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.