A theory is as much an assumption, a basis for belief, as it is an explanation, an ontology, or an understanding of things. Typically, theories evolve out of the language of experience. Out of such language, a grammar and syntax are invented/uncovered/supplied that underpin our observations.
It is natural that we have so many theories. Some prove more valuable than others, some have historicity, while others serve as temporary bookmarks saving our place while we focus on other aspects. Theories are reminders of where we are, where we left off, where we need to return.
Educational theories range in depth and complexity and are as abundant as snowflakes. So what are we to make of them? Which ones are most pertinent? Are all theories relative or contextual? Do we need a grand unifying theory of learning? Or will hundreds or thousands do?
Dennett (1978) frames theories on three levels:
- the physical level -- as in neurological postulates of learning;
- the design level -- as in psychological speculation; and
- the intentional level -- where philosophical/humanistic schema reside to include scientifically testable theories.
Bereiter (1990) suggests that a real learning theory, that is, one distinct from bridging theories that link beliefs to practice, is necessary as it would (hopefully) provide an explanation appropriate for instructional theories.
Bereiter (1990) states: “An educational learning theory may have a bearing on cultural change, but mainly needs to explain the enculturation of the individual” (p. 607). He goes on to layout a framework that serves as a means for guiding further inquiry:
- What should the boundaries of a learning theory be?
- What should a learning theory try to explain?
- What are its building blocks?
So what is it we wish we understood but do not?
Bereiter ultimately wrestles with a question that is quite important in terms of explaining learning: How do people acquire knowledge that is more complex than what they already have? In other words, how do we learn things that are difficult to learn?
An educational learning theory should provide us with a systematic account of the conditions implicated in learning difficulty, and it should be able to tell us how we overcome such learning difficulties.
In 1978, Case published a developmentally based theory where the learners ability to control for complexity took center stage. This explanation was not a learning theory but instead provided a good instructional ontology to assist others in supporting students in the creation of knowledge. The question of how students experience, adapt to, and overcome learning difficulties remained un-clarified.
Functionally, others have examined the notion of expertise in overcoming learning difficulties, yet these theories can only provide an operational explanation and generally ignore issues associated with the process of learning (e.g., How do you get to Carnegie Hall?)
George Siemens offers connectivism-–an external form of connectionism--that provides an explanation of how we build and leverage knowledge based on our external networks of both human and digital connections. If I understand Siemens correctly, the proposed unit for his educational theory is the contextual module known as the node -- the atomic unit on which networks are constructed. Each node is a network itself of both internal and external networks that responds to and interact with external stimuli.
The question is, does connectivism move us beyond the functional aspects of learning and explain how we acquire knowledge that is more complex than we already have? What does connectivism offer that other theories of learning have not?
In his OCC 2007 presentation Stephen Downes proposes a theory of learning based on practicing and reflecting what’s been modeled and demonstrated. Again, Downes puts forward a functional theory based on the development of procedural knowledge and skills, declarative knowledge, pattern recognition, goal structures, etc. that can be developed and elaborated. Like Siemens, Downes’ model recognizes the numerous cognitive structures affected by external phenomena and stimuli that shape learning yet resists an explanation of how we overcome learning difficulties.
Task learning and personal knowledge construction
Perhaps it is important to consider the difference between task learning and personal knowledge construction. Task learning is what we acquire from schooling. Out of this process, we develop what Bereiter calls a schoolwork module, that is, a schema by which we process incoming information presented in the context of school. Beyond this model, the intentional learning module is one that is not necessarily cultivated in most school settings. This module pushes us to struggle with complexity; it recognizes familiar patterns as well as unfamiliar ones. Once this module/learner enters unfamiliar territory, the module “kicks in” and allows the learner to engage in active problem solving using a range of resources and networks in order to construct “the more complex knowledge that is foreshadowed by the premises…. The educational problem is how to foster development of an intentional learning module in students who are not so fortunate in their circumstances that it develops spontaneously” (my emphasis -- Bereiter, 1990, p. 617).
This where the work of Siemens, Downes, and others seems to be directed: how do we design educational settings or social contexts for learning in such a way that they encourage and develop intentional learning.
Toward a functional theory of discontent
As for my own thoughts on learning theory, I feel we need a functional theory of discontent -- a theory that allows our beliefs and ideas to be challenged by what others think.
Cognitive dissonance offers a schema that starts us in the right direction: Holding two conflicting or contradictory beliefs gives us drive, it starts the engines running so that we begin to reconcile these two beliefs into something that serves us in our desire for closure. Yet it is this drive, this desire itself, that creates calamity because closure is never certain (nor will it ever be).
This leads us to a certain level of uncertainty and insecurity. Uncertainty means a lack of knowledge. It is an epistemic category linked to the question “what do we know?” On the other hand, insecurity means need for control. It is a pragmatic category linked to the question “what shall we do?” Researchers like Harald Mieg (2001) and others define an occupation to be of low uncertainty if there is sufficient formalized knowledge, e.g., engineering or basic health problems. An occupation is said to be of high insecurity if there is a discussion of precautions that needs to be taken, e.g., foreign policy or basic health care issues.
So where does teaching and learning fit in this model?
There are certain occupations where the public accepts insecurity as relatively high but sees uncertainty as relatively low. In this case, solutions are offered by professionals who carry enough social capital to serve us in a relatively purposive way. Teaching seems to be an aoccupation somewhere inbetween the uncertainty/insecurity domain, thus the publics' general ignorance and acceptance of the issues portrayed in the media.
Within this uncertainty/insecurity framework, if we want to place education on a political agenda, then it is necessary to increase public concern, i.e., increase perceived insecurity. On the downside, if we want to achieve a scientific outlook on education, then we have to promise to reduce uncertainty by establishing standards that are quantifiable, e.g., high stakes testing.
Toward an instructional theory of discontent
On the one hand, as educators and learners we need to be rewarded for being confused. We’ve spent years listening to others only to determine whether we agree with them or not. We need an instructional theory that states: “we must listen to people who think differently than we do.”
Since we live in and with complexity, we need an instructional theory that says, if we want to understand this complexity, then we must spend more time not knowing.
Part of our identity is defined by what we believe. We need an instructional theory of curiosity. We do not need to rid ourselves of what we believe, but we do need to be curious about what other people believe. Our survival may depend on it.
Oftentimes, we are unable to figure things out on our own; consequently, we need others to verify or support what we believe, what we see and think. We don’t need to agree, and as such, we need an instructional theory that says as much.
So what if you don’t like this theory? Sometimes we get comfortable listening to our selves and people with similar tastes. Listening to other people leads to uncertainty and potentially change -- thus change serves as a by-product of listening.
Ultimately, change starts with confusion. And great ideas appear in that wonderful abyss of not knowing. If we can learn to discard fear and enter the abyss, we can be greatly rewarded. This is where creativity is born.
I applaud the work of theorists who are dissatisfied with the way we see things. Their passions ultimately push them to re-arrange the deck so as to provide us with new points of view, new ways to consider what we do, how we think, and where we need to go. While an instructional theory of discontent may not be the best way to frame my argument, it provides us a means to continue the debate what teaching and learning needs to look like now and in the future.
References:
Bereiter, C. (1990). Aspects of an educational learning theory. Review of Educational Research 60(4): 603-624.
Case, R. (1978). Piaget and beyond: Toward a developmentally-based theory and technology of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 167-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dennett, D.C. (1978). Brainstorms. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books,
Mieg, H. (2001) The social psychology of expertise: Case studies in research, professional domains, and expert roles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flickr photo credits:
Snowflake by SmilingSunflower. Pollock Watchers by kevinthoule. Faux Nap by hunkdujour. Curiosity by wand3rlust.
Magritte photo retrieved from Google image search.
Keywords: Bereiter, Case, change, cognition, cognitive dissonance, cognitive psychology, complexity, connectivism, constructionism, creativity, Dennett, desire, development, difficulty, discontent, educational theory, expertise, George Siemens, Harald Mieg, identity, insecurity, instructional theory, intentionality, learning, learning theory, listening, OCC2007, ontology, psychology, schooling, Stephen Downes, teaching, testing, theory, uncertainty
Comments
Perhaps, towards the end, you are talking about philosophy more than learning theory?
A philosophy of contradiction (eg. marxist dialectical materialism) implies that change, flux, ignorance is normal and inevitable whilst stability and knowing is temporary and conditional, that there is no long term fundamental knowledge. The need for curiosity and struggle grows naturally out of such an outlook. Such an outlook would suggest that cognitive dissonance is more of a normal state of affairs, that resolving it just leads on to a different state of dissonance.
Resolving paradox is fairly central to Dennett's writings as well. eg. how do our parallel processing brains apparently think in serial manner? (Consciousness Explained, 1991)
Learning theories that try to explain how we learn hard things have to be a bit more nitty gritty than a general philosophical outlook (without denying the importance of the latter). Some theories that touch on this:
effortful study
Hoftstader's essay: Variations on a theme as the crux of creativity (in Metamagical Themas, 1985)
the laws of ignorance (more of a map than a learning theory)
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/
Christopher, I like the section on Task learning and personal knowledge construction. I think that Will Richardson's Steep “Unlearning Curve” is primarily about unlearning what is spoon fed to students in the 'schoolwork module' so that we can foster the 'intentional learning module' in our schools. I also like that you linked to Stephen's 'discontent' above. George Siemens speaks of the value of 'parallel dialogues' as we become cognitively aware of connections to different opinions BUT as I mention in my last post about the Connectivism Conference we just attended, "...discourse is something that I have seldom seen in the world of educational blogs. There seems to be an unspoken etiquette about being non-confrontational when discussing ideas on other's blogs. Essentially teachers don't criticize others' opinions. Even when there is disagreement it is often polite, reserved and... well, annoying. On the other hand, there seems to be thoughtful discord and discourse happening in the Connectivism conference forums." Sometimes we need more than just parallel discussions, we need meaningful discourse...and by choosing to make the link to Stephen's response (and your subsequent challenge for him to add more to it) you are continuing the 'healthy discord'. Even with the cheekiness with which you have both responded, the ensuing dialogue is one that I think will be intellectually challenging, and worth of following.
[I can't seem to post a comment with link with links to the articles I mention- hope this one works]
Bill, Thank you for your comments. I agree. After reflecting a bit, I realize I should have couched my "theory" under "philosophy" instead. Thank you for pointing that out. I have been reading quite a bit of theory lately and was happy to see constructivism labeled "philosophy" as well. I will connect with the readings you suggest and follow up soon.
David, I agree that parallel conversations are definitely in order, cheeky or not. I was a bit put off by Stephen's dismissal of my position without clearly articulating his thoughts. I imagine he is quite busy and has little time to engage deeper. The OCC2007 forum still appears to be swinging which is quite a compliment to the organizer(s). I would like to see more conferences like this. I also like that George invited Bill Kerr in to present a counterpoint to his position. That says volumes about George's approach to learning and I applaud such actions.
I'm sorry the links in your comments aren't working. Dave Tosh asked that I pick a new skin for my blog which might be causing some of the linking issues. Thank you again for stopping by and leaving your thoughts.
-cs
Chris, you always make me think. Thank you.
As I've mentioned before, the images you use contribute to my understanding; they imply additions to what the text says. (I love the little girl looking under the gate.)
As someone who has spent my life trying to figure out how I and others learn and found theory helpful only after lots of experience as a teacher and a learner, I endorse the concept that insecurity about what and how you know can be a learning gift.
Those with an ADD orientation who manage to survive schooling's implicit message that they are poor learners or stupid, can be very aggressive learners when they are internally motivated. Once they know why something is relevant to their purpose, their hyperfocus comes into play. I didn't know how to explain these students with their inconsistant learning behaviors until I read theory and information about ADD. Then I could see it in many students and friends, and had some strategies to try out.
Sometimes I saw students who I thought weren't very bright, but could see (because I was insecure about my own opinion) that others saw them as geniuses, but in other areas. I had developed a primitive version of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences before I read his work. It immediately clarified my observations, and extended my ability to see what I and/or students could use in our learning.
What I am saying is that many theories of learning or the mind, including constructivism and connectivism, are useful for teachers to help them see possibilities and problems BUT any unified single version of how to teach or learn is dangerous, because all humans learn differently at different times and in different circumstances.
So I think I am agreeing with you. Do you read it that way?
Fear is the enemy of change. When people are fearful they fight like wild tigers to retain the status quo. The fear is not so much about the changes themselves. It usually about the person’s insecurity. They are paralysed by a deep fear that they’ll fail to understand and acquire the new methods. Many teachers are scared stiff about adopting new technology, not because they don’t see how useful it is, but because they are terrified they’ll make fools of themselves in the classroom.
They’re scared that their thin layer of knowledge will be unmasked by their students, and they’ll loose any credibility they might still have. I recently published a couple of articles on Brave New Teaching that clearly demonstrates the fear some teachers are experiencing. The most recent one is a great news story, because it shows the wonderful outcome that results when a teacher takes the bull by the horns and accepts they need to work hard on a skills upgrade, and then has the honesty to admit to their students that they are new multi media players, but they are willing to leap into a wonderful new world of discovery, and they will work and learn together. See blogs: 5 and 8 January and 17 February 2007 http://bravenewteaching.blogspot.com
Oops - Correction: the danger of changing text and not reproofing.
The opening paragraph should read:
Congratulations Christopher! Your articles are inspiring. They are exactly the type of material I’ve been looking for. I recently set up a Blog called Brave New Teaching ...
sorry!
I must admit, there were some parts i quite liked, but it made me think could you look it in different light explaining discontent with other ideas:
Sometimes we get comfortable listening to our selves and people with similar tastes. Listening to other people leads to uncertainty and potentially change -- thus change serves as a by-product of listening.
Ultimately, change starts with confusion. And great ideas appear in that wonderful abyss of not knowing.
Of course, what you write it is in accordance with cognitive dissonance etc., but there are also other interesting viewpoints, what might make us to create new ideas.
For instance, according to the cultural semiotics, there are two kinds of communications: inside the culture (to keep the identity, but without high potentials of giving birth to novel ideas), and between cultures (with align identities, the culture tries to protect itself, but potential translation from these cultures changes our knowing radically). Let's imagine other people as cultures...you understand well those who share your meanings, but you benefit more if anyone has been translating something from the very different culture and made it talk in the language and meaning system of your culture.
If to take connectivism, and translation between nodes, what really happens if i read one node is the translation from the align meaning system to your own system of meanings, using some parts what are shared as connection-points.
Lotman has described this process in his Culture and explosion suggesting that the most interesting knowledecreation would happen if we try to interpret what is beyond the translatable.
You write:
Teaching seems to be an occupation somewhere inbetween the uncertainty/insecurity domain...
Within this uncertainty/insecurity framework, if we want to place education on a political agenda, then it is necessary to increase public concern, i.e., increase perceived insecurity.
In the frames of the cultural semiotics, and also the ideas of Wenger and Lave, the communities try to keep their identity with holding certain meanings, knowledge, practices etc...they perceive the align cultures as threat to their identity..however, to keep any culture or community alive there must be the perceptance of common and align territories. If this borderline is not felt, no translation actions (that enable creation) would emerge. So this is another way for interpreting insecurity.
Lotman's book reflections:
http://tihane.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/from-culture-and-explosion-b
Joan,
Thank you for commenting. I agree, one size should/could not fit all. I think a learning theory's irreducibility speaks to the wonderfully diverse nature of human beings and the various ways we go about "seeing" things. I feel the more theories, the merrier. It reminds me of the need to have multiple data sources/points when attempting to validate one's research.
Suzanne, I agree fear is one of the greatest obstacles we face. Reading your comment reminded me of a classic Eastern parable that I would like to share:
I hope your weblog supports your mission.
Kai, I enjoyed reading your comments. And thank you for introducing me to the notion of cultural semiotics. I grew up devouring the writings of Roland Barthes and am intrigued by your reading of connectivism. I need to do some reading in this area to better inform my own thinking. I'm not so interested in aligning my thoughts one way or the other. I'm more interested in expanding what it means to know in general, if that makes sense. Again, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Chris