Connectivism

I like the concepts introduced in the two connectivism articles we read this week by George Siemens. We learn by networking and using technology to find what we need when we need it. That certainly supports some of the work my company is doing around Performance Support and Communities of Practice. But to call it a separate learning theory just doesn't sit right with me.

To me, networking and using those connections are tools to help me learn. But it doesn't really speak to how I learn (making meaning, building on prior knowledge, etc.). To me, those are the learning theories of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. Networked learning can be added as a tool to any of those learning theories.

I do think it's important to keep up with technology and integrate it into our learning, but I think those theories have held up well over the years. When considering how Constructivism relates to Connectivism, I see those groups of people in the network and some of those electronic tools that Siemens discusses serving as the More Knowledgeable Other for how I construct my own meaning. When considering how it impacts Cognitivism, I see some of those tools assisting in supporting my knowledge retrieval, so I don't have to store as much knowledge in my own brain, but know where to find the information at the moment of need.

Siemens says:  "The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe. Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today. ... As knowledge continues to grow and evolve, access to what is needed is more important than what the learner currently possesses."  I can completely relate to this statement that we need to evolve our learning and the knowledge workers of today need to be able to adapt and change and learn new and better ways of doing things in the future. But that still doesn't address how we learn. The only way we can learn what we need for tomorrow is to have a good basis of knowledge now, so we can add to it and continue building on it and making connections.

Communities of Practice

After completing some of the readings, I realized how many communities of practice I have been part of, or have seen others benefit from.

1. Quilting Camps. I am not a quilter, but I have several relatives and friends who are. They look forward to their quilting camps like they were going to Disneyland or something. They are able to share patterns and techniques with like-minded people, and connect throughout the year when not meeting in person at the camps. 
2. Dog rescue/ownership. This is one I had not considered before the reading, but when reading the definition from Etienne Wenger, it meets the criteria: a domain of interest (dogs and dog rescue), a community of people involved in that domain sharing information engaging in discussions, and attending events, and we are practitioners - we share resources, stories, tools. We lean on each other for support or ideas if our dog gets sick or if we are experiencing a behavior problem and need help addressing it. We reach out to others to foster dogs in need or solicit donations to pull dogs from shelters. In engaging in these ongoing discussions through the rescue's facebook page, we continue to learn from other practioners. 
3. Articulate User Community. This is a community of practice of made up of users of a particular eLearning software suite. The company set up the website with discussion boards, forums, and links to resources. While the moderators are the company employees, and there are "experts" who can help, many members of the community contribute templates, work products, ideas, and help others figure out solutions to problems they post about in the forums. 
4. Work community website. At work, my company began a community website called "Connect". All employees have access to it, and there are different subgroups for different interests. Some are related to work functions and processes, but others revolve more around outside interests, like those who are runners or skiers, or those who own pets or are into gardening. It was designed to bring together people from all over the country and our international locations to share best practices and reduce waste and duplication of efforts. Documents and processes are posted and shared. But it's also meant to instill a sense of community where people can learn from each other in many different areas. 

Communities of Practice can be found everywhere, and this is just a small sampling of the ones that came to mind in my world. 

Memory Palace

This ties back to Cognitivism from last week, but I watched this Ted talk today and thought it was interesting. It's about the concept of Memory Palaces and how they help people remember. Also, I had no idea that there were competitive memorization contests!

Experiential Learning

I mentioned in class that I didn't quite understand why Kolb's Concrete Experience learning step was associated with feelings. Kristen's explanation of it being about fully "experiencing" the situation with all your emotions made sense to me.

Today, one of my dogs, Kisses, went in for surgery. She had two tumors removed. They had taken fluid from both, but they weren't sure if they were cancerous and said they'd know more once they got them out and sent them to pathology. But it was fairly unlikely that they were cancerous based on the needle aspirations they had done.

I got home from class and my husband updated me on her surgery. One tumor came out cleanly with no issues, but due to the location of the second one near vital organs, they weren't able to get the margins they had hoped for. While they won't know the pathology results for several days, the doctor said that what they saw did not look great, and now estimates it to be more likely that it's cancer.

Semira said today that we may react differently when the subject matter or situation is emotionally fraught, like a cancer diagnosis. And I can definitely see that. While trying to comfort my hungry, confused dog wondering why she has a cone and is banished to a crate instead of being able to snuggle with us on the couch, I thought about the learning that I was experiencing.

I definitely felt (feel) strong emotions about this, and am reflecting on the issue and what it means for our family, both emotionally and financially. I am taking tomorrow off work to look after Kisses to make sure she doesn't strain herself or try to lick her wounds. I have conceptualized some of my learning so far, like how she can get her head out of the Elizabethan Collar and that the bubble collar we got for her doesn't really work and she can still reach her wound. So we have put both collars on, since she can't get the cone off with the bubble collar blocking the way. That's the Active Experimentation. And I'm sure over the course of the next few days, we'll be learning more about the surgery recovery process, reflecting on it, making conclusions, and acting on the new learnings.

This is not an experience I would like to ever have to go through again, and I hope that the pathology results come back negative so our journey ends here. But that may not be the case, and we will learn, reflect, conclude, and apply throughout the process.

Preparing for the Constructivism Class

This week, my team will be presenting and facilitating the class on Constructivism. I'll refer back to one of my posts during Spring Break, where I was reading all the initial material and finally starting to see practical applications of the theory.

Since then, our team has done a lot (A LOT) more reading and discovery about the theory, and I have a better grasp of what Constructivism looks like in practice.  Though, I do still see a lot of overlap in the theories. When the Cognitivism group presented last week on Social Cognitivism, I looked at my teammate, Andy, and asked - what's the difference between this and Social Constructivism?  He quickly pulled up a comparison on his phone, and he'll actually speak about that a little bit tomorrow in our presentation, but the lines can definitely get blurred. In Constructivism, the learner "makes their own meaning" out of what they see and experience and do. In Cognitivism, our brain works to make meaning and connect to past experiences as well. Sounds pretty similar to me. I think there are definitely elements of Cognitivism in Constructivism, which is why Piaget and Dewey (Cognitivists) are considered to be some of the founding thinkers of Constructivist theory. It just builds a little more on it.

I'm excited and nervous to present tomorrow. I don't consider myself a teacher or facilitator and am not in my comfort zone when speaking in front of groups. But I think we are prepared and ready, so away we go!

Cognitivism

I am fascinated by the brain and the many functions it performs. It seems to be so capable and ever-expanding!

I have done some readings into Cognitive Load, and completely agree to the theory that we can only take in so much at one time. I cannot read one thing while trying to listen to something else. I tried this today on the train, unsuccessfully. I usually listen to music on the train while I read the morning paper. But for my other course this semester, we are tasked with listening to some podcasts. I downloaded one on my phone and thought I could listen to it while mindlessly playing a game on my phone. But I couldn't navigate off the podcast screen to play a game or the audio would stop. Plan foiled!

I was left with listening to a podcast interview with nothing to look at, so inevitably I scanned the headlines in the paper. Attempting to read while paying attention to the podcast was futile. I do think I could have played Words with Friends or Farm Heroes Saga while listening, though, if only my phone would cooperate!

I have definitely used some of the suggestions from Cognitive Load research in my training:  Don't talk over content while asking the student to read text on the screen. Support visuals with complementary audio since people can process visual and auditory messages at the same time, etc.

It surprised me how many divisions of the brain there are, or hypotheses into how the brain works and retrieves information.

• Sensory/Short-term/long-term
• Encoding/storage/retrieval
• left brain/right brain
• reptilian/limbic/neo-cortex

Which one is "right"? Or are they all "right"? There has been so much research into the brain and memory and learning styles and intelligence, but the authors of one of our books basically concluded that all the research so far is just hypothesis and nothing is definitive. I guess it's interesting to think about all these different theories and hypotheses, but a little disappointing that we cannot point to one theory or process to help guide us in helping people learn and remember our training. 

Behaviorism

I have mixed feelings toward Behaviorism. On the one hand, I am on board with Behavioral Objectives, and my company uses Behavioral Interviewing to see how past behavior will impact the candidate's performance in a potential future role. I use positive reinforcement training on my dogs, which condition them to act in certain ways (If you sit, you get a treat).  I even use it on my toddler (If you hit or kick, you get a time out.  If you put all your toys away, you can pick an extra story before bedtime). I think observable behaviors are easy to quantify, and you can train people to change their behaviors, for the most part.  But I don't know that I agree with it as an overarching learning theory.

Psychologist John Watson said:
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select -- doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors."
--John Watson, Behaviorism, 1930

While I agree that infants can be conditioned and trained in one way, adult learners have a wealth of experiences and influences and free will to refuse to change their behavior. Subjective criteria such as emotion, moods, motivations, and diverse thoughts and opinions can influence how one reacts to certain stimuli.

It makes me think about movie characters like Jason Bourne (I think - I may have my movies mixed up). While he was a trained operative, at some point he decided to break from the controlling forces and realized that he had free will and did not agree with their approaches.  You can condition someone all you want, but at some point, they may encounter a situation that causes them to question why they are doing something and can choose another way. Behaviorism is not foolproof and doesn't take individuality into consideration.

Behaviorism vs. Behavioralism

After reading this week's article and re-checking the syllabus, I realized that I have been referring to Behaviorism as Behavioralism.  I did a quick search to find out how egregious the error is, and it turns out I was quite wrong.  From wikipedia:

Behavioralism is an approach in political science, which emerged in the 1930s in the United States. It represents a sharp break from previous political science. This is because it emphasized an objective, quantified approach to explain and predict political behavior. It is associated with the rise of the behavioral sciences, modeled after the natural sciences.This means that behavioralism claims it can explain political behavior from an unbiased, neutral point of view. 

Not to be confused with the learning theory, Behaviorism (philosophy of education).

I think I tend to use the term Behavioralism erroneously because I am exposed to the concept of Behavioral Interviewing at my job, and also frequently cite use of Behavioral objectives. I will be more aware of the difference from now on!

Constructivist A-Ha! moments

I finished reading the assigned articles and chapters on Constructivism this morning. Up until the last few pages of the last article, I was still feeling a little confused and unsure if I even agreed with the theory of Constructivism as it relates to Instructional Design.

The last article helped me frame it a little better, but the jury's still out on whether I actually agree with this theory of learning.

In Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations by Karagiori and Symeou (2005), I got a little more insight into what the learning theory actually is, though one quote stood out to me:  They quoted Ernest (1995, p. 459) saying that "there are as many varieties of constructivism as there are researchers."  Great. No wonder I'm so confused.

I wrote all sorts of notes in the margins: "but what does this mean in practice?"  "how would you implement this?" "cognitive tools? Are those even allowed in constructivist frameworks?".  Throughout the reading I kept thinking: I'm not sure I learn this way or agree with this approach, at least not all the time.

I did have a few a-ha moments where (I think) I saw evidence of activities and assignments in this course (INSDSG 602) having Constructivist qualities.  For example: they referenced von Glaserfeld, 1993 in this passage:

Constructivists recommend that designers provide problems which may be solved in different ways and leave students struggle with problems of their own choice. 

I thought that sounded a lot like this assignment for our group work. We chose our learning theory that we wanted to tackle, but it's up to us as a group to figure out the theory and decide how we want to present it back.

Another example is in how constructivists view evaluation and assessment of learning. They quoted Lambert et al, 1995 here:

Learners have an active and critical role in assessing their own learning by articulating what they have learned and how they have made the connection to their previous experience.

Our final course assignments asks us to do just that - present back to the class on our learnings.

But my biggest discovery in this article was near the end, when they discussed the challenges that Instructional Designers face when trying to implement constructivist theory into their learning design.  They stated that "constructivists and instructional designers are often on opposite camps."  I'm paraphrasing Petraglia, 1998 here, but basically, constructivists support a certain philosophy, but that does not translate to application or give any real-world examples that a designer could implement.

I about dropped my highlighter as I read that passage and thought "YES! No wonder I'm struggling so much with this theory!"

I'm also wary of giving the learner absolute control over every aspect of their learning. In that way, it seems impossible to have a class since all students will be at different levels, with different experiences, different choices, different expected outcomes, and a different personal interpretation of what they even want to learn. I've always struggled with the concept of constructivism that objectives "emerge" as they go through the learning process. On one hand, I agree that our past experiences shape our knowledge, and that as adults, we may learn certain things better when we have control over our path.  But O' Donnell, 2000 says that not all learners may benefit from having almost unlimited control over their own learning.  Perkins (1991) suggests that some learners may find the constructivist learning experience dauntingly complex, "a tortuous path towards an end" that could be addressed more directly through other means. Sometimes learners need more direction and guidance.

But, as the authors started to propose some more moderate ways constructivism could be put into practice, I began to come back to the fold.  To realize those moderate and pragmatic ways of thinking about constructivism were what drew me to it in the first place as a solid theory of how people can learn.  But Jonassen (1999) really sealed it for me when he said, "to impose a single belief or perspective is decidedly nonconstructivist". I definitely see merit in many of the other learning theories as well, and don't think that constructivism (or any one theory) captures definitively how all learners think and process and retain knowledge. So in that way, maybe constructivism is for me if it allows all my different beliefs and perspectives on how people learn to be melded together in my own mind, coupled with my past experiences, to become my set of truths.

Constructivism confusion

This week is supposed to be Spring break, but between our Adult Learning paper and our group project work, it feels like less of a break than a normal week.  This level of work for this "week off" is consistent with my other class as I have a project deliverable and peer reviews to complete as well as another assignment due. Thank goodness we don't have regular assignments on top of the project team work and paper, otherwise I might have to wave the white flag.

So, this week I am starting with 4 readings in the Constructivism week assignment.The first was the first chapter of Merriam and Caffarella, which just set the stage for social learning, but didn't really address Constructivism specifically. It did, however, give me some additional ideas to flesh out my adult learning paper, which is about halfway done at this point.

The next reading was a beast of an academic article called "Is Vygotsky Relevant? Vygotsky's Marxist Psychology?".  Now, I know that Vygotsky is the main theorist behind Constructivism, but I know little else about him or the theory beside what we read already this semester. I think this was the most convoluted, confusing article I've ever read. I feel like you would have to have an academic knowledge of Vygotsky's theory by reading the full text of the referenced works for this article to make any sense. You'd also have to have a good understanding of Marxism to follow it.  I have neither knowledge set, so I was stumped for most of the reading.

There were some helpful passages about how man is in control of his own destiny and can master his own nature. Another seemingly relevant passage related to how consciousness exists in the interaction between our person and the environment.  To me, that relates to the social construct of the theory. The end of the article made some connections to the way children learn based on their social environment and the reactions of adults to their gestures and actions. But this was almost a sidebar to the larger article.

I am utterly confused about how this article helps me learn about the constructivist learning theory, and how it will help me and my team design our presentation on the topic.  Perhaps the additional two articles I have left to read will help shed some more light on this article.  Otherwise, all I'm left with is an opinion that Vygotsky's theory may only be helpful in a Marxist Soviet Union setting and not applicable in the US.

Andragogy

This week so far, I've read Merriam & Cafarella Chapters 4 and 11 - Knowles's Andragogy and Models of Adult Learning, and Traditional Learning Theories.

Once again, I find some truth in all the different theories, but am not so sure that any one of them is a "silver bullet" that describes the way that all people learn.  It seems to me that for every theory, there is a counter-theory. While many tenets of Behaviorist theory ring true to me, so do other aspects of Humanist, Cognitivist, Social Cognitivist and Constructivist theories.  Can it be that all are right?  Does that mean that any one of them are wrong?

A quote from Chapter 4 stuck out to me (p. 93).  The quote is from Rachal (2002, p. 224) and his research studies on andragogy.  He said:  "It may well be that researchers examining the effectiveness of andragogy will perpetually by stymied by its fluidity, even its amoeba-like formlessness.  In that view, the art will forever be paramount, and its science forever elusive."

While all these theories are sound, I tend to agree with Knowles that "[andragogy is] a model of assumptions about learning or a conceptual framework that serves as a basis for an emergent theory" (Merriam & Cafarella, p. 87).  Angragogy helps frame all these other theories about how we learn, and puts forth a framework for how adult learners (or any self-directed learner) differ from a younger or less experienced learner.

In reviewing some of the other models of adult learning, I actually quite liked Illeris's Three Dimensions of Learning Model (p. 97-100) and Jarvis's Learning Process (p. 100-103).  I think they capture many of the elements of constructivism, cognitivism, and social cognitivism that I agree with, that the environment and social structure have an impact on learning, but rather than social cognitivism, where it seems that people only learn through others, the social aspect is present, but may be more or less prominent based on the specific situation.  (p.99).  As I read about the learning theories that emphasize the social element as the way people learn, I kept thinking about self-directed learners who may go out and seek knowledge on their own, through books, tutorials, articles, etc.  In those cases, there may not be any social element to their learning.  No instructor, no community of practice, etc.  So how do these theories account for the individual?  Then the other theories don't really account for the social element and posit that all learning is individual.  Personally, I think there is a balance between the two, and that's why I liked Illeris's model.  I also likes Jarvis's model for the same reasons.  I thought they were both very comprehensive.

Though this all made me wonder - what is the difference between "Models" of Adult Learning and "Theories" of Adult Learning?  Are they the same thing?  Or can each model exist within the different theories?

Self-Directed or Motivated?

Week 5 -
Based on our week 5 readings (Chapter 8 of Merriam & Bierema: Motivation and Learning; Chapter 4 of Wlodowski: What Motivates Adults to Learn; and a research study by Song and Hill:  A Conceptual Model for Understanding Self-Directed Learning in Online Environments), I'm feeling like I am fairly self-directed and motivated learner.

I first read Merriam & Bierema, and found myself mostly identifying with the concepts of Social motivation, and economic/rational motivation.  In the next section, I identified more with goal-oriented learning and activity-oriented learning than with being purely learning-oriented.  There are few things, I think, that I partake to learn just for the sake of knowing it.  Even if I do decide to enroll in a course on belly dancing, for example, I am also doing it with ulterior motives like fitness or meeting new people.  I read a lot of ID and design-related articles and attend industry webinars all the time.  I do think they are interesting and read them or sign up for them on my own (self-directed), but in general, I'm not doing it SOLELY for the extra knowledge. I do it to improve my job performance or build up my skills and knowledge in my work field.  I do it to feel more competent and out of a responsibility to myself and my employer to keep on top of trends and new technologies.

That's not to say I've never had strictly learning-oriented experiences. As I tried to think of an example where I developed new knowledge just for the sake of learning (p 151), I came up with learning to knit. There was really no social aspect to knitting, and certainly no fitness benefit. I didn't have to learn how to do it - I was interested in it, thought it could be fun, and I was motivated to try to make something.  It became an enjoyable pastime, especially in Winter, and I knitted many gifts of scarves and hats to friends for a few years.

When I then switched to the Wlodowski reading that categorized motivation as intrinsic versus extrinsic, I assumed most of my motivation was extrinsic.  I think I generally learn to meet a specific goal, which seems more extrinsic.  But as I read more, he said that the motivational framework was based most on the perspective of Intrinsic motivation (p.96), and much of what he wrote really resonated with me.

• "Adults ...desire to be effective at what they value" (p. 96)
• "Responsibility is the cornerstone of adult motivation" (p. 96) - Side note: Is feeling like I have to be responsible intrinsic (responsible to self) or extrinsic (responsible to others/societies view of being responsible)?
• "This deep social value for responsibility is why competence...looms so large and so consistently as a force for learning among adults" (p.97)

He talked about how employers and educators value and reward those who are self-directed, and how most people who pursue continuing education do so to upgrade their job-related knowledge and skills (p. 97). And here I am, pursuing job-related knowledge and skills in a graduate studies program, because I think that my employer values my competence and I feel the desire to be effective at what I do and a responsibility to my employer to deliver a good work product.  

I am the "textbook" adult learner.  (Literally)

Immunity to Change

I related to the Kegan and Lahey articles about people who are their own roadblocks to change.  There have been quite a few things in my life where I've complained about things, but yet, did nothing to enact change or make it better.

For example, I had an old cell phone for a very long time - it was well past the two year trade-in deadline that most phone companies give you.  I complained about it being slow, and not having enough memory, and all these other things that annoyed me.  But I never just went to the store to get a new one.

I think some of my competing commitments/barriers were:

• I didn't want to put in the effort to learn about all the new cell phone options - there seemed like too many to choose from and I was overwhelmed.  
• I knew that any model I chose would cost at least $200 and I didn't want to pay a lot of money out of pocket given some other bills and priorities.
• I didn't want to have to learn a whole new phone system.  It took me a while to figure out my current phone and I didn't have time to experiment with the new model.  
• What if I hated the new phone more than my old one?  It seemed like a big decision.  

But, in the end, when I finally got fed up enough to bite the bullet, I did some research, picked my new phone model, and took a few hours to go to the phone store to process the purchase and change everything over.  Yes, it cost me some time and money to do those things, and it even took me a day or two to be fully comfortable with my new phone.  But, had I changed it out sooner, I could have saved myself a year or more of frustration.  Why do we postpone change that will make our lives easier?  

For my Immunity Map, I considered my poor Project Management skills.  I know how to write up a project plan and know that I need to keep it updated and stick to the defined dates and activities, but inevitably, I end up procrastinating, ignoring the project plans, and let them lapse when projects get off schedule.  Then I panic when my boss asks me for an update and I have to scramble.  Why don't I just keep up with them?  

I think, in the end, I am sabotaging myself because I think that project plans are hard.  I end up spending more time updating them than actually doing the work.  And inevitably, no matter how much time I put into estimating review time and deadlines, they get pushed back, so I think, "why even bother?".  I spend more time revising and updating the plans that change anyway, and at the end of the project, my manager never asks to see all the items checked off - as long as the deliverable is completed.  But, sometimes it does come back and bite me, so I'd be better off doing it for every project.  I just don't know if I see myself changing that right away, when I feel much more rewarded just doing the project as it comes and not working up a formal project plan.  

So, I don't know what that says about me - even though I know what the problem is, I don't see myself putting in the effort to do it on a consistent basis.  

Generations in the Workplace

After our discussion in class, I was writing some leader's notes for a Career Development course, and one of the notes said that Millennials were born from 1970-1991.  That is in contrast to the dates we discussed in class, but gets to the question of "what is a Millennial anyway?"  Are Millennials a combination of X and Y?

I did some searching, and found that Millennial seems to be synonymous with Generation Y. I found the below website and the related charts to be helpful.  This model defines the generations as Veterans (1922-1945), Baby Boomers (1946-1964), Gen X (1965-1980) and Gen Y (1981-2000).

The article and tables have some good characteristics, of each one - from lifestyle characteristics like core values and how they think about family, education, communication, and money to Workplace characteristics like their work ethic, leadership style, motivations, and feedback preferences.  It echos some of the characteristics we discussed in class.

I hope my classmates who read my blog find it helpful too!

http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

Social Construct of Gender

As I read Chapter 5 The Life Course as a Social Construct of Learning and Change in the Adult Years, by   Tennant and Pogson, I was struck by how absolute their discussion of gender was.  The section of the reading was called Parallels between the Social Construction of Age and Gender on pages 106-112.

They talked about how age was sort of relative, and we progressed along a continuum of age categories and the social expectations associated with each.  But that gender was "bipolar" - one of the other, and was something we identified with from an early age.

As I read all this theory and comparison, I kept thinking about the GLBTQ community, and how for many of them, gender is not absolute.  It is something they struggle with, some even identifying with a gender different than that they were born with. Even for heterosexuals, many struggle with "gender norms" and associate with different "male" and "female" attributes. They may be seen as more or less masculine or feminine than what society deems as the norm.  And this may impact their social construct and how they learn and develop. The social construct of gender is no longer bipolar, in my opinion, and I wonder if the research has been updated to consider the effects of a black and white view of gender on people who reside in the gray area.

***Update:  I finished reading Chapter 12, Adult Development, in the Merriam and Caffarella book, and found their views on Psychological Development to be much more in keeping with my own.  I appreciated their inclusion of research on gay sexual identity development research by Cox and Gallois (1996) and by Anderson (2003).  There are so many factors that influence our world view and how we develop as individuals.  I especially found the Integrative Perspectives to be most helpful, since there are so many different factors that need to be considered.  Perun and Bielby's model of interlocking gears that all move at a different pace was the one that made the most sense to me.  The gears progress differently and independently based on physical changes, changes in family roles, changes in work roles, changes in emotional and personal tasks and "create a unique pattern for each adult" (Bee, 1996).  And that the rate of movement along any of those dimensions may be influenced by gender, race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.  (Merriam & Caffarella, p. 321).

Adult Development

This week, most of our readings (those I've read so far), have centered on Adult Development along a life course and the theories pertaining to how we can divide and define the different stages of the life course, be it chronological, psychological, social, or otherwise.

What struck me when reading the chapters is that there are so many theories, but none of them are definitive. Everyone is different - adults are unique and mature at different rates, experience life events at different points, and come from different social and economic backgrounds, so it seems impossible to say that every adult will react the same way to learning at the same time.

I was especially interested in the study differences between women and men that showed that almost all of the results of the male study were disproved when applied to a sample of women. Many very smart people put a lot of time and energy into studying these theories, but what I'm left with is confusion.  If they can't figure out how adults learn and develop, what chance do we have?  Every theory seems to have been disproved by another theorist.

I guess what that leaves us with is to know that Adult learners can't be pigeon-holed.  Perhaps by designing learning with diversity and a broader audience in mind, we can attempt to be more inclusive and appeal to the largest swath of learners, regardless of age, race, social standing, or ability.