learning theory

The old blog has been silent lately. It is because I am stuck - driven to distraction, so to speak. Looking back at recent blog posts, I see that I am clearly trying to crack a shared code within seemingly separate and distinct learning and instructional theories. After reading and hearing my ramblings about dynamic, personalized, coproduced, blah, blah, blah learning and instruction, a few people have raised the possibility that these learning and instructional approaches will only work for motivated self-starters - you know, the traditional "early adopters". If so, then the learner's disposition and level of motivation determine whether a less structured and more learner driven instructional model will "work"? Are these factors really part of the code?

Add to my mixed bag of ideas this paper #92: Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge by Stephen Downes that is the subject of discussion this week on IT Forum and addressed in this recorded presentation. Interesting to consider both the common and divergent themes . . .
<!-- technorati tags begin -->

technorati tags:learning

<!-- technorati tags end -->

With 3 weeks left in a 13 week summer term, I don't have time to fully ponder the title of this post. However, JT on her Online Learning Blog got my neurons scrambling a week or so ago and I think this is an issue that needs much more of my attention.

When I first read about Constructivism, I had an "aha" moment. I could really grab on to some of the underlying themes, in particular the premise that learning is an active process in which the learner is the worker bee constructing meaning based what he / she "knows" and what is out there for discovery in the learning environment. I even appreciated the "social negotiation" aspects. However, this is also where I see very bad things happen between theory and practice and, in the worst case, the learning environment becomes one long run-on social negotiation (also known as "group project" work). Which leads me to the back to the title of this post ...

Here is my most recent shot at assessing my personal theory of learning and instruction (in IU P540) . . . it will be interesting to see how this morphs over time . . .

To begin, I am miles away from where I was when I answered this question at the beginning of this semester.  I entered the class with no prior learning theory exposure, little experience as a trainer and even less experience as an online student.  I feel my personal theory of learning has evolved due to not only the material presented in the class, but also by the process of being a learner in an online learning environment.  In my first response during week one, my idea of "learning" was pretty much: a) hear a lecture, b) read a text, c) take a test to repeat back a. and b.  Clearly, that format is not what happened in this class and, yet, I feel I have really "learned" the material while completely changing the way I view the learning and instruction process.Throughout the semester, I found myself constantly reflecting and challenging the validity of the material (from my perspective as a student). As I read the material and completed the assignments, I would ask myself "Does this make sense to me as a learner? Is this how I learn? Would this work for other adults in a corporate training setting?" 

This morning, I was asked to contemplate a positive role model. I thought I'd share my observations. In a prior job, I used to comment that my boss was a “Teflon Don” – nothing bad would stick to him (and I mean that in the most positive light) and he could get away with things with his superiors that no other manager would dare try. I often wondered what it was about him that gave him those powers over his superiors . . . but, before long, I was doing everything I could to try to emulate him. Here is one quick example. Every year, we would have to write a new business plan for our unit. Other managers would struggle with a back and forth process with their bosses with long drawn out reports with pages and pages of narrative and graphs and scenarios. My first year on the job, I asked to see a copy of Teflon Don’s report from the prior year. I was shocked. It was one page long in a Word table with three columns (1: Where We Want to Be; 2: Where We Are; 3: What We are Going to Do To Get There). Under the first column, he listed the top 5 things that were vital to the success of our department. The next column assessed if we were at a stage to reach that desired successful state. Finally, the last column listed the resources or changes we needed to make to achieve this success. I was dumbfounded. In a single page, he summarized exactly what needed to be done in the next year. It is important to note that his summary did not lack detail. He had all the important points like sales targets and staffing needs, but the detail didn’t get lost in the minutia of a 15 page report.

Seems everyone is posting about this Crash Course in Learning Theory post. 

Content related to Instructional Design