Reflections

As I reflect on the contents of this course and what I have learnt, I am struck by how much my thinking has changed. Many of my preconceived ideas have been challenged and as a result I have changed my approach to teaching. It is so important to connect to others in the same field and read the research of current experts. During this class, I have found many blogs that I now read religiously as they challenge me to think in another way and they demand that I adapt to the world around me. It is no longer feasible to allow your mind to be restricted to receiving information only from physical sources – it is vital that the mind is allowed to access the wealth of information available to us through the World Wide Web. In this reflection paper, I have written about how my understanding of learning has changed and what has motivated that change. I hope to encourage the reader to connect to the ether and find the virtual learning platform that must now become the basis for instructional design.

As I furthered my knowledge about how people learn I found it most interesting to think about how much the Internet has changed education, learning and more specifically Instructional Design. Originally it was the empiricist theories that provided the framework for most learning theories. Since these began with Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) it is fascinating to me that they were used as the basis for learning theories nearly two thousand years later. It shows the unifying thread that ties the original theory of thousands of years ago to today, is the universal truth that humans process information in the same way…they always have. We may now be able to more clearly define the methodology for how humans process information, but the general facility remained the same and that is why the general theories have remained so similar. “Because behaviorism was dominant when instructional theory was initiated (around 1950), the instructional design (ID) technology that arose alongside it was naturally influenced by many of its basic assumptions and characteristics.” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p55). In the late 1950’s there was a shift from behavioral models to models from the cognitive sciences. In recent years, there has been more of a shift towards constructivism theories as a basis for Instructional Design models. “As one moves along the behaviorist-cognitivist-constructivist continuum, the focus of instruction shifts from teaching to learning, from the passive transfer of facts and routines to the active application of ideas to problems.” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p62).

The advent of the Internet has changed where we learn from (no longer a limited supply of printed text, but rather a virtually limitless supply of online resources), who we learn from (not restricted to our peers and experts within our physical reach but rather a collective group of connections of many experts and peers whom we may never meet in person) and indeed, how we learn (student-centered instead of instructor-centered). All of these changes and the addition of the theory “Connectivism” in 2008, show that although some aspects of learning will remain the same as they were two thousand years ago, there are many others that cannot be accommodated within the bounds of behaviorism, constructivism and cognitivism. Connectivism is the beginning of a new era of learning. At the beginning of this course, I described myself as a cognitivist since I agree: “The actual goal of instruction…is to communicate or transfer knowledge to the students in the most efficient, effective manner possible… Two techniques used by both camps in achieving this effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge transfer are simplification and standardization. That is, knowledge can be analyzed, decomposed and simplified into basic building blocks.” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 59). 

Having been introduced to many new online tools since then through this course, such as blogs, Learnist Boards and Feedly which streams all my RSS subscribed feeds into one place for me to look through at a glance, I am now very conscious of the important difference between student-centered learning and that of teacher-directed learning. I have been able to spend many hours reflecting on the need to adapt lesson plans and Instructional Design to reflect a more student-centered approach. As a result I have become much more of a connectivist than a cognitivist. I am also much more aware now of the necessity to develop instruction containing many learning styles as, according to Gilbert & Swanier (2008): “It is commonly thought that once a student’s learning style has been identified, the instructor can provide instruction that corresponds to the student’s learning style (Carver, Howard, & Lane, 1999; Laroussi & Ben Ahmed, 1998; Wallace & Mutooni, 1997). According to the findings (here), identifying a student’s learning style and teaching to that learning style may not be enough because the student’s learning style may fluctuate across concepts/lessons.” (Gilbert & Swanier, 2008). It is therefore vital when designing instruction, to ensure that all learning styles are catered to as each individual may access several learning styles or change learning styles during a course.

       Learning theories are concerned with detailing the way in which humans process information. These theories are “the bridge between basic learning research and educational practice…” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p50). Learning styles deal with the different ways in which learning material may be presented and processed by the learner. There may be many learning styles contained within one lesson. Educational technology is a tool used by the teacher and the student during the learning process. Learning theories and styles all contribute to the overall learning experience of the student and are concerned with how to the student processes and learns the new information. The use of educational technology to further enhance a lesson (or indeed, as both a source for the information during the lesson and a medium of the dissemination of this information) has become a requirement in today’s classroom and an important contributor towards student motivation. It is very important to bear in mind all of the learning theories and styles and use them in the instructional design process as student understanding is linked to how easy it is for them to access the information you supply. Student understanding is obviously closely linked to student motivation – if the student understands the lesson and experiences a feeling of satisfaction and achievement during your lesson they will be more motivated and therefore become more interested in learning the material you present. There are ways to ensure that the instruction will meet the motivational needs of your students: “the ARCS model of motivational design provides a systematic, seven-step approach (Keller, 1997) to designing motivational tactics into instruction. It incorporates needs assessment based on an analysis of the target audience and existing instructional materials, supports the creation of motivational objectives and measures based on an analysis of the motivational characteristics of the learners, provides guidance for creating and selecting motivational tactics, and follows a process that integrates well with instructional design and development.” (Keller,1999, p39).

       Learning styles, theories and the use of educational technology all contribute to the “attention” and “relevance” categories of the ARCS motivational model. A student will pay attention if the material is presented in a way that he/she is able to process, thus making the information relevant. Confidence develops as the student achieves “success”, which brings “satisfaction” – the remaining two parts of the ARCS model.

This course has made it apparent to me that I must ensure that the instruction that I design is student-centered. I am now much more confident about blogging and have found many more ways to learn using the Internet. As I explained in a recent blog, my library is now no longer the building in the middle of town – it is the Internet. I believe that the priority of teachers now is to provide transferable skills that can be adapted to any learning environment. Technology is now changing so quickly, who knows what will be available tomorrow or next year…but as an educator I need to ensure that my students know how to adapt what they have learnt to suit the new technology. Instructional design is now about adaptability and transferability: “Brusilovsky and Peylo (2003) provide a good overview of the various technical approaches used in adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems. These classic technologies include: curriculum sequencing, intelligent solution analysis, problem solving support, adaptive presentation, and adaptive navigation support. New technologies include adaptive information filtering, intelligent monitoring, and intelligent collaborative learning.” (Adaptive Web-Based Learning Environments, Perry). I now understand that instructional design needs to use the connectivist approach more in order to tailor education to the next generation of learners.

Adaptive learning is a fascinating theory that I plan to explore much more fully. I believe that it is suited to the learner used to accessing information online and connecting to many different people through online social networking platforms. This is certainly the way the next generation of students think and learn and it is important to understand this huge change in learning approach in order to successfully design instruction for these students.

References

1.     Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), by P. A. Ertmer & T. J. Newby. Copyright 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Journals. Reprinted by permission John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Journals via the Copyright Clearance Center.

2.     Gilbert, J., & Swanier, C. (2008). Learning styles: How do they fluctuate? Institute for Learning Styles Journal [Vol. l]. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~witteje/ilsrj/Journal%20Volumes/Fall%202008%20Volume%201%20PDFs/Learning%20Styles%20How%20do%20They%20Fluctuate.pdf

3.     Keller, J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning.

4.     Brusilovsky, P., & Peylo, C. (2003). Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems.  International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

5.     Adaptive Web-Based Learning Environments, Victoria Perry, http://www.usability.gov/articles/012010news.html