In the suggested readings, ___isms are summed to be important as filters. Although I understand that the filters are used to help to establish validity and point to facts in research, I question what is left behind. What reveals the individual? What distinguishes a new and innovative idea from the commonly known ideas of noted researchers of the past.
Often, as research is filtered using the notable ___isms, research analyses point back to ideas of the Skinner, Piaget or one of many other noted theorists. Did these theorists discover all there is to discover about learning? Are there anymore theorists or did they only exist during the lives of the notable theorists? It seems that no new research about learning can be conducted without referencing some prior theory. Yes, it is useful to know that many outcomes can be identified by researching notable theories, but how do ___isms explain the human element of the individual? Some human issues have never been successfully addressed. One in particular, is the real reactions to environmental factors. Take, for example, the reactions of teenagers on days when events dictate that they should behave in a different manner. Testing dates are a prime example. Students can be given all the motivational tools available to encourage them to perform efficiently on standardized tests, but still show-up on testing days with issues that attract their attention away from the tests. Behaviorism can attempt to classify the action of the student, but fails to consistently address the learner's issues. It is great that the filters can develop logical paths to follow in determining such things as behaviors, but the determinations seem to be generic. I call them generic because they seem to ignore one __ism. There never seems to be any room for individualism.
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
No comments:
Post a Comment