Behaviorism, Cognitive Theory, and Constructivism in Instructional Design
Choosing the Right Tool for the Job
Each of the three foundational theories in the psychology of learning has its own set of general characteristics. Behaviorism, for example, is known for its strictly controlled environment of rewards and consequences. For every input, there is a response, which makes it very easy to identify, measure, and adjust for common design problems such as information gaps, performance bottlenecks, and extraneous load walls. Constructivism is its opposite, aiming to create minimally restrictive, largely unguided learning environments that allow learners to explore and develop their ability to learn on their own. Cognitive Theory is somewhere between the two, creating scenarios and situations in which learning is guided in a certain direction, but the learner has to “steer the ship” to the destination themselves through application of the knowledge they’ve acquired from the instruction. Each of the three has its ardent supporters, and an argument can be made that learning at any level can take place within any of them, however each has its own strengths and weaknesses and with more detailed examination and experimentation, a “best use case” can be made for each.
Behaviorism
Behaviorist designs are easy to automate and scale, as the nature of the theory is based around direct cause and effect, which mirrors basic logic coding. “If(input), then(response). If(threshold = 1), positive response. If(threshold = 0), ZAP!” and so on. Information is provided, and the learner is expected to be able to demonstrate their comprehension, or at least their memorization, of that information. Successful demonstration is rewarded, unsuccessful demonstration is punished. These are the things of lecture halls, formal exams, late night cram sessions, certain genres of video game, and every mandatory linear e-learning that’s ever been assigned to someone by HR. They are easy to picture and easy to navigate. We know them well, we spent our childhood strapped to a desk practicing with them and if someone asked us how we would train our children to do some task in the future, most of us would probably dip into that same well for our first-draft instructional solution.
Constructivism
Constructivism is nearly the polar opposite of its much older sister. The meditative hippy third-child of learning theories and darling of California-esque avante-garde schools that let their kids roam around between “learning stations” picking things up as they will (or won’t) from instructors that see themselves more as guides than teachers, and who stand not a wit of a chance in competing with smart phones for the kid’s attention. That isn’t to say that there isn’t value in the concept of “learning to learn”, rather than just learning to do a specific thing, but just like in the real “open world”, there are a lot of potential pitfalls.
Often written off as silly and, if not ineffective certainly inefficient as an instructional model, Constructivism actually closely reflects the way in which humans do the lion’s share of their intrinsic learning throughout their lives. After all, in study after study, kinesthetic learning has proven much more effective for learners than mere visual or auditory learning, and what is more kinesthetic than walking up and playing with the thing you want to learn? There are examples of this in the digital world as well, namely open world games, advanced simulators, and “learning environments” that let the learner roam as they may, eschewing formal testing for a “what can you do with it?” model of evaluation. This is often the hallmark of top professionals who become pioneers in their field. After all, who is going to train you for the thing you discover or invent? You have to make the necessary leaps and connections yourself, and to do that, you have to be capable of self-learning.
Cognitive Theory
Then, of course, there is the oft-overlooked middle child. Cognitive Theory, when distilled down from all the sesquipedalian word-smithing of professors that probably lectured you about incorrectly calling the theory “cognitivism”, is really just about allowing the learner off the leash but not out of the yard entirely. That doesn’t have to be as limiting as it sounds, either. After all, there are almost an incalculable number of ways that a chess game can play out without breaking the fundamental rules of the game. This approach looks to create scenarios and situations that have an end goal in mind, a “win state” which the successful learner is lauded for achieving, that cannot be reached without proper application of the knowledge imparted during instruction. As a result, cognitive theory lends itself well to gamification, simulation, and evaluation both in and out of the instructional environment.
Realistically, there’s nothing you cannot learn using any of these three techniques given enough time, and perhaps there is something to be said for an instructor just sticking to one of them and honing it to its sharpest edge, hoping to overcome its natural inefficiencies through ruthless tightening of the content and practiced perfection of the presentation.
But why settle for absorbing an inherent weakness when you don’t have to? As instructional designers, these theoretical structures are tools in our tool belt, and what is a tool belt for if not to provide the craftsman with the ability to put one tool away when a more appropriate tool is available?
Searching for an effective way of training your employees or students?
- Designed for rapid adoption
- Optimized for maximum retention
- Customized for your audience
Check out our customized learning modules!
About the author
Chavis N. Comer
Founder and Senior Instructional Systems Designer of Tohmes Training, Mr. Comer has nearly two decades of experience developing training programs for clients representing a variety of industries across dozens of different countries. From the federal government to the banking and tech sectors to local K-12 school systems and universities, he has provided consultation and design services to a truly diverse portfolio of clientele.