As I conclude my first course in the Instructional Design program, I have been reflecting upon the course content and its application to my current and future classrooms. Some of the content presented challenged my thinking since it contradicted my current understanding of educational theory and practices; however, overall the course has deepened my understanding of multiple learning theories and their importance in instructional designs.   

     Throughout my undergraduate studies and professional career as a Middle School English/Gifted educator, I have been a staunch advocate of learning styles and fervent believer that they help people to learn. At the beginning of each new school year, I always identify students as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners and intentionally design activities that appeal to all three styles. After probing learning styles in week six of this course, I was shocked to discover the lack of research supporting them, the lack of validity of most testing instruments used to determine learning styles, and the potential for students’ learning style to fluctuate according to the content or specific learning activity. I also became more honest with myself regarding my application of students’ learning styles to instructional activities.  While it feels good to say that I know my students’ learning styles, I must admit that I do not match students with activities based on their preferred learning style. Instead, I design a variety of activities that appeal to all three modalities.

     By presenting information in different ways, I am more likely to help students digest and learn the targeted information or skills. Before taking this course, I would never have paused to define what I meant by the term “learning.”  It seemed obvious what learning is, and I assumed that everyone probably shared a common definition. However, I discovered that the term is defined differently depending upon an individual’s theoretical approach to education. Learning can be a behavioral change, a physical product, an internal mental process, a personal construction, or a social construct.  

     Each theory not only defines learning in diverse ways, but it also promotes varying active and/or passive roles for the instructor and learner, cites divergent factors that influence learning, transfer, and retention. This course has challenged me to examine Behaviorist, Cognitive, Constructivist, Social Learning, Connectivism, and Adult Learning theories through all of these dimensions, which has deepened my overall understanding of learning theory. As a learner, I have become more cognizant of my own attributes as an adult learner along with my preference for Cognitive, Social Constructivist, and Connectivist theories. In addition, I am also more aware of my strengths and weaknesses throughout the learning process. As an educational professional and future instructional designer, I have developed a strong understanding of the positive and negative aspects of each learning theory as well as how each structures the learning environment and impacts the learning process. Furthermore, I also recognize the importance of designing instruction that is well grounded in theory. A strong foundational knowledge of learning theory will help me to match the best theory to my learners and content. Without a strong theoretical base, an instructional plan could frustrate and de-motivate students as well as not maximize learning materials, instructional activities, or technologies. This was corroborated by Muniandy, Mohammad, and Soon Fook (2007) in their study of elementary teachers. Not only did the teachers lack foundational knowledge about Constructivism, but they also did not base instructional materials, activities, and technologies upon theoretical principles to maximize learning. The researchers asserted that “teachers’ planning, practice, and emphasis were more on the project itself and very little on Constructivism” (p46).

     In addition to a strong theoretical foundation, this course has also connected me with a blogging community of practicing Instructional Designers and enabled me to launch my own dialogue about theory, best practices, and emerging trends in a personal blog. Finally, the course has illuminated topics practicing Instructional Designers should know more about.  For example, I want to dig a little deeper to broaden and enrich my understanding of learning styles, ARCS, and Connectivism.  

     This course has enabled me to expand my knowledge of learning theories and enhanced my ability to weave them into sound instructional plans. I have discovered the advantages and disadvantages of each and feel better prepared to select the best theory based on the task and audience. As a learner, I have become more cognizant of my own preferences and processes during the learning process as well as acquiesced topics that I need to probe independently in order promote own professional development in instructional design.