Posted by: Gavin Hopwood & Ingrid Kopke Donado

Mindmeister on its own has proven to us to be an example of the differences in learning styles. For some of us, it has shown to be a simple tool to use, to others, it has been time-consuming and little advantage and great frustration.

In a similar way following one learning theory to design teaching activities may benefit one group of students but prove inadequate or even detrimental for others.

When designing a teaching or learning activity it is vital to clarify who the learner(s) is/are and what are the learning objectives. When this is taken into account, a single learning theory may not prove enough and elements of different theories may have to be placed together to design a more productive learning experience. The learning objectives must match with the strategies used, and in turn this strategies must be flexible enough to fit the learning objectives.

When designing a teaching or learning activity it is also important to bear in mind that the teacher may play several parts (simultaneously or not): The teacher may be a facilitator, a leader, a role model or an active learner after all, in order to understand which activity best suits a group of students the teacher must learn something about them.

Matthews (2000) has critically indicated that “Constructivism has become education’s version of the Grand Unified Theory”. This analogy may be interpreted as a criticism to a model which attempts to root all methods of learning through a single approach. Whilst the prospect of a Grand Unified Theory of Education appears luring, the reality is that it has its pros and cons.

The Constructivist approach aims at a teaching and learning strategy in which the teacher acts as a facilitator to enable the learner to explore and reflect upon meaningful learning experiences. This approach promotes metacognitive learning in which the learner fine tunes mental models to accommodate new incidents that result in improved cognitive skills. By relying on open ended questions and extensive peer interaction (Funderstanding, 2010), the learner is bound to become more open minded, develop critical thinking abilities and become a better social learner. In this sense, Constructivism supports the Vygotskian perspective of the learner as a social being whose interactions with the culture play an important role in the learning process. Nonetheless, the Constructivist approach does not fully deflect Piaget’s theory of individual cognition, as it too heavily relies on the experiences of the individual learner as the gears for the modeling and improvement of functional mental maps.

The Constructivist model may appear as the optimal approach when not placed in a particular context. In reality there are numerous factors that influence the applicability of the model: the society, culture, religious background, nature of the curriculum, parent and student expectations and resources amongst others.

“Constructivism calls for the elimination of grades and standardized testing” (Funderstanding, 2010) but in most global educational contexts, grades are the final outcome which permeate the access to further education. Hong Kong is a classical example of this situation. Likewise, certain curricular components (eg. religious education) mandated by a higher educational authority cannot be tackled through a constructivist approach without the possibility of upsetting students (or parents) from different cultural backgrounds. For the better articulation of a Constructivist model of learning, the curriculum would have to be modified on an individual learner basis, which is unrealistic and time consuming.

This may be the reason why many teachers adopt a Cognitive approach into their teaching and learning practices. The most commonly seen educational model involves the scaffolding around content based learning for the development of a set of skills. Deubel (2003) outlines this scaffolding from a Vygostian definition of a “zone of proximal development [where there is] a gradual removal of a tutor’s support for the individual to become an independent problem solver as the individual appropriates knowledge and brings it under his/her own conscious control”. Although this model falls into the fallacy of assuming knowledge is “out there” waiting to be acquired, it is understandable that the prescription of the content of the curriculum forces time-constrained teachers into adopting this model. In many instances, student, teacher and parental expectations rely heavily on standardized external models that are heavily content based. In addition, although the Cognitive model should allow for the development of knowledge recall as well as intellectual skills (Lane, 2010), some teachers are biased towards the knowledge (content) learning and do not aim at developing other intellectual skills. “Traditional schooling tends to favour abstract perceiving and reflective processing. Other kinds of learning aren’t rewarded and reflected in curriculum, instruction and assessment as much.” (Funderstanding, 2010). Although Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Model has been criticized for deriving “more strongly from his own intuitions and reasoning than from a comprehensive and full grounding in empirical research” (Smith, 2002, 2008), its adoption can be understood from a perspective which attempts to reduce knowledge recall and highlight other learning skills and styles. Gardner’s ideas appear to have a valid application when the development of adequate ICT components is evaluated: The use of ICT in education allows for a range of these intelligences to be developed and promoted, although not necessarily in the isolated manner that Gardner proposes.

The Behaviorist model for learning which is often seen in contrast to the Constructivist model (Funderstanding, 2010) would seem to be the least popular approach in modern educational settings. This, considering the seeming popularity of the former. However, some of the Formal Hong Kong Public Education System, appears to rely almost entirely on the method of knowledge regurgitation. Although the Behaviorist model has widespread criticisms (Chomsky ) it is obvious that it is still implemented in many instances to accommodate the cultural needs of a society largely driven by the need to “score” and “rank”. While the expectations of students and parents remain linked to a position within a class or the number of “As” achieved, the method of instruction of the teacher is forced to remain linked to the passive transmission of content based knowledge. In these settings, it is predictable that the teacher would attempt a different motivational approach than that which leads the student into scoring well in an exam. A Motivational Learning approach which promotes different avenues to enhance learning and offer benefits to the learner, could support this kind of educational background to ensure that student and parents expectations are targeted and met.

Learning theories hardly contextualize the environment in which they are practically developed. It is clear that no single theory will work the same when socio-cultural aspects of the educational situation are explored. What works in one context may not work in another, and teachers must learn to be versatile –not to adhere to a single theory as if indoctrinated by it, but rather to have the ability to mold their advantages and deal with their disadvantages according to the settings in which they may be applied.

References
Deubel, P. (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,12(1), 63-90.

Funderstanding (Ideas for Improving Education) (2010). Funderstanding: Education and Training for Active Learners. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.funderstanding.com/content

Lane, C. (n.d.). Blooms Taxonomy. The Education Coalition. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.tecweb.org/eddevel/

Matthews, M.R. (2000), 'Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education'. In D.C. Phillips (ed.), National Society for the Study of Education, 99th Yearbook, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 161-192

Smith, Mark K. (2002, 2008) 'Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences', the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm. the encyclopedia of informal