Week16 Summative Reflection – LTEC 6010: What Did You Learn? What Do You Still Need To Learn?

Image credit: Human Brain Development by Natalya Kosarevich, Getty Images (2023)

LTEC 6010, has been a very humbling experience. Dr. Warren continually reinforced during the course that you think you know, but this course helps you realize you have so much more to learn. In the words of Forest Long, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste” (Long 1972). Some of my major learnings (not just about new concepts) were about changing the ways in which I perceive knowledge, learning and research.

One of the most influential aspects for me was developing a deeper understanding of ontology and epistemology. At the start of the semester, these seemed like philosophical abstractions. Over the past few weeks, I've began to appreciate how they inform all of our perceptions, how we define what is real to us, and how we justify knowing or believing something. My biggest realization from this course was that my own assumptions will always impact how I address problems and interpret data. Although I am more aware of these theoretical lenses now, I still need to continue working at being more intentional in utilizing them in my research and decision-making processes.

My second major lesson was developing my individualized learning theory. From what I've gathered through this process, I tend to be a constructivist learner, because I make connections and create meanings through relationships among ideas. That said, I also saw value in the role of behaviorism and cognitivism within learning contexts especially when students require structured support and or reinforcement. Where I struggle to grow further, however, is becoming more deliberate in selecting the best learning approach based upon the specific context instead of using the approaches that have developed naturally.

In addition to developing my learning theory, I had a significant shift in how I conceptualize academic work through Claim, Evidence, Reasoning. Prior to this course, I thought that creating a claim was sufficient; if it could be logically supported with relevant evidence. Through this course, however, I've discovered that there is much more involved in establishing a strong argument it requires a valid claim, supporting evidence and logical reasoning. Developing the skills to utilize evidence more objectively while evaluating sources and synthesizing information into coherent arguments is another area where I need to improve.

Domain Language and Procedural Outcomes have deepened my appreciation for the importance of mastering the vocabulary of a discipline to fully engage with that discipline. In addition to appreciating the importance of procedural outcomes, I now think in terms of what learners should be able to "do" as opposed to what learners should be able to "know." Still, converting complex ideas into clear measurable outcome indicators remains an area where I need to develop additional skills.

Further, exploring Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism provided me with a more comprehensive model for how learning takes place. Each theory provides a unique lens into understanding learning; each complements other theories as well. Now that I understand each theory separately, the next step for me will be to learn how to apply each theory in effective manners especially as I plan for meaningful learning opportunities.

Additionally, the philosophical principles surrounding Research Design have opened my eyes even wider. Prior to this course, I perceived research as far more objective than I did after taking this course; research is informed by the researcher's underlying belief systems regarding what constitutes knowledge and what constitutes reality. Although I'm able to more clearly recognize these influences today than before, I still need to enhance my ability to both identify and articulate these influences in both my own research efforts as well as in those of others.

Lastly, Systems Theory has fundamentally altered the manner in which I consider Organizations or Learning Environments. Today, I perceive these as integrated systems comprised of many dynamic elements rather than distinct entities. This systemic model has greatly aided me in recognizing complexity; nonetheless, I still need to develop my abilities to navigate and affect these systems effectively.

All in all, this course has challenged me to reconsider not only what I know but how I came to know what I currently believe or know. Thus, I depart this experience not with a feeling of completion, but with an expanded awareness that what I currently know is merely the starting point for the actual potential for development exists in continuing to ask questions, explore and pursue how much more there is for me to discover or learn.

Week 10 Reflection – LTEC 6010: Reflecting on Learning Management Systems: How Digital Training Shapes Workforce Skill Transfer

Image Credit:: Arlington Research Workplace. (2025) http://www.arlingtonresearch.global/

Building learning and teaching environments in which technology is valued and used are the key roles of schools. This is primarily true in workplaces in which big companies implement Learning Management Systems (LMS) and other digital tools. You can learn faster with these computer-based learning tools, which are easily accessible and flexible. Do they assist people in reaching their goals in the workplace?

The solution is not that easy. You may have witnessed numerous T.V. shows and the advertisement of ITIs and the future opportunities you will get, but the truth behind them is different. The manner in which businesses use these tools to deliver training is a key factor. A tool is often implemented by many organizations without a training plan, goals, or follow-up. Consequently, the emphasis shifts towards the technology (for instance, clicking through a module, watching a video, or taking a quiz) rather than the learning itself. Many users simply click through a module or modules, take a quiz, don’t practice, and don’t get feedback. There is a speedy “forgetting” of learning. Salas et al. (2012) and Sitzmann (2011) reveal this issue clearly.

When an employee completes an online safety course but never practices those safety steps or gets feedback, they are likely never going to use those steps correctly when the occasion arises. The system is not a skill awareness. Another challenge is that not all employees are equally adept with technology. While some workers are confident and knowledgeable digital tool users, others struggle with them. According to van Laar et al. (2017) and Ng (2012), digital skills differ across populations. When it is assumed that everyone is ready, the training can leave workers behind.

Just because a system is simple to use does not mean it will remove deeper aspects, such as the fear of failure or resistance to change of staff. Most employees may not access the portal correctly or use it to its potential because it will be overwhelming and confusing. Any system which is easy does not eliminate barriers related to technology. Probably few people would argue that whatever the job, all workers need access to job skills. Workers should be equipped with hands-on job skills, as this is a completely different story altogether. It will be necessary to acquire action-oriented job skills, especially those that involve people. Skills such as communication, teamwork, and quick decision making are all hard to learn from a tool.

According to the study of Bell et al. (2017), learning can be improved by simulation, but only if practice and feedback follow the simulation experience. Simulations are useful if and only if they are realistic. Some people think studying through digital tools is more engaging and flexible. To some degree, this is the case. Interactive modules and videos are interesting to interact with. You gain access to training classes anytime and anywhere and learn at your own pace (Means et al., 2010). Additionally, employees can access content at any time they wish.

Simply put, technology can sustain deployment but cannot ensure learning or performance by itself. Management systems are not good or bad; nonetheless, when applied in the right way, they are beneficial. Learning management systems, when deployed correctly, for example, can help improve access to training, allow for personalization, and reach many learners simultaneously (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). However, they can become limiting when an organization is entirely dependent on them.

Only people can train other people. A comprehensive and effective plan is important if you want to provide effective training. The strategy will have to address competencies, behavior, performance, and adaptation to change. You must establish the proper goals. The businesses that understand this will be the winners, not always on training completion rates, but on impact on jobs. Educational enhancement occurs when digital tools merge with authentic practice, individuals, and design. Ultimately, technology is a means to an end.

Week 9 Reflection – LTEC 6010: Reflecting on Identity: How My Learning Self Shapes Teaching, Theory, and Research

Identity sharing has been a strong mirror for me. Telling my story as a learner, teacher, and new researcher made clear how much I rely on dialogue, real problems, and attention to whose voices are heard in class. It also showed me that these are not just preferences but core parts of my professional identity.

How Identity Sharing Went

Sharing my identity felt both affirming and a bit risky. Naming that I learn best through conversation and problem solving helped me see a clear pattern in how I study, teach, and design tasks. At the same time, talking about whose stories count in classrooms made me ask when I may have failed to notice silence or exclusion in my own practice. I also saw that my use of problem based, open tasks is not only a method but an expression of who I am as an educator.

What I Learned About Myself

Through this process, I learned that I am someone who learns least effectively in lecture and test environments and is most engaged in dialogic, problem centered spaces. I am a person who quickly notices power and voice, who sees which students speak and which stay quiet, and whose knowledge is treated as normal or as other. I am also a researcher who wants to see learning in action, through classroom observation, talk, and participation, because I see knowledge as built in context, not just stored in individual minds. I realized that I hold a strong belief that learning should feel meaningful and connected to real life, which drives my work but can also limit my openness to other approaches.

Overcoming Personal Values to Learn New Things

My values support deep learning but can also narrow what I am willing to try. Because I value open and authentic problems, I can lose patience with very structured, stepwise teaching, even when it might support beginners. Because I dislike lecture heavy settings, I can dismiss content focused sessions too quickly. To keep learning, I need to hold my constructivist commitments with some humility, be willing to sit in environments that do not match my ideal and treat my discomfort as data rather than as a sign that the space is wrong. Overcoming my values does not mean dropping them but letting them be questioned and refined as I encounter new methods and new evidence.

How My Identity Pushes Theory and Research

This same identity shapes the questions I want to ask as a researcher. Since I see knowledge as socially constructed and tied to participation and power, I am drawn to questions such as who speaks in problem-based classrooms, how different students experience open tasks, and how teachers work within tight constraints while still trying to teach in a constructivist way. My identity pushes me to extend constructivist theory by placing power, emotion, and constraint closer to the center. I want to know not only that learning is socially built, but whose social worlds shape that building and who is left out of it.

Where Identity Comes From

I see identity as coming from the mix of personal history, relationships, culture, and institutions. My own identity was shaped by years of finding lectures less effective, thriving in project and discussion based courses, teaching students from different nationalities, and working within specific school systems. It is also shaped by the stories my culture tells about good students and good teachers and by how others have responded to me in those roles. Identity is not fixed. It is built and rebuilt through interaction and reflection across time.

Impact on Teaching and Learning

Identity has a strong impact on teaching and learning because it shapes what feels natural, what we notice, and what we value. For me, group work, discussion, and open problems feel natural, which leads me to design such environments for my students. My focus on voice and participation means I notice who is silent and who is centered. For learners, identity shapes whether they feel safe to speak, whether they see themselves as capable knowers, and how they read a task that is open or ambiguous. For teachers, identity guides method choice, expectations of students, and interpretations of behavior.

One example is my own learning. In lecture heavy classes, I often did little more than memorize for tests, while in project based courses I was energized by working on real questions with peers and having some say in my focus. As a teacher / trainer, having taught students from different nationalities made me more aware that what counts as normal is culturally situated and led me to design tasks that invite students to draw on their own experiences. As a researcher, my belief that learning is visible in interaction directs me toward qualitative methods and toward questions about process rather than only outcomes.

For me, identity sharing has become more than a reflective exercise. It is now a way to make sure that the person I am, the theory I read, and the research I plan are in honest conversation with each other.