Mod 2: Conversations on Learning Theory

Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, connectivism, multiple intelligences, learning styles, experiential learning…

Postulations and reflections conveyed in the blog conversations between Bill Kerr, Stephen Downes, and Karl Kapp can indeed be applied to today’s examination of learning theory and instructional design. As I review the basic principles of the various learning theories out there, I’m becoming more aware of the need to closely examine the commonalities amongst them, rather than simply focus on their radical differences – esp. when designing effective instruction for my students in today’s digital age. I think we can agree that in all of the theories listed above, the nature of the learning task, and, the students' ability levels play critical roles.

Effective instructors consider both the nature of the learning tasks and the ability levels of their students before applying a particular theoretical approach (or combination of approaches) to instruction. For example, the learning currently going on in my 21^st century classroom is quite complex and multi-faceted. My students engage in a variety of learning tasks under varying conditions or situations. Therefore, I find myself utilizing components of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism to meet my instructional goals. In a typical instructional unit, I start out with direct instruction and modeling that’s aligned with state standards and targeted objectives to help my students acquire foundational skills (behaviorism). Then, the children spend time constructing knowledge though the planning for and creation of a learning product (cognitivism/constructivism). Finally, the students engage in both self- and group-reflection on their learning processes and outcomes, and, in self-assessment of successful learning (constructivism).

In fact, I subscribe to Ertmer and Newby’s (1993) idea that, as the amount of knowledge generation and transfer required for a learning task increases, the appropriate instructional approach moves along the theory continuum from behaviorist to cognitivist to constructivist. Kapp (2007) extends that line of thought by suggesting that a behavioral approach is useful for lower level learning -- rote tasks and learning facts (knowing how to do something). A cognitive approach can be applied to learning where procedural and rule-based strategies/skills are transferred to another task (knowing what to do). Finally, a constructivist approach is helpful when problem-solving, collaboration, creativity and reflection are needed. Kerr (2007) affirms those ideas by noting “…each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right.”

I’m intrigued by the prospect of future hybrid learning theories being spawned as novel technologies are added to our educational technology landscape. What will be the next _ism?

References:

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-70.

Kapp, K. (2007, January). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved December 26, 2009, from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html

Kerr, B. (2007, January). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved December 26, 2009, from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Mod 1: Learning Theory and Educational Technology

The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires. -- William Arthur Ward

An educator who aspires to become great has an unwavering faith in what the future holds. Such an educator also has high expectations for and powerful faith in her students who are moving toward that future. I’m proud to say I’m that educator, and such a mindset forms the foundation from which three beliefs about how students learn best rise to guide my role in the classroom. I believe students are inspired by educators who encourage critical thinking and creativity, who develop cooperative and collaborative learning environments, and who promote dynamic learning by embracing challenging and innovative educational technologies. Let me expound upon each one of those beliefs a bit further.

Critical Thinking and Creativity. I’m always cognizant that we educators are preparing students for a world where critical and reflective thinking is crucial to success – in the classroom, in the workplace, and in our global society. Therefore, by creating an atmosphere of openness, security, and appreciation for each other’s worth, a classroom becomes a safe environment for students to offer, discuss and evaluate differing points of view. With learning activities that appeal to key sensory learning styles (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic) while anchoring learning to real-life experiences, student creativity also flourishes in such a setting. Deep and meaningful learning occurs when students experience ownership of their ideas, feel comfortable asking questions and solving their own problems, and knowing it’s OK to ‘mess up’ from time to time.

Cooperative and Collaborative Learning. Research shows that cooperative and collaborative approaches to pedagogy promote greater knowledge generation and deeper understanding of learned concepts. Therefore, I believe students learn best when they learn from each other through a variety of engaging opportunities. My students, for example, work cooperatively in small groups on projects targeting language arts concepts and skills. They work in collaborative learning communities within the classroom and school on problem-based learning projects. They engage in fun, online collaborative language arts experiences with diverse students from neighborhood schools and from around the country. This results in personal growth on many levels – academic and social – and helps further their understanding of bridging existing cultural gaps and effecting social change. Those crucial skills will be needed when my students enter an increasingly connected and globalized world of work.

The following link takes you to the interesting blog of a fellow educator, David McIlroy, who shares my ideas about the use of 21st century technologies to enhance cooperative and collaborative learning in today's classrooms: http://davidmcilroy.edublogs.org/. I find particularly helpful his thoughts on the use of Digital Storytelling to strengthen student learning.

Dynamic Learning and Innovation. Once an engaging and comfortable learning environment is achieved through the strategies mentioned above, the effective educator makes a conscious effort to expand the established comfort zone. Challenging students to move with that expansion is the third focal point of my basic teaching philosophy. As I grow into an expert educational technologist, I work diligently to expose my students to dynamic technologies that allow for more “powerful, higher-level learning” through “exploring, thinking, analyzing, creating, and experimenting” (Moller, 2008, p. 2). Such technologies (McGreal and Elliott, 2008) include virtual worlds like Whyville, video media, screen sharing and web conferencing applications, online interactive whiteboards like Dabbleboard, advanced gaming technologies, and, a variety of educational, technology-enhanced mind tools (database systems, graphs/charts, concept maps, search engines, and visualization). Not only do students learn best from such dynamic instruction, but they also become experts in the use of those learning tools as they map out and proceed along their own learning paths.

In developing my personal teaching philosophy and the three key beliefs that support it, I had to understand the theory (or theories) behind how my students learn. Learning theories provide educators with the vocabulary and conceptual framework for interpreting observed learning processes. They also offer educators strategies for finding practical solutions to learning problems. Driscoll (2000) defines learning as “a persisting change in human performance or performance potential…[which] must come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world” (p. 11). Many principles of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism rest upon that definition. In fact, those three predominant learning theories have been used to describe learning principles and processes reflective of the existing social environment (Ertmer and Newby, 1993).

In today’s digital age, however, we must consider how a learner’s experience and social interaction is affected by the changing nature of educational technology itself. Advanced technologies have greatly impacted and reorganized how we live, work, communicate, and learn (Saettler, 2004). Hence, learning theory continues to have great importance in educational technology – particularly, in light of contemporary theories such as connectivism and multimedia learning (Siemens, 2008; Mayer, 2004). Learning theory prompts educational technologists to reexamine, reorganize, and revamp the conceptual framework and educational technology tool kits necessary for designing successful instruction in a technologically advanced society.

References:

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-70.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multi-media learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Ma: Cambridge University Press.

McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 143-165). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: AU Press

Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. [Unpublished Paper]

Saettler, P. (2004). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf.