Based on my personal learning experiences I believe only one out of the three experiences actually involved cognitivism or connectivism. It seems to me, that my high school experience was the one that took cognitivism and connectivism into the most account.  Our teacher based our research process on information that we had already received and expanded from there. She allowed us to work together to exchange different ideas while contrasting our persuasive essays, which was very beneficial seeing that not everyone you spoke to had the same opinion as you.  We were also tasked with solving the problem of how we will research and track our research, with the teacher offering examples that catered to all different types of learns.  This process was mainly based on information and experiences that you already knew or had, but needed to dive deeper into and justify your opinions about.  We also were required to reflect on our experience after writing the paper, that way we could truly think about what we did well and what we could improve on.

The other two learning experiences we quite bland or there was no true objective.  In the elementary lesson we were only shown a video.  We were not instructed to take notes, but only to watch.  Though we did later write a research paper about LASIK, it was all on our own, with minimal input from the teacher or peers.  The professional development example consisted of being lectured for 45 minutes.  There was no discussion, collaboration, or justification to this learning.  It would have turned into cognitive and connective learning in both accounts if the teacher or facilitator had allowed students to collaborate and exchange ideas.  It could have also been improved if we were allowed to explore more about the topic.  While the elementary experience did allow us to explore more, there was no guidance along with it.