Hey everyone!
As you all know, in this module we're talking about learning theories.
And I wanted to start off with this because I know
learning theories can be a little bit intimidating
when you're first starting off in this program.
I know I was definitely freaking out
when I first started here.
Another reason why I wanted to cover this
is that I've noticed in teaching other classes
that sometimes students conflate the educational moments
in Engaging Minds as learning theories
when they're actually meant to a way of organizing
these different ideas and the evolution of modern schooling.
So for example, in writing a teaching philosophy
- because yes, other courses do this assignment too -
I've seen students list things like Democratic Citizenship Education
as their influencing theory, and they cite Engaging Minds.
But there's actually a lot of different theories and concepts
that are contained within this moment.
So I just wanted to make sure we touched on some learning theories
before we really delve into our course text.
But before we do that, I just want to quickly know
what our tasks for this module are.
Please ensure you've completed Module 1 [Part 1]
particularly reading the syllabus and watching The Syllabus Overview.
This video has some pretty important information in it.
Please also write a quick introduction and/or
fill out my survey so I can create our MLC groups.
And for this week for your readings you have
some articles and videos.
Once you've reviewed these, you can move on to the
online activity for this week, which is creating a mind map
based on the focused readings that you choose to do.
And once I send you the information about your MLC group,
please connect with one another.
So you'll need to delegate the roles for each module,
especiall next week,
and start deciding how and when you want to connect.
So you may be asking,
why is theory important to educational practice?
Rachel, I want to be a nurse educator,
not a researcher or a prof.
Do I actually need to know this?
Is this even relevant?
And to that, I say yes!
Theory isn't something just for academics,
and is relevant to our practice as educators too.
Such as, for example, when we feel lost
and like we're just flying by the seat of our pants.
We may feel like we need a set of guiding principles.
For example, last Fall I was asked to teach a class.
I was asked on Wednesday night,
and my first class was that Friday morning.
So I felt completely lost!
So I turned to complexity science and adult learning theory
to help me plan my classes.
So learning theories give us that guiding set of principles
to inform our teaching.
Learning theories also help us understand what
drives and impedes learning.
And putting principles of learning theories into practice
can improve our teaching.
Now, there's a few different ways we can organize this discussion.
Here I'm going to be talking about this from
more of a complexity science perspective
since that's the major learning theory that influences my practice.
So I'm gonna be pulling a lot on the work of
Brent Davis from University of Calgary -
and if that name sounds familiar, it's because
he is the author of Engaging Minds
- since his work influences a lot of my research and educational practice.
Specifically, I'm gonna be using the idea of
"nested systems" to frame this presentation.
And he actually talks about nested systems in the
fourth moment of Engaging Minds.
I'm also gonna show you quickly here
how I've adapted this model for my own thesis
to organize different learning theories that I'm using.
And at the end of the presentation, I'm gonna give you
some concrete examples of how complexity science has
influenced my planning of this course.
So here's a nested system.
And this educational nested systems diagram
originates from within mathematics education.
In a nested systems diagram, different systems or levels
are shown as being nested within one another.
So it's a series of concentric circles
with each circle representing a different level or system.
And these systems dynamically interact with one another
and as learners we are enmeshed in many of these different systems.
We can also influence these other systems.
For example, we can shape our social groups
just as they can shape us.
Now, obviously things aren't this clean cut in real life.
And there can be a lot of different overlap between these different levels.
This is just one way of organizing these different ideas.
We can also use this model to explore
learning and knowing at each level.
And this is how I've adapted this model for my own thesis
with complexity science providing an overall
epistemological umbrella for justifying and mixing these different theories.
These are some examples of how theory can be applied
within our nested system.
For example, constructivism to understand individual learning.
So I'm gonna give you a very brief overview of some of these theories here,
specifically looking at the individual,
interpersonal or collectives,
community, and systems levels.
And for your focused readings, you'll have the opportunity
to explore one of these in more depth.
So for each of these levels, I've picked one very common learning theory
that you will definitely be hearing about in your program.
So for this presentation we'll be talking about constructivism,
social constructivism,
community of practice,
and complexity science.
Now with each of these levels,
there's a number of different learning theories that can fall under
the Individual level.
Such as mentalism, behaviourism, and constructivism.
And as I said, I'm gonna focus more on constructivism here
just 'cause this is probably the learning theory you'll
hear about the most.
But if you do choose to do the focused readings for this level
in Dr. McMurtry's "Focusing on the Individual" video
you will hear him talk about these other theories as well.
So constructivism is usually associated with
the work of Jean Piaget
and that's a picture of him over there.
And he argued that learning should be compared to the
growth of living organisms
rather than mechanical metaphors,
such as those used in behaviourism and mentalism.
So in short, constructivism is really about connecting new knowledge
to pre-existing knowledge.
Now, how is this done?
Well, in constructivism people are understood as learning
by reorganizing their mental representation of the world
- or schema -
to adapt to their circumstances.
So when a new experience is aligned with that existing schema
that they hold,
it is assimilated into the schema.
But when an existing scheme doesn't fit their new experience,
it needs to be changed.
This is called accomodation.
In constructivism,
an individual's knowing is therefore
a subjective construal of meaning.
Learning and knowing is a matter of what fits
with the individual's current physical and social experiences;
it's not correspondence with some sort of
objective "Truth" that's out there.
Now what does this mean for us as teachers?
Well, here the teacher is a facilitator
rather than someone who just transmits knowledge to learners.
In other words, learners' minds are not just seen as
an empty vessel that we need to "pour" knowledge into.
The facilitator then sees learning as being based on
the previous experience and knowledge of our learners,
and the facilitator supportively challenges
and elaborates on learners' existing knowledge.
So as educators,
we need to pick teaching strategies that actively engage
students in the learning process
rather than assigning them a very passive role.
So some food for thought.
Do you think knowledge is really just a subjective,
individual construction?
Now we're gonna switch things up and look at collectives
or the interpersonal.
And there are many theories that look at learning at the collective level.
Such as socio-cultural theory, social constructivism,
constructionism.
And we're gonna be looking more at social constructivism here.
So social constructivism shifts the focus
from the individual to social processes.
In this vein of thought, human knowledge
is seen as being collectively produced.
Thus, learning should be understood in terms of
participation in social practices,
such as language and work,
which both enable and constrain our thinking.
And Lev Vygotsky is an important name here.
His work was on the social roots of learning.
In short, individual knowledge originates in social interactions
and is then internalized within the person.
So while in constructivism knowing was constructed,
Vygotsky would argue that it is co-constructed.
So put simply, most mental functions start out between people
before they become part of an individual's thinking.
So learning happens socially before it then becomes internalized.
A few important concepts here are "zone of proximal development"
and "scaffolding".
So the "actual development level" is what
someone can do right now.
But the "zone of proximal development" is
the range of tasks that are too difficult for the learner
to master alone,
but they can be learned with assistance.
So what was once the zone of proximal development
can become the actual developmental level.
"Scaffolding" is in short a technique wherein
the educator supports the learner.
The level of support and guidance is adjusted
gradually reducing for each task
to fit the learner's current performance level.
And it's important to note that scaffolding
doesn't necessarily have to be provide by a formal educator.
It can even be a more advanced peer providing the scaffolding.
So what does this all mean for educators?
Well, we have to keep in mind that learning unfolds through
social interaction and group practices.
So you would want to pick teaching strategies that would enable thus.
Other students should also be seen as resources
for learning, which we can harness through our group work.
We would also want to consider scaffolding
within the zone of proximal development of our learners.
so we don't want to aim our efforts below
the zone of proximal development,
but we also don't want to go way above it either.
So while group work is important here,
we do need to pay consideration to how to
best structure group interactions and activities.
So being a social constructivist teacher
doesn't mean we have a teacherless classroom.
So some food for thought for this one.
So if we're all socially constructed,
how can we explain individual differences in the same group?
And is knowledge really just a social construction?
What about the physical world around us?
So for the community level, we're talking about Community of Practice.
And those of you in healthcare may have heard of this one before
because it does get adapted quite a bit in our field.
So like social constructivism,
Community of Practice (or CoP as you'll hear me calling it)
sees learning as being a social process.
So it does have quite a few similarities to social constructivism,
but it is meaningfully different.
So the focus here is very much on the social dynamics piece
rather than what's just going on inside peoples' heads.
And that's where CoP theory differs from Vygotsky's social constructivism.
While he was concerned about what social practices
mean for individual learning,
communities of practice remain focused on the social level of learning.
So community of practice is a group of people who share
an interest, a craft, and/or profession.
The group can evolve naturally because of members' common interests
in a particular domain or area,
or it can be created specifically with the goal of gaining knowledge
related to their field.
It is through the process of sharing information and experience
with the group that members learn from each other,
and have the opportunity to develop personally and professionally."
So this idea of community of practice was first introduced
by Lave and Wenger
back in their 1991 book,
"Situated Learning".
Community of practice is a social learning theory
that understandings learning and knowing as an
active participation in complex social learning systems.
Now, there's a few important core tenets of community of practice
in the above quote that I just wanna highlight.
So the first is that members of a CoP share an
interest, a craft, or a profession.
They can evolve naturally or they can be created
to gain knowledge.
And learning occurs through sharing information and experience.
So here learners attune themselves to social practices
rather than "taking in" the information.
It also looks at learning outside of the classroom,
such as in the workplace.
So some key characteristics here are
mutal engagement,
joint enterprise,
shared repertoire,
and legitimate peripheral participation.
So with mutual engagement we're talking about
individuals in the CoP interacting with one another.
Through this mutual engagement, they are able to create shared mearnings.
Members of a CoP learn by sharing information and experience,
particularly tacit knowledge.
Joint enterprise is referring to whereby the group is
working together towards a common goal.
And overtime, CoPs develop and utilize a shared repertoire of knoweldge.
And this includes resources and jargon.
So legimate peripheral participation is when a novice in the community
(let's say a first year surgical resident)
moves from the periphery of the community towards the centre
(so say, a more experienced orthpaedic surgeon)
by actively participating in some social practices.
And their learning is occurring through their
increasing level of participation within that community of practice.
So as teachers, here we can see ourselves
more as facilitators or leaders.
We should focus our attention on the social structures
education is taking place in.
And this can include informal communities of practice
that can exist even within the formal confines
of our educational system.
And there are some practical strategies that we can use here.
So try to use ‘real’ tasks where you can
rather than having make-work assignments
And keep the idea of legitimate peripheral participation in mind.
Are learners getting to interact with more advanced, experienced practitioners?
Are they moving towards more central participation in their community?
So while communities of practice was developed as a learning theory,
it often gets used as a management tool
And I have seen this quite a bit in healthcare.
So as educators,
how do we reconcile the tension between
individual’s need for professional development
versus the “bottom line” of our workplace?
So now we move on to systems and Complexity Science.
which is a theory that heavily influences my own
educational research and practice.
So complexity science seeks to describe the behaviour
of complex adaptive systems – or a CAS –
as a whole and their interacting component parts.
So CAS are self-organizing systems
and they arise from this interaction of their component parts.
And these systems cannot be taken apart
to fully understand them.
As you would with say a car or a watch.
Some examples of CAS include organ systems,
the human body,
societies, classrooms, and you!
For those of you in healthcare,
things like a primary care practice would also be considered a CAS.
So as you can see here,
I can’t just take these things a part to fully understand them.
So for example, you can't take me apart
and reduce me to my organ systems
to understand me because you will destroy the whole
that these components are giving rise to.
So I am more than the sum of my parts.
Now I've kind of alluded to this here,
but let's talk a little bit more in-depth about what I mean by
"arising from the interaction of their component parts?”
Well, these CAS come to be because of the
interaction occurring between the agents or components that comprise them.
So our class and what we can know in this course
arises from the interaction between all of you!
So in this regard, CAS belong to both smaller and larger systems.
So for example, you yourself are a CAS
that is comprised of microsystems
(like your organ systems, your immune system)
and you also contribute to the emergence of macrosystems
(such as society, culture, our 5101 class).
So you cannot be understood
by just looking at your organs or immune system.
And likewise, our class can’t be understood
by looking at each individual learner in isolation.
So complexity science talks more about "knowing"
than knowledge because what we know is constantly changing.
So here knowing merely means something merely knows
how to interact effectively with something else.
But because these CAS co-evolve (or learn
with one another and their dynamic circumstances,
knowing can only ever be provisional
rather than about finalized truths.
Complexity science also allows us to use the Nested Systems model
because it sees the different levels (or systems) as being nested
within one another rather than being contradictory.
So when selecting a learning theory,
a complexity scientist considers which theory would
best explain learning at that level.
Now, complexity science doesn’t really prescribe any sort of
“best practices” for teaching,
but there’s a number of ways that we can adapt this theory
for our classrooms.
So for example,
considering diversity and redundancy,
enabling constraints,
neighbouring interactions, and decentralized control.
So what do I mean by these?
So diversity involves harnessing the rich background experiences
and education that our learners are bringing into our classroom.
And redundancy ensures that our learners
have some common ground so they can actually interact
with one another.
Diversity and redundancy are great principles to follow
follow when you're designing group work.
And I'll give you an example of this in a moment.
Enabling constraints is another helpful concept.
While we don’t want our classes to be “anything goes”
(because that would be complete, total chaos!)
we also don’t want to be too structured
because this doesn’t leave much room for innovation and learning!
So we need to provide some structure while
while also leaving room for innovation.
So within our bodies,
our organs need to work together to keep us alive;
and this is neighbouring interactions.
So neighbouring interactions allow students or learners to
“bump up” against one another and interact
because they need to be able to influence one another.
And while this perhaps isn’t as life or death in a classroom
as it is with regards to organ systems,
it’s still very important to learning.
And decentralized control is the last one here.
So as a teacher, we cannot control everything.
Trying to do so will likely result in boredom
or a full-on rebellion from our learners!
So it is better to engage your students in the unfolding
of the classroom ideas and activities.
Now you still need to ensure that the focus stays on the subject matter,
maintaining boundaries, and managing the classroom,
but here the role of the teachers is more of a Guide.
So let's talk a little bit about diversity and redundancy.
So within our class when I'm creating the discussion groups,
I'm going to be ensuring there is diversity
within each group.
So we wanna have some differences in experiences,
we wanna have different professions.
So we don't wanna have one group
say of all nurses
because then that's not going to give you a lot of richness
in your discussions.
But in our MLC groups, we also want to have
some redundancy or commonality amongst the group members.
So some similar interests, some similar backgrounds,
similar work contexts, maybe career aspirations.
Something to bring the group together.
So you can also foster this more generally
through getting discussion groups to focus on a common reading
and share their diverse ideas.
Which we are also doing in this course!
Enabling constraints and neighbouring interactions.
So our assignments very much use the concept of enabling constraints.
So while I do give some structure
like word count, due dates,
so that you have this structure and are still meeting
the learning objectives for the course,
I don't dictate was aspects of the readings
you need to write on.
Or what topics you need to choose for your assignments
for example.
This can also be supported through general social interactions in your classroom
providing constrasting readings, etc.
Decentralized control.
So while I try to act as a guide for the class,
I do involve my students in making decisions.
In this regard we are practicing decentralized control.
So for example, allowing groups to pick their own
supplementary resources for the MLC groups,
allowing you to control you own group's schedule,
letting the discussant write the discussion questions
rather than me giving you specific ones
that you need to follow for that module.
So these are just a few examples of how I've used
complexity science to plan this course.
And that's all for now, folks!
Thanks for making it to the end.
I hope this introduction to learning theories
was helpful and made learning theories
a little bit less intimidating.
And hopefully you can also see some of the
practical applications to your practice.
Please let me know if you have any questions,
'cause I know we've covered a lot of ground here.
And as always, I will see you all online!