It is interesting that several of us expressed the notion that human learning is too complex to be explained by any one theory and each has something to contribute to our understanding of this complex phenomenon, and that Kerr closed his post with the same sentiment. “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right”
Our students present a variety of learning styles and modalities. It is our task to create a rich learning environment. Creating that environment involves many factors, classroom management, routines, and educational experiences all within the social setting of a school community. This is a complex task, necessitating openness to the best offerings of each theory. This is at the heart of Kapp’s closing statement; “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.”
I am not certain that theorist were attempting to draw a direct analogy between the human mind and the the way computers process information. Perhaps the analogy they sought was that information passes through the brain, something happens to it, or doesn’t happen as the case may be, in that process allowing that information to be stored and retrieved at a later date. This is an interesting thing we do, hanging on to something we think may be the intent of a theorist, or anyone for that matter, but in the end is probably irrelevant to the underlining tenets of the theory.
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Scott
ReplyDeleteSeveral fun things popped out at me in your post. But I'll stick to just one. Why are the strong proponents for both sides trying to convince or convert everyone to their belief? As I read your words, "complex, variety, multi-layered," it hit me that in the past, learning may have been very black and white, true/false, multiple choice. So maybe educators were used to having one definitive answer. It has to be true or false. Maybe this is the part of the reason behind the dueling nature of these theories. Are they trying to have a single answer to a multi-level question?
Your view certainly leaves me pondering. I like that fact that you questioned the analogy of the computer. I found myself thinking about how different computers were 20 years ago compared to today. Computers basically held information and were big word processors. You bring up a good point... Would the analogy made more sense then than today?
ReplyDelete