Sage on the Stage

Image free from Wix

Instructivism is a learning theory and pedagogy: it is teacher- rather than student-directed, where the instructor, not the student, is the agent of learning. The instructivist pedagogy is rooted in rigid curriculae with standardized assessments and lecture as the primary delivery of knowledge. Thus, the learning objectives and outcomes are clearly defined. The progression of concepts also scales in difficulty, with concepts becoming increasingly harder throughout the course. In essence, instructivism is a highly structured, instructor-centric learning theory.

Thanks to its structure, instructivism has many strengths. The difficulty level scales appropriately, so that students start with easy concepts that will prepare them for the more difficult concepts later in the course. This progression is based on carefully planned and structured curriculum that results in clear objectives and outcomes; students know exactly what they need to accomplish in order to succeed in the course. For the instructor, these outcomes are easily assessable using standardized assessments; it’s easy for the instructor to gauge whether or not the students are acquiring the knowledge they need. Students are rewarded for their success with good grades and positive feedback.

While instructivism’s rigid nature creates strengths, this rigidity also causes the pedagogy’s numerous drawbacks. Rigidness allows little to no room for fostering the creative intelligences and social intelligence of the learners. Since the instructor is the primary source of knowledge, instructivism does not emphasize or adequately use group discussion or personal inquiry--completely sidestepping two major learning styles, social and solitary.

Lecture, the primary delivery method of knowledge in instructivism, ignores a wide range of other learning styles as well; not every student learns best by listening. I have heard that students in general absorb knowledge best when all learning styles are engaged; therefore, instructivism lectures, in isolation, are not effective in achieving their main goal: to impart knowledge. Judging by the results of standardized assessments, it may seem learners are actually gaining the knowledge, but it’s commonly believed that standardized tests only prove one thing: whether or not students are good at taking standardized tests. Unless the stated outcome of the course is that learners will be able to pass multiple choice exams, the standardized assessments of the instructivism learning context typically are not congruent with the performance context. Altogether, these weaknesses limit the true usefulness of instructivist instruction because it doesn’t fully prepare learners for the real world.

Although instructivism is a clear and well-structured pedagogy, it is missing components critical to true learning. As instructors, we need to think of other ways to help our learners construct their own knowledge.