{"id":74,"date":"2012-02-22T19:36:08","date_gmt":"2012-02-22T19:36:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/edublog.me\/shapingmedia\/?page_id=74"},"modified":"2012-06-09T11:36:41","modified_gmt":"2012-06-09T11:36:41","slug":"learning","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/edublog.me\/shapingmedia\/starting-points\/learning\/","title":{"rendered":"4. Learning"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Everything said is said by someone.”<\/strong>
\n<\/strong>– Umberto Maturana & Francisco Varela (1987), “The Tree of Knowledge”, p.27<\/strong><\/p>\n

“I have never faced a problem which was more than the eternal problem of finding order.”
\n<\/strong>\u2013 Frederick B. Skinner (1956), \u201eA Case History in Scientific Method\u201c, quoted in Edward G. Rozycki (1995), \u201eA Critical Review of B.F. Skinner’s Philosophy with focus on Walden Two\u201c<\/strong><\/p>\n

“I have never faced a problem which was more than the eternal problem that every order encountered is someone’s<\/em> order.”
\n\u2013 <\/strong>Combination of Skinner (Behaviorism), and Maturana & Varela (Radical Constructivism). <\/strong><\/p>\n

How do we learn? What do we learn, when we learn?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Theories on learning, teaching and knowledge represent contemporary cultural ideas and ideals; they represent also scientific and technological advances, and socio-economic needs of their eras. Learning theories are forms in the cultural medium, and they also establish<\/em> a medium to form concrete educational practices within them. Like any medium, each has its shortcomings and strengths, and may be also seen as a reaction to its predecessors.
\nIt is common to name three influential theories – or paradigms – of learning: Behaviorism<\/em> (early 20th century, e.g. Frederic B. Skinner), cognitivism<\/em> (mid 20th century, e.g. Jean Piaget), and constructivism<\/em> in its moderate and radical form (late 20th century, e.g. Seymour Papert or Heinz von Foerster).<\/p>\n

Behaviorism<\/strong><\/p>\n

As an example: Behaviorism approaches teaching and learning as something which resembles a mechanic imprint, with one objectivly best way of delivering topics. This view may be frowned upon today; but in the time from 1900-1940, with an existing bias for genetically determined cognitive capabilities<\/a>, behaviorists were quite revolutionary by promising that with the right method anyone<\/em> could learn anything<\/em> to fit any role<\/em> of society. Of course the demand for an effective method to train a huge amount of laborers and soldiers for for factories and war efforts helped in the acceptance of behavioristic methods. New technologies and trends that supported Behaviorism were e.g. mechanic data processing<\/a> (objectivity), the assembly line<\/a> (linear and granulated presentation of content) and the efficency movement<\/a> (there’s one best way to do something).
\nWatson stated:<\/p>\n

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select \u2013 doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.”<\/em>
\n\u2013 John B. Watson (1930), “Behaviorism”<\/a><\/p>\n

Another quote by Henry Ford expresses quite well the spirit of (behavioristic) learning designs:<\/p>\n

\u201eNothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs.\u201c<\/em>
\n– Henry Ford<\/p>\n

Learning theories always carry ethical imperatives within their workings – e.g. “all men are equal”; “there is only one correct way to do things”; “be responsible for what you do” or “be aware that culture influences cognition, and cognition determines action”. If we create a learning environment (or teach within the assumptions of one), we also decide upon an ethical background for the decisions the learner can, may or should make.<\/p>\n

Constructivism<\/strong><\/p>\n

Constructivism, as the youngest of the three theories, can be divided into 1.) a pragmatic, moderate constructivism that is related to cognitivism; and 2.) into a radical, self-referential constructivism which takes a critical view not only on learning, but on e.g. why each epoch or culture seem to establish their own learning paradigm.
\nRadical constructivist approaches – e.g. by Bateson, von Foerster, Watzlawick, Luhmann – are thus better suited to the needs of this course. Though Behaviorism, Cognitivism and moderate Constructivism deliver a view on how culture defines – or defined – “learning”, “learner”, “teaching” or\u00a0 “knowledge”, the learning theory itself as specific cultural practice is seldom seen as contingent<\/a> from the contemporary point of view: It just seems to be natural, resonating to its contemporary technology, trends, needs.<\/p>\n

Texts to read:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ertmer & Newby<\/em> give an overview over the important learning theories from an instructional design perspective.
\nBateson<\/em>, as radical constructivist, tries to differentiate the very broad, everyday term “learning”. The english language makes no distinction between “learning that 1+1 equals 2” (Learning type 1), “learning how to pass exams” (Learning type 2) and “learning why you do not get a\u00a0 job though you’ve done everything right” (Learning type 3).
\nNote that Bateson’s text on “The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication” was written in the same year as McLuhan’s “Understanding Media”, in 1964.
\n2009 I wrote a very short summary of Bateson’s categories in my M.A.Thesis, from a Game Based Learning POV. This text might be more accessible than Bateson’s original, but also more directed and – well, very, very shortened. If you have problems with the original text, you should take a look at the summary and try again.
\nFor supplemental texts, Brown et al. coined the influential approach of “situated cognition”, a moderate constructivist concept that sees learning as the integration<\/em> in a culture of knowledge and practice, and thus describes an ideal setting for Bateson’s learning type II. If you’re interested in the concept of the “technological singularity<\/a>“, you should also take a look at Bateson’s learning type IV.<\/p>\n