Comparing Learning Theories from the Perspective of a Teaching Artist

For fifteen years, I taught art and photography, wrote teaching philosophies for promotion reviews, and unwittingly used a variety of instructional design strategies supported by learning theory in my instructional practice.  

Many higher education teaching positions require proof of one’s expertise in a field, but not training in teaching. Artists received their teaching training just as they experienced their artistic learning: in apprentice-style relationships involving progressively more complex tasks. Within visual arts this instruction training generally reflected a stark teaching style: “here are the materials and the tools, here is how others have done it, here is how I do it, here is what I am challenging you to figure out.” As the subject-expert, I divided the photography curriculum into course levels with distinct technical, communicative, and knowledge objectives that progressed in problem-solving expectations and to include professional/real-world applications.   

My approach to Instructional Design is to situate the theories with examples of my teaching and learning experiences, or real-world examples. I thrive in situated learning experiences, so I find myself needing to relate each learning theory to my own experiences as a professor, teacher, tutor, instructional aide, group collaborator, and student, raised by teachers who trained to be advanced teachers who in turn trained more teachers. My instructional practice was based on ideas like the Socratic method, repetition, practice, chunking (but I didn’t call it that), and multiple intelligences, among other ideas I picked up along the way. 

Trying to fit the learning experiences I have facilitated into established learning theory has been challenging. If I teach a student a new skill (like using a camera, or talking about artwork using critical theory), it can be tempting to describe that in the context of behaviorism. The correct behavior is built up of small steps that are rewarded/enforced with feedback.  

A cognitivist will point out I use a lot of cognitive techniques in the learning process. Repetition and scaffolding, using a variety of media like reading, speaking, visuals, recall of previous materials, and discussion in the processing concepts.  

Then a constructivist would point out how the learning, processing, creating tasks in my courses are heavily supported by the environment and peer interactions. I feel I can define them the most closely as a situated learning environment that can facilitate authentic learning (see Herrington, 2000, pp. 25-6). Is it important to be faithful to one theory or does including techniques from other theories improve the process? My style leaned towards the latter: elements of social learning, behavior-based learning, uses of repetition in an authentic environment to a working artist. As art is both a knowledge and a skill, the repetition of learning mirrors the repetition of professional activities in a community of practice. 

References

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Chapter 2: Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Driscoll, M. P. (2007). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser (Ed.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 36-44). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.  

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.   

Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. In proceedings of the World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (E-Learn) 2006, October 13-27, 2006, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.