Since the 1960s, cognitive psychology has dominated research into the phenomenon of learning. As a result, many of the instructional and teaching methods, strategies, and tactics we use today are rooted in the cognitivist paradigm.
Cognitivism

Table of Contents

Introduction

Until the 1960s, psychology and behavioral psychology were synanomous. Cognitive psychologists challenged this assumption, asserting that the brain is not a 'black box' and that mental processes can and should be studied empirically. Cognitivists generally try to uncover and model the learner's mental processes. While it shares behaviorism's objectivist/positivist assumptions about knowledge and research, cognitivism differs in that it views learning as an active (not passive) process that is governed by the individual's mental processes (not environmental stimuli).

Cognitive learning theories typically describe knowledge in terms of information processing: i.e., encoding symbolic information (e.g., letters, numbers, images, etc.) into short-term memory, assimilating it into the brain's knowledge structures (schema) and storing it for later retrieval. This idea of learning as an input-processing-output model has mirrored the development of computer processors.

Teaching and Instructional design theories and models that are based on cognitive learning theories often prescribe ways of presenting information that will improve retrieval (e.g., Gagne's Events of Instruction). Other theories and models address issues of motivation (e.g., ARCS Model), perception (e.g., Gestalt Theory) and attitude change (e.g., Cognitive Dissonance Theory).

Gestalt Theory

Gestalt psychology was founded in 1910 by three German psychologists, Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Köhler. Initially inspired by the "apparent movement" of early motion picture devices (called zoetropes), their theory has had significant impact inside of cognitive psychology, contributing to our understanding of perception and problem-solving and providing the theoretical foundations for the later emergence of cognitive psychology, as well as of outside of psychology, spawning its own movement in modern art and design.

Essentially, Wertheimer and his colleagues assert that psychological phenomena should not be studied merely in terms of their individual impact. Instead, components should be considered in relation to their gestalt (a German word meaning configuration).

Before developing the theory, Wertheimer had studied in Prague with an Austrian philosopher named Christian von Ehrenfels. In his 1890 paper titled "On Gestalt Qualities," von Ehrenfels points out that if you play 6 notes to form a melody, then change the notes (e.g., to a different key), you still recognize the melody even though the individual parts are different. This inspired Max Wertheimer (1924) to ask:

"Is it really true that when I hear a melody I have a sum of individual tones (pieces) which constitute the primary foundation of my experience? Is not perhaps the reverse of this true? What I really have, what I hear of each individual note, what I experience at each place in the melody is apart which is itself determined by the character of the whole."

In describing Gestalt Theory, Wertheimer (1924) wrote:

"The fundamental 'formula' of Gestalt theory might be expressed in this way. There are wholes, the behaviour of which is not determined by that of their individual elements, but where the part-processes are themselves determined by the intrinsic nature of the whole. It is the hope of Gestalt theory to determine the nature of such wholes."

For instructional designers and instructors, Gestalt Theory stresses the importance of looking at the big picture... the contributions of each element of instruction to the overall configuration, perception, and feelings invoked by the instructional treatment. For example, in developing instruction for problem-solving skills (involving an ill-structured task), Gestalt theory implores us to use a holistic approach, such as goal-based scenarios, rather than attempting to break that skill down into a list of problem-solving behaviors which we know cannot hope to encompass the entire realm of pertinent behaviors.

In addition, by way of enhancing our knowledge of visual perception, Gestalt theories are exemplified in many of our best practices related to the development of instructional media (e.g., in the use of color, graphics, animations, video, lines, lighting, and spacing just to name a few).

Schema Theory (click here for summary by Susan Colaric)

Schema theory is a major theoretical anchorage common to many cognitive theories. Schema are complex, interconnect knowledge structures (relationships) that exist in the long-term memory storage regions of the brain. Bartlett (1932) asserts that schema are built up over time in a network pattern of propositions and expand as we interact with the world around us. While these structures are affected by the our sensory perceptions, conversely, our schema color our perceptions as we interact with the world.

According to Rumelhart & Norman (1981), learning takes place as schemata accommodate to new perceptions. This accomdation can take on any of three forms:

Mayer (1989) extended this concept of schema to instructional design by asserting that learners should develop good mental models of a knowledge area so that they can build good schema structures. Mental models, cognitive models, semantic models, and thinking models all generally refer to the practice graphically describing the relationships among related concepts. For Mayer, a good mental model should indicate causal relationships and should be broad and abstract enough (yet also concise and concrete) to encompass the entire knowledge domain and be useful.

Even as behaviorism was growing into the role of the predominant learning and instructional paradigm of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, a different philosophical movement was taking hold within psychology: cognitivism. Cognitivists believe that while behavior is important, it is not solely a product of stimulus and response. Instead, it involves an information processing (Miller, 1956) system through which human experiences (stimuli) interact with pre-existing knowledge, which is organized in mental constructs known as schema (Bartlett, 1932).

Bartlett's schema theory proposes that learning is a change in mental states (not a change in behavior) that occurs when the learner is confronted by an experience (stimulus) that does not match his/her existing schemata or schema. In this situation, one of three potential kinds of learning can take place: accretion, schema tuning, and schema building (Note: I'm not sure about the name of this last one). Accretion involves integrating the new experience into existing schema by molding the experience to fit our schema (e.g., when we rationalize a behavior). Schema tuning means that the schema are adjusted in order for the new experience to fit into it (e.g., we change our beliefs). When our brains are unable to reconcile new experiences by modifying the experience or schema, a new schemata or a set of schema need to be created and added to the framework of our minds. It is a learning theory because it describes what learning is (a change in mental states) and how learning takes place (through an interaction between human experience and pre-existing schema).

Schema theory in conjunction with information processing theory has been widely applied in cognitive psychology. The use of exemplars and non-exemplars, a feature found in elaboration theory (Regeluth et al, 1978, 1983), is a simple example. A more controversial application of schema theory involves cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1972). Festinger suggests that the dissonance caused by new experiences that significantly contradict our current schema can be used to leverage a significant change in mental state (learning). For example, in the affective domain, when delivering diversity and sexual harassment training, it is a common practice to confront commonly held misconceptions, biases, beliefs, cultural norms, and attitudes with compelling pieces of new information and/or experiences (e.g., statistics, role play activities, powerful images, etc.). The purpose of this confrontation, presumably, is to create a certain amount of discomfort for the learner. Do I accept the new information that contradicts my own beliefs, or do I reject the information and cling to my own beliefs? Or, do I reconcile the two through rationalization? The technique, when used effectively, can lead to a significant change in mental state, which in turn influences behavior (e.g., if their attitudes about sexual harassment are changed, hopefully they are less likely to engage in inappropriate behaviors).

Cognitive Processing Theories

According to Winn and Snyder (1996), there are generally three families of cognitive processes, each involving a different type of change in our mental representations and therefore each involving a different kind of learning.

Expertise Theory (click here for summary by Susan Colaric)

Winn & Snyder (1996) assert that as we work with knowledge over time -- going from novice towards expert -- our schemata not only expand significantly, they work more effectively and efficiently. With experience and repeated exposure to the idiosynchrasies of even the most complex tasks, we move from a simplistic and somewhat rigid understanding to a flexible and dynamic mental model that enables almost automatic reactions to the most unusual of problems.

According to Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1997), these stages are:

Development Theories


(Left to right: Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Erik Erikson)

Jean Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development Theory (1896-1980) is among the most influential cognitvist theories in the educational arena. Piaget sets limits on learning and influences the type of learning that should occur at each of the four stages in cognitive (scheme-building) development he identified: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operations

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) built onto Piaget's theory the idea that developmental processes often lag behind learning processes. His Zone of Proximal Development Theory explains the gray area between the sensorimotor and preoperational stages of Piaget's model, where children can perform tasks with help even though they lack the cognitive development to accomplish tasks on their own. Social interaction is the key (hence the connection with the social constructivist movement).

Erik Erikson's Psychological Development Theory is similar to Piaget's in that both represent linear stages that each of us must go through. However, in Erikson's model, each of the eight stages involves a conflict of some sort between two aspects.

Instructional Design Theories

(Left to right: Jerome Bruner, Robert Gagne)

Jerome Bruner's Discovery Learning Theory is an instructional method in which thinking skills are developed and in which students are given data, asked to identify problems, generate hypotheses, test each hypothesis, and apply their conclusions to novel situations.

David Ausubel's Reception Learning Theory asserts that knowledge should be learned deductively, not inductively as Bruner suggests. He stresses the need for advanced organizers and meaningfully sequenced expository lessons that describe similarities and differences through examples.

John Keller's ARCS Model provides a basic recipe for addressing motivational issues in instructional settings. He suggests that there are four major categories of motivational strategies: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction.

According to Robert Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction Theory, there are nine events that activate mental processes needed for effective learning to take place. This is often seen as a cookbook recipe for success in delivering instruction. See also the following links

http://ide.ed.psu.edu/idde/9events.htm
Cognitivism: Robert Gagne's Events of Instruction

http://mentor.coe.uwf.edu/AdvID/gagne2.htm
Cognitivism: Gagné’s Theory of Instruction

http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/idhistory/cognitivism.html
Cognitivism: Cognitivism and Gagne's Model of Learning

Taxonomies of Learning

Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Outcomes hierarchically categorizes the various types of mental processes that are dealt with in instructional settings. The taxonomy is useful for categorize learning objectives and test items. Click here for a bibliography of Bloom's work.

Richard Mayer (1999) described three types of learning that have emerged in the last 100 years:

Dave Merrill's Component Display Theory (CDT) and Instructional Transaction Theory (ITT) (see Merrill, 1999) both provide alternate taxonomies of learning outcomes (combining elements from Bloom's taxonomy and Gagne's events of instruction). Merrill's theories are driven by a desire to "automate the instructional-design process" (Merrill, 1999: p. 399) through the use of knowledge objects. With CDT, he defines four verbs: find, use, remember generality, and remember instance, as well as four types of subject matter: fact, concept, procedure, and principle. His theory placed the lists in a matrix and attempted to address the question of how to design instruction for each instance e.g., using a fact, finding a fact, etc.). In ITT, Merrill simplifies the model to include four basic learning activities: exploration (of learning environments), IDENTIFY transactions, EXECUTE transactions, and INTERPRET transactions. These are the basic designs for knowledge objects.

The following is a comparison chart reproduced from Jonassen & Hannum (1995: p. 201):

Comparison of Taxonomies of Learning

Bloom
(1956)
Gagne
(1966, 1977)
Leith
(1970)
Merrill*
(1983)
Mager & Breach
(1967)
Stimulus discrimination
Knowledge Information Response learning Facts Memorization
Response Integration
Procedures Procedural
Comprehension Concrete concepts Learning set formation Comprehension
Defined concepts Concept learning Concepts
Application Rules
Analysis Principles Principles
Hypothetico-deductive inference
Learning schemata
Synthesis Problem solving
Cognitive strategies
Evaluation
Affective domain Attitudes Attitude development
Psychomotor domain Motor skills
* At task level: remember, use, and find

 

Paradigm Wars: Part 1
Cognitivism vs Behaviorism

The field of psychology did not shift from behaviorism to cognitivism overnight. Rather, it involved a subtle drift towards cognitivism as more and more behaviorists began to give over to the idea that perhaps mental processes are impacted by external stimuli and that mental processes do in turn impact behavior. According to Leahey's (1987) book, A history of psychology, the primary catalyst for this shift was sharp critique of Watson's 1913 manifesto by Chomsky (1959). Chomsky's landmark paper criticized the philosophy of behaviorism on several grounds, including its inability to explain creativity and its failure to account for all of the variables that impact behavior (i.e., mental processes).

Chomsky's critique opened the door for cognitive pioneers, such as Jerome Bruner and George Miller, to assert that psychologists can and should study mental processes (see Miller, 1957).

http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~yangyc/index/theory/basic/basic_cognitivism.html
Cognitivism: The Rise of Cognitivism

http://www.geocities.com/learningenvironments/questions.html
Cognitivism: Paradigm Quiz

Since that time, cognitivism has taken a firm hold in psychology, stimulating a broad array of research into mental processes and sensations. However, cognitivism is not without its share of criticism. The following are links to articles that criticize cognitivism and are representative of both the parting shots of retreating behaviorists and the initial salvos fired by constructivists calling for a second paradigm war.

http://web.utk.edu/~wverplan/cognitivism.html
Cognitivism: Verplanck, W.S. Cognitivism, as an Operation-Analytic Behaviorist Views It

http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Foundations.Cognition/0127.html
Cognitivism: Lucas, M. Against Cognitivism

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-1/text/miall.commentary.html
Cognitivism: Miall, D.S. Beyond cognitivism: Studying readers

http://www2.educ.ksu.edu/Faculty/McGrathD/Spring98/StudentCogProjects/constructivism.htm
Cognitivism: Zakari, M. CONSTRUCTIVISM: IS IT THE LAST PARADIGM SHIFT "WAR?"

Links

http://www.uib.no/People/sinia/CSCL/web_struktur-834.htm
Cognitivism: CSCL - A brief overview & interesting links for further study

http://www.homestead.com/peoplelearn/cognition.html
Cognitivism: Pretty nice overview of a whole bunch of Cognitivist thoeries and models

http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/s/m/smc258/KB/Cognitivism.html
Cognitivism: Winn, W. and Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive Perspectives in Psychology (ch. 5) in D.H. Jonassen's (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster... Susan Colaric's knowledge base.

http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/strategies/cognitivism/cognitivism.htm
Cognitivism: Bates, T.A. The Cognitivist Epistemology and its Implications for Instructional Design

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~i75202/lect12/lect1299.htm#Gestalt
Cognitivism: Nice overview... includes Gestalt theorists

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html
Cognitivism: Psychology of Communication: learning

http://www.duq.edu/~tomei/ed711psy/cognitive.htm
Cognitivism: An Examination of Cognitivism: The Psychology of Knowledge and Strategies

http://www.educ.drake.edu/doc/pedagogy/student_papers/craig_reed/defcog.html
Cognitivism: Counterpoint

http://csmaclab-www.cs.uchicago.edu/philosophyProject/chomsky/C3.html
Cognitivism: CHOMSKY, COGNITIVISM, AND CARNAP

http://academic.udayton.edu/elearning/onlineTraining/InstructionalDesign/Models/Cognitivism.htm
Cognitivism: Basics of Cognitivism

http://www.cocc.edu/cbuell/theories/cognitivism.htm
Cognitivism: Comparison with Behaviorism and Constructivism

http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/picker.htm
Cognitivism: Pickering, J. Buddhism and cognitivism: A postmodern appraisal

http://www.personalityresearch.org/cogsocial.html
Cognitivism: Cognitive Social Theories from Great Ideas in Personality series

References

Chomsky, N. (1959) Review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal behavior. Language 35, 26-58.

Dreyfus, H.L. & Dreyfus, S.E. (1997). Analysis versus intuition in the classroom: A model of expertise and the role of computers in achieving it (Chapter 40). In C.R. Dills and A.J. Romiszowski's (Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Jonassen, D.G. & Hannum, W.H. (1995). Analysis of task analysis procedures (Chapter 15). In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future (Second edition). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Mayer, R.E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1) 43-46.

Merrill, M.D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (ITT): Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C.M. Reigeluth's (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Miller, G. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist 17: 748-62.

Leahey, T. (1987) A history of psychology: Main currents in psychological thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mayer, R.E. (1999). Designing Instruction for Constructivist Learning (Chapter 7). In C.M. Reigeluth's (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Novak, J.D. (1997). Ausubel's assimilation theory and metacognitive tools as a foundation for instructional design (Chapter 24). In C.R. Dills and A.J. Romiszowski's (Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Paivio, A. (1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 32-38.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). The Elaboration Theory: Guidance for Scope and Sequence Decisions (Chapter 18) in C.M. Reigeluth's (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skinner, B.F. (1957) Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wertheimer, M. (1924). Über Gestalttheorie [an address before the Kant Society, Berlin, '7th December, 1924], Erlangen, 1925. In the translation by Willis D. Ellis published in his "Source Book of Gestalt Psychology," New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1938. Reprinted by the Gestalt Journal Press, New York 1997. Available [online] on 1/21/2002 at http://www.enabling.org/ia/gestalt/gerhards/wert1.html.

Winn, W. & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive Perspectives in Psychology (Chapter 5). In D.H. Jonassen's (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. NY: Simon & Schuster.