Reflection: The Evolution of Learning Theories, Expanded

This is a final reflection post on a loose series of posts on learning and learning theories (namely behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, social learning theories, connectivism, and adult learning), and this time I hope to cover some previous ground about my views on individual learning theories and learning theories as a whole while also adding some new metaphors and framework for thinking about all of the learning theories together as a cohesive whole. In doing this, it is my hope that we can create a more scientific and unified theory of learning as our understanding of biology, neuropsychology/psychology, technology, and sociology advance.

I. Cultural Philosophy of Learning: How the Evolution of Learning Theories Mirror Our Own

            I explained in a previous post that I feel that learning theories have as much to do with the cultural philosophy and spirit of the times in which they were introduced as much as their basis in empirical studies. This actually becomes cyclical: The culture effects our understanding of learning, and the resultant learning theories affect the culture and our methods of teaching and learning, which then affects how we think we learn again adding to theories, and so on…

            To drive the learning theory evolution metaphor home, I will describe and compare each learning theory to a time in our history. The first learning theory on the timeline is behaviorism, and behaviorism draws inspiration from the work of Pavlov and the conditioning of his dogs to salivate at the dinner bell (Standridge, 2001). Behaviorist B.F. Skinner is also well known for his experiment with pigeon’s pressing a level and creating superstitious rituals to increase their chances to get food. Behaviorism, with its emphasis on stimulus-response, also represents the most primal way in which we learn. All of us have inherited a “reptilian” or “old” brain, which still very much learns via stimulus-response. I was recently watching a South Park episode which featured Cesar Milan, a.k.a. “The Dog Whisperer.” The episode features a parody of Cesar Milan’s behaviorist approach towards out-of-control dogs on the budding sociopath on the show, Eric Cartman. (Note on Link: Contains language some may find offensive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx_lTgUSyB4). At the end of the clip, we start to see Cartman roll on his back and be submissive. Towards the end of the episode, Cartman transforms into the perfect child, but it is implied he reverts back after his mother does not stick with the behaviorist approach taught by Milan.

Since behaviorism’s popularity tapered off with the introduction of cognitivism, with its focus on internal mental states, which Skinner’s behaviorism completely ignored. This and every learning theory since has led some to believe behaviorism has been abandoned as obsolete. Kerr (2009) argued otherwise and showed how behaviorism and other learning theories evolve with time, and may lose popularity, but not relevance: Philosopher Dan Dennett expanded behaviorism by including internal mental states by explaining “generate-test”—that animals can generate hypotheses and test them in their minds before acting them out. This shows that not only does how we learn evolve with each new learning theory proposed, but also shows that individual learning theories evolve as well. While generate-test behaviorism, according to Dennett, may be the only explanation for learning that does not result in circular reasoning, the rather dull teaching methods of behaviorists left a lot to be desired, both then and now, and do not embrace the widest spectrum of the myriad of ways in which learning can take place.

            Enter cognitivism. Cognitivism, like behaviorism, tries to take an empirical approach to how we learn, but focuses on the internal mental states which behaviorism largely neglected. So if behaviorism represents our evolutionary behavior inherited from our special ancestor, cognitivism, with its metaphor of the “mind as a computer” resembles the rationalist approach of the Intellectual Enlightenment. Cognitivism emphasizes problem-solving in a linear and logical manner (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009). Its emphasis on thought and self-monitoring seems to echo the philosophy of self-governance that was prevalent in the Enlightenment era.   

            Constructivism, however, seemed to reject the heavy emphasis on observable and objective reality of behaviorism or the linear rationalist approach of cognitivism. Constructivism purports that the learner constructs his or her own meaning based on past learning and beliefs, and that what is true is relative to each learner. Situated cognition, or place-specific learning, is also a prevalent idea in constructivism (Ormrod, Schunk, & Gredler, 2009). This is very much like the painting of the Romantic era, which often had an emphasis on place and nature, and often had hidden symbols and meaning in the work, giving it a very personal and spiritual/subjective feel. In this way, constructivism follows and rejects cognitivism in similar ways as the Romantic era follows and rejects the Enlightenment and early Industrial Revolution thinking.

            The Industrial Revolution had an incredible change on the impact of population growth, human understanding, and the planet at large. The next great revolutions to come about were globalization and the electronic/Internet revolution. Globalization and the shrinking of our social world have given rise to social learning theories, which emphasize the effect our communities and groups have on our learning. As cultures and people within groups clash, that arguing process becomes internalized in the learner, which informs their perspective on a viewpoint (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).

The Electronic Revolution and the Internet, in combination with social learning, has led to one of the most recent learning theories, connectivism, which emphasizes that learning relies upon the depth and richness of one’s social and technological networks (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008). In terms of today’s culture, I find that connectivism is the most “readily accessible” and accurate explanation of the learning activities that we engage in amid contemporary culture. However, I fully acknowledge that this is my bias as someone who is Gen Y and living in a technically advanced Western society in the 21^st century. This learning theory is not easily “backward compatible” with how we learned centuries ago, but it does explain how our learning has evolved, and why a new learning theory needed to emerge with it.

             Finally, all of these technological and global changes have given rise to unprecedented competition and made our lives busier and more complex, not simpler. This means that adult learner has more responsibilities and therefore needs to be efficient with their learning. Many adult learning strategies focus on their individual needs and offers individualized support to them. The adult learner needs to be given choices and shown that the thing they are learning is relevant to their changing social and occupational roles (Conlan, Grabowski, & Smith, 2003). This is the individualized consumer model applied to learning  theory. In other words, it’s the Burger King/Starbucks “Have it your way” effect. The many principles of adult learning can be applied to children as well.

 

II. Extended Conclusions: Falling in Love with Learning Theory Pluralism, and Not Missing the Rings for the Tree

            So there is an overview of the learning theories, and a timeline metaphor for how one theory evolved into the next just as we evolved genetically and memetically. This is by no means a perfect metaphor, or meant to insinuate that the time periods I likened the learning theories to directly inspired them (except for the last few theories from social learning, connectivism, and adult learning, as the periods I chose actually coincide with the changes that inspired the theories). Again, some assume that because the newer theories came later, they somehow are automatically better or replace the older learning theories. I like to think of it as annual rings on a tree. Each learning theory is a new ring or chapter in our history, and each new theory that comes along is placed “on top of” the existing rings, rather than replacing them. There is a way for the theories to be used in tandem with each other.

What I’m suggesting is not new, but is a sort of “learning theory pluralism” in the same way that some people refer to themselves as religious pluralists, or psychologists or philosophers who draw from more than one school of thought. We should use bits and pieces of the best parts of each theory as it suits each situation. The only problem with this is that our learning theories (or most of them at least) endeavor to be empirically-based, and several aspects of each theory seem to contradict another. As with pluralism, if each proverbial blind learning theorist is feeling a different part of the elephant, the goal is to feel every part, communicate, and eventually “see” the entire elephant for what it is. In order for learning theories to rival the validity of scientific theories such as Darwinian evolution or the Theory of Relativity, I believe that the learning theories should be further expanded and combined in to one cogent, interdisciplinary theory. The reasoning for at least attempting this is simple—if the differing theories all have valid points, the valid points, if based on empiricism, should at some point be agreed upon and compiled. If they can be compiled without contradiction, you have a more powerful theory. If not, you may need to go back and find where there are still conflicts or discrepancies. This might lead to a better understanding of what pieces of learning theories do not work as well. This is the same process that is being attempted now with Quantum Mechanics theory subsuming the Theory of Relativity. We believe we have a handle on the macro, and now we are attempting to understand the micro, and the two theories seem to contradict each other but both be true? How is this possible? The attempt to understand this will lead to greater discover, as it will with merging learning theories into one cohesive and comprehensive narrative.

Perhaps this narrative sounds a little like falling in love with your soul mate, which requires one to be “firing on all cylindars.” You need to be connecting with your other in a primal, perhaps visceral way (i.e. behaviorism—do you respond to each other in an instinctive and precognitive way?), and be aligned socially (do you share similar friends and social learning networks?), intellectually (cognitive and cognitivism), in a constructivist/spiritual-psychological (do you share similar subjective experiences and construct similar meanings in the world?), and in a connectivist way (do you integrate your technological world and social world in compatible ways?), and in terms of adult learning (do you share similar adult responsibilities and learn from your real world problems so you can solve your real world problems, career and kids, finances, etc.?). Again, this is a metaphor, but perhaps the imagination used in producing such a metaphor will also spark new insights into how we can both further the study of each learning theory on its own as well as how we can merge the theories into a consistent scientific narrative. If each learning theory is an annual ring on one whole tree, the goal is not to miss the tree for the rings (i.e. the forest for the trees).  

 

References

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging

perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.),

Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism

Kerr, B.  (2007, January 1).  _isms as filter, not blinker  [Blog post].  Retrieve from

http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Laureate Education, Inc. (n.d.). “Theory of social cognitive development.”  Retrieved from

https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4198570_1%26url%3D#global-nav-flyout.

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate

custom edition). New York: Pearson.

Standridge, M. (2001). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Behaviorism

Thoughts on Learning Theories and Their Continued Advancement

For all our advancements in the understanding of the human brain, it is still the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine enshrouded in a Black Box—we glimpse evidence of cogs turning, things buzzing and clunking, but a diversity of theories still abound as to how learning takes place between “input” and “output.” I think as with contemporary psychology, most psychologists draw from many schools of thought, rather than being a “pure” neo-Freudian or Carl Roger’s Humanist approach. Likewise, I think most instructors and instructional designers use their understanding of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, social learning and adult learning. At the beginning of the class, I gave the example of how learning a language might be approached from the behaviorist, cognitivist and constuctivist/social perspectives. The behaviorist might run flash card drills where the social constructivist would have students speak in groups. But don’t we all do this? Don’t we draw upon the different learning theories as tools, frameworks for understanding, or different “hats” that we wear when we instruct others? Most language classes seem to draw upon various learning theories quite naturally in the variety of approaches it takes to the same subject in the same class. The same also goes with technology and learning techniques on the job. As far as learning styles go, the same principles apply—research has only verified two general leaning styles—visual and auditory/verbal; both can be easily satisfied by a learning segment that has both audio and visuals (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d., “Strategies”). I also went on record by saying that I even find this to be a somewhat dubious claim. Barring blind people, if you are a human being, about 80% of the information you take in is through your eyes. We as an entire species favor sight over hearing out of the five senses just as dogs prefer smell over visuals and sound.

This isn’t to say that I don’t think anything can be proven or said definitively about learning styles and how we learn, but it is to say that I believe learning theories are more philosophically and culturally based than as evidentiary and scientifically-based as we would like to believe, which can be a limiting factor in their ultimate determination in how we learn as well as how and why to directly apply each of the learning theories for a given situation. However, here are two ways in which my thinking on learning theories has become more nuanced, even though my overall view of them has stayed approximately the same.

1.                            New learning theories and updating of older learning theories has to change with culture and new evidentiary understanding, because culture affects and changes how we learn. Our world and the tools we use have changed vastly since Watson and Skinner first proposed behaviorism. Some behaviorist proponents said that if your child cried out for attention, you shouldn’t give them attention or swaddle them because it would only encourage the negative attention-getting behavior. We shudder to think of doing this now. Today’s ideal parents are soccer moms and helicopter parents. We also didn’t have the Internet in the 1940s and ‘50s, so perhaps blackboards and flash cards made the most sense at that time. Whereas today’s culture has spawned connectivism, which purports that learning is culled from an emerging pattern or narrative that is derived from various sources within the learner’s technological and social networks (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008). As a Gen-Y who uses the Internet for practically everything, connectivism certainly feels relevant to me. Adult learning has also become popular at least in corporate settings because it places a greater emphasis on direct applicability to the job or changing social role as an adult. Social learning theories likewise reflect our cultures increased value placed on interdependence. Things are changing at such a fast pace it is important for adults to adopt lifelong learning. The tools have changed, which has changed the culture, so it only makes sense that new learning theories evolve and expand too in order to account for the new methods we use to learn and approach the world.

2.                            And 2. Despite whatever holes learning theories have, an educated guess at good pedagogy practices is better than flat-out trial-and-error, corporate fads, and the whims and intuitions of managers and the well-meaning but ill-informed peanut gallery. Everyone has a “hunch” or opinion about how they themselves and often everyone else learn best, but there are far fewer evidence-based theories of learning. If nothing else, the learning theories are a great starting point for creating an instructional material as well as a way of “getting back to basics” if a project is getting away from itself. Corporate fads can also drive training initiatives if one lets them. I can’t count the number of times I have heard “the cloud” or “big data” without the person really knowing what that means. Learning theories provide the proper place for technology so that people don’t get wrapped up in technology for its own sake.

Conclusions and other final thoughts: Learning theories are at their best when used in tandem because different learning theories emphasize different aspects of learning, which correlate best with specific learning tasks. By using the learning theories together, one theory helps cover most of the holes in the other theories (i.e. some describe learning rather than how learning works, one leaves internal cognitive processes out of the picture entirely, and another overstates how relative learning is, etc.). Technology affects culture, and both affect the ways in which we learn, which in turn are reflected by our changing learning theories. In order for learning theories to have the validity of other scientific theories, however (such as the theory of gravity, quantum mechanics, or Darwinian evolution via natural selection), it would seem that learning theories would have to function well outside of the changing cultural climate to provide a more lastingly relevant and comprehensive theory of learning. Mapping the neural pathways of the brain, for instance, will create a sort of “neo-cognitivism.” In time, other aspects of learning theories will also become more comprehensive. I believe the goal is to subsume the most accurate information from each of the existing learning theories into one comprehensive and testable theory. Until that time, learning theories are a great launching point, and a solid anchor to propel and ground instruction. But none of the theories, even taken together, should be accepted as “gospel truth.”

 

References:

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging

perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.),

Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism

Laureate Education, Inc. (n.d.). “Learning strategies and styles.”  Retrieved from

https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4198570_1%26url%3D#global-nav-flyout.

Reflections on Time, a Life of Meaning, and Learning

Now more than ever, I’m feeling the enormous press of time, which marches in a singular direction. At odd moments, when we are restless or bored or waiting, we become aware of the invisible metronome that ticks away the beats of our unknown minutes, hours, days, years. I have been listening to it more than I think I ought to.

I think of our life similar to that of the experience of looking through one of those tourist binoculars you have to put a quarter into to view the sights around you (as seen on the cover of Bill Bryson’s book, I’m A Stranger Here Myself).

Binoculars used by tourists (minus the stars and smiley face) as seen on the cover of Bill Bryson's I'm a Stranger Here Myself. A book I recommend for its levity as much as its insightfulness.

We are likely on top of a tower or mountain, or at the edge of a pier—but always on the edge of something—and we place our quarter into the slot. We enjoy the sights and look around, getting our fill of some mundane details writ large, but hopefully a long view of the best of what’s around. And then, unexpectedly, suddenly, the shutter falls, and everything goes black. You know it’s coming but it always comes as a surprise, simply because no one is counting the time when they are looking at something amazing, and most people if not all haven’t a clue what the timer is set to. In a world of infinite quarters, this might not be a big deal, but in an existence where there is only one quarter, one life to spend as best as one can, it makes all the difference. A careful observer might witness the tourist ahead of him jerk his head back in surprise as the shudder falls, and hear him mutter, “Well, I guess that was it…” So the second person in line holds his quarter and steps up to the bifocal lens, determined to make the most of his time by immediately focusing on that which he is most eager to see, so that when his time is almost up he is satisfied that it was meaningful.

Even for those that believe there is “life after life,” nearly everyone agrees that this is very likely to be the only life we get here as “us,” as we currently are. Many still make the same assumption that Descartes made hundreds of years ago, that there is “mind” and there is “body,” and that the two are fundamentally separate from each other. This naturally leads to the assumption that the “mind” can exist apart from the brain or the body.  Perhaps you believe we come back as a flower (a mindful one?), or a duck, or a harp player in the cosmos somewhere. I don’t think there is sufficient reason to believe that any of that is true, and even if it was, our “quarter,” our live, is a specific kind of currency that can only be spent once while we are here. We may shudder at the thought but the shutter closes upon us all, and that is that.

So, this again brings us back to a question of how to get the most meaning out of how we spend what we have. I brought up the mind and the brain just now because I believe it gets to the core of this question. We used to measure death by when the heart stops beating, and in many cases we still use this indicator, but some people are on life support after their heart dies and are therefore not dead. Perhaps a better indicator is when we are completely brain dead, but there are cases when people are “brain dead” but still alive, and even show some brain activity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuh6tDidUw). However, are either of these stays what we think of when we think of “living”? Most people would make a distinction between “existing” or even “conscious” and “living” in the full sense of the word. I’ll get right to what I think makes the difference: We measure the quality of our lives, in a large part, by what we see, experience, and learn. Unless we are physically blind, 80% of what we learn is through what we see, hence the binocular metaphor for life. Our experiences help us learn and see things differently, and this learning in turn adds greater depth to our future experiences. It is a continual cycle. What we learn, and what we experience is what generates meaning in our lives, and that meaning is made greater by the people that we share it with. I believe this is why I ultimately want to be and continue to become an instructional designer. Because learning and teaching to others through great experiences is the most direct path we have to a meaningful life, and it is a kind of work that can outlast us.

And by this, we come to the only life I believe we will have after our life is done—we live on in the memories, learning, and experiences of others. What we do and what we see and what knowledge we acquire have the ability to outlast us¹ (see footnote). So much human activity, specifically in the information and Internet age, is dedicated to maintaining this store of experiences and information, and rightly so, as our progress of any kind is contingent upon it.

I began by talking about my hyperawareness of time as of late, and how that’s made me think of how best I wish to use it. Socrates said that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Perhaps it is also true that a life examined and scrutinized too closely is not worth living either, being too tedious and even painful. To an extent, in order to function in life we have to take some things for granted to an extent, such as our time. Perhaps there is a happy medium, where we are aware of our limited time enough so as to make the most of it, but not so hyperaware as to be paralyzed by the fear of having wasted it. I think that’s an idea that Socrates and Aristotle would embrace, for what it’s worth. While I’m here, and while I have my quarter in the slot, my aim is to focus on living a life of learning and passing that on to others, as best I can. To me, this is the life I see that matters.

 

1.      Footnote: Our learning and information can survive individual humans, but it will not survive humanity, so this is not a play at “immortality” by any stretch of the imagination, especially when you consider information’s “half-life,” and that most information in our own lifetimes will become lost or irrelevant. If humans were to die off, our book paper would last hundreds of years, but the words printed on it would be washed away or made illegible as the pages turn to carbon. Our batteries will corrode, the hard drives and routers would fail, and there would be no electricity to run it all anyway. Even if beings rivaling or surpassing our intelligence from far away discovered what was left behind, very little of our “living” as we know it would be recoverable, save a few buildings, empty shells of our former existence...

 

 

 

Reflecting on Connectivism

Among the myriad of existing learning theories, it would seem that connectivism is the most readily accessible in terms of cultural relevance today. Connectivism, in many ways as a learning theory seems almost synonymous or a theoretical representation of the impact of the Internet age. Connectivism combines the social learning aspect of previous theories with the acknowledgement of “complex, system-based environments” (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.). Connectivism is also based on the acknowledgement that information is abundant, constantly changing, and places importance on being able to distinguish which pieces of information are vital and which ones are not. Our learning not only depends on our skills with our social network but our network of systems and data on the Internet as well (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008).

I find that connectivism as a theory is mostly true to life for me in the 21^st century. I remember in middle school our computers had the old Netscape Navigator, and the Internet was around but I was nowhere near glued to it like I am today. Then, I was more likely to hear something at school or from someone I knew personally. And if they didn’t know it, then neither did I. And now even many of my social relationships are more often than not technology-mediated with social media like LinkedIn, or through emails, etc. The vast majority of my questions get answered by Google or YouTube or a blog post long before I need to reach out to one of them. However, there are times when I need advice or have a question that seems too complex to just do a Google search, and I often contact one of the people I’ve met from ASTD or Walden. Even in these times, the information that I’ve found using blog posts filtered through my RSS feed or some tid-bid I picked up on NPR (National Public Radio) will help advance the conversation in a more productive way than if I were to just call someone up and say, “I’m lost…” Doing the homework before placing a call to someone or writing them on LinkedIn shows that I put forth some initiative.

How I relate to my social and data network does seem to support the ideas behind connectivism and the way in which I have to harvest and sift data from several different sources in order to get where I want to go. There are so many avenues for data I know I missed several on my learning network map, but I was also trying to keep the thing from looking a mess as well.

Right now, there are algorithms that can synthesize financial data from several websites and compile the information into a single article that appears to have been written by a human. It’s a wild thought. But these sorts of things are coming at faster and faster rates. I think more of these aggregators and algorithms will help us to sort and sift information for us in the future, but there’s no telling exactly what that will look like in terms of “Web 3.0.” One thing is for sure: Our highly connected world shows no signs of slowing down.

References

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.),

Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism

Laureate Education, Inc. (n.d.). “Connectivism.”  Retrieved from

https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4198570_1%26url%3D#global-nav-flyout.

 

Connectivism Map

The above is a flow chart/mind map of my learning networks and how they interrelate.