A person cannot teach another person directly;
a person can only facilitate another's learning.
– Carl Rogers
Learning Theory begins with exploring definitions of learning, teaching and knowledge. I began the Principles of Learning course with an outline of what I thought learning, teaching and knowledge are, based on my existing ideas and class discussion. Then at the end of the course, I revisited those definitions, and, drawing on the readings and discussion in the course, redefined these concepts. A comparison of these two documents reveals a deepening in my understanding and awareness of some of the issues involved in defining these core terms. The documents can be viewed here.
One of my 'aha!' moments came during this course when the instructor asked, "Can anyone actually give knowledge?" This went to the foundations of my view of teaching: I explain a concept, and the knowledge somehow transfers to the students, as if I was simply pouring knowledge into empty buckets. What I came to see was that learners have control over what goes into their 'buckets', and what stays in; they control the absorption and retention of information, based on how 'tuned in' to the lesson they are (their engagement), and how the information fits into their prior knowledge (their pre-existing construct).
One of the theorists I encountered in Principles of Learning, and whom I have come to respect highly, is Lev Vygotsky. I found his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development helped me significantly in understanding how students progress in their learning, and why tailoring instruction to match the learning of the student is so crucial.
The following artifact is a collaborative summary of Vygotsky's thinking on learning, teaching and knowledge.
The following artifact is a collaborative summary of Vygotsky's thinking on learning, teaching and knowledge.
Towards the end of my the Masters program, in Technology and the Curriculum, I read the Key Findings chapter of How People Learn (Donovan, Bransford and Pellegrino, 1999). To help my own understanding, I summarized the key points, using plain language, and expanded on these points with my own understanding. This reading reinforced for me the importance of metacognition, and underlined the constructivist nature of learning.
To learn, I need to know what it is that I already know.
I need to know what of all I already know is wrong, and how or why it is wrong;
I need to know there is more to know than I already know.
I need to know how to find what I don’t already know.
To learn, I need to organize what I am learning.
I need to organize it in relation to the whole of what I am learning,
and I need to organize it in relation to what I already know.
I need to organize it so I can retrieve it and apply it easily,
and so I can continue adding to it in a way that makes sense.
To learn, I need to be aware of my own learning.
If I am aware of my own learning, I can direct my learning to be more effective
by setting goals and making sure I am moving towards those goals;
I can direct my learning along pathways that engage me and suit my learning styles;
and I can incorporate failures as learning opportunities.
To teach, I need to create an environment where all of that can happen,
I need to help my students develop these skills,
and I need to get out of the way and let them get on with the business of learning.
To learn, I need to know what it is that I already know.
I need to know what of all I already know is wrong, and how or why it is wrong;
I need to know there is more to know than I already know.
I need to know how to find what I don’t already know.
To learn, I need to organize what I am learning.
I need to organize it in relation to the whole of what I am learning,
and I need to organize it in relation to what I already know.
I need to organize it so I can retrieve it and apply it easily,
and so I can continue adding to it in a way that makes sense.
To learn, I need to be aware of my own learning.
If I am aware of my own learning, I can direct my learning to be more effective
by setting goals and making sure I am moving towards those goals;
I can direct my learning along pathways that engage me and suit my learning styles;
and I can incorporate failures as learning opportunities.
To teach, I need to create an environment where all of that can happen,
I need to help my students develop these skills,
and I need to get out of the way and let them get on with the business of learning.
The fundamental shift in my thinking that resulted from studying learning theory was to begin teaching by looking at learning: instead of "How can I best teach this?", asking "How will my students best learn this?" As I began to view education from a Constructivist perspective, I saw that learning - what happens in a learner's mind when they are learning - is an intensely individualistic endeavor, as each student constructs their own understanding, integrating it with prior knowledge.
This lead to three conclusions:
1) Teaching needs to be student-centered
2) Teaching must be differentiated
3) Learning only occurs when the learner is engaged
This lead to three conclusions:
1) Teaching needs to be student-centered
2) Teaching must be differentiated
3) Learning only occurs when the learner is engaged
Student-Centered Learning gives students a voice in their own learning, and changes the role of the teacher to be more of a guide. Teachers pose questions for students to discover answers to, rather than simply telling information. This shift in focus and roles is explored in greater depth on the Student-Centered Learning page.
|
Partnering, Prensky's version of Student-Centered Learning, emphasizes a respectful partnership between teacher and learners.
Problem-Based Learning emphasizes the independent, exploratory nature of the learning process, even to the point of the learner devising the questions that need to be answered. |
For many years I resisted the drive towards Differentiated Instruction, unsure how I could teach a class as individuals all on their own learning paths. Looking back, I can see that I believed that if I taught clearly enough, all my students would 'get it' - and if they didn't, that was due to an unwillingness on their part. Yes, I knew some students needed more support, and I even acknowledged that some students performed better on certain kinds of assessments than others. But my classroom had effectively one learning pathway, which all students were expected to follow at the same pace. Now, with a greater understanding of how students learn, and with technology which can support differentiated instruction (see the Changing Technology page), my view has changed. Now I hold that each student learns in his/her own way, and I need to organize my classroom and my teaching so as to accommodate how students learn.
Another change has been the realization that teaching is essentially motivating students to learn, and that meaningful learning only occurs when students are engaged. Previously, I had relied on extrinsic elements to motivate students - the desire to earn a good grade, or the fear of failing and having to repeat a year. I have found this less and less effective. I have attempted to use different ways to motivate students, including using variety; making learning activities more hands-on; and incorporating technology. This approach has been haphazard, and often reactive: as students display lack of motivation, I react by finding something which will engage them. I need to begin my planning with engagement in mind, utilizing strategies such as Engagement Theory and the ARCS motivation model as the backbone of every unit and course.
While Engagement Theory and ARCS focus on learner motivation, engagement/motivation is a common theme in many learning theories.
Another change has been the realization that teaching is essentially motivating students to learn, and that meaningful learning only occurs when students are engaged. Previously, I had relied on extrinsic elements to motivate students - the desire to earn a good grade, or the fear of failing and having to repeat a year. I have found this less and less effective. I have attempted to use different ways to motivate students, including using variety; making learning activities more hands-on; and incorporating technology. This approach has been haphazard, and often reactive: as students display lack of motivation, I react by finding something which will engage them. I need to begin my planning with engagement in mind, utilizing strategies such as Engagement Theory and the ARCS motivation model as the backbone of every unit and course.
While Engagement Theory and ARCS focus on learner motivation, engagement/motivation is a common theme in many learning theories.
An examination of the ideas of influential theorists has shaped my thinking significantly. As a newly-minted Social Constructivist, I now see that learning involves each student building his/her own construct, and incorporating new knowledge into that construct. Teaching must therefore begin with the learner, and consider the learner's interests, previous knowledge, current level of demonstrable understanding, and ways of learning. Because each student is an individual, effective teaching involves differentiation, adjusting the level of instruction, the ways of learning and ways of expressing learning to accommodate each student. Because student motivation is essential to effective learning, engagement and motivation need to be carefully considered ahead of time, and not simply added in after their absence has become apparent.
Learning theory has led to some fundamental shifts in my thinking, and in education as a whole. What impact has technology had?
Learning theory has led to some fundamental shifts in my thinking, and in education as a whole. What impact has technology had?