Fitting the Pieces Together

Those have been challenging 7 weeks! My appetite has been great, but my stomach - quite minuscule. I have been disappointed in the way I learn – my old and bad habits came out to the open again, after a long time. But now, I’ve got the tools and understanding of what to do to improve my learning style.

I reread my thoughts on how I learn from the first week of the class, trying to find any differences in the way I think about it now, from the perspective of newly acquired knowledge of learning theories and methods. I find myself readily operating new terms and better understanding the underling reasons of why I do what I do. I even came up with some solutions – theoretically, so far (even though, I am trying to apply them right this very moment). My views on how I learn, however, haven’t changed much. I still think I have to understand first, what I am to learn, and why, in order to remember, retrieve, and transfer the new knowledge better. I sill know that my memory for numbers is terrible, but that doesn’t mean that my Logical-Mathematical Intelligence is at its infancy – I CAN do arithmetics in my head and solve more challenging math and logic problems easily. It just means that I have to use cognitive tools to improve my memory for numbers. Since my visual memory is better, I could use that to remember numbers (I still have to experiment with this). Back in the first week of the class, I implied that I have used learning methods pertaining to all learning theories we’ve studied, depending on the task at hand, or due to constant developments in “my life, myself, my mind and outlooks”. I had a difficulty choosing one that suits me most.

Let’s see. I definitely do not like behavioral approach to learning, when the ready-made solution is given – you just have to demonstrate what you are told to make everybody happy (I use it a lot on my son to control his behavior, but I really wish I didn’t have to do that that often). This method is best, however, for learning rules, basics and anything that needs to be accepted without question. But I like to question. I need to try everything, and to make my own mistakes – that’s how I learn (and my son, too) – by “creating meaning from experience”(Ertmer & Newby, 1003) This means that Constructivist approach is the one I use widely in life and in learning. What about other theories? Cognitivist theory strikes me more as a science of information processing. It gives me tools, methods and strategies for the most efficient learning and presentation. I have tried in the past, and most definitely will use these tools and strategies to improve my metacognitive skills for helping myself and others process information. However, I don’t see myself using cognitivist methods constantly, in every life’s situation – only when I choose so. Social Learning Theories: even though, I am more convinced now, through this class, that learning involves socialization, I still prefer to study alone. I do like, though, to discuss what I’ve learned and hear people’s opinions, and give mine. I like conversations. That is how we try our own mental constructions, here new ideas, change our minds, and crystallize our knowledge. But this is a vast topic in itself, and I am struggling to be brief here! :-) Connectivism: it is a brand new and exciting theory of learning and information processing that is a product of the new world of information abundance that we are trying to fit in now. This is something I have not adapted to, yet, but recognize the necessity, so I’ll be actively working on it. Adult learning theories is something that should apply to me because I am an adult – and it does, for the most part. I do sometimes, however, enjoy learning for its own sake, but that happens less and less – not much free time.

Now, that I have a deeper understanding of how I fit among the learning theories, I can definitely announce that I am a constructivist in heart, with the mind trying on cognitivist and connectivist – and sometimes adult :-) – hats.

One of the biggest challenges I am facing now is the pressing necessity to increase my technological literacy, and stay informed of the new trends and technologies in the making. I need to improve my research skills, start using more online tools to stay connected the whole world of knowledge, find better ways to keep information in order, learn how to manipulate all this knowledge and technical aspects of online environment to create my own work. This is so overwhelming! But this is the way our world is heading – no boundaries for information, ideas, minds. Thomas Friedman calls it “flattening of the world”– there soon will not be a nation not playing on “a global, Webenabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration on research and work in real time, without regard to geography, distance or, in the near future, even language.” (Friedman, 2005)


References:
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–71.
Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), by P. A. Ertmer & T. J. Newby. Copyright 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Journals. Reprinted by permission John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Journals via the Copyright Clearance Center.


Friedman, T. (2005, April 3). It's a flat world, after all. The New York Times. Retrieved June 20, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com
It's a flat world, after all. The New York Times. by Friedman, T. Copyright 2005 by The New York Times Company. Reproduced with permission of New York Times Company in the format electronic usage via Sage Publications, Inc.