Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cognitive Learning Theories
Meaningful Learning and Schema theory
University Name: University of the West Indies (Open Campus)
Degree Name: Masters in Instructional Design and Technology
Course Name: Learning Theory and Instructional Design (EDID 6501)
Semester: August - December
2
Meaningful Learning and Schema theory
Learning through cognitivist eyes “the mental processes that individuals undergo as they
think, learn, and perform problem solving and decision making activities” (Leonard, 2002). Sub-
theories include Cognitive Information Processing Theory (CIP), Situated Cognition Theory
(SCT), and Meaningful Learning and Schema Theory (MLST). These share commonalities but
are unique in their own rights.
View of Learning
To begin with, CIP theorists such as George Miller, likened learning to information
processing done by a computer, and identified it as the process of data input, mental processing
and storage and then output (Driscoll, 2005). Learners attend to events, encode and relate the
information collected, thereby processing it, store it into memory for necessary retrieval
(Schunk, 1996). SC theorists like John Seely Brown, saw learning as always situated, and
identified learning not as an internal mental process but rather an activity system in which people
actions and environment interact. It is “the gradual appropriation, through guided participation,
of the ability to participate in culturally defined, socially situated activities and practices”
(Robbins & Aydede, 2009). MRLST proponents like David Ausubel, recognized learning as the
“process of relating potentially meaningful information to what the learner already knows in a
non-arbitrary and substantive way” (Ausubel, 1963 in Johnson & Maddux, 2002). Contrary to
rote learning, meaningful learning occurs when one’s prior knowledge is organized such that
information being received can therein be integrated, understood, and be stored for future
retrieval.
Similarities
3
The commonalities among theories can be explained through the role of prior
knowledge, environment and memory.
Prior knowledge. With SCT, culture and by extension prior knowledge, influences
perception and interpretation and learning. Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) recognized that
“activity also provides experience, which is plainly important for subsequent action.” Schank’s
Dynamic Memory Model suggests that events are understood in terms of scripts, i.e. daily
activity knowledge, or learned patterns of behavior based on the sequence of experience
(Robbins & Aydede, 2009), “other knowledge structures as well as relevant previous
experiences” Experience therefore is necessary for learning. Driscoll (2005) illustrated, how in
CIP, knowledge is constructed both by the presented information and prior knowledge. Input
data is related to schema so that sense is made of the information presented. Of course with
MLST, prior knoweldge is key. Learners use prior knowledge, subsuming new knowledge into
it, to advance the schema. Prior knoweldge therefore is a crucial element of each theory.
Memory. In all three theories, memory plays a major role for without short term or
working memory, knowledge would not be retrieved, integrated into schema and understood.
Memories include short term (STM) or working memory and long term memory (LTM).
Environment/context. The environment also plays a key role. The environment or
context inputs the schema which is needed for processing.
All three theories engage in top down and bottom up processing as they process
information gathered through the senses along with what is stored in memory to derive meaning
(Huit, 2003).
Differences
4
Despite the many commonalities there are differences which include location of
learning, of storage, of memory and of retrieval.
Location. CIP and MRLT share the idea that learning is internal. The learner has to
activate schema and process it in the working memory through chunking or repetition. On the
contrary, SCT explains that meaning is external. Through situated Communities of Practice and
Cognitive Apprenticeship, the shift of focus from the individual to the sociocultural setting and
the activities of the people within that setting can be seen. Knowledge accrues through the lived
practices of the people in a society” (Driscoll, 2005). Learners and their scripts in the setting
create learning.
Storage. By extension therefore, knowledge is stored differently. CIP and MRLT see
knowledge stored in STM and then LTM based on the meaningfulness. SC however, locates
knowledge in the context, in other people. This is one of the reasons why transfer cannot be
explained. If knowledge is created and stored in a situation, how then can it be applied to
another?
Active Learning. The active learning process for each differs. In CIP learners use
repetition to store information. Repetition in the form of maintenance rehearsal keeps
information in STM while elaborative rehearsal or encoding keeps it in LTM. In doing so,
learners use acronyms or mnemonics to help store and retrieve the information. Chunking
together with related materials is another strategy.
Descriptive
While they are all cognitive theories, the one which most describes the learning
environment, and helped teachers describe, monitor and evaluate learning is MLST. It will be
impractical to use SCT to cover the variety and quantity of concepts meaningfully by embedding
5
learning in the social and physical context within which it will be used (Brown et al. 1989, in
Abbey, 2000). Unlike with a computer, CIP theorists need to acknowledge that with humans,
semantics relies on context. MVLT deals with the entire process including retrieval, and is
applicable across a wider range of topics.
MLST illustrates the phases a learner goes though and can set teachers on a path to
create their own models of learning. In the initial phase “the individual encounters a large array
of facts and pieces of information that are more-or-less isolated conceptually” (Shuell, 1990).
Through interaction with concepts he begins to see the relationships among those pieces of
information. Schemata is then developed in this intermediate phases. In the terminal phases
schemata is integrated and subsumed into preexisting schemata and autonomy is developed.
Schemata can be subsumed derivatively or correlatively and in a superordinate, or combinatorial
manner.
Therefore, teachers need to input data using expository teaching, activating prior
knowledge, helping students to connect it to current knowledge and building upon knowledge to
expand schema. Such teaching helps learners deduce meaning, maintain it, integrate it into
preexisting cognitive structure and enable later integrate new learning into it (Ausubel &
Robinson, 1969 in Seel, 2012).
Applicability
So, what are the classroom implications? Expository teaching
Prior Knowledge Activation. Effective instruction demands the activation of prior
knowledge. “It begins with what students already know and continues to remind students of
additional things they know that relate to the topic at hand” (Omrod, 2012). Strategies like
advanced organizer organizers such as anticipation guides, analogies and metaphors, can help
6
“present relevant introductory materials in advance in any format of text, graphics, or
hypermedia” (Ausubel, 1968 in Chen, 2014). Comparative Advance organizers help learners
activate relevant schema bringing it into STM. Expository advance organizers serve a similar
purpose as they help them later make sense of new information in light of prior knowledge.
Skimming. Skimming also helps activate prior knowledge. I teach students to use SQ3R
so that as they survey or skim, examining highlighted text, quotes, titles, pictures they ask ‘What
does this remind me of?’ thus activating schema.
Progressive Differentiation. Additionally progressive differentiation can be used not
only in curriculum arrangement but in classroom teaching. Thus, “the most general ideas of the
discipline should be presented first and then must be progressively differentiated (Ausubel,
1963a) in terms of specificity and detail” (Beiser, 1984). This in essence uses the top down
model of instruction and will allow students to better see the interrelatedness of concepts as well
as their differences, moving from the big picture to the smaller details.
Adjunct Questions. Adjunct questions used in their Social Studies text helps them to
retrieve relevant schemata about the topic in preparation for the next line of reading. In
attending to the questions learners’ link acquiring schema to acquired schema. They back track
and advance the reading to facilitate comprehension and learning. Understanding is improved
and increased as the strategy continued to be used (Peverly & Wood, 2001).
Thus, despite the common basis of these theories, their differences do allow an educator
to broaden the scope of possible approaches to different topics of instruction.
7
References
Abbey, B. (2000). Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based
education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub.
Beiser, E. (1984). Application of Ausubel's Theory of Meaningful Verbal
Learning to Curriculum, Teaching and Learning of Deaf Students.
Speech presented at International Symposium on Cognition,
Education, and Deafness, Washington DC.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the
Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32.
doi:10.2307/1176008
Chen, B. (2014). Advance Organizer. In K. Thompson and B. Chen
(Eds.), Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. Orlando, FL:
University of Central Florida Center for Distributed Learning. Retrieved
October 30, 2016 from https://topr.online.ucf.edu/index.php?
title=Advance_Organizer&oldid=3589
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (Pearson New
International Edition). Essex: Pearson.
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. doi:10.1002/piq.21143
Johnson, D. L., & Maddux, C. D. (2002). The Web in higher education:
Assessing the impact and fulfilling the potential (Vol. 2). CRC Press.
8
Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to
cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta
State University. Retrieved [date]
from,http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/infoproc.html
Leonard, D. C. (2002). Learning Theories: A to Z (Oryx Book). West Port,
Cincinnati: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Ormrod, E. J. (2012). Human learning (6th ed.). New York, New York: Pearson Education.
Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The Effects of Adjunct Questions and Feedback on
Improving the Reading Comprehension Skills of Learning-Disabled
Adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 25-43.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1025
Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated
cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schunk, H. D. (1996). Learning Theories (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.
Seel, N. M. (2012). Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. New York ; Heidelberg: Springer.
Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of Meaningful Learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4),
531. doi:10.2307/1170505