Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective

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. Th e 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), the fi eld of Instructional Design performs this role. Instructional designers have been charged with “translating principles of learning and instruction into specifi cations 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 way we defi ne learning and what we believe about the way learning occurs has important implications for situations in which we want to facilitate changes in what people know and/or do. Learning theories provide instructional designers with verifi ed instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning as well as a foundation for intelligent strategy selection. Yet many designers are operating under the constraints of a limited theoretical background. This paper is an attempt to familiarize designers with three relevant positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) which provide structured foundations for planning and conducting instructional design activities. Each learning perspective is discussed in terms of its specifi c interpretation of the learning process and the resulting implications for instructional designers and educational practitioners. The information presented here provides the reader with a comparison of these three diff erent viewpoints and illustrates how these diff erences might be translated into practical applications in instructional situations.