Talk:Learning theory (education)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sources?

many have split off from the mainstream holding that learning is a primarily self taught thing, and that the ideal learning situation is one that is self taught. According to this dogma, learning at its basic level is all self taught, and class rooms should be eliminated since they do not fit the perfect model of self learning. However, real world results indicate that isolated students fail. Social support seems crucial for sustained learning.

I've made bold the items in question. Are there sources to back this up or is this the opinion of the contributior? As far as using the term "real world results", that's vague and subjective. "Isolated students fail"? According to whom? There is no mention of nor link to

autodidactism
, whose very definition proves otherwise.

Information Processing Learning Theory

citation [1]

References

  1. ^ Schunk, D.H.(1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York, NY, England: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc. (1991). xi 402 pp.

To Do List

It is good to be inclusive when brainstorming, but I have a few objections to the suggested list. I suggest that the "paradigms" be behaviorism, cognitivism, humanism, developmental, and social. Constructivism is just not of the same type as these categories. Constructivism, in my opinion, should be viewed as an instructional theory grounded in cognitive learning theory. GOMS seems to me to be neither a learning theory nor particularly behaviorist. Things like problem-based learning and communities of practice are instructional theories or methods which need only be listed as founded on, e.g., cognitive or behavioral theory, without elaboration (people can go to those pages if they want more). The list, I think, omits Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, which textbooks often put under behaviorism, but may be better labeled a social theory. Design theories have no place on this page in my opinion as they are neither learning theories nor instructional theories. Descriptive and meta theories have no place on this page in my opinion. Bloom's taxonomy, for example, should be mentioned as part of cognitive theory (if at all). Identity, moral, and personality theories are questionable on a page about learning theory, which is not to say they have no relevance to education. Multiple intelligences is simply a taxonomy, not a theory, and like Bloom's taxonomy should be linked to a learning theory (if if can be so linked). Robotczar (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


A scholarly literature search would show development as part of Cognitive philosophy, social as part of Humanist philosophy, and Constructivism as a distinct philosophy of education

talk
) 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Where would you suggest that the taxonomies be placed?
talk) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

from theory to philosophy

To be viable, a philosophy of education needs to include a theory of knowledge, a theory of ethics, and a theory of human nature.[1] It should also "propound views about what education should be, what dispositions it should cultivate, why it ought to cultivate them, how and in whom it should do so, and what forms it should take," which would include a psychology of learning and teaching methodologies.[2]

References

  1. ISBN 0710084692
    .
  2. ISBN 0-02-865594-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link
    )

talk) 01:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of

guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Class project?

It appears that this article is subject of a class project. I have posted at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Learning_theory_.28education.29_and_Learning_styles/

Andreahowes, Allegraschiff, Ashleyschnaar, Matt Ferkany, Cieraalmanza, Richada Brown, Madisonkelly11, Jasminevang, AnyaNiehaus, Andreyavail are you working on this as part of a class? Some of you are also working on Learning styles‎. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreahowes, Allegraschiff, Ashleyschnaar, Matt Ferkany, Cieraalmanza, and Richada Brown: @Madisonkelly11, Jasminevang, AnyaNiehaus, and Andreyavail: Hi all. I'm Ryan with the Wikipedia Education Foundation. We provide support and tools to instructors and students working on Wikipedia class assignments. Could one of you please connect me to your instructor? He or she can leave a message on my Wikipedia talk page or email ryan [at] wikiedu [dot] org. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked at the board i linked to above, to say what is going wrong. Students are adding unsourced content, too closely paraphrased content, nonencyclopedic content (long, chatty, too much quotation), not considering UNDUE, and are adding the same content to the two different articles, obliterating the difference between them. typical student errors. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i quit. this article is getting meat puppeted by edit warring students acting without guidance. disaster. unwatching. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian (Wiki Ed) and Jytdog: I've reached out to the professor by email, but the students seem mostly unresponsive on-wiki. Do you think it's worth RPP? That there are at least sources and the quotes I grabbed to look for blatant copyright issues did not return other ghits makes me think no, but you two would know better. I certainly understand the feeling of futility when trying to respond to problematic edits when more just keep coming. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that no one else is watching this page... or no one else finds the edits problematic. I will just let this be. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edits are a real mixed bag. Some are obviously student-written with an overreliance on one source (presumably their textbook). Others are a bit better. But many suffer from style problems and technical issues. And all of this uncoordinated work by editors who are making no effort whatsoever to work with or even consider how their work and behavior impacts the larger project and other Wikipedia editors is extremely frustrating because it's damn disrespectful and in the end will cause us a significant amount of extra work.
Temporary semi-protection may be the only way to get their attention since these editors are otherwise ignoring all other efforts to communicate and work with other editors. @
WP:RFPP? ElKevbo (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:RFPP. Realistically, even if I were an admin, I'd shy away from taking article-level admin actions in my WikiEdu staff capacity for all but the most urgent situations, but that's a separate conversation. Here's hoping the instructor gets back to me soon :/ --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Learning theory (education). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Level of teaching theory - there are three type of teaching theory  ? 1 - memory level of teaching ( MLT) 2 - understanding level of teaching (ULT) 3 - reflecting level to teaching (RLT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.155.194 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for including external links?

A new editor with an apparent

conflict of interest is edit warring to include a new link
in the "External links" section of this article. Setting aside the behavioral issues, this raises the question of what criteria should be used to determine what belongs in the EL section of this article. Right now, there are five links (including the one being shoved into the article via an edit war):

Until we can figure out a consensus on inclusion criteria, here's my opinion on these specific links:

  1. The first link should be removed; the link doesn't work and from the title of the article it's way too limited in scope to be applicable in this article.
  2. The second link should be removed; it's also too limited in scope to really be helpful to readers. It's also of unclear provenance: Was this ever published anywhere? Was it peer reviewed? Did it have a meaningful impact?
  3. The third link is okay. It's a decent list of resources and the authors are credible experts in this field. It certainly is on-topic and provides information beyond what we can include in this article.
  4. The fourth link should be removed. It's an okay list of resources but the expertise of the authors is unclear.
  5. The fifth link should be removed. It's an interesting resource and the authors are credible experts in the field. But the resource is quite limited as it seems to only draw upon publications from authors. Additionally, it appears that one of the authors has begun editing this article and is engaged in an edit war to add this link; that is a clear
    conflict of interest
    that must be discouraged.

ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

The two links in the criticism section (74 and 75) link to books that are supportive of a constructivist school, they definitely don't advocate for sticking to 'traditional methods' as the section claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.92.37 (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Theory of education" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

Theory of education and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Theory of education until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Learning_theory_(education)&oldid=1208120923"