Education is undergoing a shift from the traditional lecture classroom to a multifaceted, technology rich learning environment. Previous learning environments required learners to practice metacognition on their own. Current educational models require the instructor to incorporate numerous learning theories, current brain research, innovative technology and a variety of learning styles. This shift has allowed me to explore my personal learning process in depth and apply that knowledge to the creation of innovative instructional design.
Exploring my personal learning process has been an enlightening challenge. My metacognition has always focused on moving relevant information from my short term memory to my long term memory with minimal effort. I have incorporated several memory tools such as rehearsal, mnemonic devices, creating a story and visual representations (Curtis, 2008). Recently, I shifted my metacognitive focus from simple memorization to understanding the connections I form with the material. While memorization requires maintenance rehearsal and visual cues, true comprehension of new information comes from connections to previous schemata and nodes of information (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008). This desire to connect new information by building new synapses to old information demonstrates my proclivities for cognitive learning theory (Ormrod, Schunk & Gredler, 2008). I am also predisposed toward constructing my own meaning from experiences. I often utilize constructivist principles in my classroom because I enjoy learning this way (Ormrod, Schunk & Gredler, 2008).
While I have identified learning theories that describe my nature, I was surprised to find two learning theories that do not. I recently realized that I am not a social learner (Ormrod, Schunk & Gredler, 2008). I have an extensive network of informative sources, but I require statistical or empirical information to accept divergent information as more than an anomaly. Connectivism also relies heavily on social interaction to create meaning. These interactions rarely create content specific meaning without additional research.
I was also surprised to learn that not all learning theorist ascribe to one learning theory. There was a very lively debate between S. Downes, K. Kapp and B. Kerr in which they agreed that the learning theories were incomplete, evolving and could be utilized in conjunction (Kerr, 2007). Kapp (2007) noted, “We need to take pieces from each school of thought and apply it effectively because… Cognitivism doesn’t explain 100% how humans process information and neither does Constructivism or Behaviorism. What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners”. Oregon State University has incorporated a tutorial that combines Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory and Dunn’s Learning Styles to create a more effective learning tool (Chau, 2006).
I have learned that innovation in education is a communal process. Most of us articulate what we know, reflect on what we have learned, and construct personal meaning. We work together to negotiate the internal meaning we are still in the process of constructing (Huang, 2002). This social learning does not have to be a preference in order for learning to occur. Every student has a preferred learning style for a specific task. However, these learning styles can change relative to the task, material being presented or the motivation of the learner at that particular time (Gilbert & Swanier, 2008). Utilizing only one theory of learning or one learning style as the predominant method of teaching would be a travesty. These theories and styles can work in harmony during a fully interactive technology rich lesson. Integrating various technological tools and incorporating several learning styles throughout the presentation can increase motivation as well as learning. “It is up to the student to make sense of the body of knowledge associated with the course being delivered. The instructor supports this process through the use of collaborative assignments, facilitation of active discussion, and promotion of the development of critical thinking and research skills” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, p. 1).
As an instructional designer, I plan to incorporate metacognition and the ARCS model into my design. Students are encouraged to reflect on their learning and choose strategies that increase their comprehension. When students are not successful, I will offer alternate methods of acquiring the material that could be more effective for the situation (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009). Learners create multimedia presentations and debate controversial subjects related to the course material. Discussion forums provide a true social learning environment and I offer ongoing relevant feedback throughout the course (ChanLin, 2009). I am moving towards a personalized web experience in which students utilize tools like Scoop It, group Diigo, group Wikis and Blogs in addition to forums to create a personalized content specific web experience.
Online learning environments must provide engagement for the learners (Lim, 2004). Incorporating technology specific to learning outcomes increases engagement. Personalizing the instruction via forums, blogs and e-mails can increase learning, motivation and student satisfaction. Finally, studying one’s personal learning style and comparing it to current learning theories provides an opportunity for instructional design specialists to evaluate teaching methods in a much more informed manner. Hopefully, this will result in the creation of numerous highly effective courses.
Chau, M. (2006). Connecting learning styles and multiple intelligences theories through learning strategies: an online tutorial for library instruction. Collections.
ChanLin, L. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a Web-based course. Innovations In Education & Teaching International, 46(1), 91-103. doi:10.1080/14703290802646123
Curtis, Patricia. (March, 2008). 20 Memory Tricks You’ll Never Forget. Reader’s Digest. Digital Version. Retrieved from http://www.rd.com/health/wellness/20-memory-tricks-youll-never-forget/. Retrieved November 9, 2012
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism
Gilbert, J., & Swanier, C. (2008). Learning styles: How do they fluctuate? Institute for Learning Styles Journal [Vol. l]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.auburn.edu/~witteje/ilsrj/Journal%20Volumes/Fall%202008%20Volume%201%20PDFs/Learning%20Styles%20How%20do%20They%20Fluctuate.pdf
Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and About: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Blog post]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.uleduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Lim, C. P. (2004). Engaging learners in online learning environments. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 48(4), 16–23.
Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Retrieved from