Learning Theories: Foundations in Education

Educators - think back to your college years, all the way to your introduction to education courses. You will probably remember names such as Vygotsky, Piaget, and Dewey. You might also remember terms such as behaviorism and constructivism. By the time you are in the classroom, deeply planning lessons, reviewing work and completing paperwork, these names and terms are the last thing on your mind. But should they be?

I will personally admit that my own collegiate experience did not go into great depth about these theorists and terms. My music education program focused on content-specific names such as Orff and Kodaly. The difference I experienced was the use of these music education theorists and their impact on my teaching. My lessons were designed to specifically meet one of their theories, with my lesson plans pointing out specific connections to each instructional model. I did not realize it at the time, but I was basing my lesson planning and instruction in a grounded music education theory.

Now, working in professional development, I have realized that educators in general do not always purposefully base their planning and instruction in established learning theories. Please note the word purposefully. According to Webster's dictionary, purposefully is defined as "having a clear aim or purpose; meaningful; intentional; full of determination." I am not saying educators do not include learning theory in instruction nor have the best interests of their students in mind. What I am saying is that as we plan, we do not stop to think about how our instruction fits into a specific learning theory. Sometimes a school district can require a specific instructional model or theory to be used (for example: problem based and project based learning is very popular in K-12 schools today). While we plan using a specific outline, we may not fully remember why the theory works the way it does, explaining why we plan the way we do.

There is a disconnect at times between our training and our daily lives as educators. I consider it "triage" at times. Between state and federal requirements, local policies, and building initiatives, getting back to our collegiate roots might not seem like the most practical use of our time. I'm arguing, that it is not just practical, it is imperative.

Looking deeper into learning theories explains why we do what we do. For example, we are shifting away from a sit-and-get model of education to a student-centered one. Looking at learning theories, we are moving from a behaviorist model to a constructivist model. Behaviorism is the thought that we learn through changing behaviors (rote memorization). While we learn, we do not retain long term nor does the learning transfer. Constructivist approaches focus on constructing knowledge through facilitation, experimentation, and reflection. 

Yes, educators know this to be true. Then why do we need the learning theories? The research backs up our practice. It confirms our work and provides the why for what we do. 

Over the next few weeks, I am going to take a deeper dive into different learning theories. These will be focused most on constructivist learning theories. I'm excited for this reflective journey!