Full Circle and Beyond

In October 2023, I answered a classroom discussion prompt regarding how I learn. Since then, I’ve explored various learning theories, addressed the validity of learning styles, and explored how technology can help or hinder the educational process. That course is ending, and I am reflecting again on the answer to “How do I learn?”

Now that I’ve gained a deeper understanding of learning styles and learning theories and refreshed my memory from my long-ago undergraduate days, I can say that I do learn within a cognitive model. When introduced to new information, I tend to link it to something I already know. I look for connections, reflect on what I’ve learned and what I am learning, and am comfortable seeking out new resources. In that search, I tie into some of the main components of connectivism. If the resource I need does not exist within my network, I will seek ways to add and access that resource. This could be via a personal, human connection, internet, or library search.  I still maintain that I am a solitary learner by nature, as I do not seek to adapt my learning to the social group that I am part of. I do not turn to peers for “correct” answers but for sources of information that can add to my synthesis of an idea. While connectivism seems to stem from social learning theories, there is a difference in how learners use their social connections. As much as I’d like to think I have escaped the stimulus-response models of behaviorism, I, too, check my social media notifications and try to get my name on a leaderboard of learners at work.

Revisiting these theories has distilled my view of my learning and given me a deeper appreciation for how others learn. I know many folks do turn to peers for validation, both good and bad. I have also seen a handful for whom the extrinsic rewards and punishments of Skinner and others like him hold no sway over their learning journey. Of course, the learners I am acquainted with are adults and value self-directed learning borne of intrinsic motivation outlined in models of andragogy. While I still feel that assigning (or attempting to assign) a learning style to a student or a learning activity is fruitless, I recognize the value of designing instructional content that pulls from all theoretical learning models. From the literal bells and whistles of behaviorism to the quiet satisfaction of project-driven learning with an internal locus of control, each theoretical model has something to offer each learner. Rich educational experiences cannot be tailored to one type of learner but must be inclusive of all methodologies and modes of delivery.

These last few weeks have allowed me to explore new technologies used in instruction and educational design. I’ve dipped my toes in the waters of Chat GPT, considered several different learning management systems (LMS), and given thought to the different ways I can enrich my virtual classrooms. I’ve experienced the frustrations of paywalls (or the scholarly equivalents thereof) and was reminded of the endless searches for more information that I used to engage in as a child. With the vast internet landscape before me, the challenge will not be finding information but retaining discernment in using and applying the information found.

Through all the reading and discussions this class has included, one educational tenant has remained at the forefront of my mind: psychological safety. As I’m writing this blog post, incidences of antisemitic and anti-Palestinian rhetoric and violence have exploded on college campuses across the United States. Mass shootings are in the news far too frequently and all too often targeting schools. Not only must we make our classrooms a physically safe place for students, but also provide a haven for those who learn differently than we do. Our content and classrooms should provide those crystallizing experiences that will lead a student down the path of greater learning and understanding, surrounded by empathetic coaching and scaffolding and a nurturing social group. Perhaps it’s too lofty a goal, but it’s one I’ll strive to meet. Will you?

References

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed ). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Behaviorism vs. Cognitivism | Ways of Knowing. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://woknowing.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/behaviorism-vs-cognitivisim/

Foley, G. (Ed.). (2004). Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in a global era. McGraw-Hill Education.

Frisby, C. L. (2005). Learning styles. In S. W. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of school psychology. Retrieved from Sage Reference Online database.

Gardner, H. (2003, April 21). Multiple intelligences after 20 years. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/9274/mod_resource/content/1/Gardner_multiple_intelligent.pdf

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://textbookequity.org /Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Design & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (n.d.). Connectivism [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (n.d.). Information processing and the brain [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (n.d.). Information processing and problem solving [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu