Before technology became an integrated part of education, behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism were the three broad learning theories that most often regulated instructional environments. As we shift toward a digitally dominated society, we need to reflect how technology has reorganized our daily lives in our classrooms. Traditionally information was obtained in a formal setting, delivered by a trained educator. This is no longer the case. Consider how easy it is to explore a topic online and connect with like-minded people in unconventional learning settings. Knowledge is growing exponentially around the world, and if we expect to shape our students into lifelong learners, we must guide them as they cultivate this knowledge through informal learning.
Behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism were built on the epistemological tradition that they represent learning, which is a means to an end - knowledge being the end. While each theory does have some value in the classroom, we have begun to understand that knowledge has no end, it is infinite and it is chaotic. Behaviorism, although a valid explanation for varying student demeanor, is a superficial indicator of the cerebration of our students. Are they actually absorbing information or are they simply acting out of response to reward and punishment systems, similar to the response of dogs as we train them (Becker, 2015)? That is where cognitivism comes in. This theory seeks to explain the practice of inputting and processing the data presented in the classroom. Albeit cognitivism appears to be concerned with the cogitation development of our students, it is actually comparing them to computers (Siemens, 2004).
Unlike the first two theories, constructivism does not identify knowledge as external. Rather this theory suggests that students create their own knowledge as they use their schema as a foundation to build on with experiences. It is the beginning of this acknowledgement that real-life learning is messy not linear. So, where do we go from here? While I believe creating theories puts limitations on the concept of learning and knowledge, connectivism is the closest we have come to transitioning our thinking and embracing the multiprocessing children are able to do in this digital age of learning (Brown, 2002). This theory captures the complexity and chaos that is networking knowledge. Technology advocates for the flow of information and ideas. It allows people to share their thoughts with collectives and build on each other’s individual thinking through discovery-based learning. Connectivism in the classroom means stepping away from the conventional performance that a teacher used to put on for the students that, let’s be honest, only a handful of students would actually learn from and turning the classroom into a wide open space- a tool for deeper learning among a greater number of people connected by technology (Brown, 2002).
I plan to implement this form of free-range, technology based learning in my classroom. I will allow my students to bring their personal devices and connect to social media in the classroom. I will encourage them to join online communities because these will act as information systems and link them to topics I may not know anything about. It is not my job to hold my students back and tell them what it is I think they should know, it is my job to give them an opportunity to genuinely learn. I feel as though the more relationships we have with sources outside of our physical instructional environment, the less regional our learning will be, leading my students to deeper thinking. Something as simple as skyping with another classroom across the world, once a week, would change the perception of my students and get them asking more questions about the world outside of their “bubble.” Children are curious by nature, I say let them explore and make connections by loosening the reins on this theoretical framework we have built around education. Children are learning from the moment they wake up until they go to bed, so we have to consider the role we play in their lives as educators. We have the ability to control the information they consume for six hours of each day, five days a week. Blurring the lines between what students expect to learn in school and what they learn outside of school will transfer that passion for something external into the classroom, essentially making kids more excited to show up for class.
Behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism were built on the epistemological tradition that they represent learning, which is a means to an end - knowledge being the end. While each theory does have some value in the classroom, we have begun to understand that knowledge has no end, it is infinite and it is chaotic. Behaviorism, although a valid explanation for varying student demeanor, is a superficial indicator of the cerebration of our students. Are they actually absorbing information or are they simply acting out of response to reward and punishment systems, similar to the response of dogs as we train them (Becker, 2015)? That is where cognitivism comes in. This theory seeks to explain the practice of inputting and processing the data presented in the classroom. Albeit cognitivism appears to be concerned with the cogitation development of our students, it is actually comparing them to computers (Siemens, 2004).
Unlike the first two theories, constructivism does not identify knowledge as external. Rather this theory suggests that students create their own knowledge as they use their schema as a foundation to build on with experiences. It is the beginning of this acknowledgement that real-life learning is messy not linear. So, where do we go from here? While I believe creating theories puts limitations on the concept of learning and knowledge, connectivism is the closest we have come to transitioning our thinking and embracing the multiprocessing children are able to do in this digital age of learning (Brown, 2002). This theory captures the complexity and chaos that is networking knowledge. Technology advocates for the flow of information and ideas. It allows people to share their thoughts with collectives and build on each other’s individual thinking through discovery-based learning. Connectivism in the classroom means stepping away from the conventional performance that a teacher used to put on for the students that, let’s be honest, only a handful of students would actually learn from and turning the classroom into a wide open space- a tool for deeper learning among a greater number of people connected by technology (Brown, 2002).
I plan to implement this form of free-range, technology based learning in my classroom. I will allow my students to bring their personal devices and connect to social media in the classroom. I will encourage them to join online communities because these will act as information systems and link them to topics I may not know anything about. It is not my job to hold my students back and tell them what it is I think they should know, it is my job to give them an opportunity to genuinely learn. I feel as though the more relationships we have with sources outside of our physical instructional environment, the less regional our learning will be, leading my students to deeper thinking. Something as simple as skyping with another classroom across the world, once a week, would change the perception of my students and get them asking more questions about the world outside of their “bubble.” Children are curious by nature, I say let them explore and make connections by loosening the reins on this theoretical framework we have built around education. Children are learning from the moment they wake up until they go to bed, so we have to consider the role we play in their lives as educators. We have the ability to control the information they consume for six hours of each day, five days a week. Blurring the lines between what students expect to learn in school and what they learn outside of school will transfer that passion for something external into the classroom, essentially making kids more excited to show up for class.
References
Becker, D. (Professor) (2015, January 6). New Literacy. Media Literacy. Lecture conducted from Lakehead University, Orillia.
Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up: Digital: How The Web Changes Work, Education, And The Ways People Learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 16(2), 11-20. Retrieved January 29, 2015, from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism /2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. ELearn Space. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf
Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up: Digital: How The Web Changes Work, Education, And The Ways People Learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 16(2), 11-20. Retrieved January 29, 2015, from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism /2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. ELearn Space. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf