From my discussion post on June 25, 2011 (Salas, 2011):
Kerr’s (2007) eyebrow raising remarks are valid and share a truth scholars may choose to ignore, that theories and theorist likes we are taught to analyze and cite to support or dispute a work are not absolute correct or incorrect. The practice of citing is important in that it helps readers have frame of reference and starting point. I particularly enjoyed the following comment by Kerr (2007), “I've also noticed that learning theorists, who have a different favourite _ism to mine, might still come up with significant findings in their empirical studies that I find hard to reject or ignore” and lastly, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” (Salas, 2011).
Driscoll (2005) chapters are useful in explaining how theories evolve and many of them are layered, scaffold or emerge from the previous perspective. In an example she noted, “today was is known as cognitive information processing (CIP) is in reality an integration of views developed from a variety of perspectives” (p. 74). (Salas, 2011)
Kapp (2007) adds to this by stating “We need to take pieces from each school of thought and apply it effectively because…Cognitivism doesn’t explain 100% how humans process information and neither does Constructivism or Behaviorism. What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.” Since these perspectives were posted in 2007, I’m sure new and revised theories have been brewing. It is my hope the theorists responsible and the educators supporting these views have also had the opportunity to read Kapp (2007) and Kerr (2007). (Salas, 2011)
At the center of their comments about cognitivism and its contributive value to learning and education technology applications, is Stephen Downes, whose spirited perspective adds to the exchange, and I’ve included below.
Consider whether this analogical statement makes sense: “the sculpture was already in the rock” therefore knowledge is “latent in the mind, the pre-existing capacity to learn not only language but even sets of concepts and universal truths.”? (Downes, 2006). This view challenges traditional cognitivism that “uses the metaphor of the mind as computer: information comes in, is being processed, and leads to certain outcomes” (Learning-theories.com, n.d.).
Fast forward to 2010, in his criticism of Downes, Covello (2010) synthesizes and attempts to finely distinguish Downes’ view as perhaps a question of semantics: “Downes argues against the Cognitive “schema object” approach while at once advocating the “neural scheme”. Isn’t a Cognitive schema a pattern of interrelating principles/concepts/etc.? I guess the argument is more of a metaphysical one where Cognitivism functions in the network within a “black box”, whereas the Functional Connectionist would deny the existence of the “boxes within the black box” and only recognize the network.” Covello (2010) explains Downes's perspective: “Instead, knowledge is expressed as a pattern of interconnected neurons, mapped over a variety of areas of the brain in such a way that imbues it with cross-experiential meaning, such as my definition of “Paris, France” meaning something different to someone else’s definition of “Paris, France”. The nuances in meaning are defined by the manner of connectivity – thus “knowledge is in the network” (Covello, 2010)-- which points to personal learning environments (PLE) – still a form of cognitivism or have we moved on to another theory - connectivism?
Here are some interesting links:
Cognitive Technologies http://www.cognitivetechnologies.net/
Bill Kerr http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/learning+theories or http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/
Bill Kerr articles http://www.users.on.net/~billkerr/a/behaviourist.htm#resolve
Karl. M. Kapp http://www.karlkapp.com/
Personal Learning Environments http://www.slideshare.net/GrahamAttwell/personal-learning-environments-46423
Personal Learning Theory http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/connectivism-a-theory-of-personal-learning
Stephen Downes’ Web http://www.downes.ca/index.html
References
Covello, S. (2010, February 3). A critique of Downes’ Connectivism and defense of the PLE paradigm [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.apescience.com/id/blog/a-critque-of-downes-connectivism-and-defense-of-the-ple-paradigm
Downes, S. (2006, October 16). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://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 from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
Learning-theories.com (n.d.). Cognitivism. Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/cognitivism.html
Salas, A. (2011). Module 2 discussion about cognitivism [discussion post]. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5246376&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=3171393&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=0&bhcp=1
