Using Reflection to Reflect on Learning Theories

          This course, EDUC 6115 Learning Theories and Instruction, has deepened my knowledge of learning theories and how theory can be applied to instruction for the benefit of students.  As an instructional designer I know that I must understand (at a minimum) and be capable of executing a designer’s responsibilities by reflecting on the Ormrod (n.d.) statement that “it is focusing on what is going on inside the head and also how teachers, instructional designers, anyone who wants to help people learn how they can design instruction to make those cognitive processes work well for the learner” (p. 1).  These steps are very similar to the software development steps of requirements, analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (testing) that I deal with on a daily basis as an information engineer.  With an understanding of learning theories, learning styles, learning strategies, and motivation I can better analyze an organization and/or individuals to provide the necessary requirements, knowledge creation, and training.  Understanding learning theory will better prepare me as an instructional designer to map instruction to learner needs.    Building on this thought designers Johnson & Aragon (2003) stated that “quality online learning environments should be made up of elements of behavioral learning theory (for example, using positive reinforcement and repetition), cognitive learning theory (for example, addressing multiple senses, presenting new information in motivating ways, limiting the amount of information presented, and connecting new information to prior knowledge), and social learning theory (for example, encouraging group interaction, peer assessment, and personal feedback).” (p. 33). 

Furthering My Knowledge About How People Learn

     During my teacher training (early seventies) I was taught the behavioral learning theory.  The stimulus-response approach was the desired way to teach students by creating behavioral objectives and the stimulus needed for the desired response.  This class is my first exposure to learning theory and instruction since college and I now realize that I use the other theories: cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism as both a learner and as a teacher.  For introductory material and basic information I best learn using behavioral strategies.  Ertmer & Newby (1993) stated that “behaviorism equates learning with changes in either the form or frequency of observable performance” (p. 55).  The stimulus-response with repetition forms the necessary association for me to best learn the material.  Employing mind maps, taking notes (outlining) with key words and associations, mnemonics, and identifying processes are examples of cognitive theory of learning strategies that help to organize and synthesize information (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 61).   The constructivist theory of learning allows me as a learner to as Ertmer & Newby (1993) stated “equate learning with creating meaning from experience” (p. 62).  This allows me to apply basic theory understanding with real world verbal problems and emphasize problem solving.  As my learning moves from basic facts to the understanding of processes I agree with Ertmer & Newby (1993) when they stated that “a behavioral approach can effectively facilitate mastery of content of a profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-inaction” (p. 68). 

     As a teacher of mathematics I use a seven step process to solve problems.  This process ties the three learning theories together: behavioral (stimulus-response needed to learn basic facts, rules and properties); cognitive (repetition (practice with feedback) to get the information into long-term memory); and constructivism (relating the need to solve a problem with the appropriate process).  Murre (2008) stated that “for most effective memory it is best to concentrate on higher-level elaboration.  This is achieved by converting the word or name into meaningful words that sound familiar; bizarre, humorous, or other memorable visualizations of the words; involvement of other modalities in the mental image, such as feeling, hearing, and smelling; make the words active and vivid!” (p. 1).  My use of buzzwords as memory handles utilizes this concept and I believe that my seven step process uses elaboration to build on and associate knowledge already known to my students.  This process ties the declarative knowledge (definitions, rules, etc) with procedural knowledge (process) using organization and elaboration of known information.  The organization is the seven step process that we memorize using short phases that become the memory hooks into the declarative and procedural knowledge.  This process becomes the template or schema for solving algebra problems.  SIL International (1998) stated that “it is important to teach general knowledge and generic concepts.  A large proportion of leaner difficulties can be traced to insufficient general knowledge” and “teachers must help learners build schemata and make connections between ideas.” (p.1).  SIL International (1998) also added that “ research by schema theorists indicates that abstract concepts are best understood after a foundation of concrete, relevant information has been established.  The general knowledge provides a framework into which the newly-formed structure can be fitted” (p. 1).   In addition Ertmer & Newby (1993) stated “to be successful, meaningful, and lasting, learning must include all three of these critical factors: activity (practice), concept (knowledge), and culture (context) (Brown et al., 1989)” (p. 64).  My seven-step process has activity (practice), concept (repetition of definitions and rules), and culture considerations (how does this problem fit into what we are learning in the algebra classroom).

     I have always taught and used Gardner’s multiple intelligences and tend to personally use the visual intelligence (seeing it), audio (hearing it), physical (practicing it by taking notes, flash cards), logically (associations, processes, and activities) and teaching myself.  I don’t usually use the music intelligence or don’t use the interpersonal intelligence unless I am teaching something.  Armstrong (n.d.) stated that “one of the most remarkable features of the theory of multiple intelligences is how it provides eight different potential pathways to learning. If a teacher is having difficulty reaching a student in the more traditional linguistic or logical ways of instruction, the theory of multiple intelligences suggests several other ways in which the material might be presented to facilitate effective learning. Whether you are a kindergarten teacher, a graduate school instructor, or an adult learner seeking better ways of pursuing self-study on any subject of interest, the same basic guidelines apply. Whatever you are teaching or learning, see how you might connect it with words (linguistic intelligence), numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence), pictures (spatial intelligence), music (musical intelligence), self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence), a physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence), a social experience (interpersonal intelligence), and/or an experience in the natural world (naturalist intelligence).” (p. 1).

     The instructional areas new to me are the concepts of social learning, connectivism, and adult learning.  Combs (2011) stated that “in order for a process to be social learning it has to: demonstrate a change in understanding at the individual level; show that the change goes beyond the individual and becomes part of a community of practice; and take place through interactions within a social network.”  The key component is the interaction by the individual to make change a reality. Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler (2009) stated that Vygotsky “considered the social environment to be critical for learning and thought that social interactions transformed learning experiences.  Social activity is a phenomenon that helps explain changes in consciousness and establishes a psychological theory that unifies behavior and mind.” (p. 191).  The challenge for the student is to apply traditional face-to-face interaction, reading, writing, and mathematical skills to the online environment. 

      Two strategies that caught my eye are learning scaffolding and the zone of proximal development (ZPD).  Webb (2003) stated that Vygotsky’s ZPD is the defined “as the distance between the actual development of a child as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 1).  So the aim is for already busy teachers to determine the developmental area needed to challenge the student with assistance and place learning in the ZPD (Webb, 2003, p.1).  This assisted performance is learning scaffolding and can include: task definition, direct or indirect instruction, specification and sequencing of activities, provision of materials and equipment, and other environmental contributions (Webb, 2003, p.1).  Effective scaffolding expands learning activities and experiences for the student.  Wilhelm, Baker & Dube (2001) stated that the goal of this is “to allow the students to do as much as they can on their own, and then to intervene and provide assistance when it is needed so that the task can be successfully completed. Vygotsky stressed that students need to engage in challenging tasks that they can successfully complete with appropriate help” (p.1).   In addition to this Ormrod (n.d.) stated “so in Vygotsky’s mind, the way that you really advance people forward is by giving them the structure they need so that that zone of proximal development moves into increasingly more challenging activities and material.”  Social interaction and technology will evolve over time but students need structured activities to assist them in their development regardless of the environment.

    As a teacher and instructional designer I would use pre-testing as a means to determine the independent problem solving zone of a student which would be the as-is state (or current state) of Vygotsky’s ZPD.  From this pre-test the instructional design (ID) process determines the appropriate to-be state that is needed that Webb (2003) stated as “the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 1).   I would also use Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model to help with the pre-testing by reversing the four-step process and use it as a planning process.  The four steps would be result or impact; performance; learning; and reaction.  This four step planning and analysis process would as Clark (1995) stated need to identify “the desired impact (outcome or result) that will improve the performance of students; the level of performance the learners must be able to do to create the impact; the knowledge and skills they need to learn in order to perform; and what they need to perceive in order to learn (the need to learn)” (p. 1).  Also as part of the ID process the necessary scaffolding would have to be determined to help the student solve problems with assistance and move them toward the outer edge of their ZPD.  Once the ZPD has been successfully completed the new ZPD becomes the current as-is state and the new ZPD is determined using the same process.  This parallels what is done when creating business architectures.  The as-is model is determined to document the logical and physical processes of the business. The to-be (or not-to-be depending on funding) model documents the future state the business wants to move to.  The delta between the as-is and the to-be models is what Vygotsky would call the zone of proximal development for the organization. 

     During this course I have learned that adults have unique learning and motivational needs that Foley (2004) viewed through four lenses: learning as acquisition, learning as reflection, learning as practice-based community, and learning as embodied co-emergent process (Foley, 2004, p. 56).  Adults have the advantage of having their basic education (K-12) behind them and are currently performing and studying in the school of hard knocks- education and learning through everyday life.  I tell my algebra students each quarter that their formal education through college is just the beginning; take the attitude to be a life-long learner.  Take what life presents and give back more than you receive.

     Learning as acquisition of knowledge covers the three _isms; behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.  As adults the stimulus-response, information processing process, and constructing knowledge through interaction and experience still applies. In addition, through life experiences adults have the advantage of understanding and developing relationships between people and things.  Foley (2004) stated that adults have two domains of intelligence; fluid and crystallized and that “fluid intelligence covers includes inherited cognitive ability: memory, abstraction skills, and the ability to perceive relationships, adapt to new situations and solve problems. Crystallized intelligence is our content-knowledge: information, judgments, and meanings constructed through learning experiences.” (p. 57-58).

     Learning as reflection for the adult learner is like a project management (PM) process that I use to run projects that has the following activities: plan, manage, execute, and sustain.  Adult learners and my PM process plan (plan the project or plan to learn), manage (manage the project activities or manage learning activities), and execute the plan; but the critical part is the sustain activity.  A process takes in many inputs, processes them and creates outputs during the course of its execution.  The sustain activity forces the actors in the process to step back, review and evaluate the results and reflect on what worked and what didn’t work (or what is true and what is false).  The result is process improvement and a better process with fewer errors and a better understanding of how the process works.  Likewise the adult learner takes in information (inputs), processes it, and internalizes it for use.  Adult learners must stop to reflect on the information being learned.  Foley (2004) stated “Although all adults are exposed to a multitude of life experiences, Kolb maintains, not everyone learns from these. Learning happens only when there is reflective thought and internal ‘processing’ by the learner, in a way that actively makes sense of an experience and links it to previous learning” (p. 60). 

    I like the self-directed portion of adult learning.  Students of any age with the proper motivation, and knowledge base (maturity, interpersonal skills, self-control, and mastery of basic skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic) can apply self-directed learning.  Conlan, Grabowski, & Smith (2003) stated that there are three categories involved with self-directed learning, “the goals, the process, and the learner. In an adult learning context, the goals are generally self-determined, as is the process. Self-directed learning can be enhanced with facilitation, particularly through providing resources” (p. 1).  From personal experience I have used self-directed learning since college to gain new skills, and knowledge to improve my work performance.  Being an information engineer I have to constantly read and try to keep up with changes in technology.   

     When it comes to technology I need to use it in addition to seeing it used.  Our attempt to learn new technology shows the connection between learning and innovation.  Learning and innovation are tools that influence each other and create the ability for an organization to be competitive.  The basic relationship between learning and innovation was illustrated by Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn (2008) stating that “the challenge is doing to learn and learning to do” (p. 418).  Organizational learning leads to innovation and innovation leads to new and better ways to do things.  Finding the best way for a student or employee to learn strengthens the student and ultimately the organization. 

     Therefore each learning theory has it strong points and contributes to the whole learning experience.  From my own teaching experience I agree when Kapp (2007) stated “I suggest that lower level learning (lower cognitive load) requires a behaviorist approach (memorize, recognizing, labeling) as does the expectation of outcomes that must be measured.  I then suggest that procedural and rule-based learning requires an emphasis on Cognitivism and finally, problem-solving, collaboration and creativity require a view of Constructivism.”   Greeno (1998) agreed when he stated “learning environments organized on behaviorist skill-acquisition principles, encourage students to become adept at practices, involving receptive learning and drill, that result in efficient performance on tests, and learning environments organized on cognitive knowledge-structure principles encourage students to become adept at constructing understanding on the basis of general ideas and relations between concepts.” (p. 14). 

Understanding My Personal Learning Process

     With a deeper understanding of the different learning theories and learning styles I now have a better understanding of why and how I learn; as well as, why I apply certain techniques when teaching.  The addition of constructivism, connectivism, and learning styles has helped with my understanding of how I approached learning in the past and how my learning environment will continue to evolve in the future.  During my formal education and college teacher training the dominant learning theory was behavioral, with emphasis on the stimulus-response approach as the desired way to teach students by creating behavioral objectives and the stimulus needed for the desired response.  Of the learning theories and perspectives presented in this class, all three: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism contribute to how I learn.  With the introduction of connectivism I now understand the importance of learning through the exposure and creation of learning nodes; interaction with others; and the use of the web, portals, blogs, and wikis to find, learn, and use information.

     For introductory material and basic information I best learn using behavioral strategies.  Ertmer & Newby (1993) stated that “behaviorism equates learning with changes in either the form or frequency of observable performance” (p. 55).  The stimulus-response with repetition forms the necessary association for me to best learn the material.  Employing mind maps, taking notes (outlining) with key words and associations, mnemonics, and identifying processes are examples of cognitive theory of learning strategies that help to organize and synthesize information (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 61).   The constructivist theory of learning allows me as a learner to as Ertmer & Newby (1993) stated “equate learning with creating meaning from experience” (p. 62).  This allows me to apply basic theory understanding with real world verbal problems and emphasize problem solving. As my learning moves from basic facts to the understanding of processes I agree with Ertmer & Newby (1993) when they stated that “a behavioral approach can effectively facilitate mastery of content of a profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-inaction” (p. 68). 

     In addition to these three learning theories, I learn most productively when including multiple intelligences from Gardner’s eight multiple intelligences.  When combining the intelligences of visual, linguistic, physical, music (Mozart), mathematical/logical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal I have an easier time getting information into long-term memory (Armstrong, 2000, p. 33).  In school repetition of seeing the material, hearing the explanation, doing the tasks, taking notes, identifying key words, associations, processes, and mind maps helped me learn and apply the concepts. 

     I have always known that my dominant learning style is as a visual learner.  But I have also noticed that since college my teaching experience has helped in the development of the other two learning styles as well: auditory learner and tactile/kinesthetic learner.  Bogod (1998) stated that there are three types of learning styles “visual learners learn through seeing the teacher’s body language and facial expression and may think in pictures and learn best from visual displays; auditory learners learn through verbal lectures, talking and listening; and tactile/kinesthetic learners learn through moving ,doing and touching through hands-on  and exploration” (p. 1).

     Understanding my own learning process facilitates the learning process, and improves the quality of the learning experience.  Taking a conscious effort to understand the learning process for mathematics helped me as a student during my teacher training; allowing me to use the strategies listed above to use tools that work and discard those that are not effective.  First as a student and now as a teacher I use a seven step process that ties the basic information and rules to the overlying process needed to complete an algebra problem (or any problem for that matter).  It forces me and my students to think about each step in the process and ask questions.

     The role of technology in my learning experiences has evolved from paper textbooks, pencil and paper, chalkboards, and bricks and mortar libraries in high school to predominantly digital, online learning resources today.  Today I use web-based resources to find most of the information needed to facilitate my learning process.  The web-based resources include: videos, blogs, wikis, software, web searches, online digital libraries, SharePoint portals for collaboration, and network resources.

The Connection Between Learning Theories, Learning Styles, Educational Technology, and Motivation

     As a teacher and information engineer and now learning to become an instructional designer, I am struck at the similarities between automated system design and instructional design.  Table 1, Connection between Learning Theories, Learning Styles, Technology, Motivation, and System Design, summarizes my thoughts on the similarities between the two.  Of course the key is to remember that once the architecture/framework for my instructional design is created it is an automated system (e.g., Learning Management System (LMS), personal learning environment (PLE)).

Table 1 Connection between Learning Theories, Learning Styles, Technology, Motivation, and System Design

Class Concept

Instructional Design

Automated System Design

Technology Delivery Driver Delivery Driver
Learning Theory Blueprint for instruction Architecture/Framework
    Operational Processes

Behaviorism

Stimulus-Response Requirements

 

Tasks  

Cognitivism

Processes Operational Processes

 

  Algorithms

 

Knowledge Creation Inputs/Outputs

 

Storage Storage

Constructivism

Scaffolding Training

 

  Help

 

ZPD Releases

Social Learning

Blogs Communities of Practice

 

Wikis Communities of Practice

 

  Design Documentation

 

  Artificial Intelligence (AI)

 

  Interfaces

 

  Help

 

Social Sites Communities of Practice

Connectivism

Nodes XML Configuration Files

 

  Network

 

  Web

 

Curriculum Definition Interface Specification

Adult Learning

Discovery Process Improvement
Learning Styles Patterns User Interface
  Habits Customization
Learning Strategies Templates Physical processes (Activities/Tasks)
Motivation Heller’s ARCS Model Help
  Cheerleading Feedback
  Stimulus Tool Tips
  Feedback Messages
    Task completion
    Job Aids
Content Learning Objects Data (Inputs/Outputs)
    XML

    Any process whether it be mathematical, biological, chemical, or business related can be created as a framework for instruction.  In her post Moore (2010) states that “if you’re teaching a process or other practical action, consider creating an instructional job aid that helps learners apply the new process immediately to a real-world task. The mega job aid: provides the how-to information typical to a job aid; includes the kind of thought-provoking questions and motivational messages often found in a course; emphasizes immediate application of the new process to the real world; and takes as long as the real world task requires—it’s not a 30-minute insta-cure” (p. 1).

     Any process can be decomposed into activities and tasks with an input-process-output (IPO) flow definition.  So the declarative and procedural knowledge needed to execute the flow could easily be mapped to this IPO flow.  Moore’s suggestion makes sense since the job aid could target the entire process or a specific activity or task.

Learning Theory Furthering My Career In The Field Of Instructional Design

     From an instructional design perspective this class has gotten me to consider the relationship between learning theories, learning styles, technology, motivation, open content, and personal learning environments (PLE).  This class has also tweaked my interest in learning objects and the framework needed to utilize them.  Siemens (2005) stated that “instead of courses, designers need to see learning as an activity without beginning or end.  Instead of programs, learning needs to be viewed as an activity that occurs within an ecology. In many types of learning, the task of the designer is to create the right environment for continued learning (i.e. design the ecology). Learners themselves will seek and acquire needed elements.” (p. 9).  This approach relates to class discussions about connectivism and the need to as Siemens stated “create the constructs within which learning will occur – networks and ecology. Creating networks and permitting learners to form their own connections is more reflective of how learning functions in real life. Informal and life-experience learning are such a significant aspect of an individual’s learning that they cannot be left to chance within organizations. Design processes need to be utilized to capture the value of alternative learning formats.” (p. 9).  Throw learning styles and learning strategies into the discussion and a nice framework begins to emerge.

     I believe that we should be designing for all learning styles and let teachers fine tune and adjust the small stuff.  Clark (2008) stated that “perhaps David Merrill (2000) has the best philosophy for using learning styles — instructional strategies should first be determined on the basis of the type of content to be taught or the goals of the instruction (the content-by-strategy interactions) and secondarily, learner styles and preferences are then used to adjust or fine-tune these fundamental learning strategies. Finally, content-by-strategy interactions take precedence over learning-style-by-strategy interactions regardless of the instructional style or philosophy of the instructional situation. “ (p. 1).  In addition Clark (2010) stated that “good instruction provide individual learning experiences within the learning environment by using a mixture of media, strategies, and methods. These learning experiences promote interactions that allow the learners to recall information so that it may be remembered and combine it with other experiences so that new knowledge bases may be formed.” (p. 1).  One such approach is a concept called blended learning.  Blended learning is as Clark (2010) stated a “mix of delivery methods that have been selected and fashioned to accommodate the various learning needs of a diverse audience in a variety of subjects.” (p.1).  The delivery methods mentioned are elearning (on-line or click) and classroom learning (face-to-face or brick). 

     As I begin the process of designing a learning solutions framework and architecture flexible enough to encompass these learning strategies I will heed the advice of Draper (2008) who stated “Landauer argues that in many current user interfaces there is a big variation in user performance because it depends on certain mental skills. He says that many designers conclude that they should provide different designs for different users. He argues however that that is quite wrong. It is the case that many designers have unusual mental skills and has produced interfaces that require these skills, but that it is quite possible to produce designs that are good for everyone, not just mental elite, and on which everyone performs as well as the best do on current interfaces.” (p. 1).  The bottom line consideration to keep in mind in order to treat learners as unique individuals and provide them quality instruction is to as Draper (2008) stated “train learners to have more than one learning method, so that all can benefit from the same material, and indeed so that all can benefit from a range of styles of material.” ( p. 1).


References

Armstrong, T.,(n.d.). Multiple Intelligences.  Retrieved from http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.php

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  Retrieved April 2, 2011 from the Walden University Netlibrary.

Bogod, L. (1998). Learning Styles. Retrieved April 4, 2011 from http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm

Clark, D. (1995). Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from the Big Dog & Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/isd/kirkpatrick.html

Clark, D. (2010). Blended Learning. Retrieved April 8, 2011 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/elearning/blended.html

Clark, D. (2008). Learning Styles and Preferences. Retrieved April 8, 2011 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles.html

Combs, T. (2011). What Do You Mean By Social Learning?. Retrieved March 22, 2011 from the Chief Learning Officer Blog: http://blog.clomedia.com/2011/03/what-do-you-mean-by-social-learning/

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K.. (2003). Adult Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging  perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 1, 2011 from             http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Draper, S. (2008). Learning styles (notes). Retrieved April 4, 2011 from             http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/lstyles.html

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Foley, G. (2004). Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in a global era. McGraw-Hill Education.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 14-17.

Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R.  (2003). An Instructional Strategy Framework for Online Learning Environments. The H. W. Wilson Company. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from http://ldt.stanford.edu/~educ39105/paul/articles_2005/An%20Instructional%20Strategy%20Framework%20for%20online%20instruction_Johnson_Aragon.pdf

Kapp, K. (2007). Out and About: Discussion on Educational School of Thought. Retrieved from the Kapp Notes Blog: http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Moore, C. (2010, December 8). The anti-course: An instructional job aid. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from the Making change blog:   http://blog.cathy-moore.com/2010/12/the-anti-course-an-instructional-job-aid/ 

Murre, J. (2008). Elaboration and the Keyword Mnemonic. NeuroMod. University of Amsterdam. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from http://memory.uva.nl/memimprovement/eng/elaboration.htm  

Ormrod, J., (n.d.). An Introduction to Learning [Video Podcast].

Ormrod, J. (n.d.). Theory of Social Cognitive Development [Video podcast].

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate custom edition). New York: Pearson.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. Organizational Behavior (10th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Siemens, G. (2005). Learning Development Cycle: Bridging Learning Design and Modern Knowledge Needs. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/ldc.htm

SIL International. (1998). Schema theory of learning. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/implementaliteracyprogram/schematheoryoflearning.htm

Webb, I. (2003). Scaffolding. Retrieved March 25, 2011 from the University of Tasmania Website: http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/ilwebb/Research/scaffolding.htm

Wilhelm, J., Baker, T, & Dube, J. (2001). Scaffolding Learning. Retrieved March 25, 2011 from the MyRead website: http://www.myread.org/scaffolding.htm

About these ads

About jlhinstructionaldesign

Student at Walden University in the MS program for Instructional Design Technology and Online Learning
This entry was posted in Connectivism, Instructional Design, Problem Solving, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s