TWeaverMod-2: Cognitivism as a Learning Theory

As instructional designers, it is our obligation to accomplish learning goals and objectives to the highest quality attainable.  Learning theory (LT) offers the different, primary perspectives in how people learn.  When LT and the learning goals and objectives are in alignment, chances for a full and successful implementation greatly increase.  I see them as measuring sticks to get to the desired learning for that specific learning population.  Also, as an opportunity for a slower, more meaningful learning experience using strategies and practices born out of all of the _ism theories.  Kapp (2007) acknowledged that learning is not a singular thing but rather a multi-facetted entity that no one LT can totally support on its own.   All of these theories have that certain something that is desirable in a well thought out instructional design (ID). 

For example, behaviorism in educational technology can deliver opportunities to find the necessary foundational, yet mundane information for schoolwork.  Mobile devices can accomplish this.  Couldn’t this be deemed as behaviorism if it becomes a norm of the educational society?  I certainly do not see Google going anywhere soon.

How about cognitivism in educational technology which gives students opportunities to write about and present what they have learned.  For me, Microsoft and Google tools deliver these opportunities for me to put my cognitive thoughts together, organize them, and make them presentable. 

Constructivism in educational technology delivers opportunities for further individual and social learning with the help of Web 2.0 tools for content research, communication, and collaboration.  Research of databases, communicating online, and collaborating over distances helps learners construct their own higher quality knowledge. 

Connectivism takes constructivism into the social media and networking level.  Professionals and students alike can further synthesize and evaluate (argue) what has been learned.  Much like the two blogs that are used as resources for this discussion.

It is much like K-12 education is stuck spinning its wheels between cognitivism and constructivism as far as how hard they currently are willing to push technology.  It is all about sharing multimedia these days.  Are we at the crossroads to a higher learning that pushes the latter of the four primary _isms in K-12 learning theory?  It is plain to see they can all be equally important in a learning experience, so I say, why not?

Many might say it is an abandonment of the very principles of learning, but I say let traditional theories of behaviorism and cognitivism be the foundational blocks of higher learning and the attainment of higher levels of the taxonomy.  Behaviorism still has solid relevance and that actions with rewards and consequences still occur commonly today (Kerr, 2007).  That is to say, let constructive and connective strategies strengthen learning more to the higher levels of cognition that behaviorism and cognitivism could not support otherwise.  Sounds like an emphasis on the appropriate standards-based learning to me.  What are your thoughts?

I posted to David Davis's blog @ http://edtechlearningtheory8845-2.blogspot.com/2012/03/cognitivism-kerr-2007-raises-valid.html?showComment=1333252857541#c4309645050994486477

I also posted to Steven Zollinger's blog @ http://srzollinger.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/zollinger-educ-8845-mod-2-blog-post/

References

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/

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

TWeaverMod-1: How People Learn Best in a Digital World

Psychologists opened the eyes of educators some decades back about learning theory (LT) as the catalyst that can help explain how humans learn from their societies.  According to Driscoll (2005), “The basic assumption…is that effective instruction is informed by theories of learning” (para. 1, p. 24).  Therefore, a proper learning theory aids in the development of an instructional design (ID) which inevitably influences the success or failure of the learning event.  I do not see any significant differences when exploring learning theory in a digital world as compared to the past.  If we could have broken down the walls of the classroom before the Internet, I am sure we as a people would have done so in the name of higher learning.  The Internet, and specifically Web 2.0, has accomplished this.  Students can now move on to constructive ways with much ease and efficiency like never before.  Students can get to the peak of the Bloom Taxonomy in a much quicker fashion since trivial knowledge is available at lightning speed.  Participative technologies for communication and collaboration are now quite common (Siemens, 2008).  In turn, LT had to evolve to make room for the boom in content, communications, and collaborations.  Are all of the primary learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and now connectivism still most relevant in our digitally enhanced learning strategies?  You bet they are. 

Now that we know we need to be conscious about learning theory, how do people learn best especially now in a digital world.  The fact is this very question of how do people learn still spurs-up arguments amongst professionals to this day.  Personally, I feel this question is too obscure to accurately answer.  Immediately, I thought what people.  Tell me about them.  Who are they?  Where are they from? And so on and so on.  Then I asked myself if I was getting away from the ambiguity of the question and if this unknown was its’ purpose for a general response.  That is, was the purpose of the question for me to cover humans in general?  Because of this lack of confidence, this blog post will speak of human learners in general and then more specifically of what influences adults as compared to youngsters.

In general, humans learn in one of two ways. What influences learning most is formal, instructional settings that are deemed as intentional and incidental, real-world experiences (Driscoll, 2005).  In other words, people learn from their surroundings or environment if you will.  Whether it is purposeful or just plain coincidence, people learn continuously.  Everyone has heard someone say, “I learn something new every day” or “live and learn”.  These statements hold more truth than fallacy.  I would dare to say learning is as natural as waking-up and going to sleep once a day.  Whether it just happens or if it is intentionally put on a person, learning seems unavoidable during the waking hours of most anyone.

To be less general, I would have to believe adults learn much differently from kids.  To me, it is reasonable to believe grown adults usually know how they learn best.  Visual images, auditory sounds, and kinesthetic feelings or actions all primarily improve behavior and cognition in adults (Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2009).  On the other hand, K-12 students seem to need more than generic facilitation of these three information processing modes.  They need something that interests them and engages them in some sort of fun.  Their attention spans are not as developed as adults.  Their motivations to succeed can be considered polar opposites.  Adults motivate themselves while kids are motivated by outside influences.  Why couldn’t those influences include technology stimulation?

Millennial students that are indeed digital natives are fatigued and flat out bored with traditional learning strategies.  They do not know a life without technology, so why must we keep the industrialized status quo of learning when it is plainly obvious that it is ultimately restrictive.  We, as a people here in America, could certainly learn a thing or two from our millennial, digital natives.

I posted to two peer blogs and they are:

Jill Lewis @ http://technibug.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/module-1-blog-1-what-are-your-beliefs-about-how-people-learn-best-what-is-the-purpose-of-learning-theory-in-educational-technology-3/?replytocom=5#respond

Carol Deuling-Ravell @ http://decdr.blogspot.com/

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. (3^rd ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson Education, Inc.

Regents of the University of Minnesota. (2009). How people learn. Retrieved from http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/businessmanagement/components/08503p13-14.pdf

Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

 You Tube. (2007). A vision of k-12 students today. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-ZVCjfWf8

Welcome

Welcome Dr. Moller , EDUC 7105 peers, and Ph.D. candidates.  I look forward to communicating and collaborating with you all.

Tim