It seems I’ll have to take a long journey – this time I am going to refer to some discussions in the blogosphere I remember, probably meaning they have made an influence on me.
First I take Teemu Leinonen, who has lived globally much longer than me and knows about wikipedia and -media and many international projects. His blog is named Flosse Posse and he wrote about learning theories recently. He needed behaviorism, constructivism and social constructivism. (edited 11.10, read Teemu’s comment) I like the way he tells about these theories, he convinces me about his expertise. Then he tells about Sugata Mitra’s experiments Hole in the Wall, which we have been discussing about in PLENK2010: Learning by doing, socially, in small groups. To give affordances for poor children is the way forward.
Another source was in Pontydysqu web pages and it took a time to find. They have much knowledge there and I was not familiar with those pages, but I succeeded and here it is: Connectivism vs. constructivism by Jenny Hughes. She tells about some projects (Mitra + ..) and lists the learning theories needed for interpretation. I feel empathy when she becomes confused with theories. One new concept can be found: social connectivism (it was lacking, really 
). We have to know the theories of Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, Papert, Bruner, Engeström – perhaps it is best to speak about their work and their development instead of putting them to one category of learning theories. I liked the style in comments to Jenny Hughes’ blog post, but I feel I am tired of listing theories. It does not help.
My last link goes to Jenny Mackness, her blog post after our Elluminate session yesterday. Jenny writes about the relevance of learning theories to teaching practice and reflects her own experiences as an educator. Theories matter, but not directly, they are tools which must be assessed and developed to different purposes. Jenny proceeds to George’s presentation about connectivism as networked learning.
What have I learned while summarizing my personal history, my work in the teacher education and these three discussions? Actually, I am not any more interested in this level of listing and shortly referring to main sources. What does it help? My question is: where is thinking, pondering and real discussion. I see Jenny M. gives an example of combining theories to one’s practice and professional development. But we don’t have time and interest to do it throughout in PLENK, I suppose. I cannot grasp this theme even I know everything. How can I find my way forward? What is the level of our working, discussion, collaboration? How should I participate in order to make sense in this chaos in my mind? 
[...] am interested in reading Heli’s post on Learning Theories: Recent discussion. She made me smile, when sharing her background, as I also realised that I came from a different [...]
Hi Heli,
I have linked your post to mine here http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/plenk2010-reflection-on-learning-theories-and-practice/
You asked: “How can I find my way forward? What is the level of our working, discussion, collaboration? How should I participate in order to make sense in this chaos in my mind?” What sort of working, discussion and collaboration are you looking for? I think in this course of PLE/N, it would be different things to different people, depending on ones goals and needs. Sharing & discourse through this blog is already part of the PLE/N. How do you find the forum discussion so far? Is it what you are looking for with regard to discussion and collaboration? As I have already participated and discussed many of those topics (learning theories) in the past forums (CKK 08 & 09), my interests have shifted towards research instead. And I found research to be the most challenging part of all.
How about you?
John
Thanks for commenting, John
I suppose I am going to the same direction: research helps. Developing theory from practice could be one way in analyzing free online happenings. I have tried to discuss in forums but no one is interested in my topics, or they cannot follow my thoughts = I cannot express myself clearly enough. We have so different views that … I hope some people enjoy I don’t. But thanks to you!
Hi Heli,
You have a great blog! One correction (probably cause by my poor writing). You wrote:
“He needed only two catergories, behaviorism and constructivism (cognitive and social).”
I see that it is problem that many (especially in the Anglo-American tradition) see only two categories, when there are three. The categories are 1) behaviorism, 2) constructivism and 3) social constructivism.
In the post I am trying to present that there is almost as little common between the (3) social constructivism and the (2) constructivism as there is between the (1) behaviorism and (2) constructivism. They all are anti-thesis to earlier “theories”.
My working theory today is that, because the social constructivism is not well understood in the Anglo-American world, there has been space to “reinvent” it. I am sure you will guess how this reinvention is then called (it is in the title of your blog).
Best regards,
- Teemu
Hi Teemu, and thanks for careful reading and commenting.
I have to edit that sentence about two categories – I knew it went wrong already in writing but why did I write so? It is this blog-style.. The idea was to tell about you and it does not matter how.
I must write more carefully if I tell the name!
I greatly enjoy about the content of your comment: I have to understand those Anglo-American people and their re-inventions.
It is good to live in Finland and follow the global world..
PS Your blog is great, mine is not yet
[...] am interested in reading Heli’s post on Learning Theories: Recent discussion. She made me smile, when sharing her background, as I also realised that I came from a different [...]