Views on Learning

As you may be able to tell this is a paper I wrote for one of my classes on my views of learning. It's a little dense but it was certainly interesting for me to think about. It is basically my description of what I think learning is, and a little bit of rebellion against the class itself which I thought was a little too stuck in it's own discipline at times. I reserve the right to change my views about it as I go through life but for now it is at least an interesting thought.

Scientists are often viewed as dealing solely with facts. These facts are either right or wrong, and scientists seek to determine which is which. However, the more deeply diligent scientists delve, the more unknowns they tend to find. Isaac Newton revolutionized science when he formulated three laws of motion. These laws and the type of physics they apply to are named after him. Later, Albert Einstein challenged Newtonian Physics with his law of relativity. However, instead of replacing Newtonian Physics, both paradigms have found a place in modern science because they are both useful just in different circumstances. Thus, experienced scientists have come to realize that some theories are definitively correct although they are still subject to certain limitations. The social sciences would do well to follow the lead of their physics and chemistry counterparts in recognizing that just because a theory fails in some situations it does not mean it is useless all of the time. Thus, different theories of learning can and should be applied in varying situations.

A combination of theories is used as I subsequently define learning, explain different parts of the definition and then explore how different theories can be applied in different situations. Finally, I will describe some of the implications for teachers and learners and my project in particular. Hereafter, I argue that learning is the transformation of identity through the application of knowledge. This can occur in different ways depending on the source of knowledge.

Identity and it's transformation is the beginning of learning. In order to understand how a transformation of identity occurs we must first understand identity itself. Clark and Rossiter (2008) define identity as “our sense of self” (p. 62). One way to expound on that is to say that identity is the way in which a person sees him or herself and the world. The transformation of identity is then a change in how someone sees the world or themselves. After defining identity Clark and Rossiter (2008) then proceed to discuss how important narratives are in the forming of self. As we tell stories to and about ourselves we create an identity. Over time these stories are told and retold so that our identity is constantly being remodeled and reenvisioned. This is called transformative learning (Clark & Rossiter, 2008). These narratives are a way of connecting our experiences in helpful and new ways. Bernstein et al. (2006, p. 237) write about how semantic memory is really just a set of connections the human mind makes between facts. Thus, whether the connections are being formed between facts or experiences this process transforms identities. This begs the question whether identity transformation i.e. learning is only large paradigm shifts or if small incremental changes can be included. Even though big shifts in thinking are more obvious the small changes can be just as important. When knowledge is applied and therefore connected into a larger schema it is learning. This can occur in a variety of situations. One example could be a girl realizing that she is a unique being with divine heritage where before she just believed she was only a product of her culture in a meaningless world. On the opposite side of the continuum is the example of a little boy learning addition formally in school and subconsciously relating it to previous experiences with counting. Transformation can thus occur at different levels.

The change of identity is most likely to occur when the learner sees how the knowledge will be useful to succeed at a given task (Driscoll, 2000). As explained by McDonald et al. (2005) the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) states that people are motivated to learn when they are given opportunities to interact with the material in meaningful ways. This provides learners with a sense of ownership, which is a strong motivator. As learners interact with knowledge in meaningful ways they are not just acquiring knowledge but are learning how to think in new ways (Vygotsky, 1978) which in turn makes them better learners in the future. However, the transformation of identity is not a simple process.

Application of knowledge can occur in different ways. This variation often depends on the source of knowledge. The anthropologist James Lett (1987) explains that there are different sources of knowledge or ways people describe how they obtain their knowledge. Lett addresses seven of these: sense experience, logic, authority, consensus gentium, intuition, revelation and faith (Lett, 1987, p. 15). Each source of knowledge does not fit easily into one type of learning. However, some of them have stronger connections to some paradigms over others. Sense experience or learning through the senses, for example is a very embodied source of knowledge. For instance, the oft repeated example of learning how to ride a bike is based deeply in sense experience. Other knowledge sources are best gained inside of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) such as consensus gentium or common knowledge. Learning how to fit into a group includes having common ground with members of the group as well as understanding the social rules of behavior. Some knowledge sources are based on internal discovery (logic and intuition) like the famous anecdote of Newton understanding gravity when comparing a falling apple to the moon. Some learning is done through the transfer of knowledge from other beings (authority or revelation) when the student sits at the feet of the master. Each of these processes can be very different, but they all transform how an individual views the world. This messy approach is actually beneficial, because it illustrates how learning can occur in many different ways. Application of knowledge that leads to transformed identity can be conceived in various ways.

This definition of learning leads to several conclusions, specifically in regards to formal educational settings. First, the means of instruction can vary but emphasis should be put on whether or not the instruction encourages the connections (and recognition of connections) between new and old knowledge. Thus, instructors should find ways to teach that they feel are effective but then should follow up with questions or other devices that encourage learners to apply their new knowledge in novel ways. Some questions with near transfer (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999) would be: “What else, other than a line segment, can you measure with the distance formula we learned today?” or “We learned about allegories and metaphors in prose, now can you find them in this poem?” Some broader application questions might be “How can the principles learned about light in physics class relate to a deeper understanding of light in a gospel sense?” or “How have you seen principles of apprenticeship used in public schooling?” In an interactive educational website, similar questions could be added to the end of a specific page. Also, hyperlinks about related information can be added to the content which encourages these connections to be made. Learners should continue to ask themselves these connection questions even if the scaffolding (Van Merriënboer, Kirschner & Kester, 2003) is removed that leads to that behavior. This is especially beneficial because then learners will continue to learn effectively in informal locations (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Another effect of using the stated definition of learning is that it is inherently messy. It does not provide a clean cut version of learning that can easily be applied to situations so that a box can be checked without much thought whether the situation in question is or is not learning. This means that there are a multitude of ways that the interpretation and application can be done poorly. However, it can also provide opportunities to keep an open mind and stay aware of the different paradigms inherent in practice.

Ultimately, my definition of learning is open to the use of several paradigms. This is because it is not necessary to set these theories against each other. Instead there should be a willingness to use them in concert with each other, in different circumstances. Just as the theory of relativity did not entirely replace Newtonian Physics, the newest theory about learning does not need to erase the work of the others. Rather, those that have been found to be effective should be used in their proper place, which includes being built upon older theories. Perhaps none of these theories are right (at least not completely), but that is not to say we should just give up on them entirely. Instead we should work with what we have until we can find a hypothesis that fits more of the pieces together seamlessly.

(Sometimes I am paranoid about references, so if anyone's curious I can give you the full references for the articles I mention.)