Too Many _isms?
Karl Kapp stated on his blog that “The issue many forget is that “learning” is not one thing…it is a multi-layered word that tends to get treated as if it were just one thing…and it’s not. It is multi-facetted and that is why developing new models for “learning” is so difficult…there are too many levels for one school of thought or one model to do it all” (http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/). Here is the essence of the issue on the abundance of “–isms.” I see learning as a giant disco ball, with innumerable facets. There is still too much unknown, and there will never be a time when we know everything there is to know about learning. There never will be a one size fits all “ism” because learners do not fit a one-size-fits-all learning model.
Stephen Downes claimed that “I haven't harped on this, because it should be obvious, but it remains puzzling that so much of the instructional design community remains rooted in behaviorism - this more than 30 years after the theory was abandoned everywhere else” (http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=37293). Behaviorism could not have been totally abandoned because clearly there are times when it works; we still have learning objectives because they help the student focus and serve as a foundation for the design of the instructional material. No one admits to being a behaviorist though. Perhaps, that is what Downes meant.
Each new ism is a stepping stone to a previously unidentified aspect or fact of learning. With the advent of the computer, how people learn changed. New tools and methods in the future may change how the mind takes in information and may change how the brain functions, so the quest will always continue. As Bill Kerr stated on his blog “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” (http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html). A stand-alone ism is an oxymoron.
Downes, S. (2006, December 21). Definitions: ABCD objectives [web blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=37333
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/
Tim Weaver's at http://weave1-weave1.blogspot.com/2012/03/tweavermod-2-cognitivism-as-learning.html
I liked how you pointed out the aspects that "Each new ism is a stepping stone to a previously unidentified aspect or fact of learning." As I analyzed and looked at both blogs, I really took away from them the idea that they are theories and that they can change. Not everyone is set in stone.
ReplyDeleteThis notion would go hand in hand with your next idea, which was "With the advent of the computer, how people learn changed. New tools and methods in the future may change how the mind takes in information and may change how the brain functions, so the quest will always continue." With this statement, it identified the essence of education and reform. Technology is changing the way in which we teach and I think even new theories and "isms" will continue to emerge along the way.
Hi, Melinda. I agree that new theories will continue to emerge. Human beings keep learning, growing, and changing, so the process of learning will also change. Ultimately, educators will always be searching for answers to an ever-evolving process. There will never be one answer.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn,
ReplyDeleteThere is great irony in your statement "A stand-alone ism is an oxymoron." An ism by itself tries to satisfy the need of a stand alone system. :)
I am chewing on your analogy of the disco ball. I really like it... The facets, the reflection, the rays of dizzying light. Sounds like learning to me.
Tom Jacobs
HI, Tom. Thanks for your comments. I am still chuckling about "sounds like learning to me."
DeleteCarolyn
Carolyn,
ReplyDeleteWhat I believe you are describing in the scaffolding of different theories, which I find most appropriate because there are so many considerations to be made about cognition, development of cognition and behavior, and impacts to learning using technology. Great summary of Kerr, Kapp, and Downes. Can you include on other perspective on how the brain works?
Hi, Suzanne. Thank you for your comments. Personally, I rather like the Gestalt theory, but I do not know much about it. I plan on studying it more. Do you have a particular perspective in mind?
ReplyDeleteHi Carolyn,
DeleteI totally enjoyed your post. You have captured a very important point made by Kapp: "...learning is not one thing..."
I am going to jump, however, on one statement you made:"New tools and methods in the future may change how the mind takes in information and may change how the brain functions". Do you really believe that there is a tool out there that could change the way the brain functions?