LRNT 622

As I work on the next section of ARP research design, I’m faced with choosing the most appropriate theoretical framework. Throughout this program I’ve become very familiar with many of them, starting with LRNT522’s annotated bibliography where I gained solid exposure to several relevant theories including: Cognitive Load Theory, Constructivism, Mobile Learning, Self-Efficacy, and, one of my favorites, Complexity Theory with an emphasis on systems thinking and ecosystems.  I’ve discovered many others from the Moodle list in the 6 courses since.

My primary research question asks: “How might online learning environments be designed to leverage natural learning processes to enhance student engagement, achievement, and learning at scale?” The sub-questions explore: the relationship between learning motivation and online learning performance; how specific engagement strategies like gamification and digital badging influence participation patterns and persistence; what behavioral and cognitive elements might be leveraged to scale learning online; and how varying levels of learner autonomy affect engagement and achievement in online environments.

While many of the most common frameworks could guide this research, I’ve identified several additional ones worth considering. Connectivism offers insights into learning through digital networks. Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) explains the interplay between task goals (focused on learning and developing new skills) and performance goals (focused on performing well compared to others). Situated Learning Theory (SLT) emphasizes how learning occurs in complex social environments, even when the learner is alone.

However, when focusing specifically on personalized engagement and achievement at scale, Discovery Learning Theory (Bruner) and Multiple Intelligences Theory (Gardner) emerge as particularly compelling options. Bruner’s emphasis on active knowledge construction through exploration aligns well with natural learning processes. I’m also curious to learn more about Gardner’s framework, with its eight types of intelligences and investigate the claim “While Gardner’s MI have been conflated with “learning styles,” Gardner himself denies that they are one in the same” (NIUCIT, 2020) because the idea of “learning styles” is that the concept is ill defined. (Gardiner, as cited in Strauss, 2013). Gardiner goes on to summarize his findings with recommendation for educators that I can fully endorse; which include personalizing education to the individual student, and pluralizing lessons across different pathways (e.g. through stories, works of art, diagrams, role play).

While I’m drawn to these latter two theories, I haven’t ruled out Systems Thinking or AGT either. The goal isn’t just to pick a framework – it’s to select one that will best illuminate how we might design online learning environments that truly support natural learning processes at scale since that is my ultimate purpose in the MALAT program.

Northern Illinois University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2020). Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. In Instructional guide for university faculty and teaching assistants. Retrieved from https://www.niu.edu/citl/resources/guides/instructional-guide

Strauss, V. (2013, Oct. 16). Howard Gardner: “Multiple intelligences” are not “learning styles.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/