Module 2 Blog-Sara Becker

Bill Kerr suggests that learning theories are open to change over time through people's ideas and research about learning theory (Kerr, 2007). I found myself agreeing with Kerr on this point. As we have read about different learning theories in our course text, they have all evolved and changed from their initial state.

Kerr also suggests that each of the learning theories should be used in combination with other learning theories rather than as a stand-alone method for designing instruction (Kerr, 2007). Again, I found myself agreeing with him. When we think about the students in our classroom, we know that they all learn in different ways. If we teach to just one learning style, then we are not truly reaching all of our students. Likewise, to focus solely on a single theory of learning and ignore the rest would likely result in poor instructional design and planning. We need to consider many different learning theories when planning instruction. It cannot be one size fits all. I think if it truly were one size fits all, there would not be the variety of learning theories that we are able to explore and study.

Karl Kapp responds to Kerr's blog by exploring this idea even further. He suggests that lower-level learning requires a behaviorist approach. Cognitivism is best suited for rule-based learning and Constructivism should be used for problem-based learning and collaborative learning (Kapp, 2007). I thought this was an accurate synthesis of Kerr's assertion that we need to draw from many "_isms" when designing instruction.

References:

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/