Just as learning is NOT automatic, neither is deciding what -ism should be used for any given person at any given time. My metacognition = my learning style and ability, and since each persons' learning style varies, so does ability (or should I say know-how) to think critically and problem solve. This is because, as it stated in Learning Theories and Instruction- "Collectively, metacognition activities reflect the strategic application of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge to tasks" (Ormond, Schunk, & Gredler p. 101).
I agree with Kerr, and premise of Kapp's blog about how "... each -ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right." Each -ism has something to bring to the table, behaviorism and the importance of feedback or "reinforcement" and memorizing, cognitivism with the focus on critical thinking, and constructivism with its higher-order and collaborative thinking. Critical thinking would be difficult if a good base knowledge was not accomplished though behaviorism. In addition, I agree with Kerr and how he implies the -isms are somewhat hierarchical.
I would like to use an analogy to describe why there is not one best learning style. If I had a chocolate cake that I thought was the best I ever had, that does not mean that anyone has to agree with this. Some will agree with me, while others will disagree. Maybe someone has a chocolate cake they like better; maybe someone else does not like cake, or another like's carrot cake best. The same goes for learning theories. There are many theories out there, all good in their own right, but for different reasons. Best is a personal opinion, everyone's view on what is best in a given circumstance will vary. This is also one reason why they are going to continue evolve.
The different learning theories are important whether one is instructing or learning, but to me I do not think it is important to put so much effort into remembering exactly what each theory entails with the greatest of detail. Instead, I think it is essential to understand the how, what, and why of learning. I say this because much of what I have read so far is a bit of a review from my undergraduate education degree, and background as a whole. I had forgotten about exactly what each of the -isms entailed to the fullest, but that does not mean that I did use them by understanding the benefits of utilizing numerous instructional methods to reach all ability levels and learning styles. However, that is not say that reading about them again is not going to further my knowledge and remind me of things I have forgotten.
Resources:
Ormrod, J. E., Schunk, D. H., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning Theories and Instruction. Pearson Education, Inc., New York. Chapters 4, Cognitive Learning Processes. Chapter 5, Applications of Instrumental Conditioning, pp 161 – 181.
Ormrod, D. J., (2009). Video program: Behaviorism and Instructional Design. http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3865262&Survey=1&47=6426074&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Blogs:
Bill Kerr: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Karl Kapp: http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
Hi Jennifer; I enjoyed reading this week's blog. I liked how you put *behaviorism*. I do agree, especially if as a child whom most children probably did learn in the behaviorism mode, then it is where we did start. If so, do you think everyone that did, have critical thinking skills today or have its attributes to demonstrate its skill? Or, have ever learned how to critically think? This I guess is where behaviorism will always exist.
ReplyDelete