Isms are neither filters nor blinkers
The suffix ism goes back to the seventeenth century and it was used to as a philosophy or doctrine to represent a practice or an act. It follows that the idea of cognitivism and the other isms represent a philosophy that people hold on to and believe in. The use of the word has little significance. What is important is how the philosophy is applied and the impact it as on the people involved.
I differ with Bill Kerr. I don’t think that ism is either a blinker or a filter. It is a suffix that adds diction to words. We may have all the learning theory at our disposal but they won’t be beneficial to us if we do not make the appropriate use of them. Piaget’s, Bruner, Skinner and the others have written learning theories that can be used to aid learning at any time in history.
The isms in educational theories tend to complement each other. While the focus today is on constructivism and cognitivism in the classroom, the end results always carry traits of behaviorism. As students experiment, explore and solve problems, they are feel good about solving problems and this motivates them to keep solving problems. This response and reward concept is rooted in behaviorism even though it becomes visible in other isms
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your statement that all learning theories can aid learning. I think that is what Kerr was trying to say; don’t hold so fast to one theory that it blinds you to all other theories and what they have to offer. No doubt proper application is key to any theory making sense in our professional practices.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that when people do things that make them feel good that can be a powerful motivation to continue engaging in those behaviors. Meaningful rewards are likely to improve the likelihood that kids want to keep learning. But I feel those are motivating factors, not necessarily the processes (or whatever you might call them) that happen in our brains as we learn (if you are a cognitivist) or social conditions that mitigate learning (if you are in Bruner’s or Vygotsky’s camp).
I coached soccer for many years. Conditioning players has changed a great deal over the years. As researchers developed a better understanding of exercise physiology, they developed more efficient and safer methods to get athletes fit for competition. I think the same is what has happened over the years in theory building. As one theory falls short in explaining certain things other theories arise to try and go beyond those limits. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the human mind. Therefore, we may be running around like chickens with our heads cut off for quite a while before we really understand what happens in the learning process.