Week 5 Blog
Cognitive and Constructivist Perspectives
SO MUCH INFORMATION this week.
Duffy and Raymer (2010) said, “The intellectual skills called for
in our life cannot be filled by traditional instructional approaches” (p12). This
may well be true into perpetuity as our knowledge base keeps expanding, and as
technology grows and develops, what has been traditional needs to be revamped
and reimagined, and what is new today will eventually need the same treatment.
I admit that even though at heart I still have an affinity for
behaviorism, there is so much good in cognitive and constructivist ideas that I
can’t help but divide some of my allegiance. I really appreciated this week
that there was so much useful, practical content rather than theoretical ideas.
Maybe because this week was all about doing.
“Instruction is not so much done to learners, rather it engages
learners in a process of inquiry and meaningful activity” (Wilson, 2018,
p61). I enjoyed the opportunity to
listen to Dr. Wilson in this weeks guest appearance and hear of his efforts, as
he puts it in his article, of “Meaning-making” (p61) in the IST world. I have
an appreciation of testing boundaries, and mixing methods, and trying new
things to find the sweet spot for a learner.
A couple of items of particular note this week were the warnings
in Wilson’s article. Not all learners are ready for the challenges that
constructivism brings. If learners are not prepared, motivated, or emotionally
mature then this process might not work for them. If the learner doesn’t have appropriate
prior knowledge, or access to information, then the method might fail (p63). Forcing
a constructivist model on these learners will alienate rather than educate. The
other item of note was the virtual instruction guide by Silber and Foshay
(2006) that presented a virtual roadmap for designers based on the type of
skills/knowledge being taught. Of immediate use to me was the overall model
presented in table 16.1 (p374-5) that defines and breaks down the cognitive
design model.
Lastly, I took to heart the notice from Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich,
& Anderson (1988) where they stated, when talking about trying to
assimilate large amounts of knowledge in a short amount of time, that, “Failures
of understanding [the knowledge] compound themselves, building up durable
chains of large scale misconception” (p3). Better to verify learning and foundational
principles often, so that foundations of knowledge for the learners will be a
sound support to them.
-Kevin
References:
Duffy, T. M.,
& Raymer, P. L. (2010). A practical guide and a constructivist rationale
for inquiry based learning. Educational Technology, 50(4), 3-15.
Kevin, you're right! We learned so much new information this week. Although I, too, appreciate some aspects of behaviorism, I think we will only continue to incorporate elements from the other instructional design models as we continue to solidify our personal instructional design philosophies. I did value yours and Wilson's warnings regarding the potential challenges of constructivism. Constructivism works best with an ideal group of students: those that are willing and able to engage and participate in learning as a group. However, as you shared from Wilson -"If learners are not prepared, motivated, or emotionally mature then this process might not work for them. If the learner doesn’t have appropriate prior knowledge, or access to information, then the method might fail." Due to circumstances outside of many educators' control (e.g., students' home lives, intellectual disabilities, mental health issues, etc.), some students may not be able to engage as we'd like in constructivist lessons that we design.
ReplyDelete-Shanna Sanders
DeleteKevin, I agree, I appreciated the practical content as well. I especially liked the article by Silber and Foshay titled Designing Instructional Strategies: A Cognitive Perspective. This article gave many great examples of their theory and model in action. The Cognitive Instructional Design Model they present is a great tool for many of us in the field of instructional design. I found the information presented this week to not only be fascinating, but helpful. It is important to understand where learners are, how their prior knowledge will build upon their future knowledge, how their environment influences their learning, and how memory and cognitive load impact their retention of materials.
ReplyDeleteHey Kevin, I think that behaviorism is a good start for learning. I believe motivation is the key to move into constructivism. The person has to want to learn. I also understand that constructivism approach is not for everyone. In this week's reading there was an interesting section addressing learning. It was a concept that John Dewey had indicated in the early 20th century. He highlighted that the learning process began when the learner was in doubt or confused about something. Essentially, the person asks questions or searches for solutions to overcome this state. (Duffy & Raymer, 2010, pg. 3) I agree that this is part of the reason people want to learn. I had difficulty understanding why people didn’t want to learn. After reading the articles this week, I believe it was either lack of interest or cognitive overload.
ReplyDeleteDuffy, T. M., & Raymer, P. L. (2010). A practical guide and a constructivist rationale for inquiry-based learning. Educational Technology, 50(4), 3-15.