Cognitivism as a Learning Theory (Module 2)

It’s hard to walk away after reading Kerr’s (2007) blog on cognitivism and learning theories, as well as Kapp’s (2007) blog on educational schools of thought, without having a strong sense of one’s own ideals as they relate to learning behavior – and the important adjustments that must be made along the way to accomplish various learning objectives. As someone who embraces the constructivist philosophy strongly, thanks to the learning theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Gardner – among others – I find cognitivism and constructivism pivotal for both learner and educator in problem-solving and collaboration pedagogy. Simply, I just think that having a strong sense of how to make the most effective use of one’s knowledge, based on experiences, collaboration, and, yes, creative ways to augment existing knowledge, adds a dimension to constructivism that is paramount to the learning process.

The collaborative exchanges in both blogs speak volumes about how information involving cognitivism, behaviorism, connectivism and constructivism is processed and used. I’m a firm advocate of the kind of back and forth that ensues in blogging and similar e-learning venues, because it augments the learning process. The more information and ideas exchanged among connected individuals, in my view, the more opportunity there is for a highly instructive and insightful learning experience. What one does with that information from the learning experience, as in the case of the Kerr (2007) and Kapp (2007), has to serve as an enlightenment – if nothing more than the sharing of certain isms or beliefs related to knowledge and behavior.

Finally, a word about pragmatism. While I don’t suggest hoisting a moistened finger to the wind on every decision made, especially in educational technology, pragmatism has served learning theorists and education, itself, well over the years. Dewey’s (1938; 1997) well-documented pragmatic reforms on educational and social change, should serve as a primmer in the ever-burgeoning and ground-breaking world of educational technology. Dewey exhibited the kind of behavior that served as a springboard for much of what we as educators and learners enjoy in education today. One thing is for certain. Like pragmatism, isms -- as detailed in the Kerr (2007) blog – also must change to help improve the learning process. As such, cognitivism and constructivism are sure to continue to be reliable, if not trustworthy beliefs and components for  education overall. Let’s hope these ideals continue to move the learning process forward.

References

Dewey, J. (1938; 1997). Experience and education.

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:  Discussions 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/

A Conducive Learning Environment: To Guide or Not to Guide

I can’t say enough about the guided inquiry approach that I’ve used in the classroom over the years at both the college and secondary school levels. A sizable chunk of this pedagogic enthusiasm no doubt stems from a tightly embraced Socratic approach to learning. But as an instructional technologist, with an unwavering penchant for multimedia and digital technology in a perpetual critical thinking and creative environment, I view the guided inquiry approach as a proven pedagogic tool.

That’s why I’m especially intrigued over Siemens (2008) and his provocative but praiseworthy paper on learning theories in the digital age. As a veteran communications instructor, I certainly can see all sides of the issue regarding instructional guidance when it comes to computers, the Internet, and, by extension, multimedia and digital technology. Learners, as I continue to find out, handle and absorb content in the technology environment differently, which requires certain pedagogic adjustments on the part of educators and learners. But I’m not so sold on the concept in the students’ interfacing with multimedia and digital programs and applications that minimal guidance, as Siemens (2008) posited in his Mitra (2007) “hole-in-the-wall” reference, is the most effective approach. Granted, this had to do with a children’s research study in which computer learning was achieved with minimal instructional input involving computers. But my question is, what constitutes “minimal guidance”? Is it having a group of youngsters, in this case ages 6-12, turning on their computers and going to an application or a program, without the instructor making reference to any program nuances or complexities? Or, is it reinforcement of digital content, where and when applicable? As a seasoned communications and technology instructor, I submit that “minimal” at this point begins to take on a whole new aura or meaning, making it not only pivotal but something akin to a concept being in the eye of the beholder.

But regardless of the pedagogy, behaviorism in educational technology no doubt shifts depending on the task or the assignment. I can just imagine what the learning environment was like in the 1960s when Skinner’s (Saettler, 2004) teaching machines and programmed instruction were beginning to make their mark on a skeptical but increasingly technologically-savvy society. From my vantage point, this behavior in multimedia and digital technology kind of ebbs and flows among students depending on the application or program. When a group of my gifted and academically talented middle school students started using their iPods to make videos a few years ago, I literally had to pry them away from my computer lab to go to their next class. I got the same enthusiastic response from the same group when I introduced them to electronic organizer programs such as Inspiration® and Timeliner® that literally involve bells and whistles.

However, class enthusiasm was a little more subdued when the students had to work with graphics and enhanced illustrations in Macromedia’s Fireworks as part of a WebQuest® (WebQuest.Org, 2007), which required constant interaction with me as their instructor using this increasingly popular electronic lesson tool. There was no other choice but to assume a more guided posture as their instructor to spur the kind of requisite engagement necessary to achieve the WebQuest® task.

So to guide or not to guide is a pedagogic dilemma in which educators may often find themselves. My suggestion for a possible solution is not only to monitor learner behavior as technology continues to expand, but to couple the efforts with a heavy dose of engagement to help bring about a more conducive learning environment.

References:

Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: 

      

           Information Age Publishing.

Siemens, G. (2008), January 27). Learning and knowing in networks:  Changing roles for

           educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from

           http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

WebQuest.Org (2007). The WebQuest Research Forum. Department of Educational Technology,

           San Diego State University. Retrieved from http://webquest.org/