While I may use a behaviouralist
approach to teaching physical procedures, I’m more likely to use a cognitivist
approach to teaching processes. The processes may incorporate the procedures
which were taught behaviourally, but greater emphasis is placed on the
information processing that occurs mentally, the stimulus evaluation and
decision making that leads to a response.
An example would be learning how to structure a balance assessment for a
client. This would make use of skill in
applying electrodes, which has been taught previously using a behaviourist
approach.
On reading the citation from Harasim1
“The learning sequence is led by the teacher as a didactic approach to
individualized learning” I was reminded of another quote, credited to Edwin
Slosson2, “College is a place where a professor’s lecture notes go
straight to the students’ lecture notes, without passing through the brains of
either.”
This resonates with me, as one of my first year lecturers in speech
pathology spent every lecture dictating his notes to us. Consultation with fellow speech pathology
students in the second year of the course quickly established that this had
been his practice for many years, with course material varying little from year
to year. Had the class size not been so
small that regular absences would have been obvious and acted on, our learning
would have been just as effective if we had all copied the lecture notes from a
previous year and designated one student each lecture to attend and scribe any
variation in the material. Fortunately for current learners, this
lecturer has long since retired and didactic lectures have been supplemented
with problem based learning, often in groups.
While I have always sought not to
emulate this example, in truth there have been multiple times when expediency
has led me to adopt a didactic cognitivist approach, when a constructivist
approach would have provided a richer learning experience. This has usually related to time pressure,
the time available to develop the learning materials or the amount of learner
time allocated. This will be an ongoing
consideration for me, working in a professional services business, where the
value placed on staff development must be weighed against the lost opportunity
cost of time not spent in client contact.
This is where I currently see great potential in eLearning as part of a
blended learning approach, providing
tools that will enable me to systematically, over time, design learning
activities that are truly learner centred. Materials that can be accessed asynchronously
and opportunistically, supporting the learner in venturing (or leaping) away
from the learning system and then returning to reflect and share. Doing this requires more frequently moving
away from the cognitivist approach, with the limitation this places on the
learner’s ability to work independently and self-determine the focus of study.
This will also require me to broaden
the focus from being predominantly on content to including learning skills and
technology literacy. In doing so I must
remember the range of learners I work with, from Mitch who blithely reminds me
that he is a digital native – expecting that you should be able to swipe,
touch, or press and have everything work as expected – to Denise who feels
apprehensive each time she is faced with a new software program and needs to be
reminded that shutting down and rebooting the computer is a key step in any
troubleshooting process. Enrolling in
this course is part of my personal journey to develop technology literacy.
Digital, asynchronous learning also
provides a means to support staff in the development of other skills which are
not directly related to their position descriptions. For example, a benefit of working in the
private sector is that changes can be implemented quickly in response to
alterations in the business environment.
A corollary of that is that constant change can be stressful to some
employees. Digital learning has the potential to provide access to resources
that will help them understand and manage their reaction to change.
I experienced this on a small scale
when I introduced the use of a cloud based learning system (Edubrite) as a way
of delivering a limited number of electronic modules. The modules followed many of Gagne’s design
aspects – but differed from a strictly cognitive design in that learners
weren’t constrained in the order they could take modules. Enhanced transfer opportunities were limited
in the module, referring mostly to practical in-clinic sessions.
I was very interested to read on Suzy Romanelli’s blog about Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping
process, which she describes as “reflective
of Gagne’s approach sequenced differently by giving the learner the opportunity
to attempt activities and/or assessment first and provide information secondly.”
This model seems more flexible to
meet the variation in preferred individual learning styles, and I hadn’t heard
of it previously.
This segues to a second important factor
about my historical teaching style. I
haven’t, until very
(very)
recently used a specific andragogy as the basis for learning design. That isn’t to say that there hasn’t been
delivery of quality learning experiences, but it has been as much by instinct
and experience as by conscious design. There
has been a strong element of apprenticeship or experiential learning, which is
relatively aligned to Miller’s Pyramid or Dreyfus’s model of skill acquisition 4. In Dreyfus’s approach the learner progresses
through the stages of novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient to
expert. As they progress along the continuum there is a decreasing reliance
on rules and greater reliance on intuition, increased ability to identify and
focus on relevant information and enhanced metacognitive ability. In my workplace, historically staff have tended to be compliance and rule
focused. A current aim of our training
program is to facilitate the transition from operating at a technician or
competent level, to becoming clinicians who develop proficiency and expertise.
However the absence of an
adragogical base means that, looking back I can identify many activities that
were teacher focused rather than learner focused, and tasks that either failed
to achieve the intended learning outcome or were inefficient in delivering the
outcome.
A perpetual problem has been
scheduling clinical caseloads so a ‘more knowledgeable other’ is available to model and mentor desired clinical skills. Invariably clients would reschedule or
cancel, either the mentor or learner would be away on sick leave, or the mentor
would be called on to fit in an urgent case compromising the time allocated for
the mentoring experience. This resulted
in a gap between the theoretical and practical sessions which markedly reduced
the efficacy of the theory sessions.
An advantage of electronic materials
is that they can be revisited, web case conferences can be recorded and recordings
of modelled interactions could be used to supplement hands on experience. High fidelity simulations are not readily
available in the field of audiology and the cost is prohibitive to a company of
our size, with little probability the investment could be shared with other
audiology providers.
1
Harasim, L. (2011) Learning theory and online technology: How new technologies are transforming
learning opportunities. New York:
Routledge Press. Cited in CQUniveristy
e-courses EDEL20001: Learning theory in the digital age, http://moodle.cqu.edu.au.
3. Romanelli, S.
(2014, March 15). Knowledge and Learning: Objectivists Approaches [Web
log post]. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from
http://suzy-e-learning.blogspot.com.au
4.
Dent, JA and Harden, RM. (Ed) (2013) A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers 3rd
edition. Churchill
Livingstone. Elsevier.
