Learning Theory Comparison: Behaviorism vs Cognitivism vs Constructivism

Classroom Conditions

Practice trials completed 8

Environment Manipulation

Reinforcement strength 60%

Prior knowledge / scaffolding 40%

Practice spacing (massed → spaced) 50%

Predicted Mastery

Behaviorist0%

Cognitivist0%

Constructivist0%

How it works

Same student, same 40 practice trials — three classic learning theories make different quantitative predictions for mastery M(n) ∈ [0,1], each driven by the sliders above:

Behaviorist (operant reinforcement):
  k_b = 0.05 + 0.12·R
  M(n) = 1 − e^(−k_b·n)
  Response strength grows smoothly with every
  reinforced trial; no scaffolding, no forgetting.

Cognitivist (working memory + spacing effect):
  k_c = 0.06 + 0.05·S
  asymptote = 0.55 + 0.45·S
  M(n) = asymptote · (1 − e^(−k_c·n))
  Distributed (spaced) practice raises both encoding
  rate and the retention ceiling vs. massed cramming.

Constructivist (schema threshold / scaffolding):
  n0 = 24 − 18·K   (K = prior knowledge)
  M(n) = 1 / (1 + e^(−0.35·(n − n0)))
  Understanding stays flat until enough scaffolding
  exists, then clicks into place — an S-shaped
  "aha" curve, not a smooth ramp.

Trial slider / Run trials — advances practice; each theory's bar chart grows to its own predicted mastery at that trial count.
Reinforcement strength — only moves the behaviorist curve (reward rate).
Prior knowledge / scaffolding — only shifts the constructivist threshold (Vygotsky-style zone of proximal development).
Spacing — only reshapes the cognitivist curve (Ebbinghaus-style spacing effect on consolidation).

The point: none of the sliders "cheats" for the others — that mismatch is exactly why the three theories disagree about what a teacher should change first.

Behaviorism Cognitivism Constructivism

⚠ Couldn't load the 3D engineThree.js failed to load from the CDN. Check your connection and reload.