A Few Learning Theories

Piaget’s Cognitive-Developmental Theory is based on an invariant sequence of stages of development; every being passes through each stage, in order, at their own pace. The general periods of development are Sensorimotor Intelligence, Preoperational Thought, Concrete Operations, and Formal Operations (Crain, 2011). The underlying idea to Piaget’s theory is that the act of learning comes from within the learner. I agree with the majority of his theory and can make use of it in my own teaching by being aware of the level of development of my students, and using methods that are at or slightly above their developmental capabilities.

Closely related is Kamii’s Constructivism, which could be considered the application of Piaget’s theory. Kamii’s theory is based on Piaget’s idea that children construct their own knowledge. In practice, children should be allowed to work on problems that are of interest to them, and given the opportunity to solve them on their own (Crain, 2011). I wholeheartedly agree that a learner is more successful when problems are solved independently, rather than being told the correct answer and moving on. My own son can attest to my (inadvertent) use of this method: when he asks me a question about something, my answer is another question. It is my hope that in giving him something else to think about, he can glean the information necessary to solve the problem on his own.

Skinner’s Operant Conditioning is based on the idea that behavior is guided by its consequences. A behavior that elicits a positive consequence will be more likely to occur than one that has negative consequences (Crain, 2011). In my class, I plan to use this type of conditioning to guide the behavior of students in order to maintain an environment conducive to learning. I will try to reward students who exhibit good behavior (turning in homework, being respectful, helping other students), and discourage poor behavior (acting up, showing off) by withdrawing attention.

Crain, W. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Learning Styles Tests

        I took the Learning Styles and Strategies test that gives a score based on four sets of “opposites”. For example, an Active learner learns best by doing something active (discussing, collaborating), and Reflective learners prefer to think about the material and work alone. My own test results showed that I am a much more Reflective than Active learner. Between Sensing (facts, details) and Intuitive (the big picture) I lean slightly more toward Sensing. I am slightly more Visual than Verbal. Lastly, I am almost balanced between Sequential (step by step) and Global (gathering all information, then making connections).

The second test I took was the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales. This scale gives a low, moderate, or high score for six different learning styles. My scores were: Independent - moderate (3.8), Avoidant - moderate (2.5), Collaborative - low (1.5), Dependent - moderate (3.3), Competitive - moderate (1.9), and Participant - low (2.3). The only one of these that surprised me was the moderate score in the Avoidant category. Avoidant students do not typically enjoy going to class and are uninterested in the content. On the contrary, I love going to class and learning new things, I would just prefer to do it with as little interaction with other people as possible.

Both tests show that I prefer to do my learning quietly and privately. I tend to avoid collaboration if possible. It makes me wonder a little why I chose such an interactive career. However, teaching and learning, while similar in some ways, are not mutually exclusive. Even though I don’t learn by interacting with others, I can still present material in various ways depending on the needs of my students.

A Personality Test

I took a personality test at http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/. The results are based on a scale developed by Isabel Briggs Myers.  I scored as an ISTP. According to the website:

If your closest personality type is ISTP then you have both a logical and a practical mind and therefore enjoy solving tangible problems. You are very interested in how things work, and may have a tendency to take things apart if you don't know how they work. You may also enjoy using your craftmanslike skills to fix things that are broken, or doing investigative work, collecting facts and clues to find out the truth of what has happened.

I think this is a pretty good estimation of my personality and shows why I have chosen to teach math in particular. When solving a math problem, you have to gather information and put it together in logical ways.

This could also help me in teaching. I can attack the problem (getting all that math into students’ heads) by gathering information (students’ learning styles, standards to be met, students’ previous experiences) and finding a logical way to put it all together.

Hello There!

 Hello there! My name is Andrea and I’m working on my single subject teaching credential in math. I would like to be a junior high algebra teacher, but I am open to teaching high school as well. I decided to teach because I of my tumultuous relationship with math: I love math when I understand it, I hate math when I don’t. I thought if I could help kids understand math, they wouldn’t hate it so much.

I have about a year left before I’m finished with my education and can start working on the education of our youth, so check back here often to see what’s happening on my journey.