Module 2 - Learning Theory Reflections

John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying, “Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all.” Sydney J. Harris said, “The danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers”.

These two opinions about technology and cognition is also represented by Bill Kerr (2007) in his blog at http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Mr. Kerr, in response to Stephen Downes’ blog wrote, “If machines evolve further and start displaying visceral emotions then how should we deal with that? An alternative into dehumanising humans would be to humanise machines. At that point behaviourism might make a come back.” Kerr continued by stating, “…the architecture of the mind is very different from that of a computer.” Regardless of one’s position on behavioral theory versus cognitive theory, surely we can agree that we still don’t truly understand how we learn. Further, to discard one theory in favor of the other seems premature given our infancy into understanding cognition. Karl Kapp (2007) supports this position in his blog at http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html Mr. Kapp said, “What we need to take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the blog discussions among Bill Kerr, Stephen Downes, and Karl Kapp is the undeniable similarities when compared to the online discussions among graduate students at Walden University. Although there are subtle (and not so subtle) differences and disagreements about the value of behaviorism versus cognitivisim as relevant theories in learning, the themes remain constant. For example, Marci Vining, a Walden student, stated, “Educators should not adhere to one view of learning.” Cassandra Moore concurred when she said that the learning process “…cannot be explained by one theory.” Rebecca Raichel also stated, “I don’t think it has to be one or the other.” As Kerr (2007) said, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right.” I agree -- for now.

On a personal note: For years I have delighted in the creative floor plans my middle school students design in response to an introduction to architecture unit. After assessing their drawings for years it is difficult to deny Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. I find it interesting to view students who remain Preoperational as they continue to draw doors from the front view as compared to the Concrete Operational students who have progressed to correctly drawing doors from the top view.

If you are interested in reading more Piaget’s stages of cognitive development then please refer to the following discussion posted by Dr. C. George Boeree. He includes additional examples from each stage. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html

Also, you may want to visit Stephen Downes on the Web. Since I referenced him within Kapp’s and Kerr’s blogs, I thought it appropriate to include his website. This site will allow you to access his blog, Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter sites. http://www.downes.ca/

Kapp, K. (2007). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html

Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Module 1 Learning Theory

Learning theory is the educational model that unites the cognitive and affective domains for the purpose of explaining how we learn and enhancing what we learn.

Please, forgive my personal reflections regarding how people learn best, but after all, learning theory and teaching theory is nothing, if not a deeply personal adventure.

I come from a long line of strong-willed (and strongly-opinionated) educators. With a room full of teachers, professors, journalists, counselors, and principals, our discussions often center on educational theories. For example, my mother, once an ETS field agent and the only white counselor in a pre-integration black high school, recounts meeting B.F. Skinner in a ‘60s workshop. My sister wants to hear ideas concerning her sponsorship a dozen South Korean university exchange students. I am interested in discussing the flattening of the world after going to hear Thomas Friedman speak. Educational theory is so endemic to our lives that my entire family actually “Piagets” containers when storing leftovers; we actually use the word, “Piaget”! We literally get into friendly competitions to see who selects the most accurately-sized storage containers for food – not too big, not too small; the spaghetti must fit just right with the lid on. We literally try to out Piaget each other! Crazy, huh?

That said, describing a specific learning theory as superior to another actually makes me uncomfortable. Learning theories evolve as our understanding of how we think evolves. They build upon the ever-expanding knowledge of how we teach and learn. While one theory might seem to adequately explain certain behaviors, it might be rather impotent in explaining another. The mind is an incredibly complex machine and our educational theories are mere jabs at addressing its complexity. Educational Technology adds yet another layer of issues to the challenge.

I believe that people experience learning differently. One model does not work for all people, at all stages of development, in all situations, and with all levels of knowledge. For example, when I teach my middle school students about dangerous power tools, I must remind them that in this case, learning through experience or trial and error is not an option. They may not test my authority as they would test a bench for wet paint or test an iron for heat. The behaviorism theory is not a safe method of interaction with the environment; there is no winning a game against a band saw blade; the rewards can be lethal.

Behaviorism attempts to explain the operant conditioning of an organism as it relates to the environment through stimulus and reward cues (Driscoll 2005). In other words, behaviors can be strengthened or weakened through reinforcement. While I can support some applications of behaviorism, far too many teachers abuse this theory in an attempt at classroom management. Do this for a sticker and do that for some candy. Does this not smack of dog training? Sit! Speak! Here’s a doggie biscuit! Although behaviorism is the telegraph of communication technologies, it seems to be experiencing a tentative rebirth in the infancy of online education. As learning theories evolve, we seem to find new applications for old theories. At one time we knew the world to be flat. For all our progress, many believe that it is flat once again - just read Thomas Friedman (2005).

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

You may wish to visit the following website for a categorized explanation of different learning theories: http://www.learning-theories.com/

Additionally, you might want to visit the following blog concerning connectivism:

http://www.connectivism.ca/blog/learning-theories/

Also, you may want to listen to Thomas Freidman yourself: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/266