I will borrow from Kapp (2007) and agree that learning is a “multi-layered” (karlkapp, 2007) thing. It is more than a word, it is this thing that has a life of its own, and as such requires numerous theories to explain it. I will also concur with Kerr (2007) that all of the –isms have something valuable to contribute as learning theories, yet none completely explain learning as a concept with any totality. Some learning goals may call for a behaviorist style of drill and practice for memorization, such as conjugating regular –ar, -ir, and –er verbs in Spanish and French, learning vocabulary words, or memorizing multiplication tables. In the same token, cognitive principles recognize that for these same types of learning to be committed to memory they must be deemed meaningful to the learner, therefore understanding the concept behind the function of multiplying- a shortened form of adding the same number multiple times; behind conjugation- subject verb agreement; and linking new vocabulary words to prior knowledge to anchor and embed the learning certainly seems desirable in order to increase the potential for retention and recall. Constructing knowledge also has its place in learning since we do construct new meaning and understanding from what we already know, combined with our experiences and interactions with people, objects, and ideas. It is how we connect with concepts and people, and expand our minds and our knowing. Let us not forget about connectivism- “A Learning Theory for the Digital Age” (Siemens, 2004) - since this too has a place in attempting to explain learning regarding the 21st century acquisition of information has so much to do with changing information and connections. Siemens (2004) explained, “Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are the three broad learning theories most often utilized in the creation of instructional environments. These theories, however, were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology. Over the last twenty years, technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes, should be reflective of underlying social environments” (Introduction, para. 1). The social environment of the learner is also a large part of cognitivist and constructivist theory, is it not? Are all these -isms intertwined when it comes to learning? Driscoll (2005) reminded us that the goals of education are retention, understanding, and application of skills. Which one of these theories, could lend itself solely to the process of learning and pedagogy and achieve all of these goals? Let me return to foundational epistemological theory for a moment and claim to have a pragmatist view of sorts. Knowledge is not absolute, and as such there may be no absolute theory of learning. Or is there?
Vida Martin
References
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston , MA
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). –isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Module 2 Response from Tawana Stiff:
ReplyDeleteGreetings Vida!
I definitely see tons of overlap in our posts for this module. There is a common suggestion that one learning theory alone, is simply not enough to encompass the multi-faceted process of learning. In your closing statement, you ask if there is an absolute theory of learning. Based on our responses, I'd say we both agree that there is "multi-layered" theory that incorporates characteristics of various learning theories. However, there are some theorists who remain steadfast in their beliefs that one learning theory prevails over the others. Given the wealth of information that supports the need and effectiveness of many learning theories, why do you think some people are still stuck on one theory as being the "absolute theory of learning?"
Great post, by the way!
Tawana Stiff
Tawana,
ReplyDeleteI like your description of a "multi-layered" theory. Learning itself is a multi-layered concept. We are all as different as our fingerprints and as such, our metacognitive and reflective states differ, the way that we learn and process knowledge is also different. It is for this reason we present knowledge in our classrooms using various methods, tools, and techniques to suit the various learning modalities. Thank your for your insightful response.
Vida
Vida,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post! I like the way that your related each theory to learning in your own content area and I completely agree with your statement, "Over the last twenty years, technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn." Technology has changed tremendously, and is impacting the way that we teach and learn. As a result, we have to look at how technology fits into all of these -isms.