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
