Hi! 

Good question! I interpret it as searching for a paper written after the year 2000? ("21st century"?) Many papers mentioned here in the discussion are surely important for us today, but written in the 20th century.

With this limitation, I would like to suggest George Siemens "Connectivism and connective knowledge"  http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm , not because it it yet so influential, or "right" or fully developed (it isn't) but because it takes very seriously the task of thinking of reconsidering what learning is or should be in an age of information flow and rapid development of knowledge, without falling in a trap of digitalisation of learning content, "e-learning" as something completely revolutionary per se. 

Without being related, the information philosopher Luciano Floridi has similar freshness and approach in taking ICTs seriously, but is very much more radical, he aims at reconstructing philosophy "of our age, gor our age". Learning is important, but used as an area of examples so far. But you can read his "E-ducation and the languages of information" to get an idea of his approach. In learning theory he is a kind of constructionist, like Seymour Papert.

I hope these papers provokes you!

Article E-ducation and the Languages of Information

I have made an extensive literature according to my papers. Please take some time to look them if you want.

Kind regards

NP

Thank you Nikolaos Pellas !

Since you made extensive literature, then which papers are the most influential and why you think them like that?

Although there is a current transition into more contemporary theories, I think that Vygotsky's work with its many interpretations and evolution into other theories and theoretical frameworks is the most influential to date.

In addition to Vygotsk's work, Jerome Bruner published influential works, including

The Process of Education

Toward a Theory of Instruction

The Culture of Education

Thank you!

Mr.Mr.Nigel Calder, I can say that you selected Vygotsk's works because they are among the most spreading works in education field, But I am still wondering what are those Vygotsk's works you consider the most important?

Mr.Mohammed A. Al-Nofli ,  why you consider those papers the most important works?

Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner are all important (and Michael Shayer has written some interesting articles comparing these theorists) but for 21st century I find Manfred Spitzer interesting (he looks at neuroscience, technology and education)...John Dewey too...

Shayer, M. 2003, "Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget", Learning and Instruction, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 465-485. Link

Spitzer, M. 2014, "Information technology in education: Risks and side effects", Trends in Neuroscience and Education, vol. 3, no. 3-4, pp. 81-85. Link

Spitzer, M. 2012, "Education and neuroscience", Trends in Neuroscience and Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-2. Link

Olson, D.R. 2012, "Reprising John Dewey: A Review of Andreas Demetriou, George Spanoudis & Antigoni Mouyi's "Educating the Developing Mind: Towards an Overarching Paradigm"", Educational Psychology Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 9-11. Link

Po

In my research experiencience about ICT4E, One of the outstanding works is Sir Ken Robinson's. I also recomend you the work of Kozma, R. B., & Wagner, D. A.

Thank you Victor Eduardo Melgarejo

Can you please mention just few of his articles that you think they are milestone in the learning theory?

Many thanks Emma L. Clayes!

I have a question if you don't mind, do you think that the works of Manfred Spitzer are very important because he looked the relationship between education and neuroscience or there are some other reasons? 

One of the most important is Jim Garrison's _Dewey and Eros: Wisdom and Desire in the Art of Teaching_, 2010. Especially chapters: * The Aesthetic Context of Inquiry and the Teachable Moment * The Education of Eros: Critical and Creative Value Appraisal * Teaching and the Logic of Moral Perception 

Thank you Ms. Jayne Tristan,,

It is nice that you selected Garrison's work, but can you please tell me why you consider his work as one of most important works in learning theory?

I suggest the Multiliteracies theory as it addresses the various social media as supplementary tools and on the same note, students' diversity is taken into consideration.

Article Multiliteracies Theory and Gifted Education Creating “Smart ...

Article Museum-based Multiliteracies and Learning for 21st Century S...

Article Innovative Methodologies for 21 st Century Learning, Teachin...

Hi! 

Good question! I interpret it as searching for a paper written after the year 2000? ("21st century"?) Many papers mentioned here in the discussion are surely important for us today, but written in the 20th century.

With this limitation, I would like to suggest George Siemens "Connectivism and connective knowledge"  http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm , not because it it yet so influential, or "right" or fully developed (it isn't) but because it takes very seriously the task of thinking of reconsidering what learning is or should be in an age of information flow and rapid development of knowledge, without falling in a trap of digitalisation of learning content, "e-learning" as something completely revolutionary per se. 

Without being related, the information philosopher Luciano Floridi has similar freshness and approach in taking ICTs seriously, but is very much more radical, he aims at reconstructing philosophy "of our age, gor our age". Learning is important, but used as an area of examples so far. But you can read his "E-ducation and the languages of information" to get an idea of his approach. In learning theory he is a kind of constructionist, like Seymour Papert.

I hope these papers provokes you!

Article E-ducation and the Languages of Information

Many thanks Mr. Anders Norberg

Yes, I am searching for those papers written after 2000. But I don't mind if researchers have mentioned papers from 20 century.

I am familiar with George Siemens works and I already wrote in connectivism theory. It is certainly add to our understanding of learning in this age. Your comment is clear and appreciated. 

You can refer to this big project costerei by the European Union

http://hotel-project.eu/sites/default/files/content-files/documentation/D.2.2.2%20Mapping%20theories%2C%20technology%20and%20learning%20practices%20final.pdf

Thank you Mr. Angelo Chiarle

Can you please specify why you consider this work as one of the most important works in learning theory? Is it because it is supported by EU?

Hello Alaa. A prior question please. You limit your query to 'scientific' learning theory. Do I presume this means your interest (and belief?) is that (only) scientific (neuroscientific) laboratory based theory is to be listed? Do you include 'technology', 'artificial intelligence' research? Do you exclude medical case study observation, school based qualitative studies? i.e. My emerging understanding is that learning theory over the past 100 years has variously been contributed to by philosophy first, then physiology/biology now neuroscience, psychology, sociology/anthropology/ethnology, pedagogy; now perhaps technology. Which of these epistemic fields are you interested in please?

Hello Mr. Neil Tucker,,

No, I don't put that neuroscientific limit. My limits are your limits, whatever your limits are. I just would like to see if educators from all over the world agree on some set of thoughts or ideas of what constitute a learning theory. 

If you believe that a learning theory has passed decades of developments from philosophy to technology, I would like to know what you consider the key papers of each stage of development.

Feel free to include whatever you think the key thoughts of learning theory (on the past or in the present), be it neuroscience, psychology, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, pedagogy or technology.

Dear Alaa,

the question of learning theories is very stratified, and there are personal views of prominent scholars. THe HOTEL project is above the parties, it is only an effort of synthesis preparatory to other reflections (ICT at school). I have this question for you: are you interested in someone showing you a shortcut "which  is the best product to buy"? Are you a teacher or an academic researcher? The answer really is simple: when it comes to learning theories there is not a best buy.

https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=53ad2847cf57d75c068b45c5&assetKey=AS%3A273549456019456%401442230680395

Dear Angelo Chiarle,

I am an academic researcher and I don't want a shortcut for the best learning theory. I just would like to see if educators from all over the world agree on some set of thoughts or ideas of what constitute a learning theory. 

It is really worth knowing what those papers that can be considered as milestones in the development of learning theory. It is also very important to me to know why those papers are selected. In other words, what is a remarkable shift of our understanding of a learning that each paper has added?

As I said in the question notes, this question is designed as a poll or an open-ended questionnaire.

Actually, my perspective is that of a reflective practitioner, a teacher who every day goes down in the trenches.

I can offer you scripts and presentations of a couple of lessons from the video-lecture Key Competences and 21st Century Skill Development in Education that I'm recording for IGI Global. I do not know if this contribution, which basically is a single case analysis, can serve to your research ...

http://www.igi-global.com/video/key-competencies-contemporary-skill-development/139460

Behaviorism.

Thank you Dhaneswar Harichandan,

Can you please specify which work(s) for those well known figures you consider the most influential works in education field? I am also wondering what you mean by behaviorism? Do you mean that you support behaviourism theory and consider it the most important work among the others? If yes, please specify a set of papers that you think must-read papers in this theory.

I haven't seen any answers here that highlight the HUGE contribution of socio-cultural and critical perspectives on learning theory.

Socio-culture base work:

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.

Critical theory base work:

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers college record, 97(1), 47.

Follow forward from there.

Navigating one's way through the theoretical landscape of Learning Theories in a meaningful way for the 21st Century requires deep understanding of the traditional and the courage to look forward and forge new knowledge to support the needs of a rapidly shifting discipline.

Here are a few links to material that supports the above:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/quality-framework/technical-notes/influential-theories-of-learning/

http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/aacte_p21_whitepaper2010.pdf

http://www.g-casa.com/conferences/manila/papers/Weegar.pdf

https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli3009.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/6730061/Learning_Theories_Implications_in_Teacher_Education

http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/2/4/2158244012462707

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329746/what-makes-great-pedagogy-nine-claims-from-research.pdf

http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/IT/Learning/Theories/ContemporaryTheoriesofLearning%20Learning%20theorists%20in%20their%20own%20words%20-%20Knud%20Illeris.pdf

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103%22

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=gera

http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/documents/vol03issue1-paper-02.pdf

http://www.21learn.org/wp-content/uploads/PP.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/ELT-Hbk-MLED-LFE-website-2-10-08.pdf

http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf

Today's learners cannot be treated using formulaic frameworks: a sensible blend of cognitive awareness and development of authentic learning skills are also crucial in today's global climate.

Regards,

Daniela 

Latour, B. (2004a). How to talk about the body. The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 205–229. Retrieved March 22, 2016 from: http://bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/77-BODY-NORMATIVE-BS-GB.pdf.

Latour, B. (2004b). A dialog on Actor Network Theory with a (somewhat) Socratic professor. In C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra & F. F. Land (Eds.), The social study of information and communication study, 62-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved July 2, 2015 from: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/90-ANT-DIALOG-LSE-GB.pdf.

Latour, B A Dialog on Actor Network Theory with a (Somewhat) Socratic Professor http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/90-ANT-DIALOG-LSE-GB.pdf 

Why does anyone want a learning theory?? Can anyone respond without running in circles and saying we need it cos we teach to support learning, please? 

Dear Ania,

I think we need learning theories to try to figure out how we learn and to better understand ourselves.

We need also a ground theory to design strategies to maximise learning corresponding to the efforts that we do, as well as to take advantage as much as possible of the capaciies that our brain offers for learning. This can also save many kinds of resources, such as time, money or even emotional, for example, if we defeat school fail.

Dear Ania Lian,,

I agree with you that it is sometimes fuzzy to recognize the value of the learning theory. May be because a learning theory is too abstract where most educators don't deal with a learning theory in a daily bases (as they think). However, they are actually immersed in teaching practices which are originated from the learning theory.   

I will give some examples so it would be clearer. When Jean Piaget says that learning occurs when a conflict is happen between what the child believes (epistemology) and what the real situation is (ontology), scientists took that idea and designed teaching strategies so a child is always in confusion (therefore he is learning). For example, one teaching strategy may involve divide the class into two teams and each team advocates an opposite idea. On the other hand, when Vygotsky says that learning occurs when the teacher help the learner to go out the comfort zone and to reach out zone of proximal development, scientists took that idea and designed teaching strategies so a child is always backed up by teachers, facilitators or more advanced colleagues. For example, one teaching strategy may involve dividing the class into collaborated groups where each student should support his/her colleagues.

Other theories are emerging in the 21st century such as Actor Network Theory (ANT) and Connectivism ( which is the favorite of mine) to interpret learning in the digital age. For example, is it acceptable in this age to say that learning is occurring in class room only? Why educators are fighting the learner' activities of copying and pasting from the internet? What is the aim of the education system in the first place?

I hope you find my answer sufficient and if you share these concerns with me, I will be very happy if you give me feedback on our recent article:

Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism.

Article Understanding knowledge network, learning and Connectivism

Hello,

I agree with the importance mentioned by Norberg about Siemens work.

I quote article "Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age" as one of the most important papers in Learning Theory in 21st century.

Scardamalia's and Bereiter's "An architecture for collaborative knowledge building" (1992) is well worth a read. It builds on some  of the other papers mentioned here, and is notable for the date, which makes it a very early paper of its kind:

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). An architecture for collaborative knowledge-building. In E. De Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 41-46). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

A few more articles - these are all thought-provoking and worth a read - not as "educational science" but as "educational humanities". They look at how we might be imagining the future -- not just where are we going, but where do we want to go?

Ronald Barnett 2015, Glimpsing the Ecological Curriculum http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=aall2015

Keri Facer, 2013, The problem of the future and the possibilities of the present in education research http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035513000219

Charles Anderson and Velda McCune, 2013, Facing an uncertain future: curricula of dualities http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.753847

I would suggest NLP, Brain Learning and Gardner's  Multiple Intelligences.

I really appreciate all the posts appear on this session; each post has its value which will indeed add up to this voting. However,  I still would like to hear your logic of selecting each paper. It is not enough to say, for example, the paper X and Y; it is also important to tell us why X and Y.

As I said before, this session was initiated to see if we, as educators from all over the world, have a consensus on a set of papers in learning theory. At the end of this session, I will try to gather the most frequently mentioned papers and the reasons that educators found them important. Please let this task easy for me and share your reasons of selecting any paper.

Earlier I posted this paper:

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). An architecture for collaborative knowledge-building. In E. De Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 41-46). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

The reason is that it discusses a very early networked online learning environment that was being used in a hybrid class (live/online) back in 1992. This project is still running and has generated literally thousands of research papers about it. With it co-evolved knowledge building pedagogy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_building for more details about this.

Good day Sir. Try to read/search "Dynamic Learning Program" / (partners.smart.com.ph/dlp/about) of Dr. Christopher Bernido and Dr. M. Victoria Bernido both pioneered the said program. Bernido Couple are both Theoretical Physicists.

If you want a comprehensive overview of learning theories and their chief proponents, then the Holistic Approach to Technology Enhanced Learning (HOTEL) Concept Map created by Richard Millwood is a good place to start.

http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1LNV3H2J9-HWSVMQ-13LH/Learning%20Theory.cmap

Thank you for sharing this link Mr. Maggie,, It is really interesting and comprehensive.

But what is your own opinion about those available theories? What do you think the most important theories among the long list of those theories? If you were asked to tell your own perspectives about what the most important shift of educators' understanding of learning in this age, what are those shifting points and why?

This is a voting discussion. What do you like to vote for and why?

I agree with above important discussion.

 David Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory, Devid asubel's Theory, Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory, etc.such theories have been given foundation to education field.Today,many researches are working on learning.Constructivism,Brain-Based learning are one of them.  Many researches from Social sciences, languages are useful in educational learning theory.In any learning place our Integrated and  Multi-approach works strongly.

I followed papers in learning theory have given below-

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/experiential-learning-theory.pdf

http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HallidayLangBased.pdf

https://www.ttuhsc.edu/sop/ctlt/compass/LearningTheories.pdf

http://www.g-casa.com/conferences/manila/papers/Weegar.pdf

http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education/Early_Childhood_Education/How_Aistear_was_developed/Research_Papers/Childrens_learning_and_dev.pdf

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/socdev.pdf

Just a comment on the general approach, in agreement with the last few comments. Certainly some aspects of learning theory are more important to more people on average, but in each individual case, which theory is most important will depend more on the strengths and weaknesses of both the teacher and student in that particular case. Therefore, I think even deciding on "the most important theories" would only be introducing a bias into the question of which theory speaks most to this specific case. That's not to say that individual approaches and theories don't have their place. Learning the details of a few highly complicated disorders or functional systems provides the framework for learning the overall patterns of action and reaction common to all or most cases. As such, I think a truly interdisciplinary approach to be the best option, meaning each individual theory has its place in its respective circumstances, Only an equal playing field at the beginning will allow the right strategy for the circumstance to rise to the top of the list of its own merits, or even allow the right strategy to be thought of, because most likely it is a completely novel combination of the different variables involved, which will never be discovered if one is limited by old paradigms. One of my favorite quotes is, "if you can think of five ways the brain could do something, it does it in all ten. The five you thought of, and the five you haven't thought of yet." I forget who said it but I read it in The Autistic Brain by Temple Grandin. That all may seem obvious, but I think that I have a different answer than most as to how to go about increasing interdisciplinary knowledge other than just trying to study as many different specific and highly detailed theories outright (which seems like an impossibly large burden).

- Comprehending and understanding the underlying mechanisms of life in general (consciousness) in the form of predictive coding and homeostasis (mental and physical) in order to create a clinical and educational paradigm of bottom-up treatment selection would be a much more plausible approach than the memorization and matching game that emerges from the extreme heterogeneity of causes of behaviors and effects of mental states when a top-down approach is taken.

Here are four lectures from the 2014 sandler conference on consciousness. I can think of no better introduction/overview to the topics than Mark Solms and Karl Friston both presenting and commenting on each other's presentations - linked at the bottom in order: Solms' lecture; Friston's commentary; Friston's Lecture; Solms' commentary. "Consciousness is a mechanism by which we change from one memory state to another." I.e. Learning. - about 3 hours of video total - riveting.

There is literature on "joining" which exemplifies what I mean by a bottom-up strategy that takes into account the individual patient or student. Which is basically just taking advantage of the same ideology the mirror neuron system is using - action mimicry for action understanding. When you understand what end goal someone is reaching for and understand how they plan to reach it, solving their problems from their own inside point of view is almost simple. (I know the son-rise program is controversial but I really like their explanations here in lay terms, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any other parts of their program).

"The idea is that children with autism are performing their behaviors for reasons that are important to them (and, as an increasing body of research shows, these behaviors often serve a physiological purpose, as well). When parents show interest in what their children are doing, they establish a powerful bond. In response, children begin to display a genuine interest. Once a child is willingly engaged, the door is open to help that child to learn and grow."

"The Son-Rise Program builds the child's own interests into every game or activity so that the child is excited, comes back for more, generalizes skills, and relates naturally rather than robotically, whereas ABA therapy has traditionally used discrete trials or similar methods to prompt the child to perform a behavior (followed by a reward) over and over again until the child has demonstrated mastery." (I would ask you to use your imagination to generalize these principles to an everyday classroom, and even beyond that to every conscious animal you can think of).

Those are just quotes I pulled off their website.

These types of errors and top-down, cookie cutter approaches can be avoided through the use of bottom-up techniques rising from a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying all human activity. The ability to understand the perspective of another agent from their own perspective is the most important part of teaching, because only then can you guide their perspective smoothly down the paths you wish them to go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP8Y2f1I0jE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-CYWdpHROg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQfO4byFhg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQAsXI91USU

I agree with you Mr. Mike Massarelli that a bottom-up approach would be very important. However, understanding how the mind works is like playing an open-ended game.

Therefore, educators should have their theories of learning and as I said before, if some one believes that theory X is applicable in situation A but theory Y is applicable in situation B, then we would like to hear that. 

Up-bottom approach is still a plausible method of understanding learning, I think.

Funny you say that Mr. Aldahdouh, I was about to use that metaphor myself earlier.  It's like a game where you have to figure out what the rules are.

I agree with using these specific situations to learn the underlying principles.  I just wanted to warn against the trap of going from fitting the theories to the data (good) to fitting the data to the theories (bad). For example - "theories a b c and d are best in situations 1 2 3 and 4 respectively, therefore, when we have a new student/patient, we see which situation he most closely resembles and use the corresponding theory." This precludes individualized approaches by taking shortcuts from past experience.  I feel that an explicit addendum like this is necessary whenever talking about "best" or "most important" theories. That said, I certainly do see how exposure to certain core or central theories can be helpful building blocks for our knowledge about learning.

The most important theory is that there is no most important theory...slightly paradoxical but the point is clear I think lol

Also, thinking of it like a game, I think predictive coding is what explains the overall "goal" of the game of learning - making more accurate predictions. 

To make a baseball analogy - most learning theories are analogous to learning how to throw a ball, adjusting your grip on the ball, or learning to swing a bat.  However, understanding predictive coding and the most basic building blocks of consciousness is like learning that the goal of the game is to score points by getting a man to home plate. Not only are the techniques entirely dependent on that goal for their value, but knowing the goal will help players to understand and appreciate the reasons behind those techniques, and can even use that understanding to improve the techniques themselves.

Human rights

Hi Mr. Arfa ,,

Can you please elaborate your comment a bit? We are interested in hearing your perspectives of what those papers in learning theories that you find them the most important. And why?

Dear Alaa,

thank you first for asking me and excuse me in advance for telling you my personal opinion because I'm not embedded in the academic corruption system of universities.

1) The writings being spread in learning theory such as from Piaget are totally outdated and created in a unilateral perspective of the 19th century.

2) Learning theory produces endless secondary literature wherefore I plead to read primary literature only, e.g. Aristotle, Lao-Tse or maybe Kant, Marx or Nietzsche.

3) What shall be the use of Learning Theory? To avoid students in teaching to explore their own way of teaching? To create jobs for learning theorists? To spread ideological agendas such as on neuro-learning or learning by incentives?

4) If you can't answer question 3 - how will you assess the importance of Learning Theory?

5) What do you mean by 'specialists in education field''? The only justification for any knowledge on what education is of course can not being a specialist knowledge. Why? Because the knowledge is about to understanding the pitfall of specialisation and it's impact on learning.

Specialisation triples the effort to learn and provides knowledge that is quickly outdated.

Hi Alaa Aldahdouh ,

The new learning theories in closed to both (Connectivism and LaaN) Please find these references for more details.

Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010). The 3P Learning Model. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 74-85.

Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Jarke, M. (2012). LaaN: convergence of knowledge management and technology-enhanced learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(2), 177-189.

Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3).

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. ASTD Learning News, 10(1).

Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Quix, C. (2010). Connectivism: The network metaphor of learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 5(1), 80-99.

Best Regards

Ahmed

Thank you Mr. Ahmed,

but would like to share with us why you consider these learning theories (and papers) important?

This session is like a voting of those papers that educators may find them the most important contribution in learning theory. I may gather all the most frequently mentioned papers at the end of this session and why they important according to educators' perspectives. 

Thank you Mr. Alaa

In my point of view the LaaN theory is a theoretical foundation for self-organized and networked learning models. This theory builds upon connectivism, complexity theory, and double-loop learning by Dr. Chatti as it has been noted above.  Good luck

Best, Ahmed

In my point of view the Argyris,  theory, is very important en organization learning.

Thank you for your contribution Ms. Leslie,

Would you like to help us more and elaborate your answer a bit? In specific, which papers of Argyris you found the most important?

As far as I understood, it seems you found his works important because it covers the organizational learning level. Am I right?

in the world now. Has a every interested and change every day .in Thailand  we have a Sufficiency Economy philosophy.we are adaption in everything. 

 I am finding the work that Otto Scharmer is doing through EdX and MIT very important. UTheory: https://www.presencing.com/theoryu At an adult education level I think we have to take note of this framework and begin to plan our 'learning' through generative knowledge building processes rather than transmissive strategies.

More information available here:

— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lUyGBBcdJY

—https://www.presencing.com/principles

Theory U.png

I consider this theory particularly relevant to education as it focuses on key concepts in learning that have been found very important by neuroscience - emotion, and reflection. During the time before we could actually see what was going on in our brains when we learn, we believe that behaviourism was kind. Largely because we believed that what we are observed to do is actually what we know and what we believe. There has been considerable research now to indicate that how we learn determines what we learn and what we take on board long term. There is also considerable evidence to suggest that what we express may not be a 'deep' learning rather a superficial learning.