# data[].attributes.body
The modern world is a metropolis of information waiting to be consumed. The advent of the Internet and personal computing devices revolutionized society, bringing us into a 21st Century learning environment.

It is no surprise new learning theories are still being created today. These come not only from advancing knowledge of learning, but also the continuous development of new learning tools.

# data[].attributes.body
One interesting theory comes to us from Mayer, Sweller, and Moreno; the E-Learning Theory.  The theory is based on the cognitive load theory, which seeks to reduce time spent thinking about extraneous things.

E-Learning Theory states that people learn best when using 2 of the 3 learning formats at once: audio, visuals, and text. More specifically, video and narration are said to be the best outside of cases where learners will have trouble deciphering audio.

E-learning Theory also hinges on the coherence principle, stating that people are more likely to be distracted when they have less knowledge on a subject. To combat this, E-Learning Theory uses techniques like:

Chunking related information

Signaling to important information

Speaking to the learner

Avoiding redundancy

Allowing learners to pace themselves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
E-learning theory consists of cognitive science principles that describe how electronic educational technology can be used and designed to promote effective learning.

The researchers started from an understanding of cognitive load theory to establish the set of principles that compose e-learning theory. Cognitive load theory refers to the amount of mental effort involved in working memory, and these amounts are categorized into three categories: germane, intrinsic, and extraneous[1].

Germane cognitive load describes the effort involved in understanding a task and accessing it or storing it in long-term memory (for example, seeing an essay topic and understanding what you are being asked to write about). Intrinsic cognitive load refers to effort involved in performing the task itself (actually writing the essay). Extraneous cognitive load is any effort imposed by the way that the task is delivered (having to find the correct essay topic on a page full of essay topics).

Key Concepts

Mayer, Moreno, Sweller, and their colleagues established e-learning design principles that are focused on minimizing extraneous cognitive load and introducing germane and intrinsic loads at user-appropriate levels[2][3][4][5][6]. These include the following empirically established principles:

Multimedia principle (also called the Multimedia Effect)

Using any two out of the combination of audio, visuals, and text promote deeper learning than using just one or all three.

Modality principle

Learning is more effective when visuals are accompanied by audio narration versus onscreen text. There are exceptions for when the learner is familiar with the content, is not a native speaker of the narration language, or when printed words are the only things presented on screen. Another exception to this is when the learner needs to use the material as reference and will be going back to the presentation repeatedly.

Coherence principle

The less that learners know about the presentation content, the more they will be distracted by unrelated content. Irrelevant video, music, graphics, etc. should be cut out to reduce cognitive load that might happen through learning unnecessary content. Learners with some prior knowledge, however, might have increased motivation and interest with unrelated content.

Contiguity principle

Learning is more effective when relevant information is presented closely together. Relevant text should be placed close to graphics, and feedback and responses should come closely to any answers that the learner gives.

Segmenting principle

More effective learning happens when learning is segmented into smaller chunks. Breaking down long lessons and passages into shorter ones helps promote deeper learning.

Signaling principle

Using arrows or circles, highlighting, and pausing in speech are all effective methods of signaling important aspects of the lesson. It is also effective to end a lesson segment after releasing important information.

Learner control principle

For most learners, being able to control the rate at which they learn helps them learn more effectively. Having just play and pause buttons can help more than having an array of controls (back, forward, play, pause). Advanced learners may benefit from having the lesson play automatically with the ability to pause when they choose.

Personalization principle

A tone that is more informal and conversational, conveying more of a social presence, helps promote deeper learning. Beginning learners may benefit from a more polite tone of voice, while learners with prior knowledge may benefit from a more direct tone of voice. Computer characters can help reinforce content by narrating the lesson, pointing out important features, or illustrating examples for the learner.

Pre-training principle

Introducing key content concepts and vocabulary before the lesson can aid deeper learning. This principle seems to apply more to low prior knowledge learners versus high prior knowledge learners.

Redundancy principle

Having graphics explained by both audio narration and on-screen text creates redundancy. The most effective method is to use either audio narration or on-screen text to accompany visuals.

Expertise effect

Instructional methods that are helpful to low prior knowledge learners may not be helpful at all, or may even be detrimental, to high prior knowledge learners.

Additional Resources and References

Resources

References

1. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

2. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?.Educational psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.

3. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326.

4. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning.The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 147, 158.

5. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 297-313.

6. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E-Learning Theory (Mayer, Sweller, Moreno)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
E-learning theory consists of cognitive science principles that describe how electronic educational technology can be used and designed to promote effective learning. The researchers started from an understanding of cognitive load theory to establish the set of principles that compose e-learning theory.

# data[].attributes.headline
THEORY 2: The Online Disinhibition Effect

# data[].attributes.subject
THEORY 2: The Online Disinhibition Effect

# data[].attributes.body
Another modern learning theory is the Online Disinhibition Effect from John Suler. This theory describes how social norms change in a virtual environment as compared to face-to-face interactions. This comes in two forms:

Benign Disinhibition is when online people are more willing to talk about themselves or go out of their way to help others

Toxic Disinhibition is when online people are more likely to use rude language/threats or access things they wouldn't in real life such as crime or pornography.

Suler breaks down 6 reasons for why disinhibition occurs in an online environment:

Anonymous interaction makes users feel less responsible for their actions

Other people don't know what you look like, which opens doors to how you can portray yourself

Online interaction often doesn't happen in real time, allowing users to think more about their responses or choose not to respond at all

People tend to assign mental characteristics to the speaker based on their response, which changes how they interact

People tend to think of online interactions as "not real" or "just a game"

Social status and authority play much less of a role online than they do in real-world interactions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary: The online disinhibition effect describes the loosening of social restrictions and inhibitions that are normally present in face-to-face interactions that takes place in interactions on the Internet.

In 2004, John Suler, professor of psychology at Rider University, published an article titled "The Online Disinhibition Effect," which analyzed characteristics of internet interactions that contributed to this effect Originators and Key Contributors:[1]. The term "online disinhibition effect" was already in use at the time.

Keywords: online, internet, anonymity, invisibility, imagination, disinhibition
Online Disinhibition Effect (Suler)
John Suler describes two main categories of behavior that fall under the online disinhibition effect. These two categories are benign disinhibition and toxic disinhibition . Benign disinhibition describes behavior in which people might self-disclose more on the internet than they would in real life, or go out of their way to help someone or show kindness. Toxic disinhibition describes behavior that includes rude language, threats, and visiting places of pornography, crime, and violence on the internet-places the person might not go to in real life.

The distinction between these two categories is not always clear. For example, a friendly email relationship might evolve into something more intimate in a way that might cause one of the correspondents to feel overly vulnerable or anxious. An exchange of seemingly hostile words, as another example, might be considered normal social behavior in certain Internet subcultures.

Suler breaks down six factors that cause online disinhibition:

This is one of the principal factors behind the online disinhibition effect. On the internet, you are able to interact with others, comment on forums, and surf the web completely anonymously. When you feel anonymous, you feel protected. By remaining anonymous, you do not have to "own" your behavior, and you can instead compartmentalize it in an online identity that is not integrated with your offline identity. Anonymity helps you feel less vulnerable about self-disclosing and engaging in antisocial or harmful behavior.

Many types of communication over the internet happen through text. The internet offers a kind of shield and keeps you from being physically visible. Your inhibitions are lowered because you don't have to worry about tone and body language when you and another person are communicating. Invisibility also lets you misrepresent yourself, as in the case of a man representing himself as a woman, or vice versa. This presents possibilities that are not as easily attainable in face-to-face interaction.

The asynchronous nature of many forms of communication over the internet leads to disinhibition. Email and message board conversations do not happen in real time. For example, you might put up an emotionally-charged post and log out without seeing any responses from others. This would allow you to gain catharsis and escape any potential negative reactions. Asynchronicity also allows you to think more carefully about what you would like to say before posting, which can help if you have trouble with face-to-face interactions. This lessens the pressure that can accompany real-life conversations, and can lead you to present differently online than you do offline.

Without face-to-face cues, you experience online messages as voices in your head. You might assign imagined characteristics to another person based off of their messages and online persona. Your online companions become characters in your own psychic world, shaped by your personal expectations and needs. Additionally, when reading another's message, you might "hear" their voice using your own voice. People sometimes subvocalize as they read, which can lead to a perception that they are talking to themselves. This leads to feeling more comfortable talking to the other person and leads to disinhibition.

Emily Finch, a lawyer who studies identity theft in cyberspace, observes that people might see cyberspace as a game in which normal rules of everyday interaction do not apply. This leads to a feeling of escapism and can lead to a person thinking that they can adopt and shed a certain persona simply by logging on and off. Because the Internet can seem like a make-believe space, you might feel more disinhibited to act in ways that you normally wouldn't offline.

Authority figures express their authority through dress, body language, name titles, and their environments. Without these cues, their authority is reduced in online environments. Although you might know about someone's offline status and power, you are less likely to feel intimidated by that authority on the internet. The internet offers a more-or-less equal playing field for everyone, allowing you to feel more disinhibited and engage others more as peers instead of as authorities.
For more information, please see:
References

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behavior,7(3), 321-326.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary: The online disinhibition effect describes the loosening of social restrictions and inhibitions that are normally present in face-to-face interactions that takes place in interactions on the Internet. In 2004, John Suler, professor of psychology at Rider University, published an article titled "The Online Disinhibition Effect," which analyzed characteristics of internet interactions that contributed to this effect Originators and Key Contributors: [1].

# data[].attributes.headline
THEORY 3: Educational Robotics & Constructionism

# data[].attributes.subject
THEORY 3: Educational Robotics & Constructionism

# data[].attributes.body
Our third learning theory is the Educational Robotics & Constructionism Theory by Seymour Papert. This theory focuses on constructionism with hands-on learning experiences using knowledge the learner already knows. However, learners work with robotics in order to learn.

The main point Papert makes is that many people do not learn because they are afraid of failure. Robotics kits like Lego Mindstorms take away the major drawbacks of failure and teach learners that it's ok to try different approaches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary: Constructionism as a learning theory emphasizes student-centered discovery learning, and educators are currently expanding its reach to the field of educational robotics in order to engage students.

Originators and Key Contributors: Seymour Papert took Piaget's theory of constructivism and adapted it into his theory of constructionism.

Keywords: constructivism, constructionism, learning theory, discovery learning, educational robotics, technology
Educational Robotics and Constructionism (Papert)
Constructionism as an educational theory is student-centered and emphasizes discovery learning, where students are encouraged to work with tangible objects in the real world and use what they already know to gain more knowledge[1]. The point is to make the process of thinking and learning visible and to allow for a more process-oriented engagement with an idea via construction and deconstruction. Under constructionism, teachers take a backseat role as facilitators of student learning instead of giving lectures or step-by-step instruction.

Seymour Papert, a leading constructionism advocate and researcher, is for bringing technology into classrooms as much as possible. Constructionism can mostly be found being used as an educational tool in science and math classrooms, though it is spreading to other subjects as well. Today, there is an increasing popularity for robotic technologies used in the classroom. Specifically, there has been a focus on "white-box" digital tools, which teach the user or builder about the structure of the technology itself, in contrast to "black-box" software or technology, which conceals the method of its creation and is closed to any modifications by the user or builder[2].

A black-box robot is a pre-programmed robot that might perform actions or complete tasks for the user, but is not open to additional programming nor revealing of the way in which it was made. It performs a pre-specified function and does not contribute to any learning on the part of the user in regards to how it is built or how it works. A white-box robot, on the other hand, or a white-box set of robotic technologies, might make the process of building robots transparent so that the user can build and program a robot for themselves. Two examples of tools that allow for white-box educational robotics are the Lego Mindstorms and Pico-Crickets kits. Lego Mindstorm kits come with software and hardware that builders can use to create and program custom robots.

One drawback to this white-box approach of using educational robotics is that users tend to approach a plateau, where it is difficult to advance beyond a certain point and create more complex robots. Starting from scratch can mean more work up-front on the part of the user or learner to get anywhere substantial. There may come to be more of an emphasis on manipulating and controlling robots and their environments in the field of educational robotics rather than focusing on a completely white-box approach. Learning to control robots using different devices may introduce important concepts as well. It may not be strictly necessary to start with students building and programming robots from a blank slate to introduce important ideas in robotics and technology.

Educational robotics can take two forms. The first is that robotics itself and other related topics (artificial intelligence, robot mechanics, etc.) are the learning objects and the focus of study. The second is when robotics is used as a learning tool for illustrating concepts (widely in math, science, and technology). Beyond teaching students about technology and assisting with other school subjects, educational robotics can also impart engineering skills and problem-solving skills. Students also exercise their creativity and collaboration skills.

The iterative process that is typically involved in building and programming a robot allows students to experiment and see the tangible effects of their experimentation. Papert argued that fear of being wrong holds students back from learning. When building a robot, however, students must make mistakes and become good at identifying them. The question becomes not whether something is right or wrong, but rather if it is fixable. This encourages students to think critically about what they are building and to try and try again until they have a working robot. Papert further states that children, even without being taught, learn and develop their thinking. Constructionism in educational robotics, then, plays the role of providing the rich toolkits and the environment needed for students to foster their own learning[2][3].
For more information, please see:

In Blocks to Robots , Marina Umaschi Bers illustrates constructionist methods for employing educational robotics in the classroom. The book contains practical examples for an early childhood classroom.

Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in A Digital World presents a well thought-out examination of constructionism and its impact on student learning. Yasmin Kafai looks at a number of different aspects to constructionism as practiced in the classroom: social and community impact, design thinking, systems thinking, and constructionism's intellectual background.

References

1. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11.

2. Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and Robotics in Education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher Education on Robotic-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods (pp. 11-27). School of Pedagogical and Technological Education.

3. Papert, Seymour. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc., 1980.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary: Constructionism as a learning theory emphasizes student-centered discovery learning, and educators are currently expanding its reach to the field of educational robotics in order to engage students. Originators and Key Contributors: Seymour Papert took Piaget's theory of constructivism and adapted it into his theory of constructionism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Educational Robotics & Constructionism Word Cloud

# data[].attributes.subject
Educational Robotics & Constructionism Word Cloud

# data[].attributes.body
All these theories have come to fruition because of advancing technology and the psychological effects it has on people. Just a few decades ago, none of these theories were relevant whatsoever. That makes these true 21st century learning theories.

These theories align very closely with my vision of teaching, learning, and technology. I consider myself a technologist and a futurist; I want to incorporate technology in ways that make learning easier. I believe these theories outline useful information when creating modules for the 21st century.

# data[].attributes.body
This chart or diagram explains the differences and similarities between the theorists and their theories.

# data[].attributes.body
"E-Learning Theory (Mayer, Sweller, Moreno) - Learning Theories." 15 Dec. 2015, https://www.learning-theories.com/e-learning-theory-mayer-sweller-moreno.html. Accessed 15 Jul. 2018.

"Online Disinhibition Effect (Suler) - Learning Theories." 15 Dec. 2015, https://www.learning-theories.com/online-disinhibition-effect-suler.html. Accessed 15 Jul. 2018.

"Educational Robotics and Constructionism (Papert) - Learning Theories." 14 Feb. 2016, https://www.learning-theories.com/educational-robotics-and-constructionism.html. Accessed 15 Jul. 2018.

"Cognitive Load Theory of Multimedia Learning (Sweller) - Learning ...." 16 Jul. 2014, https://www.learning-theories.com/cognitive-load-theory-of-multimedia-learning-sweller.html. Accessed 15 Jul. 2018.