Bill Kerr's -Isms

And then there was "critic-ism".

"Bill Kerr’s comments that each –ism being offered on its own does have something to offer us however incomplete they maybe. I also agree that if we take bits and pieces from each theory we can use them collectively to our benefit. The suggestion to use the bits taken from each theory as a scaffolding process was also an excellent idea. It is true that no one theory can stand alone and be strong in itself, but if we apply different aspects of each theory to fill a particular learning need then we may be able to design a course that can be consider exceptional in terms of the learning processes."

Some of theories that I have studied make me want to "jump on the bandwagon".  However, I lean more toward Erikson and Piaget, in their growth in stages theories.  Maybe I'm older and wiser than I was in my earlier years of decisions and growth spurts. 

Kaplan's quote and answer: “ 'What is the best, how do we know what makes sense or what doesn’t?'  I suggest that lower level learning (lower cognitive load) requires a behaviorist approach (memorize, recognizing, labeling) as does the expectation of outcomes that must be measured. I then suggest that procedural and rule-based learning requires an emphasis on Cognitivism and finally, problem-solving, collaboration and creativity require a view of Constructivism. "  Does give one pause for thought [:)]
As a literacy teacher of adults I would go with the upper levels of cognitivism, mixed with a heavy dose of connectivism (yeah Siemens!).  Adults have achieved most of the levels suggested by Kaplan - and what I see is a need for the student to connect with and use these skills faced with the ever burgeoning technology.

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/