The Three Theories

Behaviorism,
(consisting of Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning) Behaviorism is associated with Ivan Pavlov and his work on training dogs to salivate at a sound (1901). John Watson and Rosalie Rayner trained Little Albert to be afraid of a rat by associating the rat with a loud bang (1920). Behaviorists explain behavior as a result of an observable stimuli followed by an observable response. This school of thought shows that many of our prejudices and fears are conditioned emotional responses. Thus, giving psychologists effective tools to understand and moderate phobias. I think distance education that has a specified meeting time for interactive participation would rely on behavioral conditioning to train the student to arrive on time, study the proposed material to earn good grades. Timeliness + studying (are observable behaviors) = A or B (are the observable response). The good grade reinforces the prompt arrival and study habits of the student. This is a very teacher centered form of learning. The cognitivism theory that attempts to discover and model what is occurring in the mind during learning. It is concerned with how things are taken in, processed, stored, retrieved and used. It likens the mind to a computer as information going in and getting processed before behavior happens. I now understand that when writing about a character in a story, I need to present the stimulus; the character needs to process the stimulus and then act. They also took into account that how a person thinks impacts their behavior. This theory replaced behaviorism in the 1960s. Interesting to note that in Edutech Wiki (http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Cognitivism ) see side bar.

Cognitivism
(understanding how the mind works)

Constructivism
(linking learning to past knowledge).

Jan Hunsicker

Educa 2700 Feb. 28, 2013

The statement to the right suggests that a course Cognitivism and instructional design Underlying the informationprocessing approach is the assumption that the senses and the brain follow complex but very systematic laws and that we can facilitate learning to the extent we can determine those laws (Alessi and Trollop, 2001:19) . crafted in the correct systematic way would produce the same results for all students. Can that truly be achieved? I have my doubts. Like the behaviorism theory, this theory seems to still be centered on what the instructor brings to the class and not what the student contributes. I dont believe that it takes into consideration how all learners learn about new things. But the field of instructional design is moving away from cognitive and behavioral psychology to the Constructivist theory of learning.1 Consturctivism posits that people learn by relating new information to known information. I understand this to mean that we all have our own version of reality in that we are always building on the past to envision the future. Using this theory, an instructor is more like a facilitator in that they help guide the learning rather than lecture. This allows the students to think, experiment, and reflect on the outcome of the experiments. This will lead the learner to spiral back on their learning. They can connect new material and experiences to old experiences. Youre never told failure is not an option because failure is part of the learning process. I liken this method to video game play. In many games failure is just part of learning to navigate through the game. The gamer builds on what they have seen or worked through before, new puzzles are worked out based knowledge of previous puzzles. Additionally, many games promote group interaction as they are produced for multiple players to work together. Games usually build on past knowledge while they evolve. What makes learning with games interesting is that there is always feedback. Even failure is a feedback and the gamer restarts the objective. There are quite a number of childrens games today that are geared toward learning. LeapFrog Enterprises games are in every toy and big box store that Ive seen. Today non-game content can become engaging for users when it leverages a persons natural desires for competition, achievement, status, self-expression, altruism and closure.2 The core
1 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design#cite_note-3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification

Jan Hunsicker

Educa 2700 Feb. 28, 2013

strategy is to provide rewards for players for accomplishing desired tasks. This does not have to take place on a computer. I read an article about how a history teacher engaged his students by creating quests and rewards by using similar strategies of a typical roleplaying game. He used this strategy because the students were not engaged at all in his history class. Setting up the game quests and rewards took a lot of time and energy on the instructors part, but the teams of students determined which quests they would follow and what treasure they would go after. I hope this instructor continues this strategy for more of his classes. Rote learning will not work well in online education in that the learner will quickly become bored and may never finish the course. Also, digital lectures by talking heads will become equally as boring. I can see where instructional designers could fall into the trap of cognitivism assuming that the senses and the brain follow a complex path to learning, if they could only discover the map. However, I believe that true learning really happens when students are engaged in something that is meaningful to them. Working with other students in a safe supported environment will allow failure and foster learning from failure. Creating reflections by students on their learning builds connections to past knowledge and support for future knowledge. I had thought that an introductory activity where students would post an introduction that answers several questions, and then the students would be asked to post two questions of the other participants about their posts. I really liked the group scavenger hunt that I took part in as part of a class. We also had to post why we thought our post was from a reliable source. I saw a demonstration of a website that let students annotate around a video. That may be just too fun for all. This is a great way for students to show what they think and feel. As an instructor I would continually check the discussion boards, I would provide feedback on an online learning assignment. Also, allowing students to support and comment on each others work would provide feedback and a connection to students. (No flaming of someone elses post.) These are all applications of the constructivist theory. I think the biggest obstacle of using constructivism is the adaptability of the instructor who has to have shepherd the students so they assimilate the objectives of the course. Unfortunately, I think the governments insistence on standardizing instruction may

Jan Hunsicker

Educa 2700 Feb. 28, 2013

become the largest obstacle to using constructivism is a classroom. I simply dont believe you can standardize creativity.