Cognitive Learning Theories

Meaningful Learning and Schema theory

University Name: University of the West Indies (Open Campus)

Degree Name: Masters in Instructional Design and Technology

Course Name: Learning Theory and Instructional Design (EDID 6501)

Semester: August - December

2

Meaningful Learning and Schema theory

Learning through cognitivist eyes “the mental processes that individuals undergo as they

think, learn, and perform problem solving and decision making activities” (Leonard, 2002). Sub-

theories include Cognitive Information Processing Theory (CIP), Situated Cognition Theory

(SCT), and Meaningful Learning and Schema Theory (MLST). These share commonalities but

are unique in their own rights.

View of Learning

To begin with, CIP theorists such as George Miller, likened learning to information

processing done by a computer, and identified it as the process of data input, mental processing

and storage and then output (Driscoll, 2005). Learners attend to events, encode and relate the

information collected, thereby processing it, store it into memory for necessary retrieval

(Schunk, 1996). SC theorists like John Seely Brown, saw learning as always situated, and

identified learning not as an internal mental process but rather an activity system in which people

actions and environment interact. It is “the gradual appropriation, through guided participation,

of the ability to participate in culturally defined, socially situated activities and practices”

(Robbins & Aydede, 2009). MRLST proponents like David Ausubel, recognized learning as the

“process of relating potentially meaningful information to what the learner already knows in a

non-arbitrary and substantive way” (Ausubel, 1963 in Johnson & Maddux, 2002). Contrary to

rote learning, meaningful learning occurs when one’s prior knowledge is organized such that

information being received can therein be integrated, understood, and be stored for future

retrieval.

Similarities

3

The commonalities among theories can be explained through the role of prior

knowledge, environment and memory.

Prior knowledge. With SCT, culture and by extension prior knowledge, influences

perception and interpretation and learning. Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) recognized that

“activity also provides experience, which is plainly important for subsequent action.” Schank’s

Dynamic Memory Model suggests that events are understood in terms of scripts, i.e. daily

activity knowledge, or learned patterns of behavior based on the sequence of experience

(Robbins & Aydede, 2009), “other knowledge structures as well as relevant previous

experiences” Experience therefore is necessary for learning. Driscoll (2005) illustrated, how in

CIP, knowledge is constructed both by the presented information and prior knowledge. Input

data is related to schema so that sense is made of the information presented. Of course with

MLST, prior knoweldge is key. Learners use prior knowledge, subsuming new knowledge into

it, to advance the schema. Prior knoweldge therefore is a crucial element of each theory.

Memory. In all three theories, memory plays a major role for without short term or

working memory, knowledge would not be retrieved, integrated into schema and understood.

Memories include short term (STM) or working memory and long term memory (LTM).

Environment/context. The environment also plays a key role. The environment or

context inputs the schema which is needed for processing.

All three theories engage in top down and bottom up processing as they process

information gathered through the senses along with what is stored in memory to derive meaning

(Huit, 2003).

Differences

4

Despite the many commonalities there are differences which include location of

learning, of storage, of memory and of retrieval.

Location. CIP and MRLT share the idea that learning is internal. The learner has to

activate schema and process it in the working memory through chunking or repetition. On the

contrary, SCT explains that meaning is external. Through situated Communities of Practice and

Cognitive Apprenticeship, the shift of focus from the individual to the sociocultural setting and

the activities of the people within that setting can be seen. Knowledge accrues through the lived

practices of the people in a society” (Driscoll, 2005). Learners and their scripts in the setting

create learning.

Storage. By extension therefore, knowledge is stored differently. CIP and MRLT see

knowledge stored in STM and then LTM based on the meaningfulness. SC however, locates

knowledge in the context, in other people. This is one of the reasons why transfer cannot be

explained. If knowledge is created and stored in a situation, how then can it be applied to

another?

Active Learning. The active learning process for each differs. In CIP learners use

repetition to store information. Repetition in the form of maintenance rehearsal keeps

information in STM while elaborative rehearsal or encoding keeps it in LTM. In doing so,

learners use acronyms or mnemonics to help store and retrieve the information. Chunking

together with related materials is another strategy.

Descriptive

While they are all cognitive theories, the one which most describes the learning

environment, and helped teachers describe, monitor and evaluate learning is MLST. It will be

impractical to use SCT to cover the variety and quantity of concepts meaningfully by embedding

5

learning in the social and physical context within which it will be used (Brown et al. 1989, in

Abbey, 2000). Unlike with a computer, CIP theorists need to acknowledge that with humans,

semantics relies on context. MVLT deals with the entire process including retrieval, and is

applicable across a wider range of topics.

MLST illustrates the phases a learner goes though and can set teachers on a path to

create their own models of learning. In the initial phase “the individual encounters a large array

of facts and pieces of information that are more-or-less isolated conceptually” (Shuell, 1990).

Through interaction with concepts he begins to see the relationships among those pieces of

information. Schemata is then developed in this intermediate phases. In the terminal phases

schemata is integrated and subsumed into preexisting schemata and autonomy is developed.

Schemata can be subsumed derivatively or correlatively and in a superordinate, or combinatorial

manner.

Therefore, teachers need to input data using expository teaching, activating prior

knowledge, helping students to connect it to current knowledge and building upon knowledge to

expand schema. Such teaching helps learners deduce meaning, maintain it, integrate it into

preexisting cognitive structure and enable later integrate new learning into it (Ausubel &

Robinson, 1969 in Seel, 2012).  

Applicability

So, what are the classroom implications? Expository teaching

Prior Knowledge Activation. Effective instruction demands the activation of prior

knowledge. “It begins with what students already know and continues to remind students of

additional things they know that relate to the topic at hand” (Omrod, 2012). Strategies like

advanced organizer organizers such as anticipation guides, analogies and metaphors, can help

6

“present relevant introductory materials in advance in any format of text, graphics, or

hypermedia” (Ausubel, 1968 in Chen, 2014). Comparative Advance organizers help learners

activate relevant schema bringing it into STM. Expository advance organizers serve a similar

purpose as they help them later make sense of new information in light of prior knowledge.

Skimming. Skimming also helps activate prior knowledge. I teach students to use SQ3R

so that as they survey or skim, examining highlighted text, quotes, titles, pictures they ask ‘What

does this remind me of?’ thus activating schema.

Progressive Differentiation. Additionally progressive differentiation can be used not

only in curriculum arrangement but in classroom teaching. Thus, “the most general ideas of the

discipline should be presented first and then must be progressively differentiated (Ausubel,

1963a) in terms of specificity and detail” (Beiser, 1984). This in essence uses the top down

model of instruction and will allow students to better see the interrelatedness of concepts as well

as their differences, moving from the big picture to the smaller details.

Adjunct Questions.  Adjunct questions used in their Social Studies text helps them to

retrieve relevant schemata about the topic in preparation for the next line of reading. In

attending to the questions learners’ link acquiring schema to acquired schema. They back track

and advance the reading to facilitate comprehension and learning.  Understanding is improved

and increased as the strategy continued to be used (Peverly & Wood, 2001).

Thus, despite the common basis of these theories, their differences do allow an educator

to broaden the scope of possible approaches to different topics of instruction.

7

References

Abbey, B. (2000). Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based

education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub.

Beiser, E. (1984). Application of Ausubel's Theory of Meaningful Verbal

Learning to Curriculum, Teaching and Learning of Deaf Students.

Speech presented at International Symposium on Cognition,

Education, and Deafness, Washington DC.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the

Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32.

doi:10.2307/1176008

Chen, B. (2014). Advance Organizer. In K. Thompson and B. Chen

(Eds.), Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. Orlando, FL:

University of Central Florida Center for Distributed Learning. Retrieved

October 30, 2016 from https://topr.online.ucf.edu/index.php?

title=Advance_Organizer&oldid=3589

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (Pearson New

International Edition). Essex: Pearson.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement

Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. doi:10.1002/piq.21143

Johnson, D. L., & Maddux, C. D. (2002). The Web in higher education:

Assessing the impact and fulfilling the potential (Vol. 2). CRC Press.

8

Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to

cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta

State University. Retrieved [date]

from,http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/infoproc.html

Leonard, D. C. (2002). Learning Theories: A to Z (Oryx Book). West Port,

Cincinnati: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Ormrod, E. J. (2012). Human learning (6th ed.). New York, New York: Pearson Education.

Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The Effects of Adjunct Questions and Feedback on

Improving the Reading Comprehension Skills of Learning-Disabled

Adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 25-43.

doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1025

Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated

cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schunk, H. D. (1996). Learning Theories (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.

Seel, N. M. (2012). Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. New York ; Heidelberg: Springer.

Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of Meaningful Learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4),

531. doi:10.2307/1170505