Paradigms extended: how to integrate behaviorism, constructivism, knowledge domain, and learner mastery in instructional design

The pedagogical paradigms of Direct instruction (behaviorism/objectivism) and Constructivism are often seen as opposing paradigms at the ends of an instructional design continuum. Unfortunately, this view makes the two approaches mutually exclusive. Designers must use the one at the expense of the other. A previous study proposed that the two approaches should be integrated along two axes, producing a matrix of four quadrants of learning, called “injection”, “immersion”, “construction” and “integration”. This model maps directly onto the Cynefin framework of knowledge management that contains four knowledge domains, “known”, “chaos”, “complex” and “knowable”. The combined models allow for a mix of direct, or constructivist teaching and learning. The problem is that the model addresses only two elements of the pedagogical triangle of teacher, content, and learner. It integrates knowledge domains (learning material) with direct and generative approaches to teaching but is silent on the needs of learners. In this paper we propose an extension of the model to add learner mastery to the domains of knowledge, and teaching and learning methods to extend the current decision matrix by adding the learning curve. We consider the metrics for deriving a learning curve, and then fit the required- or expected level of competency and the learner’s level of general competency to the learning curve. We then map the curve to the four quadrants to establish when a particular quadrant is appropriate at a specific phase of the learning curve. This improved model may assist teachers, (lecturers, instructional designers) and learners to select appropriate pedagogical paradigms and methods, based on the domain of knowledge and learners’ mastery of learning outcomes. Finally, we propose a sequential approach to selecting learning paradigms, based on how much of the material has been mastered.