On-line chat: April 14, 1997, 5-6 pm

Cindy: Hi Brock and others!

Brock : A picture of me: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/BSAllen/bsallen.GIF

kylie: hello brock - kylie from Malaysia welcome to the chat of 540

Brock : So, what have you been thinking about with regard to the chapter on behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism?

Cindy: I understand behariorism pretty well, but get mixed up with cognitivism and constructivism.

Brock : By the way, I've noticed the chat server is pretty slow tonite. We may have to live with it. On the other hand, there's more time to reflect.

lisaj: Hi, Good day everyone. (I'm having update problems, so if you should see my responses more than once, I apologize.)

Karl: Here I are, or (alternatively) I are here...

Brock : Cindy, cognitivism is intertwined with cognitivism so there's no surprise that one might feel a little confused at times; I do, and I've written several articles on both. BUT, what do you see as the implications of these two schools of thought for your thinking about ed tec?

Karl: I'm with cindy. both cog and con seem to be about constructing mental models

Cindy: Brock, cog and con may allow people to become their own trainers if done correctly?

Brock : Karl & Cindy: In his chapter Bob also noted that both constructivists and cognivists use the concepts of mental models and mental processes (these constructs go by lots of names: schema, mental maps, etc). But what's the position of the two schools of thought (broadly speaking) on the ultimate nature of reality and how we know that reality.

Cindy: Karl, I'll let you get this one...:-)

Brock : Although Bob didn't put it quite this way, he's essentially arguing that the theories and models each developed by the three schools of thought have a RANGE OF CONVENIENCE. Most of our students are very interested in the range of convenience of theories, because our field is very eclectic and trys to address many different kinds of opportunities and problems.

Karl: hmmmm....., the ultimate nature of reality? hmm.. the ultimate nature of reality... Cindy?

Karl: Brock: a range of convenience? Could you comment a bit more on the meaning?

Brock : So anyone want to deal with the question of reality? How does one's view of reality affect they way one would teach? For example, suppose one was developing training for Motorola Corporation, which has opeations in over 130 different countries. How would one teach about, say corporate policies on sexual harrassment?

Cindy: The ecletic part makes sense to me. As a teacher of young people, I do alot of behaviorism. As I start to train adults I see the reality of using schema or mental maps to reach different folks and keep them going on by thmeselves if I can't be there.

angie: hello everyone, sorry I'm late.

kylie: In Motorolas case a lot of research has to take place to assess "reality" "perception" in those plants - the start from that base line or reality as you define it?

lisaj: Teacher would have to be aware of cultural differences and sensitivites to sexual harrassment. And ask what is student's possible reality?

Brock : Karl, range of convenience implies that in some situations a particular theory or model is very convenient for practical application whereas in other situations, it just doesn't seem to fit. Taking, for example the Motorola problem with sexual harrassment, it seems unlikely that designers would have much luck with a theory that assumes that there is ONE REALITY regarding the nature of women and their role in the world, or even that there is one "God's eye" view of the world in which we could describe the human family and how parents should shepard their families. But what if Motorola has a policy that prescribes certain limitations on the way men can treat women; how would you develop different training programs for different cultures to help them to understand this policy.

Cindy: lisaj, good points...so is this cog or con?

Karl: addresing the sexual harrassment question: first, of all, there would be a continum of sexual mores and customs, ranging all the way from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, with 128 instances in between. The objective might stay the same but the components/events would probably be slightly different in each instance.

Brock : So we're back to reality. How would the constructivist perspective help the designers with sexual harassment training? Would a constructivist perspective be JUST AS CONVENIENT for training people to assmble widgets on an assembly line?

lisaj: I think you would have to demonstrate or describe acceptable and unacceptable behaviors enough so that students could interpret/filter behaviors according to their own situation/experience.

Cindy: Brock, Motorola...You would have to have a schema of where people had been and where you needed them to wind up. If you are affecting behavior, are you now in behaviorism?

Brock : Karl, so the constructivists basically argue that each individual's view of reality (in this case the reality of sex and sexual relations) is built from the inside out (that is not everyone has the same mental models of the "world out there." On the other hand, the constructivists argue that humans get together and build shared descriptions of reality. How would this contrast with the cognitivist position?

Brock : Cindy, instructiona technology has been heavily influenced by a focus on learning outcomes (descriptions of desired behaviors) and this certainly reflects the behaviorist roots of our field. But this view has been tempered by the cognitivist's who essentially argue that it's not enough to inculcate the behaviors of an electronic's technician; we need to think about how to build the MIND of an electronic's technician. How would the constructivists think about the mind of an electronics technician and what would be different about the way they would view it compared to the cognitivists?

Karl: so constructivists would be really keen on building EPSSs and such... its a perfect fit for them...

lisaj: Re: Con vs. Cog--Constructivists would encourage technician to develop own unique approach to situation, while cognitivists would encourage technician to adopt experts approach.

Brock : So, a behaviorist might focus on the WAY that people would behave if they were good electronics technicians, whereas the cognitivists would be concerned with the mental processes that ENABLE and support expertise as an elect tech. The constructivists? Well one might expect them to ask if it's really effective to impose on people from widely different perspectives and cultures a single "correct" model of how, say electrons flow through conductive materials such as wires. For example would people from a very rual, agricultural area be more or less likely to understand the metaphor, the analogy that electrical current flowing thru a wire is like water folowing thru a pipe, than say, city dwellers. And is ths analogy an objective description of reality? or just a useful mental model.

lisaj: Re: Con vs. Cog--Constructivists would encourage technician to develop own unique approach to situation, while cognitivists would encourage technician to adopt experts approach.

Brock : Re Lisa "Constructivists would encourage technician to develop own unique approach to situation": Yes this issue is the bugaboo in most debates between the constructivists and the cognitivists. How much coherence do we need in the view of the world that is shared by people in particular community of life or work? How much commonality? When can we afford be liberal in our interpretations of required knowledge and when do we need to be more insistent that people strive for a common understanding. No mind is an island but how much are we a part of the mainland? As is the bell that tolls actually a computer beep?

Cindy: I thought cognitivists would encourage a technician to be aware of experts approach but also use own judgement.

Brock : Whoops. Typing to fast. Noticed a few typos in that last post? So back to implications for training or instruction? Your boss at Motorola wants to read your recommendations about teaching electronics in other countries vs. teaching sexual harrassment policies. He asks, how would the constructivis and cognitivist schools of thought guide our practical decision making? Your response?

Brock : Cindy, hmmm. How would you use the approaches you've been studying to meld the two instructional goals (be aware of experts approach but also use own judgement)?

Cindy: Electronics would be more straight forward...there is a common base and a common objective. Sexual harrassment starts with an uncommon base but also heads toward a common goal. Constructivists would seem better equipped to handle the training of the sexual harrassment.

lisaj: I think you'd need to incorporate both views in both classes. Earlier, I think you said Motorola wanted men to treat women in a certain way-implying adherence to certain company standards; so cognitivism applies here (follow the expert). But the students also need to make their own sense out of it, maybe developing their own approaches to communications that still fit in with the company standards, so constructivism applies. For electronics, "facts is facts" and you'd want student to adopt experts teaching, but I'd imagine that encouraging problem-solving would also be important to teach creative application of the knowledge.

Cindy: Melding the two instructional goals(be aware of experts approach but also use own judgement)is exactly where I am at in training of adults with computers in their classrooms. The adult students do not seem to trust their own judgement.

Brock : Which situation would require the most automaticity (least thinking)? Which could be most easily expressed as rules and procedures? which would be most open to multiple interpretations about "correct" or desired performance?

Cindy: electronics, electronics,sexual harrassment

lisaj: Re most automaticity: cognitivism. Multiple interpretatons: constructivism.

lisaj: Sorry, mis-read question. I agree with Cindy.

Cindy: cognitivism, cognitivism, constructionism?

Karl: automaticity - cognitivism

Karl: I think this topic is going to take some re-reading on my part... Its a bit of a moving target

lisaj: My times up and I'll need to go. Thank you, Brock, and goodnight.

Brock : Ah, but here's where it get's a little trickier. If we teach electronics technicians that that electrical current flowing thru a wire is like water folowing thru a pipe," is that an objective fact? And if we acknowledge that women are, on average, not a physically strong as are men (on average), to some people take this "fact" and try to turn it into a metaphor for the "general superiority" of men over women? The constructivists like to remind us that while metaphors are very powerful teaching devices, particularly in complex domains and disciplines, metaphors are ofen easily misunderstood across cultural bounderies. Not every culture understand for example the phrase "he's a hothead" the same way. Nor would every culture understand what some American's mean by "head of household" or "wearing the pants in the family."

Brock : Nice chatting with you all. Look forward to seeing you in EDTEC 544, or ETEC 640, or EDTEC 671. Bye for now.

Karl: Brock, thanks for your comments. This discussion will probably stand re-reading in the morning. bye

Cindy: Interesting concept about metaphors. Thanks Brock for your insight.

angie: Thank you all...I agree, karl.

Post a question to the class forum.

All contents copyright ©1997, SDSU. All rights reserved.
Revised: March 10, 1997
URL: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/EDTEC540/Chats/4-14-97.html