Bob: Hi everyone, welcome to the "second shift!" Did you have a chance to look over the material on behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism this week? Make any sense to you? Where would you like to start?
Marie : Hi
Craig: We can pick them up next session?
Cathy: Hello, all! Has anyone heard from Bob?
Craig: I think they all build upon one another.
Bob: What makes you say that, Craig?
Denise: Is anyone having trouble getting online through SDSU? Lisa and Corola called me and said they can't get through.
daniel: can we discuss the difference between cognitivism and constructivism?
Bob: Hi Cathy, just trying to get a sense of where ya'll are at with your understanding of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.
Denise: The readings reminded me of my Psych courses.
Craig: Well the behaviorist seems to be how we all learn to do simple things and how learning was first percieved
Gail: yes Craig
Bob: Sure, Dan, why don't you get us started.
Marie : I learned a lot about behaviorism getting my special education credential. I guess they preferred behav. because it was easily measurable and if tasks were simple enough, the theories work ok.
daniel: behaviorism to me is based entirely on conditioning the learner.
Denise: Behaviorism is similar to the positive and negative reinforcement we learn in child psych.
Cathy: Sorry, but your remakrs aren't appearing on my screen unless I reload the url - help!
Rachelle: Hello everyone. A litle technical problem here.
Raymond: Finally got thru! Thanks to aol..
Bob: Yes, Daniel, that's correct. So, what does cognitivism add to the mix.
Denise: I thought constructionism is similar to what a lot of school teachers base their instruction.
Craig: Wasn't Skinner the big Behaviorist?
Sue: Hello everyone! This is very slow ...and I am here in NE278A.
daniel: well Prof. Hoffman, by the time I asked the question, the direction seems to have shifted to behaviorism. so we may begin with it.
Lisa & Carola: Behaviorism reminds us of Pavlov's dog. Seems like this is an easy association to make. Anyone else care to comment?
Linda: 48 days til Christmas, everyone!! Start your shopping now.
Mo: For me it is easiest to think of Behaviorism as learning through repetitive behavior. As Daniel said it is conditioning, or rather, re-conditioning the learner.
Craig: Cognitivism adds the thinking and reasoning aspect.
Bob: Cathy, use the Update button. Hi Rachelle and Raymond. We're talking about the differences among behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist approaches to learning. Let me throw out a question. What models of the "mind" do you think these three approaches are based on. How do they think we humans learn?
Cathy2: Behaviorism makes me think of laboratory rats; it seems too simple for adults.
daniel: while behaviorism uses reinforcement and conditioning, cognitivism is more mimicry of the instructor.
Denise: It appeared to me that we use beahvioral techniques with very young children, congnitive for chidlren expanding their knowledge of the world, and contructionism for the more complex learners. I did notice the instruction in contructionism was based on age-appropriate tasks.
Bob: Sure, L&C; -- in fact, behaviorist theory grew out of Pavlov's experiments, in part. Craig, so, I'm not thinking when I learned set theory using programmed instruction?
Rachelle: Bob, is collaborated learning synonomous with situated learning?
Bob: So, Cathy2 and Denise, you wouldn't want to use flash cards to learn vocabularly? Not adult enough for you? (just being the devil's advocate here, for a moment). That's not a bad description, Daniel.
Sue: Behaviorists seem to think humans learn by stimulus and response. If a certain behavior is reinforced with a reward, it will be learned.
Raymond: I'm definitely having a constructivist experience.I can feel my schema changing as I type!
Craig: Yes you were thinking but your thinking was being channeled to an extreme. so much so that you were not able to see that set theory applied to something else that was looking you right in the face.
Mo: Denise, Behaviorist techniques would also be used for military training or any other training that has a goal of learners responding automatically (through reflex) rahter than thinking or analysis.
Bob: No, Rachelle, collaborative learning means learning in community with other people. Situated learning means learning in a real world, meaningful context. Often used together, of course. Like teams working on a multimedia project in one of our advanced courses.
Denise: I know my description was simplistic (didn't want to write an essay). The three do alot of overlapping.
Denise: I realize that we can apply all three to many age levels. I just thought that we use more of one than the others depending upon the age of the individual and what they may be capable of learning. My 10 month old isn't going to be able to apply mathematical concepts. My 11 year old can.
Mo: Bob, can you provide a clearer explanation of Cognitivism? I am clear on Behaviorism and Constructivism, but am rather fuzzy on Cognitivism.
Bob: I'd like to challenge the notion that behaviorist strategies work only for reflexive or narrow thinking. In the set theory example, for instance, I have pretty much the same sense of set theory as I have of any other theory. Maybe even better. I can apply it to a wide range of situations.
Rachelle: What about the ABAB research design model-operant conditioning?
Cathy: I can certainly vouch for behaviorist techniques prevailing in the military, but that seems to be one of the biggest gripes from the trainees; they feel like laboratory rats or children.
Denise: I agree with Mo. Cognitivism seems very similar to Constructionism.
Marie : The text says that task analysis relies on cognitive task analysis. I tried to brake my task analysis down into behavioral steps. I was surprised to read that it was cognitive in nature. Was this because I chose a task which focussed more on behaviors ?
Cathy: Did anyone else in the military feel that way? I'm not saying behaviorist techniques aren't effective in that arena, just that it reminds me of lab rats.
Derry-Hue: They probably think we humans are dommies that can react to all kinds of stimuli, regardless of our state of mind. I believe humans are rational beings and can ot lwy e rogramed or predicted. He? What do you think yourself?
Bob: True, Denise. Though your 10 month old is probably very busy constructing all sorts of things, like definitions of words, etc. How did s/he learn "up" or "hot," for instance? (Oh, OK, 10 months IS a little early, but...). I would argue that there's a strong constructivist component in that. S/he hears the word used in many different contexts and gradually constructs a meaning for it. On the other hand, if s/he touches something hot, that could be a "conditioning" experience as well. So, where do you draw the distinction?
Cathy2: I'm sorry, Bob, but the update button isn't working for me; any usggestions?
Craig: Yes but you had to think constructively to apply it to other situations Bob. Behaviorist teaching doesn't teach you to apply the knowledge out of context.
Denise: In my project, I am interested in behaviors as well as cognitive awareness of certain concepts. So, I will be basing my test items on both cognitive tasks and behaviors? I'm a little confused.
Sue: I thought the biggest difference between cognitivism and constructionism is the way the learner is taught. Constructivist theory has the learner discovering the knowledge in his own way.
Bob: Mo and Denise, they have a lot in common, cognitivism and constructivism. But there are some clear differences. Let me give you one. Cognitivists would view learning as the instructor "transferring" their mental map or schema to the student's map. Constructivists would look at it from the point of view of the students attempting to construct thier own individualized map, rather than adopting the instructor's map wholesale.
Mo: Isn't that really the point? All of these are so closely related that in order to meet the needs of a variety of learners you need to develop several strategies that encompass a variety of learning techniques. (Maureen)
Denise: Thanks bob. I have gotten into the conditioning mode of being "Mom" and forgot the conditioning experiences that teach. The learning to speak would also be an example of "mirroring" as in cognitivism, right?
ace: Bob, when designing instruction with a cognitivist's POV, would the designer/developer rely more on indicator behaviors (as opposed to observing performance)?
Craig: I think you're right on there Mo. You have to apply each to the material being taught and the individual being taught.
daniel: I can't imagine a 10 month old touching heat and withdrawing as cognitive or constructionist, only as instict. It can't even get as far as a behaviorist response.
Tim: Bob, my 1 year old cousin says "hot" when ever he touches anything he is not supposed to. He has constructed a meaning, broader than the actual meaning, isn't he being conditioned and constructing meaning.
Bob: Strictly speaking, that may be true, Craig, that behaviorist instruction is generally non-contextualized. But that doesn't mean transfer CAN'T occur, or that we can write it off as "low level." Behaviorists have gotten a "bad name" to some extent, Derry-joe, because of lab experiments with rats. But think of learning with flash cards. That's a very behaviorist learning strategy that actually works pretty well -- for some things!
Denise: Okay, when we develop our objectives from "the student's viewpoint," we would be using constructivism?
Linda: Do you suppose that constructivism will make teachers obsolete?
Lisa & Carola: Yes in some aspects behaviorism definately describes learning processes in the military however once you get into a more technical role ie. pilot, cognitivsm plays a major role: you have to start thinking for yourself and be able to interpret different scenerios. In addition we move then into cognitivism because we take our experiences from various and unique search and rescue cases and learn from them so we can apply the principles learned at a later time "lessons learned".
Craig: I definitely agree, behaviorism has its place in instruction...at all levels.
Cathy3: I like the concept of constructivism better than cognitivism because it implies that learning is not an absolute. There is no definitive schema, and people can learn in a lot of ways. However, I also think that constructivism might not be effective for people lacking motivation to learn.
Bob: Ah, Maureen, you have hit it exactly on the head. Yes, Tim, as you say, he is both being conditioned and he is constructing. We do all of these strategies all of the time. The key for us as instructional designers is to figure out when to use each of these strategies appropriately, as Craig says, to the content and the learners.
Denise: Flashcards do have some merit. My 11 year old uses them to memorize her multiplication tables. That type of memorization does not always promote application or cross-over of knowledge. That's why we went over the different modalities of learning, right? So we can address the learner as a "whole" person. Wouldn't we use these theories in the same way?
Craig: Make teachers obsolete! No way. It just changes their roles a little bit. We become the guide on the side instead of the sage on the stage.
Bob: Whoa! Let's talk objectives. What are the differences between instructional objectives from behaviorists point of view, cognitivists, and constructivists? Whew, the challenges are coming fast and furious. Nope, I don't suppose constructivism will make teachers obsolete. Will it change our roles? You bet. How, do you think?
Marie : Amen Craig
Rachelle: Constuctivism also allows the learner's knowledge to go above and beyond the orginal intent of the instruction at times when the learner is motivated to learn more.
Lisa & Carola: Ace: is POV personal owned vehicle :) And we thought acronyms were only for the military
Denise: I agree with Craig. Teachers have to shift their teaching pradigm to facilitator rahter than instructor. I mean, instead of lecturing and "feeding" the student, the teacher needs to help the student explore and discover. Constructionism would lead towards that, wouldn't it?
Cathy: Back to behaviorism in the military - I notice a problem of people becoming accustomed to being spoon fed and then resenting when they do have to think for themselves. Also some people resent being spoon fed from the beginning. Both situations cause people to leave the military in certain instances.
Sue: Cathy3, I couldn't agree more. There does need to be a motivation to learn and the ability to do some lateral thinking for constructivism to be effective. Also i akes a very special (that was it takes) type of teacher to facilitate a good const (abrev) class.
Bob: Sure, Denise, but if you take constructivist approaches and completely drop off the behaviorist strategies, you're left with people solving complex problems without basic skills. They are so intertwined that its pretty hard to say, "Let's abandon behaviorist techniques." I mean, any time you pat a student on the back for something, that is technically "behaviorist" teaching.
Rachelle: teachers will be facilitators of knowledge rather than lecturers
Denise: Lisa & Corola, a lot of people speak in acronyms, especially on the Internet.
daniel: Prof. Hoffman, are there any instances when we must use all 3 techniques?
Bob: Yes, Denise and Craig, that's a good example of constructivist "teaching." But notice how that makes some people crazy, too. They just want you to TELL 'EM for cryin' out loud! So you have to try to balance the strategies, again, based on content and individual characteristics.
Denise: That's true, Bob. I agree that they are pretty intertwined. I only meant that teachers should not be lecturers only. I think alot of teachers are not using constructionism as much as they should. I never meant that they should apply only one strategy.
Mo: Bravo, Denise. "Facilitator rather than instructor" is a nice way of putting it. Although the instructor does need to steer the topic in case it gets off of the intended topic. Always in the back of the instructors mind should be the goal/objective of the instruction being given.
Craig: I think you can use the three strategies simultaneously. I think (just as bob's example of reinforcment) that they can compliment each other.
Cathy: I think the main stumbling block to constructivism is that most people are used to more traditional methods of instruction - little square desks, teacher up front at the chalkboard...but once we get past the growing pains, I think constructivism will breed better thinkers and problemsolvers.
Denise: My husband says his students would love to be "fed." He says it's a fight to make them think.
Linda: Constructivist perspectives of teaching and computers are married. CAI in the form of mirocworlds is a computer simulation model that allows the user to manipulate and experiment.
Lisa & Carola: So would being a visionary fall under constructivism? Is vision a learned or acquired behavior or is it a behavior at all?
ace: (sorry, POV--point of view)--Participating in this chat reinforces to me the need to do a great audience analysis when designing the instruction. In business and industry, with the focus on bottomline, we tend to design out instruction around overt behavior. The more advanced instruction does, however, involve more problem-solving, discovery kind of learning.
daniel: denise,, just feeding or mimiking the instructor doesn't allow for problem solving, thats why the constructivist approach adds to "feeding" (as you said) students info.
Bob: Yes, actually Cathy or L&C; or somebody just gave a good one from the military. Teach 'em to march with behaviorist techniques, teach 'em to read maps using cognitivism, and teach 'em to escape enemy territory (I think they used the example of search and rescue missions) with primarily constructivist methods. Notice that the first is a simple, well-defined problem space. The second is a more complex, yet still pretty well-defined space; and the third is a complex, ill-defined problem space. All three at once? Sure. Even in the search and rescue scenario, the pilots have to have very fast response on things like reading altitude gauges, landing procedures, etc. Make any sense?
Rachelle: Constuctivism breeds visionaries
Sue: A behaviorist would look for a known behavior to assure her objective was met. A cognitivist would expect some synthesizing of the knowledge that resembles her delivery of the mental map. A constructivist would expect some creation or discovery from the learner.
Craig: Talk about people not wanting to think. When we first started TQM where I use to work and we asked the employees to start taking responsibility for their own area improvements you should have seen the response. They just didn't want to do it. They wanted to be told what and when to do something. This is why we need to expose people to constructivism early and often. So we have people who can think for themselves.
Cathy2: L&C: Do you mean does constructivist instruction lead to visionary thinking? I think it would encourage visionary thinking more than behaviorism or cognitivism because it allows learners to think outside the box.
Bob: Nice example, Linda, though I can certainly imagine constructivist learning environments without a computer in sight. Take problem based learning (PBL). A good library and place to work is pretty much the insfrastructure you need. You're right in the sense that computers lend themselves to facilitating many kinds of constructivist learning environments, though.
Mo: Bob, on the webpage you say that for Constructivism "the instructional objectives are negotiated with the learner." How do you "negotiate" objectives with learners when in some cases, in order to ensure that they have appropriately learned or learned how to appropriately think about subject, you have to design the objectives without their input. Can you please clarify?
Denise: Thanks for the example, Bob. It's great! Nice addition, Sue. I'm going to use those to help me to remember these three strategies.
Bob: Well put, Sue. The constructivist teacher might, in fact, negotiate learning objectives with the learners, or even let them "discover" them under some circumstances. That is not to say that s/he might not have formulated instructional objectives to begin with, but they might not be communicated as such to the learners. I like the idea of constructivist strateiges encouraging vision.
Denise: Good question, Mo. I'm interested in the answer.
Gail: Hoffman's last chapters will be available in class next week or now in the printing basement of Aztec. See you next week. Enjoyed watching you all chat.
Denise: I gotta go. My kids are having a food fight and the 10 month old is in the middle. I'm looking forward to reading these transcripts. See all of you next week in class.
D-Hue: Cathy3, I believe that all the three (BCC) theories require, to a certain extent, some reasonable level of motivation.
Bob: Maureen, let's suppose you want students to learn to diagnose a patient's illness. They may have to experiment a little to discover that one of the skills they need to master is, say, taking the patient's temperature. You might not present a lesson with the objective, "The learners will be able to take the patient's temperature." They may need to "construct" that themselves. Negotiate can also mean that the instructor puts out a version of an objective, like, "Learner will paint a picture depicting speed." The learner comes back and says, I think what I need to do is a picture that depicts the feeling of speed, rather than speed itself. Off-beat example, maybe, but it has to do with fitting the learning to the needs of the learner. Not all learners NEED to paint speed. Some need to do other things.
daniel: so, how will denise's 10 month old learn about food fights? Through cognitivism (following other kids examples)?
Lisa & Carola: Will the transcripts from both sessions be available on-line?
Bob: Good observation, Cathy3, although all 3 can build motivation as well. With that, good people, I'll sign off. Thanks for all your good input! Its a pleasure. More on "BCC" next week.
Cathy: D-Hue: I agree, but the fact of the matter is that I'm still trying to adjust to Bob's contructivist program for EDTEC 541 because whenever I've been in classrooms, it's been in the military (at least since high school) and behaviorism and cognitivism were the dominant styles. Adapt and overcome!
Bob: Yes, B&C, transcripts will be on line shortly. Adios!
Traci: Bye
daniel: bye!
page author: Bob Hoffman
Post a question to the class forum.
All contents copyright ©1996, SDSU. All rights
reserved.
Revised: November 6, 1996
URL: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/EDTEC540/Chats/10-31-96.html