Bill Kerr’s post regarding the isms of the educational world is indeed a lively and informative discussion. As Brad Boute stated, it is interesting to note that the debate over the isms is not new and may continue indefinitely, or perhaps, I’ll throw in, until some theorists discovers the be-all, end-all, all-inclusive learning theory. Though, one has to wonder if that will ever occur. It is not so much that an all-inclusive theory may not exist, but rather, no two minds may be alike and therefore it may be impossible for all minds to agree on one definitive answer.
At the end of Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp’s posts, they both chime in that each theory has its merits and that there is not a one size fits all. I agree with them. I think both behaviorism and cognitivism are both applicable to learning. In our classroom discussion for EDUC 8845, Module 2, Dr. Moller questioned how both parties can play together nicely in the sandbox when they have such opposite views. But I wonder if they really are opposite views. Who made them appear to be such opposite views? Was it the strong proponents on each side? Aren’t the right side and left side (creativity versus logic) of the brain sometimes considered opposites and yet they play together in the sandbox. Could those two cerebral hemispheres have some parallelism with cognitivism and behaviorism?
Or, better yet, I enjoyed reading Karl Kapp's response (to Tony Forster’s post) about education versus training. Kapp equated training to behaviorism, where there are objectives with measurable outcomes. He then states that education should not have specific nor necessarily measurable outcomes. Kapp takes on the perspective that education is an opportunity for learners to explore. It shouldn’t and can’t be pre-planned, but rather, going back to the Forest Gump reference that started this entry, “It
P.S. Forest Gump's simplistic, black and white view of life carried him very far in life. Granted it was a fictional piece, but was his resulting learning outcomes do to behaviorism or cognitivism?
Boute, B. (2009). Matters of perspective. Retrieved from http://r-elearning.blogspot.com/2009/06/matters-of-perspective.html#comments
Kapp, K. (2007). Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought.
Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-
educational.html
Kapp, K. (2006). Definitions: abcd objectives. Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2006/12/definitions-abcd-objectives.html
Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filters, not blinkers. Retrieved from
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
6 comments:
Koh,
We are certainly on the same page. As I have gotten deeper into learning theory, I often find I emerge with a perspective different from others; one less restricted by pre-existing judgments. I think cognitivism, behaviorism, constructivism, and connectivism can and should all play in the same sand box.
(Of course, in the end, I suppose everything has to be in the same sandbox … its just a really … big … sandbox!)
Your thoughts on Kapp’s response have made me reconsider approaches to education. I have experienced environments where traditional grading was unceremoniously tossed out the window. Yes, it created an environment where students left with varying levels of skill. However, they all left encouraged, more experienced in the area of study, and passionate about what they were doing. I have not studied her extensively, but I wonder how Montesorri’s work fits in.
Brad
Koh,
I think I will have to watch Forest Gump this weekend :) That is one I like to revisit.
Balance is what most things are derived from... Whole language vs. Phonics is a good example. The answer lies in the middle and also relies on the needs of the children. I feel the learning theories are the same. Balance is the key.
When you talk of opposite views, I am constantly brought back to the book Angels and Demons. They constantly go back to the fact that there is an opposite of every thing; good and evil, matter and anti-matter, day and night, the list goes on and on. I feel that you almost need opposites to make sense of and explain what is in the middle. Without extremes, we probably would not have normalities. We have to look at needs and situation to figure out which is the balance point on the scale.
We learn a lot in the sandbox. It is a great place to hang out.
I agree with your post. I think we have the one size fits all teaching practice and belief. One of the biggest lessons I am learning from the readings is how the different theories describe the different students I have taught. I think we are taught the one size fits all thinking by the way classrooms are set up. We can have 25 students that we are told to teach the best way we can. There is enough training on how to have that balance and flexibility in the classrooms. I think most people will blame testing and state regulations, have taken the freedom to educate students on their level. We are told where a 8th graders should be at the end of 180 days.
LaToya
Brad - I think Montessouri might go with Forest Gump's, "It happens"!
Others: Yes there is something to be said about yin and yang. After all, the Asian culture is very ancient, hence much more experience. Perhaps they know what they are talking about with yin and yang.
Koh
Koh,
Hehe, probably!
Post a Comment