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.
No comments:
Post a Comment