Running Heading: Personalized Theory of Learning 1

Personalized Learning Theory

Michelle C Nethercott Hortin

University of Utah

Personalized Learning Theory

Personalized Theory 2

My Personal teaching and learning theory is that students will be able to read and write

10 cursive letters with 4 basic strokes though the process of modeling, feedback, practice and an

interview. Students will start out with the following inputs of how to hold a pencil, how to write

the alphabet in print, how to behave during small group instruction. They will also need to

know that cursive is a form of communication, helps us to read old documents, is done for

decoration, and fun.

The tenets in my theory are that students do the majority of learning through receiving

feedback and by practice. These are my major tenets because in my first round of data students

needed a lot of practice and time on their own to master skills.

Feedback is also a major tenet because students would make the same mistakes unless

they received feedback to tell them to adjust or correct the skills they were practicing.

The principles in my theory are that students are able to learn on their own by

recognizing symbols, connecting what they are learning to skills they already know, and

transferring a similar skill to a new skill. These are the principles because students were able to

read and write some cursive letters and words without any instruction or modeling preliminary

observations.

I collected data on one group of three students. My input and results stayed the same as

the first round of data collection. What I changed was the means. I made sure instruction was 1-5

minutes to optimize the amount of time students had to practice, added an interview to assess

how students recognized untaught letters and changed how I gave feedback to increase

motivation.
Personalized Theory 3

Students started the 2nd round of data collection by being interviewed about the inputs of

whether they were left or right handed, if were able to write the alphabet in print, and if they

could hold a pencil correctly.

There was one student who forgot some letters but he was reminded by another student

that he could look at the alphabet on the wall. Another student didn’t have a good pencil hold so

I modeled how to hold it.

Next, I had the students write cursive letters that they already knew in order to assess

prior knowledge. Janalyse was able to write her name, Blake was able to write a capital “D” and

Natalie was able to write an “e” and a “t” in cursive.

Following that, I asked the students, “ What do you already know about writing cursive?”

The students responded, “You don’t pick up your pencil while you write”, “You can connect

[letters]”, and “Your letters are smooth.”

Students were asked, “What would use cursive for,?”,...“Why is it important?”

and…”Why do you want to learn it?” They responded, “writing”, “...reading old papers...”, “...

[reading] adult handwriting…”, [and] “...signing your name….”,

Last of all I asked, “Where would you find cursive outside of school?”, students

responded, “... signs, ... The Declaration of Independence,... birthday cakes,...addresses,

[and]..old papers.”

After the interview, they started their first lesson. I showed them how to angle their paper

for cursive vs. print, asked if they were left or right handed, showed how to hold the edge of the

paper with their non dominant hand, how to sit up, and how to put both feet on the floor.
Personalized Theory 4

Students looked at an illustration of how to turn their paper correctly. I modeled it and

then the students copied how to position their paper. One student was confused about which way

to tilt his page, so I walked around the table and remodeled.

Next, I demonstrated 4 basic cursive strokes. We did the four basic strokes in the air with

our fingers. Then we turned to the review page at the end of the lesson so students could look at

the picture of the strokes as well. I demonstrated the strokes on the board. Then students

practiced the basic strokes one more time in the air.

Then, we looked at the lower case alphabet and identified letters that had “strokes that

curve up”. Students looked for letters that curved up in the cursive alphabet and traced the parts

of the letter that “curved up”. We discussed and did this as a group. We also discussed, “Lines

that slant”. I explained that if you know how to make a “Z” in print you already know how to

make a slant in cursive.

After that I then modeled how to write an “i’ on the a whiteboard. Then we traced ‘i’s in

the air with our pointer fingers. Next students practiced by tracing the letters on their pages. I

remodeled, gave specific feedback, and told them to “keep working hard”. This first lesson took

10 min. to do all the instruction students practice the stroke and the letter ‘i’ for 20 minutes.

I continued leaving majority of the time for student practice while giving specific

feedback throughout the rest of the lessons. The students had 6 more lessons in which they were

taught the same thing using different letters. The letters were ’t’, ’l’, ’e’, ’o’, ’a’, ’c’,’d’, ‘m’,

and ‘n’. The last two strokes were, “strokes that curve down” and “strokes that curve over”. The

rest of the lesson I only instructed 1-5 minutes before letting students have practice time.
Personalized Theory 5

Students had approximately 30 minutes to practice on each lesson. I remodeled, gave specific

feedback, and told them to “keep working hard” throughout each lesson.

Throughout the lesson,I changed how much feedback, the way in which I gave feedback

and how often I gave feedback from the way I did in the preliminary data collection. I focused

comments on how hard students were working instead of saying “You’re so good!” I also

decided to make sure my feedback was more specific instead of generic such as “Great Job!”

Instead I would say “The under curve looks exactly right! Let’s practice straighter slants.” I also

made sure I was giving feedback as they were practicing, acting more as guide than just someone

to be copied.

Here are things that were observed during all the lessons. One of the students was so

excited to learn cursive that he didn’t want to watch the demonstration. I told him about 3 times,

“I know you are excited, but part of learning is watching how something is done. So, watch first

and then you can try.”

During the lessons I would give them immediate feedback on how to fix the letters. In the

first round of data collection I would of wait a few letters before giving feedback. Other

feedback students received was, “Remember you don’t pick up your pencil in the middle of the

word, ...Start at the top...make a loop when your finished,...lines curve out not in on ‘o’s’…that

overcurve was done correctly,....that under curve was done correctly.” I also suggested, “Your ‘l’

needs to touch the top line,...the loop in your ‘i’ needs to be smaller...The ‘t’ should have no loop

in it”. I also gave feedback by guiding their hand when their hand was wobbly. I wouldn’t do the

whole letter, just the trouble strokes.

Personalized Theory 6

I gave feedback, conscientiously. Phrases I said were, “Wow you are working so hard on

that ‘i’ keep going,” instead of “Wow you finished...your so good!” I made this change because

students started complaining that it was hard in the first round of data collection. In third grade

language “it’s too hard” translates to “I need more help,” or “I need more feedback”. I think this

was due to frustration at learning something new, and not giving them them enough, and the

right type of feedback as the instructor.

In the last lesson they practiced ‘n’ and ‘m’ I repeated what I had done in the previous

lessons. We ended with a review of the 4 strokes that students had learned. They reviewed and

practiced the main strokes they had learned.

When we had completed learning the letters and strokes I gave them a blank piece of

paper and had them write down all the cursive letters that they could remember that they had

learned.

When I asked them to write the letters Blake said, “I can't remember how to write any of

the letters...oh wait I remember ‘m’....now I don’t remember anymore letters…”. Me, “What

about ‘e’.” Blake, “Oh yeah...now I can’t remember anymore...wait ‘i’...” Me, “What about ‘l’?”

Blake wrote ‘l’, then looks at me blankly. Me, “ What about ‘c’ and ‘d’...’o’?” Blake, “I don’t

remember how to do ‘c’ and ‘d’.”

Natalie, “I don’t remember how to do any more.” Me, “What about ‘m’ and ‘n’?” Natalie, “Oh!”

She wrote the letters.

After looking at the data Blake also forgot how to write ‘e’, ‘a’, and Janalyse forgot how

to write ‘o’.
Personalized Theory 7

In the end interview, I spoke to students one on one. I showed them the entire cursive

alphabet. I pointed to letters at random and asked, “Tell me what letter this is?” If we’d already

learned it the students responded, “... we learned it…. you showed us…” Then I would ask, “If I

had not taught you that letter yet how would you know?” Responses varied but they were, “It

looks like a normal ‘a’ but the ‘a’ is slanted...It looks like an ‘a’ but there is a curvy line at the

end...it looks like a normal ‘c’ but there’s a big curl on the end.”

When I pointed to a letter they didn’t know I would ask, “What letter is that?” Students

would stop and think, “...it’s a ‘b’.”. Then I would ask, “How do you know?” Student responses

were, “...‘b’ comes after ‘a’....” I asked a few other letters we hadn’t learned and these were the

responds, “‘f’ is the letter after e....’u’ is the letter after ‘w’... ‘x’ has the a line that crosses in the

middle…. ‘z’ is the last letter of the alphabet...I looked at my name tag and realized that the

letters on our name tags are the same order as the alphabet on the wall, and I was able to figure

out which letters were which.... ‘h’ looks the same as a normal ‘h’ it’s just slanted with a little

loop… ‘j’ has a dot on the top like the ‘ j’ on the wall (student points to a print letter on the wall)

… ‘v’ looks like a normal v but curvy at the end… ‘y’ comes after ‘x’.”

I found through both rounds of data collection that students need modeling, but they need

more practice time than watch time. The practice time needs to include some sort of feedback,

whether it’s verbally telling the student, guiding their hand through the motion, and/or watching

an expert do the skill again.

My theory relates to Bandura’s social interaction theory in that students learn new

behaviors in observing live models, or as Gredler (1997) says, “a model consists of organized

stimulus array such as the observer can extract and act on the main information....Live models

[can be people]...whom the individual has direct contact” (p. 354). In this case I was the live
Personalized Theory 8

model that modeled how to write cursive letters.

According to Grendler (1997) in social interaction, learners also need, Motor

Reproduction and Motivational Process which means that, “After the observer has acquired a

symbolic code, performance of the acquired behaviors depends on motor reproduction….[which]

includes the selection and organization of responses at the cognitive level, followed by their

execution (p.363)” This is shown for how much practice time students need to practice the

modeled skill.

It is mentioned by Grendler (1997) as well that, “Successful performance of complex

motor skills….depend of the individual’s internal monitoring of kinesthetic feedback….[which

includes] practice with the concurrent visual feedback via a monitor (p. 374) As the teacher I

provided this monitoring through verbal and physical feedback and by visually remodeling the

letters correctly.

My Theory also compares to Vygotsky’s theory of social interaction. Vygotsky talks

about the Zone of Proximal Development. In this there are different types of interaction. One of

them is scaffolding, “...where the instructor of more advanced peer operates as a supportive tool

for learners as the construct knowledge” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 257). The teacher and learner have

different levels of expertise. Giving more feedback throughout the lessons provided guidance as

students constructed their knowledge about cursive.

Scaffolding students, “...provides support, it functions as a tool, it extends the range of

the worker; it allows the worker to accomplish a task not otherwise possible; and it is used

selectively to aid the worker where needed” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 257). Giving less instruction, but

more feedback throughout the practice time acted as scaffolding for the student.
Personalized Theory 9

I found that students use things around them to learn and help them reach a goal. For

example one students said, “I looked at the wall,” Another said, “I looked at my name tag.”

Students used each other to socially learn as well. For example one student told the other student

they could look at the wall for help.This relates to Vygotsky’s theory in that, “...individual

development cannot be understood without reference to the social milieu ...in which the child is

embedded” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 250).

The interview showed me that students were using a knowledge of symbols. They used

familiar symbols, to compare it with the new symbols they were learning. This data also showed

me that students were using the order or pattern of the alphabet to help them identify letters that

they couldn’t identify by comparison to the print letters that they already knew. This

demonstrated to me they were able to transfer the skill of naming print alphabet letters to cursive

alphabet letters through the process of identifying similar symbols.

This relates to Vygotsky’s “Social Origins of Higher Mental Processes”. Driscoll (2005)

describes this as a process of mediation which says that, “the conversion from the social to the

psychological is not direct. Instead it is accomplished through some kind of link--a tool, or a

‘sign’...A tool...is something that can be used in the service of something else; a sign is

something that stands for something else” (p. 253).

Students used both signs and tools. They used the print cursive as a “tool” to “service”

them in finding unknown letters. They used the cursive letters as “signs” to stand for something

else. In this case the cursive signs were standing for the print signs which were standing for

actual language sounds.

Personalized Theory
10

I could also bring up the point that students could also be using Vygotsky’s view of

“internalization” . The print acts as a ‘first language’ and cursive is a ‘second language’. The

students are relying on the knowledge of their “first language” in order to help them learn their

second language (Driscoll, 2005, p. 253).

All of the factors previously discussed can relate to to Bandura’s theory in that he makes

three assumptions of learning. Gredler (1997) says these are, “1) learning can abstract

information from observing others, and make decisions about the behavior to enact; 2. A three-

way interlocking relationship between the environment, and internal, personal events;.... 3.

Learning is the acquisition of symbolic representations in the form of verbal or visual codes” (p.

352).

The students learned from a natural setting of the classroom. They picked things up from

the environment they were in, they used personal factors to communicate with the teacher and

each other and they “were learning symbolic representation in the form of visual and verbal

codes (Gredler, 1997, p. 352).” Bandura has three

I think one of the holes in my theory is that it doesn’t account for why students don’t

remember things, or why they forget things. For example: Jamie forgot a few letters in the first

round of data collection, and Blake and Natalie Forgot letters in the second round of data

collection.

We practiced and practiced the letters, and yet I had students that forgot. Forgetting

could be addressed as a fact that they didn’t have enough practice for retention of the skill.
Personalized Theory
11

This could be connected to Bandura. Gredler (1997) explains rehearsal, by stating that

“...motor rehearsal (overreaction) serve[s] as a memory aid” (p. 363). It could be said that

students forgot due to a need of more rehersal.

I focused on how the students were able to learn to read and write the alphabet more than

on the actual result. This relates to Vygotsky because his theory, “...[attempted] to understand

formation of intellect by focusing on its process of development” (Driscoll, 1997, p.3). In other

words it focuses more on the process rather than the end results. This is what I focused on in data

collection.

In comparing the two rounds of data collection, I found that students didn’t seem as if

they were scared to make mistakes, and erased more frequently.The speed at which students

wrote individual strokes increased. The students weren’t as hesitant to write. The time it took to

practice was still long, but they weren’t going millimeter by millimeter. Students also seemed

more relaxed, not as tense. The first round of data collection seemed like they were afraid to

mess up, which caused them to write extremely cautious and slow. This time I focused on

complimenting them on doing their best and working hard. I also made sure I gave more specific

feedback about letter formation. This helped them not to be so meticulous.

This relates to Dweck's Theory on Motivation. In her theory Dweck (2002) describes that

students are motivated or not motivated by the way students are given feedback. Dweck (2002)

explained,

“Our findings on trait versus process feedback tell a consistent story, They show that

practices that focus students on judgements of their intelligence lead to a belief in fixed
Personalized Theory
12

intelligence with all of its vulnerabilities. On the other hand, practices that focus

students on effort, challenge, or strategies lead to a belief in malleable intelligence with

all of its benefits” (p. 53).

In other words, the way in which I gave the specific feedback, for example I noticed their effort

instead of noticing if they were good or bad, effected how they were motivated and behaved.

My theory is least like situated cognition theories. Mostly because the learning

environment doesn’t have them going out and using learning cursive in a real life situation.

Instead they are at a back table with a piece of paper, and teacher.. For example, Brown (1989)

says that, “activity and situations are integral to cognition and learning” (p. 32). Brown (1989)

would describe this activity as a “school activity” rather than an “authentic activity” meaning

that this activity isn’t, “...framed by a surrounding culture” ( p. 34).

My personal theory doesn’t completely relate to cognition: information processing as

well because “...humans are processors of information...humans take information as input, apply

one or more mental operator to that information and produce information as an output” (Mayer,

1996, p. 154). This theory talks about how the human mind is like a computer (Mayer, 1996, p.

154). In my theory it’s focused mostly on student practice and feedback, rather than what process

is happening in the students brain. There are a few aspects that are the same. Such as the

‘modeling’ could be considered ‘input’, and the writing students create could be considered the

‘output’ in this theory. So, the ‘practicing’ portion would be part of the output and the feedback

would be part of the ‘input’. It honestly doesn’t make much sense to me because my theory

doesn’t explain what, ‘applying one or more mental operator’ means.

Personalized Theory
13

To conclude, my learning theory is that students will be able to learn to read and write 10

letters and 4 strokes in cursive through modeling, practice, feedback, and an Interview. It is least

like situated cognition, and cognitive information processing. This theory is a combination of

Dweck’s theory of motivation and Vygotsky and Bandura’s theories of Social Interaction.
Personalized Theory
14

References:

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of

learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Driscoll, M. P., (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson Allyn and

Bacon. Chapter 7: Interactive Theories of Development (pp. 245-263) • Gredler,

Dweck, C. S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students' beliefs,

motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). In Aronson, J. (2002). Improving

academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (Educational

psychology series; Educational psychology). Amsterdam: Academic Press (pp. 37-60).

M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Prentice Hall. Chapter 10, Albert

Bandura’s Social-Cognitive Theory (pp. 350-390) A

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational

psychology's second. Educational psychologist, 31(3-4), 151-161.

Appendix:
Personalized Theory
15

Pictures of the alphabet in my room. (Below)

Picture of the name tags on their desk. (Below)

Personalized Theory
16

Pictures of Blake’s, Janalyse’s and Natalie’s inputs. (Below)

Natalaie’s Work (Below)

Personalized Theory
17
Personalized Theory
18

Blake’s Work (Below)

Personalized Theory
19
Personalized Theory
20

Janalyse’s Work (Below)

Personalized Theory
21
Personalized Theory
22

Blake, Natalie’s and Janalyse’s Final papers:

Personalized Theory
23

Natalie Blake

Janalyse

Jamie’s post from the first round of data collection: