Learning Paradigms

Learning Paradigms of Instructional Design and Technology

Tara Ingram
EDIT 6100
Instructor: Dr. Gregory Clinton

Page 1

Learning Paradigms

Page 2

There are three popular learning paradigms that are used in the field instructional
technology. These paradigms are behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. Each perspective
influences the instruction process in various ways. The philosophical perspective the instructor
incorporates into their teaching, will determine their style of instruction and the climate of the
classroom. The role of the teacher and the learner will vary depending on what learning theory is
used. This essay will define three major learning paradigms in the field of instructional
technology, compare and contrast them, as well as to explain the impact they have on instruction.
The first learning paradigm is behaviorism, which was founded by John B. Watson.
Behaviorism is a learning theory that suggests all behaviors are learned through some type of
conditioning. The focus is primarily on changes in observable behavior rather than on internal
mental processes (Sternberg & Williams, 2010, p236). The two components of behaviorism are
classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning occurs when there is a
stimulus that is used to get the same response that usually occurs from the use of a different
stimulus. (Sternberg & Williams, 2010) This was illustrated through Pavlovs theory. Edward
Thorndike laid the foundation for B.F. Skinner to build the theory of operant conditioning. The
basis of operant conditioning is that humans and animals learn to behave in such a way as to
obtain rewards and avoid punishments(Staddon& Niv, 2008, paragraph 1).
The second major philosophical perspective on learning is cognitivism. The theory of
cognitive learning focuses on the mental behavior process that happens while learning something
new or being able to add further knowledge towards something that you already know. This
theory emphasizes the importance of what is occurring in the mind during learning. A major
contributors to this paradigm was Robert Gagne. His theory of instruction was made up of three

Learning Paradigms

Page 3

components: a taxonomy of learning outcomes, conditions for learning and nine events of
instruction. (Driscoll, M., 2000)
The third learning paradigm is constructivism, which emphasizes the idea that knowledge
is constructed when already existing beliefs, views and experiences meet with new information.
Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are known for contributing to this cognitivism theory. Piagets
stage theory of cognitive development studied how information transfers from sensory, working,
and long-term memory when the learner is attentive and focused. The psychologist discovered
that through repetitive practice and the use of visuals, newly learned information moves through
stages of memory, where the accomplishments build upon those from the previous stage.
(Sternberg & Williams 2010) In contrast to the inside-out philosophy of Piaget, Vygotsky
believed that cognitive development occurred from the outside to the inside. He believed that
children watch what others do and how they interact socially and use these understandings to
influence their own development. (Sternberg & Williams 2010)
The main differences are that behaviorism does not focus attention on what learners
already have in their minds and it treats the learners as if they are motivated by the same things.
If I use a reward or chart system, whatever the reward is must motivate everyone, but everyone is
not motivated by the same things. The learning environment looks different as well. I think it
progresses in physical movement from behaviorism, to cognitivism, and finally to
constructivism. In this same order it also increases with learner autonomy and ownership over
their own educational experiences.
These philosophical perspectives greatly influence instruction, however the process looks
different for each of these learning paradigms. A behaviorist would use more of a direct
instruction technique and focus on mastery of a specific skill. They may also use more drill and

Learning Paradigms

Page 4

practice in order to teach certain concepts. However, a constructivist would have more of a
collaborative learning environment. There would be use of problem base learning activities as
well as a more interactive instruction. An instructor who believes in behaviorism may do a
reward system or a progress chart because they will want to give the student something after they
receive the desired behavior as a reaction to the stimulus presented. Cognitive instructors use
graphic organizers, mnemonic devices or varying types of visuals to keep attention and to
connect information to their memory. A similar feature you may see in a behaviorist environment
that is similar to a cognitivist is repetition because they both emphasize reinforcement of the
learning. While modelling is something that may be shared between a constructivist and a
cognitivist environment. The common threads that seems to run through all three philosophical
perspectives are scaffolding and feedback.
Both the teacher and the learner have significant roles according to each of these
perspectives. The role of the teacher in behaviorism is to provide stimulus material that will
provoke the desired response, while the learners role is to receive and repeat the response until
the behavioral change is consistent and automatic. The instructor may use cues and
reinforcement (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). The role of the teacher in cognitivism is to introduce
and explain the strategy, then model it for them. The students role is to practice the strategy,
while the teachers role is to observe the student in practice. In constructivism, the teacher is
more of a facilitator, they ask more questions to get the learner to think for themselves instead of
telling them what they should know and remember. The teacher is more like the drivers
education teacher. They have the power to maneuver but exercise the power only when
necessary. The student is the one in the drivers seat.

Learning Paradigms

Page 5

Ideally, a culmination of all three philosophical perspectives would create the ultimate
instructor. A good teacher will be able to pull from each one of these learning paradigms and say
they do that in their classroom. In an article written about the integration of learning theories in
different instructional contexts, Hung (2001) states, instead of regarding the different learning
theories as discordant, we rather adopt the instructional approaches derived from each of the
learning theories and situate them in appropriate instructional context based on learning
objectives, calling teachers pedagogical engineers with the responsibility to plan a lesson(s)
with the most relevant instructional approaches and technologies at his or her disposal ( p.286).

Learning Paradigms

Page 6

References
Driscoll, M.P. (1999). Gagnes Theory of Instruction, Psychology of Learning for
Instruction (pp.341-373).
Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.
Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional
technologies, Education
Media International, 3(4), 281-287. doi:10.1080/09523980110105114
Lisenbee, P. (2009). Whiteboards and web sites: digital tools for early childhood
curriculum. Young
Children,64(6), 92-95.
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.
Staddon, J.E.R. & Niv, Y. (2008). Operant conditioning. Scholarpedia. Retrieved from
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Operant_conditioning
Sternberg, R.J. & Williams, W.M. (2010). Educational psychology (2 nded.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.