Skip to main content

Instructional Theories May Not Be Derived from Learning Theories

Landa (1983) also claims that instructional theories may not be derived from learning theories (p. 65). This is because a given proposition of a descriptive learning theory (such as "if a person better understands a text, then he or she remembers it more easily" may not be true and complete when phrased as a prescriptive instructional rule such as "In order for a learner to better memorize the text, it is necessary (or sufficient) to teach him or her how to understand it (or bring him or her to understanding it)."

"Of course, in order to secure that a learner memorizes a text better, it is important to make sure that he or she understands it or to teach him or her how to understand it. But understanding is just one of the conditions leading to better memorizing, and to secure (or teach) the understanding is not sufficient for gaining the best results in memorization. Other factors not mentioned in these propositions of a learning theory (both descriptive and prescriptive) should be taken into account. They are stated in other propositions of a learning theory (if it is complete). But the learning theory does not tell anything about which of it's propositions should be taken into account and combined (and precisely how combined) in order to state an effective prescriptive instructional proposition." [p. 65-66]

This statement of Landa's strongly resonates with me. I believe that existing theories do not, as Landa says, include direction on which of their propositions should be accounted for and combined in order to state an effect prescriptive instructional proposition. This is precisely what I'm after in my work: a conceptual framework of learning and teaching, anchored with universal and fundamental principles of learning and complimented with a method for constructing domain-specific, individualized theories of instruction using that framework.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trait vs state

"A useful distinction in the discussion of student characteristics is trait versus state. Traits are student characteristics that are relatively constant over time...whereas states are student characteristics that tend to vary during individual learning experiences, such as level of content-specific knowledge." (Reigeluth, 1983, p. 32) Reigeluth also states that "many strategy components have been shown to help students with all kinds of traits to learn" [p. 32]. My position is that we do not know a priori which aspects of our instructional strategies, learning environment, motivator, etc... will generalize across many or all students. However, with a localized learning theory we can learn over time which do and which do not. At the same time, we will likely find ways of grouping students that we never would have before imagined.
Post a Comment
Read more

James Paul Gee's 36 principls of learning from What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy

In his book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy , James Paul Gee identifies 36 principles of learning: Active, Critical Learning principle All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning. Design Principle Learning about and coming to appreciate design and design principles is core to the learning experience. Semiotic Principle Learning about and coming to appreciate interrelations within and across multiple sign systems (images, words, actions, symbols, artifacts, etc) as a complex system is core to the learning experience. Semiotic Domains Principle Learning involves mastering, at some level, semiotic domains, and being able to participate, at some level, in the affinity group or groups connected to them. Metalevel Thinking about Semiotic Domains Principle Learning involves active and cr
Post a Comment
Read more

Structure of Lessons for Repetition

Way back in 1813, John Freeman described a method of teaching adult persons to read in which printed cards were used. The first card contained 7 lessons. The first six lessons, together, contained 100 words (like an, can, man, than, as, has, on, up-on, ...). The seventh lesson was made up of words selected from the previous 6. (Freeman, 1813, p. 12) Additional repetition was built in as follows (from pg. 14): The first line of the first lesson, should be repeatedly gone over, till it be perfectly known; and then be dismissed, and the second learned in the same manner. Afterwards, the remaining lines in this lesson, should be learned, one at a time. When this is accomplished, the whole of the first lesson is to be repeated, the words being spelled before they are pronounced. The second lesson should then be learned in the same manner as the first. When that is done, proceed to the third, and then to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh; taking one at a time, in the order in which they
Post a Comment
Read more