Wednesday, June 25, 2014

COGNITIVISM AS A LEARNING THEORY


“It seems to me that each _ism is offering
something useful without any of them being
complete or stand alone in their own right.”

                                                                        ~  Kapp (2007) 

Gardner (1985) defines cognitive science “as a contemporary, empirically based effort to answer long-standing epistemological questions – particularly those concerned with efforts to explain human knowledge.”   

Driscoll (2005) states, “According to the cognitive information processing view, the human learner is conceived to be a processor of information in much the same way a computer is.”  Driscoll (2005) continues by stating “When learning occurs, information is input from the environment, processed and stored in memory, and output in the form of some learned capability.”  From a cognivist’s point of view knowledge is acquired through an interaction with sense information as an active agent.  Cognivist’s believe that our minds are what frames experience and perception.  They also believe our minds provide potential boundaries for knowledge based on its innate construction and capacity (Reynlolds, et al, 1996, pg. 97).

Cognitive theory became more widely accepted in place of behaviorist theory in the 1970s after the influence of cognitive science began to make itself known in the educational technology field.  This awareness began when publications that focused on the cognitive view of learning and its application began to find their way into the educational technology field (i.e. Atkinson, 1976) (Saettler, 2004). 

The more I am exposed to the different theories of education the more I cannot seem to pick just one that I feel is the best fit for me as an educator.  Kapp (2007) states in his blog that “We need to take pieces from each school of thought and apply it effectively because Cognitivism does not explain 100% how humans process information and neither does Constructivism or Behaviorism.  What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”  I also have to agree with Kerr (2007) when he states “What I have noticed is that these _isms do not stand still.  They evolve, they listen to criticism and move on.  I’ve also noticed that learning theorists, who have a different favorite _ism to mine, might still come up with significant findings in their empirical studies that I find hard to reject or ignore.”

Maybe someday in the future I will be able to pick one _ism and advocate for it.  However, today is not that day.  I am the type of person who needs to do my research before deciding on taking a stance on any issue.  The choice of an _ism is no different.
 
References
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science.  New York, NY: Basic Books.
Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Lara-Alecio, R., & Jackson, S. (2013). Cognitivism: Ways of knowing. In The
          handbook of educational theories (pp. 105-113). Charlotte, NC: Information Age   Pub.
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
Reynolds, R. E., Sinatra, G. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). Views of knowledge acquisition and            
          representation:  A continuum from experience centered to mind centered. Educational            
          Psychologist, 31(2), 93-104.
Saettler, L. P. (2004).  The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO:
          IAP, Information Age Publishing.
Tomic, W. (1993). Behaviorism and cognitivism in education.  A Journal of Human Behavior Vol
          30, Pp. 34-46.
- - - - - - - - - -
 
Blogs I posted comments to
 
anitaboseman.wordpress.com
travalper.blogspot.com
joanierice.weebly.com
 

1 comment:

  1. Robin,
    I agree with that idea of a piece from each _ism as well. However, I do not believe that we will ever really understand the nature of human learning. I believe that not everyone learns in the same manner which is why there are so many _isms. It may take someone a week to learn a computer program but take someone else, one day. I just feel like even with all of the _isms that are out there, one still cannot actually state how people learn. That's just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete