Learning Theory Overview

Cognitivism is a learning theory that focuses on the process of cognition and knowledge-building, emphasizing the process of knowledge over its output. Psychologists Jerome Bruner (who also played a key role in constructivism with his Scaffolding Theory) and Albert Bandura have developed important pieces of this theory, and have built off of their predecessors, Pavlov's Classical Conditioning and Skinner's Operant Conditioning, to speak to the role of knowledge-creation by learners beyond simple stimuli.

The Role of Perception (Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman)

Bruner and his colleague, Leo Postman, were interested in the role of perception in learning, and how it is influenced by both environmental as well as experiential factors. A study of theirs came to the "major conclusion...that perceptual organization is powerfully determined by expectations built upon past commerce with the environment" (1949). Rather than humans learning new information and demonstrated new behaviors in a rote way, based exclusively on their present environment, Bruner noted the importance of the "past commerce" one may have had with their environment. Humans are not blank slates as they come to learn new information, but rather, are influenced and create new perceptions based off of their prior experiences in addition to their current environment.

Social Cognitivism (Albert Bandura)

Bandura advanced important ideas about the role that others play in a learning environment, in particular, the role of observational learning--where learners (particularly children) "adopt" (McLeod, 2019) particular behaviors of those around them from whom they are learning. There is an additional important component that Bandura emphasized, which is the process of learning through the process of mediation. A stimulus or external education occurs, and then, critically, the learner takes factors such as their will, ability, memory, and overall observation of the behavior into account, before the learner behavior is demonstrated (McLeod, 2019). This type of cognitivism that explicitly "takes thought processes into account and acknowledges the role that they play in deciding if a behavior is to be imitated or not" is called social cognitivism.

Additionally, Bandura noted the roles of agency and self-efficacy, and even moral agency which are critical to understanding human learning and behavior (Bandura 2005). He stated that "After people adopt a standard of morality, their self-sanctions for actions that match or violate their personal standards serve as regulatory self-influences" (Bandura, 2005). Humans are different from Pavlov's dog and Skinner's rat--they are influenced by themselves, their beliefs, their standards, and they use those to modulate, change, direct, regulate, and motivate their behavior.

A bedrock of social cognitive theory is that "people do not live their lives autonomously" and it "distinguishes between basic human capacities and how culture shapes these potentialities into diverse forms": all people can and do learn, but not solely through individual thinking. The role of the collective, of culture, and of other environmental influences is key to shaping learning and behavior.

Related Theory: Connectivism

The theory of connectivism sees "knowledge as a network" (AlDadouh, Osorio, & Portugal, 2015). It perhaps takes Bandura's theory and focus on mediation even further, and emphasizes "information, events and experiences flow through one's ideas, thoughts and concepts in the process of thinking, dreaming, imagining and even while living and experiencing the real life" (AlDahdouh, et al. 2015).

A personal learning experience I shared was that of my 8th grade social studies class. I shared details of activities we did as a class, re-posted below:

"I remember learning about World History, various time periods, specifically the 20th century; we spent a long time learning about Japanese history from 1900 to the present, and a bit about world religions. I learned this from my 8th grade teacher, Mrs. G. While she relied on the history textbook at times, where we had to read through the chapter and then create an outline of its key points, she also utilized videos (we watched Gandhi and The Last Samurai, for example, as well as some shorter documentaries and PBS specials on student life in Japan), we also used a lot of worksheets, read articles, she shared diagrams and used a projector to write notes and explanations on pictures or maps to help us connect ideas. I was learning this information because that was the order in terms of curriculum that we were supposed to be learning about history in middle school (6th grade was Ancient History, 7th grade was U.S. History, and 8th grade was World History)--I found most of it very interesting, but the ultimate goal for us as students was simply to absorb the information cognitively. Theoretically, our corresponding Literature classes were meant to have content, books, etc. that corresponded with whatever topic on which we focused in history class, so that was the reason we were learning about World History at that point in time. "

Was this learning experience an example of Cognitivist instruction?

No, I do not believe the activities and description of my 8th grade class year were grounded in Cognitivism, for the following reasons:

1. The expectations of us as students while we were absorbing the information.
   • The information we were learning was about a variety of topics: world religions, cultures--including modern-day life in different parts of the world, and different points and aspects of history. The information was often presented by our teaching talking us through an article, worksheet, or passage of our textbook. While we did consume other forms of media, they were largely passive (predominantly movies or documentaries). There was not a sense that we had personal agency or that we should question our goals and beliefs about the information (such as question prior stereotypes, share our thought processes, etc.) in light of the material.
   • Though this information was related to world religions and even learning about how people our own age in other countries were living, we were not engaging with those teens or youth in a meaningful way. We weren't given ways to apply the knowledge we were learning to the outside world, in a conversation with friends, or even if we were to visit one of the countries we studied. While we were in a class of 20+ students, we did not have group activities, projects, or even discussions, where we learned others' opinions or shared our opinions in order to positively influence or affect mediation of concepts in any substantive way.
   • While there arguably was an effort by our school to connect themes of each class with each other (for example, we learned about 1940s Japan in History class, and then read the book Hiroshima in Literature class), this history class did not give us the language or provide expectations that we would be utilizing this knowledge in the future and therefore should engage with each other to understand and it and apply it.
2. The types of assessments and activities.
   • The assessments, and even the worksheets and outlines we were assigned to write up based on a book or film, were largely based on memorization and regurgitation. Therefore, when it came to assessing our abilities within the class, were no actions or behaviors we were explicitly or even implicitly asked to change or "adopt" (McLeod 2019) to transform our behavior or engage differently because of the instruction.
   • As noted above, there were no group activities that could have caused us to engage with others and perhaps begin to relate and learn through the experiences of others. There was also little genuine, first-person accounts of the cultures and experiences we were learning. Watching Gandhi and The Last Samurai were not adequate ways to actually engage with the cultures and historical contexts we were studying, and there were not other experiences we were reading about that could give us connections or experiences from other people in the other cultures about whom we were learning.
3. Lack of questions asked.
   • The theme I have discussed here has been that there were no explicit or implicit behavior change expectations inherent in the instruction of this course. Most importantly, however, instruction was delivered as if we were blank slates, rather than students who had "past commerce" (Bruner & Postman 1949) with the subject being taught. Many 13 year-olds have had some understanding of and influence from family, friends, other educators, and most importantly, culture, of history, of travel, of reading, of personal backgrounds that may have been connected to the material; however, we were not engaged on our experiences with these matters and how they may have impacted our absorption or learning of the material.

How could the instruction have looked if it was grounded in Cognitivism?

1. Setting clear expectations at the beginning of the class, emphasizing personal agency and self-efficacy, and the importance of sharing opinions and thought processes.
   • The class could open with, have at its midpoint, and towards its end, a questionnaire or interview assignment where students had to evaluate their experiences and understanding of various groups. Through being asked to share these opinions, students could gauge their experiences.
   • Structuring each class around being taught the material, and devoting 3-5 minutes at the end of each class to either group discussion or individual journaling of personal reflections on thought processes or perspectives on the material that was presented in class that day.

2. Engaging in group activities throughout the course.

• Partnering with other students to learn their perspectives and jointly develop answers to questions or presentations on material, inclusive of sharing reflections or examples, would be a way to encourage connection and learning from others. Assigning projects to individuals or small groups with open-ended questions would also encourage agency.

3. Encouraging interview projects or other types of one-on-one and group engagement with the cultures and groups we were studying.

• Instituting a pen-pal project would be an example of how to strengthen our connection with others, especially the youth from other cultures who we were studying.
• Another example might be inviting history experts and scholars of the various regions and time periods we were studying, to learn from their perspectives--it would also be an opportunity to view models of alternative behavior and knowledge demonstrated by others, and to engage in observational learning, a key feature of cognitivism.