As I return to the blog-o-sphere from my hiatus, it seemed appropriate to begin with where I stand (or sit) on learning, theory, and educational technology. In the past year, I have spent time studying Illich, Vygotsky, Bandura, Selman, Skinner, and Siemens. What I find interesting, is the interrelated threads woven throughout the broad spectrum of these theorists. However, before I talk about them, I want to talk about my beliefs. I have neither the years of experience nor the degrees of the aforementioned theorists. I have some experience (about 10 years), a couple of diplomas, and my opinions. So, without further a due, this I believe. I believe …
- People learn best when they are interested in what they study.
- People learn best when they have dedicated time to study, to explore, to create, and to share.
- People learn best when they share their learning with others who are interested.
- People learn best when they leave their egos aside and relish in exposing their ignorance.
- People learn best when they can access information in just the way they want to.
- People learn best when they have the freedom to express their knowing in many different ways.
- People learn best when they leave their comfort zone, and are appropriately challenged.
- People learn best when they have someone who cares if they are learning.
- People learn best when they can laugh.
So … what does that, have to do with the theorists, learning theory, and educational technology (an area of personal exploration and study)? For someone unconcerned with the inner-sanctum of education and learning (otherwise known as academia), a list similar to the one above may be all they need, or likely care about, regarding learning theory. However, for those of us attempting to decipher how to improve the world through researching and implementing a better understanding of how and why people learn, the above list feels nice but is not sufficient. We want and need more.
So, we create detailed learning theories full of "constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is thought to bring about those changes" (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). The four biggest players on the scene are, of course, behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism, and connectivism. (I am not going to explore these here, but if you would like to read check out this site, and this one.)
For educational technology use, learning theories still act as a guide for instructors, administrators, and course designers. Driscoll's (2005) three basic components (results, means, and inputs) can all be utilized; however, they inherit a new specificity. The following are built on what she writes in Psychology of Learning for Instruction (p. 9):
- Results: How are the changes in performance explained by the theory related to educational technology?
- Means: Does educational technology facilitate the processes through which the results are created?
- Inputs: Can educational technology activate the required processes?
Correctly adopted, learning theories help steer faculty members and administrators toward the effective use of educational technology for content delivery, assessment, and feedback.
References
Dirscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. (Original work published 1995)
Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educator and designers [Paper presented to ITFORUM]. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Nice summary and great resource links, thanks. My favorite words that you used are "steer" and "guide" when it comes to how to use learning theory in ID of educational technology. Continuing on your quote from Driscoll (2005) on page 9 is that learning theory is also based on being able to demonstrate the same results repeatedly. While that may seem obvious, my point is a theory is exactly that, a theory. It’s not hard, solid facts. This is why I liked you verbiage choice of “steer” and “guide.”
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed reading your beliefs. Seems like a nice comprehensive list. The two beliefs that stuck out to me were exposing ignorance and leaving one’s comfort zone. While I agree with you that valuable learning moments can occur in those times, do you think that our parents, society, and schools have trained us to be afraid of leaving our comfort zone and afraid of exposing our ignorance? Obviously I do. What can we do to change that to encourage greater and deeper levels of learning through exposing ignorance and leaving the comfort zone?
Koh
Koh,
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point by highlighting the rest of Driscoll's (2005) quote and emphasizing the malleable nature of theories. I think that is important to keep in mind as we develop and organize new approaches to learning.
One of the more tragic developments in education is the negative connotation placed on "ignorance" by most of society. Ignorance is simply a state of unknowing, implying no qualification of intelligence or ability. I personally believe that you must accept your ignorance before you can move on and learn something.
I think we change one student, and one interaction at a time. As teachers, we combine modeling acceptance of our own ignorance with a release of the ego and pride surrounding it. We also make efforts to build a safe and supportive classroom so students are less afraid of ridicule and stretch their wings a bit more fully.
Brad
Brad
ReplyDeleteOoo, that was great. You are right. The word "ignorance" carries such a negative connotation. I really like your suggested approach and I am going to write it down for myself to remember like this: (I always need lists. I'm a bullet point kind of girl.)
1. one student at a time
2. by being a role model
3. releasing ego and pride
4. build a safe/supportive classroom
#1 is particularly a good one for me because I always think we have to conquer the world in one big swoop.
Koh