Learning Theory Debate In The Perspective Of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, And Constructivism In Learning Practice

Adi Bandono, Okol Sri Suharyo

Abstract


In reality, there is a hard debate among instructional practical applies behaviorism learning theory approach, instructional practical apply cognitivism and constructivism learning theory approach until nowadays. The implication of instructional practical becomes extreme and exclusive opinion for followers.  They are Instructional practitioners, developers, and scientists that support one approach or another, or apply alternative ways. Some instructional experts have the opinion that behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism can’t be integrated or mixed because behaviorism is different from cognitivism or constructivism.   Applying those theories as one unit integrated is a big mistake. But, so there is the instructional expert who has the opposite opinion, that describes the third of learning theories as one unit that can be integrated, and able to apply in one instructional practically, as learning event is a complex process that needs multiply perspective approach. Which one of the learning theories can be applied in the instructional effectively, efficiently, and interestingly. This article is going to analyze comprehensively the different perspectives of learning theory and how to determine the exact teaching approach in the instructional practice.

 


Keywords


Learning theory, Instructional Theory, Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. Allyn & Bacon.

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 8(1), 17-34.

Brooks, J. G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections. Educational leadership, 47(5), 68-71.

Cook, D. A. (1993). Behaviorism evolves. Educational technology, 33(10), 62-77.

Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational technology research and development, 54(4), 387-416.

Degeng, I. N. S., & Sudana, N. (1989). Ilmu pengajaran taksonomi variabel. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

Degeng, I. N. S., & Sudana, N. (1997). Strategi pembelajaran mengorganisasi isi dengan model elaborasi. Malang: IKIP dan IPTDI.

Dewantara, K. H. (1977). Bagian pertama pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Majelis Luhur Persatuan Taman Siswa.

Dick, Carey & Carey. (2004). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th Edition), Addison Wesley Educational Publisher.Inc.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. Educational technology research and development, 39(3), 5-14.

Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational technology research and development, 41(3), 4-16.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 141-159.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational technology research and development, 40(1), 93-106.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows. Instructional Science, 12(3), 197-218.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Footnotes to ‘the many faces of constructivism’. Educational researcher, 25(6), 19.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.52155/ijpsat.v29.1.3656

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Adi Bandono, Okol Sri Suharyo

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.