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.