After reading the discussions of Bill Kerr, Stephen Downs, and Karl Kapp, I would have to say that I agree with Kerr’s “isms". I see the potential for all the diverse learning theories in education. I don’t think that how we learn can be specifically explained by one theory alone. If one learning theory could explain how we learn, I don’t believe that there would be so many beliefs and arguments available.
I do agree that we learn through cognitivism in the respect of problem solving and creativity. However, I defiantly see some aspects of behaviorism in the respect to stimulus and response. We have to keep an open mind when it comes to these learning theories. It is my opinion that the way we learn will never be explained by one theory alone. Even with a class of ten students, it is hard to find three students who learn in the same way. As stated by Kerr (2007) in reference to –isms, “They evolve, they listen to criticism and move on.”
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
Responded to Waymyers and Karen Wondergem for module 2.
Responded to Waymyers and Karen Wondergem for module 2.
Belinda,
ReplyDeleteI really took a lot of interest in how the discussions related learning as to being in layers. I feel learning is not a simple word that can be simply explained. People are unique in the way in which they take in information and in how they relate or "hook" it to their life experiences. The most unsuccessful teachers are probably those who teach using the same presentations daily, the same tools for their lessons and no form of application. I believe todays educators are better prepared than ever before to engage their students while addressing the various learning styles.
Debra
I could relate to your correlation between cognitivism being linked to problem solving and creativity. It is evident that each of the (isms) have to be implemented to reach the diverse students in our classrooms. You stated that you teach ten students - I have a class of twenty-four. Three of my students come with IEPs. A smaller group with greater needs can be very challenging. How we learn could not possibly be cased in one theory alone. I agree with Kerr, in the fact that they do evolve.
ReplyDeleteSandra Dykes
Belinda,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in saying that it is hard to find a number of students in a class that learn the same way. The same goes for instructing a class in the same manner year after year; no group of students create the same learning environment. As educators we must assess our class each year and make modifications to our instruction to meet the various needs of our students within our current learning community.
I agree. When I design online curriculum, I try to utilize as many strategies as I can- it pains me when I have gone to job interviews and they say "we use ___ theory" to design. Each person learns differently, and each course should encompass multiple learning theories in order to reach every person.
ReplyDeleteGood post. I agree that cognitivism focuses the mental processes such as thinking, memory, knowing, and problem-solving need to be explored. Knowledge can be seen as diagram. Learning is defined as change in a learner’s representation and plan.
ReplyDelete