Learning Theories
Week 1
I have no doubt that a fundamental understanding of learning theory is essential for those involved in teaching and instructional design. As illustrated by the array of handouts that we received in the last class, learning is an area which has been studied in great depth by a large number of theorists. What are interesting to me are the actual techniques for implementing some of the multitude of theories to the benefit of my learners.
One thing that having four children has certainly reinforced for me is that we are all individuals. We all have our own individual quirks, likes and dislikes. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach that works for bringing up children. Similarly, learners are on a journey of personal development and they also have their own unique preferences and needs.
Initially, this is something that I tended to forget about when standing in front of a class of learners. There is a tendency to believe that your function as a teacher is simply to present rafts of information to the willing sponges that sit in front of you. Over time, as you increasingly notice the yawns and the glazed expressions, you begin to question your whole approach.
Most of my teaching experience has been with adult learners. When I have adapted my classes to allow for discussion and group activities, I have been struck by the wealth of experience in the room that can benefit the learning process. There is also an energy generated that improves learner engagement. This energy was also apparent in our last session in Aungier Street during the group activities. We had an opportunity to collaborate in small groups to produce a poster to represent a learning theory. My group worked on cognitive learning theory (see photo inset)
Looking at the Zaid Learn slides on Blooms taxonomy, I am reminded how much the traditional lecturing approach appeals only to the low order levels of thinking such as understanding and memory. It does not seem logical to me that learners should be left solely to themselves to tackle the higher order tasks of analysis, evaluation and creativity. The teacher surely has a role here as a facilitator, monitoring the progress of learners as they develop their own abilities to work through cognitive processes at the higher levels.
In an e-learning context, there is great opportunity to use digital resources to provide a variety of interfaces that may appeal across a broad range of learning styles. However, just as in a face to face learning environment, it is not solely the content that is important. Providing opportunities for learner/tutor and learner/learner interactions is a key element of successful e-learning. How this is facilitated is one of the main things that I am looking forward to learning more about over the course of the MSc programme.
I have no doubt that a fundamental understanding of learning theory is essential for those involved in teaching and instructional design. As illustrated by the array of handouts that we received in the last class, learning is an area which has been studied in great depth by a large number of theorists. What are interesting to me are the actual techniques for implementing some of the multitude of theories to the benefit of my learners.
One thing that having four children has certainly reinforced for me is that we are all individuals. We all have our own individual quirks, likes and dislikes. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach that works for bringing up children. Similarly, learners are on a journey of personal development and they also have their own unique preferences and needs.
Initially, this is something that I tended to forget about when standing in front of a class of learners. There is a tendency to believe that your function as a teacher is simply to present rafts of information to the willing sponges that sit in front of you. Over time, as you increasingly notice the yawns and the glazed expressions, you begin to question your whole approach.
Most of my teaching experience has been with adult learners. When I have adapted my classes to allow for discussion and group activities, I have been struck by the wealth of experience in the room that can benefit the learning process. There is also an energy generated that improves learner engagement. This energy was also apparent in our last session in Aungier Street during the group activities. We had an opportunity to collaborate in small groups to produce a poster to represent a learning theory. My group worked on cognitive learning theory (see photo inset)
Looking at the Zaid Learn slides on Blooms taxonomy, I am reminded how much the traditional lecturing approach appeals only to the low order levels of thinking such as understanding and memory. It does not seem logical to me that learners should be left solely to themselves to tackle the higher order tasks of analysis, evaluation and creativity. The teacher surely has a role here as a facilitator, monitoring the progress of learners as they develop their own abilities to work through cognitive processes at the higher levels.
In an e-learning context, there is great opportunity to use digital resources to provide a variety of interfaces that may appeal across a broad range of learning styles. However, just as in a face to face learning environment, it is not solely the content that is important. Providing opportunities for learner/tutor and learner/learner interactions is a key element of successful e-learning. How this is facilitated is one of the main things that I am looking forward to learning more about over the course of the MSc programme.
Week 2
The main thing reinforced for me in Week 2 is that none of the learning theories are deployed in their purest sense in higher education. While we might strive for a constructivist (free thinking) approach, there is a constant pressure for instruction to be led by learning objectives, assessment guidelines and the constraints of high class sizes.
This would lead me to conclude that the best scenario is to achieve some type of balance, one which allows students to take a certain ownership for their own learning while working within the parameters set out under a programme of study. There are elements of a number of theories of learning that may be adopted to achieve this. For example, there is a clear logic to the behaviourist approach to lesson planning, particularly when attempting to cover curricula over a set number of classes. However, with forward planning, it is possible to schedule opportunities for learner to learner interaction during lessons and facilitate a more constructivist approach.
Gagne is a good example of this blurring of learning theories. He started out with a typically behaviourist approach but then became more interested in the cognitive processes behind learning and memory. His nine events of instruction, while rooted in behaviourist theory, also maintain strong parallels with Keller’s ARCS model of motivational instruction. Keller, interestingly, is considered to be a constructivist.
For me, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to learning. Once we accept that learners are individuals with varied learning styles and motivations, it is clear that there are applications of all of the main theories of learning that may have merit.
The main thing reinforced for me in Week 2 is that none of the learning theories are deployed in their purest sense in higher education. While we might strive for a constructivist (free thinking) approach, there is a constant pressure for instruction to be led by learning objectives, assessment guidelines and the constraints of high class sizes.
This would lead me to conclude that the best scenario is to achieve some type of balance, one which allows students to take a certain ownership for their own learning while working within the parameters set out under a programme of study. There are elements of a number of theories of learning that may be adopted to achieve this. For example, there is a clear logic to the behaviourist approach to lesson planning, particularly when attempting to cover curricula over a set number of classes. However, with forward planning, it is possible to schedule opportunities for learner to learner interaction during lessons and facilitate a more constructivist approach.
Gagne is a good example of this blurring of learning theories. He started out with a typically behaviourist approach but then became more interested in the cognitive processes behind learning and memory. His nine events of instruction, while rooted in behaviourist theory, also maintain strong parallels with Keller’s ARCS model of motivational instruction. Keller, interestingly, is considered to be a constructivist.
For me, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to learning. Once we accept that learners are individuals with varied learning styles and motivations, it is clear that there are applications of all of the main theories of learning that may have merit.
Week 4
The debate in Week 4 was interesting as it reinforced the importance of interpretation when it comes to learning theory. The motion of “An ounce of practice is worth more than a tonne of theory” sparked debate even within the ‘for’ group. Some interpreted that the motion was referring to teaching practice while others took it to mean the practice of learning. The group accepted the second interpretation as the basis for the debate and this led to some confusion as the ‘against’ group adopted the former.
The discussion was still useful as it provoked opinion on the pros and cons of learning theories and the realities of practice. What was clear for me was that nobody was arguing for the pure application of one theory over another. It was accepted that learning theory has a place in teaching and learning but, to be successful, it may require elements of some or all theories depending on the context and the objectives.
It was suggested that learning theories should be used as a guide for best practice. I would not wholly agree with this point of view. If you concede that no individual theory is the ‘one size fits all’ solution then how can you follow just one as best practice. I believe that it is for us as practitioners to critically analyse the merits of a theory and then employ principles where and when appropriate. Through practice we can refine our approach and evaluate what works and what does not.
The reality is that trainers and educators need to be adaptable. A strong knowledge and understanding of learning theories can help a teacher to choose the right techniques for a given learning event. For example, what works for small groups of mature and well developed learners may not be effective for larger groups of first year college students. In fact, it may not always be physically possible to apply certain learning theories. If class sizes are very large or appropriate rooms and equipment are not available then decisions need to be made on how to optimise the learning process.
The debate in Week 4 was interesting as it reinforced the importance of interpretation when it comes to learning theory. The motion of “An ounce of practice is worth more than a tonne of theory” sparked debate even within the ‘for’ group. Some interpreted that the motion was referring to teaching practice while others took it to mean the practice of learning. The group accepted the second interpretation as the basis for the debate and this led to some confusion as the ‘against’ group adopted the former.
The discussion was still useful as it provoked opinion on the pros and cons of learning theories and the realities of practice. What was clear for me was that nobody was arguing for the pure application of one theory over another. It was accepted that learning theory has a place in teaching and learning but, to be successful, it may require elements of some or all theories depending on the context and the objectives.
It was suggested that learning theories should be used as a guide for best practice. I would not wholly agree with this point of view. If you concede that no individual theory is the ‘one size fits all’ solution then how can you follow just one as best practice. I believe that it is for us as practitioners to critically analyse the merits of a theory and then employ principles where and when appropriate. Through practice we can refine our approach and evaluate what works and what does not.
The reality is that trainers and educators need to be adaptable. A strong knowledge and understanding of learning theories can help a teacher to choose the right techniques for a given learning event. For example, what works for small groups of mature and well developed learners may not be effective for larger groups of first year college students. In fact, it may not always be physically possible to apply certain learning theories. If class sizes are very large or appropriate rooms and equipment are not available then decisions need to be made on how to optimise the learning process.