Reflection

We’ve been asked to reflect upon the last eight weeks; what we’ve learned, what’s surprised us, what new connections we’ve made between learning theories and technologies, and how this class will help our professional development as instructional design technologists. I have lots of thoughts, I guess it will be left up to you to decide how relevant they are.




Several things surprised me in this field of learning theories. The first is that the debate we saw reflected in Bill Kerr’s blog is still being waged. Kerr’s observation, ultimately, was that we had to look to, and incorporate bits and pieces of many _isms when implementing learning theories. To me, as we went week by week examining both the major and minor theories and offshoots of theories, I wondered why this wasn’t obvious to everyone. In behavioralism I found credence in the ‘attaboys’ that so many of us strive for. In cognitive theory I appreciated the interplay between long and short term memory. In constructivism I could see how the scaffolding partially built and maintained by instructors helped learners create their own learning. In social learning I intuitively acknowledged the benefit of interaction within both technological and social networks. In fact, I don’t think I was able to leave a single theory without appropriating at least a piece of it for my own gestalt-ian view of education theory. I was like a educational theorist hypochondriac picking up symptoms and illnesses every time I turned the page to a new educational ‘disease.’ How could it be otherwise? I’ve thought. Each theory contains some element of natural human tendency which seems to logically support learning.



Secondly, I was surprised at how relatively new this whole educational theory debate is. It seems that as late as the mid 1950’s there is not much debate about how learners learned. Since then there has been an explosion of theories. I don’t know if this is due to the development of education majors at colleges and universities or just a natural development in a time of increased scholarship. Either way it seems that the last 50 years has yielded a flood of information.



So how have these two surprises affected learning? I think it has made the whole process more difficult … and more successful. I know - a paradox. More difficult in that teachers, administrators and sometimes entire school systems are asked to change teaching methods merely to show themselves as placed on the cusp of educational theory. That kind of change, especially if it occurs with enough frequency to keep anyone from really hitting their stride, can be jarring. But the theories have also opened up teaching opportunities and techniques that have helped many students to find success where before they only found failure.



As I stated above, my journey through the different learning styles brought me more ways to learn. While in the beginning I thought I was a kludge of behavioralism and cognitivism now I find that there are all sorts of ways I can learn. In fact there are ways I haven’t tried that I’m eager to try now. Before, I saw social interaction as just that. Now I see it as an opportunity to network and develop new ideas influenced by the social current I move in. The social learning, constructivist and connectivist theories that stress the multiplicity of storage and development sites for information give me new hope for finding ways to express myself, (to both take in and give out), across a wide spectrum of locations. That’s exciting.



The connection between theory and technology was a harder sell then the connection between theory and motivation. Technology didn’t at first blush lend itself to theory. One is ephemeral, the other grounded in technology. And yet the reading and discussion has shown me that theory has done a good job in wedding the two. I think the reason is that technology is no longer seen as ‘outside’ the human experience. No longer is it the passive, stolid servant of mankind sitting in the corner beaming images into our living room or washing our clothes in the basement. It is speaking to us out of dash-attached Garmins. It’s listening to our speech and transforming it into text. It’s independently seeking out viruses to destroy as in nanotechnology. It is truly part of the human experience now. Technology is no longer our servant, it is our companion. So why shouldn’t theory begin to incorporate our companions into the learning process? No longer does it seem cumbersome letting technology have a place at the educational table (think back to the early to mid 1970’s when the first computers for high school use came out and you had to feed it punch cards. That was cumbersome.) Motivation is an even easier sell when connected to learning theories for there have been theories of motivation around in psychology for as long as there have been psychologists.



This course will definitely have an impact on my career as an instructional technologist. For too long I have been, albeit nicely, a teacher who thought the students needed to keep up with me and my style. I knew how to teach in one way and it was up to the students to figure out a way to learn that style. But now I see there are all sorts of opportunities to incorporate everyday technologies, social interactions and cognitive processes into my teaching line-up. This class has freed me up, with the backing of some impressive theories and researchers, to explore and adapt, rather quickly in some circumstances, to the learning styles of my students. That in turn frees them up to do the learning instead of having to wade through my style, integrating it with theirs, and finally learning after all that. And isn’t that what we’re all trying to do, free the student up to learn?

Bill Kerr: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html