What Type of Learner Are You? (And Why It Doesn't Matter) As an educator, I often come across the concept of "learning styles." Briefly, this refers to the idea that different people learn in different ways. Concerned students will often remark that they didn't do well on a given exam because they are "visual learners," while parents will often note that their child is a "motor learner," an "aural learner," or perhaps an "intuitive learner." The implicit message behind these labels is that educators need to match their method of instruction to the style of the student, so as to maximize the student's learning and performance. The flip side of this argument, of course, is that if the student learns or performs poorly, some of it may have to do with a between the student's style and the method of instruction. source: Wikimedia Commons (author: krgarts) The pull to understand what "type" of learner we are, much like the pull to understand what "type" of person we are, is very strong.
david a. kolb on experiential learning Contents: introduction · david a. kolb · david kolb on experiential learning · david kolb on learning styles · issues · developments – jarvis on learning · a guide to reading · links · how to cite this piece As Stephen Brookfield (1983: 16) has commented, writers in the field of experiential learning have tended to use the term in two contrasting senses. On the one hand the term is used to describe the sort of learning undertaken by students who are given a chance to acquire and apply knowledge, skills and feelings in an immediate and relevant setting. Experiential learning thus involves a, ‘direct encounter with the phenomena being studied rather than merely thinking about the encounter, or only considering the possibility of doing something about it.’ (Borzak 1981: 9 quoted in Brookfield 1983). The second type of experiential learning is ‘education that occurs as a direct participation in the events of life’ (Houle 1980: 221). David A. David A. David A. Issues Non-learning: Boud.
Change Magazine - September-October 2010 by Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist. While we will elaborate on this assertion, it is important to counteract the real harm that may be done by equivocating on the matter. In what follows, we will begin by defining “learning styles”; then we will address the claims made by those who believe that they exist, in the process acknowledging what we consider the valid claims of learning-styles theorists. What is a Learning Style? The claim at the center of learning-styles theory is this: Different students have different modes of learning, and their learning could be improved by matching one's teaching with that preferred learning mode. The most popular current conception of learning styles equates style with the preferred bodily sense through which one receives information, whether it be visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (for some reason, no one claims that there are tactile or olfactory learners). Why Should College Educators Care? 1.
Connectivism as Epistemology Responding to questions from Vance McPherson 1) What is your response to Rita Kop's suggestion that connectivism is a new epistemology but not a new learning theory? As I understand Rita, she understands the pedagogical aspects of connectivism to have already been present in constructivism, and hence, connectivism is not proposing something new when it comes to giving guidance to instructional staff. Connectivism is *definitively* a learning theory, or more accurately, incorporates learning theories (specifically, theories about how connections are formed in networks). But all of that said, whether connectivism is a *new* theory of epistemology or pedagogy is irrelevant to me and I don't spend any time worrying about it. 2) My understanding of connectivism is currently as both epistemology and learning theory, which presupposes that it has ALWAYS been correct and is not contingent upon modern technological developments to "work." Other aspects of the theory change over time. 3) M.
Leerstijlen & e-Learning Leerstijlen zijn niet onomstreden. Toch worden ze binnen het onderwijs en in mindere mate binnen het bedrijfsleven en overheid veelvuldig gebruikt. Ook binnen e-Learning. Manier van inzetten leerstijlen Wikipedia geeft als definitie: Leerstijlen zijn redelijk eenvoudig in kaart te brengen. Leerstijlen(tests) kunnen op meerdere manieren worden ingezet. Om lerenden inzicht te geven in de eigen voorkeuren. Leerstijlen zijn in te delen in verschillende categorieën. Zintuiglijke leerstijlpreferentieDVC surveyLeerstijl gekoppeld aan motivatieApters’ MSPLeerpreferentiesKolb LSI (erg bekend en veelgebruikt)Honey & Mumford LSQ (erg bekend en veelgebruikt)Herrmann HBDIRiding CSALeerstrategieënVermunt ILS Onderzoek over leerstijlen Er worden zeer veel verschillende leerstijlmodellen/testen aangeboden maar hoe kan een goede keuze worden gemaakt? Als u onderstaande tabel even groot ‘opklikt’ kunt u zien dat de meeste testen maar matig scoren. Leerstijlen voor de e-Learning ontwerper Conclusie
leren & leertheorie Leren en leertheorieën De belangrijkste leertheorieën die we op dit moment kennen zijn: BehaviorismeCognitivismeConstructivisme en een variant daarop het Sociaal constructivismeConstructionismeConnectivisme De volgorde waarin deze leertheorieën staan is tevens de volgorde waarin ze zijn ontstaan, waarbij het behaviorisme de oudste leertheorie is. Wat leren is, wordt vanuit verschillende leertheorieën op een andere wijze beschreven. Dit is natuurlijk een erg ingekorte typering van de leertheorieën. Omdat in iedere leertheorie op een andere wijze tegen “leren” wordt aangekeken, worden vanuit deze leertheorieën ook andere instructiemethoden bedacht en wordt het gebruik van e-learning daarbinnen op andere wijzen ingepast. Leertheorieën en het gebruik van e-learning Tussen de diverse leertheorieën bestaan grote verschillen, die duidelijk worden weerspiegeld in de wijze waarop e-learning wordt ingezet in het leerproces.
Understanding by Design Understanding by Design, or UbD, is a tool utilized for educational planning focused on "teaching for understanding" advocated by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins in their Understanding by Design (1998), published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The emphasis of UbD is on "backward design", the practice of looking at the outcomes in order to design curriculum units, performance assessments, and classroom instruction. "Understanding by Design" and "UbD" are registered trademarks of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ("ASCD"). According to Wiggins, "The potential of UbD for curricular improvement has struck a chord in American education. Backward design Understanding by Design relies on what Wiggins and McTighe call "backward design" (also known as "backwards planning"). The Backward design approach is developed in three stages. Stage 2 focuses on evidence of learning by assessment. Teaching for understanding
Student-Centered versus Student-Led Education | ThreeJoy℠ Associates, Inc. 12 Oct 2012 by David E. Goldberg, Comments Off It is increasingly commonplace to hear calls for student-centered education, but increasingly I’ve been thinking that the term doesn’t go far enough and have been using the term student-led learning instead. First, a lot of language concerning education has teacher-centered bias built in. Second, many of the most compelling educational experiences extant are those in which students genuinely lead the effort. Embedded in this distinction are also important issues of control, trust, and courage (here). Framing the question as student-led learning rather than student-centered education is an important linguistic step in letting the kids drive the car of their own educations. share
Pop Quiz! What Type Of Learner Are You? The Current State Of Technology In K-12 7.63K Views 0 Likes What is the next device most students will soon purchase? 5 Reasons We Use Social Media 11.54K Views 0 Likes There are many reasons we use social media. Theories of Learning Here you will find lots of information about theories of learning that have been developed over the past 150 years. Teachers and students of educational psychology, curriculum development, instructional methodology and related areas will find useful information. Brief biological sketches of the theorists are provided, when such information is available. Theories about human learning can be grouped into four broad "perspectives". The development of these theories over many decades is a fascinating story. There is also information here about general theories of learning, memory, and instructional methodology. Read brief descriptions of these four general perspectives here: Learning Theories: Four Perspectives Within each "perspective" listed below, there may be more than one cluster of theories. 1. Classical Conditioning: Stimulus/Response Ivan Pavlov 1849-1936 Classical Conditioning Theory Behaviorism: Stimulus, Response, Reinforcement John B. 3. 4. 5. 6.
What is UbD™? Understanding by Design® (UbD™) is a framework for improving student achievement. Emphasizing the teacher's critical role as a designer of student learning, UbD™ works within the standards-driven curriculum to help teachers clarify learning goals, devise revealing assessments of student understanding, and craft effective and engaging learning activities. Developed by nationally recognized educators Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, and published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Understanding by Design® is based on the following key ideas: A primary goal of education should be the development and deepening of student understanding. Students reveal their understanding most effectively when they are provided with complex, authentic opportunities to explain, interpret, apply, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess. In practice, Understanding by Design® offers: The potential of UbD™ for curricular improvement has struck a chord in American education.
Critical Review of Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age In his 2005 article Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Siemens outlined a new way of thinking about learning based on the recent advances in information technology. He argues that this new theory, connectivism, supersedes previous learning theories, including behaviourism, cognitivism, and contructivism. In this post, I am seeking to further my understanding of this new theory, examine its limitations, and consider its relevance to both classroom teaching as well as knowledge management practices within organizations. Defining Connectivism In the article, Siemens outlines the fundamental principles of connectivism: For Siemens, connectivism is a significant departure from previous learning theories because it sees learning occurring outside of the individual, within the network: For connectivists, the starting point is always the individual learner (Siemens, 2005). Applications in the Classroom Applications in Knowledge Management References Couros, A. (2011). Garrison, D.