Can the Theories All Get Along?

The topic of How Does Learning Take Place is one that is ripe for debate. Learning is life, learning is constant, and so even as we live and we learn it is important, especially when designing instruction, to maintain an open approach when it comes to our perspectives about what Bill Kerr calls_isms. He asks in his article whether we Should stick to -isms or pick different useful ideas out of the various theories. (Kerr, 2007)

Regardless of approach, the development or reform of curriculum must include learning theory as some frame of reference. Some, such as Stephen Downes feel as if some -isms such as behaviorism are archaic and perhaps should not be considered anymore. But is this true? Does a theory of learning have an expiration date?

Kerr answers that question by saying that each _ism provides some usefulness even while not by themselves being able to stand alone as the only explanatory theory behind a learning outcome.

Karl Kapp (2006), seems to mirror Bill Kerr’s response but goes further to give a very valid argument for behaviorism, refuting the idea that it is somehow no longer of any validity in the development of instruction. He states that in corporate training situations, for example, we should create learning objectives based on measurable outcomes, hence behaviorism. Departments do indeed have different objectives to meet and this drives the development of their training. For example, the sales department must sell, the production department must produce, and accounting must finish financial reports by certain fiscal deadlines. These are all proof points that measurable outcomes should be based on measurable behaviors.

Kapp (2006), states that “In many scenarios, specific responses are required, and when training people, the idea is to ensure that they follow that prescribed set of responses, all of which constitutes behaviorism. He does agree that Cognitivism and Constructivism are important theories that are gaining in importance especially in the realm of informal learning. I think they also have their place as suggested by Kerr. He suggests that it all depends on the type of learning that works best for the situation.

For lower-level learning, or if there are outcomes that must be measured a behaviorist approach (memorize, recognizing, labeling) is perhaps best. Procedural and rule-based learning requires an emphasis on Cognitivism and Problem-solving, collaboration and creativity require a view of Constructivism

While I agree with all he has suggested, my view is that in designing instruction, we can create a more dynamic work, by taking a view of learning that is multilayered as there is no one way that learning takes place. We need to take what’s valuable from each school of thought and use it in creating instruction that is meaningful and meets the learning objective/s.

Sources:-

Bill Kerr: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Karl Kapp: http://karlkapp.com/

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [blog post]. Retrieved from http://karlkapp.com/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [blog post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Behaviorist Rat. Retrieved November 16, 2018 from: http://blog.wsd.net/jreeve/behaviorism-not-as-dead-as-previously-thought/