Constructivism, Cognitivism, and Behaviorism are all great theories; I think they differ based on materialism and idealism. This means, two of the ideologies (behaviorism and cognitivism) are based on the matter world while the other one (Constructivism) is based on the center of our minds and cognition.
when I was studying these three ideologies, I paid attention to the ideology-targeted subject, and use logic to see whether the demonstrated process is necessary through learning.
After reading, I prefer behaviorism to cognitivism and constructivism in my study plan based on my social experience. Constructivism may sound very ideal and logically make sense. However, it is not necessary throughout the process. I can use a very simple example to counter this theory: There was a boy who studies mathematics and physics in a Chinese middle school. He has no experience with how society works. However, he used more than 90 hours studying per week. There are strong stimulation and feedback between the student and teacher, so the student still successfully becomes the provincial top 200s in math and physics probably. He was not affected by social practice and background. Constructivism is still one of my favorites because it argues from the purpose of studying to the method of studying.
In practice, I believe cognitive, behavioral, and constructive education theory demands a cohort study across ages, education levels, nationality, and other factors to find the best solution for education. From the reading in the article, I believe cognitivism and behaviorism are more suitable for education which does not require students to obtain sufficient social experience to achieve goals, and constructivism is vice versa.
In our group assignment, I believe my education method is more constructive rather than behavioral and cognitive. This is because I used the reading-analysis-debate-reflect strategy to help students understand the current risk and benefits of using AI tech for healthcare. This topic requires you to have a strong social experience, cultural knowledge, and basic technical knowledge to have a strong debate result. You must use current data in the healthcare society to prove it as well. My topic aims to educate and promote analysis skills, communication skills, and other business core competencies in real life. Moreover, my education target is mostly university colleagues. Therefore, I believe I am using constructivism is more meaningful for the students.
I agree with your points. In our test-based education, I have to say that behaviorism is the best strategy to help us save time and achieve high scores. However, we would prefer some knowledge to stay in our brains longer after graduation, and that’s when I think it might work better to combine knowledge and experience. In my teaching goals, I’d like students to understand more about definitions such as why it is the way it is, rather than it just being the way it is.
I completely agree with the idea of each theory has its own sort of designated learning properties. Learning oftentimes for me is difficult when the non-effective theory is utilized. For instance, using the boy that studies mathematics and physics as a base; I believe that if constructivism was thrown in the mix during his learning, it will ultimately hinder him on the road to reaching his goal. However, if he goes on learning on a real-world basis, then I believe that constructivism will increase his flexibility when approached with problems, as it requires more than just “dead knowledge.” I might be thinking too extreme, please do correct me if I made any wrongful understandings with your post; I will always be learning.
Hi Jing Qian,
Great work.
I cannot agree any more. Although constructivism is very schematic with a good pattern, it does not match reality. As your example said, even through the boy learn to do well through constructivism, this does not mean that he can achieve the same success in the work. Compared with learning, work requires more complex problems to face than study, which is not be solved by constructivism.
Hi Jing! Thank you for sharing your ideas on learning theories! I appreciate your examples too!
However, Constructivism, Cognitivism, and Behaviorism are all theories of learning that attempt to explain how people learn. While they all have different approaches, they are all focused on understanding how learning occurs in different contexts.
Constructivism is a theory that emphasizes the importance of learners actively constructing their own understanding of new knowledge and concepts. This theory suggests that learning is more effective when learners are engaged in activities that require them to actively participate in the learning process.
Cognitivism is a theory that focuses on how the brain processes information and how this processing affects learning. This theory suggests that learning is most effective when learners are able to connect new information to existing knowledge and experiences.
Behaviourism is a theory that emphasizes the role of reinforcement in learning. This theory suggests that learning is most effective when learners are provided with rewards or punishments for their behaviour. While this theory has some limitations, it has been useful in explaining how people learn in certain situations.
Overall, each of these theories has its own strengths and weaknesses, and educators must consider what approach will be most effective for their learners and their specific learning goals.
Thank you for your comments!
I strongly agree with you about the example that you made(the Chinese middle school), behaviorism is definitely very useful and effective when it comes to exam-oriented education. Given stimuli and the response is a quick way of rote learning, and I personally think it is effective. I believe that cognitivism is more suitable for students to have the ability to structure a system of learning in their minds so that even when they forget the response of the stimuli, they could figure it out again using the mind map in their memory.