The Relative Strengths of Cognitivism and Constructivism

 

In my field of work, which is web development, the pace of change is quick. Whatever foundational degree anyone may have gained prior to entering the field, would provide only an introduction to the subject. Given the speed of change, it is necessary that programmers remain in a constant state of learning. An additional consequence of this pace of change is the challenge that besets formal educational institutions, who cannot keep pace (Committee on the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrolments, 2018). As a result, it tends to be necessary for developers to conduct their own learning in a self-directed manner, and often from informal sources (The Conference Board of Canada, 2018).

As identified by Garrison (1997), continuous learning is dependent on intrinsic motivation, in order to contribute to meaningful and worthwhile learning (p. 29). Such learning strategies, or the creation of “authentic” learning scenarios, as key factors in contributing to intrinsic motivation, are essential aspects of constructivist learning theory, which became widely adopted by the academic community since the 1970s (Dron, J, & Andreson, 2014, p. 43). Bonk, Hara, Dennen, Malikowski and Supplee (2000) and Chang (2003) indicated that, “with the rising prevalence of the Internet, technological media for teaching and learning are becoming increasingly interactive, widely distributed and collaborative” (as cited in Ruey, 2010, p. 706). Murphy, Mahoney, Chen, Mendoza-Diaz and Yang (2005) found that a constructivist online learning environment, which is collaborative and interactive, as opposed to passive, has been found to be better enable students to learn more actively and effectively (as cited in Ruey, 2010, p. 706). According to Cunningham (1991):

The constructivist view is to show students how to construct knowledge, to promote collaboration with others to show the multiple perspectives that can be brought to bear on a particular problem, and to arrive at self-chosen positions to which they can commit themselves, while realizing the basis of other views with which they may disagree (p. 14, as cited in Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 59).

However, the problem with constructivism is that it is both a theory of learning, as well as a theory of knowledge. McPhail (2106) has shown that constructivism leads to a theory of relativism, against absolutism. This is confirmed by Ertmer and Newby (2013), who describe constructivism as follows: “Since there are many possible meanings to glean from any experience, we cannot achieve a predetermined, ‘correct’ meaning” (p. 55). However, the consequence is, a McPhail reports, that there is a fear of imposing received knowledge, to allow the student to develop their own meaning, ie. “knowledge” according to constructivism. This has contributed to the perception that the teacher should limit their interaction with the student, to allow the student to construct their own meaning, and to supplant what might otherwise be beneficial methods of instruction, because they are perceived as “traditional” and therefore, outmoded (McPhail, 2016).

It is for this reason that the value of constructivism has its limits, and why I agree with Ertmer and Newby, who put forward that each framework has its time and place (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Therefore, without denying the validity of constructivism, my preference would be for cognitivism. I believe that the ascent of cognitivism and constructivism demonstrate that behaviorism’s limited view of the mind was not adaptable to real-world situations. Cognitivism, on the other hand, is not so much an educational approach, but is more pragmatic, as its puts forward an area of investigation which attempts to define how the mind processes information, without the epistemological complications found in constructivism. In my impression, constructivism can help us understand how learning can be improved or facilitated, but it is cognitivism which can help us understand the mental processes of learning.

According to Garrison (1997), “it is imperative that we create conditions where students become increasingly motivated by authentic interest and desire to construct personal meaning and shared understanding (worthwhile knowledge).” (p. 29). While constructivism can help provide tools that accentuate collaborative learning, it is cognitivism that will help us explore how the mind works to determine how a student motivation is either inspired or can be negatively impacted.

 

References

Conference Board of Canada (2018, January 31). Canadian Employers’ Investment in Employee Learning and Development Continues to Rise. Retrieved from https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/2018/01/31/canadian-employers-investment-in-employee-learning-and-development-continues-to-rise?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Committee on the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrolments (2018). Assessing and Responding to the Growth of Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments. Consensus Study Report.

Dron, J, & Andreson, T. (2014). Teaching Crowds: Learning and Social Media. Athabasca University Press.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism,constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq

Garrison, D. . (1997). Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369704800103

McPhail, G. (2016). The fault lines of recontextualisation: The limits of constructivism in education. British Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3199

Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x