Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism

Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective

Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy Newby

Editor's Note

This article was originally published in 1993 and then republished in 2013 by Performance
Improvement Quarterly. © 2013 International Society for Performance Improvement Published online
in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21143. The original citation is
below:

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical
features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

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. The 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, p. 5), the field of Instructional Design
performs this role.

Instructional designers have been charged with “translating principles of learning and instruction
into specifications 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
situational and contextual constraints of the application? What is the degree of individual differences
among the learners? What form of solutions will or will not be accepted by the learners as well as by
those actually teaching the materials? The designer must have the ability to diagnose and analyze
practical learning problems. Just as a doctor cannot prescribe an effective remedy without a proper
diagnosis, the instructional designer cannot properly recommend an effective prescriptive solution
without an accurate analysis of the instructional problem.

In addition to understanding and analyzing the problem, a second core of knowledge and skills is
needed to “bridge” or “link” application with research–that of understanding the potential sources of
solutions (i.e., the theories of human learning). Through this understanding, a proper prescriptive
solution can be matched with a given diagnosed problem. The critical link, therefore, is not between
the design of instruction and an autonomous body of knowledge about instructional phenomena, but

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 1

between instructional design issues and the theories of human learning.

Why this emphasis on learning theory and research? First, learning theories are a source of verified
instructional strategies, tactics, and techniques. Knowledge of a variety of such strategies is critical
when attempting to select an effective prescription for overcoming a given instructional problem.
Second, learning theories provide the foundation for intelligent and reasoned strategy selection.
Designers must have an adequate repertoire of strategies available, and possess the knowledge of
when and why to employ each. This knowledge depends on the designer’s ability to match the
demands of the task with an instructional strategy that helps the learner. Third, integration of the
selected strategy within the instructional context is of critical importance. Learning theories and
research often provide information about relationships among instructional components and the
design of instruction, indicating how specific techniques/strategies might best fit within a given
context and with specific learners (Keller, 1979). Finally, the ultimate role of a theory is to allow for
reliable prediction (Richey, 1986). Effective solutions to practical instructional problems are often
constrained by limited time and resources. It is paramount that those strategies selected and
implemented have the highest chance for success. As suggested by Warries (1990), a selection based
on strong research is much more reliable than one based on “instructional phenomena.”

The task of translating learning theory into practical applications would be greatly simplified if the
learning process were relatively simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Learning is a complex process that has generated numerous interpretations and theories of how it is
effectively accomplished. Of these many theories, which should receive the attention of the
instructional designer? Is it better to choose one theory when designing instruction or to draw ideas
from different theories? This article presents three distinct perspectives of the learning process
(behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) and although each has many unique features, it is our
belief that each still describes the same phenomena (learning). 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. Therefore, as emphasized by Snelbecker (1983), individuals addressing practical Iearning
problems cannot afford the “luxury of restricting themselves to only one theoretical position… [They]
are urged to examine each of the basic science theories which have been developed by psychologists
in the study of learning and to select those principles and conceptions which seem to be of value for
one’s particular educational situation’ (p. 8).

If knowledge of the various learning theories is so important for instructional designers, to what
degree are they emphasized and promoted? As reported by Johnson (1992), less than two percent of
the courses offered in university curricula in the general area of educational technology emphasize
“theory” as one of their key concepts. It appears that the real benefits of theoretical knowledge are,
at present, not being realized. This article is an attempt to “fill in some of the gaps” that may exist in
our knowledge of modern learning theories. The main intent is to provide designers with some
familiarity with three relevant positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) which
should provide a more structured foundation for planning and conducting instructional design
activities. The idea is that if we understand some of the deep principles of the theories of learning, we
can extrapolate to the particulars as needed. As Bruner (1971) states, “You don’t need to encounter
everything in nature in order to know nature” (p. 18). A basic understanding of the learning theories
can provide you with a “canny strategy whereby you could know a great deal about a lot of things
while keeping very little in mind” (p. 18).

It is expected that after reading this article, instructional designers and educational practitioners

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 2

should be better informed “consumers”of the strategies suggested by each viewpoint. The concise
information presented here can serve as an initial base of knowledge for making important decisions
regarding instructional objectives and strategies.

Learning Defined
Learning has been defined in numerous ways by many different theorists, researchers and
educational practitioners. Although universal agreement on any single definition is nonexistent, many
definitions employ common elements. The following definition by Shuell (as interpreted by Schunk,
1991) incorporates these main ideas: “Learning is an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity
to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of experience” (p. 2).

Undoubtedly, some learning theorists will disagree on the definition of learning presented here.
However, it is not the definition itself that separates a given theory from the rest. The major
differences among theories lie more in interpretation than they do in definition. These differences
revolve around a number of key issues that ultimately delineate the instructional prescriptions that
flow from each theoretical perspective. Schunk (1991) lists five definitive questions that serve to
distinguish each learning theory from the others:

1. How does learning occur?

2. Which factors influence learning?
3. What is the role of memory?
4. How does transfer occur? and
5. What types of learning are best explained by the theory?

Expanding on this original list, we have included two additional questions important to the
instructional designer:

1. What basic assumptions/principles of this theory are relevant to instructional design? and
2. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

In this article, each of these questions is answered from three distinct viewpoints: behaviorism,
cognitivism, and constructivism. Although learning theories typically are divided into two
categories–behavioral and cognitive–a third category, constructive, is added here because of its
recent emphasis in the instructional design literature (e.g., Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry,
1991; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991; Jonassen, 1991b; Winn, 1991). In many ways these viewpoints overlap;
yet they are distinctive enough to be treated as separate approaches to understanding and describing
learning. These three particular positions were chosen because of their importance, both historically
and currently, to the field of instructional design. It is hoped that the answers to the first five
questions will provide the reader with a basic understanding of how these viewpoints differ. The
answers to the last two questions will translate these differences into practical suggestions and
recommendations for the application of these principles in the design of instruction.

These seven questions provide the basis for the article’s structure. For each of the three theoretical
positions, the questions are addressed and an example is given to illustrate the application of that
perspective. It is expected that this approach will enable the reader to compare and contrast the
different viewpoints on each of the seven issues.

As is common in any attempt to compare and contrast similar products, processes, or ideas,

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 3

differences are emphasized in order to make distinctions clear. This is not to suggest that there are
no similarities among these viewpoints or that there are no overlapping features. In fact, different
learning theories will often prescribe the same instructional methods for the same situations (only
with different terminology and possibly with different intentions). This article outlines the major
differences between the three positions in an attempt to facilitate comparison. It is our hope that the
reader will gain greater insight into what each viewpoint offers in terms of the design and
presentation of materials, as well as the types of learning activities that might be prescribed.

Historical Foundations
Current learning theories have roots that extend far into the past. The problems with which today’s
theorists and researchers grapple and struggle are not new but simply variations on a timeless
theme: Where does knowledge come from and how do people come to know? Two opposing positions
on the origins of knowledge-empiricism and rationalism have existed for centuries and are still
evident, to varying degrees, in the learning theories of today. A brief description of these views is
included here as a background for comparing the “modern” learning viewpoints of behaviorism,
cognitivism, and constructivism.

Empiricism is the view that experience is the primary source of knowledge (Schunk, 1991). That is,
organisms are born with basically no knowledge and anything learned is gained through interactions
and associations with the environment. Beginning with Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), empiricists have
espoused the view that knowledge is derived from sensory impressions. Those impressions, when
associated contiguously in time and/or space, can be hooked together to form complex ideas. For
example, the complex idea of a tree, as illustrated by Hulse, Egeth, and Deese (1980), can be built
from the less complex ideas of branches and leaves, which in turn are built from the ideas of wood
and fiber, which are built from basic sensations such as greenness, woody odor, and so forth. From
this perspective, critical instructional design issues focus on how to manipulate the environment in
order to improve and ensure the occurrence of proper associations.

Rationalism is the view that knowledge derives from reason without the aid of the senses (Schunk,
1991). This fundamental belief in the distinction between mind and matter originated with Plato (c.
427-347 B.C.), and is reflected in the viewpoint that humans learn by recalling or “discovering” what
already exists in the mind. For example, the direct experience with a tree during one’s lifetime simply
serves to reveal that which is already in the mind. The “real” nature of the tree (greenness,
woodiness, and other characteristics) becomes known, not through the experience, but through a
reflection on one’s idea about the given instance of a tree. Although later rationalists differed on
some of Plato’s other ideas, the central belief remained the same: that knowledge arises through the
mind. From this perspective, instructional design issues focus on how best to structure new
information in order to facilitate (1) the learners’ encoding of this new information, as well as (2) the
recalling of that which is already known.

The empiricist, or associationist, mindset provided the framework for many learning theories during
the first half of this century, and it was against this background that behaviorism became the leading
psychological viewpoint (Schunk, 1991). Because behaviorism was dominant when instructional
theory was initiated (around 1950), the instructional design (ID) technology that arose alongside it
was naturally influenced by many of its basic assumptions and characteristics. Since ID has its roots
in behavioral theory, it seems appropriate that we turn our attention to behaviorism first.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 4

Behaviorism
How Does Learning Occur?

Behaviorism equates learning with changes in either the form or frequency of observable
performance. Learning is accomplished when a proper response is demonstrated following the
presentation of a specific environmental stimulus. For example, when presented with a math
flashcard showing the equation “2 + 4 = ?” the learner replies with the answer of “6.” The equation is
the stimulus and the proper answer is the associated response. The key elements are the stimulus,
the response, and the association between the two. Of primary concern is how the association
between the stimulus and response is made, strengthened, and maintained.

Behaviorism focuses on the importance of the consequences of those performances and contends that
responses that are followed by reinforcement are more likely to recur in the future. No attempt is
made to determine the structure of a student’s knowledge nor to assess which mental processes it is
necessary for them to use (Winn, 1990). The learner is characterized as being reactive to conditions
in the environment as opposed to taking an active role in discovering the environment.

Which Factors Influence Learning?

Although both learner and environmental factors are considered important by behaviorists,
environmental conditions receive the greatest emphasis. Behaviorists assess the learners to
determine at what point to begin instruction as well as to determine which reinforcers are most
effective for a particular student. The most critical factor, however, is the arrangement of stimuli and
consequences within the environment.

What is the Role of Memory?

Memory, as commonly defined by the layman, is not typically addressed by behaviorists. Although the
acquisition of “habits” is discussed, little attention is given as to how these habits are stored or
recalled for future use. Forgetting is attributed to the “nonuse” of a response over time. The use of
periodic practice or review serves to maintain a learner’s readiness to respond (Schunk, 1991).

How Does Transfer Occur?

Transfer refers to the application of learned knowledge in new ways or situations, as well as to how
prior learning affects new learning. In behavioral learning theories, transfer is a result of
generalization. Situations involving identical or similar features allow behaviors to transfer across
common elements. For example, the student who has learned to recognize and classify elm trees
demonstrates transfer when (s)he classifies maple trees using the same process. The similarities
between the elm and maple trees allow the learner to apply the previous elm tree classification
learning experience to the maple tree classification task.

What Types of Learning Are Best Explained by This Position?

Behaviorists attempt to prescribe strategies that are most useful for building and strengthening
stimulus-response associations (Winn, 1990), including the use of instructional cues, practice, and
reinforcement. These prescriptions have generally been proven reliable and effective in facilitating

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 5

learning that involves discriminations (recalling facts), generalizations (defining and illustrating
concepts), associations (applying explanations), and chaining (automatically performing a specified
procedure). However, it is generally agreed that behavioral principles cannot adequately explain the
acquisition of higher level skills or those that require a greater depth of processing (e.g., language
development, problem solving, inference generating, critical thinking) (Schunk, 1991).

What Basic Assumptions/principles of This Theory Are Relevant to

Instructional Design?

Many of the basic assumptions and characteristics of behaviorism are embedded in current
instructional design practices. Behaviorism was used as the basis for designing many of the early
audio-visual materials and gave rise to many related teaching strategies, such as Skinner’s teaching
machines and programmed texts. More recent examples include principles utilized within computer-
assisted instruction (CAI) and mastery learning.

Specific assumptions or principles that have direct relevance to instructional design include the
following (possible current ID applications are listed in italics and brackets following the listed
principle):

1. An emphasis on producing observable and measurable outcomes in students [behavioral

objectives, task analysis, criterion-referenced assessment]
2. Pre-assessment of students to determine where instruction should begin [learner analysis]
3. Emphasis on mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of performance
[sequencing of instructional presentation, mastery learning]
4. Use of reinforcement to impact performance [tangible rewards, informative feedback]
5. Use of cues, shaping and practice to ensure a strong stimulus-response association [simple to
complex sequencing of practice, use of prompts]

How Should Instruction Be Structured?

The goal of instruction for the behaviorist is to elicit the desired response from the learner who is
presented with a target stimulus. To accomplish this, the learner must know how to execute the
proper response, as well as the conditions under which that response should be made. Therefore,
instruction is structured around the presentation of the target stimulus and the provision of
opportunities for the learner to practice making the proper response. To facilitate the linking of
stimulus-response pairs, instruction frequently uses cues (to initially prompt the delivery of the
response) and reinforcement (to strengthen correct responding in the presence of the target
stimulus).

Behavioral theories imply that the job of the teacher/designer is to (1) determine which cues can
elicit the desired responses; (2) arrange practice situations in which prompts are paired with the
target stimuli that initially have no eliciting power but which will be expected to elicit the responses
in the “natural” (performance) setting; and (3) arrange environmental conditions so that students can
make the correct responses in the presence of those target stimuli and receive reinforcement for
those responses (Gropper, 1987).

For example, a newly-hired manager of human resources may be expected to organize a meeting
agenda according to the company’s specific format. The target stimulus (the verbal command “to
format a meeting agenda”) does not initially elicit the correct response nor does the new manager

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 6

have the capability to make the correct response. However, with the repeated presentation of cues
(e.g., completed templates of past agendas, blank templates arranged in standard format) paired with
the verbal command stimulus, the manager begins to make the appropriate responses. Although the
initial responses may not be in the final proper form, repeated practice and reinforcement shape the
response until it is correctly executed. FinaIIy, learning is demonstrated when, upon the command to
format a meeting agenda, the manager reliably organizes the agenda according to company
standards and does so without the use of previous examples or models.

Cognitivism
In the late 1950’s, learning theory began to make a shift away from the use of behavioral models to
an approach that relied on learning theories and models from the cognitive sciences. Psychologists
and educators began to de-emphasize a concern with overt, observable behavior and stressed instead
more complex cognitive processes such as thinking, problem solving, language, concept formation
and information processing (Snelbecker, 1983). Within the past decade, a number of authors in the
field of instructional design have openly and consciously rejected many of ID’s traditional
behavioristic assumptions in favor of a new set of psychological assumptions about learning drawn
from the cognitive sciences. Whether viewed as an open revolution or simply a gradual evolutionary
process, there seems to be the general acknowledgment that cognitive theory has moved to the
forefront of current learning theories (Bednar et al., 1991). This shift from a behavioral orientation
(where the emphasis is on promoting a student’s overt performance by the manipulation of stimulus
material) to a cognitive orientation (where the emphasis is on promoting mental processing) has
created a similar shift from procedures for manipulating the materials to be presented by an
instructional system to procedures for directing student processing and interaction with the
instructional design system (Merrill, Kowalis, & Wilson, 1981).

How Does Learning Occur?

Cognitive theories stress the acquisition of knowledge and internal mental structures and, as such,
are closer to the rationalist end of the epistemology continuum (Bower & Hilgard, 1981). Learning is
equated with discrete changes between states of knowledge rather than with changes in the
probability of response. Cognitive theories focus on the conceptualization of students’ learning
processes and address the issues of how information is received, organized, stored, and retrieved by
the mind. Learning is concerned not so much with what learners do but with what they know and how
they come to acquire it (Jonassen, 1991b). Knowledge acquisition is described as a mental activity
that entails internal coding and structuring by the learner. The learner is viewed as a very active
participant in the learning process.

Which Factors Influence Learning?

Cognitivism, like behaviorism, emphasizes the role that environmental conditions play in facilitating
learning. Instructional explanations, demonstrations, illustrative examples and matched non-
examples are all considered to be instrumental in guiding student learning. Similarly, emphasis is
placed on the role of practice with corrective feedback. Up to this point, little difference can be
detected between these two theories. However, the “active” nature of the learner is perceived quite
differently. The cognitive approach focuses on the mental activities of the learner that lead up to a
response and acknowledges the processes of mental planning, goal-setting, and organizational
strategies (Shuell, 1986). Cognitive theories contend that environmental “cues” and instructional

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 7

components alone cannot account for all the learning that results from an instructional situation.
Additional key elements include the way that learners attend to, code, transform, rehearse, store and
retrieve information. Learners’ thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values are also considered to be
influential in the learning process (Winne, 1985). The real focus of the cognitive approach is on
changing the learner by encouraging him/her to use appropriate learning strategies.

What is the Role of Memory?

As indicated above, memory is given a prominent role in the learning process. Learning results when
information is stored in memory in an organized, meaningful manner. Teachers/designers are
responsible for assisting learners in organizing that information in some optimal way. Designers use
techniques such as advance organizers, analogies, hierarchical relationships, and matrices to help
learners relate new information to prior knowledge. Forgetting is the inability to retrieve information
from memory because of interference, memory loss, or missing or inadequate cues needed to access
information.

How Does Transfer Occur?

According to cognitive theories, transfer is a function of how information is stored in memory

(Schunk, 1991). When a learner understands how to apply knowledge in different contexts, then
transfer has occurred. Understanding is seen as being composed of a knowledge base in the form of
rules, concepts, and discriminations (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Prior knowledge is used to establish
boundary constraints for identifying the similarities and differences of novel information. Not only
must the knowledge itself be stored in memory but the uses of that knowledge as well. Specific
instructional or real-world events will trigger particular responses, but the learner must believe that
the knowledge is useful in a given situation before he will activate it.

What Types of Learning Are Best Explained by This Position?

Because of the emphasis on mental structures, cognitive theories are usually considered more
appropriate for explaining complex forms of learning (reasoning, problem-solving, information-
processing) than are those of a more behavioral perspective (Schunk, 1991). However, it is important
to indicate at this point that the actual goal of instruction for both of these viewpoints is often the
same: to communicate or transfer knowledge to the students in the most efficient, effective manner
possible (Bednar et al., 1991). Two techniques used by both camps in achieving this effectiveness and
efficiency of knowledge transfer are simplification and standardization. That is, knowledge can be
analyzed, decomposed, and simplified into basic building blocks. Knowledge transfer is expedited if
irrelevant information is eliminated. For example, trainees attending a workshop on effective
management skills would be presented with information that is “sized” and “chunked” in such a way
that they can assimilate and/or accommodate the new information as quickly and as easily as
possible. Behaviorists would focus on the design of the environment to optimize that transfer, while
cognitivists would stress efficient processing strategies.

What Basic Assumptions/principles of This Theory Are Relevant to

Instructional Design?

Many of the instructional strategies advocated and utilized by cognitivists are also emphasized by
behaviorists, yet usually for different reasons. An obvious commonality is the use of feedback. A

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 8

behaviorist uses feedback (reinforcement) to modify behavior in the desired direction, while
cognitivists make use of feedback (knowledge of results) to guide and support accurate mental
connections (Thompson, Simonson, & Hargrave, 1992).

Learner and task analyses are also critical to both cognitivists and behaviorists, but once again, for
different reasons. Cognitivists look at the learner to determine his/her predisposition to learning (i.e.,
How does the learner activate, maintain, and direct his/her learning?) (Thompson et al., 1992).
Additionally, cognitivists examine the learner to determine how to design instruction so that it can be
readily assimilated (i.e., What are the learner’s existing mental structures?). In contrast, the
behaviorists look at learners to determine where the lesson should begin (i.e., At what level are they
currently performing successfully?) and which reinforcers should be most effective (i.e., What
consequences are most desired by the learner?).

Specific assumptions or principles that have direct relevance to instructional design include the
following (possible current ID applications are listed in italics and brackets following the listed
principle):

1. Emphasis on the active involvement of the learner in the learning process [learner control,
metacognitive training (e.g., self-planning, monitoring, and revising techniques)]
2. Use of hierarchical analyses to identify and illustrate prerequisite relationships [cognitive task
analysis procedures]
3. Emphasis on structuring, organizing, and sequencing information to facilitate optimal
processing [use of cognitive strategies such as outlining, summaries, synthesizers, advance
organizers, etc.]
4. Creation of learning environments that allow and encourage students to make connections
with previously learned material [recall of prerequisite skills; use of relevant examples,
analogies]

How Should Instruction Be Structured?

Behavioral theories imply that teachers ought to arrange environmental conditions so that students
respond properly to presented stimuli. Cognitive theories emphasize making knowledge meaningful
and helping learners organize and relate new information to existing knowledge in memory.
Instruction must be based on a student’s existing mental structures, or schema, to be effective. It
should organize information in such a manner that learners are able to connect new information with
existing knowledge in some meaningful way. Analogies and metaphors are examples of this type of
cognitive strategy. For example, instructional design textbooks frequently draw an analogy between
the familiar architect’s profession and the unfamiliar instructional design profession to help the
novice learner conceptualize, organize and retain the major duties and functions of an instructional
designer (e.g. Reigeluth, 1983, p. 7). Other cognitive strategies may include the use of framing,
outlining, mnemonics, concept mapping, advance organizers and so forth (West, Farmer, & Wolff,
1991).

Such cognitive emphases imply that major tasks of the teacher/designer include (1) understanding
that individuals bring various learning experiences to the learning situation which can impact
learning outcomes; (2) determining the most effective manner in which to organize and structure new
information to tap the learners’ previously acquired knowledge, abilities, and experiences; and (3)
arranging practice with feedback so that the new information is effectively and efficiently assimilated
and/or accommodated within the learner’s cognitive structure (Stepich & Newby, 1988).

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 9

Consider the following example of a learning situation utilizing a cognitive approach: A manager in
the training department of a large corporation had been asked to teach a new intern to complete a
cost-benefit analysis for an upcoming development project. In this case, it is assumed that the intern
has no previous experience with cost-benefit analysis in a business setting. However, by relating this
new task to highly similar procedures with which the intern has had more experience, the manager
can facilitate a smooth and efficient assimilation of this new procedure into memory. These familiar
procedures may include the process by which the individual allocates his monthly paycheck, how
(s)he makes a buy/no-buy decision regarding the purchase of a luxury item, or even how one’s
weekend spending activities might be determined and prioritized. The procedures for such activities
may not exactly match those of the cost-benefit analysis, but the similarity between the activities
allows for the unfamiliar information to be put within a familiar context. Thus processing
requirements are reduced and the potential effectiveness of recall cues is increased.

Constructivism
The philosophical assumptions underlying both the behavioral and cognitive theories are primarily
objectivistic; that is: the world is real, external to the learner. The goal of instruction is to map the
structure of the world onto the learner (Jonassen, 1991b). A number of contemporary cognitive
theorists have begun to question this basic objectivistic assumption and are starting to adopt a more
constructivist approach to learning and understanding: knowledge “is a function of how the individual
creates meaning from his or her own experiences” (p.10). Constructivism is not a totally new
approach to learning. Like most other learning theories, constructivism has multiple roots in the
philosophical and psychological viewpoints of this century, specifically in the works of Piaget, Bruner,
and Goodman (Perkins, 1991). In recent years, however, constructivism has become a “hot” issue as
it has begun to receive increased attention in a number of different disciplines, including
instructional design (Bednar et al., 1991).

How Does Learning Occur?

Constructivism is a theory that equates learning with creating meaning from experience (Bednar et
al., 1991). Even though constructivism is considered to be a branch of cognitivism (both conceive of
learning as a mental activity), it distinguishes itself from traditional cognitive theories in a number of
ways. Most cognitive psychologists think of the mind as a reference tool to the real world;
constructivists believe that the mind filters input from the world to produce its own unique reaIity
(Jonassen, 1991a). Like with the rationalists of Plato’s time, the mind is believed to be the source of
all meaning, yet like the empiricists, individual, direct experiences with the environment are
considered critical. Constructivism crosses both categories by emphasizing the interaction between
these two variables.

Constructivists do not share with cognitivists and behaviorists the belief that knowledge is mind-
independent and can be “mapped” onto a learner. Constructivists do not deny the existence of the
real world but contend that what we know of the world stems from our own interpretations of our
experiences. Humans create meaning as opposed to acquiring it. Since there are many possible
meanings to glean from any experience, we cannot achieve a predetermined, “correct” meaning.
Learners do not transfer knowledge from the external world into their memories; rather they build
personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions. Thus, the
internal representation of knowledge is constantly open to change; there is not an objective reality
that learners strive to know. Knowledge emerges in contexts within which it is relevant. Therefore, in

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 10

order to understand the learning which has taken place within an individual, the actual experience
must be examined (Bednar et al., 1991).

Which Factors Influence Learning?

Both learner and environmental factors are critical to the constructivist, as it is the specific
interaction between these two variables that creates knowledge. Constructivists argue that behavior
is situationally determined (Jonassen, 1991a). Just as the learning of new vocabulary words is
enhanced by exposure and subsequent interaction with those words in context (as opposed to
learning their meanings from a dictionary), likewise it is essential that content knowledge be
embedded in the situation in which it is used. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) suggest that
situations actually co-produce knowledge (along with cognition) through activity. Every action is
viewed as “an interpretation of the current situation based on an entire history of previous
interactions” (Clancey, 1986). Just as shades of meanings of given words are constantly changing a
learner’s “current” understanding of a word, so too will concepts continually evolve with each new
use. For this reason, it is critical that learning occur in realistic settings and that the selected
learning tasks be relevant to the students’ lived experience.

What is the Role of Memory?

The goal of instruction is not to ensure that individuals know particular facts but rather that they
elaborate on and interpret information. “Understanding is developed through continued, situated use
… and does not crystallize into a categorical definition” that can be called up from memory (Brown et
al., 1989, p. 33). As mentioned earlier, a concept will continue to evolve with each new use as new
situations, negotiations, and activities recast it in a different, more densely textured form. Therefore,
“memory” is always under construction as a cumulative history of interactions. Representations of
experiences are not formalized or structured into a single piece of declarative knowledge and then
stored in the head. The emphasis is not on retrieving intact knowledge structures, but on providing
learners with the means to create novel and situation-specific understandings by “assembling” prior
knowledge from diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand. For example, the knowledge of
“design” activities has to be used by a practitioner in too many different ways for them all to be
anticipated in advance. Constructivists emphasize the flexible use of pre-existing knowledge rather
than the recall of prepackaged schemas (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). Mental
representations developed through task-engagement are likely to increase the efficiency with which
subsequent tasks are performed to the extent that parts of the environment remain the same:
“Recurring features of the environment may thus afford recurring sequences of actions” (Brown et
al., p. 37). Memory is not a context-independent process.

Clearly the focus of constructivism is on creating cognitive tools which reflect the wisdom of the
culture in which they are used as well as the insights and experiences of individuals. There is no need
for the mere acquisition of fixed, abstract, self-contained concepts or details. To be successful,
meaningful, and lasting, learning must include all three of these crucial factors: activity (practice),
concept (knowledge), and culture (context) (Brown et al., 1989).

How Does Transfer Occur?

The constructivist position assumes that transfer can be facilitated by involvement in authentic tasks
anchored in meaningful contexts. Since understanding is “indexed” by experience (just as word

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 11

meanings are tied to specific instances of use), the authenticity of the experience becomes critical to
the individual’s ability to use ideas (Brown et al., 1989). An essential concept in the constructivist
view is that learning always takes place in a context and that the context forms an inexorable link
with the knowledge embedded in it (Bednar et al., 1991). Therefore, the goal of instruction is to
accurately portray tasks, not to define the structure of learning required to achieve a task. If learning
is decontextualized, there is little hope for transfer to occur. One does not learn to use a set of tools
simply by following a list of rules. Appropriate and effective use comes from engaging the learner in
the actual use of the tools in real-world situations. Thus, the ultimate measure of learning is based on
how effective the learner’s knowledge structure is in facilitating thinking and performing in the
system in which those tools are used.

What Types of Learning Are Best Explained by This Position?

The constructivist view does not accept the assumption that types of learning can be identified
independent of the content and the context of learning (Bednar et al., 1991). Constructivists believe
that it is impossible to isolate units of information or divide up knowledge domains according to a
hierarchical analysis of relationships. Although the emphasis on performance and instruction has
proven effective in teaching basic skills in relatively structured knowledge domains, much of what
needs to be learned involves advanced knowledge in ill-structured domains. Jonassen (1991a) has
described three stages of knowledge acquisition (introductory, advanced, and expert) and argues that
constructive learning environments are most effective for the stage of advanced knowledge
acquisition, where initial misconceptions and biases acquired during the introductory stage can be
discovered, negotiated, and if necessary, modified and/or removed. Jonassen agrees that introductory
knowledge acquisition is better supported by more objectivistic approaches (behavioral and/or
cognitive) but suggests a transition to constructivistic approaches as learners acquire more
knowledge which provides them with the conceptual power needed to deal with complex and ill-
structured problems.

What Basic Assumptions/principles of This Theory Are Relevant to

Instructional Design?

The constructivist designer specifies instructional methods and strategies that will assist learners in
actively exploring complex topics/environments and that will move them into thinking in a given
content area as an expert user of that domain might think. Knowledge is not abstract but is linked to
the context under study and to the experiences that the participants bring to the context. As such,
learners are encouraged to construct their own understandings and then to validate, through social
negotiation, these new perspectives. Content is not prespecified; information from many sources is
essential. For example, a typical constructivist’s goal would not be to teach novice ID students
straight facts about instructional design, but to prepare students to use ID facts as an instructional
designer might use them. As such, performance objectives are not related so much to the content as
they are to the processes of construction.

Some of the specific strategies utilized by constructivists include situating tasks in real-world
contexts, use of cognitive apprenticeships (modeling and coaching a student toward expert
performance), presentation of multiple perspectives (collaborative learning to develop and share
alternative views), social negotiation (debate, discussion, evidencegiving), use of examples as real
“slices of life,” reflective awareness, and providing considerable guidance on the use of constructive
processes.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 12

The following are several specific assumptions or principles from the constructivist position that have
direct relevance for the instructional designer (possible ID applications are listed in italics and
brackets following the listed principle):

1. An emphasis on the identification of the context in which the skills will be learned and
subsequently applied [anchoring learning in meaningful contexts].
2. An emphasis on learner control and the capability of the learner to manipulate information
[actively using what is learned].
3. The need for information to be presented in a variety of different ways [revisiting content at
different times, in rearranged contexts, for different purposes, and from different conceptual
perspectives].
4. Supporting the use of problem-solving skills that allow learners to go “beyond the information
given.” [developing pattern-recognition skills, presenting alternative ways of representing
problems].
5. Assessment focused on transfer of knowledge and skills [presenting new problems and
situations that differ from the conditions of the initial instruction].

How Should Instruction Be Structured?

As one moves along the behaviorist-cognitivist-constructivist continuum, the focus of instruction

shifts from teaching to learning, from the passive transfer of facts and routines to the active
application of ideas to problems. Both cognitivists and constructivists view the learner as being
actively involved in the learning process, yet the constructivists look at the learner as more than just
an active processor of information; the learner elaborates upon and interprets the given information
(Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Meaning is created by the learner: learning objectives are not pre-specified
nor is instruction predesigned. “The role of instruction in the constructivist view is to show students
how to construct knowledge, to promote collaboration with others to show the multiple perspectives
that can be brought to bear on a particular problem, and to arrive at self-chosen positions to which
they can commit themselves, while realizing the basis of other views with which they may disagree”
(Cunningham, 1991, p. 14).

Even though the emphasis is on learner construction, the instructional designer/ teacher’s role is still
critical (Reigeluth, 1989). Here the tasks of the designer are two-fold: (1) to instruct the student on
how to construct meaning, as well as how to effectively monitor, evaluate, and update those
constructions; and (2) to align and design experiences for the learner so that authentic, relevant
contexts can be experienced.

Although constructivist approaches are used quite frequently in the preparation of lawyers, doctors,
architects, and businessmen through the use of apprenticeships and on-the-job training, they are
typically not applied in the educational arena (Resnick, 1987). If they were, however, a student
placed in the hands of a constructivist would likely be immersed in an “apprenticeship” experience.
For example, a novice instructional design student who desires to learn about needs assessment
would be placed in a situation that requires such an assessment to be completed. Through the
modeling and coaching of experts involved in authentic cases, the novice designer would experience
the process embedded in the true context of an actual problem situation. Over time, several
additional situations would be experienced by the student, all requiring similar needs assessment
abilities. Each experience would serve to build on and adapt that which has been previously
experienced and constructed. As the student gained more confidence and experience, (s)he would
move into a collaborative phase of learning where discussion becomes crucial. By talking with others

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 13

(peers, advanced students, professors, and designers), students become better able to articulate their
own understandings of the needs assessment process. As they uncover their naive theories, they
begin to see such activities in a new light, which guides them towards conceptual reframing
(learning). Students gain familiarity with analysis and action in complex situations and consequently
begin to expand their horizons: they encounter relevant books, attend conferences and seminars,
discuss issues with other students, and use their knowledge to interpret numerous situations around
them (not only related to specific design issues). Not only have the learners been involved in different
types of learning as they moved from being novices to “budding experts,” but the nature of the
learning process has changed as well.

General Discussion
It is apparent that students exposed to the three instructional approaches described in the examples
above would gain different competencies. This leads instructors/designers to ask two significant
questions: Is there a single “best” approach and is one approach more efficient than the others?
Given that learning is a complex, drawn-out process that seems to be strongly influenced by one’s
prior knowledge, perhaps the best answer to these questions is “it depends.” Because learning is
influenced by many factors from many sources, the learning process itself is constantly changing,
both in nature and diversity, as it progresses (Shuell, 1990). What might be most effective for novice
learners encountering a complex body of knowledge for the first time, would not be effective, efficient
or stimulating for a learner who is more familiar with the content. Typically, one does not teach facts
the same way that concepts or problem-solving are taught; likewise, one teaches differently
depending on the proficiency level of the learners involved. Both the instructional strategies
employed and the content addressed (in both depth and breadth) would vary based on the level of the
learners.

So how does a designer facilitate a proper match between learner, content, and strategies? Consider,
first of all, how learners’ knowledge changes as they become more familiar with a given content. As
people acquire more experience with a given content, they progress along a low-to-high knowledge
continuum from 1) being able to recognize and apply the standard rules, facts, and operations of a
profession (knowing what), to 2) thinking like a professional to extrapolate from these general rules
to particular, problematic cases (knowing how), to 3) developing and testing new forms of
understanding and actions when familiar categories and ways of thinking fail (reflection-in-action)
(Schon, 1987). In a sense, the points along this continuum mirror the points of the learning theory
continuum described earlier. Depending on where the learners “sit” on the continuum in terms of the
development of their professional knowledge (knowing what vs. knowing how vs. reflection-in-action),
the most appropriate instructional approach for advancing the learners’ knowledge at that particular
level would be the one advocated by the theory that corresponds to that point on the continuum. That
is, a behavioral approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession (knowing
what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and
rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially
suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action.

A second consideration depends upon the requirements of the task to be learned. Based on the level
of cognitive processing required, strategies from different theoretical perspectives may be needed.
For example, tasks requiring a low degree of processing (e.g., basic paired associations,
discriminations, rote memorization) seem to be facilitated by strategies most frequently associated
with a behavioral outlook (e.g., stimulus-response, contiguity of feedback/reinforcement). Tasks

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 14

requiring an increased level of processing (e.g., classifications, rule or procedural executions) are
primarily associated with strategies having a stronger cognitive emphasis (e.g., schematic
organization, analogical reasoning, algorithmic problem solving). Tasks demanding high levels of
processing (e.g., heuristic problem solving, personal selection and monitoring of cognitive strategies)
are frequently best learned with strategies advanced by the constructivist perspective (e.g., situated
learning, cognitive apprenticeships, social negotiation).

We believe that the critical question instructional designers must ask is not “Which is the best
theory?” but “Which theory is the most effective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific
learners?” Prior to strategy(ies) selection, consideration must be made of both the learners and the
task. An attempt is made in Figure 1 to depict these two continua (learners’ level of knowledge and
cognitive processing demands) and to illustrate the degree to which strategies offered by each of the
theoretical perspectives appear applicable. The figure is useful in demonstrating: (a) that the
strategies promoted by the different perspectives overlap in certain instances (i.e., one strategy may
be relevant for each of the different perspectives, given the proper amount of prior knowledge and
the corresponding amount of cognitive processing), and (b) that strategies are concentrated along
different points of the continua due to the unique focus of each of the learning theories. This means
that when integrating any strategies into the instructional design process, the nature of the learning
task (i.e., the level of cognitive processing required) and the proficiency level of the learners involved
must both be considered before selecting one approach over another. Depending on the demands of
the task and where the learners are in terms of the content to be delivered/discovered, different
strategies based on different theories appear to be necessary. Powerful frameworks for instruction
have been developed by designers inspired by each of these perspectives. In fact, successful
instructional practices have features that are supported by virtually all three perspectives (e.g.,
active participation and interaction, practice and feedback).

Figure 1. Comparison of the associated instructional strategies of the behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist viewpoints based on the learner’s level of task knowledge
and the level of cognitive processing required by the task.

For this reason, we have consciously chosen not to advocate one theory over the others, but to stress
instead the usefulness of being well versed in each. This is not to suggest that one should work
without a theory, but rather that one must be able to intelligently choose, on the basis of information
gathered about the learners’ present level of competence and the type of learning task, the
appropriate methods for achieving optimal instructional outcomes in that situation.

As stated by Smith and Ragan (1993, p. viii): “Reasoned and validated theoretical eclecticism has
been a key strength of our field because no single theoretical base provides complete prescriptive

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 15

principles for the entire design process.” Some of the most crucial design tasks involve being able to
decide which strategy to use, for what content, for which students, and at what point during the
instruction. Knowledge of this sort is an example of conditional knowledge, where “thinking like” a
designer becomes a necessary competency. It should be noted however, that to be an eclectic, one
must know a lot, not a little, about the theories being combined. A thorough understanding of the
learning theories presented above seems to be essential for professional designers who must
constantly make decisions for which no design model provides precise rules. Being knowledgeable
about each of these theories provides designers with the flexibility needed to be spontaneous and
creative when a first attempt doesn’t work or when they find themselves limited by time, budget,
and/or personnel constraints. The practitioner cannot afford to ignore any theories that might provide
practical implications. Given the myriad of potential design situations, the designer’s “best” approach
may not ever be identical to any previous approach, but will truly “depend upon the context.” This
type of instructional “cherry-picking” has been termed “systematic eclecticism” and has had a great
deal of support in the instructional design literature (Snelbecker, 1989).

In closing, we would like to expand on a quote by P. B. Drucker, (cited in Snelbecker, 1983): “These
old controversies have been phonies all along. We need the behaviorist’s triad of
practice/reinforcement/feedback to enlarge learning and memory. We need purpose, decision, values,
understanding–the cognitive categories–lest learning be mere behavioral activities rather than
action” (p. 203).

And to this we would add that we also need adaptive learners who are able to function well when
optimal conditions do not exist, when situations are unpredictable and task demands change, when
the problems are messy and ill-formed and the solutions depend on inventiveness, improvisation,
discussion, and social negotiation.

References

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we
link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.

Bower, G. H., & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Bruner, J. S. (1971). The process of education revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 53,18-21.

Clancey, W. J. (1986). Review of Winograd and Flores’ understanding computers and cognition: A
favorable interpretation. (STAN-CS-87-1173) Palo Alto, CA: Department of Computer Science,
Stanford University.

Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue.

Educational Technology, 31(5), 13-17.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology?

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 16

Educational Technology, 31(5), 3-12.

Gropper, G. L. (1987). A lesson based on a behavioral approach to instructional design. In C. M.

Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp. 45-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Hulse, S. H., Egeth, H., & Deese, J. (1980). The psychology of learning (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Johnson, J. K. (1992). Advancing by degrees: Trends in master’s and doctoral programs in educational
communications and technology. Tech Trends, 37(2),13-16.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991b), Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of

Instructional Development, 2(4), 26-34.

Lynch, J. M. (1945). The applicability of psychological research to education. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 43, 289-296.

Merrill, M. D., Kowalis, T., & Wilson, B. G. (1981). Instructional design in transition. In F. H. Farley,
& N. J. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union (pp. 298-348). Berkeley:
McCutchan.

Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational

Technology, 31(5), 18-23.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional Design: What is it and why is it? In C. M.

Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 67-80.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.

Richey, R. D. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. New York: Nichols.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 531-547.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Snelbecker, G.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 17

E. (1983). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Snelbecker, G. E. (1989). Contrasting and complementary approaches to instructional design. In C.

M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp, 321-337). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-
structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.

Stepich, D. A., & Newby, T. J. (1988). Analogical instruction within the information processing
paradigm: Effective means to facilitate learning. Instructional Science, 17, 129-144.

Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., Hargrave, C. P. (1992). Educational technology: A review of the
research. Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Tyler, R. W. (1978). How schools utilize educational research and development. In R. Glaser (Ed.),
Research and development and school change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Warries, E. (1990). Theory and the systematic design of instruction. In S. Dijkstra, B. van Hout
Wolters, & P. C. van der Sijde, (Eds.), Research on instruction: Design and effects (pp. 1-19).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

West, C. K., Farmer, J. A., & Wolff, P. M. (1991). Instructional design: Implications from cognitive
science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Winn, W. (1991). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational

Technology, 31(9), 38-40.

Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional
Science, 19, 53-69.

Winne, P. H. (1985). Cognitive processing in the classroom. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),
The International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 2, pp. 795-808). Oxford: Pergamon.

Additional Reading

An update was published in Performance Improvement Quarterly in 2013 by the authors to

accompany the 30 year anniversary and republication of the original article. This update adds a
strong second part to this article, and you are encouraged to read it here
[https://edtechbooks.org/-BQ].

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical
features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 18

Application Exercises

How would the instruction be designed differently by a behaviorist, a cognitivist, and a

constructivist? Scenario: A high school social study teacher is planning a class on the Vietnam
War.
Describe an example from your life of when you were taught using each method described in
this article: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.
Based on your reading, would you consider your current instruction style more behavioralist,
cognitivist, or constructivist? Elaborate with your specific mindset and examples.

Please complete this short survey to provide feedback on this chapter: http://bit.ly/3LearningTheories

Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. In R. E. West (Ed.),
Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books.
https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/behaviorism_cognitivism_constructivism

CC BY: This work is released under a CC BY license, which

means that you are free to do with it as you please as long as you
properly attribute it.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 19