What learning theories and architectures do you draw from?
I tend to lean towards Cognitivism and Constructivism because I believe that adult learners respond better to these approaches which emphasis learners being an active participant in their learning and constructor of their own learning respectively. There are times when behaviorism is an appropriate approach to use as well.
I tend to believe in Directive, guided discovery and exploratory learning architectures which align primarily with Cognitivism and constructivism learning theories. These allow learners to have some say in how they learn.
I am curious to see where others draw from. Obviously, different learning problems and audiences lend to different approaches,but what is the most common approach that you use?
A short answer–it depends! Depends on the stage of the learning experience and the context. I rely less on theories and more on models. For example, I keep going back to Arcs Model of Motivation when we need to instill some extrinsic motivation into learning experiences and the Five Moments of Need model. The latter helps us capture both formal and informal learning tracks and needs. I believe one of this model’s most brilliant points is its holistic approach to the various learning occurrences it identifies. As opposed to the declared aim of formal learning, which is specific learning achievements or certification, the goal of learning in the workplace is proficiency. In order to achieve proficiency, as demonstrated by the model, one is required to combine formal, informal, social and real-time learning strategies. I also draw upon the Experiential Learning theory by Kolb whenever the need arises.
I have to agree with you. I too lean toward cognitivism and constructivism. I think so because I tend to learn that way… so when I am designing, I tend to approach it similarly!
I have added a couple of images for others so that they can have a summary of the learning theories!
Add your eLearning events here.
© 2018 eLearning Chatter. All rights reserved.