Learning Theories...all those _isms
Last time I posted this blog, I was discussing behaviorism. For the past two weeks I have been reading about cognitivism...and various branches of it. I confess to feeling slightly overwhelmed as I worked through the cognitivist theories and explanations. More than once I found myself wondering, is learning truly that complicated? Granted, the human brain is a complex thing that we still do not fully understand. However, I still could not help but find myself in the same boat I am always in during the study of learning theories. I struggle mightily with the notion that any one theory is absolutely correct.
While I believe people learn best by doing, I also believe that sometimes people don't. For example, when my husband is learning new math, all he has to do is see it. He looks at the numbers and it makes sense instantly. On the other hand, math is gibberish to me. I have to practice the new math - over and over - before it begins to make sense to me. It is just the opposite for anything to do with writing and reading. He has to work at it and practice, while for me it just comes naturally.
After struggling with cognitivism for a while, I read the blogs by Kerr (2007) and Kapp (2007). First, I read Kerr's blog in which he said something that made me sit up and cheer. Kerr pointed out that there is not a single _ism that is the only right theory. Rather than pinning all our hopes on one theory, we should use those theories as filters that help us determine how to teach.
Kapp (2007) suggested something similar. While he agrees with Kerr that each theory offers something useful and that no one theory is complete on its own, he goes a bit further to offer a timeline for when different theories would be most applicable. For example, Kapp stated behaviorist theory would be best at the beginning stages of learning. This would be followed by cognitivism and finally constructivism.
I agree with Kapp (2007)...and I don't. I agree that there is not any single learning theory which can cover all types of learning. However, I disagree that we can state outright that one theory is for this stage and the next theory is for that. I would propose, instead, that the different theories are intertwined. In other words, different theories are going to fit each individual at different times according to their needs.
Go back to my example of how I learn math. I am an admitted mathematical dunce. The only way I was able to survive math in school was to drop algebra altogether. Geometry, however, I discovered something I could (literally) handle. I could do geometry - it was concrete, I could see it, touch it, manipulate it. Algebra was a different animal. It was abstract and they kept changing the letters in the formulas. Going back even further, learning the multiplication facts were a challenge for me. To this day, I have to think and count to figure out what 8 x 7 is. Language arts, on the other hand, was (and still is) my cup of tea. No matter how it was taught, I got it. The first time.
The point is, if we agree that no single theory is enough to cover all aspects of learning, then it stands to reason that we can't provide a pre-determined guide for when to use each theory, either. Sometimes using the behaviorist approach will work, but the next day you may need a cognitivist approach. It will overlap.
In some cases, as seen with Clifford Stoll (below), the connections are all over the place.
Cognitivism, like other learning theories, offers insight for us to begin understanding how people learn. As a teacher, I have used mnemonics, as seen in the photo.
I have seen how "chunking" can help students to recall information. I also know that rote memorization of spelling words for a test does not mean they will spell those same words correctly in a paper. However, is this the only explanation for how people learn? No. Can learning be scheduled so that all little ones learn with behaviorist methods? Once they are past a certain age, can we no longer apply those principals? That seems silly. I would argue that everyone learns in multiple ways - that it depends on the person, the content, and the motivation. I would even suggest that several theories could be found in any one instructional lesson in any classroom.
It is easy to point to an isolated event and say, "Look. That is cognitivism. It must be the right theory." Or behaviorism. Or constructivism. Or any of the _isms. However, I think learning theories are more like a kaleidoscope. They are all pieces of a very complex puzzle and together can create something wonderful.
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
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/
Christine,
ReplyDeleteThe introduction and subsequent understanding of the different learning theories and their associated instructional design strategies requires a revision of the available literature on learning theories and their possible application to learning process and teaching practice. After reading the required materials and the blogs you have also mentioned, I, too feel that I now have a better grasp of the importance of learning theories to instructional design.