Go with the “Flow”. – Michael's Blog

Photo from https://daringtolivefully.com/how-to-enter-the-flow-state

It is important to understand the relationship between one’s skill level in comparison to one’s challenge level when encountering a learning experience. This is something I believe wholeheartedly. The optimal level of this relationship in learning is coined ‘Flow’ by the psychologist Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2014). This focused mental state is something that I have been interested in and studied for many years. I have been competing in billiards for almost twenty years and teaching it to others for over fifteen years. When teaching others about billiards there is a three-step approach that correlates with Ertmer & Newby’s deconstruction of learning progression as outlined in, “Behaviorism, Cognitvism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design” (2013). I should state very clearly, that I do not subscribe to any certain camp, but feel that each position has merit in sequential learning processes.

There is a phrase that is often used in billiards, and that is “you play to the skill level of your opponent”. The chart showed at the top of this blog illustrates exactly that. When there is a similar level in experience and competition (or better yet, the opponent is slightly better) the learning is optimized. I am going to continue to use the example of teaching, and understanding, billiards to explain how behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructionism, is linked to learning as a sequential model.

To be competitive in billiards there are a lot of variables to understand. There are elements of geometry, physics, ergonomics, mindfulness, self-regulation (inhibition, shifting, and working memory), muscle memory, and a plethora of psychological theories. To explain to a learner all of the reasons why the cue should be positioned at a certain angle when they begin shooting would be overwhelming. It is simply too much novel information. It is best to create a simple task of setting up the cue ball and the object ball, and offer some basic instructions. This provides a reduced intake of stimulus so that the learner can understand what is required and is rewarded by repetitively sinking the object ball into the pocket. Etmer and Newby echo this and state, “[t]he goal of instruction for the behaviorist is to elicit the desired response from the learner who is presented with a target stimulus” (p. 50). In behaviourism psychology, this would involve both classical conditioning and operant conditioning. If you are interested in classical conditioning, please let me know and I would be happy to discuss it with you. To explain it through a short blog would use up too much space. With operant conditioning, there is a positive reinforcement (reward) when the object ball sinks through self-efficacy and social acknowledgement. This is the importance of creating simple drills.

The next stage of learning billiards is introducing more elements of physics, geometry, etc, to the learner so that the learner is able to break down the knowledge to be, “analyzed, decomposed, and simplified into basic building blocks” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 52). This stage of cognitive understanding is all about the process of sequencing and thinking through the motions. Explaining why certain balls should be sunk in an order, or why hitting the cue ball with a certain force or angle is required to generate a specific response.

The final stage of teaching a learner is all about using previous experiences to build on future applications. I often use language as ‘remember when’ in my instructions at this point. I am addressing situations based on reflections of previous encounters in the learner’s memory. This is similar to Etmer and Newby’s postion regarding constructivism in learning when they state that the learner, “build personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions” (p. 55).

All of these three stages encompass the importance of understanding the relationship with flow psychology. In that, the level of challenge, and learning is situational to ones current level of experience.

Another perspective in learning theory is detailed in, “First Principles of Instruction” (Merrill, 2002). Merrill discussed different learning theories and models. Once again, I am not comfortable with positioning myself inside a certain framework. It reminds me too much of the different camps in psychology’s history where each one thought that their model of the mind is correct and argued other views. Thankfully in the last twenty years, the differing camps are being merged into grander conceptions to create a gestalt perspective in counselling. Yes, there are conditioned responses. Yes, there are unconscious processes. Yes, our mind works similar to a computer. Etcetera. In mental health, it is not effective to position oneself to work with a client in a regimented approach. People are dynamic, and therefore instruction needs to be as well. I truly believe it is up to the instructor to be as knowledgeable as possible of different approaches and to then weave between them as they help a learner achieve goals. That said, this assignment had the requirement of aligning myself with a theoretical position. With a gun to my head, I select Shank’s learning by doing (Merrill, p. 56). A blended model (behaviour, cognition, and construction) that holds value in goal-based scenarios through recognition, operations, and a narrative.

This is why both literally, and figuratively, I believe that in learning it is best to “go with the flow”.

What about you? What is your position on learning? Most importantly, how do you learn?

References

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 209-226). Springer, Dordrecht.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply