A Learning Scenario Analysis of ETEC 512: Applications of Learning Theories to the Analysis of Instructional Settings Through the Lenses of Connectivism, Constructivism, and Cognitivism

 

Tamaka Fisher (she/her/hers)

Department of Education, University of British Columbia

ETEC 512: Applications of Learning Theories to the Analysis of Instructional Settings

Dr. Christopher Rozitis

April 10, 2022

 

Learning Scenario Description             

       ETEC 512 Applications of Learning Theories to the Analysis of Instructional Settings (ETEC 512) is one of four core courses situated in the Master of Educational Technology (MET) program at the University of British Columbia (UBC). ETEC 512 contains specific learning objectives, activities, and assessments. During the 13-week course duration, students explore the theories of behaviourism, neuroscience, cognitivism, and cognitive and social constructivism related to teaching, learning, and technology. The course presentation is asynchronous, with an optional synchronous session, and participants of this course section are primarily instructors. 

​

       Fisher, the student author, is a middle-class, cisgender Asian female XXXXXX, a mother, a wife, and a caregiver. She has worked in customer service, her own business, municipal government, and disability services. Her undergrad degree is in leadership from Trinity Western University, and she holds a certificate in career development from Simon Fraser University. Her current role is that of an accessibility advisor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. 

​

The learning objectives in the course description of ETEC 512, as stated on the UBC MET website, are:

1. Critically evaluate and identify the underlying learning theories for various instructional practices and approaches. 

2. Use learning theories to reflect on and effectively guide your pedagogical decisions and instructional practices. 

3. Assess and implement appropriate technologies for specific contexts based on identified learning theories. 

4. Articulate your evolving, theoretically-based understanding of how people learn in different learning contexts. 

5. Critically evaluate and effectively apply instructional strategies based on emerging trends in online environments (UBC, n.d.).

 

The course contains four learning modules:

1. “Course introductions and personal learning theory (PLT)  

2. Behaviorist, cognitive and neural theories of learning, 

3. Cognitive and social constructivism, and 

4. Consolidation and application” (UBC, n.d.). 

 

The format of the weeks is (mostly):  

• The instructor makes an initial announcement before the start of the week.

• Students read and view the resources. 

• A peer forum discussion commences. 

• At the end of the week, each student provides a self-reflection on participation for the week (self-assessed) and identifies a peer’s post that was the most personally influential (assessment by instructor). 

 

Other assessed items include:

• Three 300-word thought papers on the topics of social cognitive theory (SCT), artificial intelligence (AI) or virtual reality (VR)/augmented reality (AR), and one-to-one programs, 

• A concept map representing how the theories learned in the course are connected, 

• A digital artifact of one learning theory and participation in a virtual conference, 

• A 2,000-word final paper on a learning scenario analysis and

• Course participation, as assessed by the instructor.

 

Learning Scenario Analysis

       Ertmer & Newby (2013) suggest that “less than two percent of the courses offered in university curricula in the general area of educational technology emphasize “theory” as one of their key concepts.” ETEC 512: Applications of Learning Theories to the Analysis of Instructional Settings (ETEC 512) presents significant learning theories and attracts a global community of learners owing to its online asynchronous format. This paper argues that ETEC 512 is successful at helping students reach learning outcomes, as evidenced by the experience of a student whose undergrad degree is outside the education space. Fisher analyses ETEC 512 from cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism theory perspectives. The following diagram simplifies each theory’s principle of learning:

 

Cognitivism: Knowledge is constructed by receiving, organizing, storing, and retrieving information. 

 

Cognitive Constructivism: Knowledge is personally constructed from new experiences and previous knowledge.

 

Social Constructivism: Knowledge is constructed through social interaction.

 

Connectivism: Knowledge is accessed through personal networks and information technology

 

Cognitivism

       Cognitive load theory (CLT), introduced by John Sweller in 1988, suggests that to acquire new schemas (repositories of existing information located in long-term memory), a learner “must recognize a problem state as belonging to a particular category of problem states.” Kirschner et al. (2006) argue that long-term memory is the essential cognitive structure and that the relationship to working memory is central to the cognitivist argument.

​

       Complex cognitive exercises may cause too high of a learning load (overload), and too low of a cognitive load (underload) can cause students to disengage due to disinterest, with both extremes compromising learning (Paas et al., 2004). CLT suggests that working memory has a finite ability to deal with unfamiliar data, but the information in established schemas effectively causes no stress on its function. Fisher contends that ETEC 512 may create a high cognitive load, bordering on overload, for students situated outside the educational space as schemas related to teaching and learning theories may be ill-defined. New and expanded schemas appear as the course progresses. In the twelfth week, students submit a concept map of their understanding of learning theories that illustrate the schemas developed.

 

Cognitive Constructivism

       “Knowledge is constructed through a personal process” (Powell & Kalina, 2009). The researchers refer to cognitive constructivism, a learning theory that was developed before the impact of technology on education. “Piagetian-based [cognitive] constructivism uses the process of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration- borrowed from evolutionary biology- as the mechanism by which increasingly complex understandings are created” (Schrader, 2006).

 

       Fisher does not possess formal teaching experience, and her undergrad degree is in leadership, as opposed to education. She is asked to produce a personal learning theory (PLT) in week one and reflect on her experience as a parent or student. Fisher is encouraged to reflect on her personal life experiences to create a philosophy-for-now, which will become a foundational schema from which to construct future knowledge.

 

       Fisher is in a state of disequilibration until she can assimilate novel data if it aligns with existing schemas, accommodate the information into altered schemas, or create new schemas. Equilibration returns once her working and long-term memory process is resolved. ETEC 512 weekly readings and resources are provided historically linearly, with information regarding technology provided. Students operate in Piaget’s Formal Operations stage and can imagine hypotheticals and theorize outcomes (Good et al., 1978). 

​

Social Constructivism

       “Collectively, theories associated with a constructivist tradition emphasize the ways in which understandings of knowledge cannot be separated from understandings of the ways in which knowledge is produced, engaged with and constructed by people within particular contexts and at particular times” (O’Connor 2022). In ten of the 13 course weeks, students post in a forum in response to the week’s readings and resources and other student postings, creating novel discussion threads. Most peers are educators in the K-12 and higher education system and create a rich social environment for the advancement of thought.

​

       Powell & Kalina (2009) propose that peers and instructors may act as More Knowledgeable Others (MKO) and use their advanced knowledge to scaffold others to reach heights of learning not achievable by the learner alone. The space between where the learner is and where the MKO can help them reach is called the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). A drawback for students of diverse abilities may be that in asynchronous courses, the instructors, who typically act as MKOs in face-to-face courses, do not actively teach unless consulted by the student. A benefit of asynchronous courses is that students with mental health and physical challenges can adjust their study schedules and do not have to meet other people in person.

​

       The ETEC 512 instructor is available by email and scheduled office-hour meetings and provides feedback through assessments and cues through weekly course announcements. Asynchronous courses are more suited to intrinsically motivated individuals. “The self-regulation of motivation, affect, and action operates partly through internal standards and evaluative reactions to one’s own behavior” (Bandura, 2001).

​

       Fisher’s favourite (and motivating) forum occurs in Week 5; “Are the machines taking over?” The week’s discussion centers on the question of humanity’s relationship to artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR). Some students choose to research additional peer-reviewed academic sources for information to provide added value to discussions before posting. Bandura (2001), in his paper on social cognitive theory, proposes, “People are not only knowers and performers. They are also self-reactors with a capacity for self-direction.”

 

       The Virtual Conference on Learning occurs in weeks 11 and 12. Before then, students work in groups or individually to create a digital artifact to act as a teaching tool featuring one of the learning theories taught in ETEC 512. Students work in teams to build and present the material with inspirational, aspirational, and engaging outcomes. Students are involved in constructing the artifacts and engaging with others’ presentations but are also consumers of knowledge provided by their network of peers.

​

Connectivism

       Concerning connectivism, Siemens (2005) proffers that “A real challenge for any learning theory is to actuate known knowledge at the point of application” and also recognizes that “learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions.” Connectivism, unlike cognitivism and constructivism, is a learning theory developed after education became impacted by technology, and the tenets are particularly relevant in the rapidly evolving field of educational technology (Siemens, 2005). “The idea that learning takes place across networked learning communities and information technologies are central to connectivism” (Dunaway, 2011). Siemens (2005) submits that the ability to make decisions and learn is more important than current knowledge, and the ability to build and maintain networks is a crucial skill. The goal of connectivism is to procure the most current factual knowledge. 

​

       Networks and relationships are essential for social reasons and communities of practice. What would have been another tremendous cognitive load is now located outside the brain. The ability to decide what is crucial to know and where to find current, factual data can also be offloaded to trusted networks and verified information technology.

ETEC 512 is accessible on an array of devices anywhere with an internet connection. Historically, information was held in human minds and transferred through oral traditions, writings, and educational institutions. Now, data is held in information technology: websites and blogs. social media, and apps. Humans search, consume, produce, and share. Students of ETEC 512 exchange knowledge from their lived experience to help each other teach and design instruction from pedagogically sound foundations.

​

Conclusion

       Fisher has analyzed ETEC 512 and found that it embodies elements of cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism theory in its teaching and learning activities and assessments. Online, asynchronous graduate courses work for a global student population prepared to deal with the discomfort of high cognitive load and disequilibration while self-regulating for motivation, affect, and action. ETEC 512 was designed intelligently, balancing the requirement to meet course objectives with opportunities for self-direction and ample peer learning. All that is needed is a connected device and the intention to engage, learn, and create relationships.

​

       The course delivery will not work well for students who require more direct instruction. Fisher, who did not arrive with a background in education, has enjoyed the course immensely and feels confident that she has a solid foundation for theory-based teaching and instructional design practices for the future. She is also grateful for the opportunity to meet other students and will continue in a networked community of practice with new friends.

 

References

 

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265-299. 

​

Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review. 39(4), 675-685. 

​

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

​

Good, R., Mellon, E. K., & Kromhout, R. A. (1978). The work of Jean Piaget. Journal of Chemical Engineering, 55, 688-693

 

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. 

 

O'Connor, K. (2022;2020;). Constructivism, curriculum, and the knowledge question: Tensions and challenges for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 412-422. 

 

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 1-8. 

 

Powell, C. & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

 

Schrader, D. E. (2015). Constructivism and learning in the age of social media: Changing minds and learning communities: Constructivism and learning in the age of social media. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2015(144), 23-35.

 

Siemens G. 2005. Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2, 1–8.

​

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.