Hello there and a warm welcome to chapter two! In the introductory chapter, I talked a little bit about the distance learning theories. Truly, that discussion was just the tip of the theoretical iceberg. It is now time for me to delve beneath the surface and explore the layers of behaviorism and cognitivism.
So, let's dive in!
Behaviorism is the first layer of the theoretical iceberg to examine and is in fact one of the older distance learning theories. John B. Watson is considered to be the pioneer and father of this school of thought. His works on behaviorism laid a firm foundation that other scholars like Ivan Pavlov and B.F. Skinner built on. As I dived deeper beneath the behaviorism layer of the iceberg, I discovered that each theorist made varying contributions to this school of thought. Pavlov, for instance, asserted that we learn by association, that is, a stimulus-response association. He coined this learning process 'classical conditioning'.
Skinner, however, posited that we learn through a system of reinforcement and punishment. In particular, he believed that learnt behaviors can be regulated through rewards and punishment. He termed this learning process 'operant conditioning'. Although behaviorists made different postulations, they established a key consensus which is that learning is an external process measurable through overt behaviors. Their epistemological underpinnings are rooted in objectivism. According to Bates (2019), “behaviourists attempt to maintain a high degree of objectivity in the way they view human activity”. As such, behaviorist pedagogy focuses more on tests and quizzes with instruction being teacher-centered.
Here is a snapshot of Pavlov’s classical condition assertion:
“Classical conditioning” by Psychologysays.net
Here is another snapshot illustrating Skinner’s operant conditioning postulation:
These images definitely aided in my understanding of the varied behavioral perspectives. So, it is therefore fitting for me to incorporate it in my journal. The latter snapshot which depicts operant conditioning was taken from Standridge’s (2002) work. The visuals in his work were a great addition because it made the concepts discussed more comprehensible. I also acquired a better apprehension on shaping, modeling, and cueing from his work. Precisely, I learnt that modeling also termed observational learning was posited by Albert Bandura who believed that children learnt through observation. Cueing, however, are environmental stimuli that prompt a particular behavior. Lastly, shaping is a process that involves the gradual change of a behavior. According to Standridge (2002), “the desired behavior is broken down into discrete, concrete units, or positive movements, each of which is reinforced as it progresses towards the overall behavioral goal” (p. 9). His work coupled with Bates’ (2019) work gave me a better understanding of behaviorism and other distance learning theories. Truly, these are the sources that I would refer to for further clarification and information of behaviorism and cognitivism.
Speaking of cognitivism, it has become one of my favorite theories! I especially love the whole idea of metacognition. Prior to delving deeper into cognitivism, I never really understood the metacognitive concept. However, the more I interacted with resources and reading material on cognition, the more I grasped its affiliate concepts, and the more I fell in love with them. Generally, I am a reflective person, always contemplating and thinking about my experiences especially my learning experiences. I have found that my reflective process is the epitome of cognitivism. How? You see, unlike behaviorism, cognitivism is an internal process that involves the use of our perceptions, metacognition, memory, emotions, and motivation. Generally, it is a school of thought that focuses on how our brain receives, processes, stores, and retrieves incoming information. Jean Piaget and Benjamin Bloom are the masterminds behind this learning theory.
Like Pavlov and Skinner, they too had their differences in perspectives. Bloom, for example, believed that learning is hierarchal which involve an upward progression. Learners began from the bottom of the learning hierarchy, that is, at the remembering level and proceeded to other levels until they got to the higher levels which are evaluating and creating. Piaget, on the contrary, viewed learning in four stages. These stages include the sensorimotor (birth to 2 years), preoperational (2 to 7 years), concrete operational (7 to 11 years), and formal operational stage (11+). Standridge (2002) noted that “in each stage, children demonstrate new intellectual abilities and increasingly complex understanding of the world” (p. 13). The illustrations below paint a clearer picture of their varying cognitive perspective:
“Piaget’s 4 stages of cognitive development” by Blogspot.com
“Bloom’s Taxonomy” by Vanderbilt university
As I dived deeper into the cognitivism layer of the iceberg, I also discovered that we learn through the process of accommodation and assimilation. Assimilation is simply incorporating new information into existing schemas while accommodation is the revising or changing of existing schemas so that new information can be incorporated. Cognitivists assert that these processes require learners to be active and not passive. According to Bates (2019), “the search for rules, principles or relationships in processing new information, and the search for meaning and consistency in reconciling new information with previous knowledge, are key concepts in cognitive psychology”. While doing further research on the web, I came across the illustration below which gave me a better understanding of the two processes.
“The assimilation and accommodation processes” by Pediaa
I had other major takeaways as I delved deeper into the content of module two. In particular, I was surprised to learn that there are different types of assessments and scoring rubrics. As it pertains to assessments, I gained more insight on summative and formative assessment/feedback. Summative assessment is periodic and is usually in the form of a grade whereas formative feedback is continuous. Regarding scoring rubrics, I learnt that there are two types. They are holistic and analytic rubrics. Holistic rubrics are mainly used to assess a learner’s performance in its entirety while analytic rubrics assess a learner’s performance in parts. As I engaged my classmates in the threads as well as the reading material on rubrics and assessment, I began to wonder which one is better to use or which one is the best. To my surprise, I found out from Mertler’s (2000) work that none is better than the other and that their use depends on various factors and contextual situations.
Finally, my exploration of cognitivism as well as behaviorism led to my discovery of their weaknesses. Behaviorists, for example, have been criticized for being one-dimensional in their thinking and approach. Critics argue that behaviorist fail to account for other influences such as the processes of the conscious and unconscious mind in the learning process. Conversely, behaviorists argue that cognitivism is not directly observable. These weaknesses and shortcomings suggest to me that something is missing from their explanation of distance learning. As such, I have come to the understanding that they do not explain distance learning in its entirety.
To wrap up, I must admit that the theories and content presented in this module was very easy to understand. As such, I did not feel confused about anything and ended the module with a great deal of clarity. I also think that they are very easy to apply in the DE environment. For example, in the k-12 context, rewards such as digital stars, hearts, or virtual tokens can be used to increase positive behaviors among students. Positive feedback is also useful in the higher education setting when rewarding adult learners. Meanwhile, giving students the opportunity to engage in metacognitive activities like completing reflective posts and journals are great applications of cognitivism in DE. There are off coarse countless other ways in which they are applicable and so as I progress through my graduate studies and career, I will continue to think about how I can combine, use, and apply them in the higher education context.
Lastly, I cannot end without making reference to my analogies. In particular, at this point in my learning journey, I am happy that I am finally diving and delving beneath the surface of the theoretical iceberg. The deeper exploration of cognitivism, behaviorism, and rubrics/assessments resulted in the germination of my learning seed. In reference to the image below, I am happy to announce that my learning journey is blossoming; my roots are finally taking shape in the theoretical soil!
See you in chapter 3 where I give highlights of module 3!
Yours truly,
Kind Krista
References
Bates, A. W. (2019). Chapter 01: Fundamental change in education, and Chapter 02: The nature of knowledge and the applications for teaching. In Teaching in a digital age. SFU Document Solutions Books. https://teachonline.ca/teaching-in-a-digital-age/teaching-in-a-digital-age-second-edition
Mertler, C. A. (2000). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7(25). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/gcy8-0w24
Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism in Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (Eds.). Educational learning
theories. 2nd ed. (2017). Education Open Textbooks.
Comments