This article by George Siemens (2004) may interest you:

Connectivism: A learning Theory for digital Age

Retrieved from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf

There is a more recent article by Terry Anderson and Jon Dron (2011).

The authors examine “The three generations of cognitive-behaviourist, social constructivist, and connectivist pedagogy are examined, using the familiar community of inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) with its focus on social, cognitive, and teaching presences” (Extracted from the abstract).

As stated by many responses that technology changes the pace and method of teaching, learning including our lifestyle and new laws need to be established in accordance to our digital environment. Winston and Edelbach (2011) theorize that the world is now experiencing a technological revolution. The authors state that the predecessor of the technological revolution was the industrial revolution, which followed the earlier agricultural revolution. The industrial and agricultural revolutions had longer lifespans than the technological revolution, in which new technologies have a shorter lifecycle and faster pace of change.

I believe that constructivism constructs knowledge in cognitive stages, and pragmatism builds knowledge on learners’ past experiences. Pragmatists may possess past relevant technological knowledge that may be useful to conduct research on the complexities of online learning. I argue that the learning paradigm shift follows the cycle of constructivism, social constructivism, and then pragmatism. The cycle will go back to social constructivism when a new demarcation point for learning process is integrated, which includes all the influential factors, such as technological tools.

Finally, I do agree that new learning theories should be proposed. You have posed an interesting discussion question. 

Dear Alaa,

Thanks for your question. Most technologies are accepted without a proper critique.

I would recommend another theory to you called instrumental genesis which seeks to explain the use of powerful mathematical technologies, such as graphics calculators with a computer algebra facility.

I am interested in a redefinition of the term learning technology that takes into account the learner's choice if they were not required to use it for curriculum reasons. My coauthor Lenni Haapasalo has used these powerful devices in this way.

Hi. A truly fundamental question with regards to 21st Century learning. I do believe that a new learning theory will emerge or is already emerging. I don't really believe that technology has ruined our memory. It is just that a paradigm shift has occurred and we no longer need to learn like previous times. I think that learning has become more complex with technologies. That is why enactivism, an explanation that moves beyond cognitivism and construcitvism, is much more appropriate for 21st century learning. With regards to connectivism, I believe that its status as a theory of learning is contested by many. Firstly, some authors believe that there are no elements of novelty in this explanation. For instance cognitive flexibility theory of Spiro (1991) also explains how information is pulled together in a complex and interconnected world.

Thomas Nagel (1974) pointed out the problem of mind–body theorization suggesting that an alien experience, be it that of a bat or a person, is incommensurable for outsiders.

In my view, we can and perhaps even should attempt to articulate plausible/fruitful new learning theories. But, in doing so, we need to keep in mind  that any such theory is and should be open to refutations (falsification à la Popper). Nagel has a point: How can we be sure of what a bat thinks?

Ref:

Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.

Dear Mr. Avinash Oojorah,,

First, I would like to thank you for your comment. I also would like to comment on your comment "some authors believe that there are no elements of novelty in this explanation". Actually, this was one of our motives to investigate Connectivism in depth. Let me quote from our paper: "Other researchers find this notion either not clear or not new and probably, with no effect in the education field. This paper addresses a foggy understanding of knowledge defined as a network and the lack of resources talking about this topic. Therefore, it tries to clarify what it means to define knowledge as a network and in what way it can affect teaching and learning" (AlDahdouh, Osório & Caires, 2015, p. 3).

AlDahdouh, A. A., Osório, A. J., & Caires, S. (2015). Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism. INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 3.

Dear Alaa.

I am truly impressed with the article in question. Congrats on you. It is a great piece even as a review paper. The scope and depth of discussion is daunting, to say the least.

I took a closer look at the problem of ANN during my doctoral studies. To my surprise, I found an excess of ideology and fantasy in their many claims (such as proponents of new epistemology and organizational learning-kind) . For example, the claim that as a network, there is no hierarchy in the Neural Networks. As a medical doctor, I found such a claim an absolute non-sense; even students of basic biology will know that neuro-anatomically neural networks are structured and ordered, with clearly defined hierarchy and levels such as spine, stem and cortex. Functional MRI can deliver amazing new horizons of understanding because our brain is absolutely clustered/ordered yet without losing the character of a node-area in a network.

Anyways, I feel truly thrilled with your PhD study findings. Sincere congratulations on you and your team, whoever and whatever their share in this project may be.

I think you better cite your work like this:

AlDahdouh, A. A., Osório, A. J., & Caires, S. (2015). Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(10), 3-22.

Hello Alaa. I think that adopting new educational theories are potentially helpful provided we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. In other words, we should retain what works, and improve and supplement it, as required. Piaget´s notion, shared in large part by Vygotsky (even though some pedagogues erroneously, in my view, pit the two against other) that a slightly hard but within reach assignment tends to stimulate learning, is convincing. On the matter of new technologies, the answer must in my view be:  It depends. Does this new approach work well for this child?, is surely a relevant question. Best wishes, Paul

Thank you Dr. Jae Park for your comments. It is really encouraging. I hope our work contribute even a little.

I should also be careful in citation, thanks for your note.

Haba,George,the only permanent thing in life is change.Most theories in teaching&learning are obsolete by day. The rate at which  scientific innovations are changing our  world and classrooms demands  new theories.I quite agree with the wonderful piece, Alaa.YES and YES we need more theories not theory.You cannot apply 3G theories to  #4Gs and #5Gs wth the laser speed technological transformations.You wonder why many Youths are bored in school-CHANGE!!!

We need to become as flexible as the Technologies in the NOW to create  the type of challenging environment that can motivate the level of learners we have right now. Imagine a teacher still copying notes on boards in this century .what do you expect? teaching techno-dynamics with drawings on the Board?.

This debate is crucial if we are thinking of Sustainable Development Goals-SDGs, in this dispensation.Our brains should now work along with trending Technology. Soon our classrooms will become DULL or even  empty as it is becoming boring. Productivity /appraisals?-BELOW AVERAGE!!!. We need EMERGING THEORIES  along EMERGING TECHNOLOGY.

Dear George.

It seems that we all agree that the learning model proposed by Constructivism and Congitivism worked well for a long time, but not anymore. 

One big problem of their model is that it assumes that the knowledge is developing in steady and slow process. However, it is not like that, at in this age. "when the incoming information is changing quickly, the best decision can suddenly become the worst. When things go faster, the lifetime of the decision gets shorter. That is exactly what is happening in the education scene: Sciences are developing very rapidly and the (reluctant) drivers’ decisions are coming too late" (AlDahdouh, Osório & Caires, 2015, p. 15).

Actually, we read a lot for old model's advocators. Their argument is logical and convincing but what if the premises in which they built their model upon have changed significantly?

AlDahdouh, A. A., Osório, A. J., & Caires, S. (2015). Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(10), 3-22.

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_15/Oct15.pdf#page=7

I discuss this issue in my papers. Please take a look in my profile for these papers. You may find some of them interesting.

Kind regards

NP

Hello everyone,

Very interesting topic. Thank you Alaa. Technology has changed the way we interact with a digital world, the way we gather information or the way we connect with people. Technology will also change the way we learn. I discussed the way to connect virtual reality technology with learning. 

Article The Potential of Using Virtual Reality Technology in Physica...

Hello to everyone,

I don't think we need a new learning theory. In my opinion, we need to research in non quantitative assessment and evaluation of learning processes, and, mainly, decide how we take decisions about learners without interfering in the learning processes. Nowadays, NCLB like educational acts are spreading all over the world, with accountability as the main characteristic of these laws. As long as numbers take decision about who is worth or not for this or that job or university, social factors will constrain learning processes in our school in a poisoning way. More than research about learning, we need to reinvent the way we assess students in our educational systems.

Dear Alaa,

My answer would be more general. Technologies have a rapid rhythm and using them in learning is something necessary and obligatory. Changing our methods and trying to follow the rhythm of technology is what we should do. 

Maybe it would be difficult for first generations using it but with current generations of students and teachers it would be something obvious. 

The amazing thing in that is when we change our methods and after a period we would ask our selves how we did  before with classic methods! It would be impossible use them again.

Yes Thouraya, we are using technology and, I think, we will continue using them more and more. But the question remains: most of the current theories of learning, namely Constructivism and Cognitivism, clearly states that :

• learning is a process of making meaning inside human mind and this process needs only to our inner memory to perform well.

In consequence to this general concept of learning, educators in most countries prevent students from using math's calculators or smart phones to accomplish their tasks. The assumption here is that this tools weaken student's cognitive processing.

Please read our paper about Connectivism theory for more details.

Best Regards

Alaa,

Theory is just that - theory. Theories are always subject to change based on new observations. The best way to propose a new theory is to present new data that supports the theory. That said, don't go cherry picking data.

How would you design exploratory research to address your question? It might be something like "What is the impact of technology on cognition and learning?" You may need to seek mentoring by those educated and skilled in theory-building research. Choosing just the right question takes some thought. Then dive right in and enjoy the process of discovery.

Dr. Mitzi Forbes

Thank you very much Prof. Mitzi Forbes.

Actually, the question has been addressed by a well-known educators such as George Siemens, Stephen Downes and Wenger Trayner. They already proposed new theories for learning. However, it seems that most of the educators found their theories insufficient and problematic. We already visited their theories and considered some of them as based for future learning model. Namely, we found Connectivism an extendable theory and presented our understanding in a state-of-the-art paper, "Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism".

Please take a look on my profile and give me your feedback.

We want to hear from you and from other educators.

Regards,

Alaa

I would take issue with your professor's statement that, "technology has ruined human memory; many people rely more and more on their mobiles and laptops instead of their own memories". It's pasting a value judgment on what is an ongoing and neutral phenomenon: how humans incorporate technology into their mindscapes. 

Plato's famous criticism of the standardized alphabet was that it would eliminate the need for people (that is men, of course) to master oration and that writing would allow the communicator to take their time crafting and revising their words as opposed to being able to present them on demand. I have seen credible research showing that technology can affect the way the brain works. The best evidence of this is the comparison of modern cultures with oral traditions versus those with written ones. 

Another way of thinking about our current conception of human memory would be to go back to Bush's "As We May Think", where he proposes something called a memex which functions similar to the way we use Wikipedia (or indeed the whole Internet) to access information we don't have at our fingertips.

I think that there is always space for a sound theory that helps us look at how we perceive our worlds in new ways.

This is proving to be an interesting discussion for me. I am familiar with the various 'learning' theories and their application to modern education. I am wondering if you might clarify between a teaching and a learning theory. Hww we teach is very seldom really determined by an underlying theory. My research on the espoused teaching / learning theories of academics in university has indicated that after being exposed to the literature, many academics espouse a constructivist form of teaching/learning; yet, in fact implement content-centred instructionist practice.

I have been delving into the neuroscience literature and in particular the writing of Prof. James Zull of Case Western University. He has put together two texts on the interpretation of biological and neuroscientific evidence and relates it back to the human learning process (metacognitive) and suggests that new teaching paradigms can be implemented using technology. His two books are: The Art of Changing the Brain, and From Brain to Mind.

Perhaps  evolution has played a part in changes to our brain mechanisms, however  I doubt that this has significantly impacted human thinking over the past hundred years covering the learning theories that have been mentioned.

I believe that we need to consider (and research) in greater depth the misalignment of our teaching processes with how the brain becomes wired to learn and think. I believe that Zull's outline of the metacognitive process (human learning machine) is quite close to the mark.

As educators we might benefit from paying attention to the alignment of teaching strategies with the mental complexity theory of Robert Kegan.

Thank you for your question Alaa, this indeed is a research question within itself, we as humans are always evolving to advance are selves; pushing frontiers and boundaries, using technologies, likes that of web-based platforms, big data or even  artificial technologies are allowing us to store everyday details, which will enable us to work on more complex areas.  Technology is assisting us, yes the brain is more powerful but we can only hold certain amount - where technology acts like a bridge.   New learning theories, or tools, which can assist us will only bring more beneficial to man kind within any field.  Like you mention, Cognitivism, - maybe even Learning Centricity, Heutagogy, all have a part to play depending on disciplines and education (Nursery, Juniors, Secondary to FE, and HE).  Maybe adapting technology to new learning theories is the way forward to engage the learner? 

This article by George Siemens (2004) may interest you:

Connectivism: A learning Theory for digital Age

Retrieved from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf

There is a more recent article by Terry Anderson and Jon Dron (2011).

The authors examine “The three generations of cognitive-behaviourist, social constructivist, and connectivist pedagogy are examined, using the familiar community of inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) with its focus on social, cognitive, and teaching presences” (Extracted from the abstract).

As stated by many responses that technology changes the pace and method of teaching, learning including our lifestyle and new laws need to be established in accordance to our digital environment. Winston and Edelbach (2011) theorize that the world is now experiencing a technological revolution. The authors state that the predecessor of the technological revolution was the industrial revolution, which followed the earlier agricultural revolution. The industrial and agricultural revolutions had longer lifespans than the technological revolution, in which new technologies have a shorter lifecycle and faster pace of change.

I believe that constructivism constructs knowledge in cognitive stages, and pragmatism builds knowledge on learners’ past experiences. Pragmatists may possess past relevant technological knowledge that may be useful to conduct research on the complexities of online learning. I argue that the learning paradigm shift follows the cycle of constructivism, social constructivism, and then pragmatism. The cycle will go back to social constructivism when a new demarcation point for learning process is integrated, which includes all the influential factors, such as technological tools.

Finally, I do agree that new learning theories should be proposed. You have posed an interesting discussion question. 

Thank you Prof. Cherry Stewart  and Dr. Robert Costello. Your comments were very helpful and I am now reading for Prof. James Zull "The Art of Changing the Brain". It is interesting and I by now can find some common points with Connectivism theory. Actually, Connectivism started from the same point, namely from neural network. However, Connectivism extends the concept of connection formation and flow of information mechanisms in neural level and conceives them to be applicable for Concept and external level. It is sometime difficult to see how connection within and between these three levels may interact. I would recommend to read for Hutchins his work "How a cockpit remembers its speeds".

Thank you Mr. Arthur So for your comment. We already reviewed some new theories including Connectivism. I hope you have some extra time to read our recent work (on the link below) and give us your feedback.

Hutchins, E. (1995) "How a cockpit remembers its speeds". Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_15/Oct15.pdf#page=7

Alaah,

 Great questions, and I agree with your perspective as I had the similar thoughts while conducting research on emergent learning theories and came across connectivism.  I found Downe’s theory to be relevant to how individuals are learning in an advanced technological age. It certainly applies to a changing learning environment in which the rapid pace of technology innovation is transforming the way we learn, the pace at which learn, and the way we not only capture knowledge but what we can do with it. 

 The argument that opponents make of the theory is that current theories such as cognitivism,, behaviorism, and constructivism already lend to explaining how learning occurs with the use of technology. Several have broken down and analyzed connectivism to claim that it cannot be regarded as a theory because it has not yet been scientifically proven (Bell, 2010; Kopp & Hill, 2008). Instead, they regard it as providing a philosophical viewpoint, relevant  for pedagogy. I do agree that established theories each offer a basis for understanding how learning occurs with the use of technology. However, I believe the significance of an emergent theory such as connectivism, is that it can help to explain how informal learning occurs, which is lacking in literature; whereas, existing learning theories have most heavily been researched and applied to understanding how learning occurs in formal settings. Although technology is used in both formal and informal learning environments, one could argue that it is increasingly being used by individuals in unstructured and informal digital learning environments to acquire, share, and apply knowledge through making connections, collaborating and interacting with individuals. From what I see, the only challenge that these emerging theories face is to provide the scientific evidence that the research community seeks in order to make it a valid theory. 

Thank you Zita Tiamuh for your comment.

I my point of view, the issue of proving the validity of Connectivism theory by scientific evidences returns back to the deeper issue that Connectivism principles are not written in such way that can be tested (Bell, 2011; Verhagen, 2006). 

And even more deeper is the issue that Connectivism does not present a solution for

a learning paradox (Clarà & Barberà, 2014). 

Let me quote again from our recent paper "The second step for Connectivism, we think, is to interpret 'how the pattern recognition is done? What are the mechanisms used for pattern recognition?' Even in AI research, it is not possible to build an agent by stopping in this stage. For example, in order for AI agent to recognize the pattern, it should be equipped with searching mechanisms (Breath-first, Depth-first, Greedy best-first and A* search), a store of axioms (knowledge base), logic and inference rules, learning algorithms and many others. Only then, educators can build learning networks that can make learners grow easily and very fast." (AlDahdouh, Osório & Caires, 2015).

In regards to the issue of pattern recognition, there has been some work done by Peter Goodyear and others (both internationally and here in AU) in the establishment of pedagogical patterns. A couple of resources in this area are:

• Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82-101 Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/goodyear.html
• Goodyear, P., deLaat, M., & Lally, V. (2006). Using pattern languages to mediate theory-praxis conversations in design for networked learning. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 14(3), 211-223.
• Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-Enhanced Learning: Design Patterns and Pattern Languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

One of the areas of conversation might be the connection of the learning environment and processes with the emotional brain. Perhaps 'Internal connectivism' might be somewhat interested in how the chemicals of the brain impact on the learning process. I note a mention of the brain functioning in your work Alaa, however, I have not noted it in my reading of Siemens.

Educators have been trained not to consider the emotional side of learning. Too often we entreat learners to look at things objectively and rationally yet as highlighted by neuroscientists:

"The numerous interconnections between these [emotional brain and limbic system] and other structures suggest that emotion,, memory and cognition all participate to increase adaptive behavior, in part, by allowing meaning to be given to our experiences which can then be used to influence and guide future behaviour." Professor Jeanette Norden of Vanderbuilt University in Understanding the Brain.

For a 'new' learning theory that is related to pedagogical practice, I believe we must look closely at the biological nature of the brain. We need closer links between the sciences and educational practitioners. Once we really understand how the human brain 'learns', we can then be more certain of the relevance and applicability of what and how we teach. We can also begin to apply this knowledge to how digital tools might help learners in the process.

Yes, I agree with you that emotional brain is somehow ignored. However, I'm still seeing some scholars who call for integrating emotion as important part of learning process like Prof. Carol Dweck and Prof. Carol Midgley.

Prof. Cherry Stewart, your suggestion to understand how the human brain 'learn' so we can be more certain about our teaching-learning practices is highly welcomed and recognized. When I was reading for AI research, I found this notion among the most common suggested paths to build AI agent. For example, read chapter 1 for Russell and Norvig book: "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach."

However, this path was moving very slowly. We should update our understanding of learning according to the results in this field but, practically, we can't wait until to see the whole picture because it would take too long.

Anyway, I really would like to thank you for your recommended readings. I'm overwhelmed these days but I certainly come back.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Third Edit.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Thank you for your suggestions. I'm sure we can share information at a later date. Like you I am inundated with other activities at this time of year. I am working on two papers in this area myself. May I send to you for review when I get together?

Dear Alaa,

Interesting question "Are you with or against proposing a new learning theory?"

Answering your question is not easy because it refers to another, rather fundamental question namely: is there any link between learning theories and technology?  I did an analysis of the literature and concluded that learning theories and technology are not as closely connected as one could expect. See:

Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging Learning Theories and Technology-enhanced Environments: A Critical Appraisal of its History. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen & M.J. Bishop (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 3-20). New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

https://books.google.be/books?id=oVlHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=joost+lowyck&source=bl&ots=ExA9Qx4cUR&sig=bQeBEDj9y1sLk0ucfW7vxgsRHhc&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=QPUBVd-qAsqtU-6IgCg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=joost%20lowyck&f=false

 My answer is that I would like a new learning theory (like the one of Siemens as has been reffered to), but that its implementation into technological learning environments is hindered by a so many shortcoming in both theory and practice.

Dear Stefan,

The relationship between knowledge and technology has been one of the observations I made in the following chapter:

Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging Learning Theories and Technology-enhanced Environments: A Critical Appraisal of its History. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen & M.J. Bishop (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 3-20). New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

"Observation 3: Learning theories and technologies are connected and intertwined by information processing and knowledge acquisition" Different learning theories and epistemologies (e.g., objectivism and constructivism), lead to various conceptions of information processing and knowledge acquisition that influence technology use". 

For a more elaborated description, See: 

https://books.google.be/books?id=oVlHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=joost+lowyck&source=bl&ots=ExA9Qx4cUR&sig=bQeBEDj9y1sLk0ucfW7vxgsRHhc&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=QPUBVd-qAsqtU-6IgCg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=joost%20lowyck&f=false

Dear Stefan,

I  agree with your analysis and the enormous complexity of our domain. In the chapter I referred to,  I made some observations on the link between learning theories and technology. each observation has been documented with outcomes of conceptual frameworking and empirical research. I selected some quotations to illustrate my understanding of your position.

Observation 2 is: Learning theories and technologies are situated in a somewhat vague conceptual field. "Exploring links between learning theories and technology is dependent on agreed upon conceptual frameworks and concepts within research traditions. Each field of study is filled with ill-defined concepts and terminology that is inconsistently used and leads toward different starting positions. A basic science of learning starts from the insight that little is known and that much has to be discovered, while applied science and technology focus on what is known and applicable in practice (Glaser, 1962). Despite continuous efforts to calibrate conceptual issues (Januszewski & Persichitte, 2008; Reiser & Ely, 1997), and unlike the natural sciences, concepts in the behavioral sciences are rarely standardized (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). That concepts are used in various ways becomes especially problematic when central theoretical importance is involved (Prenzel & Mandl, 1993)."

Observation 3: Learning theories and technologies are connected and intertwined by information processing and knowledge acquisition "Different learning theories and epistemologies (e.g., objectivism and constructivism), lead to various conceptions of information processing and knowledge acquisition that influence technology use.  Given the central function of education to help learners acquire declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge, learning theories and technologies are fellow travelers. Conceptions of information processing and knowledge building change over time, depending on epistemological arguments and evolving learning theories. Different computer tools and systems have been designed to contribute to the supposed increase of education quality in terms of knowledge acquisition but most if not all are limited in curriculum coverage. The shift from programmed instructional materials as parts of the school curriculum toward student’s individual and collective knowledge organization and knowledge construction tools paved the way for more real-world problems and knowledge. Evaluation studies clearly show that not only the use of cognitive tools but the link with underlying cognitive processes defines a system’s or a tool’s merits."

Thank you Prof. Stefan and Prof. Joost for participating in this session.

Would you please read "Knowing Knowledge" for George Siemens and "Connective Knowledge" for Stephen Downes (on the links below)

I think they may have some answers to your questions.

Prof. Cherry Stewart,,

I am very sorry being late in responding to your request. I will be very glad to read your work but not review them, actually to learn from them! I'm still in a PhD training stage.

http://www.elearnspace.org/KnowingKnowledge_LowRes.pdf

http://www.downes.ca/files/connective_knowledge.doc

a very interesting question: 

If we consider ubiquitous learning classical theories and strategies  can not be used  with it ? especially with the evolution of learning technology and environment.

of course I'm with proposing a new theory

New technologies needs new learning theories. Nowadays we have so many new digital tools and devices in education. They change the way of learning. I think that these fact leeds us to the point that we need new or even adapoted learning theories. 

Yes Dr. Stefan 

We are able to describe, not to define knowledge. Connectivism proposes to see knowledge structure as a network. This description has led them to think of learning/teaching process differently. Yes, we still need to define a knowledge but in case we are not able, then it is better to describe it and build our theory according to this description; and that what Connectivism did.

Dr. Guenter and Dr. Ines Bayoudh Saâdi,, thank you. I am also with proposing new theory.  To me, I found Connectivism an extendable theory. What about you?

You might be interested in the following papers:

Great debate, i like it and will try to say that dynamic capability approach tells us that organizations need to generate and modify its resource base. its not end of life as we will move forward new learning theories will came into being having their own cause and pron. learning itself is dynamic capability.

I always support New Learning Theory..Because the time is moving fast And day by day New technologies coming in our lives They  has great impact on the our Lives Socially ,Psychologically and Emotionally .And our learning ,Remembering techniques are also changing and theories based on the research And Our lives Styles changing  so Theories  should be changed.... I don't think Technology damages our memories but Here are some techniques you can improve your memories..Method of Loci,Pegword Method,PQ4R Method and others..

We need always to add to and deepen and broaden our theories of how we learn. No  one theory can serve every aspect of learning.. such as mathematical learning, social skill learning, rote memory learning,   learning how to think analytically,  enhancing our spatial and perceptual learning,   and perhaps even learning to create Gedanken experiments, as  amazing as those of Albert Einstein.  So we need to invite as many new theoretical ideas as possible into our lives in order to understand more cogently the styles and ways in which a particular child or adult is learning , so that we can best encourage and assist and further deepen  that person's learning..

Alaa, I am with you.  I don’t feel that the ease of access to information and the apparent loss of remembering facts are necessarily indicative of a loss of fundamental neural operations and plasticity except in the trivial sense of some reorganization of cognitive strategies.  I have not looked at the research on this issue and would suggest examining such work to see how much learning new research strategies are occurring, one type of plasticity being swapped for another, but neither involving a loss of plasticity or in the subsequent ability to retrieve information.  I am reminded of Mesopotamian governance and how its demands on the memory of couriers led a king to invent pictorial writing which within 200 years segued into cuneiform, and Mesopotamian divination where long lists of divination codes become so large that they were forced to simplifying judgment rules and simplifying recovery of information categorizations.  A critical test would be to see if memory of the type lost were recovered if computers, the web, and Wiki were extirpated for a time, if you could find a few volunteers for such an experiment.

Great debate...

Learning theories are conceptual frameworks.  It describes how information is being absorbed, processed, and retained during learning. Cognitive, emotional, and environmental influences, as well as prior experience, all play a part in how understanding, or a world view  is acquired or changed and knowledge and skills retained.   Since we are in the era where we outsource our memory to Google, GPS, electronic calendar other technology enhanced applications. so, I would welcome a new learning theory too..

I think the issue here is another approach. I remember that I learned logarithms using the table and doing extremely long and tedious accounts ... Should we leave aside calculators for that? Definitely not ... The new axis of the issue starts with understanding that access to information is so fast that what we must teach is not the "substance" but work skills and competencies of the new professionals to adapt to change . A student entering kindergarten today complete its working life in 2080 ... How long will be useful the "knowledge" that we teach today? ... If we do not prepare professionals to continuous change, we are definitely missing the way ...

Prof. Humberto, your ideas are completely congruent with George Siemens' (2006): "The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe (simply because content changes rapidly)" (p. 32). In other words, Connectivism conceives knowledge as "jellied creature, which changes its shape much often" (AlDahdouh, Osório & Caires, 2015, p. 15). 

And that was one of the reasons I found this theory more extendable.

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_15/Oct15.pdf#page=7

See the Journal Human Development, 1995. There is an issue in this 1995 Volume that  deals with what several authors call "the new theories of learning". I suggest that you read the papers published in that Journal. Some of Piaget' and Vygotsky's books can also be of help.   

Thank you for sharing Prof. Oriando. I am familiar with Piaget and Vygotsky works and I think everyone in education field should be.

Their theories of learning have served educators in 20th century and somehow in 21th century. Their proposed models of education "worked well for a long time, but

not anymore, according to connectivism" (AlDahdouh, Osório & Caires, 2015, p. 15).

I prefer to think of the problems of this century.

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_15/Oct15.pdf#page=7

Dear Alaa,

I think that when you try to create an electronic brain that learns, you improve your view of how learning comes about.

In other words, you create a new learning theory.

Have a look at my robotBrain:

www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/robotBrain.htm

I don’t think you need a theory of learning to arrive at your, and my previous conjecture, that there can be evolving a set of memory skills involved in learning and using the information stored and indexed in ‘hypermedia’.  One can further conjecture that this has been going on for millennia, especially since written language took over the spread of information that was once the province of epic story tellers.  See Crossan “The Birth of Christianity” 1989;  Deibert “Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia” 1997; Hiltz & Turoff, “The Network Nation” 1978.  For additional take on the issues of language processing you might want to also check out Baudrillard and Derrida.  And of course, don’t forget Diderot.  fred

I agree with you, though I am not familiar with current educational uses of theory since that of my old friend, Virginia Voeks.  I am indeed especially interested in neurophysiology and network theory.  Just bringing myself up to speed in these areas.  And of course, working my way into Sporns (2011) Networks of the Brain.  I especially agree with you interdisciplinary, and regard no discipline as other than connected to all areas of scientific and other arenas explored by the curious.

Hi everyone,

Just to comment on this, particularly related to Vygotsky work:

Their theories of learning have served educators in 20th century and somehow in 21th century. Their proposed models of education "worked well for a long time, but

not anymore, according to connectivism" (AlDahdouh, Osório & Caires, 2015, p. 15).

I propose hereby that Vygotsky work and of its followers is not incompatible with having technology, or media objects as part of the cultural environment. Of course at Vygotsky time the/they talk of "tools" as semiotic mediation, but in the 21st century could we not to include technologies as tools? 

My point here is that Activity theory says that the development of children is not an individual act; it also results from their gradual involvement in social activities in their cultural environment. Consequently, the relevant unit of analysis is not the individual child but the joint activity that occurs in an interaction: between a child and an adult, between a child and another more experienced child, between a child and his/her communities (de la Ville & Tartas, 2010, p. 32), between a child and media objects (Van den Berg, 2008).

I'm not a "specialist" in Education, more an apprentice and as I said connectivism put emphasis on the role of technology but Vygotsky work is very present.

So I have a question:

What is the main difference between Activity theory and Connectivism?

Thank you

Based on most of the discussions I would like to say that outrightly stating that you want to create a theory may not be your best approach.  If I may, I would present you [well done] research and suggest that your work posits that a theory be presented to support your research.  Many of our peers a suggesting different theories/models which you can use - I believe that the theories and models suggested are fine BUT they need to complement your argument for your proposed theory.  I haven't read all of the posts but I can see Activity Theory  or even distributed learning being in support of tenets.

Thank your both, Ms. Conceição Costa and Ms. Camille Dickson-Deane for your comments.

Ms. Camille Dickson-Deane,, Connectivism is not my proposal or my theory. It was proposed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes but I find it a good point to start thinking of new theory. Why we should think of new theory is a long story. You may find George Siemens' article "Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age" informative.

Ms. Conceição Costa, Connectivism was build on Active Theory in "external level" but it added two more levels to the learning theory (neural and conceptual). Moreover, Connectivism emphasizes the connection over the nodes and hence it does not matter if the student put the material inside or outsize his head as long as he can reach it. Please read our recent paper "Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism". I would like to hear your feedback.

Aldahdouh, A. A., Osório, A. J., & Susana, C. (2015). Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(10), 3–21.

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_15/Oct15.pdf#page=7

Dear Alaa,

Thank you for clarifying the question to Ms. Costa, as it also clarified the definition of connectivism for me as well. Connectivism is what my colleagues and I practice where we teach, since it is impossible to know everything at all times. What is most important is to know how to get the answers. All tests that we give the students are "open book." Even then there are students that fail for they have not yet learned how to find the answers.

In respect to your larger question, researchers and educators should always strive to understand what works best with their students, and if it means devising a new theory, then so be it. For example, I have colleagues that still cling to Bloom's Taxonomy and Gagne's Nine events of instruction. Bloom only intended that the words he used to describe the levels of understanding (e.g., define, explain, solve, analyze, reframe, and design) would only serve as a means for educators to communicate with each other. I do not feel it was intended to be actually used in the classroom, despite what many of my colleagues think. Similarly, Gagne has had at best mixed results.

As we move to educating future generations that have defining characteristics (i.e., millenials, and moving into Generation Z) they will likely require a new approach. New approaches suggest that researchers and educators devise new theories.

I already added an answer to this question. Right now, I would like to say that the question whether we are with or against proposing a new learning theory depends mainly on the new learning theory you intend to propose. As it is, the question is too a vague question. A reasonable answer to this question would require to know of  what type of new learning are you thinking about. When new theories are being proposed I often remember that critic John Horgan (1999, The undiscovered mind, Free Press) recently commented discouragingly about progress in psychology: "Theories of human nature never really die; they just go in and out of fashion (pp. 6-7).

I see that some of my previous answers are not up to speed regarding a possible advance in theory.  The talk of connectivism, with which I was not familiar, does indeed provide a framework for comprehensive modelling by interfacing social, individual, behavioral, and neural factors.  Network theory has simplicity and is communicable for looking at many factors at once.  It combines straight forward statistical and graphic procedures.  There are programs available for its usage.  It can provide meta-analyses, that is it is not restricted to homogeneous nodes (like individuals in a social network) obviously important for this subject.  It is especially great for studying evolving free-scale networks which would likely dominate these investigations and modelling.  So what looked like a simple issue, suddenly, for me becomes a potentially sophisticated modelling approach.

Absolutely, we are most needy for a good theory that we can attack and find later to be quite resolute.

I think one major theory that includes elements or wholesale multiple intelligence and Piaget, Erickson, and others with some scientific backed research.

We need this to move on to other theories beyond behaviorism, beyond cognitivism, and beyond constructivism.

Hi Alaa,

You ask: Are you with or against proposing a new learning theory?

I have already give an answer to your question. But now I want to offer what I judge to me a more complete answer to your question.

Let me start with the following: Critic John Horgan (1999) recently commented discouragingly about progress in psychology [and education]: “Theories of human nature never really die; they just go in and out of fashion” (pp. 6-7).

I understand that science whatever progresses through new hypotheses, theories, models, paradigms, and the like. In “hard” sciences in general, and social sciences in particular we should be aware if the new theory we propose is really new or if it stands on the shoulders of those who have already gone.

I think, for example, that Vygotsky, Bruner and Piaget left us interesting and noteworthy theories of teaching/learning (i.e., education) and development. This being so, a new theory of learning should take into account, among other things, the views of these three developmentalists, and theorists of learning. Needless to say, a theory of learning is, to a great extent, a theory of development and the other way around. Suffice it to say that both development and learning are transformative. As they learn and develop, individuals acquire new knowledge, be it quantitative or qualitative. I also want to express that any (new) theory of learning (and development) has to deal with what I call the four “Hs” or learning (and development): The “what” of learning or what is learned when one learns (facts, concepts, rules, principles, values, and the like; rote learning/memorizing and/or a true understanding of what is learnt); the “why” of learning (and development), that is, what are the factors, antecedents, or conditions that bring about one’s learning (e.g., teachers, peers, families, one’s activities, and so forth); the “how” of learning  (and development), that is, the psychological and neural processes that, for instance, are at issue when one learns and develops. For example, the internalization process in Vygotsky’s theory and the assimilation/accommodation processes in Piaget’s account are just three examples on the “how” of learning (and development). The “when” of learning (and development), that is, at what age a certain learning and development is more likely to occur. For example, it would be a waste of time to try to teach the density concept to a 4-year-old child.

As you could see in what follows, the rest of my answer to your question heavily relies on Piaget’s theory of education (and development) [see, for this respect, Piaget, J. (1970). Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child.  London: Kegan Paul Trench Trubner; Piaget, J. (1973), To Understand Is to Invent: The Future of Education (1973). New York: Grossman Publishers.  In my answer, I am going to use the following language and style: Those who propose a new learning theory must be aware of this, that, and so forth.

(1) Such proponents must be aware that they should show unambiguously to what extent the new theory they propose is really new and to what extent the theory relies on previous theories. If this were not the case, they risk presenting a new theory of leaning that is not new at all. I am convinced that nothing, even new theories, begins suddenly or ex-abrupto. Constructivist theories of learning, such as Piaget’s account of learning (i.e., the individual is highly responsible for his/her learning and development) would never come to light if they were not preceded by older theories (e.g., empiricist theories of learning, that is, teachers only teach and pupils/students only learn in a passive way).  (See more below)  

(2) Such proponents must be aware that learning/teaching, and hence education, is costly, but it is far less costly than its alternative, ignorance. Therefore, such proponents should be aware that to propose a new theory generally involves many human and technological resources. These resources would be jeopardized if the new presented theory were not a new theory

(3) Such proponents must be aware that only education is capable of saving societies from possible collapse, whether violent or gradual. This means that those proponents should propose a new learning theory that aims, among other things, at creating and fostering harmony and cooperation among all people, countries and nations.  If this were not the case, the proposed new leaning theory would have more detrimental than beneficial outcomes to people, schools, countries and nations, and hence, we could dispense with it.  

(4)  Such proponents must be aware that a new theory of learning should take into account that teaching/learning and education is a scientifically oriented process in a double sense. That is, the theory has to acknowledge that teachers/professors should know quite well (a) their subject of specialization and expertise; and (b) be knowledgeable of the leaner’s level, phase or stage of psychological development. If the former is not the case, the teacher is no teacher at all. To think of an ignorant teacher is like to argue for an oxymoron or a blatant contradiction. How can one teach that which one does not know well? If the latter is not the case, the teacher risks teaching to his/her pupils material that is much above or below their cognitive capability, and hence material that is ill-tuned to their cognitive ability to understand. Consider the following example:  A teacher intends to teach, say, to a concrete operational pupil, a 7-year-old child, for example, the density concept, which requires formal operational competencies. As these competencies are not at the reach of a 7-year-old child, the obvious risk is that the pupil, at his/her best, will memorize rather than understand the material that, supposedly, was being “taught” and “learnt”.  In short, there is neither significant teaching nor significant learning because no assimilation/accommodation/internalization is possible or takes place. The same happens when a teacher intends, for instance, to teach, say, to a formal operational student, a normal 16-year-old boy/girl, for example, the idea of weight conservation, which requires only concrete operational competencies. Given that such idea is much below the cognitive capacities of the pupil at hand, the pupil is not interested in what is supposed to be taught because s/he knows the point in advance. As such and again, no significant teaching/learning occurs.

(4) Proponents of a new theory of leaning must be aware that education should aim at generating individuals who are creative, inventive, and discoverers, not individuals who limit themselves to simply repeating what previous generations have done. In other words, such proponents must be aware that education should aim at forming autonomous and critical individuals, not individuals who are oriented to an uncritical acceptance of dogmas, established truths, or truths simply  imposed from outside. This objective stands in sharp contrast with the conservative goal of, for example, empiricist theories of learning and education, whose main goal is to inculcate or transmit to students the existing knowledge and values from one generation to another.

(5) Such proponents should be aware that education should be a process oriented to the individual’s intellectual, moral, and aesthetic autonomy. The goal of intellectual education should be to develop intelligence rather than to promote rote learning and to give rise to inventors rather than to conformist people ; the goal of moral education  should be to develop an autonomous morality, a morality oriented to equality, cooperation, and mutual respect, not a heteronomous morality, a morality based on obedience, coercion, and unilateral respect;  and the goal of aesthetical education should be to give rise to people who come to be sensitive to the several and different manifestations of the beautiful. This means that such proponents should propose a learning theory in which teachers/professor have to be committed to helping their pupils to find out what is cognitively true, morally good, and aesthetically beautiful. Needless to say, a world deprived of the true would be an incoherent, illogical, and even absurd world; deprived of the good, would be an unjust and immoral world; and deprived of the beautiful would be a horrible and even nonsensical world. Note that the categories of truth, morality and beauty exist everywhere, regardless of how different they are in terms of place and time. This means that such proponents should be sensitive to the true, the good and the beautiful. If this is not the case, how could they come up with new learning theories in which the true, the good, and the beautiful are central concept and concerns?  Note that Nietzsche once said that a world without music would make no sense at all, and that Piaget once remarked that logic is the morality of though, such as morality is the logic of action. Note, however, that the individual’s intellectual, moral, and aesthetic autonomy is not tantamount to individualism and total freedom. Instead of individualism, autonomy, be it moral, intellectual or aesthetical, involves, for example, to exchange points of view and coordinating different perspectives. Instead of total freedom, such autonomy, implies, for instance, to be subject  to prescriptive and reversible moral principles, such as the golden rule in the moral domain (do not do unto others what you would not like others to do unto you), or subject to reason more than to perception while solving cognitive tasks.

(6) Such proponents must be aware that, in their learning theories, teachers should conceive of a teacher more as a mentor and organizer of learning situations, someone who helps students to actively rediscover or reconstruct every truth, morality, or beauty to be learned than a simple transmitter of knowledge.  In this vein such, when teaching, such teachers must appeal to the active methods, or methods alternating between individual work and work in groups. In other words, the active methods for which I argue are neither entirely teacher-centered nor entirely child-centered, but they rather appeal to an interaction between a teacher organizing classroom situations and involving students in experimentation and a pupil reconstructing or reinventing any teaching/learning experience or situation. Actually, individuals can achieve their inventions and intellectual constructions only to the extent that they are involved in collective interactions. This being so, such teachers should look at education as an interactionist process or a process that involves a continuous interaction between the individual and his/her physical and social environment.

(7) Proponents of new learning theories must look at education as a constructivist process. Among other things, to espouse a constructivist account of teaching/learning and education amounts to adopting that: (a) the learner’s actions upon objects and his/her coordination of those actions play an important role in the process of his/her education and development; (b) a truth learned is only a half-truth because to understand is to discover, or reconstruct by rediscovery; (c) the most appropriate methods to use in schools are the active methods, for they give broad scope to spontaneous research on the part of the individual and require that every new truth to be learned is rediscovered or at least reconstructed by the students, not simply imparted to them; and (d) the main goal of education is to give rise to inventors and creators, not to conformist individuals.

There are people who think that to see education as a constructivist process means that the teacher has no role in students’ education and their success depends on leaving them entirely free to work or play as they will. However, such a conclusion does not follows. Suffice it to say that in such a conception of education what is desirable is that the teacher ceases to be a lecturer and is instead a mentor stimulating the students’ initiative and research. 

All that said, to propose a new theory of learning is a major achievement. Theories of learning are, by implication, theories of education. As education is costly and has a crucial role in the individual and collective development, only worthwhile and noteworthy learning theories are welcome and appreciated.  

I would be more than happy to know that my previous points show, to an extent, what features a new learning theory should take into account. As to propose a new learning theory is a major achievement and breakthrough, those who propose them cannot follow a shortcut, but rather a demanding track and process. In this vein it is worth mentioning that it is said that Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), king of Macedonia, once asked his tutor, the Greek geometer Menaechmos (380-320 BC), to teach him a shortcut to mastery of geometry. Menaechmos is alleged to have replied that for traveling through Alexander's country there were royal roads and roads for common citizens, but in geometry there is only one road, and this (difficult) road is the same for all people (see, for instance, Heath, 1921). Theorists of leaning often appeal to shortcuts in their otherwise ingenious endeavors to conduct research, advance new theories, make critical reviews, and so forth. However, the more often they choose a shortcut, not a rigorous track, the more they are likely to be lost in the interim.

I hope that I has got your question and has given you some hints on in

Thank you Mr. Orlando for re-visiting this question again.

I am glad to read your valuable comment. Your four "Hs" of "What", "How", "Why" and "When"  are quite recognizable. In addition to your points, I would like to add that a new or proposed learning theory should pass through at least two stages: development and maturation. In this context, I would like to say that I am a proponent of Connectivism theory which is in the development stage. 

I already wrote a paper (Understanding Knowledge Network, Learning and Connectivism) explaining what connectivism meant to me, and it seems that it is congruent with the main theorists view. As Stephen Downes has commented on the paper and asserted on its relevance (see his comment: http://www.downes.ca/post/64726 ).

The next step for me is to extend the theory and cover your "How" dimension. In other words, how the learning occur. In these days, I am getting insights from artificial neural networks and neurosciences. So far, I can see many supporting evidences as well as some ambiguous areas. I hope our interpretations will serve educators to share our vision. 

Connectivism has many things in common with constructivism but it also has  something different. One of the points that connectivism does not share with constructivism is the point number (4) (by the way, you have two 4s in your comment, I refer to the first one). The relation between teacher and students is completely melted in connectivism. Both teacher and student are learners. They are both learn together and there is no ignorant or knowledgeable one in this relation.

Thank you again for revisiting the question.

Article Understanding knowledge network, learning and Connectivism

(Note: This posting replaces one accidentally deleted during an edit-attempt.) "Constructive heuristics" is a term I coined for a proto-learning-theory tested so far at the graduate level in online dialog among students guided by a mentor-teacher, and which carries substantial similarities to Lourenco's description of a "constructivist process" as I understand the latter.   In the manner described in my May 2012 announcement of the theory to the United States Distance Learning Association, it appears to fit Lourenco's criteria.  From experience I appreciate his comment "to propose a new learning theory is a major achievement and breakthrough".  I look forward to the outcome of AlDahdough's extension to cover the "how" dimension of his own theory, and invite testing of constructive heuristics in new environments, such as on-campus live settings and undergraduate settings.

Thank you very much Mr. Albert for re-posting your comment.

Learning theory is an abundant area or research and it is even very hard to hold all learning theories in one mind. For example, take a look on the following link:

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/social-development.html

It contains about 50 link to 50 different learning theory. Each with brief overview, examples, principles, and extra references along with the main theorist in the field.

That is why I thought of this question in the first place. It is really meant to be like a voting. I would like to hear a voice of educators from all over the world. What those the most important papers in learning theory in your perspective and why?

I would like to thanks all who participated in this session and invite them to share this question with their colleagues. It is voting!

Your beginning question about new theories of learning hits on what I am proposing in my forthcoming book, Riding the Unicorn, Incursions into Visual Intelligence. The book proposes a theory of learning based on visual thinking (Arnheim, 1969), ecological perception (J.J. Gibson (1989) and synesthetic learning (Cytowic & Eagleton, 2012). The main reason, after teaching visual learning in a doctoral program for 25 years, that I am providing an evidence-based theory is because visual thinking and visual intelligence has been discounted and neglected by the proliferation and dominance of cognicentric approaches and theories. Robert Ornstein (Evolution of Consciousness, 1991) called the cognicentric dominance of our various systems as "The Great Deception." It is my self-imposed obligation as an educator to make visual intelligence a conscious part of any learning theory beyond just system 2 rational thinking.  .

Elliot Eisner (2002) also wrote clearly about some of this in The Arts and the Creation of Mind - a very accessible book for K-12 practitioners.

I can see a lot of bright ideas mentioned above. I think there are innumerable diverse learning situations. We can be fascinated by a generic approach or generalization but at the end of the day we have to look for 'fit for purpose' approach. For example, connection making of course is quite appealing but there are so many other appealing approaches as well. To solve this problem we in our Centre follow a combination of many approaches (benchmarking approach). For instance, learning occurs intricately, we have to bring in sum of many approaches such as memory, conditioning, cognition, translation, rote learning, constructivism, social constructivism, suggestopedia, real-life task based and finally benchmarking approach. You may like to see my postings on Benchmarking in TESOL. I hope it helps!

Elliot Eisner is a leader in the field of art education of course. And it is so that as diversity becomes a hallmark of new learners educators have to be open to a variety of learning/teaching approaches. One question that I ask students in my classes is about whether they are aware of which model of the brain they are using in their theories. I then provide them with six models of the brain. It makes a difference for the concepts of memory, cognition, etc. they use as tools. I make the point in my book that the model of the brain at the heart of a theory makes a significant difference, for example, in what is meant by art education and the definition of visual intelligence. My final objective is to inculcate the ability to see the potential in the least of things and in that way to enter a state of awareness that principle of inclusivity is the basis for learning and knowing.

Arif Jawaid, has your Centre benchmarked the "quite appealing" Connectivism (as described in AlDahdouh's paper) and, if not, what variable normalizations can you foresee that it might take to do it -- so that it could be meaningfully compared with the others you listed as already benchmarked?

Dear Alaa

Don’t forget the relation between “memory” and “attention” as Fougnie describe in 2008 (http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/students/fougnidl/Fougnie-chap1.pdf), in this sense the mobile devices cause frequent distractions and that should be a variable to consider. I am really interested if you obtain more evidence releated that new learning theory.

Greetings.

I presented a paper a few years back at the Annual Mtg of the American Educational Research Association that challenged the various 'Constructivist,' 'Social Constructivist' and Pragmatic learning theorists that their approaches were philosophical in nature and had little compatibility with recent as well as long time findings about memory, etc. from cognitive science. I also pointed out that cognitive science had major flaws in their use of their concepts--such as the term 'memory' is used to label at least 11 different phenomenon or theoretic constructs--that reading a article and comparing the descriptors or findings are difficulty. I proposed a new four stage model of initial learning that requires that invented constructs are stored in the cognitive-neural network for at least 23 hours before we can claim with some degree of certainty that those constructs were 'learned.' I also provided an update on my construct-processing model of thinking and cognition that replaces our notion and experimental paradigm of 'short term memory' as a special case of 'momentary memory' whereby the individual must 'shut down a large part of the cognitive processing system' in order to divert attention to storing newly created in-tact constructs (traditionally and wrongfully labeled information or 'knowledge') for up to about 30 seconds. The critic lambasted me that my approach had abandoned 'Constructivism' as it wanted to tie long held constructivist believes with the brain and neuroscience and that should never happen. Another respondent said that it was time that learning theorists and constructivists finally separate philosophies of learning and thinking from the science and biology of learning and thinking and that the approach I offered was the first bold step in that direction. Unfortunately efforts to get my models published failed because the philosophical constructivists on the review panels said the my approach was not a constructivist one as it was not tied purely to philosophical constructivism and the cognitive scientists rejected my approach and models as abandoning traditional models and calling for new concepts. I have given an occasional guest lecture on my approach and models, but the responses of educators, journal editors, and book editors were identical to my earlier attempts to get published. So to answer your question, yes one is needed by it needs to avoid all philosophical concepts, needs to include clear definitions as to the concepts it includes, and needs to be consistent with what we have to date verified with what we call human thinking and learning.--both of which need new definitions. We need to abandon the concept of 'knowlege,' as that is a philosophical term and accept that we are constantly inventing 'constructs' that are invented, considered, processed, dropped, stored, etc. in the neural netwooks. We encounter information via the sensory receptors which immediately registers the information as sensory constructs. We do not process information, we invent and process the constructs we invent. Whether we call these invented constructs or information in the external world 'knowledge' is for the philosophers to consider, not cognitive scientists. I could go on. By the way, in reading what I stated here, don't make the mistake of thinking you have learned anything--we can't come close to determining that until at least 23-24 hours after your reading of this is complete. Bob at rjstahl at asu dot edu.

Thank you for sharing your experience and opinion. Learning is too complex and no single theory can interpret it fully. I agree with you that constructivism and social-constructivism can't alone interpret learning but also cogntivism alone can't.

I am aware that there are hundred, or may be more, of studies that examining the long and short memory of humans. These studies are nice and good to read but I still don't see the real value of keeping thinks inside my head in this age. As I said before in this session, in this age, the 'information' is right away on our hands. One click to three click away may not take more than 4 seconds. That is to say, in the first place, should we proceed in a direction of studying human memory? Why?

Learning in this age should consider the advancements in technology and the massive technology usage. It is not a right to close our eyes and pretend as if our students are learning in the same way as we did ten or more years ago.

I found connectivism a very good step in the right way. It is not complete and still need more modification. However, the development process is running. I hope my next publication participates in this development.

Remembered information seems pretty helpful in creative problem-solving. Even if I can only remember a piece of some concept/fact/idea/research and have to look up the details I at least know it exists because I remember it. Perhaps it's the minuscule details to which you refer Alaa?

All thinking and functioning requires learning, not just in the long-term sense, but in the minute to minute and second to second sense.  You must learn where you put your glasses five seconds ago and where you are in your house or room.  Every aspect of your existence is part of learning and when you cannot learn you are reduced to a physiological stimulus response machine (note that I did not say animal).  So electronic information retrieval only extends resources, we still process only as much information as we are capable of anyway.

Hi Alaa,

A lot has been discussed here but my comment goes to this particular statement in your last post:

"Learning in this age should consider the advancements in technology and the massive technology usage. It is not a right to close our eyes and pretend as if our students are learning in the same way as we did ten or more years ago."

Technology has always been present in our lives, so what is technology and how it evolves should also be formulated. I presume you are talking of ICT, and there are a lot of studies about its role on students learning . In can find theories and practices about how knowledge is created, and of course our students are not learning only by content by also by doing. I recommend you Qvortrup, if you are not familiar with his texts.

Lars Qvortrup (2006). Knowledge Education and Learning – e-Learning in the Knowledge Society. Frederiksberg Denmark: Forlaget Samfundsliteratur Roskilde Universitets Forlag (www.forlagetsl.dk). Price: 158.00 Dk. Kroners. ISBN 87-593-1248-1. Paperback, 139 pages.

Dear All.

In my candid observations, I have found that academics are too much wrapped up in theories, thesis and the likes instead of really paying close observation that thing called MAN. In this direction, the academics go ahead to propound a law and expect it to fit all. That is the SETBACK for academics.

I MAKE BOLD TO SAY THAT, EVENTHOUGH, IF THE WORLD IS POPULATED WITH UP TO TEN BILLION PEOPLE, NO TWO PERSONS ARE THE SAME. Man is EVER changing and CHANGE, they say, IS THE ONLY CONSTANT THING IN LIFE.

I have once said, on another RG Q&A thread, that most of the laws man is using today are becoming less effective. There are now systems that function well above 100% efficiency. Man can now go well faster than the speed of sound. May be, by the time man becomes bold enough to step out of his self-confined box, he might come to discover the intelligence that will take him faster than the speed of light. Remember, there are the UFOs. They travel well faster than the speed of light. Have any doubt, then dig into NASA's records?

It is true that technology has its downsides, but as researchers, what we do is compare the advantages with the disadvantages and if the advantages out weigh the disadvantages, then it is ok. The disadvantages will be improved with time. Nobody, definitely, wants to return to that day in Rome when a messenger had to run for miles, WITHOUT stopping, in order to deliver a message, but ended loosing his life. SO, WHY LOOSE A LIFE WHEN A MOBILE CAN DO IT. Why would I choose to travel from Nigeria to America in the likes of Christopher Columbus shiip when I have modern options among which are the improved versions from the works of the Wright Brothers.

Obviously, we need new learning methods. Time has changed and what is important is this moment we stand. We MUST survive the challenges of this moment or we will end up on the pages of the history books of the next moment.

Thanks All.

If teaching and learning has been going on since mammals began nurturing and training their offspring then teaching techniques should have evolved along with our need to learn how to survive in our environment and negotiate technology.  By this reasoning teaching and learning should be highly evolved and innate.  Any new teaching theories should take in to consideration our natural ability and need to learn, even if they apply novel new directions and focus.

Young people today are processing technologies that did not exist in my youth, so I expect that their needs and interests in learning should change, but the innate abilities and needs of organisms to learn don't change and our youth is learning to navigate through a very complex world that their professors don't necessarily understand or appreciate.

We can only give them what little we know, offer suggestions and stand back and hope that we have benefited them.  In some cases we haven't.

I am sorry for late response. I really would like to thank you all for comments in this thread and I will reply in order.

Ms. Linda Fuller, I am not saying that one should empty his or her memory and depend merely on technology. You are right when you noticed that one still need to remember something about the information in order to be able to return to it. This is actually what other connectivists is trying to emphasize. As George Siemens has once said, "'Know where' and 'know who' are more important today that knowing what and how". The main assumption of connectivism is that the knowledge is growing rapidly and it is impossible nowadays for one head to handle the growth of knowledge even in tiny subject. What should one do in this situation? Connectivism suggests to keep  information outside but to keep the pointer for this information inside. Actually, this idea is not new but it really worth considering. I always resemble this idea as "Copy by Value VS Copy by Reference" technique which has been used in programming languages for decades (see the first link for more details). Even though, I can argue that sometimes you don't even need to store the reference in your memory. Suppose you face a problem which requires you to use something you don't know. In the previous theories, you are not know something then you can't do it. You should understand it first and then do. However, I argue, in some cases I don't need to understand something to do it. I worked as programmer for more than 10 years and I can tell hundreds of examples in which I faced problems that I don't know how to solve. Yet, I managed to solve them, not by understanding the solution but copy-and-paste the solutions that already existed in the internet. I won't go in more details but I think the idea is clear so far.

https://www.codingunit.com/c-tutorial-call-by-value-or-call-by-reference

Mr. Blaine Hebert, you use "learning" in your comment many times but I guess you mean "remembering" not "learning". Yes, I need to 'remember' where I put my "glasses five seconds ago". The short-term memory is still needed nowadays but this, I argue, will not last for the next generations. Let me change the example you provide so it would clarify what I am trying to say. Suppose I should remember where I put my "mobile" not "glasses". What do I usually do when I forget where I put my mobile? simply I call it. Most of the stuff around us nowadays will soon be integrated in Internet of Things (IoT). The change is coming and educators should prepare for this change.

Ms. Conceição Costa, by technology I means the recent advancements in computer sciences that will certainly affect how human learn and think. IoT is one of them but still there are other technologies which, I think, more effective. That is Artificial Intelligence (AI). There are some educators who are convinced that technology can't think; they argue that recent technologies are just an extension of resources; like AI tools like book. For this end, I devoted a separated paper (I am still try to publish in the next days) to go step by step in explaining who recent technologies are able to think. AI will soon start to eat hundred of jobs which traditionally thought to be "cognitive" demanding jobs!

Anyway, thank you for sharing the work of Lars Qvortrup. I will try to get it as soon as possible.

Mr. Gbenga Odukale, Yes, I agree. Change is the only constant thing of human. We need to change before we are changed.

Brilliant ideas up there. I think presently, we need to benchmark good/best practices which suit our learning situation. I name it 'Benchmarking in TESOL but it could be also 'Benchmarking in learning'. This process helps us to get 'fit for purpose' practices that can be adapted or adopted as our situation dictates. You may like to see my postings. ICTs are help to enhance learning but not everything. I hope it helps!

There has been interesting work in mathematics learning about ways of inter-connecting theories; see:

Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. & Prediger, S. (Eds.) (2014). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education. New York: Springer

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-05389-9

It is time to take a paradigm shift to cognitive education. In fact a scientific and purposeful approach to human development  is yet begin. Please referhttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/resurgence-global-society-series28-empowering-india-worlds-nair

The first think this conversation needs to continue (actually to begin) is to define the problem or outline a goal.  Is education broken?  What is the problem that you are trying to address?  Where is your evidence that making dramatic changes to a somewhat functioning system will actually improve it.

I experienced a dramatic change with an experimental mathematics teaching system in the 8th grade using a comic book approach.  It set me back a critical year in algebra; a waste of time that may have cost me dearly.

Don't  fix a system that isn't broken.  And if it is broken then clearly state the problem and address the problem directly and with an approach that is appropriate and effective, not one that generates attention to the author of a novel waste of time.

I am sorry if the question or my comments have not been clearly stated. Anyway, I am not a native speaker :)

The education system is not broken but it certainly needs update. To me, the system should not be broken to start thinking how to fix it. If something is good, why not thinking to make it better? However, there are some signs that the education system in my country does not encourage student's self-development. It fights the student's behavior instead of making use of it. A lot of students, at least in my university, indicated that they are not satisfied with the university's regulations and they thought that most of the things discussed at the university have nothing to do with their future jobs. The ultimate beneficiaries from our education system (the employers) indicated that the output of the education system is not as it should be. The graduates do not reach a satisfactory level to start working independently.

The aim of this session is to see if a connectivism theory, according to educators' perspectives, can participate in enhancing the education system.

Dear All.

I sincerely thank Alaa Aldahdouh for his last contribution.

The scenario he explained has been going on, globally, for some years now. But, the reason why it has not become very evident among us is that, in some countries, culture and tradition are trying hard to subdue it. But, just as he said, it is the employers that bear the mess. And since business it is about investment and profit, the emplorers will filter candidates for employment who are unresourceful from coming into their companies. This is very evident in developed countries.

Take for example in my country, Nigera; the educational system is NOW ABSOLUTELY in ERROR. Frankly, you can only work at 35% effieciency with what comes out of our educational system. The 6,3,3,4 educational system introduced some years ago crashed into our Lagoon.

How? Because every parent wants their child to become a graduate, even when such child CANNOT make it into Senior Secondary School 1 (SS1).

Why? Because, by tradition, no parent wants his/her child to become a shoe-cleaner to another child. BUT SOMEONE MUST BE THE SHOE CLEANER. Everybody CANNOT be excesively rich. BUT, EVERYBODY MUST BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE BASIC NEEDS OF LIFE. And this seems to be what they have NOT LEARNT.

A country where, nearly, everybody dreams to have a car. A car is a thing of personality. They CONSCIOUSLY throw into the dustin effects from the challenges of POLLUTION; Air, Water and Land, just to satisfy STATUS-QUO. To me, it is OK. The rule say, "You cannot eat your cake and still have it." It is about CHOICES.

Sincerely, these issues run DEEPER than they are seen on the surface. Nigeria has just started witnessing REAL economic challenges and the sad story is that majority feels there is a MAGICAL Way out. What they forgot is the Biblical injuction: "From the toils of your hands and the sweats of your labour, thou shall eat."

So, how people learn and what they learn are one thing. HOW THEY ENACT WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNT AND IN WHAT RESPECT WERE THOSE LESSONS ENACTED are of primary importance.

Thanks All.

Recall the earlier learnt content to before venturing further learning

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Rosenshine.pdf

Krishnan's paper on the Rosenshine principals of instruction are suitably recalled.These could be the fondamental basis to observe. 

I am in favor of new learning theories, however, it depends on which model of the brain is used. Some models generate different types of learning and memory processes which may be global or episodic systems. I have attached a list of six models of the brain that I give to students in my classes as an awareness exercise in Humanistic Gerontology.  

A young lad recently sued schools in USA for forcing individuals to study in the same way.So a new learning theory  should be the one  that will not teach a fish to climb a tree, but that all individuals should be taught according to their potential ability and should be understudied before classifying all individuals into one classroom or class. School has really failed in this and that's why we are all running the same rat race..policy this policy that. Let a new theory  state and interpret how every unique and peculiar individual should be taught. by first finding out what and how they should be taught.

Dear Krishnan Umachandran,,

Yes of course, a one should take a look to what has been said before trying to propose new theory. The work of Barak Rosenshine is worth considering. Thank you for sharing it. However, that does not answer my question. Let me quote part of his words here:

"Daily practice of vocabulary can lead to seeing each practiced  word as a unit (i.e., seeing the whole word automatically rather  than as individual letters that have to be sounded out and blended). When students see words as units, they have more

space available in their working memory, and this space can now be used for comprehension. Mathematical problem solving is also improved when the basic skills (addition, multiplication, etc.) are overlearned and become automatic, thus freeing working-memory capacity."

Again, cognitivism sees learning as if it is equals to remembering. To me, learning is not equivalent to remembering. Also, the aim of "overlearning" is not applicable or achievable for many study areas, especially for those areas in which the knowledge is moving very fast. I will not go in details and question the validity of that "overlearning" and automation will result in freeing working-memory capacity. Anyway, I may ask that why should we put all things in our minds if we can put it outside and access them on demand?

I think it is not a question of being in favour or against a new theory. Everything is changing.The new is  imposing itself. New research findings may confirm or reject  what is considered to be true, a fact nowadays. My comment remains an opinion!

Learning is a self empowerment process yet to be introduced in the society. Presently what is going on in patterning making robots, which is very undemocratic. Cognitive education is the natural process of human development and we are the research organization bringing out Science and Art of human development establishing International Academy for social Excellence. You are welcome www.iasehrd.orghttp://store.self-publish.in/products/karma-chakra-cognitive-work-culture

Discrimination learning applies to context as well as content, thus if you read the context as one that allows easy re-access to the content, you can relax your memory skill, but if you read the context or route to access for that content, you are more likely to use cognitive stratagies that assist its recall.

yes, its a good idea to start with an existing theory and build on it, you will automatically end up somewhere 

Appreciate all the above ideas up there. I think we need to draw fit for purpose learning framework from the best ones which can meet the requirements of our learning and learners. I hope it helps!