7105 Mod 2

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

(the link above [for Kapp] did not work for me, it kept going to the current homepage. The link below did work)

http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Kerr’s discussion on “-isms” was somewhat entertaining but not enlightening. I can concur with the confusion on the use of the suffix, or overuse, but really what is the point. The point to me is what constitutes learning and how is it measured.

That’s where I like Kapp’s comments that as we move to higher levels of learning, the type of –ism changes too. Basic learning, two plus two equals four, fundamentals of reading and writing, and how to tie your shoes, are examples of behaviorism learning. As we progress to abstract thinking like plot lines in novels, or algebraic functions, then we need the principles of connectivism and constructivism to frame the learning process.

Kerr’s comments on humans being described as machines relating to behaviorism as we exhibit a stimulus-response reaction or machines being described as humanistic relating to cognitivism when strategizing to play chess does create a forum for further discussion. Are they like us, or are we like them, and is there a theory that explains it all? Or, do we have clearly defined parameters that we can categorize into a one-size-fits-all theory. The evolution of learning theory is continuing in my opinion with much debate still ahead!