During the first module of that Digital Education and Design for Learning postgrad course that I am taking via Massey University, a key focus has been on Learning Theories views (LT), Learning Design (LD) and Design for learning (DfL)
This post explores my current thinking around Learning Theories (LT), Learning Design (LD) and Design for learning (DfL) which are based on course readings, class forums, and ongoing reflection which highlight a slight from my response below. In reflecting upon, it focuses on the course outcome:
Reflect on the relationship between contemporary learning theories, design methods and the challenges for implementing new designs in educational organisations.
To provide context, below is a screenshot of my response at the time to the following question:
Consider the introduction to this course in the context of your own work. At your workplace, do people refer to ‘instructional design’, 'design for learning' or ‘learning design?
Instructional Design and Design for Learning
Looking at the above response, I feel that there has been a slight shift in my thinking, in particular around the DfL and LT. While I am currently content with my views of ID & LD, Persico & Pozzi (2015) mention that "we are still rather far from identification to the lingua franca for LD” (p. 238). In exploring the semantics around LD & DfL, Persico & Pozzi (2015) and researchers Smith & Ragan (2005) agree that the view LD as misleading due to the fact it implies that learning can be designed. While they agree that this is true for environments and tools that aid learning, the same cannot be said for process of learning. By including the for and the rearranging the word order, the approach is more open and focused on design that helps learners learn. In addition, both groups mentioned above agree that LD & DfL are essentially the same which were my initial thoughts.
Learning Theory & Design for Learning
In exploring the various LT views and their implications for DfL and reflecting upon this, I quickly realized that I rarely think critically about the approach that I was taking. Instead I relied on my experiential wisdom to guide the design rather than refer to theory. In thinking about the design for learning environments, Wilson & Meyers (2000) state that this "should be informed by theory but not slave to it" (p. 83). I believe that the same approach is true for DfL. For me, this means that I need to further develop my knowledge of the LT and enhance my skills to apply them appropriately to the situation. Snelbecker (1989) refers this process as "systematic eclecticism" which is truly dependent upon the situation. Ertmer & Newby (2013) reiterate my thoughts above that for designers to be successful, they need to have strong foundational knowledge of the theories and how they can be combined.
As mentioned, the action items for me are to further develop my knowledge around the various LTs and enhance my skills to apply them based on what situation. I am aware that this is will be a long and gradual process as I learn to retrain myself to critically marry theory and experiential wisdom when DfL.
References
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, (2), 43.
Persico, D., & Pozzi, F. (2015). Informing learning design with learning analytics to improve teacher inquiry. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 46(2), 230-248. doi:10.1111/bjet.12207.
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Snelbecker, G.E. (1989). Contrasting and complementary approaches to instructional design. IN C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (p. 321-337). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, B. G. & Meyers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Comments