Learning Theory _ism's

So, I just read a blog conversation between Bill Kerr, Karl Kaplan, and Stephen Downes about learning theories. This conversation started in 2007 and to some extent is still ongoing. But I was struck by the passionate statements made. After reading their comments, I am more convinced than ever that learning theories are great at generalizations but lacking when we start to discuss detail. They provide a great framework for educators to build on. But as educators we need to build the framework from each theory rather than accepting an established framework in its entirety. Bill Kerr (2007) made a comment about cherry picking useful ideas from the _ism’s. Let’s pick those cherries and make a cherry pie. Every good cook knows that to get a really flavorful pie you need several varieties of cherries. Good teachers know they need to pick and choose strategies with students to really help those students learn. What works with one class may not work with others. There is no one-size-fits-all. Why do teachers then feel they need to fashion their classroom in a way that agrees with a specific learning theory?

I am taking a class right now where we are looking at learning theories, the _ism’s. And quite honestly some of those theories seem to talk in circles. When I think of that student sitting in my classroom who reads below grade level and is having trouble keeping up, I am not thinking about which learning theory will work best. I am thinking about how I can help that student catch up. When I read about the _ism’s I see every student in every theory. I teach high school, so I am not going to teach that student how to read, rather I am going to look for tools and help that student compensate for a deficiency, to bring their skills to grade level or as close as possible.

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Learning Theory and Educational Technology - "Metaphors of Educators"

Siemens (2008) metaphors of educators all provide opportunity for the learner to explore as an individual the learning topic. However, where I notice the difference is the educator as master and educator as network administrator seem to encourage more collaboration among the learners. The educator as master metaphor discusses a studio environment where students can view each other’s work and consult with each other (Siemens, 2008). The educator as a network administrator discusses connecting students to learning networks (Siemens, 2008). As organizations are restructuring their physical work environment to encourage collaboration among employees it would seem this is an important skill that must be developed in our students. P21.org lists collaboration as one of the 4C’s for student emphasis. The educator as concierge and educator as curator do not appear to place emphasis on collaboration. Students in these environments may be more likely to learn what the educator want students to learn in a direct manner. While the educator as master and educator as network administrator students may take a more circuitous route through knowledge.

As I think about each of these educator roles I can see myself functioning in each role. As I know there is no one way that all students learn I also feel there is no one way to present all materials. As an educator I find that I have used each of these roles in my classroom. Currently I teach a program that it is important that students find their own way. Sometimes I ask only questions and have them explore, others I point them in the right direction and still others I provide the resource I want them to use while they are exploring and forming their base knowledge. I don’t learn everything the same way, why would I expect my students to?

Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itform/Paper105/Siemens.pdf.