This past week, as I was expanding my knowledge on the Cognitive Theory, I’ve read a
very interesting discussion post by Kapp (2007) and Kerr (2007), in which
their main topic was the –isms of theory in education. The ideas presented have
confirmed some conclusions I had since my undergraduate years and open up other
areas on which I was left to ponder.
Through this discussion Kapp
(2007) and Kerr (2007) have proposed that each new –ism or theory is basically a new idea
that is not isolated from other ideas or concepts. They are, in some way linked
with each other by focusing on specific behaviors, ways to process information or way to
construct meaning. If I put myself in a real-life situation, such as learning
how to fly, I will realize that in the beginning learning and memorizing the
mechanical concepts will take a lot of repetition and discourse from a
professor. Maybe I will receive some negative comments or grades for some
simple mistakes I might make in an effort to correct my thinking and avoid future catastrophes. Then, I bring
the memorized information and apply it in a real plane, internalizing and
making sense of what has being learned. With this, I see that each step of my
learning process, in some way, takes on a different learning theory.
Siemens (2008) also summarizes this
by saying that the main focus of education nowadays is to understand how the
student gains the necessary concepts or ideas, rather than understanding how
the concept is being taught. For him, teaching cannot be focused or based on
one single theory, but a group of them that should interact with each other to
find the best possible methodology to engage students and allow real learning
to take place. We must always keep in mind that we are all
different and learn in various ways.
Before I end this post I would like to share with you the following video presentation which summarizes different theories.
References:
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/
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
Siemens,
G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for
educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from
http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
For this Module I visited and commented on the following blogs:
http://lrsgturn.blogspot.com/
http://stansedtechplatform.blogspot.com
For this Module I visited and commented on the following blogs:
http://lrsgturn.blogspot.com/
http://stansedtechplatform.blogspot.com
Gus,
ReplyDeleteI agree that we must use multiple theories as all learners are different. However, would you say that there are some theories stronger than others? If so, which ones?
By the way, I liked the video a lot! It was a succinct and clear video.
Gus,
ReplyDeletePoint noted and for the most, is valid i.e. blended theory is practical. However, I am asking the same question as Joseline in previous post...as we select various learning theories that will fit well for specific curriculum design, we will notice one theory that will stand out above the rest. It is that one theory (reinforcer) that will be applied throughout our curriculum development the next term. It is only human to gravitate to the best. So, which one of the Learning Theories are you finding yourself gravitating more so to after further reading?
Lynda Marshall
Joseline and Lynda,
ReplyDeleteThank you for visiting my blog and providing some comments.
In regards to your question I have to say that personally I've always leaned towards a Cognitive/Constructivist approach to teaching. Piaget and Vygotsky's idea that learning occurs as a result of building from what is already known has made perfect sense and has brought positive results in my classroom.
The other element that I find fitting, to this learning theory, is the fact that children better learn by interacting with the environment and others. In my opinion, technology fits right in the development of cognition.
Once again, thank you for your comments and I hope I have answer your question.
Gus