Learning Theory

1. A number of authors contest Siemens' ideas. It is unsettling to be challenged about existing perceptions of "knowing", in particular, the lack of purpose in asking our students to KNOW and be able to RECALL what they know in assessment. Do you agree with them? Can you see Siemen's point of view? What is your position?

Ultimately i agree with what Siemens is saying but i also wouldn't word it the same as he has. I see learning as the constant changing and growing of someones knowledge base. This includes how to come to an answer, not just knowing the answer itself. Siemens is saying that with knowledge increasing at the rate that it is, it isn't what the individual knows but whether they can find the answer. This is absolutely true, but i dont see this as 'learning' about something, rather learning how to find an answer, but than again if you step back and have a look at yourself, you'll be able to see that you do the exact same thing. I cant even count on my hands how many times i have come across a problem or question i couldn't answer and said to myself, 'ill just Google it'. After finding the answer id like to say i have learnt something and ultimately i have, i just havnt learnt the why, why is that answer correct and how did they get to it. If its possible i would describe this situation as having gained 'shallow knowledge' not 'deep knowledge', meaning that i would know the answer but its purpose goes no further than the immediate situation. But than again with all of the needed knowledge out there, not many people would need 'deep knowledge' on how to do a task or answer a question. One quote that i found in the article that really summed up what this theory focuses on is as follows:

 "Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes, should be reflective of underlying social environments"

That is exactly what Siemens focuses on. If we have the vast knowledge of the internet available to us, why assess us on what we know in our heads when in a real world situation most people would turn to other sources such as the internet. Students who write the best assignments arent the ones with the greatest head knowedlge but the ones that best use the resources available to them. The students that do well on exams have the head knowedge for that moment in time but it will be outdated after x amount of years depending on the subject. Which student will have the advantage in the future? The one that find answers through other sources that are continually updated or the one that is required to memorise and relearn the same content every few years? Clearly it is the student that knows how to locate information.


There is a simple example to illustrate this. Teach a students high school maths and have them know how to work through equations, the rules and processes to follow. Give that same student a calculator and pose to them a math question. Will the student use his head knowledge to solve the problem out on paper or just type it in a calculator? The fact that he has the necessary head knowledge means very little compared to having the technology available.

The fact is that we need to know very little in society nowadays, we just need to be able to Google what we need and it will be right there for us. This is a sad fact but its still reality, ultimately 'knowing' something just makes you one step ahead of someone else who needs to go Google the same thing and will know it in about five minutes anyway.

2. Give an example of ways in which you could use this theory in your classroom/learning context?

I can see the benefits of this theory and i agree with it, but very few changes could be made at the classroom level. Changes such as having more open book/ allowed computer access during exams could be integrated but would ultimately be frowned upon. If the LM has been teaching the knowledge but come exam time students ignore the how to knowledge and instead repeat what they find on the net, have they learnt anything?

The changes need to come from higher up the ladder, aka changes in the national curriculum. Paper testing that assess students head knowledge is a requirement in the classroom and cannot be ignored despite the claims of this theory. Until this theory becomes nationally recognized, accepted and integrated into the curriculum , i see no way i can 'officially' include this in my classroom context to the degree that it should be.