Quick Intro:

Classical: Knowledge

Constructivist: Wisdom

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is fruit, wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Classical Information Processing

Mayer (1999) the classic view based off of associanistic views derives information as a commodity where its transference from one mind to another mind through symbols (i.e., written script). In this framework, information processing has a “problem space” and a “means to an end” analysis. Problems are presented as spaces with an initial state and a goal state. Individuals go through multiple means to solve the state (means to an end analysis) by incorporating schemas or previous cognitive plans. Think of it like blueprints or recipe, we use the one which fits the situation. If it doesn’t work, we go on to the next recipe or blueprint. If we go through all of them, we label the event impossible. (You may begin to see why this is a problem for math teaching.).

Some limitations:

Classical theory views human information as being objective with processes as algorithms. Metcalfe and Wiebe (1987) proposed this ideology as about how some may think about non-insight problems (mechanical repetition of work), but it may not be best suited for problems requiring insight. Furthermore, Beach and Lipshitz  (2017) represented classical theory and decision-making hinder human cognition, and believe it to hinders aiding humans in making effective quick decisions by slowing down processing and reducing multiple points of information labeled nonobjective.

Constructivist Information Processing

Constructivist view stems from Gestalt theory with the conception knowledge is built upon. Bare with me, our mind takes information in and contrasts it to the information currently available. The mind then interprets the new information from the combination of old weighted information. For example, a child looks a puppy and says “puppy.” The child looks at a larger dog and doesn’t know the word dog, and says “big puppy.” Silly, I know, what child wouldn’t know the word dog, but it adds to the point. We take in new information like a construction worker and add it to the preexisting information; however, we weight and connect it to the new information.

“Knowledge is a mental representation that exists in a human mind. Unlike information, which is an objective entity that can be moved from one mind to another, knowledge is a personal construction that cannot be moved directly from one mind to another.” (Mayer, 1999).

Piaget (1971) represented how children assimilate their experience with their existing schemas of the new in an attempt to understand their new world or environment. We do this similarly with stories from other people. Case pinpoint your friend Toni, she typically tells outlandish stories. When she tells you the president is outside the building willing to meet you and give you a jet, you don’t believe her. This story represents how we form knowledge from prior experiences, and we have shown to take prior knowledge in many examples from learning to counseling for mental health:

For example, research has found many people use prior experience to develop their perception of the world more negatively such as hostile attribution bias due to abuse (Yaros et al., 2016). Individuals weight events as heavier or lighter depending on different previous situations. (Constructivist theory can be used negatively). However, restructuring through counseling has shown to create new schemas and stories by weighting previous event differently (Meichenbaum, 2017). Simply, we can alter the weights by relooking and reevaluating previous knowledge or experiences.

There are some general limitations here as well as constructivist view becomes overwhelming complicated when individuals consider how an emotional, motivational, or behavioral state may alter learning at any given moment. Furthermore, there is not an ability to have a cold cognition/ origin, where no prior knowledge weights the experience. (Mayer, 1999).