Learning occurs when the learner takes an active role in the process, when they genuinely want to gain the knowledge, and when they’re challenged to go beyond their limits. Students who are prepared and engaged, taking responsibility, assist with the conveyance of knowledge. Asking questions, attempting to form connections, and explaining in their own words help the teacher to understand where and how to step in. Learning occurs when the learner and the teacher are able to come together so that the information is delivered in a way that works for the student to allow the them to optimally process the information and develop a representative schema.

I honestly haven’t had much formal exposure to the different learning theories per se, but after some research, I feel I subscribe to a combination of cognitivism and constructivism. Likely because of my background in sociology and psychology, I feel they both have valid applications to learning. The two theories involve the development of schemas and linking concepts and thoughts together, however cognitivism focuses on the brain’s cognitive processes of receiving, categorizing, and storing information whereas constructivism focuses on the learner adapting their existing knowledge and understanding of a topic based on context and interaction (with the problem itself or engaging with others who have similar or higher knowledge). On the surface, it seems as though the cognitivist approach views the learner as a “tabula rasa” where they may not have a schema in place, and therefore the structure used in the lesson’s presentation helps to establish it. Visual aids such as flow charts, diagrams, etc. provide structure and order to new information, helping the learner to categorize it for long term memory (memorization). In contrast, the constructivist approach assumes the learner already has a schema in place, so its purpose is to present information to help the learner build upon what they already know (conceptualization). Learners are immersed into the subject matter and given access to view/address the topic/problem from multiple angles (through peer or even expert discussion, kinesthetic or hands on approach, etc.).  Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but each’s effectiveness is based on when and how they are used; for some subjects such as math and science, the cognitivist approach would have an edge over constructivism, which is more effective in the humanities and the arts.

The role of the learner is to be curious and proactive whereas the teacher should be the conduit of knowledge. Vetting legitimate sources and reliable content, the teacher helps the student to become surrounded by the subject, adding clarity and context when appropriate. Like a tour guide into the heart of the subject matter, the teacher offers the student mentorship, helping them to draw the parallels and make the requisite connections to create a solid foundation. Learners have to be active participants, asking questions, finding related content to apply and ultimately reinforce what they know, all the while communicating with the teacher to ensure they are getting what they need to learn.

To know if learning is occurring can be a bit tricky. I believe it requires the teacher to be able to read their student. Students who proactively ask questions, especially those that go beyond the current scope of conversation to form connections with other relevant situations and concepts, are a major indicator. Every time I would instruct a trainee I watched their facial expressions, looked for micro-expressions, nervous ticks (such as fidgeting, playing with hair), repetitive behavior (such as nodding or looking out the window—which could indicate boredom as well), eye contact, note taking, and, of course, the furrowed brow. If I needed to do a “knowledge check”, I would pose a relatively abstract or situational question to see how the learner would think out the process. Because they were intended to be complex, the question would require a little bit of time (and possibly guidance) to fully develop an answer. The point was for the trainee to walk me through their thought process so I could see what connections they made in order to determine if they were on the right track. Additionally, it was a chance to apply what they had learned, helping to give real time feedback. This was immensely helpful for them as well because it was like a mini case study that ended up preparing them for a number of challenges they faced early on after training.

I view technology is a medium to bring depth and dimension. Bringing the subject to life through the use of visual aids such as video or animation, the learner can more completely experience it. Technology provides the ability to create platforms for multiple resources to be concentrated in one place, thus maintaining the knowledge input for continued digestion. Connecting likeminded people, the learner is able to discuss a topic in detail, hearing and/or seeing the same thing presented multiple ways and helping them to see all sides and points of view. Technology can be used to engage multiple senses, increasing the learner’s sense memory, ultimately helping to commit the information to memory.