I'm a cogniconstructiviorist

Well, I had hoped to do an interpretive dance, but my chic diagram will have to suffice. I recently got one of those Wacom tablets. I'll be selling this beauty on eBay soon, so get your PayPal ready.

Anyway, the concept I had hoped to describe visually is this: the ironic thing about "theories" is that they automatically imply that we have holes in our knowledge. The purpose of theories is to try to help us account for observations and predict those things we haven't observed. If we didn't have any holes in our knowledge of a particular domain, that is to say, if we could account for 100% of our observations and predict events 100% accurately, then we wouldn't need theories.

Because theories are by nature incomplete, I'll bet you a dollar you can't find any single theory that can completely describe something as complex as how learning takes place in every conceivable learning situation.

That being said, let's look again at the diagram. From this diagram (if it is at all accurate), and from our discussions in class, it should be obvious that there is a certain amount of overlap between these three theories of learning. It is therefore possible to encounter a single learning situation which may be very well approached from any of these three perspectives. There may also be situations in which one of these theories is clearly more helpful in answering our questions than are the other two. Yet again, we may find ourselves in an area of the larger "Learning" circle that is colored white--uncovered by any of the three theories. This is simply the reality of theories--sometimes they work very well, sometimes they don't work quite as well. Even the really good ones don't work 100% of the time.

Knowing, then, that everything we call a theory has boundaries and limits, it seems slightly unwise to me that anyone would consider themselves as adherents of only one theory. These people are either pretending that their theory is somehow special, having no boundaries, or they are trying to get grant money.

It think that, to be a truly wise scholar, it is best to familiarize oneself with all the theories surrounding our particular domain, pick the best ones, and look through their respective lenses (to use Dr. Graham's analogy) when they are appropriate.

Some Thoughts on the Readings for 9/15

1. What are the essential differences between behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism?

Behaviorism
Behaviorism is a learning theory based on the assertion that all behavior can be explained and predicted in terms of its environmental antecedents and external stimuli. Early in the 20th century, John B. Watson stated that observations based on the internal processes of the mind are doomed to be subjective. He suggested that any serious inquiry into psychology and learning should be based solely on manifest behavior, as this can be observed by anyone and may therefore be considered objective.

Researchers of the behaviorist tradition assert that every process occurring in the mind manifests itself externally as a behavior, in one way or another. Furthermore, if an internal mental process does not manifest itself externally, it is of no consequence to our inquiry and may therefore be ignored. This brings us to the "Black Box Metaphor" of behaviorism, which requires that behaviorist-type studies be conducted with no regard to the internal workings of the mind.

The behaviorist tradition may be summarized as the systematic strengthening and weakening of responses through the use of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, reinforcement removal, and punishment.

Cognitivism
If behaviorism may be characterized by its voluntary ignorance of the internal workings of the mind. then we may distinguish it from cognitivism. Cognitivism is a learning theory that concerns itself primarily with inquiries into the internal mental (cognitive) processes that lead to learning.

Constructivism
Constructivism is different from behaviorism as it accepts the validity of what occurs in the mind. However, it also differs from cognitivsm, not focusing specifically on internal mental processes, but on the experiences of the individual in their environment, and how these experiences lead to learning. The constructivist theory asserts that the internal state of a learner's mind is constructed from their experiences in reality.
2. Which perspective outlined by Schuh and Barab do you agree with most closely: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Cognitive Constructivism, Sociocultural/Historicism, or Situativity Theory? Why?

I believe that each of the learning theories we discussed in class should be judged by its own merit on an individual basis in the context of a real learning environment. Each of these theories has strengths and weaknesses, which manifest themselves in different ways depending on the learning context.

For example, prior to this weeks readings I had spoken with several couples who have children and asked them about their best practices for disciplining children. While doing this week's readings on behaviorism, I found that many of the techniques these couples had mentioned (timeouts, revocation of privileges, etc.) are firmly grounded in behaviorist principles. Based on the experience of others, I would judge that behaviorist learning principles do indeed have merit in the context of disciplining small children.

However, my wife is a school psychologist, and frequently meets with children who are exhibiting problematic behaviors. While she makes extensive, successful use of behaviorist principles, she occasionally encounters a child who has learned to identify the applications of behaviorist theory and consciously fights against them. Faced with this intellectual combativeness, her behaviorist approaches lack effectiveness. It would thus appear that behaviorist principles and practices are only successful insofar as the learner is willing to go along with them.

All that being said, I find myself attending to the cognitivist tradition when I prepare my Sunday school lessons.

What is a PLE?

PLE - Personal Learning Environment

Based on Web 2.0 technologies. According to http://www.microbiologybytes.com/tutorials/ple/

"a system that helps learners take control of and manage their own learning. This includes providing support for learners to set their own learning goals, manage their learning, manage both content and process, and communicate with others in the process of learning."

The aforementioned site also provides a video which provides a general overview of the strengths and weaknesses of PLEs, and compares them to Learning Management Systems (LMS).

Personal Learning Environments allow students to collect, arrange, describe, articulate, and otherwise process information that they feel is important. The purpose of a PLE is to enhance the learning process by allowing the use to proactively focus on the material and information that is most important to them.

This process is important, because by allowing learners to decide what material is important to them, to organize that material in a way that makes sense to them, and to articulate their own thoughts and opinions on the material, we are fostering and enhancing the learning process.

Web 2.0

"Web 2.0" is a term that is used to describe the next generation of interactive websites characterized by the user's ability to publish, share, collaborate. There are two major rules:

#1 - The user has control. Allow me to write, post, create, publish, share anything I want!
#2 - Thin Client Computing - Don't make me install any software on my computer to do it!

• Web 2.0 technologies allow people to publish to the world!
• They facilitate creativity, collaboration, community
• Creation is a godlike quality. Everyone can receive joy from creating.

More resources to come...

Hey, this is a blog

Ja, ja, das ist gut! Here's my blog for IP&T 520, Fall Semester 2008 at Brigham Young University!

This blog is intended to function as my personal learning environment (PLE) for the duration of this course, perhaps beyond.