Learning Theories and Instruction – Walden University

An underlying belief I hold is that what I perceive as external reality really is there in an objective sense.  I also believe that the concepts of right and wrong have objective meaning.  I recognize that knowledge is subjective, in that it reflects awareness within the mind of an individual; however, I contend that its validity usually depends on its corresponding to external realities that can be perceived by others.

I have previously taken some issue with what the course text refers to as Radical Social Constructivism, according to which “objects in the natural world are not part of an external preexisting reality…  Therefore, atoms, molecules, and quarks are entirely human constructions.  They are social artifacts that are products of social forces, interests, and historical characteristics of the local context (Bloor, 1976; Woolgar, 1988)” (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009).  I think most people would agree to the absurdity of imagining that physical phenomena are merely human constructions.  Moreover, science is not about deciding how the world shall work but discovering the natural laws by which it does, in fact, operate.  If concerted efforts were made to inculcate the belief that the sun revolved around the earth, and everyone came to accept this as fact, the solar system would not then change to reflect this belief.

More recently, I have begun to read about Connectivism, which seems to have to do with making connections between perhaps seemingly unrelated events and using these as a basis for gathering knowledge.

According to one article, “one of connectivism’s defining principles states that what we consider to be right today may tomorrow be considered wrong (Siemens, 2005)” (David, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008).  In some areas, this is certainly true:  it used to be the case that, in Web development, one used HTML tables to position elements on a Web page; this approach, however, has been obsolete for some time.  In another area, the recent “Climategate” revelations have called into question the validity of the evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

At the same time, surely there are fundamental areas of knowledge that may be considered quite solid:  for instance, people who regularly travel long distances take it for granted that the laws of aerodynamics are not going to be proven wrong tomorrow, with the result that airplanes will start dropping out of the sky.  Likewise, we do not entertain the apprehension that the basic foods we routinely consume will tomorrow turn out to be rapidly and deadly poison.

Still learning, evaluating, questioning as I go.