Week 3--Introduction to Learning Theories

photo courtesy of www.toddadams.net

The clever ones have already noted that Week Two’s Blog is absent. I hope to remedy this once Brian has posted the podcast from February 7, and I can listen and blog from there. Thanks for your patience, all.

We discussed the benefits of the iLearn forum. Dr. Foreman pointed out that with the general feeling of impenetrability of the first chapter of our textbook, for instance, we could see that we are not alone if we are exchanging ideas in the forum. This was, of course, foreshadow to next week’s forum assignment to replace a normal class meeting. We are going to read chapters 2 and 6 in Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice, 5th Edition by Margaret E. Gredler and write 250 to 500 words in reflection/response to one of the chapters and pose a question as well. The deadline posting the response and question is 7pm Tuesday, February 21. But it doesn’t end there: please respond to other students’ postings. Dr. Foreman said that the person receiving the greatest number of responses will glean the most points!

Dr. Foreman also experimented with SnapZ Pro, a Mac-only platform webcast tool (if that is the correct term) that captured her projected web and PowerPoint presentation as well as an audio track. It is not high end , though inexpensive, and it is memory hungry. Her approximate 10minute presentation ate about 10MB. Compare to Brian’s podcast files which are 14 or 15 MB for about 90 minutes. Brian is going to look at the possibility of using an iMac eye-mac (?) for recording the video portion of our wonderfully photogenic class.

We went through Dr. Foreman’s PPT presentation of the course overview, which is available for view at the ITEC800 page on iLearn. She described our subject matter focus up to this point in terms of camera shots, with everything preceding Week 3 as “long-shots.” With this presentation, we slightly tightened the focus to a more medium shot. We will move forward and take on a more tightly-focused view of the learning theories, starting with Behaviorism and the slideshow posted on iLearn. Dr. Foreman recommends that we start there (Behaviorism slideshow) before we tackle the reading so that the ideas will be easier to understand when we are reading. I know that I am not alone in hoping that the ideas in subsequent chapters flow more easily than the mental cement of chapter one!

Discussions continued on the evolution of learning theories and how each of the three (Behavior, Cognitive, Constructivist) have their place for different learning environments and that each new theory was built upon its predecessor and tended to answer questions that could not be answered by the previous, prevailing theory. For instance: Behaviorism can’t address the working of the mind, so the Cognitive theory evolved. The Cognitive theory addresses the organization of the mind (with the not always popular analogy of the mind is like a computer), but can’t really address how we can become emotionally motivated to learn, hence the evolution of the Constructivist theory. As our ITEC800 learning camera focuses, we will see more schools of thought that fall under the umbrella of the 3 big theories.

We noted that most grammar schools incorporate the Behavioral model for instruction. Brian related that learning algebra in high school is difficult and frustrating because there is no real-life explanation for what is being solved. However, years, later, solving a problem on the job, it dawned on him how to do the math. This illustrates that the idea of measurable learning, currently adopted by public school for funding, etc. is not a true gage of whether learning has occurred.

OK, Dales’ Cone of Experience illustrates the retention rate associated with the method of learning, with reading bottoming at 10% retention and what we experience or teach to others comes in at a 90% retention rate. The graphic segued nicely to the group exercise which followed. We broke into four groups of three and brain-stormed to design a day of instruction to a group of adult Korean tourists who have a working knowledge of English and it is their first visit to the US. We were assigned to teach them something about San Francisco using one or all learning theories.

Please let me know if I got the names right for each group. (It’s a good thing with have mug shots on our profiles!) Also, I am having trouble reading my own writing, so I apologize if I botch anything—from now on I am using my laptop to record notes.

Group 1 (Carmen, Anthony, Areej)
Adults can travel, information is power (?). We give them a map with pictures and create an agenda. Incorporate Constructivist theory: demonstrations with a guide, go to Golden Gate Bridge. Problem solve: Agenda with map of where to go, what to do. Provide several destinations with restaurants for them to locate without a guide.

Group 2 (Leonard, Terence, Desmond)
We are incorporating all three learning theories to teach the Korean tourists about the different neighborhoods of SF. They are given an information pack with cheat sheets for each neighborhood and a map. They board a multi-media bus where they are tested on info from their packets and get prizes that relate to different neighborhoods (behaviorism). While they get a tour of the city, images, video and music are used to inform and reinforce unique qualities of each area of city, to help them learn (cognitive). Near the end of the day, individuals go to a particular neighborhood to learn more about that area, then meet back to teach the others in their group about their discoveries (constructivist).

Group 3 (Darren, Peter, Klendalyn)
Constructivist only approach. Have a scavenger hunt in top 10 sites of SF. Take pictures of what they see, make journal entries, and connect to their own experiences.

Group 4 (Karen, Brian, Barry)
Combine conventional learning with technology. Each tourist has an iPod with instructional video loaded. Have them use BART, relate to the Seoul Metro in Korea---frames of learning: how to use BART in 7 steps from the video in iPod. Analogy of Korean system with the BART system. Compare to own travel experiences. As group, use the iPod and solve problems together. Combines Behaviorism and Constructivism.

We did a post-mortem: each of us responding to what we felt happened in the past 3 hours…it was a good night of applying the theory to a practical application and then observing what our peers did to solve the education problem. We all did well!

Desmond Rutherford