By the end of my MET program, I will be able to articulate the role of theory and evidence-based approaches through the development of a curriculum to support faculty in online teaching readiness.
Goal #1
Goal 1 Main Page | Artifact #1 | Artifact #2 | Artifact #3 | Artifact #4
Format: Concept Map
Course: ETEC 512 Application of Learning Theories to the Analysis of Instructional Settings
Towards the end of the course I created a concept map to represent how the major learning theories – behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism – relate to both the learner and to the educational technologies that support them. I chose PowerPoint as the platform for this because it gave me the flexibility to create different types of node – most concept mapping software is restrictive in this regard.
Guiding Theories and Frameworks
The artifact itself concerned theories of learning (see the artifact for more details). The main theories I investigated were:
- Behaviourism (e.g. Skinner, 1974) emphasizing the role of conditioning, observation, and environment in the learning process.
- Social Cognitivism (e.g. Bandura, 2001) emphasizing the importance of observing, modeling, and imitating the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others.
- Social Constructivism (e.g. Vygotsky [Galloway in Orey 2010]) emphasizing the importance of more knowledgeable others and the scaffolding of learning. Vygotsky’s ideas of the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) are central to my goal of developing a curriculum that encourages faculty to engage actively with online teaching readiness (Galloway, 2010). These theories guide my approach to scaffolding faculty development (ZPD) and understanding how faculty construct knowledge, as well as the importance of peer mentoring in the growth process (MKO).
I also looked into Cognitive Constructivism, which emphasizes the role of assimilation and accommodation in the way our schemas adapt and change as we learn. Further readings on cognitivism (e.g. Lee & Juan, 2013) and cognitive theorists (Good, 1978) helped inform my understanding of how learners process information and develop competencies.
Reflections
A big ‘aha!’ moment for me in this course was the realization that different learning theories that may seem to be polar opposites, can in fact be brought together to design and develop effective educational materials. And ideas that have apparently been superseded can in fact still have something to contribute to our understanding.
One of the things I reflect on about my undergraduate degree is the way in which the discipline (archaeology) was to some extent ‘captured’ by postmodernist/post-processualist theory, to the detriment of earlier theoretical frameworks (some of which, to be fair, were rooted in a supremacist and colonialist past). There was a tendency to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’ and to reject the previous half century of research and theory. As an example, the idea that prehistoric Europe saw large movements of people (spreading material culture such as the Beaker phenomenon) was rejected in favour of theories of independent development, or the trade of ideas and pottery styles. Recent genetic evidence almost completely supports the earlier idea of mass movements of people, however.
Bringing this back to education, has the same thing happened with constructivist approaches being seen as ‘superior’ to behaviorist ideas, and the latter being seen as discredited? I don’t know, but I do know that the approaches have to some extent become polarized into rival political and philosophical camps, which is to the detriment of working towards a better understanding of how people learn.
As for next steps, I can see reusing or repurposing this concept map as a way to demonstrate the theory behind recommendations that I make to faculty. It will help me to provide evidence-based and theoretically grounded guidelines and support to faculty as they seek to improve their online teaching readiness.