SYNTHESIZE KNOWLEDGE

​

• Demonstrates ability to read and understand educational literature related to Educational Technology

• Demonstrates ability to describe fundamental theories of human learning

• Applies knowledge of human learning, diversity, and effective pedagogy to solution of problems

 

 Artifact: The WHIRL THEORY 

Final Paper for EDCI 53100: 

Learning Theories and Instructional Design 

 

 

​

Narrative:

“With today’s learners, integrating a single path of learning within Instructional Design would be the same as asking drivers to drive one type of car, restaurants to serve one simple meal, women to wear one shoe style; the same rings true for learning theories.”

 

This quotes the beginning statement of my final paper for EDCI 53100: Learning Theories & Instructional Design. During the course, I read and understood educational literature related to Educational Technology. I applied different learning theories encapsulated in Driscoll (2005), The Psychology of Instructional Design, and hyperlinks to varied learning environments. At the conclusion of the course, I demonstrated my ability to describe fundamental theories of human learning. We had the choice of expounding upon one particular theory, or to come up with a theory of own. I applied knowledge of human learning, diversity, and effective pedagogy to problem-solving, and conceived what I coined, The Whirl Theory. Whirl stands for Weston’s Hypermedia Integrated Relevant Learning. I could just picture some scholar discovering my paper a century after writing it, similar to the posthumous fame of Lev Vygotsky (The Vygotsky Zone). Okay, maybe not.

            The theories Vygotsky coined are simplistic, yet applicable. If learning is designed to be too easy or too difficult, the learner falls out of the zone. Still, the learner must be challenged for learning to "stick." To achieve this, the Instructional Designer must first Target the learner. Pre-tests are the right tools for both targeting and enabling summative Level 2 evaluation.

            While most theories were derived before eLearning existed; my theory takes the best of old and applies to the new – that is, if it’s applicable. I would not consider myself a Skinner advocate, though I would use his founding behaviorist principles to create a language course. From a learner’s perspective, flash cards helped get me through three years of college Russian. Yet, I discovered in a constructivist French language course, that blended learning is the best (though not always possible). That bon course, like Whirl, took advantage of multiple paths of learning. Into the blender like a fine Van Gogh brush, swirls simulation, situational videos, interaction, storytelling, gamification, group discussion, facilitation and more. One of my fellow students, all of whom I have learned a great deal through constructive Discussion Boards shared, “It’s not enough to think differently. You must do different things.” And they learned this from a hyperlink, from another university online course (Brown), something that would not have happened twenty years prior.

            But do I believe in raw Constructivism? Discovery, social, and hands-on learning work wonders, but sending someone off into the wild with little guidance is in my opinion, is good for little. Send them off, but in the right direction. Every learner, in varied situations, and in various subject matters, will respond differently to applied theory. For example, take Gamification. Not fit for all, and certainly not a stand-alone learning vehicle.

           Historically, courses have been taught with thick texts, and in some schools, and cultures, still rely upon Sage-on-the-Stage education. Just because your course is online, does not mean that it has to deviate from traditional forms of teaching. But it should. “Read this book, now discuss in a Discussion Board,” really only touches upon the vestiges of, derives the benefits from – the diverse, electronically connected world we live in today. That’s why they call it eLearning. And eLearning as in Pedagogy (teaching children) does not always relate to Andragogy (adult learning). Problem-solving, relevant, career applicable. My focus is on Andragogy.

            Because we live in this e-world, it becomes more important that whatever theory you use to design and implement, there is a greater need, a greater desire for engagement. As designers, we must take the best of Piaget, Bruner, Aronson, Gagne, Ausubel and so many others; yet we must mold them to the application of a distracted, media frenzied, high on entertainment audience. If learners crave entertainment, then we must engage them with similar means.

            So what did I learn from creating my own theory? To begin with, I needed to gain a firmer grasp of the philosophy of founding theorists. Why did I first disagree with older theorists? I needed to read them again with an open mind. One must learn to Synthesize Knowledge, and through this course and those that followed, I continue adapting theory to the learning landscape.

 

References:

Driscoll, Marcy (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ertmer, Peggy, Quinn, James, Glazewski & Krista D. (2013-05-14). The ID CaseBook:Studies in Instructional Design. Pearson   Education. Kindle Edition.

Margalit, Liaz. (2015) Video vs. Text: The Brain Perspective. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/behind-online-behavior/201505/video-vs-text-the-brain-perspective