Making Sense of Learning

Theories of Learning
Precisely because learning is not a universally fixed or agreed concept, learning has been defined in many different ways. In trying to make sense of learning it seems appropriate and proper to establish at the outset that there are in fact different ways of learning, and that humans choose to learn different things in different ways.

The dominant focus on how people learn throughout the 20th century has been derived from psychology where the main theories of learning include behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. Other major theories of learning are based on a humanistic perspective rather than a psychological view. The humanistic theories are concerned with emotions and feelings and to my mind, can and do work in parallel with the three main psychological theories of learning.

Many other theories of learning have been proposed over the years which predominantly fall within the scope of these four main theories. In some cases due to the complex nature of learning, aspects of many sub theories may crossover the theoretical divisions.

A strong theme that has emerged in recent years has been the influence of social and cultural aspects to the learning process, so amongst the many sub theories of learning, social learning theories are very important in the learning process of humans.

“The social learning theory of Bandura emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others” (Kearsley 2003)

Brian Science is a study of how physically the brain functions and I think it helps inform the debate on how people learn.

So what are you doing when you are learning? What is the result of the learning process?
Once again with this complex business of learning there are no easy answers. I venture to suggest that it would be fair to say that depending on your viewpoint and/ or what you are learning you will be acquiring or creating knowledge. In discussing Driscoll’s (2000) definition of learning Siemens (2005) states that learning as viewed by the three main theories results in a “lasting changed state (emotional, mental, physiological (i.e. skills) brought about as a result of experiences and interactions with content or other people.”

Siemens (2005) highlights that all three major psychological learning theories i.e. Behaviorism, Cognivitism and Constructivism hold the notion that “knowledge is an objective (or a state) that is attainable (if not already innate) through either reasoning or experiences.”

After reading the Siemens (2005) article, the key points for me in differentiating between the different theories of learning was the observation that
• Behaviorism and Cognivitism view knowledge as external to the learner and the learning process as the act of internalizing knowledge.
• Constructivism suggests that learners create knowledge as they attempt to understand their experiences (Driscoll 2000 in Siemens (2005))

Further to the points above:
• The essence of behaviorism can be captured in three assumptions about learning:
o Observable behavior is more important than understanding internal activities.
o Behavior should be focused on simple elements: specific stimuli and responses.
o Learning is about behavior change. (Gredler 2001 in Siemens (2005))
• In cognitivism, knowledge is viewed as symbolic mental constructs in the learner's mind, and the learning process is the means by which these symbolic representations are committed to memory. (Buell in Siemens (2005)))
• Constructivism assumes that learners are not empty vessels to be filled with knowledge. Instead, learners are actively attempting to create meaning. Siemens (2005))
• Humanists, give primacy to the study of human needs and interests. A central assumption is that human beings behave out of intentionality and values. Huitt (2001)
Theories of learning can be described as explanations and descriptions of how people learn. Terry Mayes and Sara de Freitas (2004) offer the following definition

“Theories of learning provide empirically-based accounts of the variables which influence the learning process, and provide explanations of the ways in which that influence occurs”
What is apparent from reading the literature is that people can learn in a variety of different ways and are influenced by a number of factors. When it comes to learning material for students, awareness of the different learning theories combined with the learning objectives is essential in guiding a teacher in designing appropriate material for the subject and the objective to be learned.

Models of Learning
One of the most infuriating aspects of reading though the literature is trying to establish a clear distinction between a theory of learning and a model of learning. The difficulty lies in the fact that the word “Model” can be used to try and explain how exactly a learning theory works in a descriptive way i.e. modeling way. “Model” can also be used in a prescriptive way to suggest the best approach to take to enhance learning. In order for me to make sense of this contradiction I take the following views:
1. A theory of learning is a description of how people learn.
2. A model of learning is a prescriptive method (can be tightly or loosely prescribed) on how learning should best occur.
3. Models of learning will draw on various theories of learning and give teachers a framework in which to devise teaching strategies to ensure the maximum opportunity for student learning.
4. Models of learning are really models of teaching (see Teaching/ Learning Models)
5. Models of Learning/ Teaching will guide the Instructional Design activities developed for a program of study.

Externalize!! Externalize!!

In recent weeks I have been grappling with learning theories and models and trying to create my own mental model of how all the theories relate to each other and how they fit into the timeline of mankind’s understanding of how we learn.

My understanding thus far is that we do learn different things in different ways. There are three well established, recognized and what I’d describe as top level theories of learning that can explain the way that we learn – behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism

Steve's mental map of the development of learning theory

Although not strictly true, mankind has developed its understanding in more or less a linear fashion starting with the stimuli-response approach of behaviorism capturing the essence of lower mental order learning skills, moving through to cognitive and constructivist approaches which attempt to explain the high order mental learning that goes on in the brain.

I have read a number of articles in recent months on models and theories of learning and although I said in an earlier blog that Brenda Mergel (in praise of Brenda Mergel) had quickly and easily explained the difference away, which she did, I still find the use of the terms interchangeable in a lot of texts and I have not fully clarified the difference in my own mind. That said I feel clear that the three main learning theories that have evolved over the previous centuries are as I have stated above behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism.

Currently I am reading an excellent book, “Models
of adult learning: a literature review” published by Niace which summarizes neatly and concisely many models/ theories of learning. I have started on models of psychology and building on our three top level theories, I have briefly looked into developmental theories, activity theory, social constructivism and situated cognition.

I see the developmental theories as a more detailed explanation of how people learn cognitively and through constructivism. The other theories are ways of learning that sit within a particular developmental theory and seem to me to follow a linear progression of mankind’s understanding of learning.

What this means to me is that it has been recognized that people go through stages of individual cognitive development, but have social and cultural influences that impact their learning. Significantly these same learning processes can happen in a classroom (decontextualised) setting and in real life settings which can alter how and what is learnt.

From initial stimuli-response behavior, learning theory has developed to the current mainstream position that learning in people happens internally inside one’s brain. Recent theories seem to be leaning towards the importance of the social aspects of learning, both in socio-cultural influences and in the social interaction and collaboration that people do. Brain Science Research also suggests that social interaction is important part of Brain development.

This leads me nicely into the possibility that a fourth top level learning theory is perhaps starting to emerge. Bang on cue as I am working my way through this material up pops good old George Siemens in his weekly elearnspace email newsletter justifying his theory that 'connectivism' is the new learning theory for the digital age.

I confess two things, one I was immediately impressed with George’s elearnspace newsletter when i first came across it. Quite simply George brings to our attention very current topical issues related to web technology and the whole area of learning. Secondly his theory of connectivism was all a bit too much for me to take in, as I was just about getting my head around the concept of learning being an internal process inside a person as outlined in cognitive and constructivist approaches to learning, when George’s theory is attempting to say that the key focus of learning is not what happens internally, but what happens externally and that the key component of learning is connecting externally with other people and technology to crystallize your learning to the outside world.
As George puts it

"We are social beings. Through language, symbols, video, images, and other means, we seek to express our thoughts. Essentially, our need to derive and express meaning, gain and share knowledge requires externalization.

We externalize ourselves in order to know and be known. As we externalize, we distribute our knowledge across a network perhaps with individuals seated around a conference, readers at a distance, or listeners to podcasts or viewers of a video clip. Most existing theories of learning assume the opposite, stating that internalization is the key function of learning (cognitivism assumes we process information internally, constructivism asserts that we assign meaning internally though the process of deriving meaning may be a function of a social network, i.e. the social dimension assists in learning, rather than the social dimension being the aim of learning).

The externalization of our knowledge is increasingly utilized as a means of coping with information overload. The growth and complexity of knowledge requires that our capacity for learning resides in the connections we form with people and information, often mediated or facilitated with technology." George Siemens (2006) elearnspace blog

Is connectivism and the idea of externalization the next significant development in mankind’s understanding of learning theory. Is it the learning theory of the digital age, of this I am not quite sure as I am not fluent in the language of learners and need to read more on the subject. What does strike me is that it fits nicely into how theories of learning have developed with the fact that socialization has grown to be an important element of recent theories of learning and that connectivism would seem a neat logical next step to describe how learning is occurring now in this modern digital world.

Being a novice in the learning theory arena, I felt that I had insufficient knowledge to think about challenging George’s views in the first place, so I just let it lie. I was delighted to hear of a critical retort to George’s connectivism theory by Bijdrage van Pløn Verhagen (University of Twente)
http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793 11/11/2006). I was equally delighted that George responded to the criticism.
(http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm November 12, 2006)

I still have not fully digested the debate, only to say George’s response helped me with my understanding of learning theories and made me think, hey he may have a point here. The other thing to come across is the passion George has in defending his position. I look forward to reading more pro’s and cons of the connectivism theory.

In Praise of Brenda Mergel!

Originally posted 06/09/2006 on the Journaldoodledastic blog

After reading the “infed” article on learning theory , next on my list was a paper titled “Instructional Design” and Learning Theory” by Brenda Mergel.

MY LEARNING TASK: Read Brenda Mergel paper on “Instructional Design” and Learning Theory”

ABOUT MY LEARNING TASK
I first came across Brenda’s paper a couple of years ago when studying for my Postgraduate Certificate in Higher and Professional Education. I find Brenda’s writing on this subject superbly written with great clarity and addresses exactly the questions and issues that were being raised in my own mind.

Brenda neatly and simply identifies the main theories of learning as

• Behaviorism
• Cognitivism
• Constructivism

She gives a concise history and development of the three theories of learning and then proceeds to also offer a brief history of each learning theory in relation to instructional design.

REFLECTIONS
The main question concerning me before reading the article was; What is the difference between theories of learning and models of learning? A short concise overview in the first paragraph cleared that one up? I look forward to seeing how others explain the difference and to read other views on these three main theories of learning.

Behaviorism, the only way to learn – your having a laugh!
It seems hard to comprehend that behaviourists do not acknowledge that the mind and thinking plays a part in learning. Perhaps in the beginning when theories were first being developed it was understandable that this was the line of fire when trying to pin down “what is learning?”, especially as the first theorists also tended to come from a background in the study of animal behaviour. Brenda does point out that many behaviorist after a while did start to incorporate ideas of cognivitism into the theories of learning at a later date.

Brenda’s paper was very good at showing how the theories of learning have developed from behaviorism through cognitivism to the most recent learning theory of constructivism. It also explained that when designing materials for instruction that it may be useful to draw on all three learning theories depending on what type of learning you hope to achieve and depending how early into the learning cycle students may be. The paper indicated that it may be that behavioral objectives in instructional design could be appropriate when learning about a new subject and that more constructivist approaches are better with mid to advanced students.

As I alluded to in my previous blog I was coming to the conclusion that we learn different things in different ways. Brenda’s paper kind of reinforced this for me.