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