The most enjoyable learning experience was in a sociology course on social change, that I took this past summer. Speaking generally, the course was concerned with how our ideas of social change have evolved over time, and with understanding barriers to creating meaningful social change.

The course was delivered in a way that was heavily constructivist, but incorporated elements from the behaviourist approach as well. It was challenging, with minimal direction for engaging with the material or for completing the assignments, and we were given a lot of freedom with how we could approach our assignments. Despite the difficulty, I was engaged by what we learned, and found that it offered a new way of understanding parts of my own experience. I continue to think about this course regularly.

Following the behaviourist approach, the course used formal grades with a well-defined rubric, offering reinforcement (grades) to encourage performance (Ertmer & Newby 2013, pp. 3). Qualifying for the course required the completion of prerequisites, which is aligned with the behaviourist assumption that completion of these prerequisites would better prepare us to succeed in higher-level courses (Ertmer & Newby 2013, pp. 3).

The material itself was dense and challenging, involving a number of complex theoretical texts. The material wasn’t really broken down, or curated for us. Engaging with the course felt like I was being drowned, or overwhelmed by the volume of information. While the instructor was encouraging and flexible, succeeding in the course felt like a matter of finding my own way, rather than being guided through it. The text states that one of the goals of cognitivism is “to communicate or transfer knowledge to the students in the most efficient, effective manner possible” (Ertmer & Newby 2013, pp. 3). As a learner, I think that “chunking” the material, offering guiding questions, or learning objectives, would have made the volume of information more manageable, more digestible, and would have made the learning process easier.

The class environment was informal, and non-hierarchical, without a rigid distinction between learner and educator. The instructor ran classes like a group discussion, rather than a scripted lecture. We were invited to ask questions, to bring our own thoughts to the material, and to converse with each other. There was no emphasis on correct or incorrect interpretations of the material. Instead, the instructor hoped that we would develop familiarity with the ideas behind what we learned, and then apply them to our chosen subject for our term papers. The final assignment was graded based on the connections we drew between the course materials and our subject of choice. Consistent with the constructivist approach to education, we were evaluated on our ability to think critically and creatively, and to transfer our new knowledge from one context to another (Ertmer & Newby 2013, pp. 3). That is, taking the theoretical framework that we were taught in the course, and applying it to a subject of our choice.

Though the course was very challenging, I would also say that I felt a sense of accomplishment at completion. Beyond just receiving a grade, the material that I learned has personal meaning for me, and I continue to think about it regularly.

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. Retrieved from: https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/behaviorism_cognitivism_constructivism