Learning Theory 1

Since this is the last formal paper that I must write for my Doctorate in Education with the exception of my dissertation, which is at well under way, I am going to take a little license to explore and be creative with hopes that the reader will understand. I would like to theorize that learning theories are damaging our schools, our society, and our profession. Why can we not just let people learn how they want, what they want, and when they want? Why must learning be so formalized? I would like to propose the idea that by the use of learning theories we have taken the fun out of learning.
How can I say this? It’s easy: I have had three prior courses in learning theory, and learning theory comes up in every professional development course that I have taken or been asked to teach. What I find amazing is that these theories are frequently looked at as being new and unusual thoughts. How old are these theories? They predate our recorded, written history. In the first part of this paper I am going to outline several different learning theories that have made an impact (positive or negative from my view) on education, and then in the second part of this paper I am going to explain my theory, by reflecting on my life as a student, that learning theories are damaging to our education, or profession, and our society.

People have always been interested in learning, at first it was probably simple things like how to build the fire to stay alive, cook ones food, and ward off the enemies. In early times the Ancient Greeks attempted to theorize how people learned, and these theories are surprisingly similar to ones that we have had in more modern times. So, if these are theories have been repeated over time why is it that our schools and our politicians are not paying attention to history? In a prior course with the same instructor I described child development, and the  theories surrounding child development which not surprisingly were developed in conjunction with learning theory and many of these theories intermingle. In this paper I will summarize some of the earlier learning theories, then discuss some adult learning theories, and tie these early and current theories together. I will then pose the question, “are we using learning theories to the
detriment of our learners, and interpreting them as we see fit, or are we really learning about learning theories?” We, as educators, need to identify the next step in these theories and quickly realize that we need to listen to the past to understand the future of education. It is quite possible that schools, as we know them today, are unknowingly using learning theories to damage our education.

Early Theories

Hergenhahn (1982) wrote that the earliest explanations of how people learn started with Plato and Aristotle over 2000 years ago. Sometime between 427 and 347 B.C. Plato began to theorize on learning and based his ideas that every object in the physical sense corresponds with an idea in the abstract sense. For example their is a physical table, and then their is the idea of the table. The idea of the table intersects with the physical form of the table, and thus we have a table. Hergenhahn wrote that Plato believed, “if we attempt to gain knowledge by examining things that we experience through the senses, we will be misled. Sensory information provides only opinion; the abstract ideas themselves are the only bases of true knowledge” (pg. 34). Plato also felt that knowledge was inborn and thus was a nativist. He was also a rationalist because he felt that knowledge could only be achieved through reasoning and evaluation.
Hergenhahn (1982) explained that following Plato was one of his students, Aristotle (384-322 B.C). At first Aristotle followed Plato’s teachings but then began to break away and develop his own ideas. Where Plato did not believe in the value of sensory data (the touch and the feel of knowledge), Aristotle believed that this sensory perception was the basis of all knowledge. Hergenhahm wrote, “Reason, however, was in no way abandoned by Aristotle. He felt sense impressions were only the beginning of knowledge – the mind must then ponder these impressions to discover the laffulness that runs through them” (pg. 35), in other words once a person touches and sees the physical object with his senses, the reasoning power of the mind must evaluate what he has seen. Hergenhahn (1982) then wrote that with the death of Aristotle died the evaluation of knowledge for many centuries. When I read about Plato and Aristotle’s theories and discourse I can’t help but think, “where have I heard this argument before?” I will return to this statement further on in this paper.
In more modern times Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949) was the pioneer of modern learning theory (Hegenhahm, 1982). Thorndike studied learning theory, educational practices verbal behavior, comparative psychology, intelligence testing, and several socio-psychological problems. Thorndike believed that learning was based on trial and error. He recorded times and attempts it took for a rat or mouse to work for, and find, a piece of food. In his experiments he found that learning was incremental and not insightful, in other words learning was a step process and not a huge bound. Thorndike also concluded that learning is a direct function and is not controlled by ideas or reasoning and though his studies were based on animals, humans as mammals followed the same behaviors.
Hegenhahm (1982) explained that Thorndike made his beliefs on education known. He believed that education was a science that should be studied scientifically. Hegenhahm also wrote, “It was obvious to him that there should be a close relationship between the knolwedge of the learning process and teaching practices” (pg. 76). Even in his time Thorndike believed that the more that was discovered about learning, the more that could be used to improve teaching practices. Another important belief that Thorndike had in teaching practices was that he had a low opinion of lecture as a teaching style.

Thorndike (1920) wrote:
The lecture and demonstration methods represent an approach to a limiting extreme in which the teacher lets the pupil find out nothing which he could possibly be told or shown. They frankly present the student with conclusions, trusting that he will use them to lean more. They ask f him only that he attend to, and do his best to understand, questions which he did not himself frame and answer which he did not himself work out. They try to give him an educational fortune as one bequeaths property by will (pg. 188). Thorndike continued to criticize the lecture method that he explained was the most prominent in schools at that time when he wrote that the two biggest problems with the lecture method is that the students may not understand what they hear, and the students do not learn how to think (pg. 189).
Thorndike’s belief that we would discover more about learning and this would affect educational practices as we moved forward has indeed been shown as accurate in the years since his death. His ideas on learning by doing, making one’s knowledge their own, and lecture have been repeated at various times throughout history and I will return to Thorndike later on in this paper. For now, let us move forward.
The next theorist in education was Burrhus Frederic Skinner (Hergenhahn, 1982), who has been credited with behaviorism. Skinner studied human and animal behavior and built upon Thordikes’ beliefs of trial and error as well as the ideas of reward and punishment. Skinner used laboratory experiments and human studies to evaluate the use of punishments and rewards on child behaviors. Skinner argued against the use of punishment because: a) it causes unfortunate emotional byproducts, b) it does not tell what a person should do, it only tells them what they should not do, c) it allows one person to inflict pain on another, d) punishment may not be evenly applied – a child could have been punished once for a behavior and not punished again for
another behavior, e) punishment encourages aggression towards the punishes, and f) punishment can encourage one undesirable response with another undesirable response, it does not solve a problem.

Hergenhahn (1982) described Skinners theory as conditioning. Skinner believed that there where two types of conditioning: first was the classical conditioning, such as you would find when training a pet. For every action their is a response. It may be as simple as the animal associating the sight of a person, the sound of an object, and being fed whenever those sights and sounds occur. The second type of conditioning that Skinner observed was operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is the use of the reward or punishment based on a certain behavior. Operant conditioning was described by Skinner as Radical Behaviorism. In his theory the word operant describes how the behavior operates on the environment.
Skinner (1953) wrote that the best way to eliminate objectionable behavior is to ignore it. Skinner believed that behavior (positive or negative) exists because it is rewarded. With regard to this approach to punishment Skinner wrote:
The most effective alternative process is probably extinction. This takes time but is much more rapid than allowing the response to be forgotten. The technique seems to be relatively free of objectionable by-products. We recommend it, for example, when we suggest that a parent “pay no attention” to objectionable behavior on the part of his child. If the child’s behavior is strong only because it has been reinforced by “getting a rise out of” the parent, it will disappear when this consequence is no longer forthcoming (pg.
192).
According to Hergenhahn (1982), Skinner had different beliefs on learning theory from Thorndike. Skinner believed that it was not necessary to develop complex learning theories. Skinner believed that everything a person learned was tied to behavior and the rewards or punishments of such behavior. While the idea that learning theories are unnecessary and a waste of time are beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to remember Skinner’s ideas of the lack of value in punishment. All of us have seen, or been the victim of, punishment in our school systems and as instructors we may have used some form of coercion (punishment) to enforce classroom rules or to try to motivate students. It is quite possible that educational approaches such as applied behavior analysis, lecture, direct instruction, and curriculum based measurements have been developed based on Skinner’s work. I will return to this conversation of punishment and conditioning later in this paper.
Wink and Putney (1983) described the work of a Russian psychologist Vygotsky in learning theory development. Vygotsky believed that learning must be social. Wink and Putney explained this idea of sociocultural teaching and learning using an example of reading a book. When we read a great book we read it, enjoy it, and then talk about it with friends. Then we talk about it with others, and as we discuss it we can create new knowledge out of this book. When we work in a workshop in team activities we may have listened to a presenter, then we get together into small groups and we talk about what we just heard. Wink and Putney wrote, “when children actively generate knowledge through meaningful classroom participation and activities, they hurry home and tell their families. They are more excited about what they have done in the classroom when they have been a part of the learning process because they own the knowledge, not because a teacher told them so” (pg. 61).
Vygotsky’s theory of learning began with the idea that language (or communication) builds learning. Wink and Putney (1983) wrote that this theory is described in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Learning begins when a learner is introduced to a thought or fact. Then this learner must begin to do something with this thought and build upon it. The amount (or distance) that the learner can move (or build) is the learners ZPD. Vygotsky found that if you place two learners together in a group this Zone of Proximal Development becomes much greater. Vygotsky believed that this is because the group of learners has the ability to communicate with each other and use this thought, language, and communication to expand their knowledge (Wink and Putney, 1983). Unfortunately much of what Vygotsky wrote was not published until far after his death in 1936, and while required reading in a few education schools, his writings are still missing on many reading lists.
Learning Theory 7

Recent Theories

As time continued to move forward other theorists began to add their voices and research to how people learn. Theorists also began to notice that people learn in different ways, and have different inherent skills that make them different from each other. Kolb (1981) wrote:
As a result of our hereditary equipment, our particular life experience, and the demands of our present environment, most of us develop learning styles that emphasize some learning abilities over others. Through socialization experiences in family, school, and work, we come to resolve the conflicts between action and reflection and between immediate experience and detached analysis in characteristic ways. (pg. 237)
Kolb described students learning styles as ones that have been developed based on their development experiences, their life experiences at home, their experiences at play, and at school. For example some children may develop logical minds that allow them to assimilate different facts into theories. Some children may develop minds that allow them to learn by doing, for example taking something apart and putting it together. Some children may develop with minds that allow them to see something, like a video or diagram that allows them to understand a topic. The key is that very few people have a single learning style, but most people have one that is more dominant than another.

Kolb (1981) developed four categories of learning styles: the converger, the diverger, the assimilator, and the accommodator. Each of these four styles has specific ways they assimilate knowledge and interact with others in the classroom. The first style is the converger. Convergers’ primary learning abilities are that of abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. They are drawn to practical application of ideas. Kolb wrote that this person does best in situations where there is a single correct answer, like on a multiple choice standardized test. Liam Hudson (1966) performed separate research on the converger style of learning and concluded that convergers are more likely to want to deal with things than people, as convergers tend to be unemotional. Directly opposite the convergers in learning styles are the divergers.
Divergers excel at concrete experience and reflective observation. Divergers are imaginative and can view a concrete issue from multiple perspectives. Kolb (1981) wrote that divergers are great in brainstorming sessions and are imaginative and emotional. Divergers are more apt to specialize in the arts than the sciences and are apt to choose a career path as a counselor, or in human resource management. Another type of learning style is that of the assimilator.
Assimilators have learning styles that consist of abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. They do well with inductive reasoning, and more often are found within the basic science and mathematical disciplines rather than in the abstract sciences. In industry Kolb (1981) wrote that the assimilators are most often found in research and planning departments. The learning style opposite that of the assimilator is the accommodator. Kolb (1981) described accommodators as having a learning style consisting of active experimentation and concrete experience. Their strengths lie in “doing things, in carrying out plans and experiments and becoming involved in new experiences” (pg. 238). Kolb also described the accommodators as risk takers because in life if a plan does not “fit the facts” they are often apt to ignore the plan. Kolb wrote that in education the accommodators are likely to be found in technical or practical fields and in later life are apt to be found in action-oriented jobs such as sales and marketing (pg.
238). While Kolb theorized on how individuals learn cognitively he did not address how learning was affected by the innate abilities of the individual with respect to mind, body, and relationships, this came later with Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences theory.

Gardner (1983) wrote that individuals do not have a single strength or weakness; rather individuals display a wide range of abilities. In his work Gardner redefined intelligence. He believed that intelligence is not a single skill; rather it is the ability to solve problems, and to meet a goal in a cultural setting. For example if a child understands the sciences easily that child is not more intelligent than the child who does not. The second child may excel in music rather than science and have an entirely different set of abilities. While prior theorists had defined verbal and computational as the two intelligences, Gardner described seven categories of intelligence: logical-mathematical, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, personal intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence. It was Gardner’s belief that each of these intelligences allows a student to be more successful in certain subjects and may cause them to struggle with others.
Gardner (1983) theorized that people with the logical-mathematical intelligence have a better understanding of patterns; people with this intelligence are more apt to think logically and reason deductively. People with this type of intelligence tend to find careers as scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, and mathematicians. In the traditional classroom this intelligence allows the students to adapt to sequentially delivered instruction (McKenzie, 1999).
Gardner (1983) defined the second multiple intelligence as the verbal-linguistic intelligence. Gardner wrote that those with this ability could manipulate language to express themselves rhetorically as well as poetically. Those with this intelligence are also able to use language as means to remember information. They are good at telling stories, reading, writing, and memorizing words as well as dates. People with this intelligence are likely to have careers as writers, lawyers, journalists, poets, politicians, and teachers. In the traditional classroom students with this intelligence adapt to learning by listening to lectures and presentations. This intelligence is also the basis of traditional assessments such as standardized testing (McKenzie, 1999).

Gardner (1983) described the third multiple intelligence as spatial intelligence. This intelligence allows the individual to visualize and manipulate objects. People with this type of intelligence have a strong puzzle solving ability, have a strong visual memory, and are artistically talented. People with spatial intelligence are seen as having good hand-eye
coordination and generally have a good sense of direction. People with this intelligence are likely to become artists, architects, and engineers.
The fourth multiple intelligence that Gardner (1983) described was musical intelligence. People with this intelligence tend to have a greater sensitivity to sound, rhythms, tones and music. They are often able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. Some may have absolute pitch. People with this intelligence often find success in careers as composers, disc jockeys, conductors, orators, singers, instrumentalists, and sales representatives.

Gardner (1983) described the fifth multiple intelligences as bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. This ability has to do with bodily movement and psychology. Those with this intelligence are generally good at physical activities, such as sports, dancing, and performing. Gardner theorized that those with bodily-kinesthetic intelligence tend to remember things through their bodies, such as verbal memories or images. They are good at building things and learn more by doing. Careers in which people with this intelligence may find themselves are builders, athletes, dancers, doctors, soldiers, and surgeons.

The sixth multiple intelligence that Gardner (1983) defined is interpersonal intelligence, or the interaction with others. People with this type of intelligence tend to have high interpersonal feelings, they are sensitive to others moods, temperaments, and their ability to work as a part of a group. These individuals are able to communicate and empathize easily and enjoy either being leaders or followers as long as they are working as a part of a group. Individuals with interpersonal intelligence are likely to be found working as salespeople, politicians, teachers, social workers, and managers.
Gardner defined the seventh multiple intelligence as personal (intrapersonal) intelligence. People having this type of intelligence are typically introverts and tend to want to work alone. They are able to self-reflect and understand their own motivations, strengths, and weaknesses. Gardner wrote that people with this intelligence often have a higher understanding of thought- based work such as philosophy. Careers that tend to capture people with this intelligence are psychology, theology, journalism, and science.
In the late 1990’s Gardner added to his theories on multiple intelligences by adding the eighth and ninth intelligences: naturalistic and existential intelligence. Gardner (1999) wrote that people with naturalistic intelligence tend to have a greater sensitivity to nature. They understand how to nurture and grow things, and have a greater ability to interact with animals in activities such as taming and caring for them. People with this naturalistic intelligence are able recognize and classify things. They are able to learn the most when they can build upon existing knowledge.
The ninth intelligence that Gardner (1999) added was existential intelligence. People with this type of intelligence are able to see the larger picture. They are able to see themselves with relationship to all that is around them. They seek to learn by connecting things to real world applications. Human resource managers, software developers, and project planners often have existential intelligence, as they are able to see the larger picture.
Dewey (1997) presented the problems with traditional education as being based on a gap between the learners and the teachers. He wrote that this gap is so immense that it actually inhibits the learner. The students do not have the skills to understand what the teachers are talking about and thus the teachers must impose this knowledge on the student. This gulf between teacher and student prevents the student from actively participating in the learning process.
Additionally in traditional education, learning means to memorize material in textbooks, take a test, perhaps write a paper, and close the subject. Dewey (1997) pointed out that this form of education is not like real life, where all learning, all experiences are built upon other experiences. Dewey also wrote about traditional education as not allowing the development of democratic principles, an example of this problem can be seen in time scheduling, rules of order, examination, and promotion of students at the end of each school year. Another problem is that the subject matter taught each year is considered a finished product. There is little done to connect the new knowledge to the prior knowledge; there is no logical flow of information and growth. Dewey believed that teaching is a theory of experience, rather than a theory of education. He wrote that the principles of his theory is based on the fact that a teacher will never have two students who are identical, each student will learn in a slightly different way because each student brings with them different experiences as a foundation to build more knowledge upon. In no place are these differences more important as in adult education.
Dewey (1997) also wrote about the progressive school, he described involvement, free activity, students learning through experience, and being taught to make the most out of present life situation. He also described the atmosphere where students are encouraged to become acquainted with globalization and the changing world. He wrote that this develops an intrinsic motivation within the students rather than the extrinsic motivation of the traditional schools that he believed are designed to limit the moral, intellectual, and cognitive development of the students.
Learning Theory 13

The Adult Learner

Up until this point we have been talking about learning theory that was developed based upon learning in children and animals and researchers believed that adult learning is different as the adult learner is a different “animal.” Why is this education so different from traditional child education? Knowles (1973) wrote “the fact is that all of the scientific theories of learning have been derived from the study of learning by animals and children” (p. 12). The problem is that the conditions in which children learn are much more controllable than the conditions in which adults learn. Adults have already developed a personality, they have developed habits and they are a mix of many generations, each of which learns differently. Knowles described how prior to the 20th century the lifespan of the learning was shorter than that of the cultures surrounding them. He described this as making it necessary that role of the teacher was to transmit the information that the learner needed to survive for their lifespan. Knowles wrote that his has now changed, the lifespan of the learner has now grown greater than the culture surrounding them and the role of the teacher must now shift. The teacher must “shift from that of a transmitter of information to a facilitator and a resource to self-directed inquiry, and to regard education as a lifelong process” (p. 161). Knowles wrote that the process of learning needs to understand that knowledge is changing faster than the learners and the learners might need to learn more than one thing over the course of their lives.
In response to this concern Knowles (1973) suggested a model for the development of competencies that humans must have for life. This model included aspects of learning, self- identification, being a friend, being a citizen, being part of a family, being a worker, and using leisure time. In this model, he suggested that critical thinking, thought, planning, technical skills, managing, collaborating, and reflection are big parts of a person’s life. Knowles described his idea of schooling as, “The individual engage[ing] effectively in collaborative self-directed inquiry in self-actualizing directions” (p. 163).

Knowles (1973) based successful adult learning on six principles:
1. Learners need to know the reason for learning something.
2. Experience provides the basis for learning activities.
3. Learners need to be responsible for their decisions on education. They need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their own instruction.
4. Learners are most interested in learning subjects having immediate relevance to their work and/or personal lives.
5. Learning is problem centered, rather than concept orientated. Learners learn to solve a problem.
6. Learners learn better when they have an internal motivation to learn rather than external stimuli.

Knowles (1973) believed that learning is a combination of motivation, orientation, readiness, and self-concept. Based on these six elements of learning, Knowles suggested a new model for the development of competencies that humans must have for life. This model included aspects of learning, self-identification, being a friend, being a citizen, being part of a family, being a worker, and using leisure time. In this model, he suggested that critical thinking, thought, planning, technical skills, managing, collaborating, and reflection are big parts of a person’s life. Knowles described his idea of schooling as, “The individual engage[ing] effectively in collaborative self-directed inquiry in self-actualizing directions” (p. 163).
Knowles (1973) also described learning as a development of spiral learning projects. These projects are designed with the idea that several learners with the same needs are working through them collaboratively. The teacher, working as a facilitator, helps the learner develop the competencies that the project should expose the learner to. The learner selects the competencies and explores them. At the end of the project, the learner interacts with the teacher to analyze the experience, reflect on it, and then move onto the next project, which is linked to the first.

Knowles wrote that “emphasis would be placed on the learner’s making use of learning resources increasingly proactively and in widening circles out into the community” (p. 164). By using the spiral projects, the learning represents life, which is built upon experiences.
We all have had experiences that demonstrated that what Knowles describes makes a lot of sense and has some validity. Adults over 40 have seen the birth of the computer; we may have begun to use it in elementary school as a TTY terminal. In Junior or Senior High School, we may have been exposed to the main frame or had some basic courses in programming. We graduated and went onto college prior to the birth of the World Wide Web. Only in our early 30’s have we seen the explosion of the personal computer, online gaming, and the web as a research and entertainment tool. The skills we had been taught in our primary school years, or even our early college years are no longer valid. These skills can serve as an important stepping-stone to future skills. I still use my programming skills in my current work; I still use my analytical and organizational skills as a part of my future. Life has built upon a never-ending spiral of learning.
In the colleges, universities, and career training schools of today, we have students of many generations, we have students who have recent skills, we have students who do not have any skills, we have students who know computers, and those who do not understand technology at all. All of these students must come together and learn a trade; all of these students have chosen to return to school. A one-size-fits-all program will not work for everyone, at the same time, and in the same way. These students must be able to learn the skills at their own pace and in their own way.
Long (2004) built upon some of the knowledge that Knowles (1973) and others created. Long wrote about the characteristics of the adult learner, as well as some of the misconceptions society in general has about the adult learner. Long described the views of adult learners as being “unimaginative.” Sometimes the adult learner is thought of as a “big child,” sometimes the adult learner is described only by income, race, or class. Other times Long explained the adult learner is categorized by one social trait such as cognitive development, social variables, or physiological changes. Long pointed out that it is important to realize that there are differences in all adult learners based on “(a) adult variability, (b) motivation for learning, (c) physiological variables, and (d) psychosocial variables” (p. 25).
Long (2004) wrote that it is important not to speak of the adult learner as an individual, this is not a generic class that represents all adults that learn. Each adult comes to a learning opportunity with individual motivations to learn. They have some sort of goal, and some reason to be at the learning opportunity. Long explained that school does not equal learning and learning does not necessarily mean school. Long concluded that it is not possible to generalize the motivation for why adults learn as it may vary between adults. The same is true for physiological variables found in the adult population. Adults have different degrees of vision, hearing, and energy. Many adults may suffer from some sort of poor health. Long wrote that these physiological traits may affect the learner in different ways. For example, health issues may affect class attendance, vision issues they may affect study habits, and those with hearing issues may require more or less attention in class. It is also possible for a learner to be on a track that they cannot master because of these physiological issues.
According to Long (2004) adults may have different psychosocial variables as well. For example, the cognitive characteristics of adults enrolled in the same learning opportunity may be different as well. Some adults enrolled in an adult education program may be more apt to learn by reading, some by listening, and some by doing. Some may learn best by different combinations of all of these. Additionally some adults may have different experiences that they bring into an adult education program from either work or life.
One of the major themes in Long’s (2004) work is that adult education is full of variability. I have seen this variability in my classrooms and this is one of the reasons that I believe that we need to find new ways of doing things. Universal design for vocational education is not practical based on the idea that adults are not universal learners. I agree with both Knowles and Long in that we as educators need to provide a mix of learning opportunities for all learners, and we need to do so in a way that they feel involved. Knowles (1973) wrote that by this involvement we are adding to their motivation to learn.
For adults the motivation to learn must come from both the learner and the instructor, but through sound teaching practices this motivation must be channeled and enhanced. One cannot happen without the other. Just like many other instructors I have had a few students that stand out in my mind as being at different levels in the motivational scale. For example, Michael R., an 18-year-old vocational student came to me in early September of 2007 with his grandmother and talked about his enrolling in the HVAC/R program I teach. Mike had had prior vocational training in High School, but do to a lack of quality instruction never finished the program. He really wants to work in this trade and has the drive to do well. He started school in October and has quickly become one of my favorite students to have in class. If I am having a rough day just being around him can make it better, and he tries. This is motivation and it comes from the student.

Another example of the importance of motivation was Chris E. is a 19-year-old student that began class in July, 2008. He came with his father prior to starting and met with me. The entire conversation was based on his father telling me that his son wanted to do well in the program. Chris sat off to the side with his baseball cap pushed to one side and didn’t say a word. Chris has the talent to do well, and I think if he cleaned himself up a little he would make a really great technician. Chris does not have the motivation to learn at this time. When I talk with him he does want to do this trade but there are so many other things more important to him right now and school is not one of them. Chris eventually dropped out of the program against his father’s wishes.

Troy started the program in July, 2008. Troy is a 34-year-old student who is returning to school to make something of his life. Troy started out doing great. He is a really quiet student and does not have much to say. He has always seemed out of place, but has always been respectful. Troy’s second term was not too successful. His absenteeism increased and for some reason he lost interest. Then finally in the last week of the term he became argumentative and rude to the point we asked him to leave for a few days. As soon as class was over that day we tried to reach him and wanted to talk with him. It took us a week and a half before we could reach him. Once we sat down and talked we made immediate progress. It seems that he had an instructor who was not paying attention or working with any of his African-American students. He was ignoring them. I was aware of some of this and had already made plans to replace that instructor and was trying to find a replacement, but that is not something you could share with a class. So, in Troy’s case the lack of motivation came from an instructor not including the student. Four students, four different levels of motivation and they are all in the same class. Four individuals who must be included in one class; a class that must work and learn together as a group. This is adult education.
“Motivation” is a word that describes so many things. According to Wlodkowski (1992), “most scientists can agree that motivation is a concept that explains why people think and behave as they do. (pg. 1)” But who can actually delve into the human mind and identify motivation? What we have learned is that motivation is the key to success in education, and in turn life. We know that the adult learner must be motivated to return to the classroom and we know that something in their lives must cause this motivation. We know that this motivation is important “not only because it apparently improves learning but also because it mediates learning and is a consequence of learning as well. (Wlodkowski, 1992, pg. 5)” If I take two students and put them together as a team and teach them the same way the student who is the motivated one will learn better and faster than the one that is not motivated. Wlodkowski wrote that the motivated one
will take a more active role in the learning process and will leave the experience with more enthusiasm to use the knowledge in the future. This motivation to learn must come from first the student and then be incubated by the instructor.
Wlodkowski (1992) explained that the students’ motivation comes from a need to learn for a reason and are what we call pragmatic learners. They come to learn because their job tells them to, they want to advance, they want to change careers by building a new skill, or they want to make new friends. They want to do something that has value to them. The trick is how does an instructor use this motivation or funnel it into a learning experience. At this point the instructor has to be aware that just by the students asking to be taught, showing up that they have a motivation to learn. It is now up to the instructor to use this motivation and help the student learn.

To enhance and maintain this motivation for learning Wlodkowski (1992) wrote that there are several things instructors needs to ask themselves before and while they are teaching a student. The first is “Do we know something beneficial for adults? (pg. 26)” If the instructor does not have the concrete knowledge they can not teach and maintain this motivation. But it goes further than that with adults, the knowledge must be presented in a way that the students contribute to the learning process, the students must be able to see how the material will be used in their daily lives.
Wlodkowski (1992) explained that an instructor must also ask himself or herself, “Do we know our subject well? (pg. 28)” It is while teaching students that an instructor first realizes what they don’t know. For example in my trade, the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning industry I have seen the best trades people, people who have been working for 20 years as a technician come into the classroom and suddenly realize that they do not have the knowledge to teach. Every student has different thought processes while they are learning and the instructor must be able to knowledgably answer any question that comes up. In his book Enhancing Adult Motivation To Learn Wlodkowski (1992) asks six questions that an instructor must be able to answer:
1. Do I understand what I am going to teach?
2. Can I give more that one good example of what I am teaching?
3. Can I personally demonstrate the skill?
4. Do I know the limits and consequences of what I am teaching?
5. Do I know how to bridge what I am teaching to the world of the learners?
6. Do I know what I don’t know? (pp. 28-29)
If an instructor is fumbling for answers, having to go and look things up the instructor, and not sure of how to explain things he is no longer the expert and the student will think to themselves, “this is a waste of time, what am I doing here?” This causes the student to loose motivation and the desire to learn.

Wlodkowski (1992) described the third thing that an instructor must do to help continue a students’ motivation is to be prepared to “convey or construct knowledge with adults through an instructional process. (pg. 30)” An instructor must make sure that the knowledge is built. Life would be so much easier if we could plug our students into the Ethernet jack and just download the information to them but this is not reality. In our reality we must talk and communicate with our students and have a “conversation” where the knowledge is constructed. This construction of knowledge can be thought of as “classroom management” and “planning”. We must know how
to involve students in the learning process and in turn the knowledge is built.

The entire principle behind good adult education is one of motivation. The learner must be motivated, the instructor must be motivated and the instructor and the learner must share the responsibility for this motivation. If the principles of learning are used and adhered to the instructor can continue this motivation and make the classroom a safe, challenging, and motivating place for the student to learn. Adults come from many backgrounds, have many skills, have a lot of “baggage” and all of this is brought into the classroom. This background, skills, and “baggage” can either be helpful in the process or a hindrance. According to Wlodkowski (1992) it is up to the instructor to make this a positive, motivating experience.
Ahl (2006) wrote that motivation is “considered as the solution to the pressing problems of increased levels of unemployment, not least among unskilled workers. (pg. 1)” In this article while Ahl agreed with the importance of motivation, motivation can also stigmatize people and become a reason to control and direct people. Ahl wrote that motivation should be considered a relational problem, with those who feel it is a problem. Ahl suggested that instead of researching why adults do not feel motivated to study researchers should focus on “who states that this is a problem, and why, and the reasons for this conclusion. ” (pg. 1).
Ahl (2006) focused on several motivational theories. The first being that humans are economic and rational. This theory focuses on the need for learning to increase skills and thus increase economic success. Ahl wrote that this theory suggests that humans are motivated by rewards and punishments. The second motivational theory that Ahl described was that humans are social beings and thus the motivation is found in climbing the social ladder and being part of a social group. The third motivator of humans Ahl explained that humans are psycho-biological beings. They have instincts and drives, such as the need for food, companionship, shelter, and reproduction. As a psycho-biological being a human is motivated by instincts and drives. The fourth motivational theory that Ahl described was that humans need to learn. Motivation for learning can be driven by stimuli and/or rewards. This motivation can be found in most classrooms using grades and diplomas as rewards, and the thirst for new knowledge as the stimuli. Ahl wrote that humans are also needs driven and have internal needs. These internal needs can cause motivation for learning. Finally Ahl wrote that humans are cognitive. A human can think about their past and imagine their future. This allows humans to work towards their cognitive future or work away from their past.

Ahl (2006) wrote that this motivation must be considered a relational concept. Ahl explained, “instead off regarding it as an entity, residing within the individual, I suggest seeing it as a relational concept. (pg. 14)” Ahl continued by writing:
It is hardly possible to speak about motivation without relating it to something – one can be motivated to work, to study, to play, and so on, but never just ‘motivated’ (unless using it as a synonym for energetic). By using the word ‘unmotivated’, which is of greater practical interest for educators and policy makers, this becomes even clearer. The person who does not want to study, and therefore does not participate, has no problems, and no need tfor an explanatory theory, or for a policy to do something about it. It is when someone wants someone else to do something and this person does not, that the problem arises. The problem then becomes located in the relation between these two. (pg. 15).
Ahl (2006) concluded that evaluations based on motivation is all about a relationship or power.

Learning Theories in 30 years of school

Like many others reading this paper I have been exposed to almost all of the learning theories over my last 40 years of schooling – yes, 40 years because this refusal to learn from the theories is why I dropped out of school when I was 19 years old and did not return until I was 28. It is why I have now entered the second phase of my life with almost $100,000.00 in student loan debt, a debt that will probably follow me into retirement. Though I did not know it at the time
my life has been changed by various learning theories beginning in elementary school, and this change was not always for the best. We are sometimes all pawns of the system in which we have no control of.
I began school in September 1970 when I was five years old. When I first started school I attended a kindergarten in Ballston Spa, New York. The school was a formidable (for a five year old) old building in the middle of the downtown area and was one of the oldest building around. While I do not remember much of this time, my parents have told me that the kindergarten teacher was almost sixty years old at this time and was nearing retirement. She was a “traditional” teacher in that everything was scheduled and everything was done in a certain way, at a certain time. Since my mother and father where schooled in the same way this met with their approval. In the fall of my first grade year this school was closed. There was the beginning of an educational change happening in the town that I lived in and this was the “open school” concept.
Baum (2009) wrote that open classroom schools are traditionally large pods with between six and twelve classrooms with no interior walls, and open access between each classroom. The idea of the open classroom school comes from the idea of open education. Baum explained that open education is a “philosophy which values the natural development and experience of the
child as the primary determinants fro the appropriate curriculum and methods. (par. 1)” The open education concept was born in the 1960’s when educators were examining the issues of control within their traditional ideas of teaching, school, curriculum, and methods of teaching and learning. Baum wrote that this was the beginning of the “search for an institutional model of child-centered pedagogy. (par. 1).
It is surprising that I do not remember much more about the Ballston Spa elementary school (I think it’s name was Woods Road School), other than the ability to listen in on other classes, be able to do all sorts of neat things, like arts and crafts, or gym (playroom), or listen to music, or my favorite as time went on: to sit and read. I also remember that there was a great deal of interest taken in what I wanted to do. I am not sure why but this was short lived. My mother was not happy with this open school concept, having been brought up in and having taught in the traditional classroom environment, and wanted my brothers and myself to be back in a traditional school. In the middle of my third grade year we moved out of Ballston Spa and I was transferred to Craig School in Niskayuna, NY.
I hated it! My third grade teacher was a very nice (looking back at it now) older woman, Mrs. Kowalski, and she had been teaching in the same school, same grade for years. She once again like my kindergarten teacher believed in classroom rule and order. The problem was that while others in my classes was afraid of her, I was not and I would regularly challenge her authority in little ways. Having knowledge of pedagogy and educational theory she was a behaviorist. Every behavior was either rewarded or punished. I spent a number of hours sitting in the corner facing the wall, and I could probably have walked blindfolded and then turned around a number of times to the principles office – I was a frequent visitor. It was then that I learned quickly that the letters in the mailbox addressed to “The Parents of Christopher Molnar” should be destroyed prior to being opened. It wasn’t major things that got me into trouble, it was small things. One that comes to mind was when I was supposed to be learning how to write in cursive.
I had come into her class being able to write in cursive and early in the year she told me that I was not ready to write that way. I was not ready and she wanted me to practice my printing first. So I did. About half way through the year she began to teach the class how to write in cursive, and this included having us come up to the overhead projector and practice small sentences in front of the whole class. On one occasion I proceeded to walk up and print what I was supposed to write. She told me that I was supposed to write it, and I remember making some comment that we could have saved a whole lot of time if she had not stopped me from writing that way earlier in the year. That was a trip to the principles office and a note home to the
parents. A few weeks later we were still learning to write, and I was in one of my stubborn moods and told her that what was the point of this? When I grew up I would have a secretary that would type everything for me just as my dad did. I remember she had no sense of humor, and this was about the time I was taken to see a child psychologist and put onto ridilen for the remainder of my elementary school years. I did not know it at the time but I later found out that I had been diagnosed with ADD. It was at this point also that my parents divorced, I am still not sure of the cause, but I have always thought that it had something to do with disagreements over what was best for us kids. During this time I found my peace in the swimming pool where I was
a very competitive swimmer in the children leagues.
Much to my dismay I had the same teacher for fourth grade and the same problems continued except I was not as outspoken and I do not remember much from this year. I spent most of my time in a fog. I now know it was because of the medication. I remember the start of my fifth grade year as being a point of change. I had a newer teacher, Mrs. Cross. She was a recent college graduate and had just completed her student teaching. I found that she ran a “fun” classroom. She did not mind us being out of our seats and working and talking with others during our free time. She would play kickball with us during recess and sometimes even get into the basketball games at lunch. I don’t have direct knowledge of it, but I believe she was the one who convinced my mother to stop giving me the ridilen as all of a sudden the pills vanished. I do not remember being in any trouble for my fifth grade year and I remember excelling in my class work and being proud of my accomplishments. The following year I went to Junior High School, which was a traditional classroom environment that combined three elementary schools into one building. I had just turned twelve years old, and didn’t know it yet but was going to be entering one of the most traumatic periods in my life.
Junior High School was a never ending bad experience for me. I was quickly singled out
by the bullies of the school as a person they could torment. I was for the first time exposed to the wonders of team sports in gym class and quickly found out that I could not hit a ball in base ball, or get a ball anywhere near a basket in basketball. This caused a trip to the eye doctor and a set of thick rimmed glasses, which was a new target for the bullies that I tried to loose at every opportunity. I was able to and loved to run, but at that time had no interest in track, and proffered to go spend an hour in the library whenever possible. It was around this time that I was first exposed to computers, with an old “dumb” terminal in the office. I spent every hour I could possible spend figuring out what the thing could do. I remember getting in a little trouble when I found the report card system and gave myself all A’s and my tormentors all F’s. It was worth the four weeks of detention. I remember being allowed to work in the A/V department during my study hall period each day and being exposed to the neatest technology with video tapes and television cameras. It was probably during this time that I figured out I was different from a number of other boys in the school that I did not want to participate in the co-ed dances, and dating that was beginning to happen. I was content on hanging out with my limited set of friends. Junior High School was also an exercise in behaviorism, everything was either rewarded or punished through grades, detention, and sometimes included corporal punishment such as swats. In my seventh grade year I was also exposed to the ADD treatment again, but I was old enough that I quickly learned that I did not like taking my medication and thus I found ways to avoid swallowing the pills. I think they gave up on it at the end of the year. It was also the first time that I just remember being a number (as in a student ID number rather than a name). There were just too many students for me to be known as me.
Then came high school and another transfer of buildings. I began high school in 1980 in my ninth grade year. I was dying to be known as an individual. I was now always part of a
group. I was a nobody in school. Two junior high schools were tracked into a single high school, and we had the option of a number of diplomas that we could strive for. My grades in junior high were high enough that my mother and the guidance counselors pushed my into the college preparation track. I was forced to take advanced classes that where way above what I could handle, and I struggled every day. Every class had a number of hours of homework, we had two study halls a day, and I was in school for almost eight hours a day. Most of my peers in these classes were the sons and daughters of engineers and General Electric or the Knowls Atomic Power plant. The school had a reputation for excellence and I was fast becoming a victim of this reputation. I did not do well at all. I probably would not have survived the year except for the intervention of my social studies teacher and my computer science teacher, whom both must have seen my interest in technology. They arranged for me to drop my “required” elective of foreign language, in which I had no interest” to work on an independent study project in the computer lab. They wanted me to see if I could adapt a social and world simulation environment to our school’s computer system. I spent the first half of my year working on this project, but never had a chance to finish it. I had done something stupid outside of school that would alter things forever. As a part of my Audio and Visual class in junior high I had become involved in the public access channel in my town. It was run by the local cable company and a number of us kids where running the programming on the channel. I had started by working a camera at the local city council meetings and had worked my way up and was at this point directing a number of shows. I had begged and pleaded with my mom to buy me a video camera and a tape deck but the money wasn’t available, so I figured out a way to “help myself” to some equipment from the public access station. I guess I wasn’t to smart about it as I got caught.
My mother, as a single parent, had enough. I was sent away to attend the rest of my high school at the Milton Hershey School, in Hershey, PA. And I quickly fell in love. When I arrived I was told that by the end of the year I would have to choose a high school program, for the remainder of the year I was encouraged to continue the courses I had been taking at Niskayuna and I quickly found out that I was ahead of most of my peers. While this did not make me popular, I was accepted. As students we lived in groups of sixteen with resident houseparents on dairy farms in the surrounding area. We were required to participate in the care of the farm and the animals as a part of our schooling and home life and the work/play/school schedule was based on this agricultural calendar. I learned that I loved working with the animals more than I loved working with the people. I learned a lot about responsibility, leadership, and commitment in the first six months of the year. When I returned home for my summer two week vacation I could not wait to go back to where my new “home” was, I missed Hershey and the farms. What I know now was that this was my first experience with experiential education.
At the beginning of my tenth grade year I chose to go into the agricultural education program at Milton Hershey School. At the time this program was based on horticulture and landscape design. While I was interested in the drafting concepts of landscape design it was not really what I wanted to do, I wanted to work with the animals on the farms. At that time I had made friends with two of the dairymen on the farms that the school owned and I approached one of them (looking back it was pretty brave for a 15 year old) and asked if they would help me create a program of study that would allow me to learn on the farms rather than in the classroom for my vocational credits. Along with myself, Mr. Hitz, they did. I was allowed to work with the farm department learning about veterinary technology (not called that at that time), machinery repair, welding, and the day-in day-out operation of a dairy farm. I loved it. Not surprising a number of my classmates and peers who hated the farm work took this as an opportunity to horas and bully me endlessly. When I turned sixteen I was also given access to the farm trucks and was the only student in school history that was allowed to drive as a part of my chore programs, which caused more bullying. But I was learning, I was learning what I wanted to learn, when I wanted to learn it. I also excelled academically.
The day was split up so that those of us in the vocational program spent the mornings in the trades and the afternoons in the classroom for our academic requirements. While I was offered a lesser academic path when I chose a vocational program I continued to sign up for my college preparatory courses. With the help of my guidance counselor, vocational instructor, and houseparents I carried a full academic load on top of my vocational studies. In my junior high year I took the advanced placement exam in biology thanks to a “cool” teacher named Mr. Ruth who made science exciting and helped me tie it into my love for animals and the farms. I know he altered his curriculum and schedule to make this possible.
Mr. Ruth was also the schools cross country, swim, and distance track coach and in the fall of my tenth grade year I was called into the office of my student home. Mr. Ruth was sitting with my house-father Mr. Gallo and they talked me into trying out for the swim team as a way to add some variety to my schedule. I was torn, I knew I would miss the evening farm chores which I cherished, but I also missed swimming. Mr. Gallo saw my dilemma and helped me achieve a balance in my mind as he told me that I was being permanently assigned to “barn duty” for my chore program. I suddenly became involved in high school sports.
I was doing well in my studies, I was doing well in the farm program and the vo-tech program, but I was still failing miserably in the “peer relationship” department. I had no interest in group activities because I was un-coordinated and usually ended up being bullied because of my causing teams to loose. After I started swimming again I found out that I could be an individual in the pool. I could succeed, and contribute to a team, as an individual. I learned that all my coaches and gym teachers whom had accused me of not being a team player were the biggest liars I had ever known and they had cheated me out of something. I worked hard at my swimming, I was somewhat untouchable in the pool. In my junior (11th grade) year I began to win medals and was one of the varsity swimmers on the team. I placed second place in the state championships and repeated it in my senior year. Because Mr. Ruth was also the track and the cross country coach he put tremendous pressure on me to continue with sports for the spring and the fall as well running distances. I bent to the pressure and lettered in both track and cross country in my Junior and Senior years as well. My being involved with sports also changed my peers opinion of me, I found that I could be me, care about my farm work, care about my school work, care about leadership and doing the right thing, maintain my positive relationships with teachers, farmers, and houseparents without being bullied by the other students. As long as I was involved no-one cared, and someone told me later that people were jealous of my freedom.

The other thing that happened at Milton Hershey School was that I found out that I no longer wanted to go home at every vacation. I began to spend more and more of my vacations and breaks at the school. Nobody ever asked why, but they always accommodated me, I became very independent. During my senior year I was the president of my student home and served on the student council. Upon graduation I was hired for the summer by the schools farm department and was told that I would have a job on every college vacation – sadly after that first summer I would never take them up on it. I found a sense of community at Hershey, and a sense of right and wrong. I found out that I could take control of what I wanted to do, work within the system and learn. I was given every chance to develop into a responsible student and I did. I was given the freedom to learn what I wanted to learn, how I wanted to learn, and I did. I was given the opportunity to tie my academic learning into my vocational learning, if this was accidental or planned I have no way of knowing, as I have lost contact with all of the adults in my High School career.
I began college at the State University of New York Agricultural ad Technical College in Cobleskill, New York. I quickly found out that I did not like college life. I was in a dorm room with two other freshman who’s main goal was to drink as much as possible and work their way through the schools very limited female population. I was there to learn. I also found out that while the college was an agricultural school, my time on the farm was very limited. Out of sixteen semester hours I found that only four of them brought me into contact with the dairy, and this contact was very limited. I also had to take a variety of courses that had nothing to do with agriculture, or my major in animal husbandry. I survived my freshman year and kept my GPA high enough not to get kicked out. I told myself that my sophomore year would be better, it was not. I only had four credit hours that had anything to do with the animals and the hands-on farm.

I was required to take calculus (a course that I have to this day still not passed) and physics. I dropped out at the end of the first semester of that year. I felt I was wasting my time, I felt that I was wasting my life away. So I went into the working world.
At this time I found I was no longer welcome in my mothers house, while I was sort of welcome to visit, it was no longer home. I rented a small apartment and worked as a manager of a local McDonalds and convenience store chain. I knew there was something more out there for me. I had never lost my love of technology and computers, I had a small computer system and quickly found I could use a modem and explore the world. I subscribed to a few magazines, bought some books and learned about computers. I wanted to know more and I eventually decided to get away from it all and attend ITT Technical Institute in Portland, Oregon for my Associates Degree in Electrical Engineering Technology. I spent a year and a half in Portland and during that time I became more and more enchanted with technology. I built my first computer (including soldering components on circuit boards), and quickly began to get more involved in electronic communications. I started my own bulletin board system (BBS) which quickly became one of the most popular BBS’s in the Portland and Seattle areas. The phone company loved me, I had sixteen phone lines coming into my apartment. Near the end of my second year I had a decision to make. ITT Tech only offered an associates degree that would not transfer to a regular college so that I could get my bachelor’s degree. The problem was that they taught things like algebra, trigonometry, and physics as a part of the vocational training, not as independent courses. My father was worried that unless I got my bachelors degree I would not be employable in the engineering field (he was probably correct).

I found a community college fifty miles south in Salem, Oregon that would accept my credits and allow me just to take my required courses so that I could receive my associates degree at a regionally accredited school.

In 1988, at the age of 22 I began to once again attend a traditional college, and once again hated it. There was no connection between what I wanted to learn to what I was learning. The math courses were abstract, I could not see what I was learning. There was no touch and feel, the instructors were boring, and I was a number. My English course had 230 students in a lecture hall, my algebra course had 125 students, and I was lost. I made it through the first semester with grades that put me on academic probation. I began my second semester at Chemeketa Community College and one of my required courses was my old nemesis, calculus. The course was taught by an instructor who was a visiting professor from the far east and I could not understand a word she said. This course was held in a lecture hall environment and I just didn’t get it. I made an appointment to sit down with her in office hours and the first two appointment she did not show up for. On the third try she listened to my feeling of lost and then she told me that if I didn’t understand the basics that perhaps I shouldn’t be in the course. She told me to work harder because it would just get harder. I left her office, went to the registrar, and dropped out of school. Four years of college and vo-tech school and nothing to show for it except a bunch of credits on various transcripts. I did not know at that time how important those credits and transcripts would be in later life.
From 1989 to 1991 I worked a variety of jobs including a very short stint in the United States Air Force (don’t ask-don’t tell had not been invented yet). I moved to Dallas, TX for job opportunities and met my life partner there in late 1989. I finally found a job as a medical insurance claim processor in 1991 with Aetna Health Plans and quickly found that my computer programming and technical skills were in demand. I wrote a piece of software to make my life as a claims processor more efficient and was noticed by management. I was quickly promoted out of the claims department and given the job of field office technical support manager. I grew as a software developer and gained project management skills. The company was beginning to realign itself to meet the needs of the changing economy and health care business and I was offered a chance to either move to New Orleans to head up the service center there, or move back to New England and work in the home office supporting the continued development of the software I had written. I chose to move back “home.” I stayed with Aetna until the year 2000 when a new administration took over the technology division at Aetna and I found myself outdated and not in demand because of my lack of college degree.
My interest and self-taught competence in computers continued to serve me well, I was hired by a Paris, France based company by the name of Mandrake Software, it was a developer and packager for the Linux operating system which was gaining in popularity and I had been involved with as a hobbyist for the last eight years. Over the next two years I traveled to France, England, Amtserdam, and all over the United States running training classes in Linux development and application. In order to be prepared for the classes I had to learn more and more. I learned database management, C++ programming, web development, and more. I was able to learn as I practiced and their was nobody that told me what I could and could-not do. Then the “dot-com” bubble burst in 2000-2001 and I was faced with loosing my job. Additionally those that were being hired had college degrees in computer science and that left me looking for work. I needed to find something else.
Remembering my time at ITT Technical Institute as I passed a school named Porter and Chester Institute I began to look at what trades and vocations were in demand that I could use my electronics, computer skills, and my love of not being in an office from my farm days at Milton Hershey. I soon decided that I would attend Porter and Chester Institute to learn Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration (HVAC/R). I began classes in July of 2001, and graduated with honors in July of 2002. I found that Porter and Chester was a repeat of ITT Technical Institute, while I had lecture and theory classes I was able to see what I was learning about with hands-on learning. I was never bored and I learned a lot.

Following graduation (the first higher education graduation I had) I found work at a local HVAC/R contractor who really believed in training. I worked for this contractor for close to five years and was exposed to training class after training class. Near the end of my time with this company I was sent to a Construction Technology program at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. It was my first experience back in a college classroom since I dropped out of Chemeketa Community College in 1988. I found something out, college courses had changed. I was in a small classroom, learning things that were relevant to my every day job. I quickly found myself looking forward to school. I was being challenged mentally to learn and I wanted more. I sat down with an admission counselor and explained that I wanted to finish my bachelor’s degree. I wanted to take mechanical engineering technology as it had relevance to what I was doing in the “real world.” I then mentioned to her that it was unfortunate that a university like Northeastern could not do anything with college credits from so long ago, and she asked me for all of my transcripts. After a lot of research, letter writing, and phone calls we collected them all and found that I could start Northeastern as a Junior. They had accepted the majority of my credits from Cobleskill, Chemeketa, and ITT. They also conditionally accepted a few courses from Porter and Chester Institute. There was one problem, I would have to take not just one calculus course, but three calculus courses before I could graduate. The admissions councilor asked me to promise
her that if for some reason I did not complete the first calculus course I would come back and speak with her before I made any decisions. I promised her that.
I started Northeastern University in the summer of 2004 with a major in Mechanical Engineering Technology. I needed to take a college writing workshop to prove my college level writing, and I had to take a few finance courses which I enjoyed. None of my courses had more than 15 students in them and I got to know my instructors whom I felt all cared about my success, with one exception. My introduction to calculus course was taught by a teacher, again from the far east, who I did not understand. This time I did not even attempt to meet with her, I went to the registrars office and dropped the course – not the school. I kept my promise and went back to the admissions councilor and asked for help in deciding what I should do. She suggested that since I loved software development, project management, and writing that I look into technical communications, which I did. She also worked with me to schedule a large number of my courses online to save me the commute from Hartford to Boston. She called me once a month to make sure I was continuing to make progress. In the summer of 2006 I graduated with my bachelor degree in technical communications with high honors.
My time at Northeastern was not without personal change as well. I changed jobs in the middle of this time. I had always kept in contact with my instructor at Porter and Chester Institute and he had asked me a few times if I would come back and teach. Life at the HVAC/R contractor was not good as they had hired a new general manger who was a “Bible-thumping” minister and we did not get along. I had done training before when I worked for Mandrake Software and loved it, so I accepted a position teaching the evening version of the program I had graduated from. It was a challenge to teach in the adult vocational program and I quickly learned that I did not know a lot about education. I started reading education books, web sites, and magazines. I found a whole additional world that I wanted to learn about. In my senior year at Northeastern University I convinced the College of Education to allow me to take a graduate level course in adult learning theory. I was exposed to Vygotsky, Skinner, Wlodkwski, and others. I was thrilled with what I learned and changed my teaching frequently to try the new things I read about. Needless to say that this graduate level course was just too much for me at the time and I did not finish it as an undergraduate. But I was hooked. I had finally found something worthwhile in school, and found formal education that made sense.
Following graduation from Northeastern University in 2006 I returned as a graduate student that fall in the Master of Education program. I attended this program mainly on-line as my schedule would not allow me to take on-ground courses frequently. I did take a couple classroom based courses on the weekends when I could, and when I wanted to meet a particularly exciting instructor in person. I found that most of my instructors were happy when I altered my coursework to meet my own needs, this included papers that I wrote, required readings, and opinions that I shared. I frequently challenged others in discussion board postings not to just accept the readings and ideas as many of te traditional concepts of education I believed were flawed. I continued to apply what I learned, and use what I applied as a part of my course work at Northeastern and as a part of my teaching at Porter and Chester. I graduated with honors with my Master degree in Education in 2008.

I could not have done it without being able to practice what I was taught, being able to tie the classroom into life, and being able to choose what I wanted to do. My classroom style changed drastically over these two years, I had started off as the traditional classroom instructor, but slowly became a leader in change (sometimes
much to the dismay of my supervisors) and suddenly was the department chairperson of the largest department in all of our seven campuses.
Near the end of my time at Northeastern University one of my professors recommended that I consider moving forward with my Doctorate. At this time Northeastern did not have a doctoral program in education and though one was in the planning stage it was unknown when it would start and what format it would take. I began to look elsewhere. This instructor recommended that I look at two programs, one of them being Fielding Graduate University. After much research I chose that program because of the freedom that it allowed the students, freedom of course content, freedom to choose instructors, and freedom to do hands-on projects that allowed the theory to be put into practice. I began Fielding Graduate University with my new student orientation in the Summer of 2008. I quickly found that freedom in a doctoral program only goes so far.
As I complete my last official course I look back at the numerous times that I almost dropped out of school, the tears that have been shed, and my life that has been put on hold. I still look at the “freedom” lure of Fielding and ask myself is it truly so? I come back to it being an institution of adult learning that is forced to push traditions that are found in most universities such as the academic writing, the tests along the way, the papers, the revisions, APA, and academic progress because it is what is expected. Some of this traditional approach possibly comes at the expense of true learning. Is it possible that at times Fielding Graduate University does not practice what it teaches about educational theory and Educational Leadership and Change?
For the last 40 years, since 1970, I have been involved in the educational system and have found myself challenged by the learning theories that have been forced upon me. In the elementary school years, with a brief exception, I was forced into the traditional behaviorist environment. This continued through junior high, and into high school. Only upon arrival at Milton Hershey school was I given the opportunity to experience experiential education, and hands-on learning. I was finally able to practice what I learned and actually make the learning my own. Following graduation from Hershey I was forced back into the traditional environment and lectured to. It wasn’t until many years later that I returned to experiential education and finally finished school. Formal educational theory and learning theory has been a total failure for me, everything I needed to know on educational and learning theory has been self-taught through trial and error.

What can we learn from learning theories?

What should we learn from the various learning theories? It is easy to see if we look read the following paragraph from Turning Learning Right Side Up: Putting education back on track :
Traditional education focuses on teaching, not learning. It incorrectly assumes that for every ounce of teaching there is an ounce of learning by those who are taught. However, most of what we learning before, during, and after attending school is learned without it being taught to us. A child learns such fundamental things as how to walk, talk, eat, dress, and so on without being taught these things. Adults learn most of what they use at work or at leisure with at work of leisure. Most of what is taught in classroom settings is forgotten, and much of what is remembered is irrelevant.(Ackoff and Greenburg, 2008, p3)

Knowles (1973) agrees with Ackoff and Greenburg with his adult learning theory. School and learning must be relevant, must be useful, and must be connected. Schools should not be able to force people to learn by rewards and punishment as it is ineffective (Skinner, 1953). Learning is an exersice in evaluation, reasoning, and impressions as what Hergenhahm (1982) wrote about Aristotle and Plato’s theories. Thorndike (1920) believed that lecture was ineffective because it did not allow the student to learn through trial and error and as Vygotsky (Wink & Putney, 2002) explained lecture is not social, the students cannot use language to create thought. When Gardner (1983) described his multiple intelligence theory it further supports that the learning theories being used in traditional education are flawed. How can we continue to force people with different intelligences to learn in the same manner, at the same pace, and in the same classrooms. Dewey (1997) had the solution when he wrote about the free and progressive schools found in democratic education and the free school movement.
Is this free school movement more about democratic education or is it more about individualized learning? I will explore that in the future. For the moment our use of learning theories is harming our societies. We have not learned enough to break the barriers found in educational systems all over the world and actually do something about the failings. I am being careful not to say “the problem.” The only problem that we have with the educational system are those who are being called on to fix the problem. Our politicians take on education, create more rewards and punishments, put more rote memorization into our schools, under the guise of standards and enhanced education and the problem gets worse. We are not listening to our students. Why? It is still not traditionally permissible to say: our children are right, they know what they want to learn. It is also not good business to allow the “kingdom” of education to topple. For true learning to occur we must believe in Dewey (1973), we must believe in Illich (1971), we must believe in Freire (2000), and we must believe in Vygotsky (Wink and Putney,
2002) and we must break down the power struggle between the students and the teachers. We must not punish our students for wanting to learn in different ways, we must not punish our students for learning by doing, we must not look down on those who do not attend college but learn vocational skills, and we must allow education to go where education goes. Does this have anything to do with learning theory, or is learning theory standing in the way of common sense and creativity? Without common sense and creativity being a part of education are we hurting our students, our schools, and our society? My answer is yes.

Early on in my graduate school I was asked to write a statement of purpose for role as an educator. I believe it is important to revisit this statement as I move into the last phase of my formal education:
Statement of Teaching Philosophy
Christopher Molnar
Porter and Chester Institute, Inc. and Northeastern University
2006

What type of teacher do I want to be?

As I begin the next phase of my teaching career I move from being a student to both a student and a teacher as the learning never ends. I have had multiple role models over the years and have been fortunate enough to remember the best as well as remember the worst. Using these role models I can decide and shape myself into the type of teacher I want to be.

My belief is that teaching is a combination of leadership, presentation, and guidance. As a teacher I have the capability of altering the future because my students are the future. I have the opportunity to take students who are at a changing point in their lives and give them the tools to learn a new trade and begin a new career. This is exciting as well as challenging. As my classes are adult post- secondary education the challenge comes from having different students of varying backgrounds, skills, education, cultures and ethics in a single classroom. The reward and the excitement comes from seeing these students suddenly have a light of understanding as the curriculum moves forward and they suddenly begin to work with those that are struggling to help them understand.
As an educator it is my job to challenge the student, and lead them to find the understanding of the material. It is not my job to hand it to them or make it to simple.

When my students move on into the working world they need to be able to think and work through challenges on their own as they will not be given the answers by a higher power. As a vocational instructor I have to remember the work that my students will be doing in the field is physical, challenging, and dangerous. It is also my job to make sure that they work safely, this is learned in the shop environment.

My background and experience shapes me

My experiences and my background help me achieve these beliefs. My employment began as a software developer for Aetna Insurance close to fifteen years ago. I spent ten years as a software developer and quality assurance lead prior to moving into corporate training both at Aetna and then independently. Several times I was tasked with developing new curriculum representing new technology and processes. These steps required attending others classes and a lot of learning and self study. I then had to take what I learned, put it into my own words so that I could pass it on again. Of course as an instructor you can not just pass it on, you must enrich the material and make it better.

The next step in my experience and learning came with a career change and an opportunity to attend vocational school at Porter and Chester Institute in 2001. I spent the next year in class to become retrained in the Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration trade. I was lucky enough to have an instructor who was extremely professional and presented the material well, and taught me a lot. This was one to remember. Following that retraining period I spent four years as a service technician where I was able to gain the hands on and practical experience. About two years into this period of life I began to realize that my employer was assigning me to teach and train newer technicians as well as existing ones. In the last two years I was the go-to technician for new procedures and technology and had the opportunity to travel to training courses around the country, as well as begin taking classes to finish my degree at Northeastern University. Once again I experienced some wonderful hands on instructors, as well as some not so great ones. It was important to see both as now I had a greater experience of what works and what doesn’t.
In July of 2006 I was given the opportunity to change employers and return to Porter and Chester Institute as the evening HVAC instructor. I accepted this opportunity and began immediately. I have worked to become the type of teacher I always wanted to have. I believe I must take the best and put it together and engrain it into my courses and interaction with the students. Only by doing this will I be successful. My classroom style must be one of a leader, lecturer and service manager, since my students will be moving on to a service, hands on trade.
Classroom Approach
My presentation of the curriculum is designed for a trade school. It is important to take the required topics and break it down to a level all can understand. Then I must develop shop and lab assignments and projects to show the students that they can gain the skills presented in lecture and to help them better understand these materials. To be the best adult vocational instructor I can be I must understand that
some students learn better from reading a book, some learn better from listening to a lecture, and some learn better by the hands on approach in the shop. I must take all of these approaches and make them available to my students. I have found that I can not force this learning, I must lead my students to learn.
I also must be a guidance counselor. Students come to my classes after some troubling and disturbing times in their lives. I have seen the results of breakups, divorces, and arrests. I must be able to listen and offer a shoulder to cry on. Then I must help the student pick of the pieces, and return to the learning environment. I must provide a role model to the younger students who have not had role models. In this role my ethics and commitment to excellence must be impeccable. It must be done right the first time, no matter what. However, I must also be open to allow students to question and criticize. Through these questions and criticism I will find what works best and be able to improve my approach.
Finally at times I must be a disciplinarian. A classroom environment is not an environment for learning if it is a free-for-all. I must demand respect from the students to myself, I must demand respect for the students to each other, and I must demand respect from the students to the equipment they are working on. I work in an environment where a student making a wrong move, touching the wrong part, or not following directions can severely injure or kill themselves or another student.
To balance this number of requirements and goals takes planning. At the start of every term I promise to my students in writing that I will always be prepared for my lectures, their classes and their shop assignments. I have always been able to keep this promise though I attend school full time as well.
Summary

In summary my teaching philosophy comes down to teaching the way I would want to be taught, providing clear and concise goals and realizing that each student is different with different needs. It is my belief that a teacher is a leader, a mentor and a role model. It is also my belief that to be effective a teacher must never stop learning, the day a teacher stops learning is the day they can no longer shape the future as they will fall behind.

As I re-read this I believe that after learning about educational systems, child development, education leadership and change and all the other courses that can be taken in a master’s and doctoral degree I would delete the third paragraph to the end, as being a disciplinarian and demanding respect does not have a place in the classroom, and I would change the following paragraph to including the students in planning their coursework, and being able to help them achieve their goals and plans.
Why take a course in educational theory? First this course has wrapped up a number of courses. Let me see if I can summarize without making this much longer. I began my doctoral work with a course in leadership and change. One must be willing to take risks to be a leader and create change, one must do this by example and based on the circumstance. Next, I took a course in systems and systems thinking. From my experience my learning and my education has deeply entrenched with my life. The majority of learning has come from my involvement in the outcome of my learning and a need to know something for my work or for a hobby. Educational theory
can not stand by itself, it is part of the system of life.
Next, I took a course on structural inequality, this course showed me that it takes those leaders and challengers, to work within the system to break the cycle of neglect that has been brought upon certain populations and societies. The system must include all members of society. I then took a course in child development which allowed me to think about the different theories and the purpose of activities that I had been exposed to in the classroom. It also showed me how my own personal development had occurred during my high school years. By acknowledging my own development, I can begin to understand others.
My next course was centered on special education and I suddenly realized where some of my problems in the classroom have come from, this course made me wonder how different things would have been for me had I been in school after the conception of the Individualized Education Plan. Would my elementary school teachers have treated me differently, and perhaps worked with me rather than to drug and ignore me? Even more important is that I realized that EVERY student should have an individualized education plan, every student will learn differently, every student is an individual and deserves this respect. Finally I take this course in learning theory and I find that no matter what I was reading, no matter how much I was reading, I found nothing new. Why is nobody listening?
When I first applied at Fielding Graduate University I was asked to write a single page paper about “One Change” that I would like to make in my teaching and in education. I wrote about removing lecture from my classes, I explained that I would like to be a mentor rather than a teacher. I still stand behind those principles. But knowing what I do now I would add “remove the differentiation between student and teacher,” and build a learning community. Perhaps the greatest study in learning theory can be a reflection on one’s own learning. And with this thought, I return to my opening statement that learning theories are damaging our schools, our society, and our profession. Learning should be fun, and it is impossible to define fun as everyone has a different definition of fun.

References

Ackoff, R. L. & Greenberg, D. (2008). Turning learning upside down: Putting education back on track. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Ahl, H. (2006). Motivation in adult education: A problem solver or a euphemism for direction and control? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(5), 1-18.

Baum, S. R. (2009). Open classroom schools. Retrieved from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2302/Open-Classroom-Schools.html.

Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dewey, (1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. NewYork, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Hergenhahn, B. R. (1982). An introduction to theories of learning. 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations: a psychological study of the English schoolboy (p. 205). Middlesex, England: Penguin Books – Methuen.

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. London: Calder and Boyars, Ltd.

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing
Company.

Kolb, D.A. (1981) Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In Arthur W. Chickering and Associates (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 232-255). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Long, H.B. (2004). Understanding adult learners. In M.W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction.Malabar, FL: Frieger Publishing Company.

McKenzie, W. (1999). It’s not how smart you are, it’s how you are smart! Retrieved from http://surfaquarium.com/Mi/overview.htm.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: The Free Press

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Education, a first book. Macmillan.

Wink & Putney. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Wlodkowski, R. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.