I was following a Twitter conversation recently between @tomwhyte1 and @injenuity about learning theory construction. I expect it had been spawned from CCK08.
Tom asked the question “If the basic core of a learning theory requires other learning theories to have happened or exist, is it an actual learning theory or tool?” I was about to enter the conversation when I realized I couldn’t explain what a learning theory was. This week I’m reading Psychology of Learning for Instruction by Driscoll and have an answer to both questions. To paraphrase, a theory is a hypotheses that has been validated through data collection. More formally, Driscoll describes a learning theory as “a set of constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is thought to bring about those changes” (p.9).
A theory isn’t a theory though until some sort of proving has occurred. Which leads to Tom’s question. Driscoll has a perspective on that as well: “any new theory must reinterpret all the previous findings as well as account for the anomalous ones that prompted its invention in the first place” (p.7). So Tom, I think the answer is It depends. If it meets the definition of a learning theory, that is seeks to explain a phenomenom, then not only is it a theory but it must build upon or refute past theories. If it doesn’t meet the definition of a learning theory, then perhaps it is describing a single construct (in this case perhaps node).
I’m going to like this book.
Reference
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (Third Edition ed.). Boston: Peason Education Inc.
September 21, 2008 at 10:05 am
I’ve recently come across the ideas of Evolutionary Epistemology and have been trying to see if could be used to build a learning theory. From what your saying such a thing would have to account for all the findings of previous learning theories and explain a large number of the anomalous findings. So I guess I should have started by looking at what evidence has already been established about learning.
September 21, 2008 at 10:27 am
Tim, I don’t profess to be an expert but it seems that often new theories arise from the need to explain anomalous findings. And theories would also evolve. Just as they start from an hypothesis, they would continue to develop (or not) on the basis of evidence to support them.
September 21, 2008 at 1:23 pm
First off, you should have joined the conversation, as if myself and @injenuity know what were talking about : )
Thanks for the new insight regarding one of my earlier concerns regarding my course CCK08. I agree that it will need to fit the model proposed to be a learning theory. Regardless of that fact, if we start stacking theories upon theories, just like a deck of cards, it will not take that much to cause the tower to tumble.
So on a different note, is it good theory, or practice, to build a theory upon others?
September 21, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Mentioned the above conversations to my wife today, and her response to my inquiry was “Isn’t that what Science is? Building theories upon theories?”.
Easy answer I guess… or is it Arkum’s Razor?
September 21, 2008 at 8:25 pm
My thinking is that we develop theories to try and make sense of the world around us. The more we learn, the more refined our theories become. So I think it is not just about stacking theories one upon the other, but in some cases replacing theories (do you still think the world is flat? – oh perhaps that is a bad example).
The other point that Driscoll makes is that often theories are developed in a particular scholarly area which gives a perspective to the theory. For example, we could explain learning from a psychological, educational, biological or computer science perspective. No one perspective may be inaccurate, but the more complete theory would consider all 4 perspectives. At the point of intersection of all 4 perspectives we have a richer view.
So I would say yes, it is good practice to build one theory from other(s).
September 21, 2008 at 8:46 pm
[...] Join the discussion at http://masterthoughts.wordpress.com. [...]