Last week we looked at Behaviorism
as a learning theory and established that much of its ideas are still very
alive in everyday classrooms, and life.
However, by the latter half of the twentieth century, scholars like
Gagne, Bloom, and Anderson began looking beyond what was simply observable in a
lab. As opposed to Behaviorism,
Cognitivists believed that: “Changes in behavior are observed, but only as an
indication of what is occurring in the learner’s head” (Learning Theories
Knowledgebase, 2012). In other words, we
are not just programmed to spit out a specific response to every stimulus. Rather, there are cognitive processes that
actively occur. According to Orey
(Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) cognitive learning theory is really a
collective of theories describing how the brain processes and stores information. This week we looked into two instructional
strategies based around cognitive learning theory. I would like to take a moment to review these
strategies as to their relation to the learning theory and application into my
own classroom.
The first broad instructional
strategy we will look at is called Cues, Questions, and Advanced Organizers by
Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007).
By their own definition this strategy: “Focuses on enhancing students’
ability to retrieve, use, and organize information about a topic” (p. 73). This definition lends itself directly toward
the cognitive learning theory as it focuses on information processing and
storing. Though the name of the strategy
may seem daunting, it really comes down to different ways of organizing
information so that students may access it more efficiently and make important
links. The “cues” and “questions” are really built in to various forms of “advanced
organizers.” Though Pitler et al.
discuss many technologies we can use to do this, they can essentially be summed
into three larger categories.
The first of these is Word
Processors. As an educator this is what
most of us use to create the charts and tables we may call advanced
organizers. One idea I have not thought
of is the use of a brochure for a field trip or other learning experience. According to Pitler et al. (2007), a teacher
could have students add all sorts of information from maps to agendas to
interesting facts.
A second technology they discussed
was the use of spreadsheets as advanced organizers. Pitler et al. (2007) recommend this mostly in
conjunction with a rubric. Easy to set
up formulas would allow students and teachers to plug in scores for categories
established in a rubric. This format is
now easily calculated, saved, and duplicated for further use.
Finally Pitler et al. (2007) discuss technologies that organize
information for us. At one end of this spectrum,
we have programs like Inspiration that allow students and teachers to create
all types of graphic organizers. This is
where the use of explicit cues and proper questioning techniques is
essential. From these, students are able
to expand and analyze information while seeing the connections between it
all. They all discuss the use of other
media that allows student to make visual-mental links to information, whether
they are video sites, interactive tutorials, or maps of the stars. This works well with Orey’s (2011) explanation
the dual coding hypothesis, as students are able to link visual images with the
linguistic data they are processing.
This visual image does not only have to be a picture (ex: of a cat), but
could also be an image of a graphic organizer which allows them so see
connections).
The second strategy we will look at
is titled by Pitler et al. (2007) as Summarizing and Note Taking. As the name says, this technique focuses: “On
helping students separate important information from extraneous information and
state the information in their own words” (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 119). Again, we find this strategy to be in line
with cognitive learning theory as it focuses on students’ processing and
storing information. As I am focusing
primarily on the technologies that assist in this, I will again break this
learning strategy into three broad categories.
Yet again, the first deals with an
educator’s weapon of choice, a Word Processor. They encourage the use of multiple note taking
formats for maximum retention. For example,
students may write down notes supported by pictures. In addition, they have to summarize the information,
which helps improve comprehension. This
technique is called using “combination notes.”
Similar note taking techniques are described using other mediums, such
as PowerPoint, but the main idea is the same.
One feature I was unaware of in Word is the AutoSummarize tool. Though I have not tried it yet, it supposedly
does exactly what the name explains. I
am a little weary of this, but am excited to try it out, especially on the
newer versions Word.
The second general category, and
the one I am most excited about is the use of organizing and brainstorm
software. Pitler et al. (2007) describe
several specifics ways to use concept maps to improve student
understanding. All of them start out
with key questions or topics that branch into smaller sections. I am not going to go into each type, but
rather discuss them all as great ways to: “Help learners visualize ideas and
connections between ideas” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). The best techniques appear to involve the
teacher setting up the main nodes of the graphic organizer. From here, they leave holes for students to
either fill in, create, or expand on. In
any case, it moves notes from a linear, often hard to follow, format to one
that more closely resembles the connections our minds make when accessing and
storing information.
Finally, Pitler et al. (2007)
describe the use of communication software to help students organize and
summarize learning, namely: wikis and blogs.
As I have discussed these at length in this blog already, I will not go
into a ton of detail other than saying that these are great mediums for
requiring students to take a chunk of knowledge, analyze what is important, and
summarize what they have learned. The
advantage of these programs is that they are interactive, allowing for input
from people anywhere in the world to help continue the conversation and advance
learning.
In the end, I feel we have seen
many great examples of learning strategies that closely align with cognitive
learning theory. We have also seen that
technology appears to be paramount in maximizing these strategies effects. Even though many examples were covered, I
believe we are only scratching the surface in terms of both software and
applications. I encourage you to
continue exploring what is out there and ask that if you find any golden
nuggets you return to share with us here.
Resources:
Laureate Education, Inc.
(Producer). (2011). Cognitive Learning Theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory
Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Theories Knowledgebase
(2012). Cognitivism at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved March 14th, 2012 from
http://www.learning-theories.com/cognitivism.html
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M.,
& Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that
works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
