- Theories of Learning & Instruction | Marcy P. Driscoll (Chapter 1)

 

Everybody learns at their own pace in their own context, but how many are interested in how they learn, what a learning theory is, what enhances and hinders learning, how what we know about learning has changed in course of time, and how interrelated learning and instruction are.

Driscoll (2005) describes as “…a persisting change in performance or performance potential that results from experience and interaction in the world” (p.1). Given that we all experience and interact with our environment, it is impossible to consider learning as a lifelong activity (Driscoll, 2005 p.2). Learning is not a simple process but a complicated one which requires a myriad of competencies. Whether learning has taken place or not can be observed through the performance of the individuals. In order for learning to take place, learners should experience and these experiences should be reflected on their behaviours as observables changes.

What leads to learning theories which aim to explain the laws and principles about learning are the questions asked to find out about the process of learning. To be able to construct theories, researchers forward curious questions about learning and then try to find answers to these questions through systematic observations. The depth of their observations depend on the depth of their questions. They start off with a hypothesis which functions as an alternative answer to their untested and unobserved questions and in order to find the most plausible answer that explains their questions best, they do their research and observe to find out about the relationship between the dependent and independent variables and the observed event. Since the researcher has a predicted answer put forward as a hypothesis, he needs to base it on original assumptions. Researchers should have some disciplinary assumptions and beliefs about what they are studying so that they can reach decisions about them and draw conclusions.

While drawing learning theories, researchers should describe the results, namely changes in performance which the theory aims to explain, the means or methods which enable the researchers to reach these results and the inputs which constituted the base for learning.

Each discipline is different from one another in the questions they ask and give answers to, the domains and the contents of their domains as well as the rules they have on how to test, verify and discover knowledge (Shulman, 1988 p.5; as cited in Driscoll, 2005). As a discipline, learning has been studied by researchers who have different disciplinary perspectives such as Behaviourism and Cognitivism. What researchers believe is reflected on what they want to investigate about learning, what questions they ask and what theoretical constructs they base their explanations on.

Researchers also make use of the research done earlier. This makes it possible for different discipline to support each other in terms of finding answers to the questions asked to be answered. If they reach conclusions that match what earlier researchers have found, the findings support each other. However, in case of contradicting the earlier findings, researchers then forward an alternative theory to challenge the earlier ones.

In course of history, not only philosophers but also psychologists have been extremely interested in the way people learn. Learning necessitates acquiring knowledge and focuses on not only what constitutes the nature of knowledge (epistemology) but also how we know. These questions can be answered by behaviourist, cognitivist, developmental or biological theories about learning. Driscoll (2005) states that “mental phenomena have been conceptualized as associations among ideas, complex schemas or organized knowledge and neurochemical changes in synapses, to name only a few” (p.11). several epistemological assumptions and traditions set a basis for learning theories.

By definition, epistemology is the philosophical study of the nature, origin and limits of human knowledge.  Some theories consider the source of knowledge differently. While empiricism considers sensory experience as “the only valid source of knowledge”, nativism advocates that some knowledge is “innate” and is brought by birth and rationalism maintains that “reason” is the source of knowledge which is actively constructed by the mind.

Likewise, some theories concentrate on the content of knowledge and interpret it differently. According to scepticism, human “knowledge” may never match what “reality” is. Realism, on the contrary, supports the belief that “all things in the world can be known” (Driscoll, 2005 p.12) and idealism holds “the belief that knowledge consists of only ideas or representations about reality” (Driscoll, 2005 p.12).

I personally think pragmatism gives a more reasonable epistemological orientation covering all the beliefs mentioned above and describing the content of knowledge through the belief that “reality exists but cannot be known directly. I totally agree with the idea that knowledge is likely and able to be changed in time and it is never complete or total but at the same time some knowledge like the temperature at which the water boils is definite and not likely to change. Yet, knowledge is not restricted or limited. Most importantly, knowledge can be obtained through empirical or rational processes.