When I began the quest for a better understanding of learning theories seven weeks ago, my professor asked me to share my preferences for personal learning. My response deliberately encompassed preferences for cross-modal delivery of information in visual, auditory, expository, and kinetic forms. I have since learned that these preferences have more to do with learning styles than learning theories which explain how learning occurs. I also expressed an awareness of neuroscience citing brain-based learning as a preference because its practices accommodate physiological realities. For instance, I knew that instruction should be designed to address limited attention spans for students because I had been previously informed by Jensen (1998) that during acquisition, people can generally remain attentive for the length of their age in minutes. I had also found this to be true in my own experience. Having gained a better understanding of theory, I now have more ammunition to meet the needs of diverse learners and varied learning situations.
In studying traditional as well as more contemporary learning theories, I find that the proof is in the results of application. In fact, education professionals, by and large, agree that learning theories must meet several criteria, not the least of which is universal application (testing). Ormrod et al (2009) outline the criteria noting that learning theories must have:
1) A set of explicit assumptions that address aspects of learning
2) Specific principles derived from those assumptions that can be tested through research
3) Explicit definitions of key terms
4) Explanation(s) of underlying psychological dynamics of the events that influence learning
Ertmer & Newby (1993) corroborate this understanding, suggesting that learning theories are a source of verified instructional strategies, tactics, and techniques. When a theory yields predictable results, its practices become tools that can be applied to learning experiences for the purpose of achieving specific learning outcomes.
Traditional learning theories include Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. The former two meet with all of the criteria listed above, but the latter has shortcomings in that it does not fully address psychological and cognitive factors that influence learning. We still use behaviorist techniques like providing reinforcements in some learning environments because they work. Cognitivists principles are derived from scientific investigation. For instance, through empirical studies we know that only a certain amount of information can be retained in short term memory (STM) without rehearsal. The practical implication for teaching is that students need processing time and practice in order for effective learning to take place. Constructivists reject the notion of scientific truth (Ormrod et al, 2009) in favor of knowledge as a construct unique to each individual and heavily dependent upon cultural as well as environmental factors. The unifying thread between Cognitivism and Constructivism is that both theories place the learner in the center of the learning equation. One theory explains how our brains process information while the other explains how we learn in the context of environmental factors like language and expert guidance. Having worked in a school that promoted constructivists techniques and having recently been immersed in research on constructivist thought, I’m convinced that the theory has relevance as an epistemology (belief system about learning) rather than a theory. I don’t intend to throw costructivists practices out with the wash, but I will use them carefully when they are appropriate for the learning goal and environment.
Some of the more contemporary learning theories like Social Learning and Connectivism are extensions of constructivists thought with applications for experiential learning and the information age. For example, social learning theory posits that all meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities (Kim, 2001). This is a major tenet of Constructivist theory, but Social Learning theory is centered around experiential learning and apprenticeship/community arrangements where the environment affects the individual as the individual affects the environment. Bandura (1978) terms this relationship reciprocal determinism. I view Connectivism theory as constructivism on steroids. As a result of opportunities provided by the World Wide Web, we now construct knowledge with influence from more knowledgeable others (MKOs) who might be anywhere in the world. And because we have to manage so much information, we now store knowledge in our brains as well as on non-human devices.
Learning theory applied to the adult as a unique type of learner, lends more insight for instructional design. Research in this area reveals that motivation, prior experience, and self-direction immensely impact the learning process for adults because most adults are self-motivated and self-directed. They want to participate in determining how they learn. Adults also learn better when information is relevant to their current circumstances and can be implemented immediately (Conlan et al, 2003).
I’ve been enlightened because I can now attach the practices associated with theory to learning goals. I know rehearsal is primarily a behaviorist technique and that drill and practice is most appropriate when the goal is conditioned response. Studies have also shown that behaviorist techniques are very effective with developmentally and learning disabled students (Ormrod et al, 2009). Elaborating, aggregating information, and the use of schemata are cognitive practices that are best applied when problem-solving and organization are needed. Discussions and group projects are constructivist methods that encourage socialization and can be used to invite multiple perspectives.
Beyond the provision of a foundation for effective instructional design, exposure to the evolution of theory has endowed me with access to new technologies that will strengthen my ability to expand learning sources while providing interesting opportunities for practice. Some of the most interesting emerging technologies for education professionals are presented annually in The New Media Consortium’s Horizon Report at http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2009/.
Reference List:
Bandura, A. (1978), The Self-System in Reciprocal Determinism, American Psychologist, Vol. 33, No. 4 (pp. 344 – 358), Retrieved 12/19/10 from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1978AP.pdf
Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., Smith, K. (2003), Adult Learning. In M. Ored (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 11/10/10 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
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.
Jansen, E. , (1998), How Julie’s Brain Learns, Educational Leadership, v56 n3 pp. 41-45
Keller, J.M. , 1999, Using the ARCS Motivational Process in Computer-Based Instruction and Distance Education, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 78, Josey-Bass Publishers
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson
No comments:
Post a Comment