Application of Learning Theories

Michael T. Garlick

Edu. 620 Week 1 Paper 1

Dr.

01-11-10
 Learning Theories 2

Abstract

It is the purpose of this paper is to summarize the components of my primary

learning theory Constructivism. In this process I will discuss the application of

constructivism in my classroom, as well as how students with special needs are

addressed using elements of constructivism within my classroom, additionally I

have explained how elements of technology can be used to enhance

constructivist teaching and my experiences with it.

 Learning Theories 3

Introduction

Of the 6-7 learning theories I’m familiar with; Behaviorism, Cognitivism,

Constructivism, Social Development Theory, Design-Based Research learning (DBR),

and Humanism, I must say that I find myself, most often in the Constructionist camp or

school of thought. (Lever, 2008) In order to fully understand the underpinnings of

Constructivism, I’ve always felt you need to think like, Lev Vygotsky and understand his

early theory on Social Development. Lev doesn’t believe in the “Tabula Rasa” or blank

slate that the Behaviorists bring to the table. Largely ignored by the west until 3 decades

after his death when his works were first published in 1962. Lev Vygotsky proposed, “

that social interaction precedes development; consciousness and cognition are the

end product of socialization and social behavior. ” (Learning, 2010)

Social Development Theory

As a parent of 4 children, who was actively involved in their growth and

development, I have come to believe that Lev was right. Babies aren’t “Tabula Rasa”, as

the behaviorists insist all of my children knew and preferred my wife from birth, because

they knew her from within the womb. They knew her heartbeat, the rumble of her voice,

as well as mine too, and liked her choices of music. Maybe in the womb babies are

“Tabula Rasa”, but from birth forward my children were social creatures seeking social

interactions with those who provided for them. My older children, used to laugh
 Learning Theories 4

whenever the baby would screech, and as such our youngest rapidly developed the habit

of screeching. If we were shopping and every ones attention was elsewhere our “Social

Critter” would screech at the top of his lungs, the kids would laugh, and the baby would

smile and giggle as he got all the attention. He would do it at the most embarrassing

instant. We finally had to enlist the aid of our older children’s help (by not laughing) to

extinguish this behavior. Based on my personal experiences, I have come to believe in

Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory.

Constructivism

Starting with a clear understanding of Social Development Theory in place it then

becomes easy to examine the Constructionist point of view.

“Constructivism as a paradigm or worldview posits that learning is an active,

constructive process. The learner is an information constructor. People actively

construct or create their own subjective representations of objective reality. New

information is linked to prior knowledge, thus mental representations are

subjective.” (Learning 2010)

Clearly Vygotsky setups up an early rejection of the Behaviorists point of

view, The constructionist point of view also clearly rejects all forms of

programmed instruction as impersonal, cans of knowledge, delivered in a

mechanical, non-social format that leaves students unfulfilled (unless they are

{rarely} internal motivated). Gold stars never did much for me? Did they

motivate you? Constructionists view learning as active and a progression of

acquiring knowledge via the construction of thoughts, idea’s and concepts in the
 Learning Theories 5

framework of the student learner’s previous knowledge. Even the lecture method

of instruction (listening) can be viewed from a Constructionist POV (point of

view.) As all new data and input is processed by the learner, and subjectively

decoded based on the learner’s initial social learning interactions. (Lever, 2008)

This can be a help or hindrance to the learner in later learning situations, and this

accounts for many students with remarkable potentials, who are unable to achieve

later in life due to being unable to be able overcome early social learning

disconnections. Conversely reaching these students with the proper format of

learning and social interactions can spark, a remarkable turn around in learning

and development that appears to be on the surface, remarkable and unexpected.

Classroom Constructivism

In my classroom, I apply the Constructivism for this very purpose, refusing to

spoon-feed my students, dates, data, and facts. I provide learning opportunities, and I tell

all my students that at the outset, you all have an A. Its up to you to progress, and

continue to achieve it everyday, I do not assign your grade, you do. I only look at your

work for growth, insight, and understanding. I expect my students to be active and

engaged in my classroom, asking questions, and thinking about the topic at hand. Many

of my topics of instruction allow themselves, hands-on, observations, and interactions.

Special Needs & Constructivism

Special needs students seem to do much better with hands-on concrete

interactions, before the introduction of theoretical discussions of chemistry. I have

 Learning Theories 6

developed several activities that allow students to apply early learning concepts to atomic

theory. We begin with toys, Lego’s and talk about how atoms and molecules come

together, then using magnetic models the students can touch, feel, and experience the

interlocking of molecules. Relating play with actual learning, students “get this” and

actually have fun learning in this manner, laughing, asking engaging questions that show

deeper understanding of the topic that would be lost in a simple lecture or programmed

instructional format. All this is related back to the student’s earlier concepts of what an

atom is. We address this with a simple activity draw your concept of an atom on day 1.

We grow and return to the initial activity to see how the student’s conceptualization of

the atom changes as the class progresses.

Technology and Constructivism

Recent advances in technology have allowed me to expand the simple concepts of

the atom, into more advanced chemical theories like the gas laws, and states of matter.

Previous invisible theoretical concepts have moved to concrete interactive models that

allow students to explore different situations, reactions, and experimental conditions

using a P.C., lack of the technological platforms for student use has been my major

stumbling block in further development of these activities. I look forward to advances in

these new technologies, and trying new applications as time goes on, to help my students

see theoretical concepts more clearly.

Summary

In short, I see myself as a dyed in the wool Constructivist, who tries to actively
 Learning Theories 7

engage his students using technology as a crutch or tool and not as a learning theory to

help my students see and understand the invisible things in chemistry not in an abstract

manner, but in a concrete visible manner. The net result is that normal and special needs

students are often recommended to take my class, if they have trouble “getting it” in other

classes and that I see as a clear indicator for continuing to use constructivist activities to

push my students to understanding.

 Learning Theories 8

References

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2010, January). at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved

January 7th, 2010 from http://www.learning-theories.com

Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. B. (2008). Chapter 1 Theoretical Foundations. In

Teaching and Learning with Technology (Third ed., pp. 10-33). Boston:
Pearson Education Inc. (Original work published 2003)