Reflection - Teaching, Writing, and Building with Theory
Over the past several weeks in LTEC 6040, the discussions and readings have pushed me to think about learning theory as something that actively shapes instructional decisions rather than something that is simply cited in research. Finishing Miller (which I LOVED) and beginning the new textbook helped reinforce that shift. As I read, I tried to be more intentional about asking: What view of the learner does this theory assume? What does this look like in an actual classroom? How would I recognize it if it were happening?
The jigsaw activity (I caught the end of it) on learning theories was especially helpful because it required moving beyond definitions and into application. The conversation around cognitivism clarified the importance of focusing on mental processing, not just observable outcomes. In both my college and middle school settings, I can see the difference between students completing tasks and students actively processing content. That distinction connects directly to how we design instruction. It is easy to measure completion; it is harder to design for meaningful cognitive engagement especially in online learning.
The discussion of sociocultural versus cognitive/psychological theory “families” also provided a helpful organizing lens. I appreciated seeing how theories like connectivism, social constructivism, and self-regulated learning intersect rather than compete. In my college courses, especially in lab settings, learning is deeply social. Students rely on one another to troubleshoot procedures, interpret results, and refine their understanding. At the same time, successful lab performance requires strong individual regulation—planning, monitoring, and adjusting. Seeing these theories grouped and connected reinforced that effective instruction rarely operates from a single theoretical lens.
The conversation about self-regulated learning stood out in particular. In both higher education and middle school classrooms, differences in self-regulation are visible. Some learners plan ahead, monitor their progress, and seek feedback strategically. Others need more structure and guidance to stay engaged. When we discussed hybrid and online learning trends, I was reminded that format alone does not produce independence. Readiness matters. That realization connects directly to how instruction should be structured—particularly in environments that expect learners to manage more of their own time and cognitive effort.
The discussion on AI literacy and critical thinking also resonated with me as an instructor. The idea that AI literacy is essentially critical thinking and information literacy applied in a new format reframed the issue in a productive way. In college settings especially, students increasingly encounter AI tools. The key question is not whether the tools are present, but whether students can evaluate information, analyze reasoning, and determine accuracy. That aligns closely with broader goals of higher education: cultivating discernment, not just efficiency.
Analyzing empirical articles for Investigation 1 further reinforced the importance of precision in theoretical framing. Seeing how different researchers operationalize the same theory highlighted the need for clarity in definitions and alignment between constructs and design choices. It underscored that theory is not decorative—it guides what we measure, how we interpret findings, and what claims we can responsibly make.
Overall, these weeks have strengthened my understanding that theory and practice are not separate domains. Teaching at both the college and K–12 levels provides constant opportunities to observe how cognitive load, self-regulation, ZPD, social interaction, and scaffolding function in real time. The course discussions have given me a more structured way to interpret those observations. Rather than viewing learning theories as isolated frameworks, it’s helped me to see them as complementary lenses that, when used intentionally, lead to more thoughtful instructional design and more coherent research questions.
