In his blog Kerr, (2007) identifies that both cognitivism and behaviorism as theories that guide the practice of education and the learning process. Kerr (2007) discusses the variety of educational theories as …ism, and, according the Kerr, it seems that each …ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete theories in their own right. He envisions these theories more as a menu, from which the educator can choose and combine part of the different ...isms to create a learning activity. Thus I questions if these …isms are truly at the level of theory or are they in the stage of pre-theory or conceptual models, still being refined and tested. While I do believe different theories are more appropriate for some subject, I do see a theory as a holistic paradigm to guide practice or research. The purpose of theory is to describe, explain and predict everyday events through the definition of concepts and the propositional relationships among those concepts (Marriner-Tomey & Alligood 2005). Therefore I have some concern at the implication in Kerr’s blog that these ..isms change in response to individuals.
Further evidence that these …isms may not have attained the status of a theory is Kerr’s mention of the need for a big change which in scientific terms would be a paradigmatic revolution. According to Kuhn’s (1970) classic work, when the existing theories are no longer adequate, a scientific revolution takes place and the result in a new paradigm or world view. It is not so much a question of which theory is best, but which theory is most useful, practical and parsimonious in describing, explaining and predicting events in the process of learning.
References:
Kerr, B. (2007, 01 01). _isms as a filter not a blinker. Retrieved 12/23/10, from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Kuhn, T (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marriner-Tomey, A. & Alligood, M. R. (2005) Nursing Theorist and Their Work. 6th Edition. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.
There are some aspects of Humanism that cannot be quantified and empirically proven. Does this mean that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is not a valid topic to be considered in psychological discussion?
ReplyDeleteMaddock and Fulton (1998) argue that, “If a theory cannot explain all facets of human behavior, then it cannot explain any” (p. 9). The causative problem may derive from an underlying paradigmatic deficiency in psychology which is not a science but an attempt “to study human and animal behavior scientifically. Its claim to being a science resides in its naturalistic tendency to study animal behavior and functions scientifically and then to extrapolate the findings to human existence. Beyond this, the discipline falls far short of being a science” (Claerbaut, 2004, p. 258). This is not to say psychology is entirely invalid but rather that theories which it produces may be more or less or not valid on occasion.
In the case of Maslow’s hierarchy, the literature seems to share the position of Maddock and Fulton (1998) who say Maslow got it wrong (p. 8). For example, they write that, unlike the inspirational product of pop psychology motivational speakers, “Real motivation lasts longer than twenty-four hours. Real motivation follows the guidelines set by nature, not the ones set by men. Real motivation is the key to effective leadership, and leadership is the key to effective motivation” (p. 7). Internally, I see a distinction between the question of Maslow’s hierarchy being a valid topic of discussion in psychology versus his Hierarchy of Needs being a valid theory. I might say an invalid theory may warrant some discussion in light of its importance for a given historical period (e.g., Behaviorism before it evolved into Cognitivism) but that is not the same as declaring it as valid in light of many indicators of its invalidity (e.g., the ‘needs’ premise of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs). In strong fashion, Maddock and Fulton (1998) report:
A much more critical approach to Maslow has been taken by Soper, Milford and Rosenthal (1995), in an article that shows that Maslow’s approach to motivation has more status as a belief system or as a “religion” than it does as a scientific explanation of motivation. In fact, these researchers found it odd that a theory such as this, which has never been researched or supported by empirical facts, should hold sway over a discipline such as marketing for so long when it has so little credibility. Disciplines such as marketing, psychology and management take considerable pride in themselves because of their “scientific” approach to the facts in their respective fields. Nevertheless, the continue to embrace Maslow’s theory of motivation despite its unreliability, dubiousness and undependability. In previous research (Maddock & Fulton, 1996), articles have been found that are theoretically and methodologically sound in their approach to leadership and other issues that will, at the same time, defeat and sabotage their own credibility by referring to Maslow’s hierarchy as a basis for their whole approach (pp. 9-10).
Claerbaut, D. (2004). Faith and Learning on the Edge: A Bold New Look at Religion in Higher Education. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Maddock, R. C. & Fulton, R. L. (1998). Motivation, Emotions and Leadership: Silent Side of Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
There are some aspects of Humanism that cannot be quantified and empirically proven. Does this mean that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is not a valid topic to be considered in psychological discussion?
ReplyDeleteMaddock and Fulton (1998) argue that, “If a theory cannot explain all facets of human behavior, then it cannot explain any” (p. 9). The causative problem may derive from an underlying paradigmatic deficiency in psychology which is not a science but an attempt “to study human and animal behavior scientifically. Its claim to being a science resides in its naturalistic tendency to study animal behavior and functions scientifically and then to extrapolate the findings to human existence. Beyond this, the discipline falls far short of being a science” (Claerbaut, 2004, p. 258). This is not to say psychology is entirely invalid but rather that theories which it produces may be more or less or not valid on occasion.
This reply was too large for the comments box so the rest can be read at my blog: http://cybergogue.blogspot.com/2010/12/comments-to-peers_24.html
I agree with your notion of "it is not so much a question of which theory is best, but which theory is most useful, practical and parsimonious in describing, explaining and predicting events in the process of learning."
ReplyDeleteIn reviewing our work training materials I realized that most of our materials are will in behaviorism approach. No wonder, why our trainees are not getting the complex skills we teach. In contrast, we have a one favorite training provided by other trainer, whose approach is a combination of cognitivism and constructivism. We love his training and we actually get to learn useful skills. And most of all, skill stick with us.
Which learning theory do you often utilize?
The more I read and reflect on the materials in this course -- the more I am becoming convinced that cognitive theories need to be the guiding force of teaching/learning activities.
ReplyDeleteDeborah,
ReplyDeleteGreat detailed post. I agree with your comment that it is not so much a question of which theory is best, but which theory is most useful, practical and parsimonious in describing, explaining and predicting events in the process of learning. THe more I read in this class I agree with your comment that cognitive theories need to be more of a force in the teaching/learning activities. Do you think this is one of the reasons that the US falls behind other countries in Math, Science and Engineering?
Lynne: Yes, in other countries student don't just memorize and recall, but need to demonstrate understanding and application. If we wnat to continue to test competency then we need to look at behavior, not just test scores. Knowledge is not static and students need to know how to keep growing what they know.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.
Hi Deb,
ReplyDeleteI am in total agreement that students need to know how to keep growing what they know. Lifelong learners are what they should be, and we should be modeling lifelong learning. So many times we set goals, achieve them, and decide that we do not want to learn anymore because we have arrived and we have a certificate/diploma/degree to prove it. Instead of having meaningful learning, we learn, instead, to obtain some proof of that learning. We are behavioristic because we want the positive feedback of a paycheck or a promotion connected to our learning. I hope that, as educators, we can change the face of education in America by making it more meaningful to the learners and applying more cognitive learning concepts and maybe a little less behaviorist learning concepts.
Thanks for your post!!
Lynetta