Comprehending the different "isms" in our society is overwhelming. One could study and analyze the effects and characteristics of behaviorism, cognitivisim, constructivism, and even connectivism for years and still learn something new. According to Bill Kerr, “isms do not stand still; they evolve, they listen to criticism, and move on” (2007). Therefore, we must ask ourselves can we live without learning theories? How would we monitor, or enhance our teaching abilities, if we did not have learning theories to help us analyze what we are doing, why we do it, and if we should do it again in the future (Driscoll, 2005, p. 2). Learning theories are not just nuisances that we study to get through college. Driscoll states, “the essential purpose of a theory is to explain the occurrence of some phenomenon and to predict its reoccurrence in the future” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 4). Learning theories are the foundation for every action or thought that we have in our daily lives.
Considering that all of our learners are different, it makes logical sense that we need to pick the best strategies from each learning theory to meet the needs of our students (Kapp, 2007). We do not live in a society where we think using only one strategy. Therefore, we should rely on several learning theories to create meaningful learning experiences. According to Tracey (2009), “in any organization, different employees will be at different stages of learning across multiple domains, so the instructional designer will need to balance all the pedagogical approaches to support everyone.” Even though people search for a simple one-step process for solving problems, the answer is multifaceted. Learning requires daily practice, reflection, and evaluation. Learning theories are not eliminated or superseded, instead each theory complements another one” (Tracey, 2009). Therefore, we need to learn how to use isms effectively to reproduce behaviors that will thrive in the 21st century.
Please look at the diagram provided by Ryan Tracey, which illustrates how learning theories build on each other (2009).
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and About: discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html.
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Tracey, R. (2009, March 17). Learning in the Corporate Sector: Instructivism, constructivism, or connectivism? Retrieved from http://ryan2point0.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/instructivism-constructivism-or-connectivism/.
Amy Cravey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post, you obviously did some good research to find that diagram.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I agree with the Karl Kapp statement about learning theories applying to the way learners learn. I think that they apply more to nature of the knowledge. I use behaviorism in my classroom when it is warranted to change a behavior in my class. If I need basic level information put into the students so that we can build to higher level knowledge then I use cognitivism. I know that different learning theories apply to different age levels, but do you really see yourself teaching one student in class in a behaviorist manner while teaching another one the same concepts using cognitivist ideals?
Eric, would the question you posted be an example of modifying the assignments/assessments to fit the needs of students?
ReplyDeleteAmy, excellent resources (even though I wholeheartedly disagree with Tracey's opening statement). Learning theories, like any other science, can only tell us as much as we can comprehend at a given time. Behaviorism became prevalent (although Cognitivism was present) because we did not have sufficient technology or an understanding of the human mind, so Behaviorism seemed to make the most sense. Now that we have the technology and knowledge base we are able to expand our understanding and branch out into other theories that we could not foresee in years past. Does that make sense? Thank you
ReplyDeleteThanks for the coverage Amy :o)
ReplyDeleteShane, my apologies, but the opening statement in my article was highly facetious. Text can be so difficult to convey tone.
I certainly agree with your comment, and I reinforce the fact that learning theory is a human construct. The process of learning occurs regardless of the "ism" we use to label it!