COMPARISON

OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

Comparison of Major Learning Paradigm

Pat D. Strawser

University of Georgia

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

The question how do people learn has been asked for centuries. Philosophers,
educators, psychologists, clergy, and experts from countless other disciplines have
proposed theories on the subject of learning, and none with complete consensus.
This paper focuses on three major learning paradigms: behaviorism, cognitivism,
and constructionism. The basic principles of each paradigm will be described. Also
discussed will be the instruction process, the role of the learner and the teacher, as
well as their similarities and distinctions.

BASIC PRINCIPLES

To describe these learning paradigms, it helps to look at the human being as a
dichotomy of body and mind. The body involves physical motion and external
actions; simply put, behavior. The mind involves mental process and internal
functions of the brain; or cognition. One can be observed and quantified; the other is
less obvious, but its presence and effects are no less felt. Behaviorism then is best
described as being concerned with observable and measureable aspects of human
behavior (Orey, 2002). Cognitivism, or cognitive theory as its often referred,
wants to understand such human mental activities as recognition, comprehension,
inference-making, interpretation, judgment, memory, and imagination (Bordell,
1989, p. 11). Constructivism seems to be a bit different, as it doesnt fit firmly in
either portion of the dichotomy. Duffy and Cunningham state, that (1) learning is an
active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and (2) instruction
is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge
(p. 2).

Behaviorism focuses on the actions of the individual, and how he learns those
actions. It explains behavior as being directed by stimuli (Orey, 2002), or by being
driven by what Ivan Pavlov called a conditioned response. Behavior is learned, or

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

unlearned, based on the desirable response to stimuli. As Orey states, the desired
response must be rewarded in order for learning to take place (2002). Behavior is
also learned through modeling, such as in the case of a child imitating a parent. It
can be learned through behavior modification, or through contracts, consequences,
reinforcement or extinction (Orey, 2002). Behaviorism ignores the so-called black-
box of the mind, positing that human behavior can be explained through this matrix
of stimulus and response. In other words, Classic behaviorism insists that human
activity can be understood without appeal to any "private" mental events (Bordell,
1989, p. 11).

Cognitivism focuses inward, on the mind and its processes. It presumes that in
order to understand human action, we must postulate such entities as perceptions,
thoughts, beliefs, desires, intentions, plans, skills, and feelings (Bordell, 1989, p.
11). Cognitive theory says that the individual learns by way of involving the
acquisition or reorganization of the cognitive structures through which humans
process and store information (Good and Brophy, 1990, p. 187). Cognitivism does
not discount the role of behaviorist theory in the learning process. Its emphasis is
on concepts such as internal structures of knowledge (or schemas), stages of
information processing (sensory register, short-term and long-term memory),
meaningful information, and mnemonic effects (Mergel, 1998, p. 7).

Constructivism asserts that the learner is an active builder of knowledge. It is almost
a hybrid of behaviorism and cognitivism, and then some. Knowledge is based on
experience, on ones own interpretation of reality, and is an active process in which
meaning is developed on the basis of experience (Mergel, 1998, p. 8). Jonassen
states: What someone knows is grounded in perception of the physical and social
experiences which are comprehended by the mind (as cited in Mergel, 1998, p. 8).
In other words, the constructivism views the mind as a builder of symbols the
tools used to represent the knowers reality. External phenomena are meaningless
except as the mind perceives them (Cooper, 1993, p. 16).

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS AND ROLES

Behaviorism
Behaviorist instructional process focuses on achieving the desired response from
the learner. This is made manifest in the learner being rewarded for his response to
a certain stimuli or circumstance. In the instructional setting, advocates of
behaviorism have effectively adopted this system of rewards and punishments in
their classrooms by rewarding desired behaviors and punishing inappropriate ones.
Rewards vary, but must be important to the learner in some way (Orey, 2002).

This process involves, as Saettler states, establishing learning objectives in
specified, quantifiable, terminal behaviors (as cited in Mergel, 1998, p. 12). This
gives the learner a clear goal to focus on. Thus, learners play an active role in the
behaviorist process:

learners learn by doing, experiencing, and engaging in trial and error. All three of
these components work together and must be studied together to formulate any
given instance of learning. It is only when these three components are describable
that we can identify what has been learned, under what conditions the learning has
taken place, and the consequences that support and maintain the learned behavior.
The emphasis is on the active responding of the learnerthe learner must be
engaged in the behavior in order to learn and to validate that learning has occurred
(Burton, Moore, Magliaro, 1996, p. 9).

The learners role is very simple: his responsibility is the acquisition of new
behavior without reference to mental events (Phillips, Soltis, 2004, p.29).

The teacher acts very much as the expert instructor in behaviorist process.
Ostensibly, all information and knowledge is passed from the teacher to the student.
Moreover, teachers can be seen as being in a behavior management role. Their
primary role is in conditioning the learner. It is a mechanism that is easy for

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

educators to master and put to good use; rewarding desirable behavior, and
extinguishing (or even punishing) poor behavior, are techniques that all teachers
can master (especially if they are rewarded for doing them (Phillips, Soltis, p.29).

Cognitivism
Cognitive theory is at its root a multidisciplinary science, drawing from everything
from anthropology and philosophy, to neuroscience and psychology (Brown,
Cocking, 2000, p.8). Its instructional process then is multi-faceted. Among others,
concepts mentioned earlier, such as schemas, three-stage information processing,
and mnemonic effects, are all tools for building on the existing knowledge of the
learner. Schemas are internal knowledge structures, or a mental picture so to
speak, or an idea or concept. These are combined, extended or altered to
accommodate new information (Mergel, 1998, p. 7). Information processing deals
with the input and output matrix involved with getting information into a learners
memory. Input (or sensory register) receives information from the senses, while
short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory store it in the learners
consciousness for a certain range of time. Mnemonic effects employ easily
remembered devices such as acronyms or rhymes to associate and store less
meaningful and more complex information (Mergel, 1998, p. 7).

The learner here builds upon preexisting knowledge in order to form new
knowledge. Obviously, this is a reference to mental events (Phillips, Soltis, 2004,
p.29). Still, this can be looked at as involving some aspects of behaviorism; such as
he is learning by doing, or involved in a behavior of some sort in order to build this
knowledge. Alternatively, Banduras social cognitive theory emphasizes the
importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and
constructing knowledge based on this understanding (Orey, 2002).

The teachers role can be looked upon as involving three steps:

1.) Teachers must draw out and work with the preexisting understandings

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

that their students bring with them. 2.) Teachers must teach some subject
matter in depth, providing many examples in which the same concept is at
work and providing a firm foundation of factual knowledge. 3.) The teaching
of metacognitive skills should be integrated into the curriculum in a variety
of subject areas (Brown, Cocking, 2000, p. 31).

This puts the teacher in the position of doing more than simply doling out
information. He must determine and conform to what the learner already knows,
building his lesson in a progressive manner, to develop in the learner the needed
information.

Constructivism
Constructivism is a departure from behaviorism and cognitivism in several ways. It
involves taking the learner through the process of constructing his own knowledge.
In this sense, it too builds upon the other two paradigms. But it certainly takes its
own course. As Jonassen puts it, learners construct their own reality or at least
interpret it based upon their perceptions of experiences, so an individuals
knowledge is a function of ones prior experiences, mental structures, and beliefs
that are used to interpret objects and events (as cited in Mergel, 1998, p. 8).

This can be done in a variety of ways, depending on what strand of constructivism is
being used. Several versions of constructivist theory have been developed, including
Piagets constructivism, which centers around adaptation and organization;
Vygotskys constructivism, focusing on social interation in the development of
cognition (Orey, 2002); and as stated earlier, even social constructivism, which is
based the learners specific assumptions about reality, knowledge, and learning
(Orey, 2002). Some things they all have in common are they tend to be much more
open-ended, subjective, and the methods and results of learning are not easily
measured and may not be the same for each learner (Mergel, 1998, p. 17). There is
also a strong focus on creating a learner-centered environment, where students
interact and gain knowledge collaboratively. It tends to be situated in realistic or

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

authentic settings, where the learner can get a real-life experience of what he is
learning.

The student is certainly the focus of constructivist learning process. Constructivist
process represents expansion of the dimensions of the learning setting, where the
limits are expressed in terms of the desires and goals of the learner and not the
designs (whether behavioral or cognitive) of the instructor (Cooper, 1993, p. 18).
This means that the student is seated which more responsibility than in other
frameworks. Things such as self-efficacy and motivation are important in the
development of the learner being able to achieve his goals.

The role of the teacher is more of a coach or mentor than a purveyor of knowledge
(Mergel, 1998, p.19), as instruction becomes a collaborative effort between teacher
and learner. In this sense, the teacher is no longer a subject expert; he is a facilitator,
offering a hand of support, rather than a foundation on which to stand. The teacher
becomes less of an evaluator as well, given that determining the appropriate
outcome can vary from student to student. Constructivists look to develop support
structures embedded in the problem tasks themselves, tools that may both support
and transform participation, and outcomes, the attainment of which are their own
reward (Duffy, Cunningham, 1996, p. 26).

SIMILARITIES, DISTINCTIONS, AND CONCLUSION
It would seem that all three paradigms build upon, and borrow from, each other in
many ways. Behaviorism in its purest form does appear quite distant from the other
two, as cognition and mental processes play such a critical role in how those
paradigms both operate. However, as Mergel points out,

behaviorism and cognitivism both support the practice of analyzing a task
and breaking it down into manageable chunks, establishing objectives, and
measuring performance based on those objectives. Constructivism, on the
other hand, promotes a more open-ended learning experience where the

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

methods and results of learning are not easily measured and may not be the
same for each learner (1998, p. 17).

As a generalization, behaviorism and cognitivism both delineate simple roles for the
learner and teacher, and objectives that may be reasonably evaluated. Cognitivism
and constructivism both give credence and attention to prior knowledge and
cognitive processes. Constructivism makes ample use of desired behaviors, but
only as it serves to meet the learners objectives. Constructivism may very well
exemplify the greatest contrast, in that it certainly builds upon ideas found in both
other paradigms, yet also having the most flexibility in evaluating outcomes.

In the final analysis, it would seem that each paradigm has its own particular
strengths that, if taken out of the conversation about learning, would leave the
others wanting. That said, it shouldnt be assumed that they all have equal value
either. It may be better to presume that each paradigm is very good at achieving
specific goals; if you know what youre aiming for, then one paradigm may suit your
needs better than the others.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

Bordell, D. (1989). A case for cognitivism. IRIS (Spring 1989, No. 9).

Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. J. D. Bransford (Ed.).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cooper, Peter A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: from behaviorism
to cognitivism to constructionism. Educational Technology, v.33, n.5, pp.12-19.

Cunningham, D. J., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design
and delivery of instruction. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications

COMPARISON OF MAJOR LEARNING PARADIGMS

and Technology. D. H. Jonassen (Ed.).

Good, T. L., Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th
ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman

Mergel, Brenda. (1998). Instructional design & learning theory. Educational
Communications and Technology. University of Sakatchewan.

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.
Section on behaviorism.

Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Perspectives on learning. Teachers College Pr.