Module 2 >> Part B

Week 7. Theories of Learning & Instruction, Part B. Cognitivist and Constructivist Perspectives

Welcome to Week 7! In this module we continue our study of the theories of learning and instruction. We will focus on the two other most prominently discussed theories -- cognitive and constructivist. We will review some underlying theories from each perspective and then explore instructional applications of cognitivism and constructivism.

Cognitive learning theory is a complex topic, with a more diverse range of theoretical positions than behaviorist learning theory.

The complexity is compounded when you move to "constructivism". The problem is that constructivism is not one theory; the range of theories covered under this label is even more diverse than within the cognitivist realm. Unfortunately, there is not a standard version of constructivism. Driscoll, in her chapter on constructivism does a brave job of identifying a set of core beliefs.

Introduction:

We are looking at these three major theories in a rough chronological sequence. You could say that each theory grew out of a need to explain aspects of learning that the previous theory did not satisfactorily address.

Behaviorism was the prevailing learning theory for many years. But before, during, and after its ascendancy some psychologists felt that it did not adequately explain some aspects of how human learning occurred. What was happening in the mind? They felt that we would never be able to fully explain how people acquired new knowledge, skills, and attitudes if we didn't develop and test theories about the processes of storing and retrieving information -- and other mental processes.

The advent of the electronic computer also gave stimulus to these theories: perhaps the mind sorted and stored information in a way that was analogous to computers. At least we could start with that as an analogy and see how far it would take us. Thus information-processing was an early model that was tried.

Other cognitivists were intrigued with Jean Piaget's theories about children's mental development and his explanation of how knowledge and understanding grow through stages of assimilation and accommodation. This view, focusing on how meanings were constructed in an organic way, seemed more promising than using the computer as an analogy.

Several theories, coming from philosophy and linguistics, supported an emphasis on how humans form and change their meanings, which they use to understand the world and solve problems. In the late 1980s these ideas were given the label of "constructivism," and interpreters attempted to create a coherent amalgam out of these different, sometimes contradictory, strands of thought.

Regardless of how well they achieved philosophical coherence, the enthusiasm of the constructivist movement garnered many adherents. They were looking for an overall theory that felt more humanistic than some of the earlier theories and that did a better job of explaining the types of learning that educators and trainers felt were most valuable. Both in formal education and in the workplace, there was a growing emphasis on learning that led to real-world application and that enabled people to deal with complex problems.

Objectives:

Overall Objective: To develop a common understanding of cognitivism and constructivism in theory and application.

Objective 1: Explain in your own words the major elements of the information processing model: selective perception, short-term and long-term memory, and chunking.

Objective 2: Explain in your own words how schema theory describes learning.

Objective 3: Name at least two different sources of descriptive constructivist theories and describe their key ideas.

Objective 4: Describe the conditions of learning that are favored in cognitivist prescriptions.

Objective 5: Contrast Reigeluth's elaboration theory (or Merrill's "pebble in the pond" method) with Foshay's Cognitive Training Method.

Objective 6: Describe the conditions of learning that are favored in constructivist prescriptions.

Objective 7: Describe at least two of the instructional formats favored by constructivism (e.g. microworlds, collaborative learning) and indicate how these formats carry out constructivist principles.

Readings:

Required Readings:

A practical guide to the cognitivist perspective, aimed directly at instructional designers, particularly those interested in corporate training. Begins by comparing the behavioral and cognitive approaches, then reviews the domains of learning from a cognitivist perspective, and finally, provides practical guidelines for creating cognitive instruction. Note how Table 3 resembles Gagné's Events of Instruction.

Read Chapter 11 (pp. 373-396), "Constructivism". Presents constructivism as a composite of a number of different theories, some of which may be familiar from your study of cognitivism. For practical advice, focus on the section,"Constructivist Conditions for Learning," and the following section, "Constructivist Methods of Instruction." Editorial comment: Feel free to skip the rhetoric at the beginning of the chapter about Objectivism and the philosophical roots of constructivism. The advice given later in the chapter does not derive from those philosophical roots; it comes from cognitivism. See Dr. Molenda's full rant below under Optional Readings.

This is essentially the opening shot of the constructivist movement, as it has affected the instructional technology field. The author team is from Indiana University; at the time of the writing they were involved in projects together at the Center for Excellence in Education (now the Center for Research on Learning and Technology, or CRLT). They specifically try to prove the claim that it is logically impossible to combine ideas from different perspectives into an eclectic theory because one of these perspectives, constructivism, rejects the philosophical assumptions (the epistemology) of the other perspectives. They reject the notion that there are basic instructional principles that transfer across content domains (thus directly disagreeing with Merrill's theory described above). Readers should be aware that in later discussions other contributors to the constructivist movement express disagreement with the authors' positions.

If you want to learn about radical constructivism "straight from the horse's mouth," here is a short paper that summarizes his key ideas. He begins with a review of the main ideas of radical constructivism, and then discusses possible implications for education, specifically mathematics education.

Optional Reading:

Goes a bit more deeply than Silber into the basic precepts of cognitivism. Proposes that ID processes have been refined as far as they can, and they now need to incorporate insights drawn from cognitive science.

A deep explanation of the cognitivist perspective, including schema theory, mental representations, information processing, symbol manipulation, and knowledge construction. Section 5.5 focuses on the role of cognitivism in educational technology.

• Speaking several years into the "paradigm wars," the authors attempt to clarify what constructivism is (an umbrella term for some widely varying descriptive and prescriptive theories) and how it might inform teaching and instructional design. Focus especially on sections 7.4 and 7.5.

• Airasian, P. & Walsh, M. (1997, February) Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 444-449.

  A critical analysis of the claims of constructivism. Written for an audience of K-12 educators, emphasizes the difficulties of applying constructivist visions to everyday teaching.

• Molenda, M. (2004). Cognitivism and constructivism. Excerpt from pre-publication manuscript.

  This is a brief (6 page) rant about what the author believes are fallacies in the story of "constructivism." In a nutshell, he proposes that if you took the philosophical claims of "constructivists" seriously it would lead nowhere in term of instructional advice. Instead, the good instructional advice given by "constructivists" is actually derived from previous work of cognitivists. What is constructivist doesn't work and what works is not constructivist.

• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 32-42.

  This is a seminal paper in the development of constructivism. The authors argue that conventional approaches to instruction fail to recognize that all knowledge carries with it the associations (thoughts, feelings, cultural assumptions, etc.) that surround the learning environment. That is, we don't learn generalities, but rather quite concrete instances. They propose "cognitive apprenticeship" as a more suitable model for instruction.

Additional Resources:

Colloquium:

For this module we offer a video presentation by Prof. Terry Ochoa, a faculty member in the IU School of Education, who specializes in emotional and behavioral disorders. Here she talks about her R & D work related to Problem Based Learning, which is one of the favorite instructional formats of constructivists.

Her title is "Simulations in Teaching: Special Education Multimedia PBL Cases." Notice that her focus is on how to increase the on-job transfer of skills learned in the classroom, an issue faced in corporate training as well as university education.

Click here to see the streaming video archive of this presentation.

Presentation:

There are two presentations for this module:

Synthesis:

To what degree can cognitivism or constructivism account for all types of human learning?

How can cognitivism or constructivism be applied in contemporary environments, such as distance education or corporate training?

Also, take a moment to think about the deficiencies in the cognitivist and constructivist perspectives that you have noticed yourself or heard about. What sorts of education or training goals is it weak in explaining or accomplishing?

Have your feelings and assumptions about the theories and their applications changed? What do you see as the primary differences between the behaviorist and the cognitivist and constructivist perspectives of instruction? How does instructional practice change from one theoretical perspective to the next?