Cognitive Learning Theory

www.stansEdTechplatform.blogspot.co

I am convinced that –isms should be used to as filter, but I do not support the idea that all of them can be used at any time during the learning process. I also believe that the time when –isms are used and the place where they are used should be as the needs arise. They should also be applied sometimes as supplemental tools to augment other teaching tools, strategies and theories. In my opinion, the issue is not whether the –isms are viable, but when and where they are applicable.

The behaviorist approach is not by any means redundant. It can be very useful in instances where there are concepts that require recall, memorization or labeling as well as phenomena that require measuring. The fact that learning is a multifaceted entity, the –isms will fit into some aspect of learning. I therefore concur with Kerr’s stance of assigning suitable bits of each theory when creating teaching and learning situations. This is especially applicable when the learning situation involves technology. Because the learning situation is so dynamic, it is constantly evolving. As a result, instructional designers and teachers need to be conversant with the constantly shifting changes on the learning landscape. In order to cater to the diverse groups of learners, it is advisable that teachers be creative as they differentiate their learning.

It would appear as if the behaviorist approach to learning would be more suited to those at the rudimentary level of learning. By its very nature, behaviorism screams lower level learners. When information or skills are presented to those learners, they constantly repeat until they are quite conversant with the concept.

Cognitive theory on the other hand, seeks to promote the idea of humans processing information like a computer. My belief is that whatever information is being processed, it can be repeated constantly while still processing the information thereby using both the behaviorist and the cognitive theories giving the learner a more comprehensive understanding of the learned information. This is using both theories for the greater good.

Refertences

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: 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/

How People Learn Best.

People learn best when they are doing what they enjoy and what they are comfortable doing. Many people use more than one learning style. For example, in a class of 25 students there might be students whose preferred learning style is doing things. They move about and get things done. They are happier when they are allowed to be creative. On the other hand, there are those students who would prefer if they are allowed to sit and listen to what is happening in the class. they assimilate and internalize the information, but better as they are working within their comfort zone. These students would find it difficult to learn if they had to move about or carry out practical expectations. There are still other students who need to see the concept at work before they can fully grasp the intricacies of the concept. I believe that people. regardless fo their age or status in life, will learn best depending on what they are exposed to and the learning requirements. They learn best when they are comfortable and there is no threat to their learning. People who are in a learning situation where they are pigeonholed into the teacher's chosen style of learning for them will have problems in the teaching and learning situation. People learn best when they are given an opportunity to explore within their comfort zone. There are people, however, whose aptitude combines learning styles for maximum learning experiences.

There are learning styles which align to different learning theories. For example, Skinner's (1938) behaviorist theory as cited in Semple (2000) advocates for exploration and some form of trial and error until  a satisfactory learning outcome is achieved. In this case success is rewarded but any mistakes will not be rewarded. There is also Piaget's cognitivism theory which implies learning through thinking. If these two theories are used as a basis for practising learning styles, students can be exposed to the one that suits them most or a combination of both. Ultimately, it all comes down to what they are comfortable with. Students should be allowed to think about their learning and consequently construct their own knowledge.

Learning theories are to be applied according to their suitability Semple (2000). There is no set combination of learning styles to fit every teaching and learning situation. Teachers must be flexible in their application of  their learning styles, therefore they need to be careful to make differentiation an important part of their planning. Semple (2000) suggests that a teacher with comprehensive knowledge of his students' learning needs will create a rich learning environment  for them. Ertmer and Newby (1993) support this perspective by explaining that because learning is such a complex process, teachers have to be careful in their interpretations of student needs and incorporate the appropriate learning styles.

Learning theory is important as a bridge to close the gap between learning and application in technology. Although there is no fixed definition of learning, one thing is constant and that is that learning should foster change in behavior. Learning theories should be changing behaviors by acting as instruments which ascribe control of the learning to the learner.

References

Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (1993) Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4).

Skinner, B. F. (1938) The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Appleton- Century-Crofts.

Semple, A. (2000) Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal. 4(3)