Component Display Theory made sense to me, but I honestly don’t think I would use it. I just can’t be sure that I would classify it as an “advanced theory” for one, and on top of that it seems mostly focused on “performance.” Overall this theory seems to be very teacher-centric and passive learning in nature, even though I guess you could technically use it for something active and learner-centered. But often in learner-centered design there are no pre-determined content or performance objectives, and it seems those two pieces have to be present in order for CDT to work. Ultimately, if ADDIE is not an advanced theory, then something that just fits inside of one part of ADDIE would be even less advanced. For those that are into lessons that are heavily focused on content and performance, I think they would find a lot to like here. My problem with it is that it seems to just be an expansion of ADDIE and not a stand-alone design model that you can use by itself.

Gagne’s Theory of Learning also made sense, and there are parts I would use. Ultimately there were many parts that closely resembled Dick & Carey, but with a few differences. So is it advanced or not? Well, I guess it depends on if the liberties that Chris took with it are his alone, or if there is evidence in the literature that others also did so. Ultimately you can take liberties with any model and make it work as an advanced method, but how far can you get away from the original intent of a theories’ creator and still consider yourself to be using that theory? Personally, I would say for many of them: not far. Gagne and others were very intelligent and there is probably a reason that they left out certain liberties. So, the biggest problem I have with this theory is that it is a very ordered and specific system that needs mostly of teacher-focused design in order to work as it was originally conceived.

Kolb’s Learning Styles and Experiential Learning Theory – a theory connected with a style? I had the least problems with this one, although I do not subscribe to the idea of learning styles. I agree that people like to learn in certain ways depending on the content, but I just don’t see that as a “style.” When learning styles were first taught to me, I remember they were supposed to be a way to help learners process their own learning. For example, visual learners should take whatever lesson they were given and find ways to process it visually. The focus was on the learner. It seems the focus has shifted on to the teacher now… so you have to wonder about the validity of all of it if they can easily switch focus to a part of the process that brings in more money. Anyways… I like how Experiential Learning is a four step process of watching, thinking, feeling, doing. This seems more “learner-centered” and advanced – to me at least. But I am not sure how you would create a full design for this and take into consideration the data that admin-types usually want out of lessons. Seems like it would be good for apprenticeship-style learning, which we need more of in education in general.

Reading Notes:

Click here to read my notes for this week on Evernote

—