Cognitivism as Learning Theory
Behaviorism as precruser
We are bombarded with isms that we must make sense of to get our job done. Some learning theory is like parables. I am intrigued to see how theories are redefined to satisfy how, when, where and why learning takes place. I try to conceptualize learning theories in order to enhance knowledge building for my students. Their diverse learning needs gives me no preference using a dominant learning theory but to be aware of how they cultivate knowledge.
Blogger Bill Kerr (2007) says “What I have noticed is that these ...isms do not stand still. They evolve, they listen to criticism and move on” (p.1, l.15). Learning from the behaviorist perspective was kept controlled to the wishes of the theorists, probably not willing to be engaged in controversy, at least not in their life time. The work of Edwin R. Guthrie entertained that an environmental stimuli that is observed just before a change in behavior is responsible for the resultant change in behavior (Driscoll 2005, p.32). Skinner tried to keep his theory simple. He believed that the environmental condition acted as the influencing variable on one’s behavior. In order to avoid controversial issues as we have today, Skinner used the learner metaphor of “black box” (Driscoll 2005, p.33). The thought was not to believe learning might not have been contributed by internal drives, but I believe to avoid the controversial concerns that relied on the learner’s view. This may be complex, incomplete and inaccurate and in need of explanation with chances of losing context and significance. The dynamic process of learning cannot be contained in behaviorism.
Today’s Technology assisted learning environment is unveiling learner independence of an external stimuli to cause behavioral change. However, Stephen Downes wholesale rejection of behaviorism is a little crude as the cognitive process is complex. The simple fact that the computer is an external driver (stimuli) tells behaviorism is an integral way of life. While Guthrie’s idea was never fully elaborated, Clark L. Hall’s S-R theory of behavior became “fearsomely complex” (Leahey & Harris, 1997 in Driscoll 2005, p.32).
Cognitive development
There are some situations that mental power is used for information processing. Individual epistemology and creed development renders cognitive skills. Two isms that closely relates to this knowledge construct are cognitive information processing theory and schema theory. Cognitive information processing is believed to be in parallel with behaviorism. Skinner believes that behavioral change can be observed over time. Certainly, something must go on in the individual’s mind during “that time.” Where Skinner avoids paradoxes were to use the example of an organism. “He defined learning as a more or less permanent change in behavior that can be detected by observing an organism over a time. (Driscoll, p. 34). The question then arises; does an organism have a brain? My answer is human organisms have a brain. Bill Kerr (2007) makes valid points, but he does not want to be on the inside of the behaviorist mold, he prefers to admire from the outside. “I have always depicted cognitivism as a response to behaviorism and also as a philosophy of learning and of mind to which I stand essentially opposed (and no, that does not make me a behaviorist).” I smile at semantics. So what if I am a behaviorist. Does that make me less of a cognitive processor or learner? Remember these words “Skinner's behaviorism…the theoretical foundations of cognitivism” (Bill Kerr, l.19). There is always some premise or foundation that we build our castle on. We see the castle but the foundation is ever strong and hidden. Every now and then we need a quake to remind us of the foundations and embedding. The sensory memory, short term memory, long term memory and models of memory storage are cognitive windows (Driscoll chap. 3) that seek further discussion and clarification.
Constructivists’ Theory and Connectivism
Brining us closer to behaviorism as a foundation for learning; intrinsic information processing and cognitive learning are the constructivist perspective of information gathering and collaborative interaction. Blogger Karl Kapp (2007) treats the usefulness of learning theories as a racing car driver. Suitable gears for different power or speed. “I suggest that the lower level learning (lower cognitive load) requires a behaviorist approach (memory, recognizing, labeling) as does the expectations that must be measured...procedural and rule-based learning requires an emphasis on Cognitivism and finally, problem-solving, collaboration and creativity require a view of Constructivism. Karl Kapp (2007) suggestions and identification of knowledge level areas for learning theory relevance and strategic scaffolding are tangible learning strategy. Constructivist brings the social interaction into the learning process for active learning. Defining problems, shared views, interjection, questioning, debates and so on makes co-construct of knowledge possible. These activities stimulate cognitive development. Connectivism is a support learning theory that is driven by technology. This enables learning “together” though learners are separated in geography. According to Siemens (2008) “In Connectivism, the starting point of learning occurs when knowledge is actuated through the process of a learner connected to and feeding information into a learning community” (source: Kop et al. 2008 p. 2, l. 10). Technology is a driver that meets student at all learning levels and diverse learning needs. Constructivist and Connectivists learning are exponentially increasing learning power and opportunities. This enables wide and rapid cognitive learning. Bill Kerr (2007) points out that Ericcsson associates constructivist perspective with “deliberate practice.” He thinks this is intended for some other aspect of learning (eg. Rich, exploratory learning environment but with some implied or overt guidelines)” (p.4).
Karl Kapp reminds us “learning is not one thing…it is a multilayered word that tends to get treated as if it were just one thing…and it is not…developing new models for learning is so difficult…there are too many levels for one school of thought or one model to do it all” (l.19-22).
To make solid points for …isms one must stick to the arguments of the theorist. Theories have evolved to satisfy learning concepts, but the real learning resides with the student. Situated Cognition is a theory that has evolved to bring both behaviorism and the cognitivism minds together. According to Driscoll (2005, p.157) “ The theory of situated cognition…claims that every human thought is adapted to the environment, that is situated because what people perceive, how they conceive or their activity, and what they physically do develop together” (Clancey, 1997,pp.1-2; italics in original).
I do not believe learning theories are explicit. Learning theories are implicit and also connected. If connected is not by theory, certainly in the brain of the learner. Isms are associated with belief systems. Our belief has to be flexible to accommodate new styles of learning. Cognitive learning is boosted with learning technology via connectivism.
References:
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
Kop, R., Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13. Retrieved from Walden library.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005).Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Pearson press, New York
**
The two blogs I anticipate to review are from the following URL:
(a)
(c) http://ddibartolo.blogspot.com/
