When we began studying learning
theories, I identified with the Cognitivist and Constructivist learning
theories, which recognize the active role of the learner in the learning
process. As someone who learns best with hands-on, real-world learning
experiences, I identified the most with Constructivism, which allows learners
the most flexibility and freedom in creating meaning. Initially I thought that
the stimuli-response definition of Behaviorism described in the Ertmer &
Newby article put the learner in a very passive role and minimized the
complexity of the learner and the learning process. However, I came to
recognize that, as the Ertmer & Newby article pointed out, Instructional
Designers need to consider the learners and the learning objectives and apply
the learning theory that will be most effective.
Although I initially
identified with Cognitivism and Constructivism, Connectivism is the best match
for me when describing how I learn. When I read 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 learn
about restoring a 1967 Ford Mustang, I felt like it was describing me (except
my interest is in cooking, not cars). Like Bobby, I start expanding my personal
learning network whenever I am attempting to learn something new, and my
network has grown increasingly digital. Web 2.0 tools like blogs, RSS readers,
and social networking applications facilitate learning best for me because they
integrate text, audio, and video, and because they help me subscribe to, save,
and organize information that interests me.
After completing the Learning Theories
matrix, I see Constructivism being much less
successful as the primary theoretical perspective in the online courses I support, where students need clearly defined
objectives, instruction, and assessments. I
feel 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. In
my position as an Instructional Designer for an online MBA program, some of the
principles of Behaviorism are always present in our course design. For example,
we set up online quizzes and assessments in our learning management system that
provide students with immediate feedback, giving students opportunities to
practice, and providing reinforcement for the correct responses. We also
develop our courses around Quality Matters standards, which focuses on
providing measurable outcomes (course-level and module-level) for student
learning. However, some of our other assignments take on different theoretical approaches.
For example, our courses that involve practicum work and internships take on a
Constructivist approach. Many of the students in our online classes are working
adults, so some assignments take on principles of Adult Learning Theory and
Connectivism, such as group Discussions, project-based assignments, and the use
of Web 2.0 and social networking tools.
One of the most
important concepts I learned while studying the learning theories was the idea
of matching content to instructional method, rather than trying to match
content to learning styles, and the idea that learning styles can change
depending on the content being taught. 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). As an Instructional Designer, this concept
will always be in the forefront of my mind. 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.
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
