Talk:Learning theory (education)

message: It is good to be inclusive when brainstorming, but I have a few objections to the suggested list.  I suggest that the "paradigms" be behaviorism, cognitivism, humanism, developmental, and social.  Constructivism is just not of the same type as these categories.  Constructivism, in my opinion, should be viewed as an instructional theory grounded in cognitive learning theory.  GOMS seems to me to be neither a learning theory nor particularly behaviorist.  Things like problem-based learning and communities of practice are instructional theories or methods which need only be listed as founded on, e.g., cognitive or behavioral theory, without elaboration (people can go to those pages if they want more).  The list, I think, omits Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, which textbooks often put under behaviorism, but may be better labeled a social theory. Design theories have no place on this page in my opinion as they are neither learning theories nor instructional theories.  Descriptive and meta theories have no place on this page in my opinion. Bloom's taxonomy, for example, should be mentioned as part of cognitive theory (if at all).  Identity, moral, and personality theories are questionable on a page about learning theory, which is not to say they have no relevance to education. Multiple intelligences is simply a taxonomy, not a theory, and like Bloom's taxonomy should be linked to a learning theory (if if can be so linked). Robotczar (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: Stmullin (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Learning theory (education). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407062340/http://www.bemindful.org/mind.htm to http://www.bemindful.org/mind.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A new editor with an apparent conflict of interest is edit warring to include a new link in the "External links" section of this article. Setting aside the behavioral issues, this raises the question of what criteria should be used to determine what belongs in the EL section of this article. Right now, there are five links (including the one being shoved into the article via an edit war):
* Social Science Research Network. How to Become an Expert Law Teacher by Understanding the Neurobiology of Learning
*  ERIC Digest. How People Learn (and What Technology Might Have To Do with It)
* Instructional Design Learning theories
* Learning theories Wiki Learning theories
* Discourses on Learning in Education
Until we can figure out a consensus on inclusion criteria, here's my opinion on these specific links:
# The first link should be removed; the link doesn't work and from the title of the article it's way too limited in scope to be applicable in this article.
# The second link should be removed; it's also too limited in scope to really be helpful to readers. It's also of unclear provenance: Was this ever published anywhere? Was it peer reviewed? Did it have a meaningful impact?
# The third link is okay. It's a decent list of resources and the authors are credible experts in this field. It certainly is on-topic and provides information beyond what we can include in this article.
# The fourth link should be removed. It's an okay list of resources but the expertise of the authors is unclear.
# The fifth link should be removed. It's an interesting resource and the authors are credible experts in the field. But the resource is quite limited as it seems to only draw upon publications from authors. Additionally, it appears that one of the authors has begun editing this article and is engaged in an edit war to add this link; that is a clear conflict of interest that must be discouraged.
ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for including external links? 

message: The two links in the criticism section (74 and 75) link to books that are supportive of a constructivist school, they definitely don't advocate for sticking to 'traditional methods' as the section claims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.92.37 (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Theory of education and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theory of education" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]