“To –ism or not to
–ism, that is the question!”
Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism, Humanism, and
now…Connectivism?? “I AM SO CONFUSED!"
Many of us have probably repeated these words during a class
in "Psychology of Learning." By determining a definition for
learning, essentially the first step becomes determining connections among
learning theories. Is there one correct answer? If so, why are there so many
theories to consider? According to Driscoll (2005) “a learning theory is a set
of constructs linking inputs, means, and results,” (p. 1). It appears
relatively straightforward, so why do still have so many interruptations? “If one
person is right, does that automatically mean everyone else is wrong?”
In a
not-so-recent blog, Kerr (2007) compared learning theories to politics. Both have
viewpoints which might serve to deliver radical reforms, they can be dangerous, although
they are still needed.
Howard Gardner, (as cited in Smith, 2002/2008)
stated one must first consider the theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner believed
that humans possess multitude of intelligences. The intelligences come with
their own strengths and constraints although each is entirely independent
of the other. Does this serve to prove if the human has different ways to acquire
knowledge, then there must be different theories to receive this accomplishment?
Furthermore, according to Kapp (2007), -ism(s) do not stand alone. Each -ism
is useful as we develop this journey toward “How people learn.” No one –ism is
100%, but each becomes extremely useful in reflecting and expanding the theories of learning. As an educator,
the key question remains, “Which theories will best serve the needs of my diverse classroom to reach the multiple intelligences
of all my learners to ensure that all acquire knowledge?”
It goes to show, “One size does NOT
fit all.”
Referenes:
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for
instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
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/
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
Smith, Mark K. (2002,
2008) 'Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences', the encyclopedia of informal
education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
During Module One, I responded to Belinda VanNorman and Sandra Dykes (although I was late.)
ReplyDeleteDuring Module Two, I responded to Fred Davis and Karen Wondergem.
ReplyDeleteCheryl,
ReplyDeleteI liked your opening statement about how confusing all these theories can be! I see some of the "isms" as being more traditional and established (e.g., behaviorism) and others as newer and less tested (e.g., connectivism). I think we are still a ways away from really knowing how learning takes place in contemporary education. From what I've read on most peopel's blogs, they think that parts of theories are used for learning. Even though there are individual theories that stand alone in their own right, it is really parts of each working together that works. Perhaps each person learns best through their unique blend of ism theories. I need more behaviorism and a touch of connectivism, but you learn best with more constructivism and less behaviorism. How do you envision the parts of the theories working together?
Thanks!
Curt
Cheryl, (and Curt)
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading both of your comments on the role of the _isms in learning. As I have read the many comments on this topic, I think much of the confusion can be alleviated by reminding ourselves that it is not the _ism that causes learning. People learned long before the theories were developed. However having the benefit of an explanation for how learners acquire information, create knowledge and change their behaviors is useful for making the learning process more efficient in academic settings.
Collectively, learning theories give educators direction in meeting learners’ needs; the challenge for them, though, is as Kapp suggested, selecting the best elements from the theories available.
Cheers,
Margaret