When trying to fully understand the three major learning theories throughout the reading by Ertmer and Newby, I found myself relating each theory to a period of time during my education so far.

Beginning in early childhood, large moral concepts that are often too complicated to be taught at a young age are broken down and digestible through different stories and exercises. The cognitivist method focusing more so on what and how things are learnt, rather than obtaining a correct answer. During early childhood education, before grade school, this seems to be the desired approach. While the students are given rules and boundaries, learning objects often intertwine with each other to further the individual’s overall understanding. Paired with the strong usage of hierarchical structures during this time to assure which is right/wrong. Active involvement (often literally at this stage) during learning to fully captivate and engage learners.

Moving forward to the high school era, students repeatedly test boundaries and have a much harder time being engaged. In my personal experience, understanding what is deemed as the correct answer to most concepts rather than actively learning them. The behaviouralist method seems to be more like Pavlov-ing students, trying to shape behaviour based on a response. This becomes a larger issue when transferring from high school into higher education, as most of what is taught in high school is this form of cue-based response that rewards students on memorization and pattered behaviour.

During university and higher education, the goal of learning is often to fully apply and understand material that is built off of previous learning. Learning occurs more as a building block or web, utilizing previous knowledge to better understand larger/more complex concepts. Cognitivism helps with this by understanding that each learner is very different. How people connect to what they are learning will be varied, and when instructing it can be hard to predict what exactly this might be.

With a more general, larger foundation and working up from there to be more specific and complex, building on the previous knowledge gathered. While I have had little time as an instructor, through study groups and in class I find it easiest to explain complex or specific learning objects through examples and personal experiences. Trying to connect the learner/fellow student with something that is specific to them and a previous experience that they have had. I think information is much more digestible this way, being more personal, rather than trying to simply mimic and memorize what others have learnt.

Over almost decades of school, the theories present themselves depending on the time, instructor, and environment. Currently, I am thoroughly enjoying the constructivist method and will continue to try and engage others in this way.