With the wide array of learning theories in existence, it often seems there is something to suit any teacher’s pet learning style. However, rather than finding a philosophy to match personal learning ideals, I believe a teacher needs to start with an in-depth analysis of his desired learning outcomes. The analysis should then lead naturally into the selection of an appropriate learning style as a model for classroom activities.
I certainly agree with Gavin and Ingrid on their description of over-using the behaviourist theory in some cultures despite its unpopularity in others. It should neither be embraced as a predominant method of teaching nor ostracized for its lack of cognitive or constructivist principles. I’ll add a bit of my own views and experiences on behavioural theory, then continue into a brief discourse on constructivism (hard to avoid it in any learning theory discussion) and the use of analogy, followed by motivational theory, and connectivism theory.
Mathematics is a subject that has suffered from each of the extremes on behaiourism. For example, with learning multiplication tables there was a shift from extreme overuse of the behaviourist approach to its effectual abandonment in primary schools in my home country of Canada. Many teachers of middle and secondary schools could be heard in teacher staff rooms grumbling about students’ lack of mental multiplication skills as a result.
A more rounded approach is now used where students learn the 1 to 10 multiplication table through a behaviourist model, then learn higher multiplications through a more cognitive approach. For the higher multiplications, students are expected to understand the nature of the number operations (multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction) to use the 1 to 10 table to mentally work out the answer (13 x 9 = 10 x 9 + 3 x 9, for example). In a topic such as introductory algebra, a teacher would likely use a constructivist approach by handing out algebra tiles and allowing the students to learn basic skills through their knowledge of shape areas. The important aspect is that the learning theory is now chosen to match the desired learning outcomes in these cases.
In my own teaching, I try to be wary of using behaviourist strategies since I believe them to be the ‘easy’ way out for an educator since they can so readily give the illusion of learning. Despite the nice feeling of having the students give me back all the ‘right’ answers, I remind myself that such training leads to unstable knowledge. The students will lack a fundamental understanding to power them through stressful times in their future.
Constructivism has also become an ‘easy’ choice for educators with its wide acceptance. For a subject such as science, it has the added benefit of fitting with an accepted scientific view of how humans view reality called model-dependent realism: “(model-dependent realism) is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world.”(Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010). Learners would then modify and/or affirm their model(s) based on new experiences that either agree or disagree with their expectations.
Personally, I’ve found that many educators rely on analogies in constructivist activities when trying to combine present concept learning with a student’s pre-existing knowledge. Analogies are a double-edged sword, however, and must be used with great care since all analogies eventually break down. For example, a student who is taught to see the universe’s expansion in terms of an everyday explosion may understand that celestial objects are forever moving apart, but may also have difficulty conceptualizing curved space-time.
The trouble of analogies even happens in understanding educational theories themselves, such as the often-disputed Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Many arguments are based on the analogy of the mind conceptualized as distinct compartments instead of on the developmental theory itself. Gardner’s theory, whether an officially valid theory or not, is valuable for classroom teachers in diversifying and differentiating their practices.
Motivational Theory suggests that students need personalized reasons to open themselves to learning. A person can easily make the argument that it is human nature to want to learn, for natural selection reasons at the very least. However, motivational theory claims that even though people naturally want to learn they still need to believe that school-learning is personally valuable. I imagine that few experienced educators would disagree. In his book, “The Motivation Breakthrough: 6 secrets to Turning on the Tuned Out Child,” Richard Lavoie outlines 8 primary motivators, given that basic human needs are met in the classroom. They are: Gregariousness, Autonomy, Status, Inquisitiveness, Aggression, Power, Recognition, and Affiliation. The majority of students, he claims, can be motivated through at least one of these areas, once identified. Motivational theory is invaluable to educators, whether using Lavoie’s specific notions or another theorist’s ideas, in encouraging students to confront new experiences and develop their learning. In working to motivate the students, educators may also realize why (or why not) their teaching is truly valuable to each student.
Connectivism, dubbed a theory for the digital age (Starkey, 2010), has been developed in response to perceived changes in the nature of knowledge itself in the current world of technology. Whereas constructivism focuses on an individual learner constructing her own meaning, connectivism focuses on a learner building links between specialized sets of information; properties in one set of information link to (and thus become) properties of another set of information. The act of forming the connections, and using them in different contexts, is said to build additional knowledge and understanding as well.
One notable difference with connectivism is with how subject content may be made accessible to the students. Traditionally, a teacher would transform subject content into teachable bits for student digestion, in order for the student to find his own meaning. In connectivism, it would be equally valid to select resources and teaching methods that enabled students to find their own connections, without repackaging the content in any way for students to more easily understand. This would completely remove the teacher from the role of a transmitter of information.
The differences seem subtle at best between this new theory of connectivism for the digital age, however most new theories are mainly combinations of different existing theories. It’s the way that the ideas are integrated and placed into the modern day context and needs for learning that makes connectivism valuable. Personally, I’ve only learned of connectivism from working on this learning theory - mindmap exercise. I find it interesting, and look forward to learning more about it and how it may help focus my pedagogical ideas in my classes.
I love having this mind map of learning theories laid out. I’m sure we’d all benefit from gradually adding to it throughout the term for our own interest and to use on our individual assignments. It’d be wonderful to have countless technology uses linked to each of these learning theories to guide us in our teaching as well.
Hawking, S. W., & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Mystery of Being. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam. Print.
Lavoie, Richard D. (2007). The Motivation Breakthrough: 6 Secrets to Turning on the Tuned- out Child. New York: Touchstone. Print
Starkey, Louise (2010) 'Teachers' pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age', Teachers and Teaching, 16: 2, 233 — 244
Siemens, George (2010, June 1). Connectivist Learning Theory. Retrieved from: http://p2pfoundation.net/Connectivist_Learning_Theory_-_Siemens
No comments:
Post a Comment