After 6 weeks of in-depth exposure to the various learning theories that exist, my view of how I personally learn and which learning theory ultimately appeals to me has obviously changed. In the initial stages of the course, I commented on the personal appeal of Cognitive and Connectivist theories. From an adult learning and corporate training perspective, the active participation of the learning through understanding and engaging their personal learning processes is key, as stressed by the Cognitive model (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). In addition, corporate trainers are constantly trying to make connections between prior knowledge and experiences for adults in the classroom, which is the core component of Connectivist theory (Davis, Edmunds, Kelly-Bateman, 2008). While I still stand by my support of these two theories, I would add support for Constructivism and Adult Learning theory to help better explain how I learn and how my future students will probably learn. Constructivism seems to build on the Connectivist theory by stating learners actually create meaning from their past experiences and prior knowledge, instead of having knowledge “mapped” onto them (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). In addition, the tenets of Adult Learning theory, or andragogy, as proposed by Malcom ((Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) have always appealed to my profession as a corporate trainer. Our training programs consistently integrate the adult as a self-directed learner, rely on the reservoir of life experiences present, and emphasize the immediate application of training content (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).
I have previously emphasized my personal need to physically and mentally interact with the learning environment and the content to successfully retain information. My study habits include highlighting text, annotating margins with previously learned information, and merging notes together in the form of outlines. All of these methods seem to appeal to Adult Learning theory, Constructivism, and Connectivism. From a technology perspective, annotating information and merging previously learning content can be facilitated by the use of technology. The notion of “smart objects” with “tags” and links could make the process easier and more effective (Edutopia, 2008).
References
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
Edutopia. (2008). Why integrate technology into the curriculum? The reasons are many. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-introduction
Merriam, S. B. & Caffarella, R.S.(1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Inc.
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Instructional Design & Technology: Ringer 