The article by Ertmer and Newby (2013) deeply resonated with my own experience as an instructor. In particular I agreed with the following statement “The practitioner cannot afford to ignore any theories that might provide practical implications” (p. 62). I came to the profession of instructing adult learners with a long background of experience in teaching young children. The three theories of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism were not new to me. In my role as an instructor I quickly drew many parallels between my experienced knowledge of teaching children and my new task of teaching adult learners. The connections I saw became very pronounced when I entered the world of online teaching. In the physical classroom I would often, and still do, go with my intuition of how I could teach a particular concept. Online however, I needed to become very clear in what I wanted my learner to take away and how a chosen teaching strategy could make that possible. Teaching online challenged me to revisit prior chosen learning theories and rediscover why I wanted to apply them in a given situation. Ertmer and Newby (2013) write about “systematic eclecticism” (Snelbecker, 1998) explaining how as learning designers, and I believe also as instructors, we need to be well versed in the three mostly used learning theories, and know when to apply one over the other. I think it was during the last course when I realized, that even though I proclaim myself to be a social constructivist, I actually do select different learning theories depending on my students abilities and the learning experience I need to create. As an early childhood educator I have long called myself eclectic in my teaching approach with children, maybe it is time I acknowledge my eclectic approach as an instructor of adult learners as well. I wonder if any other instructors out there are reflecting on similar experiences?
Reference
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013 Online). . Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Hi Anita,
The sharing of your ‘eclectic teaching approach’ encouraged my own reflections. I did not really understand learning theories when I used to teach. I recently came across one of my former language pedagogical textbooks and except for one page on Experiential Learning, there was very little information on learning theories. As a result, my teaching practice may at times have been a little unguided! Although my instructional approaches pulled from all three learning theories, it was only during our LRNT 523 class that I was able to recognize and articulate the importance of why I have used them. What I have begun to realize is the causal relationship between learning theories and instructional design. One effects the other, and they both need each other. As a former instructor, I used a variety of instructional approaches, but I lacked the “why” in their implementation. As I move forward in my practice, my focus is to thoroughly understand learning theories, and how I learn (a work in progress) so that I am better positioned to identify instructional design models that can be used to fit a given learning context. You mentioned that teaching online has challenged you to reexamine why you have chosen certain learning theories and their application. I am wondering if through this process, you feel that teaching online has changed your philosophy on learning or perhaps teaching?
Hi Mel, thank you for your reply and the excellent question you brought to the discussion. Has teaching online changed my philosophy on learning and perhaps teaching? I had to stop for a moment and really dig deep to be able to provide an honest answer. I think online teaching challenged me to let go of my theoretical ideals and think about the learner more. Everything I do online directly affects my learner, more so than in a traditional classroom setting where I can be more immediately responsive to the learner’s needs. In a face to face class I can change an activity in a moment’s notice, online the decision I make will last for a long time period and is not as easily changed or adjusted in the moment. Getting feedback from learners takes longer, so any changes to the my course design often have to wait for the next group of students. I am also starting to understand Dron (2014) who explained that change in online environments needs to include the deselecting of technologies. Just because I think a certain technology tool would add to a student’s learning does not mean it actually will. Once I see the technology from a student’s perspective I have realized the ability a student brings to the online environment is often not sufficient to be able to navigate new technology successfully.
In answer to your question, my methodology to teaching and learning has changed, my philosophy of teaching and learning however has aligned with my philosophy as an early childhood educator. I am much more eclectic in my choices and I hope my students are benefitting from this adjustment.
Reference
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
Hi Anita –
Wonderful insights! You said: “I think online teaching challenged me to let go of my theoretical ideals and think about the learner more. Everything I do online directly affects my learner, more so than in a traditional classroom setting where I can be more immediately responsive to the learner’s needs”. This is really powerful. It not only explains clearly one of the key differences between online and face to face instruction, but it also demonstrates the shift you made to an empathetic mindset in your instructional design! Parrish (2006) suggested that “empathy, as a perspective-shifting process, is the most fundamental instructional design skill” (as cited in Vann, 2017, p. 233). From the perspective of someone who has not taught online before learning about how you have shifted in your methodology as an instructor is very interesting and provides a real experience that correlates with what we are learning in this class. Thank you for sharing!
References
Vann, L. S. (2017). Demonstrating empathy: A phenomenological study of instructional designers making instructional strategy decisions for adult learners. International Journal Of Teaching & Learning In Higher Education, 29(2), 233-244.
I must first say I have enjoyed reading both you and Mel’s posts in this feed. As an instructor who is primarily teaching face to face and as a master’s student learning online I feel as though I can relate to what you are saying. Teaching in a classroom I often base my delivery on the energy of the students. I can only imagine how challenging it would be to teach online when you don’t have the ability to interpret student’s expressions. I appreciate how you seem to be “bridging function” using past theories to help problem solve current dilemmas for “optimal instructional actions” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p.43). You also mentioned how you “identify instructional design models that can be used to fit a given learning context”. Do you think that teaching online you rely on designing for the contextual experience rather than designing around the learners?
Reference
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013 Online). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Hi Breanne, thank you for your comment and the question you have brought forward.
Do I think when teaching online I design my courses to the contextual experience rather than to address learner needs? I see the context twofold, I have the context of the course topic that needs to be addressed, but I also have the learner who operates within their own context of their past and present experiences. To be empathetic and follow a more human centred approach I absolutely take into consideration the knowledge learners bring with them, this includes their digital literacy abilities. So at the beginning of a course I often select learning theory strategies that will pre-assess my learners so I know where to begin, I focus on foundational skills and on giving lots of feedback (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). All these strategies would fall under behaviourism. From here I proceed quickly into cognitivism, instructing new knowledge that connects to prior concepts taught, revising built knowledge if needed and making sure my learners are actively involved in the learning process (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). At the same time I will be using constructivism, placing all information taught within the context of where those skills will be tested, give my learners more and more autonomy over their learning and finally apply assessments that challenge learners to transfer what has been learned into new situations (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). To answer your question succinctly, I address learner contexts when I apply learning theories and I use course context when I choose what to teach.
Reference
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.