PSYCH 644 Week 1 Learning Theories Example

Teaching a New Machinist to Run a Five-Axis Mill: Behaviorist, Cognitive, Social and Constructivist Theories Put to Work

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSYCH/644: Psychology of Learning and Cognition

Week 1 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The aerospace shop, its trainees and the training program are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources listed.

Theories of learning offer different answers to the same question: how do people come to know and do new things? Comparing them on one demanding task shows what each contributes. This paper applies four theories to teaching apprentices to run a five-axis milling machine at my workplace.

The Task and the Problem

Saguaro Precision in Tucson machines turbine blades, brackets and housings for jet engines from titanium and nickel alloys. A five-axis mill moves a cutting tool along three linear axes while tilting and rotating the part, allowing complex shapes in one setup. Running it requires loading programs, setting tool offsets, fixturing the part, monitoring cuts and inspecting results to tolerances of a few thousandths of an inch. Apprentices, most of them recent graduates of a community college program, scrap about one part in twelve during their first six months, often from incorrect offsets or skipped verification steps. Each scrapped blank costs between $400 and $1,200.

Behaviorist Theory: Shaping Correct Actions

Behaviorist theories explain learning as changes in behavior produced by consequences. Operant conditioning holds that behaviors followed by reinforcement become more likely, and complex behaviors can be shaped by reinforcing successive approximations. Ertmer and Newby (1993) compared learning theories from an instructional design perspective and noted that behaviorism suits tasks requiring recall of facts, discriminations and automatic performance of procedures. Instruction designed from this view specifies observable objectives, breaks tasks into steps, provides practice with immediate feedback and reinforces correct responses.

For the mill, a behaviorist design would break setup into steps, have apprentices practice each step on a training fixture and give immediate confirmation when a step is done correctly, such as a supervisor's sign-off or a checklist light. Reinforcement for completing the verification steps every time could build habits that prevent scrap.

Cognitive Theory: Managing the Mind's Workload

Cognitive theories focus on mental processes: attention, working memory, organization of knowledge in long-term memory and retrieval. Ertmer and Newby described cognitivism as suited to tasks involving reasoning, problem solving and information processing, with instruction emphasizing how learners organize and connect information.

Kirschner et al. (2006) argued, based on cognitive architecture, that working memory is severely limited when dealing with new information and that minimally guided instruction, in which novices discover concepts and procedures on their own, overloads working memory and produces less learning than explicit instruction with worked examples. Guidance becomes less necessary as learners build knowledge in long-term memory. Their argument has been debated, but the evidence on worked examples for novices is strong.

For apprentices, the mill's interface, the program, the offsets and the physical setup all compete for working memory. A cognitive design would sequence information, use worked examples of complete setups and reduce unnecessary load, such as clutter on setup sheets.

Social Cognitive Theory: Learning by Watching

In Bandura's account, much of what we learn comes from watching someone else: we notice what the model does, hold onto it, try it ourselves and keep doing it if the payoff seems worth it. Our belief that we can pull a skill off, which Bandura called self-efficacy, decides whether we try at all and how long we keep at it.

Taylor et al. (2005) meta-analyzed 117 studies of behavior modeling training, in which trainees watch a model demonstrate skills and then practice. Effects were largest on learning outcomes such as knowledge and skill, and smaller but meaningful on job behavior. Transfer was greater when models showed both correct and incorrect behaviors, when trainees practiced with scenarios they generated, when supervisors were trained and when rewards and sanctions supported use on the job.

A social cognitive design would have experienced machinists demonstrate full setups, including common mistakes and how they catch them, before apprentices practice.

Watching a veteran catch a wrong offset before cutting teaches more than a manual that says to check it.

Constructivism: Building Understanding

Constructivist theories hold that learners actively construct knowledge through experience and reflection, and that meaningful learning occurs in authentic contexts. Ertmer and Newby noted that constructivism suits complex, ill-structured problems and advanced learners. A constructivist design might give apprentices a real part to produce from start to finish, with mentors asking questions rather than giving answers.

This approach builds deep understanding but carries risk with novices and expensive materials. Kirschner and colleagues' critique applies: apprentices who lack knowledge of offsets and fixturing may flounder and scrap parts.

What the Apprentices Bring

Learning theories describe general processes, but the apprentices at Saguaro are particular learners. Most completed a two-year machining program and have run manual mills and basic computer-controlled machines, so they arrive with some knowledge of cutting speeds, tooling and blueprint reading. Few have worked with five-axis machines or with the hard alloys our customers require, which behave very differently from the aluminum used in school. Several are military veterans used to detailed procedures; others are younger and comfortable with digital interfaces but less patient with checklists. These differences suggest that a single approach will not fit everyone. The behaviorist emphasis on clear steps and feedback may suit some immediately, while others benefit most from understanding why each step matters, which cognitive and constructivist approaches stress.

Motivation and Self-Efficacy

Scrapping an expensive part is discouraging, and several apprentices described freezing at the machine after their first mistake. Social cognitive theory predicts that repeated failure lowers self-efficacy, which in turn reduces persistence. The training design must therefore build early success, through practice on inexpensive materials and on a training fixture, before apprentices cut costly alloys, so that their confidence grows alongside their skill.

Comparing the Theories on One Task

The theories differ on how much guidance learners need, what practice should look like and what counts as learning. Behaviorism and cognitive load research favor explicit steps and immediate feedback for novices; social cognitive theory adds the power of models; constructivism contributes authentic problems once learners have a foundation. These differences matter less as rival truths than as tools for different stages of expertise.

An Integrated Sequence

I designed a three-stage sequence. In stage one, weeks one through four, apprentices study worked examples of complete setups, watch a veteran machinist demonstrate setups including deliberate errors and practice each step on a training fixture with checklist feedback. In stage two, weeks five through twelve, they perform supervised setups on production parts, with a mentor confirming offsets before cutting and praising consistent verification. In stage three, months four through six, they take on full jobs, including problem parts, with mentors asking questions rather than giving answers.

Mentors will receive a short guide explaining when to give answers and when to ask questions, so the shift from guidance to independence happens on purpose.

Measuring Results

We will compare scrap rates, setup times and verification errors for the next cohort with previous cohorts.

Conclusion

Each theory captures part of how apprentices learn to run a complex machine. Evidence on worked examples, modeling and guidance for novices points to an integrated sequence that moves from explicit instruction and modeling toward independent problem solving as knowledge grows.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 692-709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692