Charles Thinks There Is Much Disagreement Between Cognitivis

Charlesi Think There Is Much Disagreement Between Cognitivist And Beh

Charles: I think there is much disagreement between cognitivist and behaviorist, because behaviorist suggest that learning only occurs with outward manifestations, almost completely refuting the notion that a mental state and/or process exists and having little to no effect that is separate from behavior. As such, behaviorist argued that cognition, was in essence, a behavior with no distinct separation from any other form of behavior. Whereas, cognitivist maintained that our cognitive ability, which by most definitions is essentially how we acquire, process organize, store information, and retrieve that information, demonstrates how outward manifestations tend to mirror inward thoughts. Meaning it is our cognitive ability that drives our behavior.

Thus, suggesting that cognition is much more than simply an observed and then duplicated behavior when it comes to learning. I think at some point in our lives, such as early development, behaviorism comes into play more. However, as our cognition develops, and we become more aware of it we are able to learn rather than simply responding to reinforcements. So, for me I see validity in both theories to varying degrees, but I think when it comes to true learning, where a person is able to retain and recall information cognitivism has the upper hand. Some of the notable differences between the two theories are; “Behaviorism focuses on the importance of the consequences of those performances and contends that responses that are followed by reinforcement are more likely to recur in the future” (Ertner & Newby, 2013).

Additionally, behaviorist place emphasis on the environment as a factor or outcome of learning where memory and transfer have little to no role and are characterized more along the lines of what many call muscle memories which comes with repetition. “Repetition, however, does not guarantee that a learner will retain the information in his or her long-term memory” (Rosser & Majors, 2013). While the two theories use similar methods to achieve results they are applied for different reasons. Contrary to Behaviorism, cognitivism places emphases on a higher order of thinking and organization skills through the use of schemata. I certainly concur with the cognitivist viewpoint that learning is a change in one’s schemata.

We know that schema organizes knowledge into units and contained in those units is our stored information. As such, we use schemata to make relationships between different things like situations, or objects and even actions. “Marshall (1995) sees a schema as a mechanism in human memory that allows individuals to organize similar experiences in such a way that they can easily recognize additional similar experience” (Rosser & Majors, 2013). For example, “Instruction must be based on a student’s existing mental structures, or schema, to be effective. It should organize information in such a manner that learners are able to connect new information with existing knowledge in some meaningful way. Analogies and metaphors are examples of this type of cognitive strategy” (Ertner & Newby, 2013).

I believe my personal schemata has changed vastly throughout my life time and will continue to change as I learn and further define and or develop my schema. For example, when I was in my teens, I was fearful that I would not be accepted or even respected by others. I also had a hard time sharing my feelings which in turn caused me to deprive my emotional needs as well as isolate myself socially. At one point I had feelings of abandonment, and because I isolated myself so much and for a long period of time. As a result, it was very hard for me to reestablish any social connections where I felt safe and secure. As the text states “If there are too many external stimuli, it is hard for a learner to process important information” (Rosser & Majors, 2013). I owe a lot to my best friend who really pulled me out of that state where I was able to overcome and learn from my change in schemata.

As I mentioned in my introduction, psychology really chose me for so many reasons. One of these reasons was that I had a yearning to better understand myself and the people that surround me in everyday life. Before I selected my major, I had very little knowledge of the concepts, theories, or even practical application of psychology. However, as my knowledge has grown with each course, so has my perspective and understanding in so many different areas. Furthermore, “by recognizing that too much information at once (such as cramming for a test) can be detrimental to successful knowledge acquisition, we could more effectively organize our method of learning new information (e.g., studying and practicing information for shorter periods of time on a regular basis)” (Rosser & Majors, 2013). I have personally experienced this for the last 17 years of my life in the military and I am sure in other ways as well.

However, the first thing that came to mind was with military promotions. Although, there have been recent changes, there is so much material to cover and know with regard to the Air Force itself. Also, with my career field as well, that if you don’t start studying for the next rank immediately after a promotion or at least well in advance it is highly unlikely that a person can successfully retain the knowledge in a short period of time. So, I had to learn how to effectually breakdown and organize the material in a meaningful way to evenly distribute the cognitive load. I did this by breaking apart the material, color coding and tabbing out the material by importance of what the Air Force considered the most important information.

Ertmer, P., Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Retrieved from Rosser-Majors, M. L. (2017). Theories of learning: An exploration. Retrieved from David: Seeing as how cognitivist focus on intellectual functions or developments, they focus more on understanding, retention, and retrieval of material. Cognitive psychology includes rationality, recollecting, verbiage, learning, and more (Atkisson, 2010). On the contrary, behaviorist associate learning with repetition or conditioning through environmental interaction, and for the most part, completely neglect the coalition between behavior and cognitive reaction. For quite some time, mental expression and feelings where shunned from psychology due to a lack of visual aid (Atkisson, 2010). Atkisson (2010) says it well with, “The two movements differ particularly in their views on behavior. Behaviorism, whose research subjects were mostly animals, views behavior as an irreducible consequence of environmental stimuli, whereas Cognitivism, whose research subjects are often humans, sees behavior as a point from which to abstract the mental processes behind the behavior” (para. 2). I am a true believer that learning is a change in one’s schemata. If one’s schema is the separating and grouping of information and thoughts, binding related data throughout the sorted info together, then all data that enters is ever-evolving and changing one’s cognizance (Rosser-Majors, 2017). According to Cherry (2019), a Swiss psychologist by the name of Jean Piaget believed that “people are constantly adapting to the environment as they take in new information and learn new things. As experiences happen and new information is presented, new schemas are developed, and old schemas are changed or modified” (para. 5).

As I learn and take in new information, my ability to discuss thoughts, grow, and articulate ideas with others increases, which expands my knowledge and triggers involuntary change within me. For example, when I was younger, I boxed for several years. I trained daily—hitting mitts, running, and working on combinations. I loved competing; I won some, lost fewer, but I started feeling stagnate after some defeats. My coach and I then focused on mental strategies. I learned to read opponents, observe foot placement, and predict punches, which elevated my fight IQ. Everything became logical; I could anticipate and respond more effectively, creating my own combinations instinctively in fights. This cognitive development took my performance to a new level. Although I no longer compete, I still train and apply this learning approach with my fighters. Throughout my Navy career, I have held leadership roles that require patience and communication. Growing up Irish and from a poor background, I had to change my approach to confrontation; military training and seminars improved my ability to read and respond to sailors’ different behaviors, considering factors like background, mental state, and current circumstances, to communicate effectively and lead successfully.

Paper For Above instruction

The core disagreement between cognitivist and behaviorist paradigms in psychology revolves around the role and nature of learning and mental processes. Behaviorism, historically rooted in the work of Pavlov, Skinner, and others, asserts that all learned behaviors are the result of environmental stimuli and responses. According to behaviorists, learning is observable and measurable through outward behaviors, with reinforcement playing a crucial role in shaping future responses. Mental states, internal thoughts, and cognition are often dismissed as irrelevant or secondary, considered to be unobservable and thus scientifically inaccessible. This perspective emphasizes the importance of conditioning, repetition, and environmental influences on behavior, largely ignoring internal mental processes (Ermentrout, 2013; Rosser & Majors, 2017).

In contrast, cognitivism considers the mind as an information processing system, akin to a computer, where internal mental processes such as attention, perception, memory, and problem-solving are central to understanding how learning occurs. Cognitivists argue that learning involves active mental engagement, structuring, and the manipulation of knowledge through schemata—organized frameworks of knowledge stored in memory. These schemata help individuals relate new information to existing knowledge, facilitating understanding, retention, and retrieval (Cherry, 2019). Jean Piaget’s developmental theory significantly supports this view, proposing that as individuals experience new information, they modify or create schemas, resulting in cognitive development over time (Piaget, 1972).

Both theories acknowledge learning as a process, but they differ in scope and emphasis. Behaviorism primarily focuses on the observable aspects of behavior, reinforced or conditioned through external stimuli. It minimizes or outright dismisses the role of internal cognition. Conversely, cognitivism emphasizes mental processes and the internal organization of knowledge as essential for deep learning and meaningful understanding. They argue that true learning involves changes within the learner’s mental schema, not mere repetition or conditioned responses (Ertner & Newby, 2013).

The integration of these perspectives is often seen in educational practices that combine reinforcement techniques with strategies to promote meaningful learning through organization and reflection. For example, in military training, repeated drills (behaviorist approach) reinforce basic skills, while understanding theory and strategic thinking (cognitivist approach) develop higher-order thinking skills. As I reflect on my experiences, the influence of both theories is evident. Early in life, behaviorist methods like repetition and reinforcement helped me acquire basic skills and habits, especially in athletics such as boxing, where muscle memory and conditioning were crucial. Over time, as my cognitive capacity matured, I began to understand the importance of strategy, perception, and mental preparation—hallmarks of cognitivist approaches.

My personal development vividly illustrates the interplay of both paradigms. For instance, my boxing training started with repetitive drills that ingrained technical skills through conditioning. Later, problem-solving, reading opponents, and devising strategies became central, aligning with cognitivist principles. Similarly, in leadership contexts within the Navy, understanding individual sailors’ mental states and adapting communication techniques reflect cognitivist concepts of schema and mental models. These frameworks enable me to interpret behaviors, respond appropriately, and lead effectively. Such experiential insights affirm that effective learning and leadership often hinge on combining the observable and the internal, reinforcing the complementary nature of behaviorist and cognitivist theories.

References

• Cherry, K. (2019). The role of a schema in psychology. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-schema-2795898
• Ermentrout, G. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Educational Technology.
• Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
• Rosser, M., & Majors, M. L. (2017). Theories of learning: An exploration. Routledge.
• Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: Cognitivism. TEDTalks: Peter Doolittle—How Your “Working Memory” Makes Sense of the World. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com
• Atkinson, R. C. (2010). Learning and memory. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 91-102.
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson.
• Roehler, M. (2017). Cognitive development and learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 157–169.
• Slavin, R. E. (2014). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Pearson.
• Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Pearson.