The idea of the Information Processing Theory is one
that intrigues me as an Instructional Designer. While I do not believe it wise
to subscribe to any one theory or belief in regards to learning, I do believe
that the study of these theories is helpful in everyday development and
delivery of material. Fortunately, the scope of brain research, learning
theory, and development is constantly changing. As we learn more, and are
exposed to more knowledge, we are able to make more significant connections to
the ways in which learning works for each individual. However, I still hold to
the belief that holding all of these theories with an open hand is wise as
there is not a one size fits all approach when it comes to training and
instructional design.
In my quest to learn more about the Information
Processing Theory, I came across many articles, blog posts, videos, and more.
While many seemed to be valuable resources, I chose to share the following two resources for
my focus and purposes here.
Information
Processing | Simply Psychology
The first article, by Saul McLeod for Simply
Psychology explores the Information Processing Theory step by step. In the
article, he states “the information processing approach characterizes
thinking as the environment providing input of data, which is then transformed
by our senses.” (2008) This resonates with
other material I have read on the topic as well and really speaks to the heart
of the Information Processing Theory. He continues to develop ideas and build
on concepts in a very accessible manner not often found in scholarly writing.
This will be a resource that I return to often to reference as I not only
continue my learning journey, but also seek to impact the learning journeys of
others. I enjoyed the breakdown of the concepts into easily manageable chunks
as well as the inclusion of a lecture from MIT on Attention, or the ideas
behind why we pay attention to certain things and not others-what captures our
attention and how to replicate that for learners.
McLeod expands upon this idea by speaking toward two
varieties of attention. The first is selective attention where we shift our
attention to something previously not attended to. (2008) This really speaks toward how things
spark an interest, how we can capture the attention of our learners via
instructional design. What will pique the interest of our learners enough to
ensure that they acquire and retain the necessary material moving forward? The
second aspect McLeod speaks toward in regards to attention is that of
attentional capacity. This probably intrigued me the most in regards to the
theory as a whole because, to me, it speaks toward the efficacy of
multi-tasking.
We hear often in today’s world that multi-tasking is no
longer thought to be productive. I often instruct my learners during workshop
kickoffs as to the dangers and pitfalls of multi-tasking during a learning
activity. Prior to reading this piece, however it was always a little bit
abstract for me. I understood it to be true, I attempted to instruct others as
to the truth of it-but I never truly connected the dots. McLeod lays out
attentional capacity as simply how many things we can attend to at the same
time. (2008) I think that answer is different for every person and in creating
material, one focus should be to ensure that material is engaging enough as to
discourage participants from maxing out on their attentional capacity via
multi-tasking. My biggest takeaway from this article is in regards to this
concept and its implications for my own learning as well as the learners I
serve.
Information Processing Theory | Education.com
In this article, the authors seek to break down the
Informational Processing Theory into the Information Processing Model (IPM). There
is a great deal of detail around each piece of the three components of memory: sensory
memory, working memory, and long term memory. The premise here is that this is
a successful theory that will lead to successful learning because it is founded
in research.
My biggest takeaway here was the detailed description behind
each type of memory. I found this to be hard to grasp, and the way it was laid
out here really provided a solid framework of understanding. Each of these
pieces of the model really build from and rely on one another and I can see how
this would be understood as the premier theory in educational success due to
its validated research as well as the logic behind it. However, I am certain
that the IPM is not the epitome of learning theories. Much has been learned
since the 1950s, and much will be learned in the coming years, we must continue
to stay flexible as learners and not hold tightly to any one theory or model.
However,
the authors did also address the implications for instruction. I feel this to
be a valuable tool that I can draw from in terms of creating and developing
content. While I would cast my net a little wider, to further encompass other
theories of relevance, the implications for instruction really does lay out a
good framework for quality instruction that will reach a variety of learners. Probably
the most valuable piece for me is the idea of prior knowledge being a
facilitator of acquisition of knowledge. Activating prior knowledge goes so
much deeper than simply asking what the learner knows about a topic, we must
seek to delve into and find out the prior knowledge and experience of our
learners if we are to successfully deliver instruction that will be retained
and implemented moving forward. When a learner cannot clearly see a way or a
reason to implement new ideas, chances are that learner will lean on the
comfort of old strategies, methods, or techniques.
I truly enjoy the opportunity to learn more about research,
development, and theories around learning. I believe that an instructional
designer’s role is to maintain a knowledge level around these things that
allows the content being created to be accessible. However, we must remain
flexible and open to change or new theory if we hope to maintain relevancy to
our learners. Seeking to learn from others is the first step in maintaining
relevancy for today’s Instructional Designer.
REFERENCES:
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Information Processing.
Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/information-processing.html
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M.
(2013, July 12). Information Processing Theory. Retrieved July 06, 2016, from
http://www.education.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment