Assignment on

B.Ed./1/CC/103
LEARNING AND TEACHING

Topic: Difference between Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism

learning theories and the educational implications of learning theories.

Submitted to Submitted by
Lalhrilliani Lalbiakzuali
Roll No.: 16
B.Ed. 1st Sem.
 Difference between Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism
learning theories and the educational implications of learning theories.

Differences on the three key theory:

Behaviourism: Learning is a response to external stimuli. Cognitivism: Learning
is a process of acquiring, storing and retrieving information like a computer. ...
Constructivism: Learning is a process of building an understanding basing on
past experiences and present inputs.

Behaviourism:
Behaviourism was born from research done by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Pavlov’s research into animal digestion led to the
recognition that the animals that were being studied would salivate when the lab
assistant assigned to feed them entered the room, whether food was being
handled or not. Pavlov recognized that the animals had begun to associate the
lab assistant with food and that the unconditioned response to an unconditioned
stimuli, salivating when food was present, was replaced with an conditioned
response to a conditioned stimuli. In further experiments, Pavlov was able to
replace the original triggering stimuli (the lab assistant) with a new stimuli (a
bell ringing) to achieve the response. Later, he conditioned the animals so that
the learned response to stimuli was unlearned, so that the dogs would no longer
salivate when a bell was rung. This process of connecting neutral stimuli to
achieve conditioned responses is known as classical conditioning.

John Watson built on Pavlov’s studies and applied the theory of conditioning to
human development and learning, so that, “learning to associate an
unconditioned stimulus that already brings about a particular response (reflex)
with a new (conditioned) stimulus.” The use of rewards and punishments to
change behaviour and teach new skills became the cornerstone of behaviourism.
In behaviourism, learning is demonstrated through action and must be
observable and reflected in behaviour. At its essence, behaviourism is built on
cause and effective, where a stimulus is responded to and behaviours are trained
and mouldable with the right mix of reward and punishment. Further studies
looked at the role of voluntary action, such as intentionally performing an act,
for a reward. These studies identified that increasing the reward resulted in
increasing the likelihood of the action being repeated.

As trainers and educators, the use of rewards and punishments can be balanced
to achieve results. This includes the use of desirable or undesirable activities to
achieve the training goals. For example, social recognition and praise, from
gold stars to awards, have been found to reinforce the likelihood of desired
actions being repeated. Similarly, desired activities, such as providing
recreation time or desired assignments, can result in desired behaviours
becoming instilled as habit. By contrast, disincentives can be used to limit the
recurrence of undesired behaviours and guide participants toward the desired
actions.

Behaviourism is most effective when the new knowledge or skill has only a
single correct answer or way of being accomplished or in activities where
thought and application variations are minimized. There should only be a single
right answer. Behaviourism can also be effectively applied to social training
and rule following, with rewards given for following the rules. To be most
effective, participants should be aware of the rules at the beginning of the
training session and the instructor should describe the expected standard of
performance.

Cognitivism:
Cognitivism added to the theories of behaviourism by looking at learners not as
blank slates but as individuals with unique points of view, experiences, and
knowledge, and instructors should build on these to meet the learning needs of
participants. Recognizing that learners have subjective views of knowledge
means that lessons and activities may have different outcomes based on the
learners’ experiences. In addition, students constantly seek to develop a
working model of the world and how it works and seek to fit newly acquired
knowledge and skills into their perceptions. While the instructor is viewed as
the expert imparting knowledge to unknowing students in the behaviourist
classroom, cognitivist instructors seek to guide students across a zone of
proximal develop, bridging what participants know with what they don’t know.
Instructors seek to assist students in incorporating new knowledge and skills
into their intellectual framework and modify their perceptions of the world as
needed. Instructors apply cognitivism by asking questions to help learners
refine their thinking. Instructors can also use games, puzzles, flash cards, and
other means to create disequilibrium and which require the student to adapt and
learn to continue.

Constructivism:
Constructivist learning theory is built on the concept that learners actively build
their own knowledge, that it is based on personal meaning, and that it is guided
by prior knowledge and events. New knowledge and skills modify what is
already known, and learning occurs when the new knowledge is used to engage
in problem solving, experiments, and/or application. In short, without
application, information may be received, but understanding does not occur. In
addition, learning is a social activity that involves sharing and application
through the zone of proximal development. Connectivism adds to
constructivism to explain how the Internet has created and allowed the sharing
of information across the world. Information and knowledge are no longer
stored entirely within the individual or small group but throughout the world.
Instructors focus on providing context, interpretation, and judgment of stored
knowledge and help guide learners to reputable sources. Through connectivism,
learning is no longer a classroom-centric activity and the role of peer networks
is even greater in storing, interpreting, and applying knowledge. In the
classroom, both knowledge and authority are shared, with instructors guiding
learners who operate in heterogeneous groups to acquire and apply knowledge.
The role of the instructor is to create a collaborative, problem-solving
environment and provide scaffolding in the form of hints, clues, and activities
that are adapted to the needs of the learner.

Constructivist Teaching Behaviours (Brooks and Brooks, 1993)

1. Encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative.
2. Use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulative,
interactive, and physical materials.
3. When framing tasks, use cognitive terminology, such as “classify,
analyse, predict, and create.”
 4. Allow student responses to drive lessons, shift instructor strategies,
and alter content.
5. Inquire about students’ understanding of the concepts before sharing
(your) own understanding of those concepts.
6. Encourage students to engage in dialogue, both with the teacher and
with one another.
7. Encourage student inquiry by asking thoughtful, open-ended
questions, and encourage students to ask questions of each other.
8. Seek elaboration of students’ initial responses.
9. Engage students in experiences that might engender contradictions to
their initial hypothesis and then encourage discussion.
10.Allow wait time after posing questions.
11.Provide time for students to construct relationships and create
metaphors.
12.Nurture students’ natural curiosity through frequent use of the learning
cycle model.

Goals of the Constructivist Classroom

1. Students determine how they will learn.
2. Evaluation of alternative solutions.
3. Realistic tasks are embedded in the learning.
4. Student-centered.
5. Collaboration is valued.
6. Multiple modes of instruction are used.
7. Encourage awareness of the knowledge contraction process (reflection,
metcognition).
Implications and Conclusions:
As noted above, there have been tremendous changes over the last 20 years that
have affected the learning process—tools have changed, learners have changed,
and, as a consequence, teaching methods have also changed. Yet, despite these
tremendous changes, the underlying principles of our “old” theories still remain
relevant. People still learn through stimulus–response associations (for example,
game-based learning) and through practice and feedback opportunities (for
example, computer simulations), as well as through the processes of
collaboration and social negotiation (for example, collaborative wiki writing).
And although learning contexts have changed (from fixed, formal settings to
mobile, informal ones), as have the tools used to facilitate knowledge
construction (from individual, analog tools to social, digital ones),
understanding is very likely still being constructed in ways similar to the past,
only with increasing opportunities to construct that knowledge 24/7. Similarly,
the role of designers remains that of understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of each learning theory in order to optimally select and implement
strategies that support student learning in a variety of contexts. Whether learners
are learning in-transit or storing their knowledge in their friends, learning needs
still emerge (as they have always) “when a person strives to overcome a
problem . . . in everyday activity” (Vavoula, cited in Sharples et al., 2005, p. 5).
What has changed, however, is the type of learning experiences educators and
instructional designers need to create in order to ensure that our learning designs
take advantage of the affordances of current tools to engage learners in ways
that best meet their needs. Quite simply, learning designs for today’s students
must be highly contextualized, personal, and collaborative (Herrington &
Herrington, 2007). Designers must acknowledge and embrace these changes so
that they remain not only relevant, but respected partners (Barone, 2003) in the
ID work required to meet the expectations and needs of today’s learners. As
noted by Herrington and Herrington, “. . . it is the confluence of the advances in
theory and the affordances of technology that create excellent opportunities for
teachers.

References:
https://edtechtheory.weebly.com/cognitivism.html
http://www.learning-theories.com/connectivism-Siemens-Downes.html
https://www.simplypsychology.org/constructivism.html