Behavioral, Cognitive, and Constructivist Approaches to Learning and Cognition (as they might appear in the classroom)  back
(recognizing that these are generalizations trying to illuminate the lay of the land)

In the "Epistemological Reflections Model" of Marcia Baxter Magolda as put forward in Knowing and Reasoning in College, there would be, at each level, patterns regarding role of learner, role of peers, role of instructor, methods of evaluation, and nature of knowledge. I think they would be useful in more fully describing what goes on within these paradigms as well.

Student Paradigm

Teacher who operates within Behavioral Paradigm
(Absolute Knowing)

Teacher who operates within Cognitive Paradigm
 (Transitional and Independent Knowing?)

 Teacher who operates within Constructivist Paradigm
(Contextual Knowing)
 

 

 The teacher creates learning experiences which are structured and dependent on learning specific pieces of information and showing mastery of them.

 

 

 The teacher creates learning experiences which are deemed to be developmentally appropriate for the students at hand. What is ‘developmentally appropriate’ may be decided based on age norms, or there may be some recognition that students may reach ‘developmental stages’ at different times. Students who ‘don’t get it’ have not reached the developmental stage that they might be expected to have reached, and may be taught in ways geared toward ‘lower’ developmental levels. The assumption may be that the consistently unsuccessful student has, for example, not reached the ‘abstract operations’ stage and so may be given learning tasks appropriate at the ‘concrete operations’ stage. It seems possible that a teacher could ‘accept’ the constructivist paradigm but still be operating from within a cognitive one (there is a progression through ways of knowing, and we are all spiraling toward constructivism).

The teacher may acknowledge multiple intelligences and learning styles, and create a variety of learning experiences which allow students with different abilities and styles to be successful.

The teacher may present learning tasks which fall at all levels of Bloom's taxonomy and expect students to move through them.

 The teacher recognizes that learners ‘construct’ knowledge, and may each do this in a unique way. It seems this could include recognition that some students preferred ‘way’ may be the BP way. Some students may be situated within the Cognitive Paradigm (I can’t quite visualize this, except that it may include a level of dependence – that is, the student can respond to tasks that require original thought, but need to have that experience ‘scaffolded’ for them.), and some may be situated with the Constructivist Paradigm, or may benefit in their learning from a shift to this paradigm. The teacher must SOMEHOW create a learning environment in which all of these learners can be successful.

But what does this mean in terms of teaching the BP student? Is it the teacher’s goal to move the student out of this paradigm, or to ‘meet’ him/her there? THOUGHT: If the paradigm within which the student operates and views the world is largely ‘developmental’, it seems that part of the teacher’s job is to move students through levels. To the extent that it’s a socio-cultural stance, is that intrusive or judgmental? Or at least will some of the resistance to shifting paradigms be socio-cultural?

Student who operates within Behavioral Paradigm

Characterization (speculative):

May be more comfortable with structure and tasks which can be easily explained. May respond to challenges to paradigm by learning new paradigm or by resisting learning environment.

May be a developmental or a socio-cultural stance? My question here is whether students who come from heavily tradition- and place-bound cultures (could even be ‘family culture’) that attempt to insulate themselves from change would be more likely to be rooted in this paradigm.

Or another way of thinking about it would be, if we view it as a stage in a  progression, are there obstacles to moving through developmental stages that are rooted in socio-cultural considerations?

The student is comfortable within this paradigm and sets about learning the required information to show mastery.

My experience is with K-12. My supposition is that this situation – BP student/BP teacher – would rarely occur in a postsecondary setting or with adult learners. Is that so?

The student may be able to accept tasks that are presented if the teacher’s estimation of the student’s developmental level leads to the creation of learning experiences that are comfortable to the student. These tasks might, ‘coincidentally’ be similar to those in the Behavioral Paradigm. A slight shift away from BP learning tasks might be successful and lay groundwork for a shift in paradigm. If a learning task creates too much anxiety in the learner, the learner may ‘move away’ from the task. Resistance by the student will be interpreted, in as far as it is attributed to school considerations, according to the paradigm.

The student may be frustrated by learning tasks that require creativity rather than mastery, or may enjoy the creative experience but not transfer the learning or do the work in such a way that learning occurs.

The student may exhibit lower-level thinking skills on Bloom's taxonomy, and may not experience success on tasks that require higher-level thinking

The student will respond depending on how this is interpreted, it seems to me. If a teacher determines that each student has a unique approach to ‘constructing’ knowledge and this may include the types of learning that occur in the BP, there will be a variety of types of tasks so that every student can experience success. At the postsecondary level, perhaps a student who is not willing or able to move out of the BP will not be successful because a sufficient number of learning tasks are necessarily not of the BP type.

If the teacher presents learning experiences that require the active construction of knowledge (or that facilitate it), the tasks may frustrate the student who is operating in the BP paradigm. In the stimulus/response model, this might cause the student to avoid the task by not doing it or, if it occurs often enough, to avoid the learning environment altogether. The teacher may respond by shifting to a cognitive paradigm, scaffolding learning experiences and focusing on lower-level thinking skills with the intention of moving the student into the active construction of knowledge.
Student who operates within Cognitive Paradigm

Characteristics (speculative):

This student may be accustomed to a learning environment where learning tasks have addressed a variety of levels of thinking (Bloom). Regardless of their success at any particular level, they feel some ease at moving from level to level without resistance. They have some facility learning from experiences that are rooted in various 'intelligences'.

From a socio-cultural point of view, the student may come from a 'culture' which has a working concept of child development in which types of behavior are responded to verbally in a way that is appropriate to the child's perceived level of cognitive development. (?) The culture may accommodate a level of rebelliousness of thinking that still situates the thinker firmly within the culture. Or, the culture may be flexible enough to accommodate a range of 'ways of being,' or may be rooted in or have appreciation for the arts...

 The student may be frustrated by the information-in, information-out approach. The student may find the work 'boring' or claim already to have learned it, even if the student is unable to 'show mastery.'

 

 The teacher successfully creates learning experiences within which the student can comfortably and successfully learn.

The student moves through progression of levels of thinking, and is open to learning experiences based on a variety of intelligences.

 

 The teacher may create learning experiences which fall within the expectations of the student. The student has a variety of strategies to approach learning tasks and so is able to be relatively successful.

The teacher may present learning experiences that create a greater risk - that is, they are not scaffolded and may require the student to step out of familiar territory. The student may respond by shifting paradigms, by seeking help from someone who will provide scaffolding for them, by questioning the skill of the teacher, or by performing in a way that is competent that they hope will satisfy the requirements of the task.

The teacher may not have a clear understanding of the extent of actual learning of the student. Practiced performance may mask lack of critical thinking.
Student who operates within Constructivist Paradigm

Characteristics (speculative):

The student may be accustomed to thinking for him/herself, and may have a level of independence in decision-making.

The student may be rooted in a culture with a high tolerance for difference and change, or may be rebelling against a culture with a more limited tolerance. My assumption would be that this latter situation would create some invisible obstacles to success (conflict between internalized values/ways of seeing and adopted values/ways of seeing).

 The student may be frustrated by the information-in, information-out approach. The student may find the work 'boring' or claim already to have learned it. The student may pursue his/her own intellectual interests and put minimal attention to the learning tasks presented by the teacher, and may feel as if the teacher is inadequate. The student can probably function well within this paradigm, and may extend what s/he is asked to do. Is given enough flexibility to be successful. May challenge the status quo in ways that are uncomfortable and be comfortable doing that.

 

 The student is able to thrive in the freedom of an environment where the expectation is that the student actively learn and will reflect on his/her own learning.