As instructional designers or educational practitioners, a shared goal is to improve, or facilitate, learning and performance. To achieve this goal, designers and educators are charged with “translating principles of learning and instruction into specifications for instructional materials and activities” (Smith & Ragan, 1993, p. 12).
Driscoll (2018) presents an introduction to some of the major theories of learning, explaining how these theories form the foundation of instructional design. She discusses the implications of learning theories for instructional design and their role in designing effective instruction. Similarly, Ertmer and Newby (1993) highlight three positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) to explain the learning process and implications for structuring instruction according to each perspective.
Ertmer and Newby (1993) discuss the importance and practicality of learning theory for instructional designers. They identify how learning theories afford instructional designers and educational practitioners verified instructional strategies, tactics, and techniques for facilitating learning. These theories provide a foundation for instructional designers to appropriately select and employ strategies.
The various positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) inform the planning and conducting of instructional design activities, and ultimately, learner outcomes. As Ertmer and Newby (1993) state, “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” (p. 52).
As an instructional designer or educational practitioner, how do learning theories inform your instructional design or facilitation?
References:
Driscoll, M. P. (2018). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology(4thed.) (pp. 51-60). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
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.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan.
Andrew R. Claassen 
Hi Andrew
I’m not in the academic world, but the company I work for loosely follows the constructivist teaching methods. (I also structure my classes to follow the same principles.)
We do mostly hands-on activities, allow for collaboration between the associates where they can learn from each other, and structure (and often restructure!) the course depending on the needs of the learners. I could teach the same course for an entire year, and each class would require a slightly different approach.
LikeLike