Reflection

When beginning Learning Theories and Instruction, I did not fully understand the extent of learning to come. I do not currently work in the field of Instructional Design and my past experience in training delivery did not prepare for the depth of knowledge presented in this class. My understanding of how one learns was centered on sensory learning (auditory, visual and kinesthetic ).

What I find most surprising and striking is the vast array of theories and how they all compare and contrast with each other. The Behaviorist theory posits that learning occurs when a proper response follows a specific stimulus (Ertmer & Newby 1993 p. 55). A Behaviorist is concerned only with observable actions and is not concerned with the thinking that occurs in the subjects mind between the time of the stimulus and the resulting response. In contrast, the cognitive theory is all about the active mental processes of the learner during learning activities. Cognitivists want to understand the mental processes of the learner during problem solving, language development, concept formation, information processing, memory, and information retrieval (Ertmer & Newby, 1993 and Nagowah & Nagowah, 2009). Behaviorism and Cognitivism do share common ground in that both theories believe that the environment in which learning takes place does play a role in the learning process.

The Constructivist theory has many similarities to Cognitivism as both theories are concerned with the learners mind and thinking. Constructivists differ from Cognitivists in that they focus on how one’s mind creates knowledge by giving meaning to new experiences based on prior knowledge, experiences and beliefs and not on mental processes of the mind (Jenkins, 2006). Social learning theory and Cognitive theory share the position that one constructs his or her own knowledge. The difference between the two theories is that in the Cognitive theory the construction of knowledge is created and possessed individually. The social learning theory views knowledge distribution among co-participants of the activities that produced it as an essential element of learning (Ormrod, Schunk & Gredler, 2009).

As an adult learner who anticipates creating Instructional designs for other adults, I am particularly interested in Adult Learning theory. In the multidimensional Adult Learning theory, learning occurs when an adult creates meaning or constructs knowledge through the body, mind, spirit and emotions (Merriam, 2008). Another multidimensional learning theory is that of Connectivism. According to Siemens (as cited in Davis, Edmund & Kelly-Bateman, 2008), "Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired and the ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital." Connectivism views learning as a process that connects information from many different sources, which aligns with Adult Learning theory’s connection to body, mind, spirit and emotions.

When examining the above-mentioned learning theories, I could not pinpoint just one that I felt particularly drawn to. However, the examination of the theories helped me to go beyond the auditory, visual and kinesthetic view of my own learning experience and provided a deeper understanding of how the theories were used in my own education and how they have helped me learn. Each of the theories have views that I believe can be useful in various situations but there was not one theory that I believe will be useful in all situations. What I will take with me into my future instructional design career regarding learning theories is that it will be best to use multiple theories in my designs in order to address a wide variety of learners.

As a future instructional designer it is important that I remember that people have different styles of learning and that those styles will vary according to what is being learned as well as where and when the learning takes place (Gilbert & Swanier, 2008). Multiple Intelligence theory posits that people have intelligence in eight different categories (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist) and that the varying degrees to which a person possesses each of these intelligences will affect the style in which that person prefers to learn (Armstrong, 2009).

There are many technologies available today that enable instructional designers to address the varied needs of learners. Online instruction allows for asynchronous communications in threaded conversations. The World Wide Web can also be used for synchronous communication using technologies such as Skype. The telecommunications industry uses e-learning, webinars, on-line courses and instructor-led distance learning to educate employees (Freifeld, 2008 and Bolch, 2008). While using technology to educate people, we as instructional designers must also address the motivational needs of our students in order to keep them engage in the learning.

My expectation as an instructional designer is that I will be teaching adults in classes that they choose to attend. Therefore, I expect that these students will be self-directed and motivated to learn the course content, at least initially. I recognize that even a highly motivated student can lose focus while trying to fit education in amongst the many other demands of life. With that in mind when designing instruction, I will address motivation using the ARCS motivational process (Keller, 1999). In order to garner student attention the design will address the opportunities created by successful completion of class tasks and explain why the course content is important to learn. Course design will utilize ‘real-life’ tasks that students can easily transfer to their lives to address relevance. By creating objectives and learning tasks, that progress from easy to difficult and demonstrating personal interest for each student I will help build confidence. Creating informal communications processes along with providing appropriate feedback and clearly defined grading rubrics will set proper expectations and increase student satisfaction.

What I have learned in Learning Theories and Instruction will be the basis for my future career in Instructional Design. I view this class as the foundation on which the rest of my learning in the field will be based. I found the class to be both challenging an enlightening and am looking forward to continuing my education in the field.

References:

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed). Alexandria , VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bolch, M. (Sep 2008). Taming tech training. Training, 45 (8), 60-61. Retrieved on June 19, 2010 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=19&hid=13&sid=7376bfec-2631-4445-bc6b-a75bc7b96cd8%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bch&AN=34789076

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

Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Freifeld, L. (Feb 2008). It’s the network. Training, 45(2), 58-64.

Gilbert, J. & Swanier, C. (Fall 2008). Learning styles: how do they fluctuate? Institute for Learning Styles Journal 1, 29-40.

Jenkins, J (2006). Constructivism. Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. SAGE Publications. Retrieved May 26, 2010 from http://www.sage-ereference.com/edleadership/Article_n122.html

Keller, J. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 78, 39-46.

Merriam, S. B. (2008). Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, 93–98.

Nagowah, L. & Nagowah, S. (2009). A reflection on the dominant learning theories: Behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. The International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 279-285.

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