For Ism's Sake

Bill Kerr, blog writer of “Isms as Filter Not Blinker” (2007) brings forth the argument that we cannot rule out any particular, or specific, theory of learning since each are relevant to our growth and development; and I am in agreement. From an elementary perspective, let’s look the behaviorist learning theory and the potential outcome of those impacted solely by such a theory or learning strategy. For instance, what results would be achieved amongst a group of subjects that have been taught the behavior that accelerating through an amber traffic light is the “norm”? Although, this behavior may be the norm to some of us, by most laws, it is not considered common practice of the status quo. Yet, what if a small town of motorists were provided with this direction? From a strictly behaviorist perspective, this action would be that of non-consequence since it is a taught and learned desired behavior and result. Within that small town, which I will call Town A, it is acceptable to accelerate upon coming to an amber traffic light with no consequence. Yet, what if a motorist from a surrounding town, Town B, has decided to move to the Town A where the traffic laws vary from his/her town? Will the newcomer adapt to the surrounding environment, or conversely will an accident occur? Regardless of the outcome, a behavioral change or shift will take place on someone’s or some group’s behalf. So to this I pose, “at what juncture do we determine when one –ism shifts to another”?

In Learning Theories and Instruction (2009), Ormond, Schunk and Gredler argue that “…behaviorist approaches are probably more appropriate for certain groups…than others” (pp. 179). This, as well as Kerr’s views, supports the notion that more than one learning theory must be applied for growth and development. It can be argued that the varying strategies and concepts of learning are intertwined throughout or daily lives. As we are constantly evolving physically, we are also evolving in thought. To evolve in thought, it is understand, that one must undergo varying experiences. In relation to this subject matter, such experiences may be equated to the various –isms in which Kerr (2007), Ormond, Schunk and Gredler (2009) bring to light. If we take this argument and apply it to a classroom setting, we can possibly solve repeated issues that undermine a student’s growth. For instance, a student that demonstrates constant tardiness may benefit from a behavioral pattern or possibly the introduction of a cognitive approach to rectify the ongoing occurrence. Standridge (2001) may argue that “behavioral contracts, consequences, reinforcement, and cues” may assist in meeting the desired goal pertaining to the student’s attendance. Yet, from a cognitive approach, the instructor may consider different problem solving approaches to determine the best method in reaching the desired goal (Ormond, Schunk & Gredler, 2009). However, from a connectionism approach, the implementation of rewards or recognition over a period of time from demonstrating the desired result may also result in habit (http://tip.psychology.org/thorn.html).

We must take in take all these variations into consideration as Instructional Designers. If we focus primarily on one learning concept or theory we may limit our own abilities to provide outreach to those that need our assistance the most or may deter those that surpass the average capabilities of attaining certain knowledge sets. We must be amply prepared and flexible for what may or is to come.