Let’s talk theoretical here. Take a look at this article:
From there, we can establish a baseline for differentiating predictive, explanatory theory — ’scientific theory’ — from common usage of the term as speculative conjecture. This is important because Education theories are expected to fall in the former (scientific) category and not in the latter (conjecture) category. The way a theory works is that somebody gets an idea — the hypothesis — and proceeds to test it using various tools and techniques.
What’s a Theory?.
Please note that we’re talking theoretical, not hypothetical. There’s a lot of attention in the public sphere about what, exactly, a theory is. The distinction is important because we need to be clear about the basic construct of theory before we get sucked into the morass of Educational Theory. A theory, in the sense we’ll be using it here, is as “explanatory construct being examined in a systematic way.” The key tools in that examination are logic, observation, hypothesis, and conclusion. It’s extremely important to recognize that you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist — only that you haven’t found it yet. The reason that’s so important is to make sure we’re asking good questions.
Learning Styles is my favorite non-theory. There are a lot of people who are willing to say that learning styles do not exist — like this guy. Sometimes, in moments of weakness, I’m one of them. I’m perfectly willing to have people continue to search for evidence in support of the theory. That’s what scientists do. My problem with it is that it seems so nonsensical that the likelihood of it actually being true is too remote for me to waste spend time with it. Logically, it just lacks a level of coherence that I need in order to take it seriously.
On the other hand, Connectivist (and even Constructivist) theory — which are “learning theories” and not “educational theories” — make a certain amount of logical sense. They’re even complementary in that subscribing to one doesn’t preclude accepting the perspective of the other. Connections have to be Constructed. Both theories are supported by what we observe in instructional settings – namely, students seem to learn better if we create experiences where they are able to build (construct/connect) on their previous knowledge using their own internal and external feedback and analysis loops.
But this whole thing goes back to an older question — one that’s more foundational. What do we know and how do we know it? Are we required to have some positivist experience of reality in order to prove knowledge? Does some kind of objectivist reality exist independent of observer? Or is it all just Vishnu’s dream?