Learning Theories: Final Reflection

Throughout this course, I was constantly surprised and enthused about the sheer volume of information one can find in blogs. When I was a teenager, I had dismissed blogs as narcissistic ponderings and never really gave them a second chance. I never really thought that people could learn effectively from a website. But, as I furthered my knowledge of learning theories, I began to realize that there is a time and an occasion for everything. Blogs can be great teachers, if you go to them at the right moment in your education. In the past when I’d approach learning something new, I had always started with a Google search. I’d find myself quickly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of disconnected information available. I’d give up. From these experiences, I truly believed the only way to learn was in a physical classroom.

But now I know that online instruction can be meaningful and just as guided as classroom learning experience with the right design and understanding of learning theories. The vast amount of information available in the ISD community of Blogs and Websites can help me further my knowledge with just the right amount of guidance.
This course has deepened my understanding of my own learning process by complicating it. Jacob Burkhardt once said, “The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity.” Prior to this course my views on the learning process were tyrannically simplistic. You were either a visual, aural, or kinesthetic learner. This course helped me understand how painfully simplistic this viewpoint it. The sad thing is that prior to this course I was no stranger to analyzing learning styles. When I was studying to become a teacher, we took various assessments such as Myers-Briggs. But I was never asked to consider so many interconnected aspects of my learning process. The Mind-Mapping assignment we did revealed the multiple nodes that affect my information processing. I never before thought about just how many diverse and complicated experiences affect my learning.

When asked what “type” of learner I was in week one, I said that, “my style of learning changes depending on the subject or skill I’m learning. If it’s a basic skill, something that Jonassen would call ‘introductory,’ then I need the more structured repetition of one of the objectivist approaches…when the concept reaches advanced or expert levels, I find that I learn best using constructivist approaches” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993)

Then, in week six, Dr. Ormond suggested that thinking about learning preferences isn’t as important as thinking about learning strategies. Preferences or styles, she says, are often vague and self-reported. While self-evaluation is important, designing instruction around self-reported data only (the way I was taught in some of my education courses) now, in hindsight, seems silly.

Now, if you asked me what “type” of learner I am, I would agree that my learning process does change based on the material being taught. But it also depends on my phase of life, the amount of previous knowledge I have about the subject, my motivation for learning, the instructor’s interactions with me, and the level of independence I am granted in the course. In week one, I never imagined that things were that complicated.

Learning theories, learning styles, educational technology, and motivation are all interconnected; you can’t just change your theoretical approach without reconsidering how you will address various learning styles, use emerging technologies, and how your theoretical approach addresses learner motivation. The learning theory matrix we constructed revealed this to me.

Now in the final week of this course, I feel like I learned enough to know that I have a lot more to learn. In other words, I feel as though I’ve only scratched the surface of the multiple theories of learning. My beginner’s knowledge of these learning theories will make me a better instructional designer because I have learned to think of instruction as multi-dimensional.

 
References

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

Ormrod, J. (n.d.). Learning Styles and Strategies.

Learning Theory Matrix Response

Now that I am more knowledgeable of all the different learning theories, I realize that my first impressions of these theories were naïve. I used to only think that there were two learning theories: behavioral and cognitive. Now that I have been exposed to the more modern theories of Social Learning and Connectivism, I feel as though I can see the evolution that our understanding of learning has taken. I feel like I’m only scratching the surface of understanding these learning theories.


I’ve always felt that my learning only made sense when it was directed at solving a particular problem. In that way, I fit the “Adult Learning Theory.” I also grow frustrated by learning that fails to recognize the ever-changing world we live in. I was always taught that “this is the only way to write an essay” or “these grammar rules have always been this way and will never change.” But as an adult I realize that these were little white lies my teachers told me to get me to pass the tests they gave. The truth is much more complicated. “This is the way people write essays now.” Or, “These grammar rules are constantly-evolving, but here’s why they exist this way now.”


Technology is essential to my learning for a number of reasons. First, I feel like the amount of information I want to learn far outweighs my brain’s capacity to hold information. I use technology to record, tab, and write about information I’ve gathered. Additionally, I use technology to create/gather the information I will eventually record. I use technology to synthesize information, search for it, and respond to it. I like that my computer places me in an active/interactive role as a learner. I can’t sit at my computer and have it lecture me. I have to actively seek the information to create the knowledge.

Connectivism

My network of available resources has had me remain in a constant state of learning. If I had a more linear way of attaining knowledge, I think there’d be this sense that once I learned something new, I was done learning that thing. Now, because of the interconnectivity of my learning resources, I never get the sense that, “Yep. I’ve completed my learning!” My most useful learning tools are definitely blogs, youtube, and online journals. I can spend hours surfing these resources because they’re not like a book, with a beginning and an end. Instead, blogs link from one to the next in a never-ending train of learning.

When I have questions, I sometimes begin by seeing who else has already had those questions. I hop online and search for videos, blogs or websites. I begin with less professional sites where everyone and anyone can post their learning. Then, I trace their research and go to the original sources myself, trying to gather my own interpretation of the source.

My own learning style supports the tenents of connectivism. I begin my research with one node, my first question. As I travel through that node, I find other, connected nodes that answer questions I didn’t even know I had. I keep this trend going usually until my husband makes me go to bed! My learning is not linear; it is interconnected and never-ending

Connectivism

Research Sheds Light on Personal Experience

Using the SAGE database, I stumbled upon the Advances in Developing Human Resources journal, published by the Academy of Human Resource Development. In this journal, I found two articles in particular that apply not only to the theories we’ve learned this week, but also to my profession as well.

1. “Design Considerations for Web-Based Learning Systems” by William W. Lee, Diana L. Owens, and Angela D. Benson.

Lee et al. begin their article with an overview of the history of instructional design. I found the section in which they outline the differences between objectivist and constructivist approaches. But what was even more helpful in the article is that they extended the compare and contrast to include the models of ID themselves. Lee, et al. The objectivist approach to ID is “sequential and linear” where as the constructivist approach is “nonlinear, and sometimes chaotic”; objectivists plan “top down” and constructivists plans are “organic” and “collaborative” (p. 407). This article helped me diagnose some of the struggles I’ve encountered in my workplace. While I find that I am a bit more constructivist, my boss is entirely objectivist. Honestly, this article shed light on all of our previous misunderstandings and disagreements!

2. “Alternative Training Models” by Charles Cowell et al.
While my teaching experience is all in the realm of high school English and Theatre, my professional work as an Instructional Designer is with the military. Cowell et al. use their article as a chance to explain what I have been learning the hard way: the ADDIE model is not universal. While rigid adherence to ADDIE is required for all of my work with the military, my experience in high school is significantly less structured. As Cowell et al. say, “the ADDIE model functions well in a highly structured and authoritarian setting” (p. 466). The article outlines a process called “Telling Ain’t Training” which differs from the ADDIE model in that the trainer (e.g., teacher) isn’t involved in the early stages of the ADDIE process, but is still required to “honor the tenants of systematic training” (p.470).

Though this article didn’t explicitly talk about the theories we’ve learned this week, the issues it addresses are certainly connected. As instructional designers we have to consider the various sides to many issues:
- The learner’s means of processing information;
- The instructional designer’s means of processing information;
- The issues the instructional designer faces when deciding how to present information for processing.


References:
Cowell, C., Hopkins, P.C., McWhorter, R., Jorden, & D.L. (2006). Alternative training models. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 460–475.

Lee, W.W., Owens, D. L., & Benson, A.D. (2002). Design considerations for web-based learning systems. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 405–423.

A Wide World of Blogs

I’ve found lots of blogs and resource sites that will help me in this class and in my career as an instructional designer. I’ve listed them below in the order of discovery. As I look at them all together, I’m beginning to notice that I’m a “techie” teacher. I enjoy resources that give me new insights on how to use more technology in my presentations.

1. Instructional Systems Design: Don Clark has a job similar to mine. He works as an instructional designer for Navy training. His website contains information on the ADDIE process, Learning situation analysis, and many other relevant fields. While the site is more informal than others, I find its grassroots approach relatable and charming. He has a complete “ISD Manual” that he’s created as well.

2. Rapid e-Learning Blog from Articulate:
Articulate is a program that my company uses to develop our lessons. This website has a number of links to technology, downloads and other blogs that center around the topic of instructional design. What I find most useful about this is its technological approach. Every time I check it out I feel as though I learn something new. I’ve already used the downloadable PowerPoint templates and put them to use. In a few weeks, I will be traveling to an articulate training class in Virginia, where I will learn how to create rapid eLearning courses such as the ones on this site. This program and blog, to me, represents the future of education because it is so stimulating, engaging and technological.

3. Tech Tools by Scholastic:
My strength as an instructor is my use of technology. This blog lists free and useful tools for instruction. It’s sponsored by Scholastic, a company that focuses on the education of children. For that reason, I will find it useful for the work I do in the high school courses I teach, but perhaps less useful in the corporate world.