Educational psychology is the branch of psychology focused on
the development of effective teaching techniques and the assessment
of learners' aptitudes and progress. A look at adult education wouldn't
be complete without a view of the theories shaping the way we learn
and the way we teach.
While
we may be aware that various theories exist, few technology professionals,
and even fewer consumers, are aware of the differences between the
theories and how they affect the way we learn.
This
glimpse into the different theories introduces the principle names,
theories, and implications of each approach. Full explanations follow
the summaries. With this knowledge, we can identify which theory
is appropriate for our needs and which we should look to when evaluating
instructional programs.
Behavioral psychology states that behavior can change as
a result of extrinsic motivators such as incentives, rewards, and
punishments. Behaviorists advocate influencing behavior through
the systematic adjustments of stimulus-response reinforcements.
Most
research in the field is based on B. F. Skinner's work in the early
1930s. He concluded that by controlling the environment of mice
in a lab he could 'train' them to behave consistently. From this
research came theories designed to train humans.
Behavioral
instruction hinges on the use of observable, measurable, and controllable
objectives. A teacher (or organization) determines what objectives
the learner should achieve. These objectives are met when the learner
responds in a certain way, based on controlled stimuli.
Cognitive psychology holds that information is more likely
to be acquired, retained, and retrieved for future use if it is
learner-constructed, relevant, and built upon prior knowledge.
Cognitivists are concerned with the study of individuals' perceptual
processes, problem-solving abilities, and reasoning abilities. Cognitive
programs are often organized in chunks, and have built-in
or learner-generated memory devices to help learners retain and
use the information in the future.
Cognitive
models give learners control by introducing conceptual frameworks,
and by relying on both experiential and discovery learning.
Constructivist psychology tells us that learners do not simply
absorb and store information. We make tentative interpretations
of experiences and go on to elaborate and test what we determine.
Our mental structures are formed, elaborated on, and tested until
we establish a satisfactory structure.
Constructivists report that people are active and don't only
respond to stimuli as behaviorists suggest. We engage, grapple,
and seek to make sense.
Humanist psychology focuses on individual growth and development.
It stems from the theory that learning occurs primarily through
reflection on personal experience, and as a result of intrinsic
motivation. Humanists uphold the andragogic belief that significant
learning leads to insights and understanding of ourselves and others.
Humanist
instruction involves learners in all stages, including planning
to ensure that we understand the relevance of topics. These programs
rely on self-analysis, team building, learner evaluation, and peer
learning using various tools and approaches.
For
instructional design to work, methods must match and support goals.
Each approach offers advantages and disadvantages. Some programs
successfully integrate aspects of different models. Instruction
needs to make use of research and be grounded in sound educational
theory. If programs are created without an instructional model or
ignore what is known about educational theory, we leave learning
to chance.
Educational psychology is steeped in controversy. Though each theory
has elaborate research behind it, most organized instruction has
been based on one model: Behaviorism.
To
take advantage of the other very useful approaches, we must overcome
strong biases and beliefs. If we accept that the old ways of working
are no longer complete answers in the information age, we should
amplify the number of approaches we use to learn. We must evolve.
The
following continuum charts how behavioral, neo-behavioral, cognitive, constructivist,
and humanist theories view learners.
In
short, behaviorists view learners as mechanical responders; cognitivists
understand us as cerebral thinkers; and humanists work with us as
changing individuals. While instruction nears the right end of the
continuum, we benefit from the andragogical principles that rose
out of humanism.
The
chart lists the prominent researchers in each area and some defining
terms associated with each theory.
Theory
|
Behaviorism
|
Neo-behaviorism
|
Cognitivism
|
Constructivism
|
Humanism
|
Theorists
|
Skinner
Thorndike
Watson
|
Hebb
Hull
Bandura
|
Piaget
Gagné
Bruner
Ausubel
|
Piaget
Papert
|
Rogers
Maslow
Knowles
Vella
|
Role of instructor
|
Behavior modifier
|
Source, model, and prompter
|
Prompter, disseminato r of information
|
Dialogue facilitator, prompter, challenger
|
Facilitator, coach, listener, partner
|
Level of structure
|
High level
|
High level
|
Moderate level
|
Low level
|
Varying level depending on learner needs
|
Processing required
|
Low conceptual levels
|
Low conceptual levels
|
Moderate conceptual levels
|
High conceptual levels
|
High conceptual levels
|
Behaviorism
A
fable.
A scientist put a laboratory mouse in a box with six rooms.
The mouse soon learned the cheese was in room three. Therefore,
it always ran directly to room three upon being put in the box.
One day the scientist put the cheese in room five. Upon entering
the box, the mouse ran directly to room three. "Hmmm...no cheese."
The mouse looked around. Tried room four. No cheese. Tried room
five. "Ah-ha! Cheese!"
What would a human being have done? He or she would have continued
to return to room three again and again and again -- expecting and
then demanding cheese. "Where is my cheese!? This is where it has
always been. It's supposed to be here! I want it NOW -- GIVE ME
MY CHEESE!!! I have rights you know. Blah, blah, blah." And so the
complaining was heard through the night in the now-dark laboratory.
Meanwhile, the cheese remained in room five.
So what is the difference between mice and people? Mice get their
cheese.
- Author unknown
The
fable reflects a society dependent upon rewards and external praise
as viable methods to alter behavior. Even though our organizations
require more advanced information processing skills, behaviorism
is so pervasive that most of us don't question its validity or use
in our lives. Because of this bond, it would be naive to assert
we should stop using behavioral instruction altogether.
Behaviorism suggests that (1) teachers ensure learners attain defined
learning objectives, usually specified as observable, behavioral
outcomes. (2) Learning activities are sequenced so that learners
move through a series of carefully designed, progressively complex
operations. (3) Educational activities are evaluated as successful
when the defined learning objectives are achieved.
Many
educators don't realize B. F. Skinner said shortly before his death
in 1990, "The worst mistake my generation has made is to treat
people as if they were rats."
The
fact that Skinner, himself, recanted his basic premise has had little
effect on those who persist in thinking of minds as vessels to be
filled with disconnected facts. Behaviorism still
dominates formal education despite mounting evidence that it leads
to long-term problems and few short-term gains.
When
has behaviorism not dominated our lives? Most of us were
raised in families offering tokens for completing tasks. We grew
accustomed to external rewards and altered our behavior to acquire
more.
Schools
carried this approach forward by offering grades, stars, and attention
based on the way we behaved. Shrewd students noticed that well-behaved
children were treated better than those who misbehaved. As adults,
companies pay and provide bonuses to those who follow the rules.
Entrenched
in behaviorism, you may even be wondering, "What's the problem?"
Many of us only change our behavior, challenge what we know or think,
and try something new when a 'carrot' dangles before our eyes.
If
we didn't compete in the market, would businesses be re-engineering
their tried-and-true work practices? Would we be wanting to learn
about learning if we didn't know it would bring us some financial
gain?
Most
of us don't ask ourselves why we do things and what we want to do
differently in the future. We lock into routine tasks and low-level
processing.
This
cycle continues because we learned to rely on drill and practice,
the most common behavioral method for teaching new facts and
responses. Do something enough and it stays with you for a lifetime.
Control what we practice and teachers control what we learn.
Behavioral
instruction offers little opportunity or context to develop independent
thought. Behaviorists haven't proven that condition and response
techniques transfer to other situations or materials.
Adult
education often capitalizes on these despite the facts. Authors,
such as Robert Mager, advocate behavioral objectives that break
tasks into small, measurable pieces. His books profoundly influence
the instructional technology field despite the fact they can instruct
educators to measure things too narrowly. They teach novice instructional
designers a limiting approach to development.
It's
not that Mager encourages anyone to do anything wrong. Without the
requisite expertise in instructional design, however, readers may
not know when these approaches shouldn't be used. They may not have
a thorough enough understanding of their changing business needs
to know when this approach will end up inhibiting learning. As a
result they may use this methodology in all of their courses.
Behavioral objectives, sometimes referred to as performance
objectives, learning objectives, or terminal objectives, inform
learners know what will be measured. This type of objective reflects
the belief that at a pre-determined, externally controlled time,
a learner will know or be able to do something new. The time and
place are vital because the test of a behavioral objective lies
in its ability to be measured. Often you need to, "Define two of
this" or "Name twelve of that."
Measuring
is not the problem. After all, who hasn't heard the phrase, "What
is measured gets done"? Limiting the working knowledge of a subject
to a finite number of tasks or facts, however, seems misguided
in many cases.
To
give the illusion of testing something useful, objectives may state
something such as, "The learner will be able to identify the correct
actions to take when such and such happens." This approach is only
useful when learners continue to do those specific actions.
Using
behavioral objectives allows training departments to report they've
succeeded in educating. "We did it!" they may declare. "Your employee
learned. We're useful." Instead, the department has only demonstrated
that when they provided a stimulus, the employee responded in a
programmed way.
The
behavioral approach to instructional design is teacher-centered.
An instructor who makes unilateral decisions, regardless of their
merits, is in effect saying that the class doesn't belong to the
learners. People don't usually cheer when things are done to them.
Authentic learning and lasting behavioral change comes as a result
of adapting to our environment and experiencing new things.
To evolve, we must be flexible and adaptable when needed.
Testing
from behavioral objectives proves just as problematic. Drill
and practice programs are only moderately effective at increasing
test scores and reinforce educational practices with little bearing
on the modern workplace.
Employers
don't need performers who can pass tests. They need people who get
the job done. It would be more profitable to measure employee's
ability to adapt and evolve as things change.
We
need learners who have acquired a very different skill set than
those required to solve multiple choice problems under the pressure
of a stopwatch. Education programs
should expose us to new models, help us see things in new ways,
and build links so we know where to find additional information
when we needed it.
Does
this imply there is no place in the field of adult education for
behaviorism? Not quite. There are some tasks that lend themselves
to drill and practice, as well as condition and response.
Stephen
Brookfield, a leading adult education theorist, wrote in Facilitating
Adult Learning:
[Behaviorism] is seen most prominently in contexts where the objectives
to be attained are unambiguous, where their attainment can be judged
according to commonly agreed upon criteria of successful performance,
and where a clear imbalance exists between teachers' and learners'
areas of expertise. Examples might be learning to give an injection,
learning a computer program, learning accountancy procedures, learning
to swim, or learning to operate a sophisticated machine. Although
no learning is without elements of reflection or emotive dimensions,
these examples are all located primarily in the domain of task-oriented,
instrumental learning, and it is this domain that fits most easily
with the behaviorist approach.
There
are few examples in business today, however, where objectives are
unambiguous and success can be commonly agreed upon by the learner,
the teacher, the organization, and the content. In the information
age, rules change daily. If we face variation, we may need a different
approach.
Cognitivism
Teaching
methods based on research in cognitive science are the educational
equivalents of the polio vaccine and penicillin. Yet, few outside
the educational research community are aware of these breakthroughs
or understand the research that makes them possible.
-
John T. Bruer, The Mind's Journey from Novice to Expert
Cognitive psychology is the study of how our minds work, how
we think, how we remember, and ultimately, how we learn. There
is more to education than cognition, but studying what goes on in
the brain can drive progress, help us make decisions, and improve
educational programs.
Our
innate cognitive architecture remains the same no matter what subject
we try to master. Learning about that structure can improve the
way we learn. The implications are staggering for learning technologies
based on how the brain deals with ideas.
The
study began in 1965 when psychologists, linguists, and computer
scientists met at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for
a symposium on information science. The three-day meeting
started the cognitive revolution in psychology, a revolution replacing
behaviorist psychology with a 'science of the mind.' The revolutionaries
maintained that human minds and computers are similar enough that
a single theory -- the theory of computation -- could guide research
in both psychology and computer science.
"The
basic point of view inhabiting our work," wrote two of the participants,
"has been that the programmed computer and human problem-solver
are both species belonging to the same genus IP." Both are species
of the genus information-processors. Both are devices that
process symbols.
Cognitivists describe learning as the building of an internal schema
(knowledge structure) or the modification and extension of existing
schemata. Our schemes consistently evolve with use. In time,
certain actions require little or no thought. The actions become
automatic.
Education
doesn't always distinguish between what we should memorize and what
we need to comprehend. Programs don't address the need for different
learning strategies.
Cognitivists view learning as a developmental process. We test our
notions about the world against new information before we make it
our own. Our prior experience, knowledge, and expectations are
key to learning.
We
build bridges between new information and what we already know.
Educational programs help us do this by offering meaningful organization
and contexts to store and retrieve new information. As a result,
we effectively build on what we know.
Children
follow this model intuitively when they learn to walk. First they
roll over. Then they sit up; next pull up. They try to balance,
using their arms, feet, and trunk. Once they master balance, they
let go, then take one step, and fall. Not liking the feeling of
falling, they try to step again and put the other foot out to balance.
After two steps, they try three. Soon they can run.
In
the cognitive model, learning is the process for novices to become
experts. They differ in understanding,
storing, recalling, and manipulating knowledge as they solve problems. Novices and experts
differ in their problem-solving behavior, not just in the knowledge
they possess.
Novices
hold naive theories about how things work. For example, computer
novices may fear they will break the machine. Children often think
teachers don't go to the bathroom! Highly educated adults used to
think the moon was made of cheese. These theories don't reflect
the novices' intelligence, but rather their lack of necessary information
and experience.
These
theories so influence how we interpret instruction that even directions
can be ineffective when we're new to a subject. For instance, programs
are often designed with input from subject matter experts (SME)
who offer how they currently perform tasks or solve problems.
Wanting
to share their wisdom, experts can leave out the vital chunks and
situations that led them to that expert level. They identify the
behaviors that learners should possess and envision reinforcing
activities for the novices. A better way to develop curricula based
on cognitive research would be to build from, address, and then
correct these naive theories so that learners can overcome their
naive beliefs.
Novices
see individual parts. Experts, in contrast, see chunks of
relevant information. The experts' more effective, more information-rich
chunks allow them to see a larger scope and choose more appropriate
areas to turn their attention. Because of this chunking,
experts process more and better information in the same amount of
time.
Novices
and experts learn by altering long-term memory structures. Cognitive
psychology suggests that if education helps novices structure their
new information, they will be able to use the structures throughout
the life of that knowledge. Unlike behavioral 'condition and response'
techniques, these mental structures can even adapt and grow.
We
modify these structures when we come across problems that our current
rules (or scripts) can't solve. We recognize the information
we need and process it to build more accurate or up-to-date rules.
Some
learners modify their structures automatically while others need
some help. Learners who can't modify on their own need direct instruction
about the relevant facts and about the strategies to use. With the
right approach, we can progress from relative naiveté, through
a series of partial understandings, to eventual subject mastery
by understanding facts, strategies, and when to use each.
In
the early 1980s, researchers noticed that some people learn new
subjects and solved new problems more expertly than most regardless
of how much knowledge they possess on the topic. Called intelligent
novices, these people seem to control and monitor their
thought processes. This suggests that there is more to expert
performance than topic-specific knowledge and skills.
Cognitive
psychologists called this new element of expert performance metacognition.
Metacognition defines the ability to think about thinking, to
be consciously aware of ourselves as problem solvers, and to monitor
and control our mental processing. When we think about how we
think, we can reflect on our learning styles, what methods and techniques
work best for us, and how we've successfully learned in the past.
There
are several keys to metacognition. They include (1) our awareness
of the difference between understanding and memorizing material
and which mental strategies to use at different times; (2) our ability
to recognize difficult subjects, where to start, and how much time
to spend on them; and (3) our aptness to take problems and examples
from the materials, order them, and then try to solve them. Others
are (4) knowing when we don't understand so we can seek help from
an expert; and (5) knowing when the expert's explanation solves
our immediate learning obstacle.
Metacognitive skills all involve problem solving awareness and control.
We can learn metacognitive skills by working through one topic,
but can then apply them when trying to learn a second topic.
This
research tells us that metacognition is probably the most important
lifelong learning skill. Incorporating these skills into educational
programs (and our day-to-day work habits) is vital to our growth.
While topic-specific knowledge and skills are essential to expertise,
programs must also be metacognitively aware, informed, and explicit.
We
need to create and maintain educational environments where learners
smoothly journey from novice to expert and learn to become intelligent
novices. To do that, we must rethink (or at least re-evaluate) education
policy, classroom practices, standards, and teacher training.
Admittedly, we don't know everything about how the mind works, how
people best learn, or how to design the best training programs.
On the other hand, cognitive science shows us strategies we can
apply to improve our programs and our futures.
Constructivism
Leading
technologies are often ill-defined and under constant construction.
Because the techniques needed to stay ahead in the information age
will, most likely, not change as quickly as the technologies that
sustain us, the way we learn technology must change.
Tom
Peters writes that, "We must abandon our old beliefs about learning
to just keep up with change." We must (1) collaborate
with one another, (2) draw wisdom from data to be able to (3) articulate
what we believe, why we believe it, and (4) be willing to gather
new information when it is time to change what we believe.
Constructivist approaches work well when we operate with constantly
changing information. If education is to become the soul of the
new information systems industry, we must learn better ways to
deal with the unstructured, the undefined, and the unknown.
Be
warned, however. Constructivist approaches don't lend themselves
to computer-based training or evaluation where structure is a requisite
part of design.
Constructivism is presented here to offer ideas about what to do
when facing uncertainty and how to use different approaches in different
times. Constructivism works best when technology is new, very complex,
and there isn't time or structures set up to build media solutions.
It's arduous to test what no one knows.
The
constructivist model comes from several contemporary cognitive theorists
who began questioning the benefit of cognitive instruction for unknown
information and knowledge. They adopted a different way to look
at learning and understanding knowledge. Constructivists assert
that knowledge is what we make of it. Without minds there would
be no knowledge -- it's a function of how we create meaning from
our experiences.
Because
of the 'Thriving on Chaos' mentality of the late 1980s and early
1990s, constructivism received increasing attention in the field
of training and instructional design. Constructivists
emphasize the flexible use of pre-existing knowledge rather than
the recall of prepackaged schemes.
As
the definitions of words change meaning based on how we understand
the context, so too will ideas continually evolve with new use.
For this reason, it is critical that constructivist learning (much
like cognitive learning) occurs in realistic settings and that the
selected learning tasks be relevant to the learner's life experiences.
To be successful, meaningful, and lasting, learning must involve
actions, understanding concepts, and working knowledge of culture.
For
example, a typical constructivist goal wouldn't be to teach novice
Local Area Network (LAN) Administrators unique facts about LAN topologies,
but to offer them an opportunity to use these facts as they would
on the job. By recreating their reality, they learn.
Cognitive
learning environments can effectively transfer basic skills and
help learners attain advanced knowledge if the information is well
defined and available. Much of what needs to be learned today involves
advanced knowledge in ill-structured domains. LANs, for instance,
vary wildly. Needs change daily.
Constructivists encourage learners to construct their own understanding,
based on their reality, and then validate their new perspectives
though social negotiations. We must talk with others about what
we've learned to find out if we're missing something.
Dialogue helps us clarify the subtleties of our thoughts.
As we uncover naive theories, we begin to see our activities in
a new light, guiding us toward conceptual re-framing and learning.
Content
can't be pre-specified. Computer-based training, for instance, wouldn't
work as we know it today. Instead, technology indexes information
and cases, and is accessed when needed from the learning team.
For
example, constructivism has been widely used in the education of
doctors, architects, lawyers, and artisans. Strategies can involve
(1) cognitive apprenticeships where experts model and coach a learner
toward expert performance; (2) presenting multiple perspectives
and using collaborative learning to develop and share alternative
views; (3) social negotiation so debate and discussion can take
place; (4) using examples as realistic illustrations; and (5) reflective
awareness.
This
theory proves challenging, if not impossible, when done individually.
This is a model to consider as more people within organizations
need to overcome the unknown and consortiums assemble individuals
from different organizations facing similar challenges.
Humanism
The
information age requires a self-educating workforce capable of peak
performance. Our challenge is to stimulate new thinking. Humanism,
the theory of individual growth and development, offers us techniques
to think in new, creative ways. It is the predominant paradigm of
practice within the literature of North American adult and continuing
education.
Drawn
from the work of humanistic psychologists and the study of andragogy,
this theory encompasses teaching and learning assumptions that profoundly
influence the field. Humanist activities facilitate collaborative
learning with strong emphasis on learners and instructors negotiating
objectives, methods, and evaluative criteria.
Humanism
begins with the theory that learning occurs primarily by reflecting
on personal experience. The role of instruction is not to put anything
in the mind or repertoire of the learner, but to extract lessons
from the learner's insights and experience -- like drawing water
from a well.
We
can gain new insights into previous experiences if we have the opportunity
and tools to do so. The role of the instructor is to help learners
supplement experiences with new opportunities.
Instruction should ask stimulating questions that help the learner
make new connections and uncover what we already know. Real learning
is what we discover for ourselves, not something we're told or led
to by someone else. This technique took root in the Socratic methods
and in Plato's belief that all knowledge is inherent. Later, it
developed under Carl Rogers' work with self-directed therapies.
Additional
techniques include (1) inductive discussion, (2) individual or group
projects, (3) debriefing sessions, (4) action planning, (5) self-assessment,
(6) visualization, and (7) guided reflection.
Humanism
stresses that we must feel comfortable with the learning environment
and the flow of topics. The way we feel about a program influences
our commitment to it. If we feel secure, respected, esteemed, and
empowered, we're likely to make a strong effort. If we feel threatened,
anxious, hostile, or demeaned, we're likely to resist.
Humanism
engages learners in intense and personal ways. Programs begin by
helping learners identify individual learner-centered objectives
drawn from experience. These objectives don't tell us what we should
know as defined by someone else. We're responsible for our learning.
Instruction involves learners in the planning stages to ensure topics
are relevant and appropriate. Programs rely on self-analysis, team
building, and peer learning using various tools and approaches.
Significant learning leads to insights and understanding of ourselves
and others. Becoming a better human being is considered a valid
learning goal. Rogers believed that anything that can be taught
to another person is relatively inconsequential. Rather, desire
to learn must come from intrinsic motivation, created by the need
for personal growth and fulfillment.
Humanism
has little structure, can be used with high conceptual levels, employs
self-evaluation, and respects individual differences.
As
we move along the behavioral - cognitive - humanist continuum, the
focus shifts from teaching to learning. The strategies move from
passive transfer of facts and routines to active application of
ideas and problems.
While
cognitivists, constructivists, and humanists each view learners
as active participants, constructivists and humanists regard learners
as more than active processors. They believe that learners must
elaborate and interpret information.
As
we acquire more experience, we progress along a low-to-high knowledge
continuum from (1) being able to recognize and apply standard rules,
facts and operations (knowing what), to (2) extrapolating from these
general rules where problems may occur (knowing how), to (3) developing
and testing new understanding and actions when familiar categories
and ways of thinking fail (reflection-in-action).
Behaviorism can effectively condition learners to do things in certain
ways and familiarize us with the contents of a profession (recognize/know
what). Cognitivism proves useful in teaching problem-solving tactics
where defined facts and rules apply to unfamiliar situations (extrapolate/know
how). Humanism is especially suited to help us deal with whatever
problems come our way (formulate/reflection-in-action).
The
appropriate instructional approach should be based on the level
of cognitive processing required. Tasks requiring low-level
processing (such as associations, discriminations, and rote memorization)
are most often accomplished with behaviorism. Cognitive strategies
fit with subjects that require more advanced processing, classifications,
identifying rules, procedural exceptions, and problem solving. Issues
that demand high-levels processing are frequently learned best with
humanist strategies.
The
critical question is not, "Which is the best theory?" but rather,
"Which theory is most effective in fostering mastery of specific
tasks by individual learners?" What might be most effective when
we're novice learners, meeting complex bodies of information for
the first time, may not be effective, efficient, or stimulating
for learners who are more familiar with the content.
While
we can mix strategies, a renewed focus on humanist (and andragogic)
practices help us function well when optimal conditions don't exist,
when situations are unpredictable, and when we need to think on
our feet. Our rapidly growing, changing, organic environments demand
solutions based on inventiveness, improvisation, dialogue, and social
negotiation.
[1] Discussion Paper Series. Instructional principles
for adult learning. Bedford, MA: National Education Training Group
- Spectrum.
[2] Neo-behaviorism is defined and explained in Appendix B.
[3] Adapted from S. S. Dubin and M. Okun (1973). Implications
of learning theories for adult instruction. Adult Education,
24 (1). p. 8.
[4] Stephen D. Brookfield (1989). Facilitating adult learning.
In Sharan B. Merriam and P. M. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of
adult and continuing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[5] David Thornburg (1994, September). Killing the fatted calf:
Skinner recanted behaviorism. Why can't education? Electronic
Learning, p. 24.
[6] Alfie Kohn (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with
gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
[7] Thornburg (1994).
[8] Brookfield (1989).
[9] John T. Bruer (1993, Summer). The mind's journey from novice
to expert. American Educator, p. 7.
[10] Howard Gardner (1985). The mind's new science: History
of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
[11]
Allen Newell and Herbert Simon (1972). Human problem solving.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[12]
Bruer (1993).
[13]
Rob Forshay (1991, May). Sharpen up your schemata. Data Training,
p. 20.
[14]
Bruer (1993).
[15]
An expert is defined as someone highly skilled or knowledgeable
in a given topic.
[16]
Newell and Simon (1972).
[17]
A. L. Brown, J. D. Bransford, R. A. Ferrara, and J. C. Camione (1983).
Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3, Cognitive development.
New York: Wiley.
[18]
Tom Peters (1994). The Tom Peters seminar: Crazy times call for
crazy organizations. New York: Vintage Books.
[19]
Tom Peters (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a managment
revolution. New York: Harper and Row.
[20]
R. J. Spiro, P. J. Feltovich, M. J. Jacobson, and R. I. Coulson
(1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random
access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured
domains. Educational Technology, 31 (9), pp. 24-33.
[21]
J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid (1989). Situated cognition
and the culture of learning. Educational Research, 18
(1), pp. 32-42.
[22]
D. H. Jonassen (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational
Technology, 31 (9), pp. 28-33.
[23]
Peggy A. Ertmer and Timothy J. Newby (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism,
constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional
design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6
(4), pp. 50-72.
[24]
Brookfield (1989). p. 203.
[25]
Tom Kramlinger and Tom Huberty (1990, December). Behaviorism versus
humanism. Training and Development Journal, pp. 41-45.
[26]
Richard Brostrom (1979). Training styles inventory. In J. E. Jones
and J. W. Pfeiffer (Eds.). 1979 Annual handbook for group facilitators.
San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.
[27]
T. M. Duffy and D. Jonassen (1993, May). Constructivism: New implications
for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31 (5),
pp. 13-17.
[28]
Donald A. Schön (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[29]
Ertmer and Newby (1993).
|