Think back to the last time that you played a board game especially a game that you did not know well or one that you were learning for the first time. There sat the board game with its brightly colored design and interesting little pieces. It was all very intriguing but you may have felt nervous because you also suddenly realized that there were a lot of things that you did not know about this game that you needed to know. For example, you may ask yourself “What do the different colors in the various boxes mean?” and “How do I know if it is my turn”. From there, your mind turns to more strategic questions like “How do I protect myself yet gain the advantage over my opponents?”. The whole concept of a relaxing evening playing a board game with some friends has now become an event that is both exciting and terrifying at the same time. Whether you realize it or not, your true challenge in playing this game will be a test of how quickly and how well you can learn its rules and strategies. You are an instructional designer so you start to ponder what some of the various learning theories would say about how learning occurs and how best to support learning. It’s been a while since you were studying these theories in graduate school, so let us take a walk down memory lane (and for you Cognitivists this will be the Long Term Memory lane), shall we?
Let us start with Cognitivism. According to Cognitivism, “the human learner is conceived to be a processor of information in much the same way a computer is. When learning occurs, information is input from the environment, processed and stored in memory, and output in the form of some learned capability” (Driscoll, 2013, p. 74). The mind’s ability to process information is the central focus of Cognitivism. Facets of the mind such as memory and how memory functions are fundamental to this theory (Silber and Foshay, 2006). An instructional designers job from a Cognitivist point of view would then be to figure out the best way to get information processed into the learner’s memory and then how to get it processed in such a way that it stays in the memory. Similar to how a computer breaks down information into smaller portions in order to process or transmit it, breaking information down into portions that the learner’s mind can best handle is a primary recommendation of this theory. Some of the main recommendations to instructional designers are that they need to ensure that information is presented in an organized manner to learners and that they help the learners commit the information to memory by providing diverse and substantial practice with the information (Driscoll, 2013).
Now, let us consider Constructivism. To Constructivism, the learners are not just a participant in their learning rather they are the architects of their own learning and they create their own meaning (Driscoll, 2013). The learner already has their own understanding of how the world is and they are just continually adjusting that understanding based on new perceptions that they have. Additionally, the learner’s mind is not just a machine that can be programmed with information, rather the learners construct their own knowledge as they conduct critical thinking or problem solving in various environments.
To illustrate these theories with a somewhat simplified example, consider the board game scenario above. What would be different about the way that a Cognitivist Instructional Designer would design instruction to teach you the game versus what a Constructivist Instructional Designer would do? The Cognitivist would probably begin by finding out what you already know about the game and then designing instruction to build your knowledge from there. This instruction would be well organized and would focus on developing “chunks” of information for you to learn (Driscoll, 2013). Perhaps this would include time spent studying the rule book and practicing certain elements of the game before moving on to playing the game from start to finish. Eventually, you would move on to higher level strategies once your knowledge in the game was solid. The Constructivist would approach the design of the instruction somewhat differently. In fact, the Constructivist may decide that the best way for you to learn would just be to put you in the game and let you figure it out as you play. You would be learning the game while in a very realistic game environment. The Constructivist believes that you will seek out the pieces of information that you need by either consulting the rule book, asking someone else, or by just watching others play because it is believed that your desire to play the game will cause you to do so (Driscoll, 2013). Additionally, the social aspect of this game will be another element to help you construct your knowledge of it. The Constructivist would design instruction to help you construct your own knowledge of the game.
Personally, I believe that either method of instruction would work in this scenario. Both methods take different paths, but it seems that they most likely end up at the same spot. Perhaps the best method would be a combination of the two methods. Learning is a complex activity no matter what view you take of it so it only seems right that our design for instruction that supports learning would be no less involved and diverse.
References:
Driscoll, M. P. (2013). Cognitive information processing. In Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 71-110). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Driscoll, M. P. (2013). Constructivism. In Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 385-410). 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.
The Learning World Is My Oyster 