Learning theory is a set of constructs that develop in
order to explain changes in a person’s level of performance. According to the
blog by Bill Kerr (2007) the purpose of having learning theories is to, “help
deliver radical curriculum reform” (p. 1). Learning theorists develop,
“significant findings in their empirical studies” (Kerr, 2007, p. 2). Every
learning theory evolves through criticism via independent learning theorists.
Kerr (2007) also states that learning theories provide, “something useful
without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” (p. 4).
Karl Kapp (2007) shares the same belief as Kerr. He claims that instructional designers should, “take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners” (Kapp, 2007, p. 1). Kapp suggests using the behaviorist approach for lower level learning skills such as memorizing, recognizing, labeling and the expectation of measurable outcomes. He distinguishes cognitivism as procedural and rule-based learning. Knapp also mentions constructivism which emphasizes problem-solving, collaboration and creativity.
Stephen Downes hosts the original blog dialogue regarding the different learning theories with Kerr and Knapp. Downes adds that learning is complex which comprises of information-processing within the human brain. Cognitivists view the learning process as an internal function. Learning can enhance via social interactions with others. Downes disagrees with the analogy of the mind being similar to a computer. He states that, “depicting the mind as analogous to symbol system processors is to misrepresent it in a fundamental way” (Kerr, 2007, p. 3).
Learning is a multi-step process where learners perform tasks that they could not perform before learning the new task. Instructional designers utilize various learning theories to support learners in being able to, “demonstrate the same performance time after time” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). Educators utilize cognitive processes to help learners’ convert additional information into their long-term memory. Educators utilize behavioral processes to support learners’ in being able to demonstrate a new task.
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
Karl Kapp (2007) shares the same belief as Kerr. He claims that instructional designers should, “take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners” (Kapp, 2007, p. 1). Kapp suggests using the behaviorist approach for lower level learning skills such as memorizing, recognizing, labeling and the expectation of measurable outcomes. He distinguishes cognitivism as procedural and rule-based learning. Knapp also mentions constructivism which emphasizes problem-solving, collaboration and creativity.
Stephen Downes hosts the original blog dialogue regarding the different learning theories with Kerr and Knapp. Downes adds that learning is complex which comprises of information-processing within the human brain. Cognitivists view the learning process as an internal function. Learning can enhance via social interactions with others. Downes disagrees with the analogy of the mind being similar to a computer. He states that, “depicting the mind as analogous to symbol system processors is to misrepresent it in a fundamental way” (Kerr, 2007, p. 3).
Learning is a multi-step process where learners perform tasks that they could not perform before learning the new task. Instructional designers utilize various learning theories to support learners in being able to, “demonstrate the same performance time after time” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). Educators utilize cognitive processes to help learners’ convert additional information into their long-term memory. Educators utilize behavioral processes to support learners’ in being able to demonstrate a new task.
References:
Driscoll, M. P. (2005).
Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
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/Pearson Education.
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
Hi Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteDo you feel that in your classroom you use parts of each theory or one in particular?
Some of the verbs that Kapp suggest to teach lower learning are those also found in the lower learning domains of Bloom's Taxonomy. I find that in my classroom, these are the verbs that I use when introducing a new standard or concept, however higher level questions must be asked in order to assure a deeper level of knowledge.
Jennifer
Hi Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI agree. Lessons should include different learning theories. As you, stated, an introduction to a lesson starts with lower level questioning and objectives. Higher –order questioning and objectives develop with the learner being exposed to different activities that increase with rigor. Stephen Downes says learning enhances via social activities. Learners should be exposed to activities where they work together and gain better skills in answering higher-order questions.
Vaughn
Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with you that learning is a multi-step process where learners perform tasks that they could not perform before learning the new task. However, your response on my blog site has confirmed that there are other elements existing that require explanations when it comes to how people learn. We both had experienced programming our brains with sensory inputs which actually worked. Thus, we both are leaning toward believing that the mind is similar to the computer. Kerr was right for stating that the architecture of the mind is very different from that of a computer (Kerr, 2007). I can see his point, especially since computers were built by humans. In other words, I am not undermining the power of the human mind by saying it is similar to a computer and that it is programmable. For I do see our minds as an extraordinary facet, an element in which we might never truly understand.
After all, we constantly come across new findings of the human mind for example, according to Driscoll, studies aimed at training children on Piagetian tasks demonstrated that children can learn at a higher level than the level Piaget claimed they could (Driscoll, 2005, p. 201). Nonetheless, you and I should probably conduct further investigation on the phenomenon of how we both had positive results from practically programming our brains with sensory input. Do you think that by not knowing how our brains were able to process and learn so many songs in just one night have caused us to be a little bias when it comes to the debate of whether the mind is analogous to a computer?
References
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Hello Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job summarizing the information about learning theories. I agree that educators need to pick and choose what works from each theory. We need to know our students and design activities that will address their needs. This is the approach that I follow. What is your teaching approach?
Andres Anzaldua
Hi Andres,
ReplyDeleteThank you. It has been 13 years since I was a classroom science teacher. I do remember using conceptual and pedagogical models as a teacher. Using a comparative organizer to help learners distinguish scientific characteristics was always helpful. The chart gave students a visual model which made learning meaningful.
Vaughn
Linda Hutchison
ReplyDeletehttp://hutchisonedt550.blogspot.com/
Linda wrote:
Vaughn, your comments are always so complete.
You mentioned taking a bit from each learning theory and applying them, as Kapp (2007)suggests, as the best method. I would agree that there are good things in all theory. However, the modality for learning and instruction has changed so much from the inception of theories such as behaviorism and cognitivism. Do you feel that they can still remain solid for modern learners?
Hi Linda,
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Kern (2007) and what he says about _isms or learning theories. No one learning theory should stand alone or is complete by itself. The properties behind the learning theories apply towards the objectives and the, “modality for learning and instruction,” for current learners.
Kapp (2007) says lower-level learning principles such as memorizing and labeling are behaviorist approaches. He also mentions cognitive approaches that emphasize procedural and rule-based learning. Teachers apply learning theory principles when utilizing curriculum and designing lessons for instruction.
Vaughn
Reference:
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://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 fromhttp://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html