Learning Theories and Learning Tool Design

Have you heard the joke of two researchers specialized in behaviorism meet on a street? The dialogue goes like this: – “Hey John, how am I today?” – “You seems to be pretty ok, so how am I then?“.

Some of the basics ideas of behaviorism are used daily in (good) teaching and learning. With relatively simple ability to track our behavior, by trying out different strategies of behavior and playing with it we learn. In some areas of learning you also need trill and practice, trial and error — the most classical form of behaviorist teaching and learning strategies.

Constructivism, or more specifically cognitive constructivism, is often presented as some kind of anti-thesis of behaviorism. If in behaviorism the focus is on the external behavior, constructivism is more interested in interaction of a mind with it’s environment. According to constructivism human mind is accommodating and assimilating new knowledge from experiences. New experiences have an effect on the existing framework that is in a continuous change. In practice we do not learn only by simply changing our behavior but by building new structures of knowledge that will have an impact on our behavior. Learning takes place inside a human mind.

Like constructivism was an anti-thesis of behaviorism, social constructivism is an anti-thesis of constructivism. According to social constructivism the most crucial aspect in learning is the social interaction that is always taking place in some linguistic and cultural context. People construct knowledge and meaning together — from the early days of children’s play to the last moment in a deathbed. The knowledge constructed as well as all the shared artifacts with shared meanings are all social products, products of the culture.

Often I see, especially in the English speaking world, that people consider constructivism to be the “core” and social constructivism to be some kind of a subclass and application of it. This is a misconception. From Vygotsky’s writings I have understood that his theory is from large part showing weaknesses in the constructivism. He is not really building on it, but rather aiming to do a paradigm shift.

When analyzing different learning tools, from OLPC-XO / Sugar to “Hole in the Wall”, different LMS, wikis (and marginal things like Fle3) we may see some learning theories behind them.

%CODE1%

In the OLPC there is a lot of baggage from the constructivism (and Papert’s Constructionism), the Dynabook’s behaviorism and other R&D projects relying on the PC revolution. The Sugar has been fast to move to the direction of being more “social” and actually been very successful in it. On the other hand if the underlying theory would have been social constructivism the device and the software could look very different.

%CODE2%

Hole in the Wall” is an interesting case. I highly appreciate the experiment and definitely one can see in it some connection to social constructivism. In the experiment children are teaching each other. On the other hand the result from the learning point of view are very weak and behavioral. In the documents and presentation I have seen, the main learning achievements have been ability to use computer. That is of course interesting and important, but if the learning is in the level of clicking and browsing internet it is not very impressive. It is simple behavior with very little knowledge constructed at all — whatever we consider it to be inside or outside a single human mind.

Many of the LMS are some kind of hybrids of tools that represent all different kind of theories of learning. The quizzes and multiple-choice test tools come somehow from behaviorism. Simulations come from constructivism and discussion forums from social constructivism. In most of the cases the implementation of all three theories in the tools have been miserable.

%CODE3%

I think wikis and Fle3 are both, more or less, build on the theory of social constructivism.

7 thoughts on “Learning Theories and Learning Tool Design

  1. Hi Teemu,
    Thanks for the non-idealistic presentation of learning metaphors; I agree different maps can work better in different terrains. I wonder why you didn’t include knowledge creation/trialogical learning? Seems like Bereiter would argue that it is different from social constructivism or at least that a 2-world conception of social constructivism would be different than a 3-world perspective.
    Thanks,
    David G

    Like

  2. Hi Teemu,
    Thanks for the non-idealistic presentation of learning metaphors; I agree different maps can work better in different terrains. I wonder why you didn’t include knowledge creation/trialogical learning? Seems like Bereiter would argue that it is different from social constructivism or at least that a 2-world conception of social constructivism would be different than a 3-world perspective.
    Thanks,
    David G

    Like

  3. Hi David and Leigh,

    David wrote: “I wonder why you didn’t include knowledge creation/trialogical learning? Seems like Bereiter would argue that it is different from social constructivism or at least that a 2-world conception of social constructivism would be different than a 3-world perspective.”

    I consider knowledge creation and trialogical learning to be adjustments of the social constructivism. I also have a problem with the trialogical learning (http://kplab.evtek.fi:8080/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=TrialogicalLearning). I see in it a conceptual problem: dialogical (from Gk. dia=through, and logos=word, discourse, reason) already carries the idea what trialogical is trying to describe, although there are maybe other points that it is able to describes better than the “old” dialogical. Still, I would rather return the original meaning of “dialogical learning” and put more meanings on it, than introduce a new concept. My 10 cents.

    Leigh: is there explanation (maybe we should ask Roger Waters) why there is a grammatical error in the “”…We don’t need no education…”? I think we need “education” – probably more than ever before. I am writing about it in my next post and I think you’ll like it. This is a good introduction to the theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYEWabQoloM&feature=related “hah, hah, your best friend” 🙂

    Like

  4. Hi David and Leigh,

    David wrote: “I wonder why you didn’t include knowledge creation/trialogical learning? Seems like Bereiter would argue that it is different from social constructivism or at least that a 2-world conception of social constructivism would be different than a 3-world perspective.”

    I consider knowledge creation and trialogical learning to be adjustments of the social constructivism. I also have a problem with the trialogical learning (http://kplab.evtek.fi:8080/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=TrialogicalLearning). I see in it a conceptual problem: dialogical (from Gk. dia=through, and logos=word, discourse, reason) already carries the idea what trialogical is trying to describe, although there are maybe other points that it is able to describes better than the “old” dialogical. Still, I would rather return the original meaning of “dialogical learning” and put more meanings on it, than introduce a new concept. My 10 cents.

    Leigh: is there explanation (maybe we should ask Roger Waters) why there is a grammatical error in the “”…We don’t need no education…”? I think we need “education” – probably more than ever before. I am writing about it in my next post and I think you’ll like it. This is a good introduction to the theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYEWabQoloM&feature=related “hah, hah, your best friend” 🙂

    Like

  5. I like constructivism more for in this we have tools to improve thinking, learning, and motivation to learn. If we then also redefine our average stress as layers of different mental work (various conscious and subconscious work) the mind is taking up then we can see more clearly how our individual environments do greatly affect our thinking, learning, motivation to learn (mental reward received for mental work expended), and also our mental/emotional health. By redefining our average stress as layers of mental work, we can now begin approach our individual environments more delicately to slowly begin understanding the elements in our lives along with the weights or values we are applying in our lives that may be creating different amounts or layers of mental frictions (that take up real mental energy). We can now begin to resolve and make changes in our weights or values to slowly begin to more permanently reducing our layers of mental frictions. The savant is able to perform seemingly miraculous feats because the mind has been damaged in some way that in rare instances allows an area such as math, music, visual, art, etc. to be greatly enhanced. This shows how our mental energy in so-called normal individuals appears weaker. This is because our mental energy is being distributed to more widely to different parts.

    We cannot provide everyone with a stable, knowledge rich environment. However I feel by working from a constructivism point of view, we can now remove the horrible teachings of genetics from our schools and begin to use learning theory in a very functional way to improve thinking, learning, motivation, and mental/emotional health for all of us

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s