I read the posting by Bill Kerr, it was interesting an yet a lot of truth was presented. Every time a theorist conduct some research into the _isms, it always lead by to the begging work done by Skinner. There will always be arguments for both behaviorism and cognitivism. Depending on they way you were introduced, will lean you to that particular theory. As you know, behaviorism was developed on the principle of a stimulus response. The student or individual begins with a clean slate and their behavior is molded through the use of positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. Both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement increase the probability that the antecedent behavior will happen again. This response is learned and becomes a condition that is predicable. The individual don’t know why he/she is doing it, they just know that it has to be done this way. The cogitivism is viewed differently. This Cognitivism theory focuses to explain human behavior by understanding the thought processes on the inner mental activities and believes that it is the individual’s decision base on past experiences, information provided and expected results.
I think that each of these theories have valid point based on there style. A as student, parent, co-worker we all switch between the two theories depending on the situation presented. It is difficult to say which is better or which happens first. The situation dictates the principle and as humans we adapt.
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.htmlThis was a difficult blog to follow, I’m not sure exactly what the point he was trying to make. From what I gather, it is a group of posting from different people about cognitivism and behaviorism From what I understand, behavior can be shaped by reinforcement through drill
and practice and clear objectives that help students and teachers. Behavior has specific skills needed to be learned in a fixed order. Constructivism is largely by the Student creating knowledge by reflecting on their physical and mental actions. Based on this reasoning, the schools systems will base majority of their program on one of these if not utilize both.
http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
Robert,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I agree it is difficult to say which theory is better than the other and we do continuous switch between them. I believe that we choose which learning style that we will use based on what we are learning and how we learn. I also question whether we are continuously creating new theories or expanding on old ones.
Emmorfia
Hello Robert,
ReplyDeleteI got the same feeling, that new theories just keep going back to the "basics" if you will. However, what each theory adds is a new set of "basics," and it begins to build a sort of pyramid in which knowledge of one cannot be looked in isolation of the other one(s). With that said, I do believe that it is hard to say which one is better, since as you well pointed out they all have merit.
Thank you,
Alejandra
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the learners tend to embrace the theory that you were introduced too. The theories are every changing with research. However, I can't say that one theory is better than the other. The opposite is true. Learners can benefit from aspects of all of the learning theories. The learning theories are not to stand alone rather they are to build off one another. As learners, we use aspects from the theories that are effective for us along our educational journey.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI agree that depending on how the theories were introduced may be affect the one a person may favor. Without these theories, other theories would not exist. In my opinion, new theories are a reflection of the beginning theories.