Cognitive Learning Theory

Response to Kerr (2007) Blog

                Isms imply grandiose beliefs embraced and accepted by thousands of people or organizations or governments. They are not necessarily good or beneficial to believers which is not the point; they reflect ideas to which those believers adhere by choice or design.

                Behaviourism endures because, as humans, we react to stimuli, to external input, over and over again. We learn, in many cases, as a response to some external prodding that gets us moving and makes us want to learn something new. Many jobs, done by humans, can be replaced by machines. Developing artificial intelligence in machines (or machines developing it in themselves) that respond emotionally to given situations is not a stretch of the imagination. So is behaviourism only a human learning theory or will we share it with machines?

                At the same time, we do learn internally, as observed by cognitivists, through interacting socially with others. Is that interaction not considered external stimuli?

Response to Kapp (2007) Blog

                I agree that learning is “multilayered.” Putting the theory under one acceptable defining title would be challenging. If you combine behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism, what –ism would result? I am certain that some enlightened theorist is attempting to create a new –ism and define it as the next brilliant idea.

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/