Discussion: Conversations about Learning
The dialogue between Kerr, Dowes, and Kapp presents
interesting learning theory viewpoints for the instructional design
professional. They counter argued the
importance of the cognitivism, and behaviorism
without stating whom the teacher was teaching. Thus, I concluded the most important variable
that was missing in the posts was, “the identity of the learner,” keeping in mind that the motivators for children, adults and
those in between are different.
The instructional designer must know their audience to reach their audience. The three bloggers may
have modified their posts based on the age or maturity of the learners, and I proceed under that assumption.
Kerr wrote in October that
he believed that there needed to be “a big”
change in learning theory and that “the _isms” (cognitivism and behaviorism)
were necessary to help substantiate a
revolution. As an instructional
designer, I see no reason for a significant
change when there are so many learning theories and the lack of full understanding.
Kapp in his post agreed with text
authored by Kerr stating that “each _ism” has value without being a stand-alone
concept. I agree with Kapp in his support for Kerr. I also agree with Ormrod, as she says that designers should focus on the learning
theory “big picture,” such as attention, interpretations, and purpose (Laureate Education, n.d.) rather
than the multitude of learning options. Kerr
mentions “connectivism” a new element to
learning theory, Rock (TEDxTokyo
[TEDxTokyo], 2013) suggests more study of “relationalism” which is “in a
broad sense applies to any system of thought that gives importance to the
relational nature of reality” ("Relationalism,"
2016). Certainly, the instructional
designer should consider reality in developing terminal objectives.
Dowes in his post reference
to instructional design and the notion that instructional designer’s reliance
on behaviorism was problematic and that the theory faded in other communities. Kerr countered and referenced that we all are
behaviorist because stimulus and response exist in every human activity. I agree with Kerr’s response, but I believe that Dowes
was suggesting that “cognitivism” as stated by Atkisson, “attempts go beyond
behaviorism by explaining the things that are part of the human experience but
cannot be explained by behavior alone” (Atkisson, 2010). I get
Atkisson’s point, but as an instructional
designer, there must be tangible results, beyond brain function.
Dr. Ormrod, states that behaviorism is a valuable tool for
instructional designers and outlined the concept of terminal behavior (Laureate Education [Laureate Ed.],
n.d.). From her narrative,
behaviorism provides the desired change in the learner and allows the
instructional designer to plan backward
from the terminal objective and develop sequential learning objectives that support the desired outcome. Using
the ADDIE model of analysis, design, development, implementation, and
evaluation by the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command validates behaviorist learning theory much like Dr. Ormrod describes (Harris, 2013). The Army trains tens of thousands of soldiers
a year using the model(Army Training
and Doctrine Command [TRADOC], 2014).
In conclusion, I find that behaviorism and cognitivism are
complementary learning methods. They both
provide a framework in which instructional designers can do their work. The U.S. Army has adopted the learning theories but call them learning domains as
depicted in the Taxonomy of educational objectives (Harris, 2013). The military reference cited presents no
argument that cognitivism or behaviorism are more important than the other, but
the military strives for change that can be seen.
After reading, listening, and
reviewing course materials, I gravitate to Kerr’s viewpoint that the two learning
theory “_isms” should be used as a filter. I offer an alternative metaphor for
consideration by comparing “the cognitive and behaviorist _ism” challenge to panning for gold ("Gold Panning," n.d.). The “pan”
represents the learning theories as serves as
the foundation; the dirt, water, and other chemicals in the “pan” are the instructional design elements,
and the gold nuggets are the desired learning outcomes
associated with behaviorism. Finally,
I present this equation for your
consideration and comments.
Cognitivism + Behaviorism / Constructivism =
Learning (C + B/C = L)
References
No comments:
Post a Comment