Module 2 - Learning Theory Reflections

John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying, “Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all.” Sydney J. Harris said, “The danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers”.

These two opinions about technology and cognition is also represented by Bill Kerr (2007) in his blog at http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Mr. Kerr, in response to Stephen Downes’ blog wrote, “If machines evolve further and start displaying visceral emotions then how should we deal with that? An alternative into dehumanising humans would be to humanise machines. At that point behaviourism might make a come back.” Kerr continued by stating, “…the architecture of the mind is very different from that of a computer.” Regardless of one’s position on behavioral theory versus cognitive theory, surely we can agree that we still don’t truly understand how we learn. Further, to discard one theory in favor of the other seems premature given our infancy into understanding cognition. Karl Kapp (2007) supports this position in his blog at http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html Mr. Kapp said, “What we need to take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the blog discussions among Bill Kerr, Stephen Downes, and Karl Kapp is the undeniable similarities when compared to the online discussions among graduate students at Walden University. Although there are subtle (and not so subtle) differences and disagreements about the value of behaviorism versus cognitivisim as relevant theories in learning, the themes remain constant. For example, Marci Vining, a Walden student, stated, “Educators should not adhere to one view of learning.” Cassandra Moore concurred when she said that the learning process “…cannot be explained by one theory.” Rebecca Raichel also stated, “I don’t think it has to be one or the other.” As Kerr (2007) said, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right.” I agree -- for now.

On a personal note: For years I have delighted in the creative floor plans my middle school students design in response to an introduction to architecture unit. After assessing their drawings for years it is difficult to deny Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. I find it interesting to view students who remain Preoperational as they continue to draw doors from the front view as compared to the Concrete Operational students who have progressed to correctly drawing doors from the top view.

If you are interested in reading more Piaget’s stages of cognitive development then please refer to the following discussion posted by Dr. C. George Boeree. He includes additional examples from each stage. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html

Also, you may want to visit Stephen Downes on the Web. Since I referenced him within Kapp’s and Kerr’s blogs, I thought it appropriate to include his website. This site will allow you to access his blog, Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter sites. http://www.downes.ca/

Kapp, K. (2007). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html

Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html