Following seven weeks of analysis of learning theories, approaches and strategies, I am now a lot more equipped to analyse and plan for learning differences. There have been two major points of impact for me over these past weeks. The first being a change in my purview of how instruction should be designed and delivered.
In my previous teacher training, we had been taught to plan objectives, delivery methods and then teaching materials/aids. Although we studied learning theories at that level, we were never taught to link learning theories with instructional design or delivery methods. Therefore, as a teacher then, none of my designs, methods, approaches, or aids, was chosen from the perspective of any learning theory. After studying learning theories again at this level, I have benefited from the weekly considerations on the implications of theoretical approaches for design and delivery. Going back to the blog discussions between Karl Kapp (2007) and Bill Kerr (2007), Kerr says that learning theories are “something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” and should be used as filters, not as blinkers, while Kapp proposes that learning is “multi-facetted” and that “there are too many levels for one school of thought or one model to do it all.” So my take away from these weeks is this: the instructional environment must be firstly examined, with the aid of applicable learning theories. Then, instructional approaches and materials will be sought, still using the theories that have been deemed as applicable as guides, particularly being informed by the implications these theories offer for the classroom/instructional setting.
The second thing that stands out for me is what was proposed by Dr. Ormrod in her video teaching on Learning Styles and Strategies (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.), that instructional designers and deliverers focus on learning strategies, rather than learning styles. This notion is endorsed by McKeachie (1995) who, in advocating for strategies over styles, proposes that a good teacher teaches students “the skills and strategies needed for continued learning”. My previous thought on this area was that instructors needed to cater for all learning styles; a feat that can become rather cumbersome. I have come to the realisation that teaching strategies, because they permeate barriers of learning styles, is a much more effective and efficient approach.
Regarding my learning style preferences, one thing that has shaped my understanding of how I learn, comes from the study of andragogy, which speaks to the self-directedness of adult learners. The need to take responsibility for my own learning, to be able to set targets, chose resources and learning experiences that meet my learning needs, explains my preference for flexible learning experiences. Finally, I reflect on my learning methods and approaches just ten to twelve years ago – limited knowledge of the computer and the capabilities of technology. I contrast that with the way I learn today; I could barely think of engaging in learning, without utilising some aspect of technology, particularly the computer and its bedfellow World Wide Web. These have replaced physical dictionaries, encyclopaedias, notebooks, graph books, even text books and libraries and my guess would be that at least eighty percent of my learning takes place via or with the help of some form of technology.
As I said in a previous post, the instructor’s/designer’s understanding of his own learning style is critical in shaping the learning experience for others. My understanding and insight into learning has been broadened over these past few weeks. I propose that learners somewhere in the world stand to gain from the learning that myself and colleagues have gained from this course.
References:
Kerr, B. (2007). _Isms as filter not blinker [Blog post]. Retrieved from
Laureate Education, Inc. (n.d.). Learning styles and strategies [DVD]. In EDUC-6115-6 Learning Theories and instruction. Minnesota, MN: Dr. Jeanne Ormrod
No comments:
Post a Comment