- understand the role of referencing select learning theories will inform our efforts to properly assess/evaluate learning gains
- having made that determination, be able to select the appropriate theories to help validate the assessments/evaluations that are implemented.
The question is rhetorical because we assume that most of you understand that learning theories are, indeed, important to our discussions. But perhaps you have never really taken the time to understand 1- what the concept of a theory is and perhaps 2- why/how they are relevant to what we do as instructional designers. Of course, you have heard of the term “theory into practice”. But we have to go into this a little deeper in order to understand the full impact of how we are going to attack the challenge of evaluating our experiences as noted in the next module on assessment and evaluation.
Lucky for us, we have access to the introduction to a textbook dedicated to do just that. This book is a collection of chapters dedicated to understanding theory but also how it relates to assessment and evaluation. (especially informal learning).
Pay particular attention to the areas that discuss theory into practice and how it influences our ability to evaluate, especially in informal settings…
Putting Theory into Practice offers a toolkit of theoretically-grounded methodologies, methods and imaginaries showcasing ways of pursuing research of learning for life in a vast array of settings. The book makes the case for theoretically well-grounded methods that can help us understand learning as it unfolds over time and across space, attesting fully to its messiness and complexity.
In other words, theories offer us the opportunity to ground the instruction into research-based methodologies.. meaning it is hard to abstract methods from theories. That may be why we generally seem to refer to theories as ‘isms’…i.e., constructivism, behaviorism, etc… while there may be technical differences among them, you are on safe ground when looking at these to validate the methods that are employed. One of the significant theoretical frameworks we will review in this module is Kolb’s ideas on experiential learning. While it is rarely referred to as an ‘ism’, it is safe to assume that Kolb bases his thoughts on research and takes stride s to ensure that experiential learning leans heavily towards the applied end of the spectrum.
To continue, take a look at Roth and Verschaffel’s comments about grounding instruction in socio-cultural theory:
Received models of teaching, curriculum, and researching in the two fields are adopting and developing new ways of thinking about how people of all ages know, learn, and develop. The recent literature in both fields includes contributions focusing on issues and using theoretical frames that were unthinkable a decade ago. For example, we see an
increase in the use of conceptual and methodological tools from anthropology and semiotics to understand how different forms of knowledge are interconnected, how students learn, how textbooks are written, etc. Science and mathematics educators also have turned to issues such as identity and emotion as salient to the way in which people of all ages display and develop knowledge and skills.
And they use dialectical or phenomenological approaches to answer ever arising questions about learning and development in science and mathematics.The chapters in this book make the case for grounding the study of learning for life in socio-cultural theory, asking what museum going, museum teaching, engagement in an after school, university outreach or gardening program entails; how engagement is socially organized; and how engagement can be understood in light of the activity system or systems in which it is embedded, and therefore explored at many levels simultaneously within and across practices, and in light of the social relations in which the individual is embedded
Pay attention to one word in particular that the authors refer to in this passage:
…While this book offers tools for the study of learning in out-of-school settings, and is essentially about methods, the chapters also allude to the methodologies or broader frameworks tied to epistemological commitments that guide the ways of seeing and pursuing research.
The tie-back from theory to practice (i.e., methodology), then, is the concepts of epistemology and ‘frameworks’ … or how things are learned … the theory of knowledge itself and its ties to using it as a framework for implementing a methodology…
Now that we have that settled, the trick is to find out which ones are appropriate. In EDF 6284 we review the TIP Learning Theories Database, in which you will discover over four dozen theories. While we do not have the time to look into all of them, we offer you a few exemplary handful. Your module ending activity will be to select a few more and to rationalize their inclusion into our exemplary set.
From the TIP Learning Theories Website:
The Theory Into Practice (TIP) database contains descriptions of over 50 theories relevant to human learning and instruction. Theories were selected for inclusion in the database based upon their relevance to some aspect of human learning and instruction. All theories come from published literature (English language only). The database does not include theories of learning that have limited scientific support or are primarily philosophical in nature. [i.e., have been shown to be at least somewhat valid and reliable]
In cases where there are a number of researchers associated with a theoretical framework, the version associated with the originator or most prominent researcher is presented. The descriptions of theories provided in each article, including the examples and principles, were developed from the analysis of secondary sources as well as the primary works of the theorists.
One important consideration to keep in mind when reading the articles is that theories evolve over time. The descriptions herein present theories at a particular stage of development (usually their most well-known form). Furthermore, almost all of the theories discussed are substantial; the brief summaries provided only outline the basic ideas and implications. TIP is intended to be a guide that identifies theory relevant to particular instructional settings. Further examination of primary or secondary sources will be necessary to understand a given theory in detail.
One could argue for or against adopting any one on this list to be utilized in our discussions. One of the over-arching principles for us to include any of these ideas is to help us determine whether they can be used as a basis for making informed decisions as to their efforts to support us as instructional designers to assess/evaluate the educational efficacy of the informal learning activities that we create. . As you will see in the subsequent module on assessment and evaluation (and as we have been referring to since the beginning of this course), attempting to analyze whether actual academic learning takes place in the informal environment is not as precise as with that which is attainable in the formal situations where testing is an integral part of the design components. (We admit that one could also argue that even with formal testing that there are no guarantees that learning has been adequately assessed).
We will try to distill the theories down to a manageable list but we first need to tell you that we do not claim that our views are complete and final. In fact, the activity at the end of this module will be for you to sort through the TIP Database and see if you can find a couple more that you would like to add with the assumption that they can be validated. The idea is for you to defend your choices in anticipation of some interesting conversations to occur next cycle.
The theories below represent a continuum of learning visualized as such:
| Learning is incremental, adding bit by bit to a reactive (i.e., passive) mind |
Learning Theory ——> | Learning is active, leading to a restructuring of the mind |
| (Stimulus-Response/Didactic) | (Discovery Learning/Constructivism) |
Please note that we make no judgment as to which side of the continuum is best… we are simply making observations and allowing you to decide the best way forward….
Starting on the left side of the continuum, we begin with stimulus-response and its corollary methodology – didactic/expository – direct teaching. Leading theorists included Robert Gagne in which he suggested the steps necessary to develop individual concepts (Nine Stages of Instruction). He was considered an anti-Piaget and schema theory:
The cumulative learning theory proposes a conception of ‘what is learned” .. which differs from Piaget’s theory… a specific intellectual skill of ‘identifying equal volumes given compensatory changes in length and width , height remaining constant” is acquired through learning .. if the necessary specific capabilities are learned, perhaps by being taught in some systematic fashion… the child will be able to perform the conversion task…”
Museums organized on didactic, expository lines will have:
- exhibits that are sequential, with a clear beginning and end, and an intended order
- didactic components (labels and panels) that describe what is to be learned
- a hierarchical arrangement of subject from simple to complex
- school programs that follow curriculum with a hierarchical arrangement of simple to complex
- educational programs with specified learning objectives determined by the content to be learned
In addition to telling a story with a beginning and an end, didactic exhibits generally make some claim that the story they are reporting is true… and it is the way things really are…
Stimulus – response formulations of learning are at the heart of early behaviorist psychology
The shift from the left side of the continuum above to the right side represents a dramatic change in orientation. It emphasizes that attention is now being focused on the learner, as well as (or even rather than) the subject. Shulman and Keisler cautioned in 1966: “just because teaching is inductive (and engaging) it does not always follow that the learner is discovering. The converse is also true. This relates back to the discussion in the RETAIN model where someone can be immersed in an activity but it does not necessarily follow that the learner is being engaged in the correct academic area (I can be immersed in traffic but not necessarily engaged in my driving due to distractions etc.). Active learning is often translated into the necessity for a physical activity that is associated with the learning… commonly referred to as ‘hands-on learning’.
It is also linked to lifelong learning: “give me a fish and I will eat for a day… teach me to fish and I will eat forever”.
While this type of learning is attractive at the outset, problems exist (as noted below). Perhaps linking the two sides together into one framework will provide a more certain result? This may be more appealing arrangement because the learner will end up discovering ‘truths’ as a result of his or her ‘learning through doing’.. the question is, can this be guaranteed to happen?
Once one abandons the idea that there is only one way to systematically present information to the learner and that the logical structure of the subject should guide our teaching, we are left with the suggestion that learners can learn by actively constructing. But are the conclusions learners come to determined by others? The further delve into this line of thinking the less we find ourselves expecting learners to reach predetermined outcomes. Further, we are faced with the prospect that those outcomes can rarely be associated with any formal criterion (i.e. standards).
Can an experiment be called an experiment of there is little or no chance of getting the so-called ‘correct’ results?
Another significant consideration is the level to which the ‘exhibitioner’ needs to know about the visitor/learner… his or her prior knowledge, stage of intellectual physical and emotional development, culture and history, interests and expectations… all yielding to the proper level and relevant form of motivation.
As a side note: several researchers have postulated that knowing a potential visitor’s cultural affinity can play a significant role in what he or she learns… to summarize:
Factors that contribute significantly to changes in visitor understanding have been found to include:
- interest
- motivation
- choice and control
- within (and between) group social interaction
- orientation
- advance organizers
- architecture (setting)
- the quality and quantity of exhibits
among other things.
We are able to observe that museums that are based on discovery learning will have:
- exhibits that allow exploration , probably back and forth among exhibit components
- a wide range of active learning modules
- didactic components (acting as prompts)
- some means for visitors to assess their own interpretation against the ‘correct’ interpretation of the exhibit
- school programs that engage students in activities intended to lead them to accepted conclusions
- workshops for adults that offer expert testimony and other forms of evidence to help with understanding
These exhibits may or may not be organized linearly
Kolb’s ideas are a way to bridge the chasm created by the continuum outlined above. His system of learning has become adopted by many current thinkers in museum learning. That is because one can easily draw links to experiential learning and the test/retest concepts taught in many of the STEM disciplines. One cannot divorce experience from pure concrete experience (that which is based on prior experience and knowledge.. which eventually led Kolb to think a lot about learning styles). His framework incorporates many of the learning theories we review in this module
A common usage of the term defines it as a particular form of learning from life experiences. It is often contrasted with lecture and classroom learning (while it is hoped that that does not preclude us from using it in a classroom but simply differentiating it from traditional lecture approaches). It is also often described as learning in which the learner is directly in touch with the realities being studied.. (i.e., contrasted with abstract thought). The emphasis is on direct sense experience and in context action as the primary source of learning. Many institutions offer internships, service-learning action/problem-based learning and/or team learning. This makes experiential learning more than a ‘theory (i.e., ism) in that it is based on the direct experiences and is ubiquitous in nature and relevance (hardly anyone should argue with its premise… even in a philosophy course one could argue that ‘ethics’ is experiential learning). Kolb’s ideas move the idea of ‘learning’ from a thing to a process. (Remember this when we move on to the next module.. it is an important distinction). When you finish this set of readings you will see that Kolb is a great synthesizer of ideas and theories that, when combined, offer a rather complete and complete framework for learning…
Here are some important ideas to consider when one looks at Kolb’s experiential framework. In summary:
- In Kolb’s world, one cannot separate education, from personal development from work… making it an ideal framework to discover the concept of ‘lifelong learning’.
- Experiential learning is especially relevant to late bloomers and career changers, who, in higher education at least, demand relevance and application to real-world
- There is a marked trend towards vocationalism (ok, not a theory!)
- For some, experiential learning is not a set of educational methods, it is a statement of fact… people learn from their experiences.. meaning if you are a ‘kolbite’.. to say that experiential learning is a theory demeans its status and importance)
- Some (such as Kurt Lewin) tie experiential learning to organizational behavior (not to be confused with behaviorism)which gave rise to the concept of action research and planned change interventions in small groups who are a part of large organizations… “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” (if you dig into this link you will note strong ties to informal learning)
- Lewin also noted that learning is best facilitated in an environment where there is tension and conflict between immediate, concrete experience and analytical ‘detachment’ (which harkens back to Piaget’s ideas on disequilibration)
- Further ties to Piaget’s ideas on intelligence that arises as a product of the interaction between the person and his environment (nature vs nurture?)
- Ties to Bruner’s ideas on cognitive development theory.. (Bruner was the father of constructivism)
- Lewin later focused on action research… in which learning, methods, change, and growth are all seen to be facilitated best by an integrated process that begins with here-and-now experience followed by as collection of data and observations… when humans share an experience, they share it both on the concrete and abstract levels
- Ties to Dewey… Lewin and Dewey’s ideas converge on a great scale.. but Dewey adds the concept of feedback and iterative learning…
- this brings us to the importance of the concept of reflective practice… (Mezirow; Brookfield & Shon) … reflection is the primary source of the transformation that leads to learning and development.. in experiential learning… reflection is not the sole determinant (as what was proposed by these three theorists) but one facet of a holistic process of learning that includes experiencing, reflecting thinking and acting… (remember these when we get to assessing and evaluating as all four are necessary for learning to take place, according to Kolb)
- the learning cycle: reflection (spontaneous observations) —> reframing (examination and critique) —-> reform (produce a process by which action is reformed) (which brings up the ghosts of Bloom and hierarchical learning
- If you have taken the course on digital narrative and cognition, one cannot cease to wonder whether these are direct ties to the concept of ‘judgment’ as proposed by Branigan)
- There are plenty of ties into learning styles .. but we will leave this up to you, the student, to make these connections. see Kolb’s ideas on these. This relates to the learning theories continuum above.. if learning is an active process determined by the individual, then what are the characteristics of those learners?
In short, learning is a process and not an outcome. Experiential learning theory proceeds from the assumption that ideas are not fixed and immutable elements of thought but are formed and reformed ( this is where Freire’s ideas on experiential learning come into play) through experience … the old realism vs idealism conflict (an idealist believes truths are set and learning takes place when you discover these truths).
Now that you have had the chance to review our list of theories, it is time for you to make some decisions (it will be good practice for you before you and your teammates finalize your final project for which we are asking you to specify which theories you base your instructional design decisions).
The over-arching principle in this lesson is that design decisions need to be based on appropriate theor(ies) in order to support and inform the intended outcomes, as they relate to your particular audience/participants, their relevance, and ability allow some form of predictability about them being realized.
For this assignment:
Select from the TIP Database at least two learning theories and provide a rationale for their inclusion into a learning module that your team has been asked to design. In order for it to make sense, you need to first describe the learning scenario in terms of its context, location, and learner attributes. Using the information provided in this module that explains the ties between theory and practice, make your case in the absence of any formalized testing instrument as to how the selected theories will help you make some assessment predictions as to whether learning is actually taking place. Only one entry needs to be posted into Canvas drop box for the entire group.
Ash, D., Rahm, J., & Melber, L. (2012). Putting theory into practice: Tools for research in informal settings. Boston: Sense Publishers.
Falk, J. H., Dieking, L. D., & Foutz, S. (2007). In principle, in practice.: Museums as learning institutions. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Hein, G.E. (2000). Learning in the museum. New York: Routledge.
Kearsley, G. (2015). The Theory Into Practice Database. Retrieved on July 25, 2015, from http://InstructionalDesign.org.
Kolb, D. A. (2012). Experiential learning: Experiences as a source of learning and development (2nd ed). New York: Pearson.