In reference to the blog conversation of Bill Kerr, Stephen Downes and Karl Kapp, I have taken a stance in which I believe there should be an even or equal part of all the learning theories in instruction and learning. Behaviorist and cognitivist learning theory are needed in many aspects of answering problems in society today. It may also be important at times for them to be used simultaneously. As Karl Kapp describes the scenario of the nuclear technician in response to a meltdown at the nuclear plant and his reactions to the crisis, there needs to be some cognitive knowledge along with some behaviorist knowledge involved in the solution to the problem. In many work related incidences there are problems that needs to be solved in specific ways but the cognitive knowledge learned allows a person to know when and which solution should be applied to the specific incidence. I believe the theories are chopped up into too many specific details, which detracts from them. Learning specific information and being rewarded for it is covered under the behaviorist theory, whereas understanding knowledge through comprehension would be covered under the cognitive theory. Learning should not be limited to a specific theory, it should be made up of all theories needed in the instance of instruction. What ever works for the type of knowledge or understanding needed should be used to get the job done.
In the blog, Bill Kerr spoke of all the isms that have come about with time. He spoke of the new ism, connectivism spoke of by George Siemens. Siemens explains, “connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual”(Siemens, 2004). The question is, is the information exchanged in the connectivism theory not information that began in the other theories like behaviorism, cognitivism or constructivism. If not for the knowledge that already exists in one or all of these theories, connectivism would not be, therefore, some cannot exist without the others and some should not exist without the others.
Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivision: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Spoken as an effective educator who takes into account as many variables as possible in order to reach the best solution to a problem. Mixing theories is the way to go but generalizing them all is like forcing a vote to be only democratic or republican rather than allowing bipartisan. Maybe this is a problem itself in education.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing,
~Laurie
It seems the theories are different ways of looking a the information. Behaviorists consider it one way, Cognitivists another way, and so.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same information considered from different viewpoints of the learning theories. A Behaviorist considers the same information a cognitivist does, but they consider in differing ways.
ReplyDeleteAs I read different posts it appears that there is a common theme (as you confirm in your post): there are many learning theories and to say that one works standing alone from the others is not logical. Or as you said "some cannot exist without the others and some should not exist without the others".
ReplyDelete