Learning Theory
Learning theory is a critical component of pedagogy as it is this perspective of how learning occurs that shapes the instructional practices used in the classroom. As a learner I have experienced each of the major learning paradigms (Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism, Connectivism) and can identify elements of each within my own classroom. The videos below outline the different paradigms of how learning occurs that I have been introduced to and explored throughout my studies.
Video 1: Introduction & Behaviourism
Length - 3:38 min.
Video 2: Cognitivism
Length - 4:06 min.
Video 3: Constructivism & Connectivism
Length - 4:48 min.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artifact Description:
The goal of this assignment was to analyze a learning environment that I was familiar with through the lens of the different learning theories discussed in the Principles of Learning course. After conducting a critical analysis, I was required to synthesize my learning and identify areas of the learning environment that I may structure differently in the future in order to enhance learning. I decided to analyse the manner in which I instruct and structure my intermediate math class. |
Click the image above to view artifact
|
Reflection:
Despite teaching for the past 10 years, my knowledge of learning theory was limited prior to beginning the Master’s program. This assignment played an important role in deepening my understanding of the different historical and contemporary perspectives on learning. According to Ertmer and Newby (2013), a knowledge of learning theory is critical in allowing educators to select appropriate instructional strategies to achieve specific learning objectives.
In order to provide a critical and thorough analysis of the design of my math classroom, I spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the literature and reflecting on the major assertions of each of the paradigms. For the analysis I decided to examine how I typically structure a math lesson, beginning with how I plan and ending with how I assess student understanding, in order to obtain a holistic view of my instructional practices. To achieve this, I created a series of vignettes describing my actions and then provided an analysis referencing appropriate learning theory below each vignette.
Overall, I found that many of my instructional practices aligned with Constructivism, whereby learning is an active process and knowledge is developed through the use of complex learning environments that promote inquiry and collaboration (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). For instance, I often begin my lessons with a minds-on activity in order to engage students and activate prior knowledge. Activating prior knowledge is important in allowing learners to connect new learning to existing schemas. Thus, transfer of learning occurs when students are able to use their pre-existing knowledge to solve problems or support new learning (Sidney & Alibali, 2015). Next, I have students work on an open-ended problem in order to simulate the complexities of the real world and provide multiple points of entry for all students, regardless of their cognitive stage of development. Finally, I have students participate in a consolidation phase in order to help students develop metacognition and reflect on the problem solving strategies used by themselves and their peers.
While it was extremely validating to see that many of my current practices were supported in the literature as effective methods to enhance learning, it was the synthesis portion of the paper that helped me to think about pedagogy at a deeper level. I discovered there were several areas within my lessons where I made assumptions about student learning. This led to a false understanding of my students’ learning in mathematics. For instance, I used to have students write in different colour marker when solving problems so that I could see how each student approached the problem. The issue with this approach was that some students that were actively involved in solving the problem orally could not capture all of their thinking in writing, while others appeared to be actively involved because they had merely written down their group’s discussion. The manner in which I monitor individual contributions during group problem solving has changed within my classroom since completing this assignment. I now use digital tools such as Livescribe and Educreations to record my students when they are involved in collaborative problem solving. This new practice provides me with in depth look at student thinking as I am able to observe the entire problem solving process rather than just the end product. In turn I am able to provide targeted feedback to meet the individual needs of each learner. It has also allowed me to identify common misconceptions among my students that are used to guide my future lessons.
The analysis and synthesis paper was an example of constructivism in action as learners were required to transfer their learning to a new situation that was of personal relevance. It caused me to question and reflect on my instructional design asking myself, "How will this strategy enhance student learning?" Without asking these types of critical questions it is easy for educators to simply teach as they were taught and neglect to recognize the needs of the learner and demands of the task (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). As I move forward I want to continue to apply this method of analysis and synthesis to all areas of my professional teaching practice. An understanding of learning theory allows me to select appropriate instructional strategies as well as justify my teaching methodologies.
Despite teaching for the past 10 years, my knowledge of learning theory was limited prior to beginning the Master’s program. This assignment played an important role in deepening my understanding of the different historical and contemporary perspectives on learning. According to Ertmer and Newby (2013), a knowledge of learning theory is critical in allowing educators to select appropriate instructional strategies to achieve specific learning objectives.
In order to provide a critical and thorough analysis of the design of my math classroom, I spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the literature and reflecting on the major assertions of each of the paradigms. For the analysis I decided to examine how I typically structure a math lesson, beginning with how I plan and ending with how I assess student understanding, in order to obtain a holistic view of my instructional practices. To achieve this, I created a series of vignettes describing my actions and then provided an analysis referencing appropriate learning theory below each vignette.
Overall, I found that many of my instructional practices aligned with Constructivism, whereby learning is an active process and knowledge is developed through the use of complex learning environments that promote inquiry and collaboration (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). For instance, I often begin my lessons with a minds-on activity in order to engage students and activate prior knowledge. Activating prior knowledge is important in allowing learners to connect new learning to existing schemas. Thus, transfer of learning occurs when students are able to use their pre-existing knowledge to solve problems or support new learning (Sidney & Alibali, 2015). Next, I have students work on an open-ended problem in order to simulate the complexities of the real world and provide multiple points of entry for all students, regardless of their cognitive stage of development. Finally, I have students participate in a consolidation phase in order to help students develop metacognition and reflect on the problem solving strategies used by themselves and their peers.
While it was extremely validating to see that many of my current practices were supported in the literature as effective methods to enhance learning, it was the synthesis portion of the paper that helped me to think about pedagogy at a deeper level. I discovered there were several areas within my lessons where I made assumptions about student learning. This led to a false understanding of my students’ learning in mathematics. For instance, I used to have students write in different colour marker when solving problems so that I could see how each student approached the problem. The issue with this approach was that some students that were actively involved in solving the problem orally could not capture all of their thinking in writing, while others appeared to be actively involved because they had merely written down their group’s discussion. The manner in which I monitor individual contributions during group problem solving has changed within my classroom since completing this assignment. I now use digital tools such as Livescribe and Educreations to record my students when they are involved in collaborative problem solving. This new practice provides me with in depth look at student thinking as I am able to observe the entire problem solving process rather than just the end product. In turn I am able to provide targeted feedback to meet the individual needs of each learner. It has also allowed me to identify common misconceptions among my students that are used to guide my future lessons.
The analysis and synthesis paper was an example of constructivism in action as learners were required to transfer their learning to a new situation that was of personal relevance. It caused me to question and reflect on my instructional design asking myself, "How will this strategy enhance student learning?" Without asking these types of critical questions it is easy for educators to simply teach as they were taught and neglect to recognize the needs of the learner and demands of the task (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). As I move forward I want to continue to apply this method of analysis and synthesis to all areas of my professional teaching practice. An understanding of learning theory allows me to select appropriate instructional strategies as well as justify my teaching methodologies.