After participating in our classroom discussion this week and reading the blogs by Bill Kerr, Stephen Downs, and Karl Kapp, it only strengthened my belief that we do not need to choose between behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, or connectivism learning theories to promote learning in our classrooms. Instead, our responsibility is to create "learning utilizing an entire tool kit of philosphies, techniques, and ideas" (Kapp, 2007).
In today's learning environments, students bring with them a plethora of learning abilities and prior knowledge. Therefore, instead of choosing a particular learning theory to explain how they learn best, I believe that we, as teachers or instructional designers, must differentiate our instruction to meet the needs of all of our students, which ultimately means utilizing our understandings from all of the learning theories and applying what works best to achieve the particular learning outcome.
From my previous classroom discussion post, I must make a reprieve. I originally made the analogy that
"…choosing between cognitive and behaviorist-learning theories is like choosing between chlorinate bleach and bleach for multifaceted colored clothes without chlorine. Both are effective cleaning agents, but only if they are applied appropriately. Likewise, cognitive and behaviorist learning theories are both appropriate means for explaining how students learn, but they must be applied to appropriate learning situations as with all learning theories."
I still believe that both are effective learning theories if they are applied to the appropriate learning situations; however, I do not believe that this analogy is a strong enough to explain the complexity of the need for differentiation. As Kapp (2007) explains, "We need to take pieces from each school of thought and apply it effectively because…Cognitivism doesn't explain 100% how humans process information and neither does Constructivism or Behaviorism." With my analogy, we cannot utilize bits and pieces all of the cleaning agents without creating havoc on our laundry; therefore, it is insufficient when explaining the need to mix together concepts from each theory. However, I still stand by the fact that each cleaning agent as with each learning theory is valid when applied to an appropriate learning outcome.
I understand the complexity and the difficulty of expecting teachers to create diversified lessons to meet students' needs. However, as Kapp explains,
"The issue many forget is that "learning" is not one thing…it is a multi-layered word that tends to get treated as if it were just one thing…and it's not. It is multi-facetted and that is why developing new models for "learning" is so difficult…there are too many levels for one school of thought or one model to do it all."
Therefore, we cannot expect all students to learn successfully when we teach only one type of lesson, provide only one type of learning task, or allowed students to demonstrate their understanding by only one type assessment.
Bill Kerr. (2007, January 01). Re: _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Kapp Notes: (2007, January 02). Re: Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
Krista,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that it is not up to use to choose between the cognitivism, behaviorism, constructivism, or even connectivism to promote learning within the classrooms. It is our job to use whatever it is that we find effective to give students the knowledge they need toward a successful education. Today, classrooms are very much diverse. All students come with their own ability levels, different ways of learning, and bank of prior knowledge. Therefore, it is important that we differentiate the learning so that each student’s needs are being met. Today, there is no one-way of teaching a group of students. There is no one-way to teach one student. We must go far and beyond to find multiple ways to teach each skill that students must know. As a result, we are capturing different learning styles while also giving students different ways of learning new information.
Krista
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree that teachers need to realize that learning is not a one-size-fits-all environment. We need each learning theory to help reach all the students at different times and in different ways (Kapp, 2007). Even though your analogy about adding bleach when it is appropriate does not recommend taking the best from each learning theory, it does remind us that we should teach based on what is appropriate for our students. Our students do not learn well with a one-size-fits-all learning environment. For example, everybody in the classroom does not need glasses, CPR, or the same size t-shirt, so why would we expect them to learn in the same way. Teachers need to use behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism to prescribe what students need. Some students will have to memorize information repeatedly before they can apply; others can hear information one time and be ready for applying their knowledge to new situations. In time, each student will be able to generate their own knowledge, but some will require more encouragement and praise. I think we need to incorporate the advice of Stephen Hurley (2008), teaching in the key of Joyceln, which refers to finding the correct key or learning theory to help Joyceln obtain success. Standards and expectations are important, but forcing students to learn using one method will only reach a small portion of our student population. Therefore, we must search for how to teach in the key of Blake, Sam, Quan, Jose, Julie, Ana, Erica, Zackeria, etc. My analogy would be to use recipes because a little of each ingredient helps to make the best food and if you leave an ingredient out, you will not be happy with the final product. We need 1/4 cup of verbal praise, 2 cups of critical thinking, 1 cup of direct instruction, ½ cup of pictures or manipulatives, a dash of creativity, and combine well with questions and class discussions.
Hurley, S. (2008, April 10). Teaching in the Key of Joyceln: Challenging the One-size-fits-all education. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/teaching-differentiated-learning.
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and About: discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html.
Amy Cravey
Krista, I agree the important thing to remember when applying the various "isms" in the educational setting depends on many factors and strategies used to promote learning and the theory itself must be used at the appropriate time and in the appropriate setting. Students learn very differently and this should be considered when implementing curriculums and teaching new content. I think technology will help with this because it can serve as an aide in differentiating lessons and making sure students are learning in the way in which they best acquire knowledge.
ReplyDeleteVanessa