Although behaviorism possesses numerous disadvantages in the teaching process, such as ignoring intrinsic motivation, ignoring individual differences, and limiting students’ autonomy. However, it is undeniable that this set of theories has a subversive efficiency in a short time. Most students, after knowing the basic framework of a set of theories, still lack the corresponding proficiency, resulting in unsatisfactory final results, especially for some assignments or tasks that require hands-on work. For example, I am currently taking a music course where students need to master the basic music theory of the piano in a short time, but there is a “distance” between the theory and the practical operation. For a good player, what is needed more is finger memory or muscle memory, because the time for the brain to think can lead to misplaced beats.

Therefore, I believe that behaviorism is the most indispensable of these three theories. Any lack of proficiency in learning or lack of memory is not valid. As an instructional designer, I would place more emphasis on behaviorism as well as constructivism to make idiosyncratic materials for as many different students as possible. The reason is that these two theories are realistic and pragmatic, and I care a lot about how proficient the student is in applying the knowledge, or if the student can’t apply it well, then that means he hasn’t learned it. And for Cognitivism, it’s nebulous. Because everyone knows that learning is a good thing, but more people fail because of laziness and other shortcomings. It is not the perception of learning that they need to overcome, but themselves.