Bill Kerr (2007) said in his blog (http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html)
that since everyone responds behaviorally to rewards, we are all
behaviorists.
Our class assignment requested we
visit http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
but, unfortunately, the blog was no longer available.
Fortunately, Kerr’s (2007) blog
reviewed the discussions between himself, Stephen Downes and Karl Kapp. Kapp’s opinion was stated that while behaviorism
has its place, the theory is an oversimplification because humans are not so
simple as to be a reward and response machine.
Stephen Downes was noted to say that he
was puzzled as to why designing curriculum was based upon behaviorism when the
theory had long been abandoned.
I read a couple of my classmate’s
blogs.
Debbie (http://daspringsteen.blogspot.com/)
stated that each of the significant learning theories has something useful for
the learning process (Springstein, 2013).
Jeanette (http://www.eduweb3.com/)
underscored that Kapp (2007) thought we needed to take the best from each philosophy
and wisely create an educational curriculum. She emphasized that there are differences
in learning styles between learners. She
concluded that integrating from diverse learning theories would produce optimal
results for students’ learning.
My opinion is that Kerr’s (2007) generalization misrepresented behavioral theory. The
theory does not say that there are some aspects in which people respond
favorably to rewards. Rather, behaviorism
mandates that people most centrally respond to rewards and punishment to the
exclusion of other human motivations.
I agree that behaviorism is an oversimplification
to explain the whole of human learning and behavior. However, it does not follow that behaviorism
is not useful as a model to shape curriculum.
A benefit of utilizing behaviorism as a model to shape curriculum is
that the model is simple and addresses powerful human drives.
Curriculum cannot be built on a
complicated concept that suggests our teaching might parallel the totality and
complexity of the human psyche. How
silly is that notion?
Therefore, while behaviorism is inadequate
to reflect the sum of human motivations, it is a useful model to consider when
developing learning curriculum.
References
Delgado, J. (2013,
December 22). Cognitivism as a Learning Theory.
Retrieved from http://www.eduweb3.com/
Kerr, B. (2007,
January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Springstein, D. (2013, December 25).
Cognitivism as a Learning Theory.
Retrieved from http://daspringsteen.blogspot.com/
Andrea,
ReplyDeleteIn enjoyed reading your response to the blogs and wondered how you would address intrinsic motivation when discussing behaviorism versus cognitivism.
Amy
I found this blog post quite fascinating and thought provoking. I am especially interested in knowing more about this statement. "Curriculum cannot be built on a complicated concept that suggests our teaching might parallel the totality and complexity of the human psyche." What studies have you seen that confirm this theory? Am I to believe from this statement that all curriculum should be easy? If we never challenge students how will they ever grow or develop mentally? These are just a few questions that I am curious about knowing more on this subject.
ReplyDeleteAndrea, I so agree with your last statement, that "while behaviorism is inadequate to reflect the sum of human motivations, it is a useful model to consider when developing learning curriculum."
ReplyDeleteMy belief is that rejecting everything about one learning theory is overly rigid and reactionary.
The summary you gave me a better understanding of the blog posts, so thanks for your clarity!