Personal Reflections on Learning Theories and Instruction

The one thing about this course that presented the greatest benefit to me would have been the Learning Theory Matrix each of us had to complete. This application process, which utilized many facets of the course’s “problem solving”, exercises included research, technology, and application of the learning theories, which provided a truly engaging learning exercise. With this exercise alone I have developed a new appreciation for the diversity of the learning styles and models employed to affect the learner. Also, in researching the styles and theories I have also gained an appreciation for the necessity of so many explanations for how and why people learn. Further, I believe that in learning the separate ideas will allow an ID to employ the various combinations the design an extremely effective model(s) to a diverse group of learners. In fact, I believe the diversity of the theories is necessary, but as diverse as they are, each of the theories builds on one another as well. In each of the theories, in fact, one can find elements of each of the” independent” learning theories and each of the strategies to help develop a more holistic approach to designing instruction.

To compliment the greater understanding of the styles and theories, I was also, able to analyze my own personal traits when it comes to how and why I learn. I have always thought of myself in a one dimensional context when it comes to my own learning style. I always equated my learning in a very active manner, in other words I have labeled myself as a kinesthetic learner. However, I have redefined my learning style to include the constructivist theory, because I “become actively involved with the content through manipulation of materials and social interaction” (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009, p. 185). In fact, I as “the learner needs to be provided the means to create novel and situation-specific understandings by ‘assembling’ prior knowledge from diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 63). In this course, I have learned a great deal by not only completing the tasks of each week, but the discussions, and the application of previous experiences as well. In addition, I have also benefitted greatly from elements from the other theories/disciplines like external motivation in the form of feedback from peers and the instructor, as well as elements of the connectivist theory and the adult learning theory. For example, utilizing technology developing a social learning environment, having self-determination, regulating my own learning within a structure, and so on illustrate the elements of the other theories I use to learn.

Throughout the progression of the research I engaged in during my current Instructional Design course, I have altered my own conclusions of the importance placed on the individual learning styles and theories. These changes can be easily summed up by my belief that no one method or model can stand alone. For effective learning to occur the diversity of the target audience must be matched with the diversity of delivery models to fully target the individuality of the learners. Finding the best balance between various elements of each of the delivery models is the key to designing instruction in today’s highly technological and connected world, where people are more likely to learn in an environment that they have some control and both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators pushing them to learn. In other words, designing instruction utilizing the best delivery models that positively affect a learner’s motivational traits, including “the need for affiliation, approval, and achievement” will provide the best opportunities for the learner (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009, p. 241).

In conclusion, the use of technology as a method to deliver instruction or simply to enhance it is ultimately the end game of current Instructional Designers. In completing a course on learning theories, I now have a better perspective in evaluating and analyzing not only content to be delivered, but how best to deliver it. The use of multiple delivery models while adapting the model to affect the various styles is validation that a holistic approach to “teaching” or curricular design is the best for the learner, which is the goal of any designer “worth their salt.”

References:

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T, J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical
features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning Theories and Instruction (Laureate custom
edition). New York, NY: Pearson.

Current Reflection on My Own Learning Style

In the following text there will be a re-examination of my learning style and a deeper reflection on the various learning theories commonly accepted within educational circles. Recently, as an assignment for a current online class I was asked to reflect on, evaluate, and describe the learning style I closely associate myself with, based on these learning theories. Now that I have more closely examined some of the vast oceans of research advanced by just as many “experts” I will be able to shed some more light on my own assumptions.

First, I am asked to explore how I have changed my opinion of my own learning style based on the research I have done in my recent coursework. In fact, I haven’t changed my beliefs that I follow the constructivist learning theory with an emphasis on a kinesthetic learning style. Further, the research I have done only reaffirms this belief, because not only do people use their minds to learn, but also they take this component and interact with experience(s) to create deeper and more meaningful learning (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 62). Also, the definition of constructivism proposed by Ertmer and Newby (1993) “equates learning with creating meaning from experience.” In addition to the theory I align myself with, I consider myself a kinesthetic learner, which literally means I learn best by doing. To further strengthen my own learning, modeling, a component of social learning theory, adds to my own success. These elements provide me with the opportunity to observe, interact, practice, inject prior knowledge, and apply what I have constructed as meaning in learning, to new learning situations. Finally, I believe, “experiences enable learners to create schemas – models in their heads that are continually changed, enlarged, and made more sophisticated” through actively engaging in new learning situations (Clark, 1999).

Now the question is, how does technology play a role in my learning? First I would say that the computer is the primary way technology figures into my learning, for obvious reasons, especially evident in the use of the forum (blog). However, not only am I utilizing the computer for an online course, but also I have used the various software elements, and web based elements as well. For example, not only do I have this blog, but I also have used the basic elements of word processing and power points and any skill set associated with their use. Further, I have had to become acquainted with the vast pool of knowledge and resources provided through my online college library, but the public browser options as well. With an instructor acting as a facilitator (providing some structure) I have become an active learner engaged in creating meaning within the requisites of the current course I am navigating.

I truly am “constructing” my learning through active engagement and creating meaning to be applied now and for later learning situations. In fact, constructivists assume that instructors should “structure situations such that learners become actively involved with the content through manipulation of materials and social interaction” (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009, p. 185).

References:

Clark, D., (December 1, 1999). A Time Capsule of Training and Learning. Retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history.html

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T, J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning Theories and Instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York, NY: Pearson.

Connectivism

Connectivism: My Mind Map

The underlying theme of connectivism as a learning theory is how we as learners “connect” with our learning and how we make “connections” in order to learn. At least this is my interpretation of the general definition of the theory, which actually states according to George Siemens “ connectivism integrates technology, social networking, and information” (Siemens, 2009). In fact, expanding on this definition Siemens also defines “connectivism as the combined effect of chaos theory, importance of networks, and the interplay of complexity and self-organization” (Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Batemen, V., 2008). The idea of this mind map exercise is the literal illustration of the last component--self-organization.

To make a connection between the theory of connectivism and adult learning, I would also add that for a mind map to even exist, we as adult learners must have self directed learning and be intrinsically motivated. In fact, “self-directed learning is defined as the process in which individuals take on the responsibility for their own learning process by diagnosing their personal learning needs, setting goals, identifying resources, implementing strategies and evaluating outcomes” (Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K., 2003). Mind mapping can easily fit into the components of this definition by providing the “map” of our own needs, resources, and strategies to our self directed learning.

Connectivism by George Siemens’ definition is complex due to an abundance of information and the primary use of technology as the method to acquire knowledge and to learn (Siemens, 2009). However, I believe this complexity is an evolving process that I am aspiring to, as evident in the simplicity of my own mind map seen here on this page (Posted December 2,2009). I am usually a person who likes to keep things simple by my own design, in order to limit my own potential confusion in acquiring knowledge. This might be attributed to my self-declared dominant learning style, which I consider myself to be a very kinesthetic learner. In fact, I learn best by doing and manipulating the environment to my own discretion to meet my needs at any given moment. For example, I recently had to fix my dishwasher and to do so I had to first diagnose the problem and find the correct part, so I “Googled” it. In doing so, I was able to learn enough from technical drawings and other resource sites about the above-mentioned process to feel confident enough to fix it myself. Long story short I fixed my dishwasher (for a third of the cost of a repairman) going through everything I have mentioned in this posting, utilizing adult learning theory and connectivism to accomplish my goal of fixing the dishwasher.

References:

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved on November 30, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning.

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved on November 30, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism

Siemens, George. (2009) “Connectivism”. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved Dec 2, 2009. [Transcript}