CHAPTER 5

CONTEMPORARY LEARNING THEORIES,

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND LEADERSHIP

LARRY SACKNEY AND BRENDA MERGEL

University of Saskatchewan

For teachers and educational leaders the sorting out of the various learning theories
and the associated instructional design and leadership strategies can be somewhat
confusing. Why does it seem so difficult to differentiate among the various learning
theories and why do the terms and strategies of each theory overlap? This chapter
attempts to sort out some of this confusion. We have restricted our discussion to
behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism, recognizing we could have discussed
theories such as connoisseurship, semiotics and contextualism. We have delimited
our elaboration to the basic learning theories, since they are the ones that have the
greatest impact on teaching, learning and leading.
In this chapter we briefly describe what is meant by theories and models, the
basic elements of the three learning theories, the history of learning theories in
instructional design and leadership, as well as learning theories and the practice of
instructional design and leadership. We conclude the chapter by trying to answer
the question as to whether there is a one best theory for instructional design
and leadership. In large part, this chapter provides a retrospective analysis of the
evolution of theories of learning, designing and leading within the context of recent
history, recognizing that extensive analysis is not possible within the limits of one
chapter. This chapter is based in part on the work that one of the authors, Mergel
(1998), had done on instructional design and learning theory.

THEORIES AND MODELS

Theory is not a collection of facts; it is a way of thinking about organizational

life. Theories in educational organizations provide a way of seeing and analyzing
teaching, leading and learning more accurately and deeply than one otherwise could.
67
J.M. Burger, C. Webber and P. Klinck (eds.), Intelligent Leadership, 67–98.
© 2007 Springer.
68 Sackney and Mergel

The way to see and think about teaching, leading and learning is based upon patterns
and regularities.
Theories are a systematic body of knowledge that allows us to understand,
explain, and predict phenomena within a given area. The alternative to using
theoretical knowledge is to scurry through a maze of practices mindlessly hoping
to guess the right actions. It is fair to say that we know considerably more about
teaching, leading and learning than we have in the past (Sackney, in press).
Theories are useful because they provide a basis for thinking systematically about
complex problems, such as what is the best way to teach children in different subject
areas or what is the best way to lead for a learning community. Theories allow us
to do useful things: (1) describe what is going on; (2) explain and predict behavior;
(3) predict future behavior under given circumstances; and (4) exercise control over
events (Owens, 2001, p. 21). However, a theory can never be established beyond all
doubt and a theory may be modified because of further insights. Further, a theory is
seldom thrown out completely if thoroughly tested, but sometimes a theory may be
widely accepted for a long period of time and later disproved (Dorin, Demmin &
Gabel, 1990). Whether a theory is maintained, revised, or abandoned is determined
by the outcome of research generated by the theory.
A model, on the other hand, is a simple representation of social reality. Unlike
theory, a model is typically not used to explain a complicated process; rather,
“it [model] is used to simplify the process and make it more understandable”
(Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993, p. 23). Models are generally used to show how
something is like something else. For example, reinforcement theory is an attempt
to explain why learning occurs. It is not an attempt to explain what learning is like,
as would be the case with a model. Dorin et al. (1990) contend that a model is a
mental picture that helps us to understand something we cannot see or experience
directly. As such, a model helps us to make sense of a given construct.

BEHAVIORISM, COGNITIVISM AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

In this section we discuss the basics of behaviorism, cognitivism and construc-

tivism. Behaviorism is based on observable changes in behavior. It focuses on new
behavioral patterns being repeated until the behavior becomes automatic. Cogni-
tivism is based on the thought process behind the behavior. Changes in behavior
are observed and used as indicators as to what happens inside the learner’s mind
(Schuman, 1996). Constructivism, on the other hand, is based on the premise that we
all construct our own perspective of the world through individual experiences and
schema. Learning is a process that engages the learner in sense-making activities
that are shaped by prior knowledge (Piaget, 1976).

The Basics of Behaviorism

Behaviorist theory, dating back to Aristotle, focuses on the study of overt behaviors
that can be observed and measured (Good & Brophy, 1990). Although most
 Design and Leadership 69

behaviourists did not deny the existence of mental activity, they chose to focus on
observable behaviour in their studies. (Smith and Ragan, 2005) Some of the major
behavior theorists were Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike and Skinner. Each theorist’s
contributions are briefly discussed in the following sections.

Pavlov (1849–1936) For most people, the name ‘Pavlov’ rings a bell (pun
intended). The Russian physiologist is best known for his work in classical condi-
tioning or stimulus substitution. His famous experiment involved ringing a bell
prior to presenting food to the dog. Before conditioning, ringing of a bell caused
no response from the dog. However, placing food in front of the dog initiated
salivation. During the conditioning phase, the bell was rung a few seconds before
the dog was presented with food. After conditioning, the ringing of the bell alone
caused the dog to salivate (Dembo, 1994). Table 1 summarizes the elements of
Pavlov’s experiment.
Pavlov made a number of other observations from his experiments.

– Stimulus generalization: Once the dog has learned to salivate at the sound of
the bell, it will salivate at other similar sounds.
– Extinction: If you stop pairing the bell with the food, salivation will eventually
cease in response to the bell.
– Spontaneous recovery: Extinguished responses can be ‘recovered’ after an
elapsed time, but will extinguish again if the dog is not presented with food.
– Discrimination: The dog could learn to discriminate between similar bells
(stimuli) and discern which bell would result in the presentation of food and
which would not.
– Higher-order conditioning: Once the dog has been conditioned to associate the
bell with food, another unconditioned stimulus, such as a light may be flashed
at the same time that the bell is rung. Eventually the dog will salivate at the
flash of light without the sound of the bell.

Pavlov’s work became the foundation of behavioral inquiry in the U.S. and U.S.S.R.

Thorndike (1874–1949) Thorndike, like Pavlov, did his research on animal

behavior before becoming interested in human psychology. He set out to apply
the methods of ‘exact science’ to educational problems by emphasizing “accurate
treatment of information.” He concluded that “anything that exists, exists in a certain
quantity and can be measured” (Johcich, as cited in Rizo, 1991). His connectionist
theory espoused that learning was the formation of a connection between a stimulus

Table 1. Stimulus and Response Items of Pavlov’s Experiment

Food Unconditioned Stimulus

Salivation Unconditioned Response (natural, not learned)
Bell Conditioned Stimulus
Salivation Conditioned Response (to bell)
70 Sackney and Mergel

and a response. According to the ‘law of effect’, when a connection between a

stimulus and response is practiced, the connection will become stronger. He also
found that practice without feedback did not necessarily enhance performance.
Thorndike’s theories were based on the stimulus-response notion. He believed
that a neural bond would be established between stimulus and response when
the response was positive. Learning takes place when the bonds form patterns
of behavior (Saettler, 1990). Though Thorndike’s law of effect has been largely
rejected, the principle of reinforcement it embodied became increasingly important
to behavioral psychology.

Watson (1878–1958) Watson was the first American psychologist to use Pavlov’s
ideas. Like Thorndike, he was originally involved in animal research, but later
shifted to human behavior. He believed that humans are born with a few reflexes
and the emotional reactions of love and rage. All other behavior is established
through a stimulus-response (classic) conditioning.
Watson demonstrated classical conditioning in an experiment involving a young
child (Albert) and a white rat. Originally, Albert was unafraid of the rat, but Watson
created a sudden loud sound whenever Albert touched the rat. Because Albert was
frightened by the loud noise, he soon became conditioned to fear and avoided
the rat. This fear was generalized to other small animals. Certainly his research
methods would be questioned today; however, his work does demonstrate the role
of conditioning in the development of emotional responses to certain stimuli. His
work has been used to help explain certain fears, phobias and prejudices that people
develop.

Skinner (1904–1990) Like Pavlov, Watson and Thorndike, Skinner believed in the
stimulus-response pattern of conditioned behavior. His theory dealt with changes in
observable behavior, but did not consider the possibility of any processes occurring
in the mind. His 1948 book, Walden Two, describes a utopian society based on
operant conditioning. He also wrote Science and Human Behavior(1953) in which he
pointed out how the principles of operant conditioning functions in social institutions
such as government, law, religion, economics and education (Dembo, 1994).
Skinner’s work differs from that of his predecessors (classical conditioning),
in that he studied operant behavior (voluntary behaviors used in operating in the
environment). Operant behavior differs from respondent behavior in that it operates
upon the environment. Figure 1 shows the difference between the two approaches.
Based on his experiments on operant conditioning, Skinner found:

– Positive reinforcement – responses that are rewarded are likely to be repeated.

(Good grades reinforce careful study).
– Negative reinforcement – responses that allow escape from painful or
undesirable situations are likely to be repeated. (Being excused from writing
a final exam because of good term work can motivate a student to do good
work).
 Design and Leadership 71

Figure 1. Difference between Classical and Operant Conditioning

– Extinction or non-reinforcement – responses that are not reinforced are not

likely to be repeated. (Ignoring student misbehavior should extinguish that
behavior.)
– Punishment – responses that bring painful or undesirable consequences will be
suppressed, but may reappear if reinforcement contingencies change. (Penal-
izing late students by withdrawing privileges should stop their lateness.) (Good
& Brophy, 1990).

One of Skinner’s best-known techniques is a program of behavior modification

called ‘shaping’. In shaping the experimenter starts by observing the whole operant
repertoire of the subject and then, by rewarding some responses and ignoring others,
creates a pattern of behavior that is basically new. In this way, Skinner taught
pigeons how to play a form of ping pong. To accomplish such behavior successive
approximations of the behavior are rewarded until the pigeon learns the association
between the lever and the food reward. To begin the shaping, the animal may be
rewarded for simply turning in the direction of the lever, then for moving toward
the lever, for brushing against the lever and finally for pawing the lever.
Once the desired behavioral response is achieved, reinforcement does not have to
be 100%; in fact, it can be maintained more successfully through what Skinner calls
‘partial reinforcement schedules’. Partial reinforcement schedules include ‘interval
schedules’ and ‘ratio schedules’. In ‘fixed interval schedules’, the target response is
reinforced after a fixed amount of time has passed since the last reinforcement. In
‘variable interval schedules’, the amount of time that passes between reinforcement
varies. Whereas in ‘fixed ratio schedules’, a number of correct responses must occur
before reinforcement can be varied. And finally, under variable ratio schedules,
the number of correct repetitions of the correct response for reinforcement varies.
72 Sackney and Mergel

Variable interval and variable ratio schedules produce steadier and more persistent
rates of response because the learners cannot predict when the reinforcement will
come although they know that they will eventually succeed. An example of this type
of reinforcement is the slot machines found in casinos, or the purchasing of lottery
tickets. Shaping has proved valuable in regularizing and bringing under control the
behavior of severe schizophrenics (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993).

Conclusion

Our discussion of behaviorism has focused on classical and radical behaviorism.

Skinner, a radical behaviorist, argued for the thesis that all behavior, public or
private, is governed by the laws of classical conditioning (as articulated by Pavlov
and Watson) or operant conditioning (as articulated by Thorndike and himself).
Skinner claimed that thinking, choosing, and deciding could be analyzed as private
behaviors with characteristic causal relations to overt behavior and subject to the
principles of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1974). Skinner was critical of cognitive
psychology thinking it lacked epistemic discipline and was ignorant of behaviorism.
Watson, according to Hergenhahn and Olson (1993), had two lasting effects
on psychology. First, he changed psychology from attempting to understand
consciousness to the prediction and control of behavior. Second, he made behavior
the focus of psychology subject matter. Ever since Watson all psychologists essen-
tially study behavior. Even cognitive psychologists use behavior to index postulated
cognitive events.

The Basics of Cognitivism

Researchers began to find limitations in the behaviorist approach to understanding

learning as early as the 1920s. Tolman (1932), for example, found that rats used
in an experiment appeared to have a mental map of the maze he was using. When
he closed off a certain portion of the maze, the rats did not bother to try a certain
path because they knew that it led to the blocked path. Even though visually the
rats could not see that the path would result in failure, they chose to take a longer
route that they knew would be successful.
In part, behaviorists were unable to explain certain social behaviors. For example,
children do not imitate all behavior that has been reinforced. Furthermore, they may
model new behavior days or weeks after their first observation without having been
reinforced for the behavior. Because of these observations, Bandura (1986) departed
from the traditional operant conditioning explanation that the child must perform
and receive reinforcement before being able to learn. As a result, he stated in his
book, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, that
an individual could model behavior by observing the behavior of another person.
This, according to Dembo (1994) led Bandura to formulate his Social Cognitive
Theory.
 Design and Leadership 73

What is cognitivism? Instead of explaining human activities by means of stimulus

and response, intellectual capacities are to be explained by postulating inner
mental states which combine semantic content and causal power to affect behavior.
Cognitive scientists’ ambition in developing a naturalistic theory of mind is to
provide a unifying and satisfactory treatment of these two properties for the vast
range of our cognitive states (Davies, 1990). Good and Brophy (1990) in writing
about cognitivism state,
Cognitive theorists recognize that much learning involves associations established through contiguity
and repetition. They acknowledge the importance of reinforcement, although they stress its role in
providing feedback about the correctness of responses over its role as a motivator. However, even while
accepting such behavioristic concepts, cognitive theorists view learning as involving the acquisition or
reorganization of the cognitive structures through which humans process and store information. (p. 187)

Similarly to behaviorism, cognitive psychology can be traced back to the ancient

Greeks, Plato and Aristotle. According to Saettler (1990), cognitive revolution
became evident in American psychology during the 1950’s. One of the major
theorists in the development of cognitivism was Jean Piaget, who developed the
main components of his theory as early as the 1920s. His ideas did not impact
North America until the 1960s after Miller and Bruner founded the Harvard Center
for Cognitive Studies.

Key concepts of cognitive theory Mergel (1998), using Good and Brophy’s (1990)
work, summarized the key concepts of cognitive theory as follows:

– Schema – Schema is an internal knowledge structure whereby new infor-

mation is compared to existing cognitive structures. Schema may be combined,
extended or altered to accommodate new information.
– Three-stage information processing model – Input is first entered into a sensory
register, then processed into short-term memory, and then transferred to long-
term memory for storage and retrieval.
– Sensory register – The sensory register receives input from the senses which
last from less than a second to four seconds and then disappears through decay
or replacement. Much of the information is monitored at some level and acted
upon if necessary.
– Short-term memory (STM) – Sensory input that is important or interesting is
transferred from the sensory register to the STM. Memory can be retained here
for up to 20 seconds or more if rehearsed repeatedly. Short-term memory can
hold up to 7 plus or minus 2 items. STM capacity can be increased if material
is chunked into meaningful parts.
– Long-term memory and storage (LTM) – LTM stores information from the
STM for long term use. Long-term memory has unlimited capacity and some
information can be forced into LTM by rote memorization and over learning.
Deeper levels of processing such as generating linkages between old and new
information are much better for successful retention of material.
74 Sackney and Mergel

– Meaningful effects – Meaningful information is easier to learn and remember.

If a learner links relatively meaningless information with prior schema it will
be easier to retain it.
– Serial position effects – It is easier to remember items from the beginning
or end of a list rather than those in the middle, unless that item is distinctly
different.
– Practice effects – Practicing or rehearsing improves retention especially when
it is distributed practice. By distributing practices the learner associates the
material with many different contexts rather than the one context afforded by
mass practice.
– Transfer effects – The effects of prior learning on learning new tasks or material
has a transfer effect.
– Interference effects – This occurs when prior learning interferes with the
learning of new material.
– Organization effects – When a learner categorizes inputs such as a grocery
list, it is easier to remember.
– Levels of processing effects – Words may be processed at a low-level sensory
analysis of their physical characteristics to high-level semantic analysis of
their meaning. The more deeply a word is processed the easier it will be to
remember.
– State dependent effects – If learning takes place within a certain context it will
be easier to remember within that context rather than a new context.
– Mnemonic effects – Mnemonics are strategies used by learners to organize
relatively meaningless input into more meaningful images or semantic contexts.
For example, the notes of a musical scale (EGBDF) can be remembered by
the rhyme: Every Good Boy Deserves Fruit.
– Schema effects – If information does not fit a person’s schema, it may be more
difficult for them to remember, and what they remember or how they conceive
of it, may also be affected by their prior schema.
– Advanced organizers – Ausebels advance organizers prepare the learner for the
material they are about to learn. They are not simply outlines of the material,
but are material that will enable the student to make sense out of the lesson.
Most information-processing psychologists equate input with information.
According to Hergenhahn and Olson (1993), “Through experience, we learn what
events have in common, how some events are related to other events, what events
are to be approached, what events are to be avoided, what activities work in solving
problems, and in general what to expect in a given situation” (p. 353). For infor-
mation processing psychologists, the output or behavior is determined by the input
provided by the situation and by an assessment of the situation, based partly on
similar experiences.

Conclusion
Of all of the approaches to cognitive psychology, Piaget’s approach has most
influenced information-processing psychology (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993). His
 Design and Leadership 75

concept of schema has been widely adapted by information-processing psychologists

and is viewed as an information-processing mechanism. Piaget and those using his
theory assume that information from the environment is acted upon, organized,
simplified, transformed, and used for further analysis or ignored by one’s cognitive
structures before it is acted upon.

The Basics of Constructivism

Good & Brophy (1990) claim that Bartlett, as early as 1932, pioneered what became
the constructivist approach. Constructivism is best understood through such theorists
as Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky. Constructivists believe that learners construct their
own reality based upon previous experiences, mental structures and beliefs that
are used to interpret social reality. What a person knows is grounded in his/her
perceptions of the physical and social experiences as comprehended by the mind
(Jonasson, 1991). Constructivism has become a theory of learning that has emerged
from the theory of knowing. Its epistemology draws from fields such as philosophy,
psychology, and physical science.

What is constructivism? Constructivists view the learner as being more actively

involved in knowledge creation. “Constructivist theory views learning not as
sequential and linear, but as integrated and complex” (Foote, Vermette & Battaglia,
2001, p. 24). Thus, from a constructivist perspective, learning involves the learner in
sense-making activities that are shaped by prior knowledge and experiences (Piaget,
1974), that occur through social interaction (Bruner, 1990) and that are contextually
situated (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). According to constructivist learning
theory, activities are structured so learners create and control the development of
their own learning.
Fosnot (1989, p. 19) defines constructivism based on four principles. First,
knowledge is based on past constructions. Constructivists assert that we can not
know the world in a true objective sense, “separate from ourselves and our
experiences” (p. 19). That is, we can only know the world through our frame-
works that helps us to organize and interpret our perceptions. Second, construc-
tions arise through assimilation and accommodation. Knowledge is not static; our
previous learning affects our new learning. Third, learning is an organic process of
invention, rather than a mechanical process of accumulation. The learner actively
creates knowledge and does not passively receive it from the environment. Fourth,
meaningful learning occurs through reflection and resolution of cognitive conflict.
Constructivists’ believe that deep learning occurs during periods of confusion, novel
situations and over an extended period of time. In essence, cognitive dissonance
is important in instigating thinking. For it is by understanding such circumstances
that our mind becomes active.
Moll (1990) asserted that constructivist theory is not a modern approach. He
argued that knowledge is always a construction, inevitably reflecting the joint
contribution of subject and object. This idea can be traced to the Kantian resolution
of idealist (all knowledge is mental construction) and empiricist (all knowledge
76 Sackney and Mergel

is a copy of an existing external world) interpretations of how we come to know

the world.
In the next section we address some of the key theorists that developed the roots
of constructivism. These include Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky.

John Dewey Dewey challenged traditional educational practices and launched a

campaign for the “continuous reconstruction of education.” Organized in 1919, The
Progressive Education Association pushed for educational reforms that promoted
creative learning activities in classrooms, use of real life activities, and experimen-
tation in curriculum design and evaluation, and that pushed for closer relations with
the community.
Dewey (1910) was particularly concerned about the nature of knowledge, the role
of the teacher, and the context for learning. Dewey was critical of logical positivism
which dominated education at the time. He felt that by viewing knowledge as
complete and immutable was a sure recipe for boredom. He believed that education
should mirror the complexities of life. “Instruction in subject-matter that does not
fit into any problem already stirring in the student’s own experience or that is not
presented in such a way as to arouse a problem, is worse than useless for intellectual
purposes” (p. 199).
Dewey saw education being inextricably linked to life itself, and therefore
education needed to be linked to personal experience. Foote et al. (2001) in analyzing
Dewey’s views on education stated, “His strongest argument was that schooling
was not preparation for life, it was life itself [emphasis in original] and, therefore,
education shared an organic and inseparable connection with personal experience”
(p. 15).
For Dewey, knowledge production resides within the learner and therefore the
aim of education was to provide the means for connecting learning with personal
experience. He believed that the role of the teacher was to enable the student
to function as an autonomous, creative and empowered learner. Consequently the
teacher’s role was to be a facilitator and pathfinder.
Dewey’s (1938) position about the learning environment was critical. His
progressive philosophy did not allow for chaotic classroom environments, rather it
was the duty of teachers to see “what direction an experience is heading and to
support environments where creativity could flourish” (p. 38).

Jean Piaget Piaget, like Dewey, theorized that “learning occurs when new infor-
mation becomes intimately connected with experience and prior knowledge” (Foote
et al., 2001, p. 17). For him, all humans are born with cognitive structures that
allow the person to organize and process information. He called this information
processing structures schema, which we had described previously under cognition.
Three elements of his theory are important for understanding constructivism: assim-
ilation, accommodation and equilibrium. Assimilation occurs when new information
is incorporated into an existing scheme. A three year old can, for example, differ-
entiate different breeds of dog from a cat. Accommodation occurs when an existing
schema has to be modified. For example, our conceptions of a male nurse or female
 Design and Leadership 77

welder may result in some cognitive dissonance because we have not thought
of these people in those roles. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual
experiences incongruence between current schema and the new information. This
disequilibrium causes the learner to seek new understanding either through assimi-
lation or accommodation in an attempt to establish equilibrium. According to Foote
et al. (2001), learning is “a constant cycle of editing and revising, crafting and
reformulating theories about how the world functions” (p. 20).
The theory of knowing, as first articulated by Piaget, was essentially biological in
nature. As the organism encounters new events or experiences it tries to assimilate
these into existing cognitive structures or adjusts the structures to accommodate
the new information. The schema are reformed or formed based on experiences,
beliefs, values, socio-cultural histories, and prior perceptions.

Lev Vygotsky Vygotsky was a Russian psychologist whose theories pertaining to

constructivism were not known in North America and Europe until much later.
Vygotsky, who benefited from the work of Piaget, studied human thought processes.
He made two important additions to Piaget’s work: the notions of ‘zone of proximal
development’ and ‘scaffolding’. Vygotsky’s theory of learning, known as the
cultural-historical theory of human development, is seen as his principal scientific
achievement. Crucial to his vision was the centrality of interaction among adults
and children for humane personal development. His zone of proximal development
is the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent
problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers
(Moll, 1990, p. 139).
Vygotsky contends there are three levels of knowing. At the first level are tasks
that one knows and can do without assistance. At the middle level are tasks one
does not fully comprehend, but with assistance can master. At highest level are
tasks the individual cannot master at the present time. Vygotsky claims that a person
learns best when the work is at the middle level, just above what is presently under-
stood. This level is called the ‘zone of proximal development’ (Foote et al., 2001,
p. 22).
His second theoretical construct, scaffolding, refers to the assistance we receive
from someone in an attempt to learn something new. According to Vygotsky, the
new information must be “connected in some way to what we already know” (p. 23).
In other words, new knowledge cannot just be transferred unless it is connected to
previous learning.

Assumptions and contribution of constructivism Constructivist theory claims that:

– Learning is constructed from experience;

– Learning is a personal interpretation of the world;
– Learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of
experience;
78 Sackney and Mergel

– Conceptual growth comes from the negotiation of meaning, the sharing of

multiple perspectives and the changing of our internal representations through
collaborative learning; and
– Learning should be situated in realistic settings and testing should be integrated
with the task and not used as a separate activity (Merrill, 1991).

Conclusion

Constructivist theory has had a considerable impact on teaching, leading and

learning. Our work on learning communities (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000), for
example, is based upon constructivist ideology and quantum physics. School staff
using constructivism attempt to change the context within which students learn.
In such schools students are provided authentic learning experiences in a collab-
orative environment and reflection and experimentation are encouraged. In these
environments learning is at the heart of teaching and leading. In the process of
encountering new experiences and through reflective interpretation, the individual
learns and comes to know.

EVOLUTION OF LEARNING THEORIES

While reading about learning theories, you may have noticed that it is difficult
to pin down what theory a certain theorist belongs to. For example, a name you
originally thought was in the cognitivist category shows up in the constructivist
category (e.g., Piaget). This problem is often the result of theorists and their ideas
evolving over a period of time. Davidson (1998) provides the following example:
Considered by most to be representative of behaviourist learning paradigm, Gagne’s theory of learning
and events of instruction have evolved progressively to approach a more cognitive theory. His discussion
of relating present information and past knowledge (event #3) and the inclusion of learning transfer
(event # 9) are indicative of his shift toward constructivism.

Mergel (1998), in her analysis of the development of learning theories, compared

the evolution of learning theories to the evolution of atomic theory. In the next two
sections, we examine this analogy.

Atomic Theory

Since the beginning of history, people have theorized about the nature of matter.
The ancient Greeks thought that matter was composed of fire, water, earth and air.
Subsequently, continuous theory claimed that matter could be subdivided infinitely
into smaller and smaller pieces without change. Later Greek philosophers came up
with the idea that matter was made up of particles so small they could not be viewed.
This theory was referred to as the orbital model and the quantum-mechanical model
(Dorin, Demmin & Gabel, 1990).
 Design and Leadership 79

Quantum Theory

Because we cannot see an electron or learning with our eyes, we use models
to depict what actually constitutes the construct. In knowledge construction our
learning models are mental pictures that enable us to understand that which we
can never see. In Figure 2 we depict the growth of two constructs, atomic theory
development and learning theory development, to demonstrate how our theories
have evolved over time.
Learning theories, like the study of matter, can be traced back to the ancient
Greeks. In the 18th century, with the onset of scientific inquiry, people began to
study and develop models of learning. The behaviorist learning theory centered
on what was observable. Behaviorism can be compared to Dalton’s atom, which
was simply a particle. Using overt behavior, people began to realize that there
was something happening inside the organism that needed to be considered, since
it affected overt behavior. And thus, cognitivism was born. Similar developments
occurred in the physical sciences when scientists such as Bohr realized that the
atom was more complex than originally observed. Theorists soon realized that the
atom was not stable. Similarly, the constructivist learning theory tells us that each
organism is constantly in flux, and although the old models work to a certain degree,
other factors need to be considered. Can we consider the constructivist approach
to be the quantum theory of learning? Quantum theory is derived from previous
atomic theories. Constructivism builds upon behaviorism and cognitivism in the
sense that it accepts multiple perspectives and maintains that learning is a personal
interpretation of the world. We argue that behavioral strategies can be part of a
constructivist learning situation, if the learner chooses and finds that type of learning
suitable to their experiences and learning styles. Cognitive approaches have a place
in constructivism since constructivism recognizes the concept of schema and builds
upon prior knowledge and experience. The greatest differences among the theories

Figure 2. Comparison of Atomic They Development to learning Theory Development

80 Sackney and Mergel

may occur in regards to evaluation. In behaviorism and cognitivism, evaluation

is based on meeting specific objectives, whereas in constructivsm evaluation is
more subjective. Perhaps the learning theory used is dependent upon the learning
situation, just as the Bohr atom is often used to introduce the concept of protons,
neutrons and electrons.

Distinguishing One Learning Theory from Another

Ertmer and Newby (1993) use Schunk’s five definitive questions plus two of their
own in evaluating instructional design to distinguish among the various learning
theories:

1. How does learning occur?

2. Which factors influence learning?
3. What is the role of memory?
4. How does transfer occur?
5. What types of learning are best explained by the theory?
6. What basic assumptions/principles of this theory are relevant to instructional
design?
7. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

This schema serves as a useful model for differentiating the various learning
theories. By responding to these questions we are better able to differentiate the
major differences between theories; however, are theories necessarily mutually
exclusive from one another? A model to integrate objectivism and constructivism
was suggested by Johannes Cronje (2000). If objectivism and constructivism are
indeed opposites, then any given learning experience would be either objectivist or
constructivist in nature, or somewhere in between, but certainly, as one goes up the
other would have to come down. Cronje’s model places objectivism and construc-
tivism at right angles to each other so that they are complementary to each other.
In doing so, four quadrants can be considered, Chaos, Instruction, Construction and
Integration. If you consider serendipitous and incidental learning to be low in both
objectivism and constructivism, (Chaos) then is it possible to have learning events
that are appropriately high in both instruction and construction (Integration)?

LEARNING THEORIES AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

In this section we analyze each of the learning theories and their implications for
instructional design using Mergel’s (1998) framework.

Behaviorism and Instructional Design

Saettler (1990) in his book, The History of American Educational Technology,

indicates that behaviorism did not have an impact on educational technology until
 Design and Leadership 81

the 1960s, which was about the time that behaviorism began to decline in popularity
in American psychology. He identified six areas that demonstrated the impact of
behaviorism on educational technology: the behavioral objectives movement; the
teaching machine phase; the programmed instruction movement; individualized
instructional approaches, computer-assisted learning and the systems approach to
instruction.

Behavioral objectives movement A behavioral objective requires that learning

objectives be stated in specified, quantifiable and measurable terms. To develop
behavioral objectives, a learning task must be broken down into specific measurable
tasks. Learning success is then assessed using tests to measure each learning
objective.
According to Saettler (1990), Franklin Bobbitt developed the modern concept
of behavioral objectives in the early 1900s; however, other sources state that
behaviourism may have been erroneously attributed as being the source of the
practice of writing explicit objectives. Herbert Spencer, a curriculum developer
from the mid nineteenth century gave rise to the idea of specific behavioural objec-
tives that include evidence of cognitive processes (Smith & Ragan 2005). Thus,
the term “behavioural objectives” may be somewhat of a misleading term, since
the following paragraph discusses behavioural objectives that include the cognitive
element.
Numerous taxonomic analyses of learning behaviors have been developed.
Perhaps the best known are Bloom’s ‘Cognitive Taxonomy’ and Gagne’s
‘Taxonomy of Learning’. In 1956 Bloom and his colleagues began their devel-
opment of a taxonomy in the cognitive, attitudinal (affective) and psychomotor
domains. Their six domains were: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. Robert Gagne who developed his taxonomy of learning
in 1972 has five categories: verbal information, intellectual skill, cognitive strategy,
attitude and motor skill. These taxonomies have been used extensively in education
to enhance learning. In Bloom’s taxonomy, synthesis and evaluation are considered
to be the highest level of student learning.
Behavioral objectives were first popularized in military and industrial training.
Mager (1962) who wrote, Preparing Instructional Objectives, prompted interest in
the use of behavioral objectives among educators. Gagne and Briggs who also had
backgrounds in military and industrial psychology developed a set of instructions
for writing objectives based on Mager’s work. Their model included the elements
of action, object, situation, tools and constraints, and capability to be learned. By
the late 1960s most teachers were writing and using behavioral objectives (Saettler,
1990).
Bloom extended his work on learning to include mastery learning. His formula
for mastery learning was to pretest, teach, test the result, adapt the procedure, teach
and test again to the point of actual learning (Saettler, 1990). Mastery learning
assumes that all students can master the materials given appropriate instruction and
time.
82 Sackney and Mergel

Teaching machines and programmed instruction movement B. F. Skinner is

probably the best known advocate of teaching machines and programmed learning.
Other contributors included the following:

– Pressey – introduced a multiple-choice machine at the 1925 American Psycho-

logical Association meeting.
– Peterson – a former student of Pressey’s who developed “chemosheets” in
which the learner checked his/her answers with a chemical-dipped swab.
– Crowder – designed a branched style of programming for the US Air Force in
the 1950s to train troubleshooters to find malfunctions in electronic equipment.
– Skinner – using operant conditioning Skinner’s teaching machine required the
learner to complete or answer a question and then receive feedback on the
correctness of the response (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993).

Individualized approaches to instruction Similar to programmed learning and

teaching machines, individualized instruction began in the early 1900s and was
revived in the 1960s. The Keller Plan, Individually Prescribed Instruction, Program
for Learning in Accordance with Needs, and Individually Guided Education were
all examples of individualized instruction (Saettler, 1990).
The Keller Plan (1963) was developed by F. S. Keller, a colleague of Skinner,
and used in university-college classes. The main features of the plan included
individually paced learning, mastery learning, lectures and demonstrations that were
motivational rather than critical information, and that used proctors which permitted
testing, immediate scoring, tutoring, and personal-social aspects of the educational
process.
Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI) (1964) was developed by the Learning
Research and Development Center of the University of Pittsburgh. The main
features of IPI were prepared units; behavioral objectives and planned instructional
sequences which were used for reading, math and science. The units included a
pre-test and post-test for each unit and the material was continually evaluated and
upgraded to meet behavioral objectives.
Program for Learning in Accordance with Needs (PLAN) (1967) headed by
Jon C. Flanagan, PLAN was developed under the sponsorship of the American
Institute for Research (AIR). Initially, Westinghouse Learning Corporation and 14
school districts were involved. The project was abandoned in the 1970s because
of the expensive upgrading costs. The main features of PLAN were that schools
selected items from about 6,000 behavioral objectives to be used in instructional
modules. Each instructional module took about two weeks instruction and consisted
of approximately five objectives. Emphasis was on mastery learning and included
remedial learning plus retesting (Saettler, 1990).

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) Computer-assisted instruction was first used

in education and training during the early 1950s. Early work was done by
IBM and grew rapidly in the 1960s when federal funding for research and
development in educational and industrial laboratories was provided. In an
 Design and Leadership 83

attempt to assess the effectiveness of CAI, the federal government developed

two competing companies (Control Data Corporation and Mitre Corporation)
who designed Program Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations (PLATO) and
Time Shared, Interactive, Computer-Controlled Information Television (TICCIT)
projects. Despite the money and research efforts, by the mid-seventies it was
apparent that CAI was not going to be the success that people had anticipated. CAI
was very much drill and practice controlled by the program developer rather than
the learner. Minimal branching of instruction was implemented, although TICCIT
did allow the learner to determine the sequence of instruction or to skip certain
topics (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1993).

Systems approach to instruction The systems approach developed in the 1950s

and 1960s focused on language laboratories, teaching machines, programmed
instruction, multimedia presentations and the use of computer mediated instruction.
Most systems approaches were similar to computer flow charts with steps that
the designer moves through during the development of instruction (See Figure 3).
Rooted in the military and business world, the systems approach involved
setting goals and objectives, analyzing resources, devising a plan of action and
continuous evaluation and modification of the instructional program (Saettler,
1990).

Cognitivism and Instructional Design

Although cognitive psychology emerged in the late 1950s, it was not until the late
1970s that cognitive science began to have its influence on instructional design.
Cognitive science shifted the emphasis from external behavior to a concern with the

Figure 3. Standard Systems View of Instructional Systems Design

84 Sackney and Mergel

internal mental processes of the mind and how effective learning can be promoted.
The design models that had been developed in the behaviorist tradition were not
simply thrown out, instead the ‘task analysis’ and ‘learner analysis’ elements of
the model were embellished. The new models addressed component processes of
learning such as knowledge coding and representation, information storage and
retrieval, as well as the incorporation and integration of new knowledge with
previous information (Saettler, 1990). Because cognitivism and behaviorism are
both governed by an objectivist view of knowledge, the transition from behavioral
instructional design principles to those of a cognitive style was not difficult. The
goal of instruction remained the communication or transfer of knowledge to learners
in the most efficient, effective manner possible (Bednar, et al., 1995). For example,
the breaking down of a task into smaller steps works for a behaviorist who is trying
to find the most efficient method of shaping a learner’s behavior. The cognitive
scientist, on the other hand, would analyze a task, break it down into smaller steps
or chunks and use that information to develop instruction that moves from simple
to more complex building blocks based on prior schema.
The influence of cognitive science in instructional design is evidenced by the use
of advance organizers, mnemonic devices, metaphors, chunking into meaningful
parts and the careful organization of instructional materials from simple to complex.

Cognitivism and computer-based instruction Computers process information in

a similar fashion to how cognitive scientists think humans process information:
receive the information, store the information and retrieve the information. This
analogy makes the possibility of programming a computer to think like a person
conceivable.
Artificial intelligence (AI) involves the computer working to supply appro-
priate responses to student input from the computer’s data base. A trouble-
shooting program is one example of these programs. Other programs such as
PLATO (encourages mathematical skill development), LOGOS (designed to help
children program a computer), BUGGY (diagnoses student mathematical error), and
SCHOLAR (teaches facts about South American geography in a Socratic method)
are examples of programs that were developed within a cognitive science paradigm.

Constructivism and Instructional Design

The shift of the instructional design practice from behaviorism to cognitivism does
not seem as dramatic as the move toward constructivism, since behaviorism and
cognitivism are both objective in nature. Behaviorism and cognitivism both support
the practice of analyzing a task and breaking it down into component chunks,
establishing objectives, and measuring performance based on those objectives. On
the other hand, constructivism, promotes a more open-ended learning experience
where the methods and results of learning are not easily measured and may, in fact,
not be the same for each learner.
Because they both conceive of learning as a mental activity (Ertmer & Newby,
1993), constructivism is considered to be a branch of cognitivism, however,
 Design and Leadership 85

the objective side of cognitivism supports the use of systems approach models
to instructional design, while constructivism does not. Jonassen (1994) points
out that instructional design based on objectivism has a predetermined outcome
and intervenes in the learning process to map a pre-determined concept of
reality into the learner’s mind. Designing from a constructivist viewpoint recog-
nizes that because learning outcomes are not always predictable, instruction
should foster, not control, learning. With this in mind, Jonassen (1994) suggests
the following:
a constructivist design process should be concerned with designing environments which support the
construction of knowledge, which:

– is based on internal negotiation (a process of articulating mental models, using those models to
explain, predict, and infer, and reflecting on their utility – known to Piaget as accommodation
and to Norman and Rumelhart as tuning and restructuring).
– is based on social negotiation (a process of sharing a reality with others using the same or similar
processes to those used in internal negotiation)
– is facilitated by exploration of real world environments and invention of new environments,
processes that are regulated by each individual’s intentions, needs, and/or expectations
– results in mental models, and provides meaningful, authentic contexts for learning and using the
knowledge they construct, which should be supported by case based problems which have been
derived from and situated in the real world with all of its uncertainty and complexity and based
upon authentic tasks (those likely to be encountered in real life practice)
– requires an understanding of its own thinking processes and problem solving methods because
problems in that context are different than problems in other contexts.
– is modeled for learners by skilled performers but not necessarily expert performers.
– requires collaboration among learners and with the teacher, who is more of a coach or mentor
and not a purveyor of knowledge
– engages and facilitates social negotiation
– provides an intellectual toolkit to facilitate an internal negotiation which is necessary for building
mental models (pp. 37–38).

Technological advances since the 1980s have enabled designers to move toward a
more constructivist approach to the development of instruction. One of the most
useful tools for the constructivist design is hypertext and hypermedia because it
allows for a branched design rather than a linear instructional format. Hyperlink
allows for learner control, which is important for constructivist learning; however,
there are some concerns over the novice learner becoming lost in a sea of hyper-
media. To address this concern, Jonassen, Mayes and McAlleese (1993) suggest
that each phase of knowledge acquisition requires different types of learning and
that initial knowledge acquisition is perhaps best served by classical instruction with
predetermined learning outcomes, sequenced instructional interaction and criterion-
referenced evaluation while the more advanced second phase of knowledge acqui-
sition is more suited to a constructivist environment.
Much of the literature on constructivist design suggests that learners should not
simply be “set loose” in a hypermedia or hypertext environment, but that a mix
of old and new (objective and constructive) instruction/learning design be imple-
mented. Not all theorists advocate a mix and match strategy for instructional design.
86 Sackney and Mergel

Bednar et al. (1995) challenge the eclectic approach to instructional design systems
by pointing out that “…abstracting concepts and strategies from the theoretical
position that spawned them strip them of their meaning” (p.101).
Despite the fact that instructional design from a constructivist viewpoint is
different from the historical systems-based design strategies, current literature
suggests that there has been a cultural shift toward learning environments and
approaches based on social constructivism where learning is situated in context
and knowledge is constructed in communities of practice through social interaction.
(Campbell, Schwier & Kenny, 2005)

Application of Learning Theories to the Practice

of Instructional Design

How are learning theories applied to the practice of instructional design (ID)? Is
one theoretical approach more easily used compared to another? As previously
discussed, it is generally accepted that ID was rooted in behaviorist theory and
that after some time cognitive theory became dominant. The move from behavioral
to cognitive theory was not a giant leap since many of the instructional strategies
advocated and utilized by behaviorists were also used by cognitivists, but for
different reasons. Behaviorists assess learners to determine the starting point for
instruction, while cognitivists look at the learner to determine their predisposition
to learning (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). In recent years, several ID Models based on
constructivist learning theory have been developed, but it is not certain as to what
degree these or in fact, any ID models , are being used exactly as prescribed in the
practice of instructional design. (Kenny, et al., 2005)
When designing from a behaviorist/cognitivist perspective, the designer analyzes
the situation and sets a goal. Individual tasks are broken down and learning objec-
tives are developed. Evaluation consists of determining whether the criteria for the
objectives have been met. In this way, the designer decides what is important for
the learner to know and attempts to transfer that knowledge to the learner. The
learning package resembles more of a closed system, and although it may allow for
some branching and remediation, the learner is still constrained by the designer’s
framework.
Designing from a constructivist perspective requires that the designers produce
a product that is more facilitative in nature. The content is not pre-specified and
the direction of learning is determined by the learner. Assessment is much more
subjective because it does not depend on specific quantitative criteria, but rather
the process and self-evaluation of the learner. Instead of the standard pencil and
paper tests of mastery learning, assessment in a constructivist environment may be
more performance-based and include portfolios or projects.
Because of the divergent, subjective nature of constructive learning, it is easier for
the designer to work from the systems perspective. That is not to say that classical
instructional design techniques are better than constructive design techniques, but
it is easier, less time consuming and most likely less expensive to design a ‘closed
 Design and Leadership 87

system’ rather than an ‘open system’. It is probable that different theories are
appropriate for certain audiences and learning tasks. For example, information
processing models may be best suited for training, while constructivist models for
more dynamic educational situations. (Bichelmeyer et al., 2002)

IS THERE ONE BEST LEARNING THEORY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL

DESIGN?

Shiffman (1995) contends that a good foundation in learning theory is essential

for the preparation of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) professionals because it
permeates all dimensions of ISD. Knowledge of the various learning theories is
useful because it opens our eyes to other possibilities and ways of viewing the
world. Different learners and situations require the application of different learning
theories.
The function of the Instructional Designer is to apply the theory. Tying ID to one
theory may not be the best way of designing learning materials. Thus, ISD profes-
sionals need to be pragmatic in their ID work. They need to understand the strengths
and weaknesses of each learning theory to optimize their use in appropriate instruc-
tional design strategy. According to Schwier (1995), we must allow the circum-
stances surrounding the learning situation dictate which approach is most appro-
priate. We need to realize that some situations require highly prescriptive solutions
and others may be better suited to the learner controlling his/her environment.
Jonnassen, Mays and McAleese (1993) identified different learning needs and
matched them to what they believe are appropriate learning theory approaches.
For introductory learning, learners usually have little directly transferable prior
knowledge about the particular skill or knowledge. As a result, this stage of ID
classical instructional design is most suitable because the learning is predeter-
mined, constrained, sequential and criterion-referenced. At this stage the learner can
develop some anchors for further exploration. For advanced knowledge acquisition,
constructivist approaches may be introduced, since, at the expert stage of learning,
the learner is able to make intelligent decisions within the learning environment.
Recognizing that there are different learning levels, Jonassen, Mays and McAleese
stress that it is important that the context be considered before recommending a
specific methodology.
In accordance with the above discussion, Ertmer and Newby (1993), after
comparing behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism, concluded that the instruc-
tional approach used for novice learners may not be sufficiently stimulating
for learners who are familiar with the learning content. Consequently, they do
not indicate one single learning theory, but stress that instructional strategy and
content being addressed is dependent on the learners’ level. They claim that a
behavioral approach can facilitate mastery of 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
88 Sackney and Mergel

constructivist strategies are best suited to dealing with ill-defined and complex
problems using reflection-in-action.
They further elaborate that behavioral tasks require a low amount of
processing such as rote memorization and require strategies most frequently
associated with behavioral design (e.g., stimulus-response type). Cognitive
tasks (e.g., classifications) are primarily associated with strategies having a
strong cognitive emphasis (e.g., schematic organization, analogical reasoning,
algorithmic problem-solving). Constructivist tasks, on the other hand, require
high levels of processing (e.g., heuristic problem-solving) and are frequently
best learned using the constructivist perspective (e.g., situated learning, social
negotiation).
Ertmer and Newby believe that the strategies promoted by different learning
theories overlap and that learning theory strategies are concentrated along different
points of a continuum depending on the level of cognitive processing required.
Figure 4 depicts this comparison. Based on their suggestions, the designer can draw
from a large number of learning strategies to meet the diverse learning situations.
It appears that there is not one best learning theory for the practice of instruc-
tional design, but rather informed application of theory for the appropriate leaning

Figure 4. Level of Cognitive Processing Required by Task Based on Level of Learner’s Task Knowledge
 Design and Leadership 89

situation. It is also interesting, that although ID models derived from learning

theory are valuable, recent research suggests that ‘ID models are useful to designers
and inform practice, but few if any designers actually use models to confine their
practice’ (Kenny et al., 2005).

LEARNING THEORIES AND LEADING: PARALLEL DEVELOPMENTS

There is a considerable amount of literature on the influences of learning theory on

educational leadership. Leadership as a field of study has been influenced by the
various movements in learning and leading during the various eras and each view
continues to exert some influence on schools today.

Behavioral Approaches to Learning and Leading

Behavioral theories of learning and leading are based on the view that human
phenomena can be measured and predicted. Newtonian science and social and
psychological theories advanced the view that the world is predictable, static, and
clocklike. Using empirical methods the view was that behavior could be predicted.
In the behavioral view of leading and learning, consequences of behavior will to a
great extent determine whether behavior will be repeated.
In the classroom, behavioral psychology meant that teachers breakdown large
concepts into smaller parts and discrete skills. Teaching is viewed as an isolated
activity where drill and practice and large group instruction dominate. It was also an
era of behavioral objectives as espoused by Mager (1962). Interestingly, behavioral
objectives are still very much alive, especially in special education and learning
community programs.
Initially scientific management based on Taylor’s work influenced organizational
behavior. This view saw organizations as machines. For Taylor, what managers
needed to do was to study human motion through work study analysis of perfor-
mance. Hoy and Miskel (1991) claimed that Chester Barnard originated much of the
behavioral science approach with his organizational analysis. Later systems theory
evolved which saw organizations as inputs, throughputs and outputs. In education
systems models included such programs as Performance Evaluation and Review
Techniques (PERT), and Planning, Programming and Budgeting Systems (PPBS). In
the early studies of organizations using systems methodology, environment, bound-
aries, feedback, and other elements were treated as a set of scientific variables. The
focus of behaviorist management was to constrain uncertainty in the organization.
Behaviorist models of leadership can be traced back to Watson and Skinner. The
model was based on two simple assumptions. First, behavior is essentially deter-
mined by the environment through basic reinforcement processes: environmental
stimuli, behavioral responses, and outcomes. Second, behavior is subject to certain
laws. Human behavior can be modified through reinforcement.
90 Sackney and Mergel

For behaviorists, people are motivated by external events called reinforcers and
through positive and negative reinforcement processes (Skinner, 1974). The appli-
cation of behaviorist models by management assumes that employees desire rewards
of positive reinforcement and recognition, which will motive them to work harder.
Leadership according to this model requires the leader to (1) inform subordinates
about desirable behaviors that will be rewarded and which behaviors will not be
rewarded; (2) provide continuous feedback to employees regarding the nature and
quality of their work; (3) recognize employees for good work; and (4) reward
differently depending on the performance level.
Using behavioral theory, numerous studies were done to identify the effects
that leaders’ behavior had on subordinate work productivity and work satisfaction.
Numerous leadership studies were conducted using the theory including the Ohio
State University leadership studies, the Michigan State University studies and the
Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid (Razik & Swanson, 2001). Burns (1976) model
of transactional leadership which saw leaders guiding or motivating their followers
in the direction of established goals by clarifying roles and task requirements, would
also fit into behaviorist theory.
Hoy and Miskel (2001) in summarizing behavioral teaching, and by implications
leading, suggested a number of guiding principles:
– Provide clear and systematic praise, but only if it is deserved.
– Recognize genuine accomplishments.
– Attribute success to effort and ability to build confidence.
– Recognize positive behavior in ways that individuals’ value.
– Set clear goals and expectations so that reinforcement is clear.
– Use a variety of reinforcers and let individuals choose among these.
– Adapt the punishment to fit the misbehavior (pp. 45–46).
Suffice it to say that behaviorist theories of leadership are still evident in most
schools and districts today.

Cognitive Perspective to Learning and Leading

Cognitive research emerged with the developments of the computer and the desire
to understand language development. With the growing recognition that learning
is an active mental process, educational psychologists became intrigued with how
knowledge was represented and recalled. Recent cognitive approaches suggest that
what we bring to the learning situation determines in large part what we pay
attention to, learn, forget and remember (Alexander, 1996). Our existing knowledge
base serves as a scaffold for future learning
The information-processing model is based on the analogy of the mind and the
computer and views three storage systems: the sensory, short-term memory and
long-term memory. Sensory memory is a holding system that retains stimuli briefly
so that perceptual analysis can occur. Short-term memory holds from five to nine
pieces of information for about 20 seconds. Information is encoded and perceptions
 Design and Leadership 91

determine what aspects will be retained in short-term memory. Long-term memory

can store large amounts of information for long periods of time. Information is
encoded visually or verbally or both. Activation can bring back what is stored in
long-term memory (Razik & Swanson, 2001; Hoy & Miskel, 2001).
Hoy and Miskel (2001) summarize some of the guiding principles for teaching
and leading using cognitivist theory:
– Perception and attention are guided by previous knowledge.
– Help learners focus on the most important aspects of knowledge.
– Provide review and repetition of information.
– Make sure that individuals have the prerequisite knowledge to understand new
information.
Cognitive motivation theories have been used extensively in organizations. The basic
premise of these theories is that the major determinant of human behavior is the
beliefs, expectations, and anticipations individuals have about future events. Cognitive
theories view behavior as being purposeful, goal-directed, and based on conscious
intentions (Hoy & Miskel, 1991). Three cognitive models have received considerable
attention in organizations: need theory, expectancy theory, and goal theory.

Needs hierarchy theory Perhaps Maslow’s (1970) needs hierarchy theory is the
best known of the three. According to this theory, there exists a hierarchy of human
needs. At the basic levels are the physiological needs which are the biological
functions. At the second level, are the need for safety and security. On the third
level, are belonging, love and social needs. The need for esteem or the sense of
accomplishment exists at the fourth level. Finally, at the fifth and highest level is
the need for self-actualization.
Maslow would argue that schools’ should provide for the highest level of need
satisfaction and that individuals operating at the highest level of need satisfaction
are the best performers. Consequently, it is the leader’s responsibility to ensure that
the need satisfaction of all staff and students is taken care of.
Another example of needs theory is the two-factor theory of human motivation
as outlined by Herzberg and his colleagues (1959). His motivation-hygiene theory
claimed that one set of factors contribute to job satisfaction and a separate set of
factors contribute to job dissatisfaction. The motivating factors were advancement,
responsibility, work itself, recognition and achievement. The hygiene factors were
interpersonal relations with subordinates and peers, supervision, working conditions
and personal life. While Herzberg’s theory has been found lacking, it nevertheless
contributes to our understanding of job design based on responsibility, achievement
and recognition.

Expectancy theory During the late 1960s through the early 1980s expectancy
theory (also called valence-instrumentality-expectancy) achieved considerable
use. Expectancy theory has had considerable use in psychology based
on Tolman’s (1932) work, but its use in organizations was popularized by Vroom
(1964) and Porter and Lawler (1968).
92 Sackney and Mergel

Expectancy theory is based on two premises. First, individuals subjectively

evaluate the expected value of outcomes based on their actions, and they choose
how they behave. Second, forces in the individual and the environment combine to
determine behavior.
The concepts of expectancy, instrumentality and valence are important parts of
expectancy theory. Expectancy (E) is the subjective probability or degree of certainty
that a given effort will yield a specified performance level. Instrumentality (i) refers
to the perceived probability that an incentive will be provided after a given level of
performance. Valence (V) is the perceived positive or negative value that an individual
ascribes to potential goals, outcomes, rewards or incentive for working in an organi-
zation. When expectancy and instrumentality is high and the valence is positive, then
it is likely that the individual will be motivated to work hard.

GOAL THEORY Goal theory is premised on the belief that the intention to achieve
a goal is a primary motivating force for behavior. Locke and Latham (1990), who
are generally recognized for the development of goal theory, identify four goal
mechanisms. First, goals increase attention to the immediate task. Second, goals
increase the effort expanded on activities. Third, goals increase persistence. Finally,
goal setting increases motivation and performance by encouraging the development
of specific task strategies. Research has substantiated that goals are a major source
of work motivation but the theory does have a number of weaknesses according to
Hoy & Miskel (1991).
Goal theory is applied in various school practices. For example, many supervisory
systems for teachers and administrators are based on cognitive processes (Glatthorn,
1990; Costa & Garmston, 1984). Total Quality Management (TQM) processes are
also based on goal-setting and improvement. More recently, SMART goals (specific
and strategic, measurable, achievable, realistic and targeted) are also cognitively
based (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2001).

Organizational learning An area that has received considerable attention in

organizations is the notion of organizational learning (Senge, 1990). The literature
on organizational learning is closely allied to that of cognitive science. Robinson
(2002), in analyzing organizational learning, problem solving and models of mind,
states, “When organizational learning is embedded in the work environment, the
cognitive loads on individuals is reduced, for they do not have to notice and
verbalize all the relevant perceptual inputs, nor do they have to imagine or design
all the ouputs, for their own responses are scaffolded by the responses of other and
salient features of the environment” (p. 785). She quotes Clark in explaining the
learning that occurs,
We use intelligence to structure our environment so that we can succeed with less intelligence…it is
the human brain plus these chunks of external scaffolding that finally constitutes the smart, rational
inference engine that we call mind (p. 785).

Coherentist theory Recently, Evers and Lakomski (2000) have developed a

naturalistic-coherentist theory of leadership. They contend that neural network
models of cognition hold the promise of allowing us to understand a “wider set of
 Design and Leadership 93

decision considerations that influence decision-makers” (p. 18). They view cognition
as situated action and symbol processing. Based on assumptions about human
cognition, they use the notion of organizational learning as the vehicle for building
strong organizational cultures. They contend that effective practice depends on the
activation of appropriate neuronal patterns of leaders and followers. They argue that
since these neuronal patterns do not follow hierarchical structures, “the potential
for effective practice resides throughout the organization” (p. 58). Consequently,
organizational learning is the key to effective leader practice with “the consequence
of creating appropriate web-like organizational structures which maximize the local
production of knowledge and facilitate the correction of error through feedback
mechanisms” (p. 58).
In summary, Sergiovanni (2003) in outlining a cognitive approach to leadership
identifies a number of principles for implementing what he calls ‘idea-based
leadership’:
– The task of leadership is to provide purposing to the school.
– Idea-based leadership can help to create the motivating conditions.
– Seek to serve rather than be served.
– Pay attention to the grammar of leadership.
– Humility is a leadership virtue.
He contends that cognitive leadership is better than personality based or rules based
leadership. “Cognitive leadership works because it has more to do with purposes,
values and frameworks that obligate us morally….” (p. 24).

CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND LEADING

Constructivist theories are grounded in the educational philosophy of Dewey and the
research of Piaget and Vygotsky, to mention a few. There is no one constructivist
theory of learning and leading. Hoy and Miskel (2001) identify three different
approaches: rational, radical, and dialectical constructivism. The constructivist does
not believe in universal reality, but instead, “in multiple social and experience-
based mental constructions that depend on the person holding them for form and
content” (Razik & Swanson, 2001, p. 358). The epistemology of constructivism
is subjectivist; reality is social and constructed in the minds of the constructor.
Learning is situated; the idea is that much of what is learned is specific to the
situation in which it occurs. For constructivists, leading and learning are intertwined
because to learn is to construct meaning and knowledge about the world.
Recently constructivism is being played out in the metaphor of the ‘school as a
learning community’. Considerable research and practice is being centered on this
concept. We have defined a learning community (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000) as
a “group of people who take an active, reflective, collaborative, learning-oriented
and growth-promoting approach toward the mysteries, problems and perplexities
of teaching and learning” (p. 5). This definition asks people to build capacity for
learning and represents a fundamental shift in how learning is perceived. This shift
views knowledge gaps as problems to be overcome rather than seeing learners from
94 Sackney and Mergel

a deficit perspective. Learning is viewed as being intellectual, social and emotional,

and “it happens by design and by chance” (Stoll, Fink, & Earl, 2003, p. 24). This
approach places learning at the centre of school discourse and teachers cannot think
of teaching without thinking about learning.
In a recent paper (Sackney & Mitchell, in press), based on their research of
learning communities, outlined that principal leadership unfolds through the perfor-
mance of four functions: (a) serving as the center, (b) holder of the vision, (c) builder,
and (d) role model. First, the centering function places the school principal at the
hub of school operations. Second, the holder of the vision function sees the hand
of the principal guiding the vision-building process. Third, the builder function
requires the principal to build structures that brings staff together for planning and
decision making, and the establishment of professional learning teams connected
to curriculum and instruction. Fourth, those principals who served as role models
with respect to good teaching strategies, effective collegial processes, respectful
treatment of students, and systemic approaches to practice were most successful in
creating learning communities.
Similarly, Fullan’s (2001) leadership model has five basic dimensions: moral
purpose, understanding change, building relationships, knowledge creation and
sharing, and coherence making. Collarbone (2003) contends that leaders must first
and foremost be learners themselves and their job is to create a culture where people
are not afraid to make mistakes because they know that they can learn through
mistakes.
Constructivist leadership is concerned with the need for sense-making, for
coherence, and for seeing learning communities as growth-oriented entities. Conse-
quently, the function of leadership is to ensure that the conditions are such that
learning occurs and that leads to improved teaching and learning. Leadership ensures
that learning communities are based on ecological principles and shared values.
Lambert (2002) contends that leaders need to foster dialogue and narrative
construction and thereby improve the meaning making systems in schools. By
listening and supporting the telling of stories leaders are better able to form
visions of the future. Narratives or stories serve a number of functions in the
constructive process. First, they create connections across differences. Second,
they provide structure for the ways in which individuals think, feel, perceive
and make moral choices. Third, narratives help to elicit tacit knowledge (Cooper,
2002, p. 116).
Leaders serve as the steward of the vision, values and purposes of the school,
and the designer of the enabling structures and processes that support learning.
In essence, the leadership role is to build capacity within the organization so that
individuals can solve their own problems.

Summary

Table 2 provides a summary of the learning theories as well as the assumptions and
resulting leadership strategies.
 Design and Leadership 95

Table 2. Theoretical Assumptions and Leadership Strategies

Theoretical Assumptions and Leadership Strategies

Theory Assumptions Leadership Strategies

Behaviorist • Human • System

behavior can be measured and approaches
predicted.
• Use of • Specify and
reinforcement processes will lead reward for desirable behavior
to appropriate behavior
• Use
transactional leadership
• Set clear goals
and expectations
Cognitivist • Behavior is • Provide
purposeful, goal-directed and training in prerequisite knowledge
based on conscious intentions
• Situated • Set specific
action and symbol processing goals (e.g., SMART goals)
• Perceptions • Organizational
and attention are guided by learning key to effective
previous knowledge leadership
• Pay attention
to the grammar of leadership
Constructivist • Multiple • Serve as the
social and experience-based steward of vision, values and
mental constructions purposes
• Reality and • Foster sense-
learning is situated in context making coherence and learning
community culture
• Learning is • Build capacity
to construct meaning at the individual, interpersonal
and organizational levels.

CONCLUSION

The teaching-learning function is at the heart of schooling. In this chapter we have

explored three theories of learning and their implications for teaching, instructional
design and leadership.
Behavioral theories of learning emphasize the role of external events—
antecedents and consequences—in changing observable behavior. The use of
learning objectives was emphasized as a way of improving learning and leading
outcomes.
Cognitive theories of learning focus on the human mind’s active attempts to
make sense of the world. Knowledge is the emphasis of cognitive perspectives. In
96 Sackney and Mergel

this chapter we particularly focused on the theory of information processing and its
implications for learning.
Constructivist theories on learning and leading emphasize the situated learning of
the individual. In general constructivists assume that individuals create and construct
knowledge rather than internalize it from the external environment.
What is interesting about examining the various theories and their implications
for learning, instructional design and leading is that each of these theories makes
contributions to our knowledge about teaching and leading. For example, cognitive
theories of leadership make contributions to constructivist theories of leading and
vice versa. Behaviourist theories are evident in constructivist theories of leading.
The boundaries are not so clear. Perhaps Burrell and Morgan (1979) were correct in
using fuzzy clouds to demonstrate the various organizational paradigms. Hopefully,
this chapter also demonstrates the need to understand the various philosophical
underpinnings of our instructional and leading models and frameworks. A better
understanding of these theories will lead to a clearer conceptualization of our
practices of instructional design, teaching, and leadership. Each theory contributes
to our understanding of how teaching, leading and learning occur. It appears that
at present constructivist theories are embedding themselves within the patterns of
learning relationships in schools and leadership. Whose turn will be next or what
hybrid theory emerges is difficult to predict.

REFERENCES
Alexander, P. A. (1996). The past, the present, and future of knowledge research: A reexamination of
the role of knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 31, 89–92.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J.P. (1995). Theory into practice: How do we
link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (2nd ed.) (pp. 100–111).
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., Gibbons, A., Grabowski, B. Hill, J., Osguthorpe, R., Schwier, R.A., &
Wager, W. (2002). Assessing the field of instructional technology: What is the state of the field?
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology, Dallas, Texas, November 14.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burrell, A. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Hants, England:
Ashgate.
Campbell, K., Schwier, R.A., & Kenny, R. (2005). Using narrative inquiry to explore ID as conver-
sation. Selected proceedings of the Research and Theory Division of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Orlando, Florida.
Collarbone, P. (2003). Leading the learning community. In B. Davies & J. West- Burnham
(eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 375–380). New York: Pearson/
Longman.
Conzemius, A. & O’Neill, J. (2001). Building shared responsibility for student learning. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
 Design and Leadership 97

Cooper, J. (2002). Constructivist leadership: Its evolving narrative. In Lambert et al. (eds.), The
constructivist leader (2nd ed.) (pp. 112–126). New York: Teachers College Press.
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1984). The art of cognitive coaching: Supervision intelligent teaching.
Sacramento, CA: California State University.
Cronje, J. (2000). Paradigms lost – Towards integrating objectivism and constructivism. Retrieved,
November 2005. http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper48/paper48.htm
Davidson, K. (1998). Education in the internet–linking theory to reality. Retrieved April 1998.
http://www.oise.on.ca/˜kdavidson/cons.html
Davies, M. (1990). Thinking persons and cognitive science. AI and Society, 4, 41–53.
Dembo, M. H. (1994). Applying educational psychology (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman
Publishing Group.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath & Co.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dorin, H., Demmin, P. E., & Gabel, D. (1990). Chemistry: The study matter (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical
features from a design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly 6(4), 50–72.
Evers, C., & Lakomski, G. (2000). Doing educational administration. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Pergammon.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Foote, C. J., Vermette, C. F., & Battaglia, C. F. (2001). Constructivist strategies: Meeting standards
and engaging adolescent minds. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.
Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Glatthorn, A. (1990). Supervisory leadership. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Brown.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th ed.).White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (1993). An introduction to theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Herzberg, F., Mausener, B., & Synderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Honderick, T. (Ed.) (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research and (6th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice (4th ed).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991) Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?
Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5–14.
Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational
Technology, 34 (4), 34–37.
Jonassen, D. H., Mayes, J. T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to
technology in higher education. In T. Duffy, D. Jonassen & J. Lowyck (Eds.), Designing constructivist
learning environments. Heidelberg, FRG: Springer-Verlag.
Kenny, R. F., Shang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K., (2005), A Review of What Instructional
Designers Do: Questions Answered and Questions Not Asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and
Technology, 31 (1), 9–16.
Lambert et al. (2002). The constructivist leader (2nd ed).New York: Teachers College Press.
Locke, E., & Latham, G., (1990) Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mager, R. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Paulo Alto, CA: Fearon Publishers.
Maslow, A. (1965). Eupsychian management. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
98 Sackney and Mergel

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Retrieved January 2006.
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/ 802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, May, 45–53.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community.
Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Moll, L. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical
psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Owens, R. (2001). Organizational behavior in education (7th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Razik, T. A., & Swanson, A. D. (2001). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Rizo, F. M. (1991). The controversy about quantification in social research: An extension of Gage’s
“historical sketch.” Educational Researcher, 20 (12), 9–12
Robinson, V. M. (2002). Organizational learning, organizational problem solving and models of mind. In
K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second handbook of educational leadership and administration
(pp. 775–812). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sackney, L., & Mitchell, C. (in press). Building schools, building people: The school principal’s role in
leading a learning community. Journal of School Leadership.
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited, Inc.
Schiffman, S. S. (1995). Instructional systems design: Five views of the field. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),
Instructional technology: Past, present and future. 2nd ed., (pp. 131–142)., Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited, Inc.
Schwier, R. A. (1995). Issues in emerging interactive technologies. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional
technology: Past, present and future (2nd ed) (pp. 119–127). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Schuman, L. & Ritchie, D. (1996). Perspectives on Instruction. Retrieved January 2006.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.html
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (2003). A cognitive approach to leadership. In B. Davies & J. West-Burham (Eds.),
Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 12–16). New York: Pearson/Longman.
Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd. ed). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stoll, L., Fink, D.& Earle, L. (2003). It’s about learning [and it’s about time]. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Naiburg.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.