Prompt:
¹⁾ What are the three major theories of learning? Briefly describe each in your own words.
²⁾ Provide an example of these theories in a way your teachers teach (or taught) — as in, what was your experience in engaging with these theories? Which of the theories do you see yourself using most in your own classroom?
¹⁾ The three major learning theories are behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Behaviourism is built on the belief that knowledge is an attainable ‘thing’ that can be ‘given’ to you by someone else; knowledge is almost seen as a tangible physical object. Behaviourism doesn’t attempt to explain how knowledge is attained by a learner, often viewing the mind as a black box, that can be filled but ultimately not understood. These beliefs about knowledge lead to behaviourist lessons that rely on rote memorization and repetition of facts, figures, and patterns. These techniques are best used when trying to develop classroom management strategies, but often end up being employed in math and science classroom, often to the detriment of students’ full understanding. Cognitivism, while still viewing knowledge as an attainable ‘thing’, draws attention to what is happening within a learner’s mind while they are taking in that knowledge. Cognitivism is build on the belief that when learners encounter new information it is not instantly understood and assimilated into their long term memory. Information needs to be introduced multiple times, using multiple methods. There is also a strong emphasis on the scaffolding of knowledge — that is, reviewing relevant lessons from the recent past to help students better understand new lessons in the present. These techniques help students to draw connection between past knowledge, strengthening their understanding of new topics. Constructivism takes a very different view of knowledge. Instead of viewing knowledge as an attainable ‘thing’ constructivist theory views knowledge as something that is created by the learner. Constructivist learning theory takes a further step back and acknowledges the impact of social interactions on learning. Learning is not viewed as an individual act, but one that is influenced by the learner, the teacher, their peers, and the community itself. These beliefs about learning greatly alter the way that teachers who prescribe to constructivist learning theory approach lessons. While behaviourist theory would say that memorizing times tables is the best way to learn how to multiply, constructivist theory would say that playing with manipulatives in a group setting is the best way to understand multiplication.
²⁾ I saw a lot of behaviourist teaching theory when I was in elementary and high school. Behaviourist teaching techniques were especially prevalent in math and science classes which is kind of expected (though unfortunate). All of my elementary teachers had been teaching for quite some time, so I feel that the only teaching methods they really knew were behaviourist ones. The biggest example of this that I can think of is the way I was taught math. All that I remember from elementary math classes is long repetative assignments and ‘mad-minutes’. Looking back at my high school experience I definitely notice a change in the way that lessons were put together and presented. All of my high school math and science teachers were recent graduates (less than 3 years) so they were definitely taught different methods than my elementary teachers. This came across pretty well. I know that in my math classes, both teachers I had did a lot of reflecting back on weeks prior, or even referencing stuff from a year or more ago. This showed a shift to cognitivism, and looking back it did help me to understand more of the topic than just rote memorization. My high school physics teacher did a really old job of embracing constructivist theory. Every physics unit had a hands on aspect to it. Looking back, these hands on activities are the things that I remember the most vividly from school. One thing that I also remember is struggling with most of these projects. The groups I was in would often start with something really extravagant and then realize mid-build just how complicated the math involved with our project would be! But the lessons really stuck with me. As for my own teaching, I don’t feel like any one theory really is the best. I want to try and build lessons that use a blend of the three techniques. As pointed out in last weeks lecture behaviourist theory is best put into action when crating classroom management techniques, which I feel are super important. In the lesson plans that I have put together, and in the tutoring that I do privately, I try to incorporate as much scaffolding as possible. At times it is tough to know exactly what student’s have previously learned, but you can also scaffold lessons to every day experiences. I will definitely be taking a page from my physics teacher’s handbook when I start teaching. Her ability to create engaging hands on projects for each unit really made class more enjoyable, and the learning more intuitive. Her lessons are probably part of the reason that I am majoring in physics today.
Hey Mack,
I really enjoyed reading your blog post this week. Even though you said you loved my definitions because they were concise I loved yours because they went into so much detail and at the end you kind of compared them between each other and I thought that was great. You gave some really good definitions and all through out your blog you gave really good examples to each kind of learning theory. It even helped me with understanding the assignments that would typically be given by a teacher that believed in one theory over another (mad math sheets). I think now that I understand them more I will also likely try to use all three in my classroom as well just because one doesn’t necessarily work better than another.
Thanks for sharing!
LikeLike