Week 3 Discussion: Cognitivism and behaviorism

Week 3 Discussion: Cognitivism and Behaviorism

This week in our discussion about learning, the focus is on two blog discussions sharing views on the ‘ism’, cognitivism, behaviorism, constructivism and connectivism.
“isms as filter, not blinker” http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html by Bill Kerr is the primary subject of discussion in both blogs. The second, Out and About: Discussion on Educational School of Thought” http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html by Karl Kapp, is the result of an ongoing conversation with Stephen Downes about the aforementioned. Having read these entries first, I was very interested in reading Kerr’s points of views thoroughly.

In viewing these discussions, it was confirmed for me that people take strong stances on the theory they believe in/follow. As I’ve mentioned in previous discussions, I am not committed to any on theory or a follower of any single school of thought. I am in agreement that there are needs for all forms as we prepare or attempt to address the learner. As Instructional Designers, all must be considered to provide adequate curriculum for the whole learner. Focusing on one theory would be limiting – one dimensional. I don’t think its so much of taking the best from each philosophy(Kapp) as it is using what’s needed from different schools of thought – because who’s to determine what’s best? Wouldn’t it depend on the need being met/the style needed to reach the learner? I was very pleased to see learning viewed as multi-layered and not singly tied to one theory or the other. I agree that learning is multi-facetted, and that is why it is important to know varying philosophies. Having the “isms”, if not for no other reason, provokes thought and challenges one to research further.