*with some editing*
After I did the readings, I think that the three theories are somehow interrelated and linked. Also, they are three different stages of learning theory to me, from behaviourism, cognitivism to socioculturalism that encompasses the whole.
Firstly, i am quite amazed by the theory findings. But there are still some loopholes here and there, of course there are as theories are made out by people and we human beings are not perfect, as mentioned.
Let's start with behaviourism. I agree that we have assumptions and beliefs when we educate others. Yet these assumptions and beliefs should not be so narrow, merely on how the learners going to react; which is the human nature referred in the theory -humans are just like animal and react according to reinforcement. The theory has actually ignored many perspectives on human beings, be it the thoughts, the intelligence level, the social environmental factors or others. This stimulus-response method might be effective in some extent, but not for all! I would not comment on the human evolution, but, we are not totally alike with animals, not like pigeons as we react the same way to survive. We have options to survive, don't we? If I do not get what I want from you, I can get from others! We are more powerful than animals as we can counterattack, we can raise our suggestions, and mostly we can interact! We listen, we speak and we think! It's not like we turn our heads back when we face obstacles. I guess this is why it is said that this theory is somehow dead.
However, we can still actually find behaviourism in our lives. People are still using it consciously or unconsciously. For instance, learning in school. We study for exams, for the grades. IF we do not, then we fail and this is the punishments. If you do not follow what you suppose to, you'd have to account for it. Yet still, this is not something like the pigeons because once overdoing the punishments, our responses will probably change. and seek for alternatives that could give what we want. Hence even if we like to be praised and rewarded, a lot of times method with forcing fails especially in this century where children are so overly protected. To add on, if we are all forced to learn, we would not turly understand and acquired knowledge. The knowledge we learnt would only be it is a must to follow else there will be punishments. Taking the previous example, school assessments. Some people will think that 'oh I do not like studying, I'm being forced to do so because my parents want me to be like this'. Now, there are two behaviourism applying here, the school and the parents; but what is the actual force? See, this is more than just the individual. Socioculturalsim comes in to play! We all know that it is the society, the community we are situated in requires such people, educated people overtime and over-developments and thus we study. And you understand this, which makes you follow the 'rules'. If you really keen on not studying, there is no way to force you actually. This environment, society or community is like a system around us and knowledge is tool to connect us into it. We need it to help us set goals and live a life!
What about another case where individuals have their own innate capabilities and characteristics? These personalities could be born innate, or shaped over time environmentally and socially. Hence learning is not just one-to-one although physically it is. Social interaction, individuals' shaped attitude play as roles in the processes.
After a series of debates and critiques, I would not say that behaviourism is 'dead'. It is actually an important element in learning that is still applying in our lives consciously or not. Imagine there is no rules, no rewards in our society, what would happen?
The above has actually touched on the second theory - Cognitivism. Cognitivists add in more perspectives into behaviourism which it allows more possibilities. As mentioned previously, we human beings have the thinking processes even there are rules and reinforcements controlling us. So, as students we think what are we going to study, why are we studying and why are we having such grades etc. Furthermore, in a classroom, we develop our ideas and concepts to complete assignments. If there is only bahaviourism applying, then the process would be something like this: teacher gives out homework, and instruct us what to do - write this and that then hand up; you do it well you got a grade and if you do not you got a cane. Is this really happening? Even in the example of pigeons, they may actually go through the thinking process (which we may not have concrete evidence) like 'oh why am i here?', 'why I got a shock when there is this red light turned on?' etc.
Our behaviours are not shaped, but built through cognitive experiences. Being active on top of the givens helps us in better learning. Reinforcements should be as a support to cognitivism which it acts as motivations to move forward, not hands that push our backs. One of my tutorial mates mentioned about higher freedom of learning which I think it applies in cognitivism. When people start doing things volunteerly, they will learn and enjoy. And with more and more such people, I belive our society will turn out to be much more better in terms of social responsibility. (and others ^_^)
Now, with socioculturalism, learning processes are then considered in a more rounded shape. Systems, society, environment, devices and tools are necessarily taken into account in learning process. Because, we need to understand the individuals, the contexts or settings then only we know what teaching strategy we should use and with what technological supports. This all-in-one system is way above individual level. However, I would not say that socioculturalism can take over behavioursim and cognitivism. They are all essential and crucial in learning process.
As a whole, we need these three theories to come together mix-and-match to have an effective learning processes in this century. We can actually easily find them in our real life contexts. Learning is everwhere!
