The readings and videos from the last few weeks offered thought-provoking insights into how behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism shape instructional design. These theories, presented in Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology, emphasize distinct methods for understanding and supporting learning. Reflecting on these theories, as well as the challenges highlighted in “The Backwards Brain Bicycle” and Keller’s ARCS Model, I found meaningful parallels with my own learning journey.

Prompt: Describe an example from your life of when you were taught using each method described in this article: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.

Learning Spanish was both an immense challenge and a deeply rewarding experience. Early on in my language learning, the high school and college classes relied on behaviorist methods. Repetitive drills and immediate feedback created a solid foundation, but over time, this approach began to feel limiting. While these methods helped me memorize vocabulary and grammar rules, they didn’t foster the confidence or fluency needed for real-world communication. This limitation prompted me to explore more engaging ways of learning.

As I advanced, my learning evolved into a cognitivist approach. My teacher encouraged us to connect new material to prior knowledge, such as comparing the subjunctive mood to the indicative mood. This emphasis on structuring information made abstract concepts feel more accessible. I began to see patterns in the language, which not only depend my understanding, but also helped me retain knowledge more effectively.

The most transformative phase of my learning occurred when I immersed myself in real-world contexts, traveling to Chile and Spain, which embraced a constructivist approach. Engaging in conversations with native speakers and participating in cultural activities made the language come alive. These experiences allowed me to apply my classroom knowledge in meaningful ways, adapt to challenges on the spot – such as getting directions to my hostel in a city where all the nearby streets had the same name – and build a genuine appreciation for Spanish-speaking cultures. These moments fueled my intrinsic motivation and gave me a sense of accomplishment that purely academic exercises couldn’t provide.

Motivation played a critical role throughout this process. Keller’s ARCS Model helps explain why my teachers’ strategies were so effective. They captured my attention with varied and interactive lessons, demonstrated the relevance of Spanish though real-world applications, built my confidence by setting achievable goals, and celebrated milestones like my first successful conversation. This combination kept me engaged and committed to learning.

Prompt: How would the learning be designed differently by a behaviorist, a cognitivist, and a constructivist? Scenario: A high school social study teacher is planning a class on climate change.

If I were to design a high school social studies class on climate change, I would integrate all three learning theories. Behaviourist methods, such as quizzes, could reinforce foundational knowledge. Cognitivist strategies, like creating concept maps, would help students connect ideas. Constructivist activities, such as collaborative projects on local climate initiatives, would allow students to apply their knowledge meaningfully. To sustain motivation, I would incorporate ARCS principles by using engaging media, connecting content to students’ lives, fostering confidence through clear goals, and celebrating their successes.

By thoughtfully combining these learning theories and motivational strategies, instructional design can become both effective and engaging. As someone who wants to have their own elementary school class, I appreciate the constructivist approach the most, to have the opportunity to create experiences that not only impart knowledge but also inspire learners to apply and value what they’ve learned towards a real-world context is so valuable to me as a learner and as a future educator.

Resources:

Category blog posts for Week 1 and 2: Learning, Motivation, and Theory on the EDCI 335 Website. https://edtechuvic.ca/edci335/category/learning-motivation-and-theory/

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology: Historical Roots and Current Trends. Ch. 11: pp.1-14. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/behaviorism_cognitivism_constructivism

Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2 – 10. (Reference found from “What are the ARCS categories?” page on https://www.arcsmodel.com/arcs-categories)

Keller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7. (Reference found from “What are the ARCS categories?” page on https://www.arcsmodel.com/arcs-categories)

Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. Educational Technology International, 1(1), 7 – 30. (Reference found from “What are the ARCS categories?” page on https://www.arcsmodel.com/arcs-categories)

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer. (Reference found from “What are the ARCS categories?” page on https://www.arcsmodel.com/arcs-categories)

Sandlin, Destin. (2015) “The Backwards Brain Bicycle”. Smarter Every Day: 133. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0&t=1s

URL for Blog Post #1: https://katenelsonstudies.opened.ca/blog-post-1-learning-motivation-and-theory/