Module 2

In Bill Kerr's blog at http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html, he states that "What I have noticed is that these _isms do not stand still. They evolve, they listen to criticism and move on. I've also noticed that learning theorists, who have a different favourite _ism to mine, might still come up with significant findings in their empirical studies that I find hard to reject or ignore."

On this point, I whole-heartedly agree. When I look at the -isms, I wonder if we will ever know the truth about how learning occurs. When I look at the tenets of behaviorism for example, I see how people definitely respond to stimuli - somethimes mindlessly as if reflexive. One only needs to go shopping on black friday to realize that. Pavlov would be proud of all the eager shopper salivating for their purchases. So I say to myself - yes! Behaviorism it must be! Then I think about cognitivism and all the different off-shoots of that and I think - yes! that must be it! People do try to fit things into neat little packages as in schema theory, things do need to be age appropriate as in Piaget's theories of development, things do need to move from short term to long term memory - Ugh!! Before you know it, I'm confused again. Then throw in Vygotsky et al and ideas on social learning and language and honestly, although I love the intellectual stimulation, I feel as though my mind will explode.

Then I look at Karl Knapp's Blog at http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html where he states that "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. What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners." It seems that when he said this he was agreeing with a statement from Kerr.

These sentences certainly make sense to me. People do not all react the same why so why should they all learn the same way? Also, the way people learn in one situation might be completely different than how they would learn in a different situation. Now that makes total sense. To try to package people and label the way they think would be looking at humans in a really limited way. For example, there are 26 letter in the alphabet. If we said that each letter could only "behave" in one way, we would be limited to less than 26 words in the entire english language. If the letter "T" could only be used in the word The, all other words with the letter "T" in it wouldn't exist. To me, that's what its like to ascribe to only one type of learning theory. People that do that are limiting everyone to the word The. If a teacher only uses a behaviorist model in the classroom, he or she is really limiting the realization of potential of his or her students. Now, if we say that no learning theory is 100 % accurate in all cases at all times and that people use different learning theories with different situations through different times of their lives, then all of a sudden, we have a situation in which teachers can pick and choose which learning theory to use for specific lessons for different children. Now we have a situation instead of just having the word The, we have all the words in the english language available to help our students suceed.

With that said, I don't know if I am more for or against any individual learning theory. I'm more of a "get to know your kids and do what works" kind of teacher. Maybe its because I have internalized the different theories or perhaps its because in the classroom setting, the theories themselves don't matter much. Not sure which. What I do know is that my kids are learning and if they are having problems, I change what I'm doing to help them learn. I'll leave the theories themselves to acadamia. Oh wait - I'm working on my PhD - I am acadamia...damn - confused again!