To -Ism Or Not To -Ism...

As I read through the blogs by Bill Kerr, Stephen Downes, and Karl Kapp, I was struck by the discussion related to different learning theories. Is there a single theory that addresses the way that people learn? As an educator, how can I adopt, or is it adapt, the theories that currently influence instructional designers in order to create an effective learning environment?

Do I need to reject theories? For example, Stephen Downes rejects the concept of behaviorism when he says, “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.” He rejects the notion of human stimulus-response, which he considers a programmable behavior, and in Kerr's words a dehumanizing conceptualization of human understanding. Downes emphasizes that humans understand by using cognitive processes like recognition, inference, and association.

Do I need to meld theories? Karl Kapp suggests that “lower level learning (lower cognitive load) requires a behaviorist approach (memorize, recognizing, labeling) as does the expectation of outcomes that must be measured. I then suggest that procedural and rule-based learning requires an emphasis on Cognitivism and finally, problem-solving, collaboration and creativity require a view of Constructivism.”

Personally, I am not willing to reject behaviorism entirely. I think that there are some significant ideas that should be retained in its fundamental beliefs. Mastery learning is possible through carefully sequenced units of learning. Curriculum development should take into consideration behavioral objectives. I think there has been too much emphasis on stimulus-response concept; the concept is often misunderstood. For example, Skinner strongly suggested the importance of the learner being actively engaged in the learning process in order to ensure that learning has occurred. The theory is not just about stimulus-response. It is about measurable outcomes and mastery learning.

Cognitive learning theories provide a useful framework for understanding learning strategies appropriate to individualized instruction, since it recognizes the unique processing capabilities of each human through its concepts of short and long term memory, human processing of sensory information, cognitive stages of the learner, inquiry and discovery models. Cognitive sciences emphasis that learning takes place as internal mental processes of the individual. As a result, educational technologies that encourage student inquisitiveness, critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving are going to be of great import for the future.

Of all the comments on the blog site, I preferred the one by Miguel, “Learning theories seem to serve only insomuch as they help us get passionate about human learning and the possibility that we may be able to predict how people learn.” Bill Kerr poses an interesting question about -isms like constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, and connectivism, “Should we stick to -isms or should we cherry pick different useful ideas out of the various theories?” He suggests that learning theories do not stand still; instead, they evolve as theorists listen to the criticisms of others and adapt their theories accordingly. I find myself in agreement with Kerr when he claims that each -ism is “offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right.” There is indeed a lot to learn from ongoing discussions like this one. When we create a one-size-fits-all solution for the learning process, then it will be time once again to question everything we think we know.