Personal Philosophy On Learning & Instruction
Definitions of Key Concepts
What is learning? Why create instruction? How is knowledge obtained or constructed? My implicit assumptions and explicit answers around these questions and others, make up the foundation upon which my teaching philosophy and research agenda are based. To appropriately contextualize my philosophy of learning, it is helpful to explore my assumptions and definitions of key concepts of which are described below.
Though human beings have certain animal-like traits that can be controlled, trained, and managed on a surface level, we are more than animals and machines in that we have the ability to make choices based on intuition, think morally and abstractly, make value judgments (evaluate), and maintain an identity. Learning is the process of identity construction, formation, and change (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning is most influenced and directed by the learner, not the designed instruction or the teacher. Knowledge is a term used to describe specific data or procedural points, or meaning-making extrapolations from lived or vicarious experience. For teaching and learning purposes, knowledge can best be categorized into four sections: declarative, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2014).
Technology is an extension of mankind (McLuhan, 1964). It is a physical tool or observable phenomenon that reveals much about the cultures and societies in which the technology originates (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Whether it is a piece of chalk, a YouTube video, or a computer lab, technology is meaningless without intelligent human interaction. Instruction is the formal and/or informal process of helping willing individuals learn. The primary responsibility of learning is the learner's. Indeed "researchers and designers should question our long-standing but delusive presumption that we can always control what individuals learn" (Jonassen, 1991).
The Process of Designing Instruction
As Ertmer (1993) outlined, approaches to how learners make or obtain meaning can be roughly grouped into three camps: behaviorism (Skinner, 1958), cognitivism (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Clark, 2010), and constructivism (Rieber, 1998; Savery 2006). Each of these general epistemologies is valuable depending on the stage of development of the learner and the different kinds of learning taking place. In a similar vein, the role and responsibility of teachers and learners are also fluid depending on the stage of learning and the subject matter. In many settings it is appropriate for the teacher to act as a coach (Jonassen, 1991) while the most significant responsibility for learning is that of the learner’s.
Though traditional considerations for instructional design include subject matter, instructional methodology, the learner, and the teacher, I believe the learner’s experience --the interaction between individual learners and the instructional environment-- is the most important factor in designing instruction and facilitating learning (Parrish, 2007). As I consider my own design projects and teaching opportunities, I begin with the #1 Lense of Game Design from Schelle (2008), “Stop thinking about your [design] and start thinking about the experience of the [student]. Ask yourself these questions: What experience do I want the [student] to have? What is essential to that experience? How can my [design] capture that essence? If there is a big difference between the experience you want to create and the one you are actually creating, your [design] needs to change” (19). Identity is constructed and transformed by profound learning experiences. Thus the best consideration for effective learning is in the empathic design and implementation of learning experiences.
Core Theoretical Ideas
Learning and teaching will best operate when instructors are critically flexible (Yanchar & Gabbitas, 2010) in designing and evaluating coursework on an embodied curriculum continuum (Barab & Dodge, 2008). As mentioned above, a variety of methods and epistemologies can and should be considered when designing and implementing instruction. However, Barab & Dodge summarize a variety of instructional design strategies oriented around situated embodiment (2008) which I consider to be the most useful. These include: simulation models (e.g., anchored instruction. problem-based learning, and cognitive apprenticeship); emergent simulation models (e.g., case-based reasoning, project-based learning. and classroom learning communities); and participation models (e.g., participatory simulations, academic play spaces, and communities of practice). Barab & Dodge (2008) argue that when instruction becomes overly tailored and explicit, the value of formalisms (specific learning objectives) is lost in the minutia and ritual of traditional learning environments (i.e. grades, behavior, class procedures). Additional challenges occur when learning environments are too unstructured and implicit, and thus a careful and deliberate balance must be secured.
Relevance and engagement are often considered unpredictable and out of the hands of designers and teachers (Keller, 1987) but should not be abandoned.Though the approaches above do not address every setting or possible learning scenario, situated embodied curriculum strategies make up the primary toolbox I feel would bring the most success in educating undergraduate and graduate students. These situated learning strategies provide a potent opportunity for teachers and designers to consider learner’s experience of the course. If instruction is defined as the formal and/or informal process of helping willing individuals learn, then thoughtfully listening to student feedback and empathetically designing situated embodied instruction is one of the most important qualities of an effective designer-teacher.
The purpose of learning and the intended goals of instruction
High-stakes testing, disruptions of the traditional instructional system, and other highly charged political activities that continue in the field of education, illustrate the fact that as a nation we are not united as to the purpose of education for children or adults. This unexamined and yet necessary conversation regarding what education is all about, often occurs only through assumptions and miscommunication. Such questions of society are nearly as old as civilization itself, and all people --scholars or stockbrokers, practitioners or prisoners-- are ultimately subjective beings with biased perspectives as to what education is and what it should be due to experience and expectation. However, improvement in both our educational system and society may be more likely if the broad goals of instruction were discussed more frequently and openly.
My position is that the purpose of learning should be primarily oriented around the fostering of self-determined citizens. As individuals grow to maturation and gain ability to act for themselves, the role of education in their lives is fully realized in so far as it enables self reliance, contribution to society, enriching lived experience, and community sustainability. My perspective on learning is closely related to Mithaug (1996) who argues that the best way to help “members of society is through educational interventions that build capacity to optimize opportunity. These interventions should accomplish three objectives:
Conclusion
As new approaches to learning such as gamification and flipped classrooms fade in and out of the public consciousness, the long refuted assumptions of traditional programmed instruction will continue to return and trouble both researchers and practitioners unless designers and teachers critically examine strategies they use (McDonald, Yanchar, & Osguthorpe, 2005).
By thoughtfully designing material with the three epistemologies Ertmer (1993) described in mind, critically selecting situated embodied curriculum strategies (Barab & Dodge, 2008), and seriously considering the learner’s experience, I believe instruction will best serve its purpose of helping individuals who want to learn to be able to do so, and enable them to become self-determined citizens. While I feel confident in the principles discussed above, and have referred to supportive evidence, I am open to new models and approaches to teaching and learning as I continue to mature as a designer, teacher, researcher, and lifelong learner.
What is learning? Why create instruction? How is knowledge obtained or constructed? My implicit assumptions and explicit answers around these questions and others, make up the foundation upon which my teaching philosophy and research agenda are based. To appropriately contextualize my philosophy of learning, it is helpful to explore my assumptions and definitions of key concepts of which are described below.
Though human beings have certain animal-like traits that can be controlled, trained, and managed on a surface level, we are more than animals and machines in that we have the ability to make choices based on intuition, think morally and abstractly, make value judgments (evaluate), and maintain an identity. Learning is the process of identity construction, formation, and change (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning is most influenced and directed by the learner, not the designed instruction or the teacher. Knowledge is a term used to describe specific data or procedural points, or meaning-making extrapolations from lived or vicarious experience. For teaching and learning purposes, knowledge can best be categorized into four sections: declarative, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2014).
Technology is an extension of mankind (McLuhan, 1964). It is a physical tool or observable phenomenon that reveals much about the cultures and societies in which the technology originates (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Whether it is a piece of chalk, a YouTube video, or a computer lab, technology is meaningless without intelligent human interaction. Instruction is the formal and/or informal process of helping willing individuals learn. The primary responsibility of learning is the learner's. Indeed "researchers and designers should question our long-standing but delusive presumption that we can always control what individuals learn" (Jonassen, 1991).
The Process of Designing Instruction
As Ertmer (1993) outlined, approaches to how learners make or obtain meaning can be roughly grouped into three camps: behaviorism (Skinner, 1958), cognitivism (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Clark, 2010), and constructivism (Rieber, 1998; Savery 2006). Each of these general epistemologies is valuable depending on the stage of development of the learner and the different kinds of learning taking place. In a similar vein, the role and responsibility of teachers and learners are also fluid depending on the stage of learning and the subject matter. In many settings it is appropriate for the teacher to act as a coach (Jonassen, 1991) while the most significant responsibility for learning is that of the learner’s.
Though traditional considerations for instructional design include subject matter, instructional methodology, the learner, and the teacher, I believe the learner’s experience --the interaction between individual learners and the instructional environment-- is the most important factor in designing instruction and facilitating learning (Parrish, 2007). As I consider my own design projects and teaching opportunities, I begin with the #1 Lense of Game Design from Schelle (2008), “Stop thinking about your [design] and start thinking about the experience of the [student]. Ask yourself these questions: What experience do I want the [student] to have? What is essential to that experience? How can my [design] capture that essence? If there is a big difference between the experience you want to create and the one you are actually creating, your [design] needs to change” (19). Identity is constructed and transformed by profound learning experiences. Thus the best consideration for effective learning is in the empathic design and implementation of learning experiences.
Core Theoretical Ideas
Learning and teaching will best operate when instructors are critically flexible (Yanchar & Gabbitas, 2010) in designing and evaluating coursework on an embodied curriculum continuum (Barab & Dodge, 2008). As mentioned above, a variety of methods and epistemologies can and should be considered when designing and implementing instruction. However, Barab & Dodge summarize a variety of instructional design strategies oriented around situated embodiment (2008) which I consider to be the most useful. These include: simulation models (e.g., anchored instruction. problem-based learning, and cognitive apprenticeship); emergent simulation models (e.g., case-based reasoning, project-based learning. and classroom learning communities); and participation models (e.g., participatory simulations, academic play spaces, and communities of practice). Barab & Dodge (2008) argue that when instruction becomes overly tailored and explicit, the value of formalisms (specific learning objectives) is lost in the minutia and ritual of traditional learning environments (i.e. grades, behavior, class procedures). Additional challenges occur when learning environments are too unstructured and implicit, and thus a careful and deliberate balance must be secured.
Relevance and engagement are often considered unpredictable and out of the hands of designers and teachers (Keller, 1987) but should not be abandoned.Though the approaches above do not address every setting or possible learning scenario, situated embodied curriculum strategies make up the primary toolbox I feel would bring the most success in educating undergraduate and graduate students. These situated learning strategies provide a potent opportunity for teachers and designers to consider learner’s experience of the course. If instruction is defined as the formal and/or informal process of helping willing individuals learn, then thoughtfully listening to student feedback and empathetically designing situated embodied instruction is one of the most important qualities of an effective designer-teacher.
The purpose of learning and the intended goals of instruction
High-stakes testing, disruptions of the traditional instructional system, and other highly charged political activities that continue in the field of education, illustrate the fact that as a nation we are not united as to the purpose of education for children or adults. This unexamined and yet necessary conversation regarding what education is all about, often occurs only through assumptions and miscommunication. Such questions of society are nearly as old as civilization itself, and all people --scholars or stockbrokers, practitioners or prisoners-- are ultimately subjective beings with biased perspectives as to what education is and what it should be due to experience and expectation. However, improvement in both our educational system and society may be more likely if the broad goals of instruction were discussed more frequently and openly.
My position is that the purpose of learning should be primarily oriented around the fostering of self-determined citizens. As individuals grow to maturation and gain ability to act for themselves, the role of education in their lives is fully realized in so far as it enables self reliance, contribution to society, enriching lived experience, and community sustainability. My perspective on learning is closely related to Mithaug (1996) who argues that the best way to help “members of society is through educational interventions that build capacity to optimize opportunity. These interventions should accomplish three objectives:
- Improve Person’s understanding of her own needs, interests, and abilities so she will be able to pursue opportunities consistent with those needs, interests, and abilities.
- Provide Person with the specific personal, social, and technical knowledge and skills required to optimize a full range of opportunities in the social and physical world.
- Help Person learn to manage those resources effectively and efficiently when she engages opportunities to achieve her own ends in life.
Conclusion
As new approaches to learning such as gamification and flipped classrooms fade in and out of the public consciousness, the long refuted assumptions of traditional programmed instruction will continue to return and trouble both researchers and practitioners unless designers and teachers critically examine strategies they use (McDonald, Yanchar, & Osguthorpe, 2005).
By thoughtfully designing material with the three epistemologies Ertmer (1993) described in mind, critically selecting situated embodied curriculum strategies (Barab & Dodge, 2008), and seriously considering the learner’s experience, I believe instruction will best serve its purpose of helping individuals who want to learn to be able to do so, and enable them to become self-determined citizens. While I feel confident in the principles discussed above, and have referred to supportive evidence, I am open to new models and approaches to teaching and learning as I continue to mature as a designer, teacher, researcher, and lifelong learner.
References
Barab, S., & Dodge, T. (2008). Strategies for Designing Embodied Curriculum. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Third Edition, pp. 97–108). London, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Barab, S., & Plucker, J. (2002). Smart People or Smart Contexts? Cognition, Ability, and Talent Development in an Age of Situated Approaches to Knowing and Learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.
Clark, S. C. (20d10). Evidence-Based Training Methods. Alexandria: ASTD.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 5–14.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and Use of the ARCS Model in Instructional Design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2014). Revision Overview Bloom’s Taxonomy: Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Mcdonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2005). Learning Programmed Instruction : Examining Implications for Modern Instructional Technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84–98.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press.
Mithaug, D. (1996). Fairness, Liberty, and Empowerment Evaluation. In Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability (pp. 234-258). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Parrish, P. E. (2007). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528.
Rieber, L. (1998). What is really true? An Exercise in Understanding Constructivism. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~lrieber/pdean/whatistrue.htm
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1).
Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. CRC Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching Machines. Science, 128, 969–977.
Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2010). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383–398.
Barab, S., & Dodge, T. (2008). Strategies for Designing Embodied Curriculum. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Third Edition, pp. 97–108). London, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Barab, S., & Plucker, J. (2002). Smart People or Smart Contexts? Cognition, Ability, and Talent Development in an Age of Situated Approaches to Knowing and Learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.
Clark, S. C. (20d10). Evidence-Based Training Methods. Alexandria: ASTD.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 5–14.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and Use of the ARCS Model in Instructional Design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2014). Revision Overview Bloom’s Taxonomy: Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Mcdonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2005). Learning Programmed Instruction : Examining Implications for Modern Instructional Technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84–98.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press.
Mithaug, D. (1996). Fairness, Liberty, and Empowerment Evaluation. In Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability (pp. 234-258). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Parrish, P. E. (2007). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528.
Rieber, L. (1998). What is really true? An Exercise in Understanding Constructivism. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~lrieber/pdean/whatistrue.htm
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1).
Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. CRC Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching Machines. Science, 128, 969–977.
Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2010). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383–398.
“It is by being fully involved with every detail of our lives, whether good or bad, that we find happiness, not by trying to look for it directly.”
― Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi