Kapp recently posted on his blog a response to the –isms of educational theory. What is compelling about Kapp’s blog is that he invites us into an ongoing discussion. How better to learn and see the nuances of a theory than to watch the discourse between important thinkers?
Kapp links back to Kerr. The basic thought they are sharing is that each new –ism (theory) is a new idea. But, the idea is not a STAND ALONE idea. It is dependent on something else. Technically, then, learning theories (behaviorism, cogntivism, constructivism, et al) are linked. Yes, each has its own focus – behavior, thought process, constructing meaning. Consider an example: I am learning a foreign language. Rote memorization and repetition allows me to learn the sounds of the language. Repeating in class to my instructor, I gain feedback on my work. I then move into a Second Life café environment to chat with a fellow learner to improve my vocabulary and pronunciation. Each step in this process takes on a different learning theory. They are all working together to help me form an understanding of the concept.
Kapp (2007) noted, “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.” This summarizes it all doesn’t it?! It’s not just one method we try in the classroom but a variety of methods to ensure students are learning the concept.
Consider this basic overview from Siemens:
It seems that the focus of 21st Century learning is not the focus on *how* the concept is taught but rather how the student gains that concept. These are very different. Teaching cannot be based on one theory. Rather, several theories must be built upon to find methods to engage students. Perhaps if students were vessels for us to pour knowledge into, we would be able to focus on one –ism. Students are not though. They are all different! That means that the classroom needs to be a place where their modes of learning are engaged.
Here is an example from a Canadian teacher on how he is revolutionizing his classroom and stepping away from –isms:
References
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
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErica,
ReplyDeleteYou demonstrate an understanding of current theories. Connectivism we learned, is the current digital age theory. What will be next is anyones guess. Utilizing connectivism along with previous theories gives the instructor and the student avenues of knowledge construction. It is through these avenues learning and meaning are directed. I believe you have captured these two concepts well.
Erica ,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100% that learning is a multi-layered word that is multi-facetted and because of this it is the reason why developing new models for “learning” is so difficult. In addition it is also the reason why adopting new models for learning is difficult. Let me explain. It seems like every year my school is adopting a new model for learning. Though at the time the learning model sounds like the answer to “all” our prayers it end of not satisfying the needs of the students and we end up adopting something new as soon as someone returns from a new professional training.
Bradley,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I worry when we connect thinking to technology. It takes the really human element out of thought and creativity. What's a theory thought that would encompass both aspects?!
Thanks,
Erica
LaTonya,
ReplyDeleteHow true! I teach college composition. A couple of year's ago, someone heard that stimulation based exercises were brilliant for writing. So, a curriculum was written based on a scenario. Great right? WRONG! The scenario (and accompanying writing project) have nothing to do with the rest of the class. Instead of changing it though, we muddle through and wait for the next great idea to come down.
I agree with you that there is just too much when we are asked to change based on a new theory or method. Honestly, how many times have you switched only to switch back when the new method doesn't work?
Erica