In math it is often stated that the sum of all parts are
equal to the whole. After reading the
blogs and responses of multiple learning theorists, I have come up with a
similar statement for learning theories. It is this: No one, single, learning
theory is equal to the power of all learning theories combined.
Reaching this conclusion has been a work in progress, and reading
the findings and opinions of leading learning theorists helped me come to this
assertion. First and foremost, the
learning _isms have permeated educational thinking for decades. This is only natural, as it would be
impossible to be successful at teaching without understanding how people learn.
However, how much of learning can be attributed to one specific learning
theory?
I have always felt that all learning theories have always
had their merit, but some were more equipped to handle certain aspects of the
teaching and learning process. In
reading the banter between the learning theorists Stephen Downes, Bill Kerr,
and Karl Kapp, I found myself agreeing with Downes about behaviorism and its
relation to education. While it is
understandable that behaviorism can be used to establish and maintain classroom
routines and establish a well run classroom management plan, I have always
struggled with the application of behaviorist theory to actual content
instruction. While it may come easy for
some, behaviorism seems almost useless for teaching content materials and
thinking skills. Because behaviorism is
classified as the response to a certain stimulus, I gathered that Kerr
categorizes content as stimulus. But it
seems cold and “dehumanising” (Downes word, not mine) to think that students
respond to information because they have been conditioned to do so. This eliminates the use of imagination and
creativity as viable solution to problems.
I started this blog with my perspective on learning
theories, and my perspective on behaviorism more specifically, to prove a
point. The point was made so elegantly
by Kapp in saying that it requires the merger of all learning theories to fully
unlock the potential in the teaching and learning process. As is the case with so many aspects of
education, a one-size-fits-all mentality does not exist.
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as
filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://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
fromhttp://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
John,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your posting. I think you raise some interesting questions in your blog post. It seems like every time I read something on the learning theories I always come away with more questions than answers. I really like the conclusions that you have reached from your readings about how all of the theories are more powerful when used combined instead of on their own. All of the learning theories have had a major impact on students' learning over time. I agree that behaviorist theories are excellent for class management issues and routines in the classroom. However I disagree that it cannot be used for instructional purposes. I think it depends on what grade level you teach and the type of students you have. I have used some behaviorist principles with my ELL students and been successful.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and John, that those who teach and develop the learning experiences should be well-versed in a variety of learning theories, and I also see the value in behaviorism for educational purposes. While John was certainly on the right track by claiming that all learning theories have merit, but I believe it is important to find the best fit and most effective solution for each scenario.
Blessings,
Alison