Reflection on Learning

My learning in this course on the theories of learning and instruction has taught me the ultimate secret for teaching students of all ages – bribing them with jellybeans! No, not really, but it has taught me that surprise, humor, and showing students the value in the learning are important factors. In this reflective paper I will outline a summary of what I have learned about historic and recent theories of learning, and describe how I see this knowledge helping me in my future career.

The course began with an overview of the major theories on learning, going all the way back to Socrates and Aristotle, who spent a lot of time philosophizing on the nature of knowledge and reality. I discovered a pattern of cultural, political, and religious underpinnings in the theories of many prominent pedagogists from the time of Socrates up to the present day. While I feel there is an ongoing shift to less biased research, and practices based on the scientific method, I think it is important to keep in mind our tendency to view knowledge and practices through the lens of the society we live in (Ormrod et al., 2009).

Through reading the findings of more modern researchers, I do feel I have gained a better understanding of the theory in which working memory (WM) interacts with long-term memory (LTM), and how this may affect my ability to process cognitively difficult tasks. I think this will really help me with my future learning. Cognitive load theory suggests that solving complex problems relies on having stored procedures and/or knowledge stored in LTM, so that WM is available to hold the current information being worked on (Jong, 2009). This helps me see the value in putting in the work to commit what may seem to be boring information and procedures to memory. For example, times tables, grammar and spelling rules, or programming language classes and methods.

While there are many theories surrounding preferred learning styles, the nature of intelligence, the impact of culture and it’s symbols, and the importance of motivation, my reading so far suggests that many of these theories should only be used in a general way to guide thinking about instructional design, and that there is little evidence to support the idea that any individual learner will benefit from being consistently taught in a specific learning style (Pashler et al., 2008). One thing that does stand out however is that there are benefits to teaching using a variety of learning modes, and that many learners benefit from varying their learning style, or method of approach when trying to master complex problems (Gilbert & Swanier, 2008). Also, by identifying whether certain types of knowledge acquisition can best be addressed by behaviourist, cognitive, constructivist, or social learning methods (as opposed to visual, auditory, or kinesthetic styles), we can identify what types of technological resources can be used to support the learning. Basic fact learning may be served well by a drill and practice “flash card” application, while exploring social issues may work better using an online discussion board.

I hope to apply what I have learned about learning styles very soon, as my team at work is about to embark on developing a professional learning course aimed at helping teachers learn more about the benefits of pedagogical documentation. I will try to use what I have learned about self-directed learning, collaborative learning, the power of learning networks, and the ARCS model of motivation developed by John Keller (Keller, 1999), to help design this course. While I will probably rely on the subject matter expert to write the material in a way that captures the learners’ attention, I will try to make sure we make the relevance of the material clear, that we deliver the course with a clear structure and format, and that the level of difficulty for learning tasks are designed to increase learner satisfaction upon completion. I’ll also suggest we follow a schedule of constructive messaging, as this has been shown to inspire learner confidence and improve outcomes (Huett et al., 2008)

Overall, this course has introduced me to the potential variety in learner needs, and how different teaching modes and technology resources can be used to address different types of subject matter. I have also learned about the importance of learner motivation, and how various aspects of motivation can be addressed through instructional design. Based on this new knowledge I hope to be able to improve the outcomes of students who will be taking part in pedagogical documentation training that I will shortly be involved in, as well as any other courses I may have a hand in developing in the future. Finally, I hope to be able to apply my greater insight into how adults learn to my own studies, and thus improve my personal learning outcomes.

References:

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. B., Kalinowski, K.E., Moller, L. & Huett, K. C. (2008). Improving the motivation and retention of online students through the use of ARCS-based e-mails, American Journal of Distance Education (22)3, 159-176, DOI: 10.1080/08923640802224451

Jong, T. (2009). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/83024/1/Jong10cognitive.pdf

Keller, J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (78).

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (9) pp. 105-119. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Week 7 - Recap of Learning

Since week 1 I’ve gained a deeper understanding of the differences in the various learning theories. I still hold to the general constructivist view, but while I originally talked about how our brains cause differences in how we learn and perceive the world, I’m now thinking more about how factors such as our culture, the symbols we use, and the networks of information we rely upon; all influence our perceptions of the world and the way we learn.

I don’t yet put a lot of value on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, in which we have possibly 8 or more discrete ways in which we can learn or solve problems (Armstrong, 2009, p. 6), but reading about this theory has made me think more about the value of presenting information, or working on problems, in a variety of ways that may be preferred by the learner. It’s also made me think more about the personal benefits of using a secondary method of information review if I did not gain mastery the first time, as this has been shown to be more effective than going over the information the same way again each time (Gilbert & Swanier, 2008).

I’m not sure I have a preferred learning style in terms of visual or kinesthetic. About the best I can say is that I have an “impatient” learning style. I want to go at my own pace, and generally to be self-directed, which is typical for adult learners (Conlan et al., 2003). I benefit from hearing something described, but I generally get impatient with the speed of verbal delivery. That said, I don’ think I've really had enough time yet to absorb and reflect on all we have learned over the past few weeks. I think if I was able to spend more hands-on time trying exercises based on the various learning styles, I may gain further insight into my preferences.

I’ve also thought more about the change that has occurred in the way I learn from when I was in school, or even in University. As an adult learner I now depend on technology for a lot more of my learning. Most of the information still comes from people, but I access the information in non-human repositories, rather than directly from a person. I can also see that in the not-to-distant future I will be relying even more on the ability for technology to help me view data and relationships in different ways, or even to find patterns, or items of interest, and present them to me, without my direct prompting.

Currently I use computers and my phone (which is really a small computer) to access sources of information on the internet pertaining to my job. This would include standards, best practices, code examples, design examples, and information on new hardware and software coming onto the market. I also use computers to access my course information, to submit assignments, and to carry on asynchronous discussions with my classmates. To some degree I also use SmartBoards, printers, scanners, and projectors to access or display information. Technology also allows me to access manuals, books, articles, and videos, so I can learn while waiting in line, or at the airport, in ways that were never possible with just paper. Add in a 3G connection and the possibilities increase even further.

Thinking about this, and the pace of change in our society, does make me agree with one of the connectivist propositions, which is that learning about how we learn is very important (Davis et al., 2008). Connectivists also talk about the “half-life” of knowledge which is “the span of time between learning something new, being able to apply it, and finding that it is outdated and no longer useful” (Davis et al., 2008). Because I work in the technology field, the half-life of my knowledge is even shorter than average, which is part of why I’m taking this course! I need to have more skills that don’t become obsolete every 6 months.

References:

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

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

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

Thoughts on Connectivisim

To go along with my Learning Network Mindmap, and this weeks topic of Connectivisim, here are more of my thoughts.

Access to the internet, and the expert information contained within it’s pages has certainly changed the way I learn about my general areas of interest. In the past I would have had to travel to a library, or purchase books and magazines to access much of this information. The time and cost barriers would probably have meant I simply would have missed out or passed up on those opportunities.

In a similar way, the savings in travel time afforded by taking this ID course online has been fairly critical in making it feasible for me to do it at all. Telecommunications in general provides easier access to the friends in my network that I rely on for various types of expert knowledge.

The tool I probably rely on most is Google, although Google relies on a huge ecosystem of content, and a variety of information linking, retrieval and display technologies.

The first thing I do if I have a question about anything these days is usually to type (or speak) a question to Google. I’ll then scan through the responses to find valid sources with answers. I may simply read the answer. Sometimes I’ll apply the new knowledge directly to a problem I was trying to solve. I may print out or bookmark a page for future reference. Sometimes I may share a link with friends or colleagues via Email, Facebook, or Google+.

Although I’m not all that sure yet that I agree that connectivism as a particularly useful theory of learning, it’s true that my network involves many of the principles of connectivisim. It’s critical to my job, and my life in general, to always be learning more. These days the world changes a great degree within each generation. To optimize our opportunities we need to learn how to use new technologies, understand different cultures, and new ways of doing things. While new books are constantly being written, the web is a far easier way to keep information up-to-date. The low cost and ease of access also make it far easier to find and compare different opinions, which is critical to gaining a broader and less biased viewpoint on information.

Certainly the vast majority of information I access each day resides in non-human appliances. I recognize that this is a very recent development in human history (even written records only go back a few thousand years, and till a few hundred years ago even written records were accessed by a tiny minority). Like humans, the digital formats generally afford the ability to learn by making connections to other nodes or information sources, which is another aspect of connectivisim (Davis et. al., 2008).

I don’t disagree with principles of connectivisim that point out how certain aspects of learning are now more important for a greater number of people, but I think I have a problem with how it’s presented as a new learning paradigm. While the nature of our networks may have changed, and the pace of change in technology and society is faster for more people than before, individual humans have had to deal with massive changes in networks and culture for thousands of years. At times even whole cultures have had to adapt in a short timeframe. I think in general that humans are very good at adapting to new situations. We adapt by learning, rather than changing physically. Does it matter much on an individual level if more of us have to adapt on a more regular basis? It matters to society, we need infrastructure to support the ongoing education of the population, but does it matter to the individual?

In one of his Blog posts Stephen Downes seems to suggest we should all but abandon methodical inquiry in favour of just finding out what everyone else’s point of view is.

“The very forms of reason and enquiry employed in the classroom must change. Instead of seeking facts and underlying principles, students need to be able to recognize patterns and use things in novel ways. Instead of systematic methodical enquiry, such as might be characterized by Hempel's Deductive-Nomological method, students need to learn active and participative forms of enquiry. instead of deference to authority, students need to embrace diversity and recognize (and live with) multiple perspectives and points of view. (Downes, 2009).”

But how does anyone come up with an initial point of view to compare to, if you don’t start with some systematic methodical inquiry?

I’m all for recognizing that multiple points of view may exist, and I’m always ready to change my point of view in light of new evidence, but this seems to suggest that either nobody is actually right, or that it doesn’t matter if they are or not.

Part of the problem (and this seems to be shared by many learning theories in my view) is that the theorists tend to focus on a particular type of learning or knowledge. Connectivists seem to focus on transitory soft skills (things like using a computer, driving a car, or buying stocks). Their model may work fairly well in this world, but I’m not sure what proportion of our lives, even in the current digital age, really revolves around these skills and knowledge? Understanding things like “what goes up must come down” or “if a car hits you it will hurt”, being able to read, count and do basic math, these are the basic things we spend most of our time using. Probably the biggest barrier to most people for using a computer is not that the technology is hard to figure out, but basic reading comprehension.

Finally, the connectivists seem to imply that the pace of change will keep increasing to some unmanageable level, thus we need new teaching methods to cope. But I think the rate of change has only increased to match what we are capable of, and will naturally match that. As I mentioned, in the past an adventurous traveler could encounter many new cultures, languages, and concepts, and need to learn many new skills and details about the local flora and fauna in order to survive. The difference in recent times is that many more of us live in a world of rapid change, but we have created it because it matches out abilities. Why in the future would we create a world beyond out ability to cope with?

References:

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

Downes, S. (March 20, 2009). The New Nature of Knowledge [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/53404 

Learning Network Mindmap

Here is my Learning Network Mindmap. For the sake of clarity I have lumped things like Facebook and Google+ in with the Internet at large. I have also not shown all the lines linking how I relate to people via face-to-face, phone, or internet channels, as it seems the "resource" is more important than the channel. In theory there is a person behind every resource (except the occasional use of the Google AI - and while the AI looks up information provided by a person, it does do work interpreting my request).