In the beginning, I stated that as a kid, the proverb, "Give a kids fish, they’ll eat for a day. Teach kids to fish and they will never go hungry" held no meaning. As long as I passed the tests, in my mind, I was learning what I "needed" to, never putting any thought into how I learn. I mentioned that the theory that best meets my needs at this stage in life is the constructivism theory because I “equate meaning from experience” (Newby, 62) and I learn best by doing. I now know that there is so much more to this theory in particular than I originally thought. While this still remains partly true, my perception of how I learn has changed. After completing the matrix and gaining a deeper understanding of the different learning theories and learning styles, my view on how I learn has developed deeply.
In week one, I thought that I “learned by seeing and doing” and that was literally the end of it. In a way, I did not even see the value of learning what I perceived to be “antiquated theories” because I assumed so much was obsolete. At that point the terms “connectivism”, “constructivism”, and “adult learning theory” were not a part of my lexicon.
This quickly changed. In week two, I learned that theories are not all ancient because “modern day brain research has provided new and exciting insights into the process of learning” (Weaver, 2011). I also learned that “the computer metaphor doesn't work very well” because “people don't work in that one thing leads to another automatically" kind of way. We tend to branch out in a lot of different directions all at once” (Laureate, 2009). So I was in search for new meaning to how I learn.
Week three was a turning point for me because I learned that cognitivists and behaviorists do not traditionally mesh well, but that they absolutely should because learning is not one thing, “it is a multi-layered word that tends to get treated as if it were just one thing…and it’s not” (Kapp, 2007) and since "Cognitivism doesn’t explain 100% how humans process information and neither does Constructivism or Behaviorism," (Kapp, 2007) I changed my view on only being able to adopt one learning theory for myself. Also, while I do not accept all ideas of behaviorism, some students are still “easily distracted from academic tasks and some consistently engage in disruptive behaviors that interfere with their own classmate’s learning”, consequently I began to use a few concepts in my classroom management technique.
In week four, I learned that Vygotsky is a genius. His theorizing that learning is not only a brain process because it is a social experience as well made so much sense. I also learned that an online course is the highest level of social constructivist theory for me because the structure is provided and it is up to us to develop our OWN zones of proximal development. We learn from the texts, websites, databases, and each other. We can get as little or as much as we want out of the course. In an online learning environment, "knowledge is also a human product, and is socially and culturally constructed (Ernest, 1999; Gredler, 1997; Prat & Floden, 1994). And that by bringing our social backgrounds to the table, we are gaining a deeper understanding of the content we are "constructing what we understand' (Ormrod, Schunk, Gredler, 2009, p. 182). I learned that I like learning this way.
In week five, a light bulb went off in my head. I realized that theory can in fact be “modernized”. Knowles, Pensky and Siemens created a learning theory for the 21st century adult and child learner and I knew that the connectivist theory addresses a huge percentage of how I learn today. I agree that “networks have always been the backbone structure of society and knowledge” (Blog: Connectivism) because after creating the mind map, I realized that mine is absolutely essential to how I learn in my professional career. Like Siemens, I also agree “too many educators fail to understand how technology is changing society. While hype words of web 2.0, blogs, wikis, and podcasts are easy to ignore, the change agents driving these tools are not. We communicate differently than we did even ten years ago” (Siemens, 2006). Also, for adult learners “the most significant trend that continues to make an impact on facilitators is the demand for the incorporation of technology into the content and delivery of professional development” (King, 2003).
In week six, I learned that no matter what learning theories I acknowledge, there are different believed learning styles and strategies to help me learn. According to Ormrod, “different people approach learning in different ways” (Laureate, 2009). Gardner’s MI shows me that each student has a set of intelligences to help him/her learn best. In addition, elaboration, comprehension monitoring and mnemonics are each important learning styles. I discovered that I use all three in my learning. I use elaboration because I always bring things I have acquired (from grade school, college, graduate school or my profession) into the mix when I learn new things. I have definitely employed monitoring comprehension in this course as well because I am constantly rereading dense texts and reviewing videos for understanding. I use mnemonic devices to remember vocabulary and key concepts. In fact my notes would look completely ridiculous and foreign to others, but that is OK with me.
In week seven, I learned that technology plays an essential role in my learning and consequently my teaching. The Horizon Report excited me and made me realize that I am without a doubt ready to embrace a “progressive” way of learning. As a teacher in a wireless district, I already knew that successful technology-rich schools “generate impressive results for students, including improved achievement; higher test scores; improved student attitude, enthusiasm, and engagement; richer classroom content; and improved student retention and job placement rates” (NSBA). However I never quite considered how much technology I use for my own personal learning. Creating the mind map was an awesome way to visualize this. I use technology daily for lesson planning, discovering literary criticism, extracting meaningful information and advice from my network of professionals, and researching. It fits the needs of an adult learner because in order to “facilitate the use of Andragogy while teaching with technology we must use technology to its fullest” (Knowles, 1980). Also, it praised for its “flexibility and the ability of the learner to move through lessons any time, anywhere, and at their own pace.” “These arguments also include logical explanations of how a learner may adapt the lessons or material to cover what they need to learn and eliminate the material that is not appropriate or that they have already learned” (Knowles, 1980).
References:
Fidishun, D. (n.d.). Andragogy and Technology: Integrating Adult Learning Theory
As We Teach With. Retrieved 2011, from Penn State website:
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/fidishun.htm
King, K.P. & Lawler, P.A. (2003). Trends and issues in the professional development of teachers of adults. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, v. 98, p. 5-13.
Knowles, Malcolm S. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education; From Andragogy to Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
Knowles, Malcolm S., Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson. 1998. The Adult Learner. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition).
New York: Pearson. Chapter 1, “Overview”, (pp. 16 -23).
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition).
New York: Pearson. Chapter 6, “Constructivist Theory”.
Technology's Impact on Learning. (1995). Retrieved 2011, from Department of
Education website: http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/tiol.html
