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