Cognitivism and Other Learning Theories

One of the current issues we're covering in our class on learning theories is whether one theory serves to explain learning more fully than the other theories. Is Constructivism, for example, better than Behaviorism in explaining how people learn? In particular, we're called to examine two blog posts this week that center on an educational debate among Bill Kerr, Karl Kapp, and Stephen Downes about Behaviorism and Cognitivism.

The first blog post bounces back and forth between attacks on Behaviorism and Cognitivism. These arguments use various examples such as nuclear reactor meltdowns and chess to substantiate arguments. At the end of the piece, Kerr (2007) offers the suggestion that various learning theories should be used as filters, not blinkers. Taking this argument a bit farther, Kapp (2007) in his blog post, argues that learning is a multi-faceted concept that doesn't fit into one learning theory.

I strongly agree with Kapp's (2007) conclusion that learning is a much more complex concept than it is usually given credit for in debates on learning theories. This would seem to me to be the heart of the issue. In the arguments on behaviorism versus cognitivism, for example, the learning situations given to support each author's argument would seem to be cherry-picked as examples of learning that are well explained by that particular theory. Instead, I'd suggest that we can think of learning theories as tools to be used dependent on the particular task at hand.

For example, in my Japanese classes, there are times when students need to build fundamental vocabulary skills. At this point, behaviorism works great to build and structure drill and reward type activities that help reinforce learning of memory-related concepts. As students learn more complex concepts, however, cognitivism plays a larger role. I must use schema, recycling, and strategies to develop more complex skills and knowledge. Lastly, as students move forward to the point where they are asked to create projects or solve less well defined problems, both constructivism and connectivism can play larger roles.

In short, Kapp's (2007) point is right on target that learning is too complex to fit into one theory. This would suggest that perhaps what is needed is not more discussion on learning theories. Instead, perhaps we should be focusing our efforts on categorizing the various forms of learning first.

References

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/

Photo Credit:
CollegeDegrees360, via flickr Creative Commons license. Thanks!