Beall-Davis_S
EDUC-8845_WK3-4_Mod2As I think about learning theories and the analogy of where each play a role in the learning arena, Bill Kerr (2007) and Karl Kapps (2006) blog discussions really sparked some interesting points in terms of learning theories (e.g., ism’s). Behaviourism focuses on conditioning – classical conditioning or operant responses. Depending on the environment or scenario, behavior is modified. It’s an automatic type of learning in which a stimulus evokes a response that was originally evoked by another stimulus. There is also a reward system or some form of penalty associated with the stimulus. So what if the selected stimulus doesn’t work or changes the behavior? What next?
Weight loss programs are great examples of behaviorism, but what do I know? I’m not only a "Jenny Craig" dropout, but "Weight Watchers" too! There were lots of reinforcements along with the perceived notion that at the end of the program I would lose pounds or never again wear a “little” black dress. Should there have been other elements in the program that focused more on what would make me a success? Perhaps one which focused on cognitivism, connectivism or constructivism?
When referencing cognitivism, the argument is that the mind itself should be opened and understood (e.g., black box). The learner is viewed as an information processor, similar to the central processing unit (CPU) of a computer, yet vulnerable to human error (e.g., garbage in garbage out). Unlike behaviorism, cognitivism advocates that there is an intervening variable between environment and behavior. Could there indeed be an element of this theory that could have been applied in conjunction with behaviorism that could have possibly led to my quest to lose weight? In fact, many of Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development (e.g., sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operation and formal operational) proved to have flaws and were challenged. One example was his proclaiming “the sequence of stages is culturally invariant, with formal operations inevitably reached”. It was later discovered that not all cultures showed evidence of formal operations (Driscoll, M., 2005). Would this approach better serve the learning community if it were integrated with other approaches when needed? Is it justifiable to declared one as being superior to the other? The “cream of the crop” ? Perhaps “one size fits all” ?
Constructivism supports the views that people actively construct or create their own subjective representations of objective reality. New information is linked to prior knowledge, thus mental representations are subjective. In my opinion, this too could have been incorporated in my quest for weight loss. Although connectivism was not addressed, at this point it doesn’t seem necessary to continue on. I guess what I’m trying to say is that all of the theories have pros and cons, therefore each must be applied where necessary rather as standalone's or in conjunction!
References
Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Pearson Education, Inc
Kapp, K. (2006). Design: Behaviorism Has Its Place. Retrieved on September 19th, 2010 from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2006/12/design-behaviorism-has-its-place.html
Kerr, B. (2007). Isms as a filter, not a blinker. Retrieved on September 19th, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
It appears you are right on the connectivist borderline. One question I am staring to see with them is "how does the affective domain come into play? Do you ever believe behaviorist approaches have a place?
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteI do feel that behaviorist approaches have a place, just that they need supplemental components. I don't feel that any one approach is the ideal approach. There is no hero here. Your thoughts.
I agree. Very few times have I found one approach to be the answer, especially when one attempt to provide for different learning styles within a single learning objective. I do tend to steer away from behaviorist approaches unless the objective is very low level on Bloom's scale.
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteAs stated, I simply can't see anyone theory serving all purposes. There is no one size fits all!
Sondra,
ReplyDeleteYou raise two interesting questions:
1) Are learning theories mitigated (or perhaps created) based on culture. I would assume that the human brain functions the same in all people, but that environment/culture could affect the way we process information, therefore affecting the way we learn. Should we be considering that in our teaching methodology?
2) Your notion of applying different learning theories where necessary is very logical and I agree with that. How would you suggest that to developers/instructor that are set on using just one theory?
It is true that all theories have their pros and cons. The principle of all is the stimulus, the environment in which it develops the individual recipient of the teaching-learning process. If the environment shapes the individual and the stimulus is perceived as the individual's experience, where it comes to genetics. Acts the environment on the genetic predispositions of individuals who can understand better certain learning process grounded in specific theories? I understand that does not find an answer to the dichotomy environment-heredity. It is better to opt for your recommendation, “therefore each must be applied where necessary rather as standalone or in conjunction!”
ReplyDeleteBob:
ReplyDeleteIn your question about "how does the affective domain come into play? I think that one problem with the theories is that don’t see the human being as an integrated. Learning should touch each individual fiber. The thoughts are the feelings, separate creates human dichotomies and divide domains have only created new separate bodies of knowledge that make it difficult to learn.
G. and Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the fabric of distributing theories, one can only assume an effective fit. Trial and error dominates the decision making process. A great educator applies as needed. A good educator applies if prompted, and a so-so educator simply follows the recipe. Do we want to be great or good?
Sondra