Cognitivism as a Learning Theory

In Bill Kerr’s New Year’s day blog of 2007 _isms as filter, not blinker, in which he said that learning theory is full of _isms, and asked the question ‘Are they useful guide to what to think and do?’– I would both agree and disagree with points/statements that he conjectured during the discussions with his colleagues Stephen Downes and Karl Kapp. The learning theories of behaviorism, constructivism, connectivism, etc, are indeed necessary when discussing the full potential of the learner. However, like full employment in macroeconomics, full potential of a learner is unattainable. There is no ultimate learning, as learning is a life long process. This brings me to the statements made by Kerr, when he said ‘The learning theory is indispensible to the curriculum reform effort. 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 favourite _ism to mine, might still come up with significant findings in their empirical studies that I find hard to reject or ignore. So, although it is possible to make perfectly valid criticisms of Skinner's behaviourism or the theoretical foundation of cognitivism that is not the end of the story. The outcome of Kerr’s statements here signifies the impact that social change has on learning theory. The phenomenon of social change is greatly impacting society, and the theories of learning are not averted in this endeavor.

In the dialogue between Downes and Kapp about learning theories, with reference to Kapp’s blog – Definitions: ABCD Objectives (which I found interesting), we are still rewarding behavior, whether is positive or negative. However, the tendency, in recent times, is to acknowledge and recognize the learner when the behavioral outcome is suitable to our liking, which really makes us behaviorists at this stage. Punitive measures for not learning have, more or less, become obsolete, especially with the ongoing discussions in the psychology of learning.
The notion of stimulus-response ( a programmable behavior) highlighted in the discussion, cannot be dismissed, as it relates to today’s technology of ‘on’ and ‘off’, or ‘stop’ and ‘go’, or ‘yes’ and ‘no’ which had their discovery in the binary mathematics system. However, a simply ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or in my mathematics logic class, ‘true’ or ‘false’ without any reason whatsoever, is not sufficient to foster the learning system. Therefore, the theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, or connectivism cannot be isolated from each other, if ‘adequate’ learning is to take place. In the continued dialogue between Downes and Kapp the term ‘dehumanising’ was mentioned. But, how does it affect learning? If it does! It does have an effect on the learning process. Take the examples (machines) stated in the argument; they are right on target, but using machines, such as the calculator, enhances the process of learning if properly utilized. Depending solely on these tools of technology does hinder the learning process. In my mathematics classroom, permission is granted to use the graphing calculators when it’s absolutely necessary, and not just to do simple algorithmic calculations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division or even simplifying ‘well known’ squared and cubed numbers.

The blog post by Kapp (Definition: Cognitivism), in which he drew attention to some of the theories of learning, showing their relevance to cognitivism, is indeed relevant to today’s technological era. The learner is indeed a complex information-processing system, as he rightly stated. So, for this reason, Stephen's response of ‘the mind is not like a computer....... and depicting the mind as analogous to symbol system processors is to misrepresent it in a fundamental way’, is certainly admired by me. Understanding how the learner learns is still a complex task for educators today, as different individuals learn differently, and with the use of different styles/methods. This brings me to the use of the buzz words that are used in my school: Differentiated instruction. Since students learn differently and at a different pace, the administrators at my school ‘insist’ on the use of different modes of teaching, of which the use of technology, with its different formats, is one of the key methods. Thinking about one’s own thinking (metacognition) is really important to the ongoing development of the theory of cognitivism. This is the place that I would like to get my students, so that they can take ownership of their learning and stop blaming the society for their misunderstandings.
In the blog Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought, Karl Kapp’s discussion about the use and importance of blogging is well taken. Like Bill Kerr in the blog _isms as filter, not blinker, responses were acceptable, and taken as constructive criticisms that further the discussion which I believed, was quite scholarly. The three men seem to form, whether purposefully or accidentally, a learning community, which should be beneficial to not just them, but other readers of the blog. Like Bill, Stephen, and Karl, the learning community of Leasa, Sheila, and myself should replicate the goal of blogging-that of discussing, critiquing, and encouraging each member’s blog in a scholarly manner, as we aim to become scholarly-practitioners in our own right. With this thought, I invite my two other members of the learning community, and anyone who blogs, to respond to this blog.