My work in progress, theoretical framework brainstorm session…
- Constructivism: throughout the MALAT program I was convinced that constructivism was the theory that I would apply to my final paper. It seemed the most relevant to the millennial learner and I felt like it resonated most with how I like to learn, so I always just assumed it would naturally fit my topic. At this point, I’m struggling to see how constructivist learning theory could tie specifically to design elements and delivery methods related to digital learning environments (DLE). On one hand, I think I there are many fundamentals I could draw from related more to the delivery methods of DLEs, but I’m not sure how fruitful it would be to build off of for specific design elements.
- Activity Theory: I had never come across Activity Theory until this course and with the help of alphabetical order; I read that suggested reading first. I was slightly confused at first, but as I read on and began to preliminarily search ‘Activity theory’ AND ‘front-line workers’, I found a handful of articles that connected the two. My limited knowledge of Activity Theory sparked my interest because it seems to create a link between the individual and the social reality. However, my main concern is that it seems to be a framework that would better support research related to online group learning dynamics and specific interactions, and that is not necessarily something I am looking for or focusing on in my specific research.
- Adult Learning Theory: Without fail, this seems like the most obvious choice as I’m really trying to expand on the traits of the adult learner (with a focus on Gen Y and Gen Z) and match them with design and delivery methods for DLEs. The focus on self-directed learning and motivation is a critical foundation for my research topic and it would be foolish to omit this theory. As I start to read through in more depth, I keep being drawn further and further to continue on. Knowles (1973) research includes implications of learning theories to specific program development which I feel will be important to include. I am really intrigued to dig deeper here and I think that this is where I want to go and the theory to use as the “blueprint” to my research.
Overall, I am leaning towards Adult Learning Theory as my primary theoretical framework. I would like to include Constructivism as a secondary option if I can figure out a way to not overcomplicate the research. I believe that constructivism is very important when discussing the development of pedagogy within digital learning environments so I’d love to hear your thoughts on if you think these two are a solid option 🙂
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED084368.
Hi Katie, I wonder how many of us adult learners will be looking into adult learning? 🙂 If you haven’t come across the article written by Norman “The adult Learner: a Mythical Species”, it’s worth a glance. I’ve started in on the book ‘Adult Learning in the Social Context” (Jarvis) but it was originally published in the 80’s and I figure there’s a ton more data now that here is so much MOOC and corporate distance based training data now. Let me know if you find anything particularly interesting, and I’ll do the same! – Todd
Hi Katie,
If you’re still focused on workplace training as your topic, then perhaps Cognitive Load theory would fit better than the Constructivism you talked about, especially if your workplace training is like mine, where there simply needs to be a straightforward transfer of knowledge. I’ve tried to imagine the interactions of learner-to-learner, learner-to-facilitator, and learner-to-content in my work context, and because of hundreds of workers being trained at different times in different locations, the only interaction that is feasible is learner-to-content. Cognitive load seems to offer ways of efficiently transferring such content.