Prior to this class, I never thought
that much about how people learn. I had developed effective learning strategies
(thanks to many teachers), including how to take notes, organize information,
review information, and remember information. Getting good grades and positive
feedback motivated me. I knew these learning strategies worked for me, and I assumed
everyone else used whatever strategies worked for them. I guess this makes me a
Behaviorist and a Cognitivist. This semester, I realized that learning is very complex,
involving attention, motivation, theoretical approaches, learning styles, and
educational technologies, and an Instructional Designer must consider all of
these factors.
My personal learning process contains
elements of all of the learning theories we studied this semester. In addition
to Behaviorism and Cognitivism, I am somewhat of a Connectivist. My personal learning network supports the
central concept of Connectivism that learning is “distributed within a network,
social, and technologically enhanced” (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman,
2008). I identify with the Bobby and the Mustang example of Connectivism
provided by Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman (2008), in which Bobby uses
various aspects of his personal learning network to restore a 1967 Ford
Mustang. Like Bobby, I use Web 2.0 tools like blogs, RSS readers, and social
networking applications to expand my personal learning network when I am learning
something new. These technology tools facilitate learning best for me because
they help me subscribe to, save, and organize information that interests me.
In addition to learning about my
personal learning process, I was surprised to learn how much issues like
attention span and motivation affect student learning. Ormrod, Schunk &
Gredler state that “attention is a necessary prerequisite of learning” (56). As
an Instructional Designer, understanding the role of attention in learning will
help me design learning materials that engage students. Ormrod, Schunk &
Gredler (2009) discuss tips for maintaining student attention, such as using a
variety of presentations, learning materials, student activities, and teaching
styles so that the classroom doesn’t become repetitive and predictable. I will
try to use a variety of techniques to maintain student attention, such as
discussions, interactive quizzes that give feedback, group projects, and
more. I will try and appeal to students’
interests and make learning meaningful to them, an important point emphasized
by Ormrod, Schunk & Gredler (2009, p. 48, 58). I can make learning
meaningful by understanding who the students are and what kinds of degrees they
are seeking, and providing anecdotes, case studies, and hands-on learning
activities that are tailored to the interests and goals of these students.
In addition to attention, it’s
important for Instructional Designers to consider motivation. Motivation can be
an issue in the online environment, where students may not feel a sense of
community. Keller (1999) says that there are serious motivational challenges
among distance learners: “Students’
comments often focus on their feelings of isolation, lack of feeling of making
steady progress, and great doubts about being able to finish the course given
their other responsibilities and time constraints” (p. 43). Vygotsky’s theory
includes the notion that learners construct motivational beliefs about their
ability levels (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009, p. 221). To address
motivation, I will use the ARCS motivational design technique as shown by
Keller (1999) in Table 4.1 (p. 41). Completing these motivational design matrices
will allow me to target specific aspects of a course with motivational
strategies, including sending unexpected motivational messages, providing
scaffolding in assignments such as “process modeling” and “question prompting,”
and including technical support opportunities and modeling effective learning
strategies (e.g., a “learn how to learn online” session) (Lim, 2004, p. 17-18).
When considering motivation, I think it’s also important to consider principles
of Constructivism and Adult learning theory, which stress the importance of
social learning and group interaction. LMS tools such as Discussion groups and
Web Conferencing tools can allow us to foster a unique sense of collaboration
and community in the online environment.
The
most striking concept I learned this semester is the idea of matching course
content with the appropriate instructional approach. I have always tried to use
a variety of instructional strategies and techniques so as to appeal to many
types of learners. I am most familiar with the definition of learning styles
presented by McCarthy (1981), as quoted by Gilbert & Swanier (2008), who
contends that there are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners. The concept
that will have the biggest impact on me as an Instructional Designer is the
idea that students’ learning styles may change depending on the course,
content, or learning objective. Gilbert
& Swanier (2008) state that the “learning styles of students may fluctuate
within the context of a course from concept to concept, or lesson to lesson.
These findings suggest that students needed repetitive instruction while
varying the instructional method before mastering each concept” (37). This
suggests that we should be more concerned with aligning instructional methods
with the content being taught, rather than trying to match content with the
various “learning styles” of students. Learning about the various learning
theories has already helped me consider what types of content are best suited
to certain instructional approaches.
The Learning
Theories matrix helped me understand that elements of each learning theory are
useful with different learners in different situations, and sometimes multiple
learning theories are useful in a particular instructional situation. An Instructional Designer must also consider
attention, motivation, learning styles, educational technologies, the students,
and the learning environment. Overall, the Ertmer & Newby (1993) article
was critical for my understanding of the different learning theories and as an
Instructional Designer, I will practice their advice: “The critical question
instructional designers must ask I not ‘Which is the best theory?’ but ‘Which
theory is the most effective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific
learners?” (p. 64).
Sources
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., &
Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging
perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism
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.
Gilbert, J., & Swanier, C. (2008). Learning styles: How do
they fluctuate? Institute for Learning Styles Journal [Vol. l].
Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~witteje/ilsrj/Journal%20Volumes/Fall%202008%20Volume%201%20PDFs/Learning%20Styles%20How%20do%20They%20Fluctuate.pdf
Keller, J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS
motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning (78).
Lim, C. P. (2004). Engaging learners
in online learning environments. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice
to Improve Learning, 48(4), 16–23.
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler,
M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition).
New York: Pearson.
