The three learning theories to be analysed in relation to a professional learning

context are behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. Given as I have only

experienced professional learning in the context of my Master of Teaching (Secondary)
degree, this is what I shall refer to. First it is important to explain each learning theory
and identify their similarities and differences. Behaviourism refers to learning through
experiences in which a student is either praised (and thus will want to repeat the action)
or punished (and thus will not want to repeat the action), such as a teacher telling a
student they provided the correct answer (praise) or the incorrect answer (punishment)
(Eggan & Kauchak, 2001). Cognitivism refers to learning through attempting to make
sense of information based on what a student already understands, such as a teacher
providing direct instruction of a concept and the student connecting what they are
hearing to what they learnt previously (Eggan & Kauchak, 2001). Constructivism refers
to learning through constructing a students own knowledge with some assistance from
the teacher (as opposed to the student just acquiring it from them), such as a student
conducting an inquiry in order to solve a problem through which they can draw
conclusions (Duffy & Cunningham, 2001). Unlike the first two learning theories,
constructivism places the focus on the students rather than the teacher. Behaviourism
treats students passively through reinforcement using either rewards or punishment,
unlike the other two theories in which students take an active role in their own learning
(Eggan & Kauchak, 2001).
The learning theory that most embodies my own learning preferences is
cognitivism because I prefer to not focus solely on learning facts (as behaviourism does)
or being wholly responsible for my own learning (as constructivism does). The
behaviourist view supports fact learning as it praises or punishes students based on

their ability to be correct (or incorrect as it may be) which cannot easily translate into
teaching students to, say, write proficient essays or understand concepts (Eggan &
Kauchak, 2001). Throughout my undergraduate degree in Science a lot of emphasis was
placed on remembering specific pieces of information that we would be tested on during
the examination. I felt that if facts were remembered, a good mark was awarded,
whereas if some facts were forgotten, a poor mark was awarded. As such, at the end of
my degree I struggled to connect concepts and see the relevance of what I had learnt.
Constructivism, with its focus on the student, has often been implemented in my Master
of Teaching (Secondary) degree, with an expectation that students be independent
learners. Some of my peers prefer this style of learning as they would much rather
research the necessary information that have a teacher sit them down and talk at them.
For myself, perhaps due to my age and experiences throughout school leading up to
university, feel intimidated at the prospect of having to seek out my own knowledge.
Cognitivist approaches to education allow students to utilise their previous
understandings and apply them to new content, provided that the content that is being
provided to them is within their zone of proximal development as described by
Vygotsky (Hoffnung et al., 2013).
This preference influences my own teaching practice by informing how I
organise my lessons and develop activities for my students. Idealistically, I would
involve all three learning theories into my practice. From a cognitivist perspective, I
would explain scientific or mathematical concepts (depending on the subject I was
teaching in) to my students at the front of the classroom. From a behaviourist
perspective, I would ask them questions whilst delivering content to assess their level of
understanding (then respond to their answers as to whether they were correct or

incorrect). From a constructivist perspective, I would provide them with assignments or

in-class activities in which they were expected to solve inquiry questions (this is
especially relevant for Science). Focusing on how my personal preferences would
influence my teaching in a possibly unconscious way, I believe I would give my students
a lot of direct instruction that is hopefully aimed at their developmental level. Vygotsky
described how each student has a zone of proximal development that is between what
they already understand and the most they could understand with assistance, which is
known as scaffolding in this context (Hoffnung et al., 2013). The knowledge gap in
between can be achieved through appropriate scaffolding and in order for students to
learn, teachers (or more knowledgeable students) must provide content that sits within
the students zone of proximal development. If it sits below, the students will likely
become bored as they will consider the content too easy and if it sits above, the
students will not be able to grasp the new content as it will be too challenging/difficult
for them. A negative aspect of teaching in my preferred learning theory style that must
be considered is that some of the students in my classes will, like some of my Master of
Teaching peers, prefer a constructivist approach to education. I will be disadvantaging
them if I cannot provide them with a learning style that suits them. As such, it is
important to always reflect on how I am organising lessons and activities and whether
these are based broadly enough on a variety of learning theories to allow a wide
spectrum of learners to benefit.
The most effective approach in a university context and in my role as a teacher is
a combination of cognitivism and constructivism as each offers something for its
students. It is important to understand what learning is if we are to ask how best our
students learn. If learning is thought of as just storing information, we will teach

significantly different than if we think of it as constructing ideas to explain phenomena

(Engestrm, 1994). It is essential for the learner to find what they are learning relevant,
otherwise they will not be able to see the point to learning it. This has been echoed
numerous times in personal discussions with peers and is something I can most
definitely relate to. Brookfield (1995) describes four lenses through which we can
critically reflect on our teaching, in order to assess whether we are on the right track or
should adjust our style. These four lenses are autobiographical (through our own eyes),
through students eyes, through colleagues experiences and through theoretical
literature (Brookfield, 1995). Whichever style is adopted by a teacher, they should
constantly review its effectiveness using Brookfields model.
The cognitivism and constructivism approaches are the most applicable in my
context for several reasons. Both Mathematics and Science contain a considerable
amount of content to provide students, and thus direct instruction (cognitivism) is
important in order to get through all the information in a timely fashion. Also, they both
contain some complex concepts, where an inquiry approach (constructivism) allows
students to teach themselves (so it can be sure they are operating in their zone of
proximal development). Knowles (1973) warns of the learning theories that stem back to
studies on animals in laboratories that are then applied to teaching children, further
being applied to adult learners. This is important to consider when assessing which
learning theories should be applied in the classroom as if they work effectively in
controlled circumstances, this will not necessarily be transferred over to teaching adults
in the real world. Also, it is important to realise that children and adults expect to be
treated differently. For example, giving a child an inquiry (constructivist) task in class

may intimidate them, however an adult is far more likely to be able to handle the
pressure that comes with taking responsibility for their learning.
In conclusion, of the three learning theories discussed (behaviourism,
cognitivism and constructivism) the latter two appear to be the most effective for a
university context and as the role of a teacher. That is not to say that behaviourism does
not have its role to play in an education context, with learning facts an important part of
a lot of subjects. Cognitivism allows students the opportunity to build on their existing
knowledge base and constructivism allows students the opportunity to construct their
own knowledge. Ultimately though, it is the teachers responsibility to continuously go
through the process of critically evaluating their practice (Brookfields four lenses can
be an effective model to use here) because as Knowles detailed, some learning theories
work well theoretically but are challenged when put into practice.

References
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Constructivism: implications for the design
and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (pp. 1-31). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2001). Strategies for teachers: teaching content and
thinking skills. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Engestrm, Y. (1994). Training for change: new approach to instruction and learning in
working life. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organisation.
Hoffnung, M., Hoffnung, R. J., Seifert, K. L., Burton Smith, R., Hine, A., Ward, L.,
Swabey, K. (2013). Lifespan development: a topical approach. Milton, Queensland:
Wiley.
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston, Texas: Gulf
Publishing Company.