When I was 19 years old, I took my first educational psychology class. It was here that I first learned about Pavlov, Piaget, Skinner, Vygotsky, Kohlberg, and others. I then transferred schools and took a human growth and development class where we studied many of the same theorists through a developmental lens. The following year I took Psychology 101 with more of the same theories. A few years later I enrolled in a graduate program where I took a graduate level educational psychology course. I thought we might look a little more in depth at the different theories but it was more of the same. I know my learning theories. I knew them quite well after the first course.
When I realized my next course was a learning theories course, I thought it would be just like the previous 4 classes that I had taken. I am happy to say that I was wrong. While the course did include all of the theories that I had studied previously, it also included theories that I hadn't spent much time studying. I thoroughly enjoyed studying the brain and the physiological aspects of learning (something I have always been fascinated with). I am also intrigued by Constructivism. The Maryland State Department of Education's Mathematics division ran some professional development sessions for my county when I taught math and they were leaning heavily toward Constructivist practices in the classroom. We were learning how to guide our students toward constructing meaning with new math concepts. When I put this up against what we learned about the limitations of the working memory (Ormrod, Schunk & Gredler), I decided that Constructivist practices would be better used when applying knowledge.
One thing that set this course apart from other educational psychology courses was the incorporation of learning styles, technology and motivation with the learning theories. When I am teaching, I always consider the learning styles of my students. I have realized through this course that I am not only considering their learning styles, but I'm also looking for what motivates them. Then I am adding this information to what I know about the different learning theories when I create lessons for my students. I am also using the technology I have available (and making suggestions to my students) in order to increase attention and possible retention. The technology makes incorporating different learning styles much easier (not to mention, more efficient).
In relation to the technology, I am still thinking about Connectivism and how I use my network to learn. I am a self-professed "techie" and I love my tech toys. I use my laptop, desktop, work computer, iPhone, and iPod when I want to learn something. If I can't find it on my own, I will use one of the above devices to then contact someone I know that can help me find the answer. In specific instances where I know that I own the book that has the answer, I will go to my actual bookshelf and look something up. This usually happens when I'm looking for a calculus or statistics concept (since I have a large collection of math books). I'm curious to see where this theory goes. It is something I will continue to follow as the technology and the theory develop over time.
When I started this course, I had a limited knowledge of adult learning theories. I have taught adults and noticed obvious differences in motivation and the need to make things relevant but I had not studied the underlying theories. After learning about and reflecting on adult learning, I feel better equipped to analyze and design adult instruction. When analyzing the needs of an organization, I will be able to decide which theory or theories would best apply and then design the instruction appropriately. I learned that no one theory trumps the others and many times, multiple theories might be appropriate. Along with the theories, I can continue to ensure that different learning styles are addressed. Lastly, and certainly not least, is motivational design. I am always assessing the motivation of my students and adjusting my instruction as needed. As an instructional designer, I will need to ensure that motivational design is incorporated in the course from the very beginning and this course has helped me realize how that could be done.
I am glad that I had the opportunity to take this 5th course in learning theories. I have been able to expand and challenge my previous thinking about how people learn. In some cases, I have been able to solidify my thoughts on learning. One piece that I would recommend to people is that of Gardner’s own reflection of his Multiple Intelligences Theory 25 years later. It is fascinating how his circumstances led him to develop this theory and how it has been used and misused over the years. Ultimately, my increased understanding of how we learn will allow me to stay in control of both my learning and my instruction. For now, I am right at home in Bucket One.
References:
Conlon, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult Learning. Retrieved October 24, 2010, from Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult Learning
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. Retrieved October 24, 2010, from Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/intex.php?title=Connectivism
Foley, G. (2004). Dimensions of adult learning: Adult edcuation and training in a global era. McGraw-Hill Education.
Gardner, H. (2003, April 21). Multiple intelligences after 20 years. Retrieved October 31, 2010, from Harvard: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/HG_MI_after_20_years.pdf
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment