monika’s w e b l o g

Theories, Models and Investigations on Learning are an immensely deep field – Where to put the focus, what to measure, and HOW?

The basic learning theories were relatively clear: constructivist vs behaviourist and cognitivist, even when the term connectivism appeared on the horizon and researchers started discussing whether this is a new theory on learning.

Then I read about the different dimensions of learning – cognitive, social, emotional, motivational. Each of them worth a deeper investigation (->how? the lame concept of grades definitely doesn’t work anymore), but each of them also interconnected to the others. While the cognitive dimension (“what have you learned in terms of acquiring new knowledge”) is relatively easy to understand for a newbie – having experienced knowledge based exams for a long time in school – social and emotional factors are much more difficult to frame, although their importance for learning can not be neglected.

When going further – focussing on research done in the field of learning with web 2.0 – a real avalange of terms and concepts breaks in:
formal, non-formal and informal learning (and a bunch of definitions about the terms);
intentional and incidental-implicit-en passant learning (differences, commonalities?);
collaborative learning, cooperative learning, social learning (?);
self directed-regulated-organised learning (differences and commonalities explained for instance by Reinmann 2009);
lifelong learning;
…

Is it possible to create a model of learning which incorporates all of these facettes – dimensions – concepts?
And, even more important: when empirically investigating learning, what do we want to make explicit? Does the description of a (learning) process imply that something is learned? Or can we measure learning just through ‘products’?
The more I read about learning, the more question marks raise in front of me.

March 9th, 2009. von Administrator.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .