Baking Bread and Teaching Chemistry - My Updated Personal Learning Theory
My understanding of learning is written by personal experience. In my perspective, learning is a dynamic process driven by curiosity, engagement, and repetition. I believe that individuals construct their understanding of the world through trial and error and repetition, whether it is through hands-on experiences, dialogue with others, or internal exploration. Learning occurs most effectively when learners are empowered to explore topics that resonate with them personally, allowing for deeper connections and meaning-making. Mistakes are seen as valuable stepping stones rather than obstacles, fostering resilience and growth. Moreover, I believe that learning is a lifelong journey, where one continuously seeks new knowledge and perspectives to expand their understanding of the world and themselves.
My journey in learning: Teaching has been my passion since childhood. I remember (probably to their annoyance) explaining things to my little friends, and they likely thought I was a know-it-all. I began tutoring in college, and that is when my thirst for teaching became very real. The methods of breaking down complex topics and concepts into understandable bites and ensuring that knowledge was successfully conveyed were like a drug to me. Then, as I progressed in my career and began teaching college students, I realized just how addicted I was to the science of conveying knowledge. During this time, while not formal, I realize now that I have formulated at least a rudimentary form of a personal knowledge theory.
Constructing knowledge: I believe that knowing has many levels. I agree partly with Benjamin Bloom in that the cognitive domain has levels. We can know things on a spectrum from shallow awareness to mastery. For example, if I tell my students to make sure that they know electron configurations, they may have a different understanding of what I mean by "know." I may mean that they need to be able to derive an element's electron configuration from its atomic number. In contrast, they may think they should only know what an electron configuration is. We would both be correct in that they would "know," but I would expect a much deeper level of cognition than mere recall or awareness.
Knowledge is acquired using our senses; knowledge is the data stored when we know. Humans are imperfect data storers, though. If we were computers, educational research would be much easier because learning would be very predictable, and clean input-output experiments would be possible. However, different humans learn at different rates and in different ways. I also believe that people learn better when they are free to explore topics that they find interesting. As a scientist, I believe much learning comes from basic classical conditioning theory. When we do something that doesn't produce the desired result, we modify and try again until we get the desired results. We then know how to repeat that and get the desired results. Basic trial and error. Learners are most effective at learning when they encounter or are free to explore topics that are interesting, fun, or valuable to their lives. These “high value” topics allow for meaning-making and are most easily assimilated into their internal body of knowledge.
Learning through repetition: We humans can know an indescribable number of things, from motor skills to dancing to playing instruments to formulating complex ideas and theories, and we master knowledge through repetition. For example, I like to bake. It is a nice break from the "brain work" that I do day in and day out. I began trying to perfect the sourdough sandwich loaf about ten years ago. It took many tries over and over. Much repetition. But one day, I finally knew how to make a good loaf of sourdough sandwich bread. I had the instructions from day one, but it took repetition and practice to know how to do it. I was motivated to keep trying because I was interested in making the perfect sourdough sandwich loaf, and I found it fun and rewarding.
How I learn: When faced with abstract concepts that I need to learn, my methodology is to find as much reputable content as possible and organize it into a framework of understanding that I can build in my mind. The concept of a theoretical framework is new to me, and honestly, I am still trying to understand precisely what it is. Antonenko's article does an excellent job of explaining conceptual (theoretical) framework, but at the same time, because he uses such broad definitions and is so inclusive of so many variations, I went to YouTube to seek other resources to solidify the concept a little better in my mind.
In its basic form, a theoretical framework helps researchers organize and convey their research problem, methods, relevance, and implications to be more easily understood and to carry more weight. The difference between a "homegrown" theoretical framework and an established one was fuzzy in my mind, as well as practical presentation methods, but as I read and watched, it seems like there is not a clear universal preference for one over the other in these categories and that is why I was having trouble getting a clear picture.
In conclusion, my view of learning emphasizes curiosity, engagement, and repetition as vital components. Teaching has driven my exploration of knowledge acquisition. I believe learning is enhanced through repetition. As my understanding of learning grows, I'm committed to further integrating principles of learning and cognition into my instructional methods.
For more reading:
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470326/
