The acquisition of knowledge is the result of exposure, reinforcement, application, interpretation, recollection, etc, etc, etc. With so many components and so many variables like cognition, development, motivation and so on, it is inappropriate to select a theory such as behaviorism or cognitivism as the be all end all.
Behaviorist approaches may work best with spelling and multiplication tables and cognitivist approaches may work best with comprehension and health but what if rote memorization isn’t the way that Johnny will learn to spell and what if Ana, who can explain the correlation between dental hygiene and heart disease, forgets to take a shower? Instead of taking a one theory fits all approach to instructions, we must look at which theory best suits the learning objective, the learner, and the immediacy of application. We may then find that a marriage of learning theories is far more appropriate than an all for one, one for all approach to classroom instruction.
I believe that this is especially important when considering the impact of technology of on teaching, learning, knowledge, and communications. But that is a discussion better had after introductions to constructionism and connectivism.
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
4 comments:
Dolly,
I agreed with Bill Kerr and his discussion mates that each of the learning theories has its place.
Do you agree with the concept that each theory meets learner needs in Blooms hierarchy of skills: that behaviorist theories relate to lower level skills in the hierarchy, while cognitive theories address middle levels and constructionist theories address the higher order thinking skills?
Dolly,
Both theories work well individually and even better blender.
When we use a blending approach we are better able to take into consideration the needs of every learner. Do you agree?
Lori,
Yes I do agree that the various theories relate to Bloom's hierarchy of skills and it is interesting that you posed the question to me. When I construct curriculum, lessons and some IEP goals, I use Bloom's hierarchy with regard to learner goals and assessment (demonstration of mastery) as opposed to sticking with a specific learning theory. I've tended to save conversations on learning theory, within the professional setting, to those discussions on classroom management.
Quatrissia,
In responding to Lori's comment about Bloom's taxonomy, I indicated that I use that hierarchy as a means to construct curriculum and lesson plans. I honestly hadn't given much thought to how much Bloom's aligns with the various learning theories until reading the blogs for this module but I've always found it an appropriate means to attempt to address each learner's needs with regards to the demonstration of knowledge. So, yes I do believe that a blending of the various learning theories is a better way at meeting the various needs of learners.
Post a Comment