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.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Monday, March 24, 2014
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.
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!Not to be confused with the learning theory, Behaviorism (philosophy of education).
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
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:
Another example is in how constructivists view evaluation and assessment of learning. They quoted Lambert et al, 1995 here:
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.
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.
Monday, March 17, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
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?
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?
Thursday, March 6, 2014
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.
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)