WHAT’S STRIKING
I have found many things striking during my Learning Theories and Instruction course at Walden University. One thing is the different learning theories with what seems like bullet-proof reasoning until another theory comes along and shoots holes in it with equally as sound reasoning. The amount of quibbling that goes on between experts in the field on the rightness or wrongness of one theory or another is also striking. It seems at first a waste of time or egotistical/intellectual posturing. But when one steps back and looks at the wake of this pontification, gems of knowledge and cutting edge ideas can be seen (along with all the flotsam and jetsam that is kicked up in the process.) So this intellectual sparring has its place and its purpose in furthering the study of education and instructional design (it can also be quite entertaining.)
Another striking and surprising thing that I have learned through this course is one that may not have been so striking to other students in the class with more experience in education and teaching: the differences between pedagogy and andragogy. I knew logically that there had to be differences, but I had never stopped to wonder or investigate what those differences were. Just the realization that pedagogy is curriculum based and andragogy is need or interest based was a complete “aha” moment for me. In pedagogy the learner is dependent, has little experience to draw from, learns what they are told to learn, and learns to acquire subject matter. In contrast, in andragogy the learners are either moving toward or have achieved independence and self-direction, have stored experience which can and should be tapped and used, are motivated by what they need or want to know, and are performance centered in their learning. I have been unknowingly using tactics which support this on the rare occasions when I train employees at work. I usually start out by showing people how I use the technology that I am teaching them and by giving them a few examples of how this technology can make their jobs easier. I try to connect with the learners and collaborate with them. I facilitate rather than teach in many cases. To know why my methods have been successful is eye opening.
DEEPENED UNDERSTANDING
This course has also deepened my understanding of my own learning process. I can see the methods that I use to turn auditory information into visual or kinesthetic information. My clumsiness with auditory information may be my own fault from compensating for my lack of dexterity with it rather than a bona fide learning disability. This revelation aside, I will probably continue to use my compensating tactics. They have served me well for almost 50 years and I’m comfortable with them. I can also see how I fit the role of adult learner in most ways. I do however tend to learn things “just because.” I’m not sure how need or want based this is. To me it doesn’t really fit pedagogy or andragogy. I just learn things as they come along and store them. Sometimes I need them, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I want to learn them, but sometimes I don’t, but I learn them anyway. It’s almost “knowledge kleptomania”. I just pick it up because it’s there and I can grab it. I’m sure it’s driven by some intrinsic motivation I am currently unaware of. Now that this course has taught me more about intrinsic motivation, perhaps I’ll investigate the roots of this issue further.
LEARNING THEORIES, LEARNING STYLES, EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY & MOTIVATION
I have learned a great deal about learning theories, learning styles, educational technology, and motivation during this course. There is no right or wrong learning theory, just as there is no right or wrong tool in a toolbox. There are merely more appropriate learning theories (as there are tools) to use in certain situation as the need calls for them. Learning styles, I find, are more of a preference or proclivity than a concrete science. Similar to be being right handed where the right hand is the “go to” hand for most activities, but the left hand is still fully functional (just not as quick or easy to use in many cases). Educational technology is another tool in the instructional designer’s toolbox, but as tools are to a master carpenter, educational technology cannot take the place of knowledge and experience and a certain amount of art in education and the psychology of teaching. After all, a paint brush is only as good as the hand that wields it. These first three — learning theories, learning styles, and educational technology – are as I have stated, tools in the instructional designer’s toolbox. Motivation, however, is more of the gasoline that runs the learning engine. Without student motivation, the class will bog down, sputter, stall, and perhaps crash completely. Proper design and techniques can be used as tools to boost motivation, but motivation itself is that fuel that makes learning move forward and succeed. The strategies to boost motivation, however, can again be seen as a tool in the instructional designer’s toolbox. The connection between these four elements of instructional design is that they all need to be considered and used for effective design to be the final outcome.
WII-FM (What’s In It For Me)
I believe this course has given me sound fundamentals to build the remainder of my education in instructional design upon. Without knowing the underpinnings of good instructional design, no amount of knowledge in technology or technique can be successful. To build a sturdy bridge, you must start with firm footings. This course with its solid basics in learning theory and instruction will give a firm footing to the rest of the courses I take here at Walden University
Filed under: Just Info | Leave a Comment »
