M. David Merrill (merrill@cc.usu.edu)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:35:49 -0700
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:35:49 -0700 From: "M. David Merrill" <merrill@cc.usu.edu> Subject: Re: "Learning Strategies Then and Now: Same or Different?"
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very late after the discussion is over.
Peter Arashiro's distinction between who is responsible here? the student
or the instruction? inspires me to make the following comment which is at
the heart of my argument.
1. The great goal of education is self-directed learners. I assume that
we all want the learner to ultimately be in charge of their learning.
However, there is ample evidence that many learners don't know how to
learn. If they did we could dispense with this very expensive enterprise
called education and training. However, since they don't then the
collective wisdom of many generations is that some sort of formal education
is required to help them.
2. At the heart of my argument is that a student must engage in those
activities (conditions of learning) that are required for them to acquire a
particular kind of knowledge or skill. These activities can be directed by
an instructional system (live or technology-based) or they can be engaged
in by the student on their own. However, (a) many instructors do not know
these fundamental instructional strategies so much of what passes for
instruction is inadequate and does not adequately implement these
fundamental learning activities. (b) Most students are unaware of these
fundamental instructional (learning) strategies and hence left to their own
are unlikely to engage in learning activities most appropriate for
acquiring a particular kind of knowledge or skill.
3. My fundamental argument, the basis of my initial comments for this
discussion, is that (a) there are certain fundamental learning activities
that are necessary if a student is to efficiently and effectively acquire a
particular kind of knowledge or skill. (b) These fundamental learning
activities have not changed over the last decade, generation, or century.
(c) These fundamental learning activities cut across subject matter
domains. (c) A learner can engage in these fundamental learning
activities in a wide variety of delivery systems (ranging from live
instruction to exploring the internet), in a wide variety of instructional
architectures (receptive, directive, guided discovery, or exploratory) and
in a wide range of social contexts (individual study to highly interactive
cooperative learning environments). Finally, these learning activities can
be suggested, directed, coached, monitored, or promoted by an instructional
system or these learning activities can be initiated by the learner
themselves.
4. Bottom line. If a learner (whatever the context of learning) does not
engage in the learning activities that are appropriate for, and consistent
with, a given kind of knowledge or skill then there will be a decrement in
the learning effectiveness, efficiency and appeal.
Do we know all the answers for these fundamental learning activities? NO.
That is the role of a science of instruction and a technology of
instructional design, to continue to explore and find these fundamental
principles. Do we know some of these fundamental learning activities? YES
Do we use what we know? SELDOM.
Thanks for letting me express my opinion. Thanks for letting me be
involved in this discussion. I apologize for this late wrap-up comment.
Cordially
M. David Merrill
At 09:27 AM 2/11/99 -0500, you wrote:
>List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
>Details of current discussion: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/discuss.html
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Elaine Van Melle wrote:
>
>
>
>>The point however has been made a number of
>
>> times but is worth repeating - there does not appear to be one single
>
>> definition or construct of "learning style". Lynn Curry provides a good
>
>> overview of what happens when the complexity of the concept is not
>
>> considered. Basically you end up discussing apples and oranges. This brings
>
>> me to my second point.
>
>>
>
>> Given this level of complexity why is it necessary to isolate pieces
>
>> thereby pitting instructional strategy versus learning style?
>
>
>
>I believe part of the reason for pitting these two ideas against one
>
>another has to do with people's ideas about who is, or should be,
>
>responsible for the learner's acquisition of skills/knowledge. A quote
>
>from Thomas Armstrong's book "Mulitple Intelligences in the Classroom"
>
>says:
>
>
>
>"Recent research in cognitive psychology applied to education has
>
>supported the notion that children benefit from instructional approaches
>
>that help them reflect upon their own learning processes (see Marzano
>
>1988). When children engage in this kind of metacognitive activity,
>
>they can select appropriate strategies for problem solving. They can
>
>also serve as advocates for themselves when placed in new learning
>
>environments."
>
>
>
>This would imply that children (or learners) are quite capable of taking
>
>responsibility for their own learning if they know what their learning
>
>styles (or preference based on "multiple intelligences") are. This
>seems to be a pretty huge responsibility to place on learners,
>especially those who are "novice learners" or those who are learning
>something quite new.
>
>
>
>On the other hand, those in the instructional strategy "camp" rely on
>
>sound instructional principles (based on science) to determine "what is
>best" for
>
>students; responsibility is placed on the instructional strategies to
>
>ensure acquisition of skills/knowledge. Of course the only way for this
>to work in the classroom would be for the teacher to APPLY and TRUST in
>these instructional strategies.
>
>It seems to me that teachers who design their instruction primarily
>around ideas of learning style/multiple intelligence exert a lot of
>energy trying to meet these individual differences and not know for sure
>whether or not concepts, principles, procedures, identification of
>parts, and information are being learned.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Peter Arashiro
>Instructional Designer
>Lansing Community College
>peter_arashiro@lansing.cc.mi.us
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Forum website: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/
>Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
>Info on Join/Leave List: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/maillist.html
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
M. David Merrill, Professor
Utah State University, E-229
Department of Instructional Technology
2830 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-2830
Phone: 435 797-2698
Fax: 435 752-5827
email: merrill@cc.usu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 24 Feb 1999 - 20:58:16 MET