Then again, one recent reconceptualization of Maslow's hierarchy replaces self-actualization with parenting. Seriously. (New York Times Magazine, Sept. 10, 2010).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Interesting...I guess this was under my nose all along, but never really deeply considered. If we consider that a learning theory (Humanism) drives a particular practice of developing and delivering teaching and learning (androgogy), then there's a clear linkage from Maslow and Rogers' self-actualization to Knowles' precepts of adult learning theory.
I realize that as a learning journal this blog falls woefully short, both in terms of content and frequency. I'm finding that trying to wrap my head around a "course" in which there really are no stated learning outcomes, a laundry list of "suggested readings" each week, and really no structured assessment activities sort of gives me the willies, to be frank. Which leads us to:
Week 4: Learning Theories
Ah, at last! Something I can relate to! Good ol' learning theory. Uhm, theories. What? There's no universally accepted doctrine of how humans learn?
In the days of Highfather Gagne, there was Behaviorism. And it was Good. And it went forth and procreated with Systems Theory, and generation after generation of Dick and Carey progeny sprung forth to design "systems models" that are fun to draw if you love flow charts, but generally only characterize *the process of instructional design and development*, not any intrinsic or extrinsic elicted behaviors regarded as "learning". But I have really wonderful ISD process books on my shelf (D&C, Briggs and Wager, the impenetrable Romizsowski) that look impressive for faculty visitors, but haven't been opened since 1996 (if then).
Then came the dark angel, the fallen son - constructivism. A shot across the bow to the lock step Skinnerian precepts of "trad" ID. At that time (ca. 1995-96) it seemed that a schism had erupted in ID Land, that the theses had been pounded into the cathedral door, and that the heretics would be cast out...
...but it turns out that D. Jonassen is, in person, really a fairly boring public speaker (Madison WI, e-learning conference, somewhere in the 90's). And it turns out that, personally speaking, the above named constructs really exist as opposite points on a continuum, and that certain disciplines cuddle up nicely to a behaviorist/empiricist approach (math, life sciences) while others are more open to personal interpretration and shared meaning making (philosophy).
Somewhere or other, I ran across a Ph.D candidate's study on instructional designer beliefs, measuring ontology and epistemology (if I can find this again, I'll repost here). Not surprisingly, most of my answers really translate to "it depends'.
Then we have connectivism, as espoused by George Siemens, which, honestly, I'll have to re-read yet again and see if I grok it. Networked learning, I guess...
Pedagogy? Androgogy? Heutagogy? Instructivism? I love that last one - it really does nothing more than point out that online learning via an LMS is really about command and control for the instructor, not learner affordances.
Big Laundry List O' Theories: http://www.emtech.net/learning_theories.htm