3: Cognitive Learning (Slavin, Ch. 6)

Description:

In addition to behavioral theories of learning, research has been done about how the brain receives and processes information and how this impacts learning and memory. There are a variety of approaches to Instructional design that involve the connection of learning objectives, instructional technology and student motivation. These cognitive learning theories have been shaped by the research of Edward Thorndike, John Dewey, Robert Gagne, B.F. Skinner, and Benjamin Bloom among others (Wiburg). With each decade in the history of American education, a deeper understanding of brain function coupled with changing cultural attitudes about the nature and purpose of education has shifted the thinking on effective teaching. The results of this research and a deeper understanding of how information makes its way into the long-term memory has provided a variety of effective instructional practices for teachers so that they can maximize the effectiveness of their  instruction and student learning. 

Analysis:

Understanding how the brain works to process and remember information is essential to helping students learn. Robert Slavin (2018) gives some insight into these processes and how they impact education in Chapter 6: Cognitive Theories of Learning. The Atkinson-Shriffrin model identifies three components of execute processing: sensory register, working memory, and long-term memory (Slavin, 2018). The sensory register receives input from our five senses. This is happening in the brain all the time although most of this input is received, interpreted,  and then discarded unconsciously, but if we give our attention to a detail and think about it, it has moved into our working (or short-term) memory (Slavin, 2018). Because the learner has control over where to apply his attention, the idea of motivation for learning becomes relevant. The more we “rehearse” information and are able to organize it within pre-existing “schema” in our brain, the longer we will retain it. Some students will have more extensive background knowledge about a variety of things, and therefore they will have more “schema” with which to process information. Eventually the most important information will become part of our long-term memory. The information in our long-term memory stays with us (some believe forever) and it continues to influence and interact with new stimuli that we receive (Slavin, 2018). Some information stays in our long-term memory because it is connected to a particular time or place or specific impactful event, and sometimes we choose to learn something because we believe it is important and has meaning for us (Slavin, 2018).  

Our brains are complex organs with many parts that are responsible for processing different types of information. Some are connected to our senses or the physical functions of our bodies; others process learning and emotions (Slavin, 2018). Learning is impacted by developmental stages of the brain as well as environmental factors such as external stimulation. It has been found that the more knowledge and skill is gained, the more efficiently the brain works (Slavin, 2018). These factors are relevant to early childhood education and experiences. They also contribute to the challenges of closing achievement gaps once they develop in student populations. Often when a student begins school with an information deficit or falls behind during the primary grades, he/she never catches up to his peers. More work is needed about the cognitive processes that contribute to this and how they can be addressed.

Theories of Instructional Design have shifted with the historical context. In the early 1900s instructional delivery was systematic and content was carefully organized, practiced, and reinforced. The influence of these theories and Thorndike’s Principles of Learning (1921) are still evident today.  John Dewey continued to apply scientific principles to learning, but he included a more student-centered view that considered a student’s motivation and desire to engage in the learning (Wiburg). As two World Wars and a Space Race shaped the historical framework, educational researchers turned to Instructional Technology to develop procedures and tools that could deliver efficient and accurate instruction (Wiburg). B.F. Skinner started the move toward programmed instruction, but the development of task analysis and the concept of establishing learning objectives was promoted by Ralph Tyler, and most famously, Benjamin Bloom (Wiburg). Robert Gagne’s contribution to the process was the understanding that different types of learning require different instructional strategies and different types of practice (Wiburg).

The more recent contributions to instructional design theory increase the focus on the psychological factors in learning and the importance of the social situation in which the learning takes place. Eliot Eisner saw the learning had a deeper connection to the student, and that “some very important goals of education, such as appreciation of the arts and the valuing of open-minded skepticism in science...are not easily broken down into small units of behavior” (Wiburg). Indeed, students will learn more when they engage with the content on a deeper level. Since each student is a unique individual, I agree with Wiburg that, “an important task in the design for learning is to make organizational structures of schools ones in which students from a variety of cultures will be productive and engaged participants”.

Reflection:

This is the chapter that I was looking for last week while reading Ch. 5. As I was reading about behavioral theories, I kept thinking, “None of this matters if the student doesn’t want to learn.” That may be an inaccurate generalization, but it connects directly to my experience for the last eleven years teaching in an urban high school. I felt validated when I read that, “Learners approach each opportunity for learning with a set of motivations and orientations that determine the mental energy they are willing to devote to learning” (Slavin, 2018, p.123). I have spent an enormous amount of time trying to convince resistant teenagers that what I am trying to teach is worthy of their attention.  So, an initial challenge is helping my students see the relevance of the content to their lives. While there are some students who are intrinsically motivated by academic success or the understanding that the content is necessary in order to get into the college of their dreams, I have many students for whom those are not remotely top priorities.

For some of my students, their limited resource of attention is taken up with concerns outside of the school building such as family troubles, jobs, poverty, or even social pressures. These are all stimuli that are demanding attention (Slavin, 2018) and seem much more important than school. So as an English teacher (and now as an instructional coach), I am looking for ways to connect the content of the standards to the lives of the students in my school. Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) state that, “to be effective in multicultural classrooms, teachers must relate teaching content to the cultural backgrounds of their students”. I have found this to be an important aspect of my instructional practice over the last several years. Slavin also says that “another way to gain attention is to increase the emotional content of material” (2018). One example of this concept would be to teach argumentative writing using opposing viewpoints about the organization Black Lives Matter when my class is 90% African-American. The concept applies to all aspects of multiculturalism in my classroom, including race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or family structure. Finding something for my students to connect to in the content is of utmost importance.

Another challenge I face in engaging my students in the content relates to the “schema” explanations in Chapter 6. Slavin states that it is easier for students to process and retain new information if they have schema in their long-term memory to connect it to. In other words, “how much you can learn about something  is how much you already know about it” (Slavin, 2018, p. 146). Imagine if you will, a student who enters school at a disadvantage because her environment and experience (and a lack of early childhood stimuli) has not provided her with necessary background information that many of her peers possess. Her teachers try to help her, and while she progresses, it is at a slower rate, leaving her with foundational gaps in her knowledge and understanding. As she continues through her education, she never quite processes all of the content because she is still missing pieces of information in her long-term memory. When she gets to my class at high school, she is not only missing important schema with which to process new content, she now also has negative emotions regarding school and her experience with learning.

At this point, it becomes even more important for the teacher to find ways to make the learning relevant and meaningful. Wlodkowski and Ginsberg provide a framework of four motivational conditions that can foster this. They include establishing inclusion, developing attitude, enhancing meaning, and engendering competence (1995). This is hard but necessary work for any teacher working to close a gap in motivation or background knowledge. Wiburg correctly points out that, “Teachers have always had a significant influence on student learning.  As the diversity of our population and the complexity of what students need to know increases, teachers who are capable of designing learning appropriate for their community...will become increasingly important”. Engaging students in the content, creating a positive learning environment through relationships, and building confidence in students’ academic abilities are my top priorities as a teacher and instructional coach. I believe these are the foundation on which high leverage instructional practices are built.

Reference

Slavin, R. E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12th ed.). Pearson 

Education.

Wiburg, K.M. (n.d.) An Historical Perspective on Instructional Design: Is it Time to 

Exchange Skinner’s Teaching Machine for Dewey’s Toolbox? New Mexico State University. Retrieved June 5, 2020 from http://michel.delord.free.fr/bibli1998/instructional_design.html

Wlodkowski, R.J. and Ginsberg, M.B. (1995, September). A Framework for Culturally 

Responsive Teaching. Educational Leadership, 53(1) 17-21.