My Personal Learning Theory
Formulating a personal learning theory seems like a daunting task. Because the field of learning and cognition as a discipline is so new to me, I feel very hesitant to make any broad claims of knowledge about it. What I am confident in is my ability to teach. Teaching has been my passion since childhood. I remember (probably to their annoyance) explaining things to my little friends, and they probably 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. What does it mean to know something? 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. Knowledge is acquired using our senses; knowledge is the data stored when we know.
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.
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. The best we can do in research is to minimize extraneous variables using sophisticated experimental design techniques such as randomization.
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 exactly how to do it.
As a scientist, I believe that a lot of 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.
The concept of a theoretical framework is new to me, and honestly, I am still trying to understand exactly what it is. Antonenko’s article does a good 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 did go 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 “home grown” 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.
When faced with abstract concepts that I need to learn, my methodology is to try to find as much reputable content as possible and to organize it into a framework of understanding that I can build in my mind.
Overall, the exercise in building a personal learning theory has been formative and has made me think critically about my views on learning. I look forward to learning more about learning and cognition and integrating it into my personal learning theory.
For more reading:
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470326/
