Wednesday, September 28, 2011

EDUC-7105-1/EDUC-8845-1 Module 2 Blog Post

Cognitivism as a Learning Theory
            Learning theories in general have certain effective qualities separately, yet, they cannot stand on their own. For example, the type of learning explained by behaviorists in this digital age is linked to the basic behaviorist view that emphasis should be placed on observable measurable outcomes in students (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 56).  Mary P. Driscoll demonstrated that through cognitivism, as an instructor, I may organize information, direct attention, enhance encoding and retrieval, provide practice opportunities and help learners to monitor their own learning (Driscoll, 2005, p. 110).  Karl Kapp wrote on his blog site about conversations he had with Stephen Downes regarding various schools of educational thoughts.  Kapp then mentioned how Bill Kerr added an insightful summary on that dialog. I do agree with Kapp that the most resonating point the Kerr raised was, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” (Kerr, 2007).
            For one, what Kerr stated on his blog regarding curriculum reform is indeed true. He stated that learning theory is indispensible to curriculum reform effort. I personally am skeptic when it comes to theories on a whole, but as we know the education system in the United States is in need of change and we are left with little choice but to work with the theories that we have, since they will be our foundation to build processes that will improve learning.  Who knows, maybe by the end of this course, I will lean more towards a single learning theory!  For now, my personal view is similar to that of Kerr.  I believe that each theory has important elements that may very well facilitate learning. I see a behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism as analogous to a quartet, singing together while having specific roles to play. 
            So yes, like Kerr, I believe that although many may criticize behaviorists for not taking into consideration what goes on in the mind, still there remains the idea that actions which are followed by rewards are often repeated.  Sure, behaviorists presented the “Black Box Metaphor” mainly because they did not know how to study the mental processes that went on inside the mind (Driscoll, 2005, p. 34).  I am not saying that behaviorism is perfect and can stand on its own, but that certain aspects of the theory makes sense.  Both Downes and Kerr made a valid point (to a certain extent) about cognitivism.  First, Downes praised cognitivists for declaring that learning occurs internally and through social interactions with others.  However, afterwards, Downes mentioned that cognitivists misrepresented the mind by depicting it as similar to a computer.  Kerr responded in agreement that the mind is completely different from computers which included connectionist machines. However, how would one account for what I am about to say next? I personally (in desperation) programmed my mind to learn a full repertoire of songs through sensory input in one night for a musical tour the following day. I was able to performed one full album of unfamiliar songs flawlessly with the band! All I had done was play the songs repeatedly while I slept.  How would one explain that phenomenon? For this reason, I believe that the mind is programmable and similar to a computer in many respects.

References

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

Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72.

Kapp, K. (2007). 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). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html


4 comments:

  1. Hi Ena,

    Your analogy on how the brain is similar to a computer is excellent. I recall a similar experience where I was taking Music and Appreciation course during my freshman year of college. I had to memorize several songs from different musical periods – baroque, classical, etc. The professor actually recommended the class record the songs on tape and listen to the tape while sleeping. I thought, “This will never work”. In similar fashion to your experience, I was desperate to memorize the songs. Believe it or not, the recommendation worked. I did well on the recall exam.

    The example you give is leading me to believe in the computer metaphor. In this case – sensory memory which is, “associated with the senses (vision, hearing, etc.), it functions to hold information in memory very briefly, just long enough for the information to be processed further” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 74).

    Vaughn

    Reference:

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ena,

    Comparing your mind to a computer through the example of programming music is remarkable. While doing my undergrad work I use to take a recorder with me to class. Instead of taking notes, I would simply record the lecture and then replay the tape over and over again while sleeping. This would always help when it came to taking the exams and having to recall information. Good post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Vaughn,

    This post is somewhat similar to the response I posted on your blog site yesterday. I am glad to know that I am not alone on this concept, since we both had experienced programming our brains with sensory inputs which actually worked. Thus, we both are leaning towards believing that the mind is similar to that of a computer. Your teacher had done well by guiding you and your class mates by suggesting this clever way of inputting and processing information that led to favorable results. Piaget saw the role of the instructor as one which provides a rich learning environment which supports students’ activity and encourages interactions with peers (Driscoll, 2005, p. 221). Nevertheless, Kerr was right for stating that the architecture of the mind is very different from that of a computer (Kerr, 2007). I can see his point, especially since computers were built by humans. In other words, I am not undermining the power of the human mind by saying it is similar to a computer and that it is programmable. For I do see our minds as an extraordinary facet, an element in which we might never truly understand.
    After all, we constantly come across new findings of the human mind for example, according to Driscoll; studies aimed at training children on Piagetian tasks demonstrated that children can learn at a higher level than the level Piaget claimed they could (Driscoll, 2005, p. 201). Nonetheless, you and I should probably conduct further investigation on the phenomenon of how we both had positive results from practically programming our brains with sensory input. I see this as you and I actively manipulating objects and ideas, inventing and reinventing knowledge via the interaction with the world and people surrounding us, as Driscoll puts it (p.221). What are your thoughts on this?

    References

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

    Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello Amanda,

    Thank you for such kind words. The brain is truly amazing in respect to its seemingly unlimited abilities to input and process various types of information! As a means of recalling information, you had cleverly made full use of this idea during undergrad years by having your recorded lectures play repeatedly while you slept. Although, I am leaning towards cognitivists’ belief that the brain is similar to that of a computer, I still do have high regards for the other learning theories. Like Kerr, I believe that each _ism is offering something useful and that no theory can stand alone (Kerr, 2007). The whole idea is that an individual learns best rest upon first, the required learning outcome that is needed and second, whether the learning strategy relates well with that required learning outcome.

    References

    Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

    ReplyDelete