Cognitivism as a Learning Theory - Module 2

Conversation on cognitivism and learning theories:
Kerr and Kapp


One of the concerns expressed by Kerr focused on if learning objectives should be based on measurable outcomes. As I thought about this comment, my first reaction was that depends on what is being measured. I think that too much emphasis is placed on measurable outcomes; thus, causing the focus of the lesson to be lost in teacher needs as opposed to the learner needs, per the cognitivist stance. It is my opinion that there must be a balance of the theories in order to maximize or achieve true learning from students. Am I saying that they should be infused, no, but it should be accepted that in the classroom one will find behaviorism and cognitivism being blended to move students toward understanding and mastering instructional objectives. Take for instance, in a math lesson, the students are given a product and asked to use a three step process to write an equation which will produce the product given. Hopefully, the student will first internalize what is being asked and draw from prior knowledge to find the answer. If this occurs, the students output will become for the teacher a measurable outcome for observing the students understanding of the objective. The student will realize that their prior knowledge and understanding of the concept allowed them to construct the equation to reach a solution. Is this blending of theories? Perhaps, but it is definitely a way of looking at both the cognitive and behavioral theories as operating simultaneously to design instruction.

Kapp said it best when touted that creating a solid educational experience for learners should include incorporating the best theories when creating a lesson. In other words, instructional designers should not place limits on how they design a lesson which infuses all theorist views, as long as the student is being challenged to think outside of the box. In the Mergel (1998) report Comparing the Development of Learning Theories to the Development of the Atomic Theory, she indicated that the learning theory used depends on the learning situation. She drew a parallel of her perspective using the stages an atom goes through. See image below:

Using Dalton's Atomic Theory Model, Mergel (1998) implies that behaviorism is like a simple atom. As people begin using and understanding their overt behavior, they begin "to realize that there is something happening inside the organism that should be considered," as it appears to be affecting their overt behavior (http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm). She then concludes that the cognitive model of learning is born and theorist soon realize that stability is not present in the atom as prescribed. What ensued is the contructivist learning theory which proves that each organism is in constant flux (Mergel, 1998).

Mergel's analogy and Karls assertion that "learning is not one thing" supports my view that all of the theories are great to a point; however, to dismiss any of the -isms as not being necessary can be detrimental to the learning process.

References:


McLeod, G. (n.d.). Learning theory and instructional design. Retrieved from http://courses.durhamtech.edu/tlc/www/html/learningmatters/learning_theory.pdf


Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design & learning theory. Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm