What I think about learning theories is . . .

This week in class we discussed different learning theories.  Throughout the past year at Hopkins I have learned about a lot of different theorists, and have been asked to think of which one I agree with the most.  I find it hard to really zero in on one in particular.  There are so many theories that have certain aspects I agree with, but then others that I do not.  In class, after discussing the differences between these theories, we worked with a partner to figure out what our commonalities and differences were, and why.

The four theories we discussed were behaviorism, constructivism, sociolinguistics, and cognitive/information processing.  The cognitive/information processing theory really focuses on comprehension during reading. Although this would be nice for everyone to be successful in, and many are, there are plenty of students that have problems with comprehension. I have noticed many students that can read higher level texts, but have no idea what they just read.  This is an area that some children really need help in.  The sociolinguistics theory states that oral language is the basis to reading and writing. Although I agree this is important, I have seen many ESL children that are successful without much English background, and students in my highest reading group that are the least social in the class. Oral language does not have to do with only speaking, but also with listening and processing language. Something I definitely agree with in this theory is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). I agree that students learn best in the area of when something is not too hard or too easy.

The last two theories are very important to me, because these are the two that I believe in the most, and use the most when I teach.  They are also very different theories, and many believe to be "opposites."  While behaviorism is teacher-centered, constructivism is student-centered.  When behaviorism believes behavior/learning is "learned," constructivism believes that students create knowledge "naturally."  I believe that both of these are essential in a first grade classroom.  Students are young enough that they still need to be guided in many ways, and behaviorism is a necessity, especially the earlier in the school year we find ourselves.  I also believe that as a teacher, I shouldn't be feeding all the information to my students, and that they need to use critical thinking to come up with the answers on their own.

Looking at different theorists is definitely interesting.  It is important for me, especially, because I am only in my second year of full-time teaching at this grade level.  Just as a student, I am constantly learning.  Students (and classes) are different. I need to remember that what works for one student (or class) doesn't necessarily work for another!