Fitting the Pieces Together: A Look Back at My Initial Learning Theory Analysis

     How often do you look back and reflect upon something you have been learning? I tend to be a learner who is constantly reevaluating information that I am learning as well as one that works consistently toward figuring out how the new information applies in my current situation and possible future circumstances. When I cannot find an application for new information within my current situation, I often file interesting information away for future reference. While working in my current class for learning theories and instruction, I was asked in the first week to evaluate my personal learning process as well as evaluate how that process was relevant within the first three learning theories studied within this course.

     At the time, I believed that my personal learning process was most aligned with the cognitive learning theory. In my analysis of my personal learning process, I recognized the elements of learning where I said, "I tend to learn  best when a concept is organized in a way that makes sense and stores within my memory with other areas of learning so that it is easier to recall the information later as needed" (para. 3). I was also still sorting through the differences and meanings in the terms of learning styles versus learning theories. In that first discussion post, my understanding centered more around ideas of visual versus auditory learning and how these two areas affected my learning style. I was still learning that a learning theory has a specific definition, which can be found in the summary provided by Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler (2009) in three parts as:

     1. Purpose: Identify real-world events required for learning 2. Criteria for propositions: Must be testable
     through research; independent of any definition of knowledge, and 3. Nature of statements about learning:
     Specific principles of learning and identification of events that support learning. (p. 7)

I have since learned that my personal learning style and understanding of how learning theories apply to my own learning process is more complex than what the cognitive theory explains.

     Although the cognitive theory was a starting point for my understanding of my own learning process, I have since been able to recognize how other learning theories apply to my learning process. I am now able to recognize the influence of the constructivist learning theory within my learning process because as Ertmer & Newby (1993) describe, "Constructivism is a theory that equates learning with creating meaning from experience" (p. 62). I now recognize how even when I am building upon prior learning experiences, I am creating new meaning from what I am learning. Constructivism has direct application in the description of the expectations from my current course of studies. Each week, I must read through material, determine how it applies to the learning goals of the week, and create meaning from the text in order to interact within the weekly discussion board assignments as well as other projects.

     In addition to constructivism, I recognize the influence of adult learning theory due to the motivational aspects of my learning process as well as the autonomous nature of this learning environment. While I had a basic understanding of adult learning theory from my own work instructing adults, the coursework allowed me to find aspects of adult learning theory that I had not yet explored. I was able to revisit my prior understanding of Gardner's theories of multiple intelligence and clarify that the areas of multiple intelligence are not the same as a learning style. In 2003, Gardner addressed the differences by saying, "By the middle of the 1990s, I had noticed a number of misinterpretations of the theory--for example, the confusion of intelligences with learning styles and the confounding of a human intelligence with a societal domain" (p. 8). I learned from the study what Gardner intended in his definition of multiple intelligences and how these applied to my own learning process and strengths. I am utilizing connections within different networks and branching out into different areas to expand those networks in learning. Each week, I interact with my peers in a discussion board that encourages the social learning process. I have learned even more how much mental state can influence my learning process, just as Cherry (n.d.) related when describing Bandura's theory of social learning, "Bandura noted that external, environmental reinforcement was not the only factor to influence learning and behavior. He described intrinsic reinforcement as a form of internal reward, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment" (para. 7).

     In addition to the various learning theories, I am exploring new ways to utilize technology within my learning process. In addition to the frequent internet searches for information related to classroom topics found within educational articles, I find myself interacting more frequently within the blog world online. My understanding of how different blogs contribute in my ability to learn new information as well as expand my connections has increased tremendously throughout this course. I am researching new programs available that help organize information I learn and create a system that makes the information easier to access on a regular basis as a part of my learning process.

     Overall, I have learned a lot since the first week of this course, and the experience has been more than I had anticipated. I believe that I will continue to learn more about how I learn as seen through the context of the different learning theories and that by understanding these elements, I will be able to better apply the principles of sound instructional design.

Resources

Cherry, K. (n.d). Social learning theory: An overview of Bandura's social learning

     theory. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/

     a/sociallearning.htm

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.

 Gardner, H. (2003, April 21). Multiple intelligences after 20 years. Paper presented to

       the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from 

       http://howardgardner01.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mi-after-twenty-years2.pdf

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction. New

       York: Pearson.

Reflection: Learning about Learning Theories and Instruction

Reflection: Learning about Learning Theories and Instruction

Karla Shane

Walden University

Dr. Shirley Weaver

Learning Theories and Instruction, EDUC 6115-2

December 22, 2013

 

Reflection: Learning about Learning Theories and Instruction

                Before this course began, I believed that I already had a good foundation of information about different learning theories and how these theories interact with instruction. However, as the course began, I quickly realized that since I last studied learning theories over twenty years ago during my studies in elementary education, much has developed in the way of learning theories and how we view learning. I was familiar on a basic level with behavioral and cognitive learning theories as well as the names associated with these theories, but I had never encountered the learning theories of constructivism, connectivism, social learning or adult learning. Although I was familiar with some of the elements of each, I had not previously ascribed any of the ideas to a specific learning theory. Through this course, I found new knowledge in how people learn, learned more about my own personal learning process, found my way through the differences of theories and styles, and discovered how these elements apply to the field of instructional design.

First, I knew about Skinner’s work with behavioral theory as well as Piaget’s work with cognitive theory. I was basically familiar with the elements of each and how they applied to instruction, particularly within a K-12 classroom. However, as a K-12 teacher in elementary education, my basis for application of Skinner and behaviorism was primarily centered on classroom discipline instead of a learning theory that would explain how learners acquire knowledge and my understanding of cognitive theory was primarily focused on ideas of what type of material presentation in a classroom was developmentally appropriate. I learned that behaviorism could apply in learning through a stimulus, response, and association such as what happens when drilling math facts with a flashcard. As Ertmer & Newby said, “Learning is accomplished when a proper response is demonstrated following a presentation of a specific environmental stimulus” (p. 55). I also learned that cognitive theory involved more than choosing appropriate methods to present information to students, focusing on aspects of how learners acquire information in the learning process.

What surprised me most as I continued the course of study was that my initial assessments about influential learning theories were not as deeply set as I believed in the beginning of this course. I was surprised to learn that many of the methods that I use on a regular basis in the classroom with students are not behaviorist or cognitivist theory based at all. I was amazed at the influence of constructivism and connectivism within my regular classroom instructional practices. In fact, my initial reaction to the constructivist theory was not favorable as I was working to understand how learning could be so relative to the learner. My background in science and mathematics made it more challenging for me to initially understand how the constructivist theory applied to learning. As I continued studying, I began to understand what Ertmer & Newby meant when they said, “The constructivist designer specifies instructional methods and strategies that will assist learners in actively exploring complex topics/environments and that will move them into thinking in a given content area as an expert user of that domain might think” (p. 65). I utilize Vygotsky’s process of working within a zone of proximal development on a regular basis as well as the related scaffolding techniques (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009). I also began to understand how important connections to different resources and networks were within the process of learning, finding that a map of those resources contained valuable information and insight into my own learning process.

Next, I have expanded my understanding by differentiating elements within my personal learning process. I have learned to recognize that although I may seem to learn primarily through one aspect as my strongest in my personal learning style, I am in no way limited to this as my primary means of learning. I initially believed that the influence of my auditory processing issues would affect the learning theory that best fit within my own personal learning process. What I learned was that although the processing issue may sometimes affect my learning style, it did not actually play a role within the learning theory or theories that influence my personal way of learning. I have discovered through this course that I am heavily affected by aspects of social learning theory, connectivism, and constructivism. Upon encountering adult learning theory, I never doubted that its elements were influential in my current learning process, but I was able to learn more about how the theory applies. I now recognize that my current educational format is designed in a way that builds upon constructivism and extends into the other learning theory areas. Throughout this course and my previous course, I had to read through text and materials, construct meaning from those materials that fit within the application of the course, and then apply the information within the course assignments.

In addition to the increased understanding of my own personal learning process, I began to understand how to differentiate between a learning style and a learning theory. Before beginning this course, those two concepts seemed interchangeable, but I have learned that style and theory are not the same. While my style may influence how I best process information at different points within a course, the theory is the backbone of how I am actually learning the material. The learning theory provides the structural support for all aspects of learning; it is the approach to the actual learning process itself. Educational technology is built to support the learning theories and allows for adaptability within learning as well as flexibility for the methods of learning. Educational technology can also provide support for continuing motivation within study but does not dictate motivation itself. Motivation is tied to learning styles because as learners, we are more motivated to learn when we are receiving information in a preferred style rather than one less familiar or recognizable. Motivation is propelled by different learning theories, which can provide a basis for long-term and intrinsic learning associated with adult learners.

Finally, this course has provided a foundation for how learners acquire knowledge. As an instructional designer, I must provide meaningful interaction with the learning experiences and the learning theories provide the basis for understanding how to make learning meaningful for the learner. While I have to consider the different ways in which learners receive the information, whether visual, auditory, hands-on application, or any other combination, the goal is to provide instructional balance in a way that supports the type of student within my classroom. I must understand the motivation of my students and design instruction in a way that maintains motivation, including the use of ARCS, in order to promote the success of my students. As Dr. Ormrod (n.d) said in her video on An Introduction to Learning:

To teach effectively, you’ve got to know how students learn. And you’ve got to know in

 particular how they think, what’s going on in their heads as they’re studying, as they’re reading,

as they’re responding to questions and so on. Because without knowing how they think through

things, you’re not in a good position to help them think more effectively about the subject

matter that you’re teaching. (para. 4)

References

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.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d.). An Introduction to Learning [Video webcast]. Retrieved from

http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/EDUC/6115/01/downloads/

WAL_EDUC6115_01_A_EN-CC.zip

               

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom

                edition). New York: Pearson.

Walden University M.S. in Instructional Design and Technology

Formative Evaluative Criteria for Application and Reflection Assignments

 

Quality of Work Submitted Work reflects graduate-level critical, analytical thinking.	A: Exemplary Work A = 4.00; A- = 3.75 All of the previous, in addition to the following:	B: Graduate Level Work B+ = 3.50; B = 3.00; B- = 2.75 All of the previous, in addition to the following:	C: Minimal Work C+ = 2.50; C = 2.00; C- = 1.75	F: Work Submitted but Unacceptable F = 1.00
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to- 1.     Understand the assignment’s purpose; 2.     Apply  presented strategies 3.     Understand and apply readings, discussions, and course materials. *When referencing web-based sources, an active hyperlink to the original source must be included (if applicable).	Demonstrates the ability intellectually to explore and/or implement key instructional concepts. Demonstrates insightful reflection and/or critical thinking, as well as creativity and originality of ideas. Demonstrates exceptional inclusion of major points, using creditable sources*, in addition to required readings and course materials. * May include, but are not limited to, scholarly articles, web-based information, etc.	Demonstrates a clear understanding of the assignment’s purpose. Provides careful consideration of key instructional concepts. Includes specific information from required readings or course materials to support major points.	Shows some degree of understanding of the assignment’s purpose. Generally applies theories, concepts, and/or strategies correctly, with ideas unclear and/or underdeveloped Minimally includes specific information from required readings or course materials.	Shows a lack of understanding of the assignment’s purpose. Does not apply theories, concepts, and/or strategies Does not include specific information from creditable sources.
Adherence to Assignment Expectations The extent to which work meets the assigned criteria and integrates technology appropriately.	Assignment meets all expectations, integrating exemplary material and/or information. Assignment demonstrates exceptional breadth and depth.	All parts of the assignment are completed, with fully developed topics. The work is presented in a thorough and detailed manner. Assignment demonstrates appropriate breadth and depth. Assignment integrates technology appropriately.	Most parts of assignment are completed. Topics are not fully developed. Assignment   demonstrates minimal depth and breadth. Some elements of technology are included.	Does not fulfill the expectations of the assignment. Key components are not included. Assignment lacks breadth and depth. No technology integrated or integration method is inappropriate for application.
Written Expression and Formatting The extent to which scholarly, critical, analytical writing is presented using Standard Edited English ( i.e. correct grammar, mechanics). When referencing web-based sources, an active hyperlink to the original source must be included. Stated fair-use, copyright, licensing, and/or creative commons guidelines should be followed for all web-based resources. *APA formatting guidelines need only be followed if applicable to assignment.	Work is unified around a central purpose with well-developed ideas, logically organized in paragraph structure with clear transitions. Effective sentence variety; clear, concise, and powerful expression are evident. Work is written in Standard Edited English. No prominent errors interfere with reading. All web-based sources are credited through embedded links. Fair-use, copyright, licensing, and/or creative commons guidelines are followed. *Represents scholarly writing in a correct APA format.	Ideas are clearly and concisely expressed. Elements of effective communication such as an introduction and  conclusion are included. Work is written in Standard Edited English with few, if any, grammatical or mechanical errors. Few, if any, errors in crediting web-based sources. Few, if any, errors following fair-use, copyright, licensing, and/or creative commons guidelines. *Work is well organized with correct APA formatting  throughout.	Ideas are not clearly and concisely expressed. Elements of effective communication such as an introduction and  conclusion are not included. Work contains more than a few grammatical, or mechanical errors. Some web-based sources are not credited. Some errors in following fair-use, copyright, licensing, and/or creative commons guidelines. *Somewhat represents mature, scholarly, graduate-level writing, with APA generally followed.	Major points do not reflect appropriate elements of communication.   No effort to express ideas clearly and concisely. Work is not written in Standard Edited English. Contains many grammatical or mechanical errors Web-based sources are not credited.. Fair-use, copyright, licensing, and/or creative commons guidelines are not followed. * The quality of writing and/or APA formatting are not acceptable for graduate level work.
Final Assignment Grade	A: Exemplary Work A = 4.00; A- = 3.75	B: Graduate Level Work B+ = 3.50; B = 3.00; B- = 2.75	C: Minimal Work C+ = 2.50; C = 2.00; C- = 1.75	F: Work Submitted but Unacceptable F = 1.00

It is expected that all applications and reflective essays will be submitted according to the assignment due dates indicated. Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the faculty member if contacted by the student prior to the due date describing extenuating circumstances. Last Updated: 7.14.09