Bruner
Ok, I really do not have much to add this week besides what I have said already. My definition of learning is the same and I don't think that studying Bruner really changed how I think educators should facilitate learning. It seems to me that Bruner really just rehashed old ideas and said them in a new way. Maybe I am missing something. I do have to say though that I feel like after learning all the new theories that I have more to work with. I did not learn all of this in my teaching program. It would have been nice to understand all this at the beginning of my teaching career. Oh well, better late than never.
Groups:
Submitted by Paul Cobb on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 1:04pm
Printer-friendly version
Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed here, except as specifically noted, are those of the individual authors or commenters and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Department of Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, or Utah State University.
My thoughts
Reply
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I think Megan makes a good observation about why there seems to be a number of similarities in the theories we’ve been studying, and that is because most of them are cognitive based. One thing that was different with Bruner than other stage theorists we’ve studied, and that I agree with, is the idea that people, regardless of age, are able to learn any material as long as it is organized and presented in an appropriate way.
Sorry, I've tried, but I can't get rid of the mumbo jumbo at the beginning of my reply