Constructivism and Cognitivism: The Yin and Yang of Foundational Theories?

When we covered cognitivism and constructivism in my masters program, I simply couldn't grasp the difference between them. Many of my peers seemed as clueless as I, and my professor couldn't really explain it, either. Thankfully, this week's readings on these two theories finally made it all click for me. While they both address what happens during learning, cognitivism looks at it more from a neurological standpoint, whereas constructivism looks at it more psychologically.

Silber and Foshay (2006) do an excellent job of explaining cognitivism in an organized, well-outlined method. They explain that cognitivism covers selective perception, limits in sensory stores, and how our short-term and long-term memories affect learning. They also cover the difference between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. The model covered in this reading is called the Cognitive Instructional Design Model, which includes five tasks of learners when they are learning. Learners choose the information to focus on; they link that new information with existing information in their knowledge banks; they organize all this information until they can assimilate it with their existing knowledge; finally, they strengthen the new knowledge within their memory. That said, none of that has to be done in any particular order. The rest of the chapter is devoted to explaining how to put the model into practice when lesson planning. All of which comes at the perfect time, as I am creating lesson plans for an upcoming volunteer training at work. I foresee keeping this reading as a reference tool in the future.

Driscoll (2005) helps me to understand why we all had so much trouble understanding the difference between the two theories in that other class. For one thing, "there is no single constructivist theory of instruction" (p. 387). Constructivist theorists are, to some degree, all over the place. In addition to being difficult to define in its own right, constructivism draws, in large part, from cognitivism. The difference being that cognitivists put their attention on how the learning is happening, and constructionists put their attention on who is doing the learning. Constructivists force us to deal with uncontrollable aspects of instruction, for "knowledge constructions do not necessarily bear any correspondence to external reality" (p. 388). Cognitive theory touches on perception with regard to selective perception, but constructivism emphasizes the importance of perception on learning and how we test those perceptions. In fact, contructivists encourage this testing by taking learner-centered education to a whole new level. This has drawn a fair amount of criticism to this theory.

Now that I am better able to compare and contrast these two theories, I have a greater appreciation for them. I am especially drawn to constructivism, particularly social constructivist theory, though I recognize its limits. They have much in common, and the differences are subtle. the way I keep them straight is to see cognitivism as addressing the how, constructivism as addressing the who, and both addressing the what of learning. I would be interested to hear other people's strategies for comparing and contrasting these two theories.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Constructivism. In Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 384-410). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Silber, K. H., & Foshay, W. R. (2006). Designing instructional strategies: A cognitive perspective. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (370-413). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Behaviorism's Influence on Instructional Technology

Last week's angst over how to connect the underlying theories of instructional technology with the other theories that make up my educational experience has been reduced this week due this week's readings on behaviorism. Driscoll (2005) covers a history and overview of radical behaviorism. Saettler (1990) covers a history of behaviorism, in general. Finally, Molenda (2008) is a nostalgic article about technologies related to programmed instruction.

Driscoll (2005) gave me a better appreciation of behaviorism. The reading provided some history, described the theory in organized detail, covered the principles of behaviorism and the types of reinforcements used, and addressed some of the right and wrong ways to use it. What really turned me around on the theory were the sections on its contributions to instruction, mainly because I recognized them in qualities I appreciate about classes I've taken and taught in the past. Behavior modification, classroom management, and instructional objectives applications did not come as a surprise. That is what I primarily think of when someone talks about behaviorism. What I had not attributed to behaviorism were the modules effective online courses are broken into. Another takeaway was that there is not just one type of behaviorism. There was quite a bit of disagreement even among behaviorists and a lot of overlap in different approaches, especially in the 1960s.

Saettler (1990) was quite a bit harder to read. This reading provided a history lesson, but it was all over the place. That inspired me to take learning styles into consideration. Thus, a timeline was born. Tiki-toki allowed me to organize all the information from the readings into an interactive visual representation to lessen confusion. The program also allows for categories, which allowed me to color code the source material for the timeline "stories." Right now, there is a lot of clutter in the heyday of behaviorism. I hope to go back in later to remove some of the less essential "stories" to make the timeline easier to read.

Sometimes, the optional readings professors assign end up being the most interesting. Such was the case last week with the Smith and Boling (2009) article and this week with Molenda (2008). The author provides background information on programmed instruction, and the respect held for PI comes across strongly. Particularly interesting was the section discussing how PI was addressed in presentations and publications, and how it influenced the name change from DAVI to AECT. The sentence that really stood out to me was "The innnovators who followed were similarly motivated to expand human freedom and dignity by giving learners more customized programs of instruction in a humane, caring context with frequent one-to-one contact" (Molenda, 2008).

That sentence, more than anything else I read, made me reconsider my previous perceptions of behaviorism. Behaviorism as a theory is not black and white. There is a lot of grey and a lot of color in there. Behaviorism is made up of a lot of different opinions about how to achieve the goal. Finally, there are many aspects of learner-centered, quality online education that have their roots in behaviorism.

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Radical behaviorism. In Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 29-69). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Molenda, M. (2008). The programmed instruction era: When effectiveness mattered. TechTrends, 52(2), 52-58.

Saettler, P. (1990). Behaviorism and educational technology. In The evolution of American educational technology (pp. 286-317). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

 Smith, M. K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3-17.

Are You an Educator or a Trainer?

While considering the theories, models, and frameworks surrounding Instructional Technology, I struggled with how corporate-focused most resources on the subject seem to be. Perhaps, this is why the majority of instructional technology jobs are in the corporate sector and in the military. These tend to focus on training and human performance. As a humanistic educator with experience in the liberal arts, I have often asked myself why I have such an interest in a field that seems so far removed from my own educational philosophy.

These questions came up again on Tuesday during a webinar I was moderating for work. Dr. Bruce Jackson, who was presenting the webinar, provided some final thoughts. One of them was perhaps the best comparison and contrast of pedagogy and andragogy I have seen. I'm not sure where he gleaned these definitions, or if he came up with them himself, but they were:

"Pedagogy: Instructional methods of teaching. Everybody learning the same thing and in the same way.

Andragogy: Everybody learning what s/he needs to learn and in his or her own way"(Jackson, 2013). 

I found myself asking how this idea of andragogy fits with the instructional technology frameworks I've been learning about, such as the Dick and Carey Model that is systems-based (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009). They seem to be more applicable to this definition of pedagogy. What's a designer to do if the instructional goal varies among students? What if the instructional goal is to help students become self-actualized? How do you write performance objectives for that? Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) contrasted education and training without ever revealing how instructional technology fits into each. However, they also wrote, "Instructional design starts by first identifying the performance problem and never assumes that instruction is the answer to all problems." Perhaps, that explains why I have a much easier time using the various frameworks with a class on Ayurvedic pulse assessment, but a harder time applying it to a philosophy class. 

Some of the literature seems to suggest one needs to be a behaviorist, cognitivist, or constructionist to be an instructional technologist. Other literature suggest the theories, models, and frameworks of instructional technology can be applied to any course by anyone. I want to believe the latter of the two. I am still struggling with what that looks like. Hopefully, by the time I get through my program of studies, I will have a better grasp of it. Of course, I welcome thoughts, comments, and feedback on the topic from others.

References

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). Introduction to instructional design. The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.) (pp. 1-13). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Jackson, B. H. (2013). Finding your flow: A personal leadership model for any meaningful life arena. (PowerPoint). The Institute of Applied Human Excellence. 

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Introduction to the instructional design process. Designing effective instruction. (5th ed.) (pp. xviii-26). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Are We What We Are Not?

As I explore the definitions of instructional technology throughout the ages, one observation stands out in particular. A lot of the discussion surrounding what it is has been focused on what it is not. Perhaps, this is because instructional technology is such a broad, fluid, dynamic field that describing what it is not is easier and/or less time-consuming than describing what it is. I hope that is the case. Sometimes, non-examples help more than examples. Still, I like to feel my feet on solid ground, but there has been no firm foundation with regard to defining instructional technology.

In A History of the AECT's Definitions of Educational Technology (2008), Januszewski and Persichitte describe some of the discussions that led to the various definitions over time, starting with the 1963 definition back when AECT was DAVI. Reiser (2008) reminds us that prior to this time the focus was on "instructional media." The 1963 discussion centered around what was wrong with the definition of audiovisual communications. Januszewski and Persichitte (2008) state that the major problem was the definition was product-based rather than theory-based. "The 1963 definition was heavily influenced by James Finn's (1953) six characteristics of a profession.... Finn (1953) evaluated the audiovisual field against each of the six characteristics and determined that the audiovisual field did not meet the most fundamental characteristic: an organized body of intellectual theory and research" (Januszewski & Persichitte, 2008). The 1963 definition was meant to correct that.

Less than a decade later DAVI became AECT. Leadership wanted to emphasize that the field was not just about audiovisuals anymore. This seemed like a good time to also emphasize that the field preferred learner-centered education, not teacher-centered education. The authors of the 1972 definition no longer supported the view of educational technology as a theory. Instead, they viewed it as a field of study.

The 1972 definition was short-lived. The 1997 version grew from more things the field was not. For example, the field is not just instructional technology. "The reasoning was that since instruction was considered a subset of education then instructional technology was a subset of educational technology (Januszewski & Persichitte, 2008). This definition also emphasized that educational technology was not a theory like the earliest definitions, not a field like the previous definition, but a process that encompassed both of these, as well as it being a profession.

This definition managed to last a long time. The next definition was not until 1994. This time, we were back to instructional technology because the thing we were not was inclusive. Apparently, educational technology had been too broad and all-encompassing. The authors of the 1994 definition wanted to be more specific, not just with the title of the field, but with how the word theory was defined with regard to it. Unfortunately, this definition did not last, either. We eventually decided we were not "the systems approach to instructional development" (Januszewski & Persichitte, 2008) and wanted everyone to know it.

Admittedly, this analysis has been a bit "glass half empty." A more even-handed view would be to say that while each definition attempted to separate itself from what we did not want to be, there were also moments of recognizing what we do want to be. We want to be more than just a product. We want to be more than just a theory or a field. We want to empower learners. We want to define ourselves as a profession, so that there is no mistaking who we are and what we are about. According to Reiser (2007), "the 1977 definition statement was the first such statement to mention the analysis phase of the planning process." By the time we get to 2006, the definition has been cut down to only one sentence. Still, there was a lot being said in that one little sentence.

Perhaps, wherever there is change, there will be both moving away from and moving toward something. "A fundamental aspect of educational communications and technology is change" (Spector, 2008). If that is true, perhaps I should make peace with the fact we will sometimes have to focus on what we are not. Still, I hope we will place most of our attention on what we aspire to be.

References

Januszewski, A., & Persichitte, K. A. (2008). A history of the AECT’s definitions of educational technology. In A. Januszewski& M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology (pp. 259-282). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reiser, R. A. (2007). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 2-9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 

Spector, M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Dirscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 21-28). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.