I love good conversation especially when it is built around good writing. I felt like a fly on the wall reading this post. I would like to focus my attention on one line out of Bill Kerr’s post; “I (Bill) have always depicted cognitivism as a response to behaviorism” (Kerr, 2007). I believe this statement put the two theories in perspective. If there is no reason to learn what we want to learn and also what we are required to learn, then would we utilize our cognitive skills. For many of us who find learning exciting, and with few road blocks, the answer would seem like a resounding “yes”.
I would venture to say that we are somehow rewarded by our learning. I first started to put all my energy into learning after my mom died (15 years ago). It kept my mind busy and my focus off of the pain. That was reward in itself. Over time however, I needed learning less to hide my emotions and found satisfaction in research and learning. It was like a puzzle and I like to see children grow and break down cultural barriers due to their learning. All of this unwritten rewards for my work; Do I think about this when I am enjoying learning? No, it is now intrinsic and I learn for the love of learning. However, the learning was a response to behaviorism.
Not everyone finds joy in the path of learning. It is the grade, or getting a diploma so they can make more money at their job that motivates them to put their cognitive skills to work; again, a response to behaviorism. Cognitive skills do not come easy to everyone. It takes practice and consistent use of skills to grow and maintain strategies for learning. I think as teachers we sometimes expect children to possess skills for learning, but fail to teach them strategies to use and grow their cognitive skills. The same rings true for learning good behavior. As Piaget and other theorist point out, learning takes place in stages, we are always evolving and moving toward a more fluent use of knowledge. I also like how Kapp pointed out that “learning is not one thing…it is a multilayered word that tends to get treated as if it were just one thing… and it’s not” (Kapp, 2007).
I believe the _isms are as important as the theories. A community needs a common thread that ties knowledge together. Agree, disagree, or indignant, the _isms create a common ground to build off of as new information is integrated into old thoughts that resonate the same issues of today.
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought.
Message posted to http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-
educational.html
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filters, not blinkers. Message posted to
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Two Blogs
Labels:
behaviorism,
Bill Kerr,
cognitivism,
Karl Kapp,
learning theory
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
7 comments:
I like your last comment about the -isms being a common ground to build from. If we would keep things the way they were or limit ourselves to only one theory, we would not be doing our students any good.
When I first read "for many of us who find learning exciting," I wondered who the "many of us" were exactly. Sure those of us working on a doctorate degree in education, well we better find learning exciting, or we are barking up the wrong tree.
But then you did mention that many do it for the degree, diploma, certificate, or money potential, which by the way, nice slide in of behaviorism. Indeed I think Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp's discussion is all about, as Kerr said, working toward a "big change." How do we close the gap from 'diploma' to (as you put it) developing an intrinsic love of learning and building true lifelong learners?
I sense that before we started really studying and utilizing learning theories, we must have gone wrong somewhere such that students are in it for the degree, diploma, or money potential and not for the learning.
Koh
My points are focused on behaviorism because currently, that is what our discussion is based on. Cognitivism is probably the theory that most of the strategies I teach are built off of when teaching. Vygotsky and scaffolding are premises I embrace. The schema theory is what most of my doctoral research is built off of. However, without a strong classroom management system and reasons for learning, we don’t get to cognitive skills.
When you look at the theory of cognitivism, not everyone has good functioning cognitive skills. Working at a college level, you are working with students that choose to come to school and have learned to adapt to difficulties with their learning. In my classroom, I am working with some students who have a hard time processing and pulling information from long term memory. I also work with students who don’t know if there is going to be food for dinner and whether or not there will be anyone at home when they get there. They don’t have any heat or AC and there are 8 people living in a one room apartment. They don’t really care what two plus two is, for some of my students, just getting away from home for 6-8 hours it why they like school.
My point is this, not everyone learns because they want to, some students learn because they want a diploma, or they want to get into college to get away, among a whole mirage of reasons. I don’t think that the reward of diplomas is a theoretical issue; I think it is a social issue. I think that at the moment, our discussions are very narrow because we are only working with two theories and we are not taking into account motivation, environment, biological and physical ability, mental issues etc.
Does there have to be a right answer, a right theory? Because, if there does… then that would lead back to behaviorism and the reward of getting the answer right…
Koh,
To me, fostering an”intrinsic love of learning and building true lifelong learners” would require an educational system that could be tailored to individual student’s passions. I suspect many children begin their scholastic careers excited about particular subject matters. However, as they move through an educational system focused on broad-spectrum standardized tests, they begin to lose interest in all subjects because they have to spend time “learning” those for which they have little to no interest.
Instead, could we find those areas of interest from the beginning of their academic life and use them as gateways to instilling great learning habits and a passion for knowledge. For example, if they were interested in music, start teaching them music history, the science and physics of music, the mathematics of scale, reading music theory, and so on.
Shannon,
I agree with your point about the depth of our current discussions. However, it seems the more we take into account, the more apparent it will be that not one theory or _ism can cover it all.
So, I guess the only “single right” answer must be a veru flexible one.
Great post. You made a great point about how it is a common ground. I think that what happens in education is people get stuck on one theory and are not willing to assess and integrate the others. We don't have balance when it comes to the practices used in the classrooms. We have such a variety of students it is impossible to have the one size fits all approach. Teachers should be taught about the balance.
I definitely agree with your statement that our learning somehow rewards us all. I think that is a human trait. We have never stopped learning. Hunting weapons began with a simple stick and progressed to spears, to atlatls, to bows and arrows to guns. We moved on from being nomadic hunter-gathers to being agrarian. We are driven to learn. It is the survival mechanism of our species. I love teaching about animals and adaptations because it always leads to the discussion of what is the human adaptation. The kids are usually stumped for awhile (mostly because I think they don’t think of us as animals and they don’t have to learn how to “survive”) but somebody usually comes up with our ability to make things. This then gets me going on learning being the real driving force behind our ability to make thinks. This is not to say everyone loves “school” learning, but inside we are all learners of some sort.
Post a Comment