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
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
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 WorkA = 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
No comments:
Post a Comment