Putting It All Together
All three of these learning theories build one upon the other. For the learning designer, it’s more useful to focus on how they evolve and transform rather than focus on their differences. To properly compare Cognitivism to Connectivism, you need to understand the theory of Social Constructivism as a bridge.
Cognitivism
Cognitivism is a learning theory that considers the mental processes that occur between stimuli (inputs) and responses (outputs) including the behaviors learned from observation of others. Cognitivism considers that thinking impacts behavior and you can train the mind to learn by thinking. (Bandura, 2001)
Social Constructivism
Social Constructivism adds the social aspect to the cognitivism learning theory. This theory suggests that knowledge accumulates by social experiences and self reflection. (Mcleod, 2012) Vygotsky further defines this theory by explaining the Zone of Proximal Development as the area in which learning occurs. He suggests language and culture are the framework through which humans interact and consequently learn. (Merrill, 1991)
Connectivism
The Connectivism learning theory takes Social Constructivism one step further. It poses that learning is self-directed, both spontaneous and collaborative. Connectivism is digital age learning that depends on technology and making connections between people, organizations, and the internet. (Siemens, 2004) For Connectivism, being able to successfully conduct research on the internet is the actual learning outcome.
Convergence
Using concentric circles, rather than a Venn diagram, allows you to see how the basic Learning Flow has adjusted and evolved as new perspectives on the learning process have been added. Inputs in Cognitivism were defined merely as any stimulus. Social Constructivism further refined stimuli by recognizing that the Learner has background knowledge, perspectives, language, and culture that affect learning (Merrill, 1991). Connectivism further considers that the stimulus is most often self-directed (Siemens, 2004).
Similar progression can be seen with the ‘mental processes’ between these learning theories. Vygotsky adds the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), suggesting that the transition between previous knowledge and learning occurs with the guidance of More Knowledgeable Others (MKO) in this zone. Recognizing the ZPD, instructors can tailor lessons or select books for students that will allow optimal growth in learning and reading skills and help avoid Cognitive over-Load (Sweller, 1988).
Connectivism addresses the impact of a wider variety of learning sources, the internet, people (teachers, family, friends, etc.), and organizations, in the ZPD. Connectivism demonstrates that MKOs are not limited to classroom teachers.
Learning outcomes also evolve within the concentric model. What were taken as purely behavioral responses, which may or may not have limited retention, have, with the added understanding of prior knowledge, the ZPD, and digital age resources, transformed into long-term learning reinforced by actuation (daily application) and the eventual pursuit of further skills/learning.
References:
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Merrill, M.D. (1991). Constructivism and Instructional Design. Educational technology, 31(5), 45-53
Siemens, G (2004), Connectivism. A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. IneLearnSpace.
Sweller, J. (1988) 'Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,' Cognitive Science, Volume 12, Issue 2, April 1988.
Cognitive Load Theory
The Cognitive Load Theory suggests instructors present content at a pace and a level of complexity that matches the prior knowledge and skills of learners. Each learner's working memory has a unique and limited capacity (Sweller, 1988). If the instructor has not properly assessed the learner's capacity, he/she risks overloading the learner with activities that, although interesting and engaging, may not even contribute to learning and could even lead to the loss of information rather than retention.
Instructors can conduct a TNA (Training Needs Assessment) to measure the prior knowledge and the working memory capacity of participants. A TNA links the training with departmental/organizational objectives and establishes justification for the training. Training goals should include improving the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of working teams.
Instructors can also 'reduce problem space' by breaking problems down into parts. The instructor may require learners to complete partial problems or examples. Manipulating the portions of the problems that need to be completed, facilitates participant growth and construction of learning.
Another strategy instructors can use to reduce Cognitive Load is to merge multiple sources of visual information, appropriately utilizing diagrams, labels, text, and images to keep the learner engaged and facilitate retention. Using auditory information also helps.
References:
Sweller, J. (1988) 'Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,' Cognitive Science, Volume 12, Issue 2, April 1988.
Apply Cognitive Load to training...https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/cognitive-load-theory.htm
Images Free Wix and Pixabay CCO
Graphics by Maryum Mohsin