For the last eight weeks my engagement in an online course on Learning Theories and Instruction have been challenging but rewarding. Though interacting with the facilitator, classmates and the course material my understanding on various aspects of the concept of how people learn has changed.
The topic covering which areas of the brain are responsible for which processes is quite new and fascinating to me. A colleague of mine has a son who incurred a brain injury several years ago and this knowledge has helped me to understand some of her challenges as she tries to make sure her son has a normal life. I recognise now that there are some seemingly simple skills which may always be difficult for him although he excels in other areas.
Because I am an educator I had some familiarity with learning theories before taking this class; however, George Siemen’s Connectivism as a theory is new to me. I had no idea there was an actual theory about this phenomenon. I believe anyone using current technology will see the validity of at least some aspects of Connectivism. I had never heard of Marc Prensky before either but his differentiation of digital natives and digital immigrants struck a chord. This difference between those born into a world of intense communication via technological devices and those born in the days of the land line telephone and facsimile machines will probably give brain researchers a great deal of material to study for years to come.
Keller’s ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction) strategy for motivating learners in an online or computer based instruction (CBI) environment is also new to me. Although the desire to learn is often intrinsically motivated there may be several situations in which applying ARCS is critical to successfully achieve the desired learning outcomes. Reflecting on my own experiences over the years attending often less-than-interesting staff development seminars I must confess to often having little or no motivation even when there is an engaging facilitator. Successfully applying ARCS may involve using strategies from more than one learning theory, e.g., cues and rewards and breaking tasks into components from Behaviourism, to problem based and/or collaborative strategies from Constructivism.
I learned that research shows that the right side of the brain is more adept at synthesizing knowledge as a whole, while the left side is more likely to focus on the details. Regarding my personal learning process, being left-handed and therefore right-brained, this might account for my inclination not to be caught up in details and to try to see the big picture. I will need to be careful not to take this too far because details are important. I will need to use the strategies learned in the cognitive theories, e.g., rehearsal, elaboration, classification, etc. to get some details to stick. These and other strategies learned will become a part of my “how to learn” meta-cognitive repertoire with practice.
Despite a disinclination for details, I plan to revisit and internalise some of the tenets of Cognitivism long after the course is over. The need for personal strategies such as better time management and a creating a learning zone, e.g., a designated, comfortable place to read has become increasingly apparent.
The emphasis on constructivist techniques has helped me to validate personal experiences and to glean more from others’ experiences. Through discussions I learned of the intriguing concept of using an area of high intelligence to aid learning in any subject area, e.g., a student who may have been dyslexic but who had a high level of spatial intelligence and drew diagrams instead of taking traditional notes.
From a deeper look at learning styles I have concluded that they are important but should be used with caution. Considering learning styles only may limit students and inhibit developing other intelligences. There is a great deal of debate in this area but I think instructors should instead focus on the most suitable method of instruction depending on the subject area and the skills, concepts or beliefs which are the desired outcomes. A good approach may be to design instructional materials which include a combination of two or more visual, auditory, reading and/or kinaesthetic elements.
Although I plan to explore the concept of cognitive load more, I now recognise that this is an element that should be considered when creating instructional materials. For example, if making a visual presentation with audio it is likely to be more effective not to add extensive text under the image if the narrator is already explaining them. This may be too much for the learner’s brain to process in working memory.
Creating educational technology involves both processes and products. No one theory fits all needs. New technology tools are evolving every day so knowledge of both tools and theories is necessary. The ARCS strategy, already mentioned, is important to help maintain students’ motivation in the absence of an actual human.
Information gleaned from a study of learning theories has been invaluable. I have a better understanding of pitfalls and best practices in instructional design, e.g., giving constructive feedback at timely intervals, questions built in to the instruction to prompt elaboration, allowing for practice and rehearsal, etc. I now have a better understanding of how to select strategies for different learning objectives.
I could not end a reflection on the learning theories course without mentioning the value of an introduction to the wonderful world of blogs. I have benefited greatly from the effort of so many people all over the world who willingly and freely share their expertise via blogging. Although many are inane, many feature well-written and useful content. I hope to continue in this community.
In conclusion, the practice of instructional design involves much more that unleashing the latest gizmos and technological wizardry on the unsuspecting learning.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment