Implications of Behaviorism
for Instructional Design
The first major implication of behaviorism for instructional design was the use of teaching machines and programmed instruction (Skinner, 1958), the latter which has been credited with introducing the systems approach to education” (Heinich, 1970, p. 123) and the idea of performing a behavioral task analysis as a precursor for designing instructional materials (Richey et al., 2011). Before addressing the instructional problem, the instructional designer first needs to define the content via the task analysis. A task analysis involves “(a) identifying small, incremental tasks or subskills which the learner needed to acquire for successful completion of the instruction; (b) preparing specific behavioral objectives which would lead to the acquisition of those subskills; and (c) sequencing subskill acquisition in the order which would most efficiently lead to successful learner outcomes” (Tennyson, 2010, p. 3).
These outcomes would then become the input for the next behaviorist contribution to instructional design: developing behavioral objectives (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009). Behavioral objectives typically include three elements: 1) an action verb that describes an observable behavior, 2) the required conditions the learner must perform under, and 3) the criterion which specifies the level of performance expected (Mager, 1962). Finally, another implication of behaviorism for an ID scholar or practitioner is the idea of arranging schedules of reinforcement to optimize learner motivation and achievement (Morrison et al., 2013). While extrinsic rewards like praise, a good grade, or financial incentives can motivate a learner, it is often enough just to give simple feedback on how well the learner is performing.
for Project Management
As for applications of behaviorism on project management research and practice, one of the more notable areas includes studying and evaluating the use of operant conditioning principles in conjunction with simple feedback and with theories of motivation for managing the team and engaging stakeholders. In particular, the Motivation-Hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1968) states that the content of a person’s job is a greater motivator than money. Thus, the reward of better work conditions could serve as an effective reward for higher levels of productivity, team contributions that reduce costs, or worker initiatives to improve quality. Similarly, since behaviorism places an emphasis on “producing observable and measurable outcomes” in the learners (i.e. workers), another area in which this theory has implications for project management research and practice is project productivity and feedback. Specifically, using principle of behaviorism we can study how feedback actually affects behavior and worker productivity. Citing Skinner, Driscoll (2007) noted that “the feedback-as-reinforcer position … is basically illogical, supported virtually by no data.” (p. 4). This suggests that providing feedback as a reward or motivator does not affect learning (Kulhavy & Stock, 1989). Thus, is it possible that providing feedback on a project may not effect project team productivity either?
Implications of Cognitivism
for Instructional Design
The first significant application of cognitivism to ID includes message design strategies intended to “attract attention and facilitate recall” through techniques like color coding, symmetry, and balance (Gagne & Driscoll, 1988; Richey et al., 2011), 2). Also, cognitive scholars and instruction specialists contributed various instructional strategies like: the use of advance organizers (Ausubel, 1978) as a lesson overview tool, the concept of rehearsal as a means of connecting – within working memory – prior knowledge and experience with new information, techniques like chucking information (Miller, 1956) and using mnemonics as ways to increase information in working memory and promote information storage and retrieval.
Likewise, task and learner analysis now includes cognitive task analysis (Saettler, 1990) in which instructional designers include the analysis and breakdown of “nonobservable and mental tasks” that will be taught (Richey et al., 2011, p. 60). Finally, one of the largest applications of cognitivism to ID is the expansion of instructional objectives to include cognitive objectives – those “related to information or knowledge, naming, solving, predicting, and other intellectual aspects of learning” (Morrison et al., 2013, p 102). Particularly noteworthy in the area of cognitive objectives is the work of Benjamin Bloom and colleagues (1956), who developed the well-known “Bloom’s Taxonomy” which organizes objectives in two main groups: 2) simple information recall and 2) intellectual activities. In order of lowest level of knowledge to highest, Bloom identified: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
for Project Management
Concerning a potential application of cognitive learning theory on project management research and practice, one possible direction includes the project management practice of developing a work breakdown structure (WBS). With its “use of hierarchical analyses to identify and illustrate prerequisite relationships” and its “emphasis on structuring, organizing, and sequencing information to facilitate optimal processing” cognitive learning theory has directly application for research on the construction and usefulness of the WBS in project management. Similar to the ID concept of defining step-by-step content via a task analysis, developing a WBS follows the same premise, except the WBS defines “the total scope of work to be carried out by the project team to accomplish the project objectives and create the required deliverables” (Project Management Institute, 2017).
Implications of Constructivism
for Instructional Design and Project Management
The application of constructivism on ID – and team engagement within project management – is best viewed through an elaboration of the three basic principles underlying how both cognitive and social constructivists understand what learning is and how people learn. These principles include: 1) “Learning results from a personal interpretation of experience; 2) Learning is an active process occurring in realistic and relevant situations; 3) Learning results from an exploration of multiple perspectives” (Richey et al., 2011, p. 130).
For the first principle, some design applications include helping the learner to develop self-awareness of their environment, personal history of learning, common knowledge, and awareness of how to construct new knowledge through reflection, and facilitating learning through a “process of supporting construction rather than communicating knowledge” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 171). Application of the second principle include 1) creating opportunities for the learner to engage in active learning (Bruner, 1966) and 2) authentic and contextualized learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Finally, we apply the principle of multiple perspectives through 1) rich learning environments and 2) collaborative learning experiences (Richey et al., 2011).
FIN