ECS 203 Blog Post #4
In this week’s articles, we learned about three particular educational approaches: Behaviourism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. I will briefly explain my understanding of these topics and use direct quotes from each article to explain further what each approach means.
What is behaviourism?
“At the heart of behaviourism is the idea that certain behavioural responses become associated in a mechanistic and invariant way with specific stimuli. Thus a certain stimulus will evoke a particular response.” (Skinner, Pg.1) In relation to education, behaviorism can be the response students have to the bell ringing for recess. Behaviorism can also be students expressing certain appreciated behaviors to receive material rewards.
What is cognitivism?
” cognitivist approach would mean for instance focusing on teaching learners how to learn, on developing stronger or new mental processes for future learning, and on developing deeper and constantly changing understanding of concepts and ideas.” (Bloom, Pg.1) In education, the goal is to help students understand concepts that will continue to help them flourish in their day-to-day lives. Much of the curriculum aims to implement a foundation of skills at a young age that students continue to build on throughout their educational journey.
What is Constructivism?
“Constructivists believe that meaning or understanding is achieved by assimilating information, relating it to our existing knowledge, and cognitively processing it” (Rodgers, pg.1). In this view, students take what they already know and relate it to new information they gather. So, for example, learning the alphabet engages us in letter exploration, then we start forming words with the letters, and from there, we can construct sentences.
After learning what these approache terms meant, I started reflecting on my educational journey and how some of my previous teachers used these psychological techniques to structure my education. In my younger years of schooling, a cognitivist approach was focused on. I was taught the basic knowledge I would need through my schooling, and eventually, the concepts would get more profound with each passing grade, but the main focus of my teachers was growing a solid foundation to build. A teacher of mine once told me, “Education is like a house; you have to have a strong foundation to continue building onto; if you don’t, the structure will be crooked and unsteady.”
Most of the aforementioned terms follow a process and product approach. Cognitivism and Constructivism heavily mention how vital a solid learning structure is; both methods are intended to help students grow from the knowledge they already have (by either getting them to relate new knowledge to old knowledge or by furthering skills students have and working harder to master these skills). The terms we discuss in these articles are looking for similar outcomes; they want students to come out with the same set of information and skills. As time passed, my teacher’s approach became more constructivist. Throughout my higher education, I was often tasked with “comparing and contrasting” new knowledge and previous learnings. In conclusion, there are many different approaches teachers use to educate their students. Using a mix of methods gives students a better quality of education and more flexible ways of learning.
Work Cited
Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company
Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Skinner, B. (1968) The Technology of Teaching, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts
One thought on “ECS 203 Blog Post #4”
Hi Alea!
I found your post very insightful. I liked how you provided direct quotes from the readings to explain the approaches and then expanded on them from an educational standpoint. I particularly enjoyed your connection to constructivism regarding the alphabet-to-sentence knowledge progression. It is an excellent example of connecting prior knowledge to new information over a longer period. My examples were all short-term-based, so it was interesting to think about an elongated form of constructivism.
I also liked how you included your teacher’s analogy of education being like a house, with a strong foundation being crucial for future growth. That is a great way to illustrate the cognitivist approach and its importance. By building a solid knowledge base, students are more equipped to understand, engage, and progress with more complex concepts.
In the last paragraph, you mention that the approaches mainly follow the process and product curriculum orientations. On the contrary, I would argue that the constructivist approach follows more of a praxis model. Constructivism recognizes that learning is an active way of constructing knowledge through interactions with the environment. Similarly, the praxis model emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for students to engage in hands-on experiences (active learning) that allow them to connect to real-world situations. However, I would like to know more about why you think it relates better to the product and process orientations!
You also make a great point that using a combination of educational methods can provide students with a more comprehensive and flexible learning experience.
Great post!
Hayleigh