Using Cognitive Learning Theory to Learn How to Drive a Car - Report Example

Learning Theories Using cognitive learning theory to explain what is involved in learning how to drive a car Name University Module Instructor Submission Date © 2012 INTRODUCTION Learning has been defined differently at different forums. At the lowest level, learning simply means “knowing something”. It also implies to the process of attaining new insights that are fundamental in the livelihood of an individual (Wells, 2007). Drawing from these two simplistic definitions, a more technical meaning of learning can be taken to refer to any relatively permanent change in behaviour that occurs as a result of experience (Taylor, 2008). In line with this therefore, learning can be viewed as an outcome that is evident in behaviour and is observable. From time immemorial, several theories have come up with attempts to explain how people learn. In the views of Beven and partner (2011), a learning theory refers to “a body of principles advocated by psychologists and educators to explain how people acquire skills, knowledge and attitudes”. Despite the disagreements resident amongst psychologists and educators, many do agree that learning cannot be explained using one single theory but only through a combination of several theories (Santrock, 2008). The commonest of such theories include cognitive, behaviourism, humanism and social learning theory as enumerated by Shuell (1990). It is therefore the aim of this essay to explain how cognitive learning theory is used to learn to drive a car. The paper also outlines the strengths and limitations associated with the use of cognitive theory to learn the said activity as opposed to the other aforementioned theories. USING COGNITIVE LEARNING THEORY TO LEARN HOW TO DRIVE A CAR Cognitive learning theory revolutionalised from three cognitive sciences identified by Merriam (2007) as psychology, linguistics and anthropology. Santrock (2008) further argues that there are two main contributors to the cognitive psychology namely Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky who lived around (1896 – 1980) and (1896 – 1934) respectively. Research further indicates that cognitive psychology was developed to counter the ideals of behaviourism school of thought forwarded by Ivan Pavlov, B.F. Skinner and other physiologists (Ormrod, 2008) who majorly experimented using animal subjects. It is clearly demonstrated by Beven and partner (2011) that cognitive learning theories pay more attention to understanding how people carry out their thought processes particularly in the conscious mind. The cognitive theory is thus best explained by use of the information processing model (IPM) proposed by Santrock (2008). According to this model, humans are found to process information so efficiently that they supersede the performance of the most highly sophisticated machines designed for undertaking tasks in the realm of problem solving and critical thinking (Lombardi, 2011). Theorists behind the information processing model claim that a human mind is like “a computer system where information is processed through the application of logical rules and strategies” (Shuell, 1990). Unfortunately, the human mind is limited in the amount and nature of the data that can be processed at a time. To carry out information processing effectively, the mind is thus composed of sensory, short-term and long-term memories interconnected by a system of activities enumerated hereunder. The sensory memory is known to contain receptors which perceive external stimuli and briefly holds the information processed before it is taken into the short-term memory or forgotten (Merriam, 2007)). Studies indicate that this memory is very short as it is only perceived by the sense organs which have extremely limited ability to store information as noted by Beven and partner (2011). The short-term memory on the other hand is a temporary storage facility in which case a lot of rehearsing is required to hold information for up to twenty minutes as reported by Freud (qted in Santrock, 2008). When applied to the activity of this essay, drivers on a busy freeway need to keep on rehearsing their skills in order to become proficient in their driving. The most important aspect of the working memory as regards to driving a car is found in its selective processing. When one is learning to drive a car for instance, the learner might allocate more of his or her limited cognitive resources to watching the center of the road and holding the steering wheel more firmly than an established driver would do. Additionally, the learner would pay special attention to the other cars when traffic is heavy to avoid avert the possibility of causing an accident (Wells, 2007). This selectiveness in cognitive resource allocation coupled with repetition of task performance facilitates effective learning (Taylor, 2008). Considering the information processing model, Merriam (2007) explains that the long-term memory has some permanency of information retention, lasting from minutes to a lifetime. This revelation leads to the conclusion that long-term memory has an almost limitless capacity of information retention which is accessible through encoding and retrieval (Santrock, 2008). In this memory, activities that need to be conducted procedurally like driving a car are addressed here as well as those that need some declarations. Additionally, information arising from certain episodes in our lives is stored in the long-term memory as illustrated by Bruner (1964) and Shuell (1990). Byrnes 1996 (also qted in Santrock, 2008) concludes that continuous practice as well as elaboration are the two fundamental aspects of the long-term memory. The foregoing precinct, it is demonstrative that cognitive theory dwells very much on reinforcement and feedback which are particularly achieved through repetition of tasks to achieve masterly of the tasks as pointed out by Santrock (2008). The implication for this in learning to drive a car underscores the importance of rehearsal to excite the short-term memory. This, coupled with the right motivation realises an efficient and effective learning process as demonstrated by Hill (2002). On the basis of arguments proffered here, four important implications for improving learning and instruction through cognitive theory abide. Firstly, effective learning can only be realised if learners selectively process the most important information first and engage in as much automated processing as possible (Baddeley, 2001). This is owing to the limited capacity of both sensory and short-term memories as outlined in earlier paragraphs of this essay. Although not always a condition, relevant prior knowledge is found to facilitate encoding and retrieval processes in most learning situations. For someone to effectively learn to drive a car faster than normal, it is noted that such a learner must possess a great deal of organized knowledge within the particular domain of riding or driving (Stevenson, 2001). Santrock (2008) explains that this prerequisite knowledge will guide the processing of information in both the sensory and short-term memories through the provision of structures that facilitate easy and faster access and retrieval of data. Additionally, the knowledge serves as the basis for the development of expertise in line with findings provided by Halpern (2003) and Stevenson (2001). For this reason, studies by Santrock (2008) and Rogers (2003) have demonstrated that assisting learners to use their past knowledge is very fundamental in promoting learning of new information. Numerous study findings have further indicated that there are a number of strategies that can be employed to ensure that information is permanently stored in the long-term memory (Merriam, 2007). Santrock (2008) highlights “positive transfer, dual coding theory, rehearsal, instructional strategies, mnemonics and memory gadgets or devices as being the commonest of such methods”. Positive transfer on the one hand requires the instructor to excite prerequisite knowledge of the learner to make a connection with the new knowledge in order to facilitate effective learning. This in the case of learning how to drive a car will require the trainer to exploit the learner’s prior knowledge on aspects like steering, balancing, braking, accelerating and or swerving. Proponents of the dual coding theory emphasise on the learner’s engagement in two processes at a time. For instance an individual learning to drive a car will remember best if this activity is taught through visual learning and audio learning as suggested by Ormrod (2008). The aspect will include observing road signs, other cars in the highway as well as the instructor’s demonstrations. The auditory learning involves paying keen attention to instructions from the trainer, sirens from others motorists and screeching from car brakes to enhance safe driving. Applying these suggestions to driving will make learning the activity a lot easier and more effective. The foregoing strategies are coupled with the application of rehearsals on the part of the learner. Santrock (2008) recommends the use of two types of rehearsal namely: maintenance and elaborative. When applying maintenance rehearsal, the learner is required to constantly repeat the information stored in short-term memory to avoid lose of the information as advocated by Ormrod (2008). This in views of Shuell (1990) amounts to rote learning which is sometimes associated with boredom if the activity is not exciting. When learning to drive a car, maintenance rehearsal proves to be very necessary in order attain masterly. The use of elaborative rehearsal just like the name suggests requires concerted efforts on the part of the learner by expanding his or her scope. This is made possible by reaching out for more information and concepts already in the long-term memory. The act is variously termed as information retrieval and is concerned with remembering (Santrock, 2008). Studies have identified a very simple method of remembering long and difficult concepts. The primary colours of the rainbow can easily be remembered by contracting the names into “ROYGBIV” standing for red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. The use of acronym ‘ROYGBIV’ is what is commonly referred to mnemonics (Shuell, 1990). These can similarly be used in remembering important aspects in driving like road signs and other traffic signals. In retrospect, it is found that cognitive theory focuses on internal memory processes and their role in learning. The three stages of information storage namely sensory, short-term and long-term memories play a very important role in enabling learners to engage in complex activities in a very simple way. As earlier indicated elsewhere in this essay, cognitive science equates the human mind to a computer system that perceives; stores; retrieves; transforms and transmits information. Additionally, the science is a component of five disciplines including psychology, linguistics, computer science, philosophy and neuroscience as reported by Halpern (2003). Based on this argument, it is clearly demonstrated that cognitive learning theory is the best suited in learning complex activities as the one cited in this instance. Although no one method is foolproof in learning, cognitive theory exposes some strengths and limitations when looked in light of the other learning theories identified in this essay. These strengths and limitations are enumerated in the following section below. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF USING COGNITIVE LEARNING THEORY In light of the other learning theories namely behaviourism, humanism and social learning theory, cognitive learning theory is found to profess some strengths and limitations particularly in learning complex activities like driving a car. From the ideals of Beven and partner (2011), cognitive learning theory is otherwise referred to as the brain-based learning (BBL) as it deals with the mental processes. This aspect of cognitive learning theory is best explained by the schema theory developed by Anderson as indicated by Halpern (2003). According to the schema theory, Anderson claims that “knowledge is organized as an elaborate network of abstract mental structures that represent an individual’s understanding of the world”. It is simply a system of schemes that provides linkages for the learners’ prerequisite knowledge with the new one so acquired (Hill, 2002). These schemes can be best explained by the use of the information processing model illustrated above. On one hand, cognitive learning theory helps learners to be fully immersed in real and complex experiences that enable them to completely hone their skills in their involved activity (Alexander, 2003). Additionally, Bruner (1964) argues cognitive learning theory gives learners the needed challenges that help stimulate their learning. In this way, they are able to overcome their inherent fears that seem to threat inhibiting their learning (Taylor, 2008). The use of cognitive learning theory additionally allows learners in the specific activity to have feedback which is considered more important in reality situations like learning to drive a car than from other formal situations like those found in the classroom environment (Shuell, 1990). Offering students opportunities for analysis and discussion of their situations proves to be more important for gaining insights into accomplishing their collective task (Rogers, 2003). Since new facts are embedded in existing knowledge and understanding when using cognitive learning theory, students need to see the big picture as well as the detail and thus the two should not be separated (Merriam, 2007). In fact, learners should be allowed to develop their own learning experiences because each brain is considered to be individual (Rogers, 2003). This in effect requires educators and trainers to understand the individual needs and styles of each learner so as to design and develop flexible learning packages to accommodate these varying styles. In my view, I believe that meaningful learning can be attained through allowing learners to be actively involved in the learning exercise. In this instance, learners are allowed to actively interpret their experience using internal, cognitive operations as outlined by Halpern (2003). In this way therefore, the learner is able to construct knowledge rather than wait for it to trickle down from the instructor who has always been considered the source of information in rote learning. Knowledge gained this way is found to be more meaningful than any other way. Meaningful learning also requires the use of real objects and real situations, which is very practical when one is learning to drive a car: the real car ha s to be there or even models of cars. Apart from the foregoing strengths to cognitive learning theory of learning to perform a complex activity like driving a car, certain limitations abide. The belief that humans have an innate ability to learn everything is in itself a limitation because other findings suggest that each individual has his or her own specific learning capabilities. The fact that everyone has capabilities to learn well through their individual, preferred styles makes each learner to be treated individually in a learning experience as noted by Alberto and Troutman (2003). That is why a learner in effective learning is considered as a single entity instead of ‘as a group’. For this reason, a trainer when formulating SMART objectives will say: “By the end of the activity, the learners should be able to start and stop a car”. Behavioural theory focuses on behaviour and underlines experience as the basis of all learning (Alberto and Troutman, 2003). Watson who is considered the father of behaviourism stressed the importance of pairing the stimulus with the response to achieve effective learning as it is observed in conditioning of dogs by Pavlov or initiating phobias in baby Robert by Watson (cited in Rogers, 2003). In this theory, the basis is to eliminate maladaptive, conditional reflexes and replace them with more adaptive ones. Critics of this theory propose a number of limitations that in effect render the cognitive theory more strong. The mere use of animal subjects in experimental designs as proposed by the likes of Skinner, Watson and Pavlov negates the whole idea of meaningful learning because the experiments only molds behaviour in the concerned subjects through aversive means Halpern (2003). Behaviour learned this way is easily forgotten once the stimulus is withdrawn according to observations by Santrock (2008). In addition to the foregoing limitation, behavioural theory is also found to abstract isolated events from their total context (Alexander, 2003). A good example resides in learning the activity described in this essay. As opposed to learning two processes at a time as is the case in cognitive learning, behaviourism advocates the learning of part tasks which are later joined together (Hill, 2002). This poses the risk of forgetting some of the skills learned at the start of the learning activity. In learning to drive a car, one need to be engaged in a number of activities at once like turning the ignition key, engaging gears, stepping on the accelerator, steering the wheel and controlling the car to move in a desired direction. The trainee driver will also be required to pay attention to other road users to avoid the possibility of causing an accident. Moreover, behavioural learning theory is found to de-humanise learning because it considers the learner as an automatic entity where he or she has to learn through mere observations (Alberto and Troutman, 2003). Behavioural theory is closely related to the social learning theory which similarly emphasizes on the importance of learners observing others particularly their mentors as they go about their experiences. The theory supposes that learning is a combination of ‘Attention-Memory-Motivation’ as it combines three aspects of learning namely cognitive, behavioural and environmental influences (Merriam, 2007). Compared with the cognitive learning theory, it appears more or less the same only that it focuses the use rewards to motivate learners either positively or negatively. When applied in learning to drive a car, the learner observes the trainer deriving pleasure in manipulating the car gears and steering wheel, hence gets motivated to learn more easily. Humanism as proposed by Thorndike contradicts the other theories as it emphasises on the wider aspects of learning than behavioural (Halpern, 2003). Humanistic theories are concerned with the need to focus on the social and emotional development of learners and not just on their cognitive development as claimed by Santrock (2008). As opposed to the behavioural learning theory which de-humanises learning, humanistic theory takes deep concerns over the human feelings. Abraham Maslow as noted by Halpern (2003) identified certain human needs arranged in a hierarchy that has to be fulfilled subsequently. Maslow believed that the direction of our energy is not simply to satisfy our basic needs (qted in Bandura, 1977) but a striving for “self-actualisation”. This theory seems to drive learners into wanting to learn more and more. CONCLUSIONS From the discourse presented above, it has established that learning theories are the basic ingredients used in explaining how the learning process occurs. This requires the educator and trainer in general to understand the ideals of learning theories so as to be able to tailor training programmes in line with the requirements of their specific learners (Mohammed, 2006). As noticed throughout the essay, the cognitive learning theory; the behaviourism; the humanism as well as the social learning theory concentrate on different aspects of the teaching-learning process in their approaches (Taylor, 2008). While the behaviourism focus on external environmental conditions resulting in observations and measurable changes in behaviour, cognitive learning theory stresses that all humans must be in the right frame of mind in order to have meaningful learning (Halpern, 2003). This will go a long way in engaging the brain to process information acquired through the learning activity. On the contrary, both the humanists and the social learning theorists emphasize on emotions, attitudes of human behaviour that influence learning (Santrock, 2008). Moreover, the discourse has also established that no one single learning theory is capable of fully explaining how learning occurs but has to be in a combination of theories (Merriam, 2007). This will of course depend on the nature of the learners and learning strategies used. When involving a complex learning activity such as learning to drive a car for instance, it has emerged that the cognitive learning theory in a mixture of other theories is the best suited. REFERENCES Alberto, P. & Troutman, A. C. (2003). Applied behavioral Analysis for Teachers (6th ed) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32, 10–14. Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56(11), 851- 64. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Beven, F & Stevenson, J. (2011). Expertise and Development: A Study Guide. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University Bruner, J. S. (1964). The Course of Cognitive Growth. American Psychologist, (19) pg. 1-55. Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hill, W. F. (2002). Learning: A survey of psychological interpretation (7th ed), Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Lombardi, S. M. (2011). Internet Activities for a Preschool Technology Education Program Guided by Caregivers. Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University. pp. 139–140. Merriam, S. B. (2007). Learning In Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mohammed, S. C. (2006). Human Behavior in the Context of Training: An Overview of the Role of Learning Theories as Applied to Training and Development. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 7, No. 2 Ormrod, J. (2008). Human Learning (5th ed.). New Jersey, NY: Pearson Education, Inc. Rogers, A. (2003). What is the Difference? A new critique of adult learning and teaching, Leicester, NIACE 85 pages Santrock, J. W. (2008). Educational psychology. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of Meaningful Learning. Review of Educational Research; vol. 60, No. 4; pg. 531-547 Slater, C. L. (2003). Generativity Versus Stagnation: an elaboration of Erikson’s adult stage of human development. Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 10, No.1; pg. 53-65. Stevenson, J. (2001). Vocational knowledge and its specification, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 53 (4), pg 647-662 Stevenson, J. (2003). Developing vocational Expertise: principles and issues in vocational education. Crows Nest, N.S.W., Allen & Unwin Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. Jossey-Bass. pp. 5–15. Wells, G. (2007). “Semiotic Mediation, Dialogue and the Construction of Knowledge”. Human Development 50 (5): 244–274. Read More