Comments on the Mergers article

As suggested in the Module 1 notes, the article by Brenda Mergel was great in clarifying not just the 3 “isms” in education (Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism) but it also clarified the basis for a number of policies that we have in my school where I work (Secondary School in Sydney). Some examples include:
Behaviourism:
· Skinner’s Operant conditioning Mechanisms is very clearly the basis for our discipline policy overall.
· A substantial part of our discipline policy outlines a highly structured positive reinforcement system which is based on the Behavioural Shaping, and uses the reinforcement schedules very appropriately.
· Our sports award program also uses the reinforcement schedules to shape the bahviours we want to encourage in the school.
· There are aspects of my classroom discipline that I resort to should other models fail. Some of these are based on parts of the behaviourism model.
Cognitivism
· A highlight here was the realisation that I base a few some of my instructional design on cognitivism. I try to make allow the theory aspects of courses come out of the experience I put the students through, and try to stop the question: “When are we ever going to use this?” which is typical of students that I have taught over time.
Consturctivism
· Again, another highlight here was how I use the this model to develop the higher order thinking that I seek from my students. However, the problem I see is that at times I try to introduce the higher order thinking, or constructuvist approach, where they do not have the basis for the making the step to generalised problem solving.

Overall, an excellent article, that has cemented in my opinion a need for at least a basic understanding of the different learning theories. I have been under pressure have students think at a higher level, but have fought for a return to the basics, this article has given me a basis for justifying those decisions.