If you have been reading this blog through the course, you have seen some of my thoughts on the topics of learning theories, learning styles, technology, and how it all impacts instructional design. This post is an end-of-course reflection on how it all comes together. For that reason, it is longer than most but I hope you find it useful.
We all remember back to our formative years in elementary, middle, and high school and have varying feelings about those years depending on how our school experience played out. Some of us walked away loving school and learning, while others struggled and may now dread any learning activity. There could be many reasons for this dichotomy—a bad or good experience with a teacher or peers, a learning environment that did not match our particular learning style, or a lack of support needed to make the experience a successful and rewarding one. Cercone in the article Characteristics of Adult Learners with Implications for Online Learning Design, says that all learners are different because they have been shaped by their own experiences; because of that we need “to consider culture, physiology, cognitive style, learning styles, and personality (2008, p. 146). As an instructional designer we cannot affect the way an instructor teaches, but we can design the curriculum to incorporate material that accommodates different learning theories/styles/modalities to reach a variety of students and provide support through scaffolding and sequencing to enable students to learn effectively. This course provided a strong foundation in learning theories which will help me further my career as an instructional designer. So what did I learn (pun definitely intended!)?
Having been brought up in the normal public school system, I was very familiar with behaviorism and the teaching methods associated with that particular learning theory; with the cognitive learning theory because we use it extensively in my current teaching and development environment by creating learning objectives using Bloom’s Taxonomy to sequence information to progress through the various learning levels [Ertmer and Newby describe using simplification and standardization to size or chunk information so the learner can learn parts of a concept and then bring it all together for application (1993, p. 60)]; and adult learning theory through my faculty development program at work (we strictly teach adults). I was not, however, familiar with some of the more recent learning theories such as constructivism or connectivism. Connectivism made total sense to me given the way most of us learn today due to the technology and resources we now have available, and I will admit that my first stops when researching or learning new information are the internet, communities of practice, or other online resources. And now I have a new tool in my arsenal—blogs. These will allow me to keep up to date on current trends and learn from some of the key practitioners in the fields I am interested in.
Constructivism was not as intuitive for me and I have to admit that radical constructivism seems strange to me (there is only reality in what we construct ourselves) because I do feel there are some things that are concrete (theory of gravity) while others are subject to interpretation (religion, politics, etc). As my thinking was challenged by the readings and other students, I began to take a closer look at constructivism and I “shook off the limiting perspective” I had carried into the learning experience (Cercone, 2008, p. 149). I discovered that I do like a lot of the teaching and educational implications of this learning theory—for example, apprenticeships and learning concepts by solving real world problems. According to Ertmer and Newby, the ultimate measure of learning is based on how effective the learner is in performing within the system where those tools are actually used (1993, p. 64). Because of that I would like to be able to implement this theory more extensively in my educational environment but many of the roadblocks mentioned by the various authors in the course will make it challenging—primarily the additional time needed and the requirement for testing to “prove” learning occurred (because our courses lead to a career field certification). I know I cannot implement this on a wholesale basis, but I do plan to implement this theory in some lessons/courses. As our text tells us, the most straightforward recommendations are to involve students actively in their learning and to provide experiences that challenge their thinking and force them to rearrange their beliefs” (2009, p. 188). I can do this in my environment by building in internet research and smaller projects allowing the students to further expand on topics/concepts from their own jobs. Based on what I have learned, this should enhance my students’ learning.
Through this course, I also deepened my understanding regarding my own learning styles. I was always successful in school so the traditional methods worked for me, but I have found as I have grown older that I prefer a more loosely structured learning environment where I can learn in my own way, more informally. I do still enjoy learning in a classroom but as a student I would like to see more technology and alternate methods of delivery incorporated—simulations and mobile learning. As I discussed in last week’s blog assignment, I use all the learning theories to a certain degree based on the topic and my familiarity with it. I also tend to use most of the modalities we discussed (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, verbal) based on the type of information being learned. For these reasons, I like a variety of instructional methods and techniques to address all of these aspects of myself, and this variety in educational presentation is supported by research. As our text tells us, it has been shown that “multidimensional classrooms are more likely to motivate all students because they feature more differentiation” (2009, p. 202). Learning this about myself will help me be a more effective instructional designer because I can tailor curriculum development to appeal to these differences thereby reaching a wider variety of students in my classrooms.
So the big question that arises from my journey of self-discovery is this—what does this mean for us as instructional designers as we consider the connections between learning theories, learning styles, technology and motivation? We have already defined the various learning theories, but as we consider this question we also need to review some additional definitions. According to Frisby in “Learning Styles”, they are defined as “habitual patterns in how a person learns or prefers to learn” (2005, p. 295). Armstrong in Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, says that a “style designates a general approach that an individual can apply to every conceivable content” (2009, p. 17). We know that learners will have developed different preferences to learning based on their own experiences in the classroom and what their “traditional” school environment was like. Because of that learners typically lean toward one or two comfortable styles of learning, however staying with that particular style may not fully enhance their learning effectiveness. Research has shown that “learners with different characteristics may not only prefer, but benefit from, different instructional features and goals” so having the option for varied learning environments is warranted (Cercone, 2008, p. 138). ). This ties in directly with using a mix of learning theories as curriculum is developed.
Another important concept is the learning modality. A learning modality is defined by Frisby as a perceptual pathway “through which the individual naturally learns best from the environment” such as visual, auditory, verbal or kinesthetic (2005, p. 297). By integrating these modalities we can reach different learners or different strengths of the same learner. It has been shown that “the use of visuals with text creates connections between the two that encourages learners to process information more deeply. When this occurs, long term memory is strengthened” (O’Bannon, Puckett, & Rakes, 2006, p. 128). When designing curriculum, I would like to use technology or other resources to present the material verbally (something to read/text on screen), visually (using graphics or handouts for the students to see), and with sound (talking about the concept or watching a video or listening to a podcast) for those who lean toward the auditory spectrum. One way to do this for visual learners would be to use graphic organizers like mind maps which have been shown to align with the theory of multiple intelligences. As I have gone through this course, I have discovered that I also prefer the mix of modalities to stimulate my brain which has been shown to be one of the keys to motivation.
Motivation is key to learning—students that are motivated will be more likely to internalize and retain the information presented in class. There are many factors that influence motivation and theories that have been proposed to enhance motivation. The ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction) is an attempt to synthesize behavioral, cognitive, and affective learning theories and demonstrate that learner motivation can be influenced through external conditions such as instructional materials (Huett, Huett, Young, Moller, & Bray, 2008, p. 114). By addressing these factors, we can enhance motivation. So what is the best way to do this? There probably is not one best way but I firmly believe we can achieve this by incorporating a variety of learning theories, modalities, and technology into our curriculum. If a balance is achieved, all students will be taught partly in a manner they prefer, which leads to an increased comfort level and willingness to learn, and partly in a less preferred manner, which provides practice and feedback in ways of thinking and solving problems which they may not initially be comfortable with but which they will have to use to be fully effective professional” (Gilbert & Swanier, 2008, p. 30).
Overall I found this course and the material presented very compelling because it challenges me as a teacher and developer to be well-rounded and think of different and engaging ways to present material from many angles to reach as many students as possible. All students are different and even if they think they learn best one way, I think by viewing information from different lenses more sections of their brain are involved and they will remember and learn the material more effectively. For this reason, I will try to incorporate as many of the learning theories and modalities that make sense based on the learning topic; to enhance motivation and provide additional resources for the students I will incorporate technology where it enhances learning. Since most of my learners are adults, I need to keep in mind that “adult learners are most interested in learning about subjects that have immediate relevance to their job or personal life (Conlan, Grabowski, & Smith, p. 2), so I would also design instruction around real world problems that allows students to readily see how the material is relevant to their current needs and goals. This also meets the principle of using problem-centered rather than subject-centered learning for adults which falls into the Constructivist realm. Kim, in the article Social Constructivsm, identifies approaches which include “reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration, cognitive apprenticeships, problem-based instruction, webquests, anchored instruction and other methods that involve learning with others” (2001, p. 4). These types of learning approaches, if used appropriately, should provide a stimulating learning environment and aid in the transfer of classroom knowledge to the real world.
To summarize, I go back to a quote from an article by Ertmer and Newby which truly resonated with me and has stayed in my mind during the entire course. The last few paragraphs in the Ertmer and Newby reading sum up the need to use multiple approaches depending on the situation, the learners, and the specific tasks involved. The first part of this quote comes from P. B. Drucker (cited in Snelbecker, 1983) and the final part is from Ertmer and Newby.
“”These old controversies have been phonies all along. We need the behaviorist’s triad of practice/reinforcement/feedback to enlarge learning and memory. We need purpose, decision, values, understanding—the cognitive categories—lest learning be mere behavioral activities rather than action.” “And to this we would add that we also need adaptive learners who are able to function well when optimal conditions do not exist, when situations are unpredictable and task demands change, when the problems are messy and ill-formed and the solutions depend on inventiveness, improvisation, discussion, and social negotiation.” (1993, p. 70).
In this day and age, we need adaptive learners because the pace of change is so rapid. If we are tied to one way and can’t think critically, we will fall behind. In the case of instructional design, one size does not fit all. We need to be creative and bring all the tools in our arsenal to bear to provide students with the most engaging, thought-provoking and challenging instruction we can while providing them the support and scaffolding to succeed. Wow, this should be a fun ride.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
In the event you would like to follow up on any of the material above, I am including the references.
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE Journal, 16(2), 137–159. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=24286
Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning
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.
Frisby, C. L. (2005). Learning styles. In S. W. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of school psychology. Retrieved from Sage Reference Online database.
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
Huett, J., Moller, L., Young, J., Bray, M., & Huett, K. (2008). Supporting the distant student: The effect of ARCS-based strategies on confidence and performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 113–126.
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism
O’Bannon, B., Puckett, K., & Rakes, G. (2006, March). Using technology to support visual learning strategies. Computers in the Schools, 23(1/2), 125–137.
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.
kmeyerisd 