learning task (i.e., the level of cognitive processing
required) and the proficiency level of the learners involved must both be
considered before selecting one approach over another. Depending on the
demands of the task and where the learners are in terms of the content to be
delivered/discovered, different strategies based on different theories appear to
be necessary. Powerful frameworks for instruction have been developed by
designers inspired by each of these perspectives. In fact, successful
instructional practices have features that are supported by virtually all three
perspectives (e.g., active participation and interaction, practice and feedback).
 Figure 1. Comparison of the
associated instructional strategies of the behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist
viewpoints based on the learner’s level of task knowledge and the level of
cognitive processing required by the task.

For this reason, we have consciously chosen not to advocate one theory over
the others, but to stress 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 competence and the type of learning task,
the appropriate methods for achieving optimal instructional outcomes in that
situation.

As stated by Smith and Ragan (1993, p. viii): “Reasoned and validated

theoretical eclecticism has been a key strength of our field because no single
theoretical base provides complete prescriptive principles for the entire design
process.” Some of the 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. Knowledge of this sort is an example of conditional
knowledge, where “thinking like” a designer becomes a necessary competency.
It should be noted however, that to be an eclectic, one must know a lot, not a
little, about the theories being combined. A thorough understanding of the
learning theories presented above seems to be essential for professional
designers who must constantly make decisions for which no design model
provides precise rules. Being knowledgeable about each of these theories
provides designers with the flexibility needed to be spontaneous and creative
when a first attempt doesn’t work or when they find themselves limited by
time, budget, and/or personnel constraints. The practitioner cannot afford to
ignore any theories that might provide practical implications. Given the myriad
of potential design situations, the designer’s “best” approach may not ever be
identical to any previous approach, but will truly “depend upon the context.”
This type of instructional “cherry-picking” has been termed “systematic
eclecticism” and has had a great deal of support in the instructional design
literature (Snelbecker, 1989).

In closing, we would like to expand on a quote by P. B. Drucker, (cited in

Snelbecker, 1983): “These old controversies have been phonies all along. We
need the behaviorist’s triad of practice/reinforcement/feedback to enlarge
learning and memory. We need purpose, decision, values, understanding–the
cognitive categories–lest learning be mere behavioral 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 situations are
unpredictable and task demands change, when the problems are messy and ill-
formed and the solutions depend on inventiveness, improvisation, discussion,
and social negotiation.

REFERENCES

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into
practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past,
present, and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Bower, G. H., & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Bruner, J. S. (1971). The process of education revisited. Phi Delta Kappan,

53,18-21.
Clancey, W. J. (1986). Review of Winograd and Flores’ understanding
computers and cognition: A favorable interpretation. (STAN-CS-87-1173) Palo
Alto, CA: Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.

Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing

assessments: A dialogue. Educational Technology, 31(5), 13-17.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for

instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31(5), 3-12.

Gropper, G. L. (1987). A lesson based on a behavioral approach to instructional

design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp. 45-112).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hulse, S. H., Egeth, H., & Deese, J. (1980). The psychology of learning (5th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, J. K. (1992). Advancing by degrees: Trends in master’s and doctoral

programs in educational communications and technology. Tech Trends,
37(2),13-16.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational

Technology, 31(9), 28-33.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991b), Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a new

philosophical paradigm. Educational Technology Research and Development,
39(3), 5-14.

Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical

perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26-34.

Lynch, J. M. (1945). The applicability of psychological research to education.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 289-296.

Merrill, M. D., Kowalis, T., & Wilson, B. G. (1981). Instructional design in

transition. In F. H. Farley, & N. J. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The
state of the union (pp. 298-348). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a
marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5), 18-23.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional Design: What is it and why is it? In C. M.

Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New

mindsets and new directions. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 37(1), 67-80.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9),

13-20.

Richey, R. D. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional

design. New York: Nichols.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New

York: Macmillan.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational

Research, 56, 411-436.

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational

Research, 60, 531-547.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Snelbecker, G. E. (1983). Learning theory, instructional theory,
and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Snelbecker, G. E. (1989). Contrasting and complementary approaches to

instructional design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action
(pp, 321-337). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive
flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for
advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational
Technology, 31(5), 24-33.

Stepich, D. A., & Newby, T. J. (1988). Analogical instruction within the

information processing paradigm: Effective means to facilitate learning.
Instructional Science, 17, 129-144.

Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., Hargrave, C. P. (1992). Educational

technology: A review of the research. Washington DC: Association for
Educational Communications and Technology.

Tyler, R. W. (1978). How schools utilize educational research and

development. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Research and development and school change.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Warries, E. (1990). Theory and the systematic design of instruction. In S.

Dijkstra, B. van Hout Wolters, & P. C. van der Sijde, (Eds.), Research on
instruction: Design and effects (pp. 1-19). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology.

West, C. K., Farmer, J. A., & Wolff, P. M. (1991). Instructional design:

Implications from cognitive science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Winn, W. (1991). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design.

Educational Technology, 31(9), 38-40.

Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional

design. Instructional Science, 19, 53-69.

Winne, P. H. (1985). Cognitive processing in the classroom. In T. Husen & T. N.

Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 2, pp.
795-808). Oxford: Pergamon.

 
Editor’s Note: The following update was published in Performance Improvement
Quarterly in 2013 by the authors to accompany the 30 year anniversary and republication
of the original article. 

BEHAVIORISM, COGNITIVISM, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM:

CONNECTING “YESTERDAY’S” THEORIES TO TODAY’S

CONTEXTS

It has been 20 years since Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective was first published in
PIQ (1993, Issue 4). And although the bases of the theoretical perspectives
presented in “the theory article” have not changed (i.e., the answers to the six
organizing questions remain largely the same), much of the world outside of
these theories, including where and with whom we learn, as well as how that
knowledge is stored and accessed, has changed. In this brief update, we
explore three major forces impacting the learning process today, all of which
were much less prevalent in 1993. These include 1) The proliferation of the
Internet, including the use of Web 2.0 tools, 2) the emergence of a new “kind”
of student (e.g., digital native) who thinks and learns differently than previous
generations, and 3) the adoption of a variety of new teaching methods, which
build, almost exclusively, on the tenets of constructivism. We discuss each of
these in more detail.

CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY

Since the theory article was written, access to technology tools has literally

exploded. In 1993, the Internet, particularly as a resource for the masses, was
still in its infancy and the distinction between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 had not
yet been made (O’Reilly, 2005). Distance education was achieved primarily
through correspondence courses, with video and audio conferencing being
used to augment the delivery of instruction (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, &
Zvacek, 2006). Relatively few people owned a cell phone and smart phones
had not yet been invented. According to Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula (2005),
learning was primarily conceptualized as the construction of knowledge
through information processing, modeling, and interaction.
However, as the Internet has become more accessible and the creation of
content more distributed, the “participatory web” has enabled a knowledge-
building and knowledge-sharing system whose value now stems from many
small contributions. As described by O’Reilly (2005), “Every user whitewashes
a little bit of the fence” (online). Compared to Web 1.0, users now have many
and varied opportunities to impact both the nature and scope of the content
being published and in some cases exert real-time control over it. As a
consequence, informal learning has become a significant component of our
daily learning experiences (Siemens, 2004). Furthermore, we no longer expect
or require knowledge to reside within the individual. Rather, as Siemens (2004)
described, we “store our knowledge in our friends” (¶4).

This prompts us to consider whether this easy access to, and constant
interaction with, others has actually transformed the learning process.
According to at least one set of authors, this is indeed the case, noting that
learning is now being reconceptualized as a “continual conversation with the
external world and its artefacts (SIC), with oneself, and also with other learners
and teachers” (Sharples et al., 2005, p. 7). Siemens (2004) agreed, stating, “The
ability to access people and information has changed the way people learn. …
Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the
understanding of where to find knowledge needed)” (¶4). According to Brown
(2002), the Web has functioned as a transformative technology, comprising
not only an informational and social resource, but a learning medium as well,
where learning with and from each other is both supported and facilitated.

CHANGES IN LEARNERS

Related to these changes in technology access and tools are changes attributed
to the learners themselves. According to Prensky (2010), “More and more
young people are now deeply and permanently technologically enhanced,
connected to their peers and the world in ways no generation has ever been
before” (p. 2). Not only do today’s students want and prefer to learn differently,
they seem exceptionally capable of doing so. Siemens (2004) suggested that
technology has actually rewired learners’ brains. Although we don’t yet have
physical proof that the brains of digital natives are structurally different than
those of digital immigrants, evidence is accumulating that signifies very real
differences in their thinking patterns (Barone, 2003; Brown, 2002). According
to Winn (cited in Prensky, 2001), “Children raised with the computer think
differently from the rest of us. They develop hypertext minds. They leap
around. It’s as though their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential”
(p. 3).

Siemens (2004) argues that these changes have occurred because of the tools
students use. This idea is supported by research from social psychologists (cf.,
Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001), which suggests that thinking
patterns change depending on our experiences, including the culture in which
we grew up. Given that digital natives have grown up “accustomed to the
twitch-speed, multitasking, random-access, graphics-first, active, connected,
fun, fantasy, quick-payoff world of their video games, MTV, and the Internet”
(Prensky, 2001, p. 5), the suggestion that these experiences have changed
learners’ thinking patterns does not require a huge leap.

According to Barone (2003), today’s students possess an “information-age

mindset” (p. 42), which comprises a unique ability to learn both visually and
socially. As such, digital students prefer to learn by doing – if given a new tool
to use, they are much more likely to get in and “muck around” than refer to an
owner’s manual (Prensky, 2010). In fact, for these learners, doing is more
important than knowing, as this enables the development of a deeper and
more authentic understanding of the task at hand. Then, when it’s important to
test and process their new knowledge, digital natives turn to their own
learning communities, which oftentimes remain relatively disconnected from
their formal educational communities. Given these new approaches to
learning, Sharples et al. (2005) propose that conversation (including words,
images, videos, multimedia and more) has become the current driver of
learning.

CHANGES IN TEACHING METHODS

In 1993, constructivism was the new kid on the block; as such, there were very
few, if any, teaching methods that aligned with this perspective. Currently,
however, constructivism is considered the dominant educational theory; it has
been embraced by nearly every educational reform initiative within the last
two decades (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). As a result, various constructivist
theories such as social constructivism, situated learning, and connectivism
(Sharples et al., 2005), have become the foundation for the majority of
teaching methods that have taken hold in recent years (e.g., problem-based
learning, authentic instruction, computer supported collaborative learning).
In addition to the general acceptance of constructivism as the basis for our
teaching methods, the conceptualization of learning as both a personal and
social process (Sharples et al., 2005) has been enhanced by the convergence of
three critical changes: 1) the development of technologies that allow for
immediate and effective access to information, 2) the motivation of learners
who desire and need learning experiences that promote high levels of
interaction and activity, and 3) the demands of employers who now expect
learners to acquire relevant 21st century skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem
solving, creativity) before entering the workforce (Kay, 2010). In response to
these changes, interest has increased in the theoretical perspectives (e.g.,
connectivism, mobile learning, social constructivism) that align with those
teaching methods that can develop these required skills in ways that meet the
needs of today’s learners.

Problem solving, for example, is a key 21st century skill (Barell, 2010).

Traditionally, problem-solving teaching methods focused on delineating the
steps of the problem solving process and subsequently, allowing students to
apply those steps to problems of varying difficulty (Polya, 1945). In contrast,
more constructivist teaching methods, such as case- or problem-based
learning, are designed to actually engage students in relevant, real-world
problems (Barrows, 1986). In these methods, students are presented with
authentic problem situations and then challenged to propose relevant
solutions (Mayer, 2009). Furthermore, given the advancements in technology
tools, students now enjoy increased access to 1) relevant case/problem
background information, 2) additional cases or case repositories that may
uncover partial or full solutions, as well as to 3) individuals, including
case/problem experts who can provide scaffolding, feedback, and other
support for formulating solutions. As such, teaching methods such as case
based instruction, coupled with advanced technology tools, can now facilitate
novices’ access to the knowledge, expertise, and mentoring of experts, which
has the potential to advance students’ levels of problem solving expertise in
more effective and efficient ways than was previously possible (Chase &
Simon, 1973; Schoenfeld & Herrmann, 1982).

A second, related 21st century skill is the ability to work collaboratively (Kay,

2010). While traditional school learning environments have typically
promoted independent learning strategies, today’s complex problems
necessitate that people work in teams in environments that enable the free
exchange of ideas, distribution of workload, and comparisons among different
solution paths. Today, with the use of available technologies, individuals from
geographically diverse locations can form communities of learners to develop
multidisciplinary solutions to important problems. Teaching methods that
incorporate the use of communities of practice have been very effective
(Brown, 1992) and closely tied to learning theories such as situated cognition
(Bereiter, 1997) and constructivism. However, the concept of these
communities has evolved considerably as technology has overcome the
restrictions of both place and time. Through these types of cross-cultural
collaborations, we all now have the opportunity to learn how to effectively
communicate and interact with others from increasingly diverse backgrounds.

As demonstrated by Schwartz, Lin, Brophy, and Bransford (1999), the ability to

“go public” has helped students learn from each other, learn how to view the
different ways that ideas can be expressed, as well as learn and experience the
motivational value such publication produces. With tools such as YouTube,
blogs, wikis, and social networks, the ability to communicate with others and to
express one’s creativity has many outlets. Richardson (2010) reported that
over 80% of high school students have engaged in online publishing. Although
Facebook is not a teaching method, aspects of this technology can be utilized
to facilitate collaboration among peers and interested others as original
artifacts (ideas, products, stories, etc.) are created, posted, and reviewed by
others.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

As noted above, there have been tremendous changes over the last 20 years
that have impacted the learning process – tools have changed, learners have
changed, and as a consequence, teaching methods have also changed. Yet,
despite these tremendous changes, the underlying principles of our “old”
theories still remain relevant. People still learn through stimulus-response
associations (e.g., game-based learning), through practice and feedback
opportunities (e.g., computer simulations), as well as through the processes of
collaboration and social negotiation (e.g., collaborative wiki writing). And
although learning contexts have changed (from fixed, formal settings to mobile,
informal ones), as well as the tools used to facilitate knowledge construction
(from individual, analog tools to social, digital ones), understanding is very likely
still being constructed in ways similar to the past, only with increasing
opportunities to construct that knowledge 24-7.
Similarly, the role of designers remains that of understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of each learning theory in order to optimally select and implement
strategies that support student learning in a variety of contexts. Whether
learners are learning in-transit or storing their knowledge in their friends,
learning needs still emerge (as they have always) “when a person strives to
overcome a problem … in everyday activity” (Vavoula cited in Sharples et al.,
2005, p. 5).

What has changed, however, is the type of learning experiences educators and

instructional designers need to create in order to ensure that our learning
designs take advantage of the affordances of current tools to engage learners
in ways that best meet their needs. Quite simply, learning designs for today’s
students must be highly contextualized, personal, and collaborative
(Herrington & Herrington, 2007). Designers must acknowledge and embrace
these changes so that they remain not only relevant, but
respected partners (Barone, 2003) in the ID work required to meet the
expectations and needs of today’s learners. As noted by Herrington and
Herrington, “…it is the confluence of the advances in theory and the
affordances of technology that create excellent opportunities for teachers [and
designers]” (p. 1). We would be remiss if we did not take advantage of these
opportunities. Indeed, our students will expect – no – they will demand it.

Application Exercises

 How would the instruction be designed differently by a behaviorist, a cognitivist,

and a constructivist? Scenario: A high school social study teacher is planning a
class on the Vietnam War.
 Describe an example from your life of when you were taught using each method
described in this article: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.
 Based on your reading, would you consider your current instruction style more
behavioralist, cognitivist, or constructivist? Elaborate with your specific mindset
and examples.

REFERENCES

Barell, J. (2010). Problem-based learning: The foundation for 21st century skills.

In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century Skills (pp. 174-199). Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
Barone, C. A. (2003). The changing landscape and the new academy. Educause
Review, 38(5), 41 47. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0353.pdf

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem‐based learning

methods. Medical education, 20(6), 481–486. Available online:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x

Bereiter, C. (1997). Situated cognition and how to overcome it. In D. Kirshner

& J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological
perspectives (pp. 281-300). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological

challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.

Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education,
and the way people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2). Retrieved March 26, 2013,
from www.johnseelybrown.com/Growing_up_digital.pdf.

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology,

4, 55-81.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:

Comparing critical features from an instructional design
perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007, November). Authentic mobile learning in

higher education. Paper presented at the International Education Research
Conference. Retrieved April 5, 2013,
from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5413

Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into

instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.

Kay, K. (2010). 21st Century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how
we get there. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century Skills (pp. xii-xxxi).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems
of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the
next generation of software. Retrieved April 1, 2013,
from http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part I: A new way to look at

ourselves and our kids. Retrieved April 1, 2013, from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Richardson, W. (2010). Navigating social networks as learning tools. In J.

Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century Skills (pp. 284-303). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H., & Herrmann, D. J., (1982). Problem perception and

knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem
solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
8(5), 484-494.

Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, s., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the
development of flexibly adaptive instructional design. In C. M. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional
theory (Vol. II, pp. 183-213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile
learning. Retrieved March 27, 2013,
from http://www.mlearn.org/mlearn2005/CD/papers/Sharples- Theory of
Mobile.pdf
Siemens, G. (2004). A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved March 26,
2007, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2006). Teaching and
learning at a distance: Foundations of Distance Education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.