@Gina, A combination of different words–especially different metaphors for different types of learning–does make sense. I think we all tend to gravitate towards one central metaphor for learning, the one that is our first choice and fall-back plan. But just like good learners have multiple strategies to understand & apply content, good instructional designers & teachers can have multiple strategies and metaphors for helping others learn.

@Ken, Models always simplify reality. That’s both why they are useful and why they sometimes fail. A complex model might be better at predicting a wide range of behaviors, but be too complex to be useful. A collection of different models and metaphors, some of which overlap at times, it probably our best solution.

I think Nancy White has it in her hand when she says in her comment on your post that the power of the metaphor is in how we make sense of it.

Really, the mind can only be regarded through metaphor, for even if we know how the neurons connect in the brain, it does not explain how we learn the things we do.

If I may revert to Science – the model in Science has always been a transient thing. Yet its power is forever useful. Whenever a model falls out of use, it is modified, or discarded in favour of a better model. Good Scientists know that whatever model is adopted is transitory. It is simply a way of looking at things – for the time being.

Sure, models can permit us to predict things. Good models permit this with reasonable success. It’s when the best model falls down in its use as a prediction tool that we know that we have to rethink the model.

Learning is too important to believe that no model is any use unless it fits every requirement. So what, if we have several models for learning?

We know that model A works best applied to a child learning to walk. We realise that model B is better applied to acquiring reading skills. A different model C works best when applied to arithmetical learning. That’s how it is – for the time being, till we dream up a better model

Ka kite

I am afraid of the woods (ok BEARS), but I’m not afraid of this class.

It reminds me of what a friend say to his teenage niece, “Enjoy knowing everything, because when you grow up, you won’t know anything.”

@Diego, I think you’re right that we have to work with what we have based on the knowledge we have right now, regardless of whether it’s perfect or not. We should be skeptical of pushing our knowledge farther than it really is though. Even if we understand what’s happening in the brain, our guesses as to how to apply that knowledge in a classroom aren’t always very effective.

You say “Problem is, we still don’t even know what/where the mind is, in relation to the brain”.

However, we have built our whole society and our educational systems based on how we ‘believe’ the mind works (even though we don’t really know what/where it is)…

Go figure…

If ten years from now we discover what/where the mind is, maybe then we’ll have the chance to propose the ultimate learning theory. For now, our only hope seems to be to keep working with metaphors…

Then again, isn’t that a point in the “is it a learning theory?” discussion? We don’t have THE theory now, and there’s a chance that neither connectivism is it (I mean, in perspective)…

Just thinking aloud…

But I don’t think I need to know it at that level. I’m not really interested in the literal, chemical-physical right now. I’m interested in the metaphor and how that shapes our language and how we approach learning.

I think our central metaphor influences how we address learner control, for example. When our central metaphor is all about something planned and structured from the outside, I think we’re fighting that metaphor when we try to ask learners to be more self-directed. I’m also not sure how useful the metaphor and language of building is when you’re trying to support informal learning. Informal learning doesn’t seem very much like a building to me.

I’m not sure, but it may also be that we need different metaphors for different types of learning. It’s an idea I’m playing around with; I’m not sure whether it will have lasting usefulness for me.

Problem is, we still don’t even know what/where the mind is, in relation to the brain.

Apologies for the mixed metaphors, but that’s its current state in my head!