I thought when I started reading about behaviorism and
cognitivism that they would be dependent on one another. It turns out one can
be present and the other part is still at a low level. Behavioral engagement is
defined as the action a learner takes during an instructional episode (Clark
and Mayer, 2011). In distance education,
the behavior could be pressing the forward button on the keyboard or verbally
responding to a question and getting involved in an online discussion. Then
cognitive learning can be defined as paying attention to material and then
connecting the new knowledge to prior knowledge (Clark and Mayer, 2011).
When a student has high level of behavioral engagement, it
does not necessarily mean that they will have a high level of cognitive processing.
On the opposite hand, a student can watch a very informative video, which does
not require any behavior engagement but it can lead to high levels of cognitive
engagement (Clark and Mayer, 2011).
There are strengths and weaknesses to both arguments.
Students could go through the motions of participating in an online course or
in a face-to-face course but not be actively engaged. This is the strength of
the argument, because the students could look like they are working but just
going through the motions and not retaining the information. This would be
evident when the students take an assessment, and the teacher could connect
this information to the student’s behavioral performance. The weaknesses in
this argument are that usually when a student is behaviorally engaged then
usually they will be cognitively engaged. It is hard to go through motions,
especially in a face-to-face setting without a good level of understanding of
the content. Most of my students who are behaviorally engaged are cognitively
engaged as well in high school math class. The students who are not cognitively
engaged are typically not behaviorally engaged either.
This is why it is important to develop meaningful media
elements to engage students in an online setting (Clark and Mayer, 2011).
Students could fall into a trap of going through the motions and their
cognition of the content is not high.
Reference:
Clark, Ruth, Mayer, Richard. (2011). E-Learning and the
Science of Instruction. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
You are so right about the theories working together. Sometimes when trying to decide which theory works best for whatever I am researching, I find that multiple theories work. I can definitely see how behaviorism and constructivism could work together. In fact, a lot of what I have done in other classes help me to succeed in my current class. That is part of constructivism. EDUC 701 and 703 have helped me understand exactly what my professors are asking me to accomplish when they ask me to base everything I plan on a learning theory. That's part of the "construct" in constructivism. That's why we have pre-requisites to our classes because the new knowledge does depend upon the prior knowledge. I have had to take 3 classes on campus for the Ed.D. program I am finishing up this semester (before Comps) and I have heard several people who did not go to Liberty say that they didn't have certain things in their Ed.S. that we did here at Liberty. They were concerned about taking the Comps because they didn't feel prepared enough. Or maybe they did have the same courses but sometimes we just get in the habit of checking off things and not necessarily actively participating. It is possible to go through courses and not be changed. If a student is in it just for a grade and to move forward, then constructivism is not the main theory. It could be more towards behaviorism (if I'm thinking through this properly). What do you think about that? Do you think I am interpreting these theories correctly?
ReplyDelete