Instructinal Design & Learning theory

It was a pleasure to read this article/summation by Brenda Mergel (1998) whilst watching my son at hockey practice. It was refreshing to read the comparisons of the different theories and how they underpin learning. It also gave me some insight in the design of this course in the constructivism theory. Some of the things that occurred to me whilst reading included the following:

• I expect that learning theory is evolving just like the human race is evolving and that maybe we are evolving quicker than previous generations
• Each theory has built on the previous theory and that all learning has aspects of the others I like the analogies with the atom.
• I wonder at the influence of our preferred learning style impact on our resistance or embracing/relating to a particular style
• I also wonder about the culture/society in which we grow up in and its impact on our learning. Some cultures and social groups have very defined learning styles/theories and emphasis on learning. And what we take with us into future (formal) learning endeavours. Do those students who have grown up with a predominantly constructivism theory underpinning their learning have less resistance to engaging in creative learning?  Does constructive theory explain the learning achieved by some of our great thinkers who never completed formal training? (some who achieved great things without finishing school)
• There is also social pressure to conform to the rules of a social group and how does this influence learning?
• I agree with the statement that a particular theory may be best suited to a particular environment. For example behaviourist theory might best underpin learning activities that can/should only be done in a particular way. It is easier too, to have a behaviouralist theory as from a personal point of view it requires little actual thinking, reflection, synthesis or application of learning; because you know if you do X you will get Y. Funnily enough it is not as rewarding!
• I question how `embedded' learning can be with constructivism theory underpinning. Rote learning times tables sticks however stuff you learn from experience can also stick. Maybe for some of us `older' learners some ideas are too nebulous; too hard to get hold off and get your head around!
• I can relate to the eclectic design of learning and the need for a teacher to be able to apply the different learning theories to design different learning strategies for different students. To first understand the differing needs, styles and capabilities of the individual students and then apply to the students . Understanding your own preferred learning and I guess teaching style is also essential.
• The discussion forums also fit in the constructivism theory and interesting at students approach to using the forums. Some like me are hesitant, others prolific and I guess maybe some non users but follow. I wonder if this relates to our preferred learning styles and underpinning theories.
• I love the idea of an anchor and can identify the need for it and how it is incorporated in this course. Also using Blooms taxonomy moving from simple tasks to more complex. However to me the tasks weren't so simple (but still engaging) as I couldn't distinguish between what were errors I was making with the technology and what were issues with the technology itself. However the tasks were well scaffolding and there was always assistance through the forums.