Talk:Learning theory (education)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Are criticisms needed?

Is it necessary to include criticisms of learning theories in this article, or can readers just be directed to the primary articles for each theory for that? It also seems very unbalanced to criticize constructivism but include no criticisms of other theories. That whole section is uncited and POV, so unless someone can clean it up and balance it with criticisms of other theories, I think I'll just cut the section.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no sources were added to the section and no objections were raised here, I deleted the criticisms section. If someone wants to create a section for criticisms of all the theories, with sources, that would be fine. I still think that the criticisms are fine on the full articles for each theory and that perhaps we don't need to get into them here. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The section currently labeled "Criticism" seems to be more a rant against the misuse of learning theories than an impartial discourse on the criticism of such theories. While I happen to share the point of view of the ranter, the NPOV guidelines would be much better served if someone could simply cite a leading exponent of such views. Hopefully, someone (other than me) who is an expert in this field knows some appropriate citations because I would like to see these criticisms expressed. Eweinber (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we have learning styles listed under education as something folks should consider. Studies have been conducted showing that having teachers and schools focus on learning styles is without merit and no research warrants wasting money on it. I can't believe we have multiple intelligences under education as something folks should consider (e.g., it's even called a pseudoscience on it's own Wikipedia page). We should delete both sections. I will research more when I have time. Jayhawksean (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Learning styles, Multiple Intelligences, and Neuro-science are important research components of Learning theory and Instructional theory, they are not prescriptive for classroom teachers but are important elements of curriculum design.Stmullin (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Multimedia Learning

As a assignment in our Corporate Training and Development class at the University of South Carolina, our group must make an edit to this article page. There is not a lot of information on Multimedia Learning, and we believe the topic needs to be expanded. We would appreciate any feedback or thoughts. Hydukek (talk)Taybyrd1 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Multimedia learning can be defined as the delivery of instructional content using multiple modes, including visual and auditory information. Students then use the modes of information to construct knowledge. There are multiple channels for information processing. Two information-processing channels include the auditory channel and visual channel. The auditory channel deals with information that is heard, and the visual channel processes information that is seen. Research has shown that the visual channel holds less information than the auditory channel. If you combine and present both visual and auditory channels with information, more knowledge is obtained overall. However, too much information can be processed and long-term memory will not acquire any knowledge. Multimedia learning gives instructors the ability to use both visual and auditory channels, which in turn helps the student attain more knowledge. Hydukek (talkTaybyrd1 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Smith.DustinT (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Note to university teachers. Please, when setting projects like this to students, could you give them a short seminar beforehand on the differences between writing English prose for an encyclopedia and writing English prose for academic publication. I can imagine it would be quite an interesting seminar to give and well-attended. It would also avoid the almost complete rewrites that are required in order to make an article like this suitable for an encyclopedia. I had to do a similar job on Marie de France last year, which had also obviously been set as a student project and then labeled with a copyedit tag.

Students will thank you for it, because their work will then be retained. Their contributions are welcome. So give them a break! Let them shine. Point them to What Wikipedia is not. Richard asr (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Having students edit a WP is a bad idea. The entry above clearly shows a lack of understanding about basic concepts including what a learning theory is and how people process different sensory information. Have students make a class wiki instead of wasting people's time with misconceptions and incorrect informaiton. Robotczar (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sudbury Model

Obviously we need to have some discussion about the Sudbury Model and whether it belongs in this article in addition to the numerous other places its supporters have included it here in Wikipedia. I don't believe it belongs here in the Learning theory article because

• It's primarily about a teaching model, not a theory of learning. It isn't even named as a learning theory here, simply stated "there is a learning theory," leaving me to wonder what "theory" this is. Is this supposed theory called something, besides the Sudbury Model?
• As best I can tell, no articles in scholarly journals have published on this "theory."
• If it is an actual theory with a separate article here in Wikipedia, then we could do one line with a link to that article. That would be consistent with how Connectivism and Multimedia learning are handled. If it belongs here at all, then it certainly is given undue weight right now.

What do others think? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been several weeks with no other opinions voiced, I'll go ahead and remove it. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say that it very much needed to be removed based on the points above. It is not a learning theory.Robotczar (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive Information Processing?

Cognitive Information Processing is mentioned in the heading, but it isn't described in the body of the article. I don't know much about the subject, but how significant is this theory? Either it's insignificant and needs to be removed from the header, or it's significant and needs to be described. --Jetamors 01:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jetamors. Matatigre36 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a primary education student and the theory of information processing is discussed in detail, It should definitely be included. Needs to be elaborated and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.115.44 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IP theory is the best current theory of learning we have. It explains and predicts many learning principles and is the real basis for recommended educational practices endorsed by constructivists. That this theory is not the heart of the article means this article is invalid. I have a PhD in educational psychology and I teach learning theory in higher education. I would be happy to write up a section on information processing learning theory, but I am not going to waste my time and do it and have the result erased.Robotczar (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a textbook, all point of view (even historical points of view) need to be represented. You will find that other PhD's are lurking . . . your work will be treated fairly if you choose to edit. We can revert vandalism if someone removes work that you have cited correctly. 65.190.196.45 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute with "education" as part of title

Firstly I am new to Wikipedia as an editor and contributor so am uncertain how everything works at the moment so please bear with me.

For reference Learning theory disambiguation page.

I recommend replacing the word education for psychology. The reason being that theories of learning are theories within Psychology, as opposed to education itself. Psychology encompasses a wider range of applications of learning theory, as opposed to education which is merely one application (albeit possibly the largest). If there are no objections to this I will make the required alterations and update the disambiguation page. --anewman 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I mention this issue below, but let me support this discussion by saying that the purpose of this page has become unclear to me. Learning theory is theory about how organisms (especially humans) learn (not about how they should be taught). The "education" part of the page title implies that either education has separate learning theories compared other fields, or that educators are confused by their own jargon (using "learning" when education or instruction is meant). If this is a page about learning methods that result from learning theories (or "perspectives"), then the page needs a new name. "Educational theory" and "instructional theory" already exist, so I am not sure what purpose this page is serving unless it sticks to learning theory, which does not exist.Robotczar (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Intended rework of article

While not the best qualification I managed to get 79% for the Learning and Behaviour module of my Psychology degree so feel I could be of some help to this article. I would like to rework the content of this page giving references and so on, but I guess this is probably best done independently so the page does not become disjointed. I intend to make propositions on any alterations here as soon as I have a full outline and a good deal of the work done. Particularly as I feel this may involve a large amount of deletion/reworking of current content (but will try my best to include current content where it is accurate and supportable). --anewman 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for joining in! I agree the page needs to be rewritten . . . the lede includes important information to educators and I would ask that the lede be modified only slightly . . . the remainder needs to be rewritten. 65.190.196.45 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorism Section is Ridiculous

The information on this page about Behaviorist learning theory is wrong and displays bias. Behaviorists do not see learning as a change in knowledge, it is a change in behavior. What does an instructor have to do with this learning theory? Organisms obviously learn from environmental conditions, not other people. People can arrange stimuli and responses in an attempt to promote specific learning (which is called instruction) but most conditioning occurs in a natural environment without any control or guidance. And, there seems to be an assertion about what type of knowledge can be learned via conditioning. Note the reference to "rote memorization" which has nothing to do with conditioning and is a catch phrase of constructivist attacks on Behaviorism. "The correct response is achieved through stimulation of the senses." Um, what learning is not achieve through stimulation of the senses? It gets worse. Focus on "intelligence development", whatever that is, has nothing to do with a Behaviorist perspective. It is ridiculous that this section starts quoting concepts which seem to be a confusing mix of learning styles and multiple intelligences. Can anyone say why that information would be in a section on Behaviorism? Dare I even point out that no Behaviorist would say that the purpose of education is to help learners build schema? These statements contradict the idea that Behaviorists reject speculating about mental processes. Lastly, all scientific psychology (including cognitive psychology), must focus on measurable behaviors. Please change this section into something that gets the low level concepts, facts, principles somewhere near correct.Robotczar (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorism (philosophy of education), Cognitivism (philosophy of education), Humanism (philosophy of education), and Constructivism (philosophy of education) are all legitimate perspectives in education. There exists both learning theories and instructional theories associated with each perspective.Stmullin (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The psychology perspective may be found at Behaviorism.Stmullin (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Robotczar doesn't seem to be challenging the ideas of behaviorism but he or she is instead alleging that the theory is being misrepresented in this article. I don't know if that is true but I also find much of this article to be poorly written and confusing with a huge mishmash of the personal opinions of individual editors about what material should be included and synthesized in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Then let us invite Robotczar to rewrite the section with appropriate citations . . . the Wikipedian way . . . Stmullin (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to rewrite it. My claim is that what it says is wrong, regardless of the source. I suggest this page be primarily about scientific theories of learning, including developmental theories. Constructivism may very well be a legitimate "perspective on education" (which is arguable), but this page is not about educational perspectives, it should be about learning theories because that is the name of the page. Maybe this page is not legitimate because is includes the "(education)" suffix? What exactly does that imply? It would be too bad if educational learning theory is seen as somehow distinct from scientific learning theory. Lastly, learning theory is different than instructional theory (which should be based on a learning theory). I think part of the problem is the way educators substitute the word "learning" for "education" or "instruction". This substitution confuses the issue when discussing learning theory.Robotczar (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Learning may be the page that would interest you, not the perspective of the educator. Educators can not ethically use the classroom for experimentation but they use the results of carefully constructed research, approved by an Institutional Review Board, reviewed by multiple high ranking professionals from many academic areas before making generalizations about curriculum. There are pages on Instructional theory and Constructivist epistemology that might interest you. Please review Wikipedia civility standards and allow other professionals to present well cited information, even though you may not share their view point, without being attacked. Again, I invite and encourage you to edit responsibly when you think information is not correct. NPOV is important and incorrect information should be discussed and citations presented when discrepancies are found. Enjoy editing! Stmullin (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Where in the world do you see Robotczar attacking people? He or she has stated strong opinions about this article but I don't see personal attacks or anything of that nature in those opinions. (And you're flat out wrong when you state that "Educators can not ethically use the classroom for experimentation." Good teachers try new things all of the time. It might not reach the threshold of formal research e.g., SOTL or even action research, but every good teacher constantly applies a generalized process of experimentation.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not wrong about using the classroom for experimentation in the State of North Carolina . . . a teacher would be fired . . . that is why we use the IRB process to make certain our children do not get used as guinea pigs. The derogatory comments that Robotczar has used concerning educators are indeed attacks and need to be mitigated. It is OK to disagree, but aggression, even covert aggression, is bullying . . . not constructive debate.Stmullin (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me just say that I had no intent of making a personal attack, which is hard to do when I don't know who wrote the information. I did suggest that educators may not be the best source for "perspectives" on learning theory, though I suggested they would be a good source for information on instructional practice. If you disagree, you should say why rather than refer to civility standards or talk about educational research or worse "bullying". I am attempting to talk about the issues of this article prior to attempting an edit. I raised specific complaints about what the behaviorism section says, and I opined that constructivism is not a learning theory. A discussion would address those points. You are wrong, experiments are done in classrooms all the time, under the auspices of IRB. But, IRB has an "exempt" status that precludes review of classroom experiments that involve standard educational practice. Teachers, of course, can do action research without IRB approval. Robotczar (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The IRB at NCSU would not allow education majors to do research in the Elementary School classroom in 2002.Stmullin (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC) I did not write or initiate this article, I am interested in your viewpoint, I am an educator and am well qualified to address issues of Learning Theory or Instructional theory. I look forward to reading your edits! Stmullin (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy of Education integration

This article needs to be integrated with Philosophy of Education. Possibly Philosophy of Education should have its "Method of teaching" section link here. -- TimNelson 14:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree . . . that page becomes too long when all educational theories are included . . . perhaps a link to Philosophy of education would be a solution.65.190.196.45 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

POV

This article right now reads like an ad for constructivism which is discredited everywhere except the professional schools of education. Needs fixing to be more substantibe and attuned to the realities of schooling in US and elsewhere. Will get to it in due time :) Watcher 20:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The article needs thorough re-working to remove a thinly veiled POV. The two perspectives mentioned in the current article (constructivism and behaviorism) are not learning theories, but rather philosopical stances within which learning theories are constructed.

I don't know why you make the claim the constructionism is discredited. I've just spent days researching this topic using ebsco. There are a few articles by authors who are feverently against constructionism, published in England. They seem to be simply semantic arguments. In application it is simple: use active, not passive techniques; knowledge is built upon previous knowledge. For instance, if you cannot add you cannot learn to multiply.

I am confused as well. I have been studying human learning theories for more than a year now and I would have to say that Constructivism comes closer to exaplaining how human beings process and aquire new knowledge. Could you address your issues with Constructivism in more detail. It might help me to better understand the discussion. Thanks! - Xphile1998, 11/17/05

Regardless of whether or not constructivism has been discredited, there is cause to question the POV. If the article is at all in favor of a single learning theory, it needs to be rewritten to be objective. --Mr. Stein (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a professor of education and contribute research to academic journals on theories of learning. The assertion that constructivism is simply POV is wrong. Constructivism is a "theory of the mind," and, thus, attempts to explain how human minds construct knowledge. Since about the mid-1980s, constructivism has been central to most current research on learning from multiple academic fields, including: psychology, education, sociology.

Where the article runs amiss is in extending just post-modern and informal theories. Socio-constructivist theory, an extension of constructivist theory, is a more recently used theory that identifies learning as a social phenomenon. Related to this are terms like: Semiotics, language, identity, and discourse. Informal learning theories usually are socio-constructivist. And there are just too many post-modern theories to even begin to tie them all to the single term "learning theories."

Most importantly, theories of learning have historically looked at observable behaviors (Behaviorism) and unobservable thinking processes (Cognitivism and Constructivism). Right now we are at a crossroads because theorists are beginning to look at biological influences to learning (Theories of the Brain), thus combining the observable and unobservable to infer how humans learn.--CMDooley 17:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True, the article's section on informal and post-modern theories is awful, and needs to be scrapped and rewritten entirely. You've indicated some good doors to push this article through in the future. However, again I must point out that regardless of whether or not "constructivism has been central to most current research on learning from multiple academic fields" having a POV in this article that favors constructivism over other theories is inappropriate. --Mr. Stein (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on Wikipedia about Constructivism, Social Constructivism, Cognitivism, and CONSTRUCTIONISM. Also, there is confusion about the classification of Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, and Dewey. Piaget and Vygotsky are both Cognitivist whose research concerned early learning that is scaffolded by teacher and focuses on mental processes. Dewey is a Constructivist who worked with mature learners involved in experiential learning who need only a mentor. CONSTRUCTIONISM comes from Seymour Papert's association with Piaget. 65.190.196.45 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)stmullin 17 March 2012

It seems to me that this article is currently written in a borderline argumentative-essay format once it arrives at the section 'a brain-based theory of learning'. At this point it becomes quite personalised and direct, as well as not containing citations for the classroom-based testing it talks about. It dismisses the other theories in a way that strikes me as being heavily biased. The overview also reads like an essay conclusion and contains in-text citations rather than footnotes. Am I right in thinking this or is it only me who reads the article this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.185.174 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Constructivsm is not a learning theory. It explains nothing and has no real unique learning principles beyond the single discredited principle that humans learn better without instruction. No real learning theories suggest that learning is not a construction--memories are constructions and so is our thinking. Behaviorists clearly see learning as constructed--but by events, not intentions. Constructivism is opinion about what is good and bad teaching practice, based on ideology, not empirical evidence. The biased POV of this article is clear in its flawed and incorrect description of Behaviorists learning theory. Scientific learning theory is like any other scientific theory--it must explain principles and provide testable hypotheses. I suggest that someone identifying NOT as a education professor must review this article because most education departments are dens of constructivism and do not respect a scientific approach including the definition of empirical evidence and scientific theory. Education professor are not trained in science or scientific research. They should not be authoring articles on learning theory, they should stick to educational practice.Robotczar (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Constructivism (philosophy of education) is a perspective in education that has learning theory and instructional theory associated with that perspective. Education professors have training in both qualitative and quantitative research at all reputable universities. The quantitative is given preference over qualitative method when requesting funds for research. Robotczar, you are welcome to edit according to Wikipedia guidelines and are expected to provide citations for your edits. 65.190.196.45 (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

While I might agree that constructivism "has a learning theory", it is that theory that should be presented here. Saying it is a theory is insufficient, a definition of scientific theory is available in Wikipedia. (It is not a conceptual framework, as this page says.) My use of the term education professor was too general. Some have scientific training, some do not. Simply being a professor in an education college or department does not qualify one to comment on learning theory. I am unclear about what quantitative vs qualitative research has to do with the issue of scientific training.Robotczar (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Goals and Validity

The contents of this page cannot be salvaged by editing, a rewrite is required. The page does not correctly define what a learning theory is, nor does it accurately describe current learning theories. Instead, the page is a melange of "perspectives" on educational practices, cognition, intelligence, etc. The definition of a scientific theory is not hard to find--Wikipedia has a good page on this topic. The article does not present a definition (or alternative definitions) of learning, which is more than a serious omission for an article purporting to discuss learning theory. The text confuses learning theory with instructional methods and practice; and seems confused about other concepts such as learning vs intelligence vs learning "styles". The article adopts a biased philosophical perspective that results in claims about some theoretical perspectives that are simply wrong (e.g, the behaviorism section) and it omits key learning theories (e.g., information processing, model memory, and the developmental theories of Piaget and Vygotsky). The article has references, but not where it really needs them (e.g. when it asserts that recent research in neuroscience supports Multiple Intelligences--which has nothing to do with learning theory). I'd like to help, but right now the article lacks clear objectives, has insufficient cohesion, and is too ideologically driven to make an edit of any one section sensible. The page seems like an excuse to present ideologically favored educational concepts and practices rather than a serious encyclopedic discussion of actual learning theories that might affect education.Robotczar (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added a to do list to the talk page so that you can make a list of assignments if you would like help with the edits. Also, auto archive in 15 days so that the old conversations will be archived for reference but not viewed on this talk page. Thank you for what you are doing!Stmullin (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the list. A remaining problem is the goal of this page. The list suggest a very loose definition of "learning theory" and seems to support the confusion between a learning theory and an instructional theory. If the goal of this page is to talk about how philosophies, theories, ideologies, and perspectives affect education, I suggest that it not be titled "learning theories". It does seem appropriate to talk about how learning theories affect instruction, but confusing learning and instruction (or education) is not helpful to people seeking encyclopedic knowledge about the topic "learning theories". I further suggest that an introductory section would define both theory and learning for this page (likely definitions from those existing pages). I certainly volunteer to write an explanation of the theoretical perspective of behaviorists, and I could also write more about the modal memory model and the information processing model which are linked.Robotczar (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you click Learning Theory you will be given a fresh page that you can use to write the article that you have envisioned. We can update the to do list for this article when we have had the opportunity to read your contribution. Any time you see a red link, that article needs to be written (including your user pageRobotczar). Stmullin (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)