Wikiversity

Learning Foundations

Subject classification: this is an education resource.

Foundations of Learning
One would have to make a concerted effort, even on the most mundane of days, to draw from that experience nothing noteworthy. Whether gathering information from the local newscast or refining ones routine to be more efficient, learning is a part of everyday life in America.

How Children Learn

Educators draw from the fields of biology, ecology and psychology when designing curriculum for children. From a biological perspective, one must consider the genetic predisposition of a child, their inherited talents and their dominant learning style. Children are biologically attuned to the concepts of causality, numbers and language. Bransford et al., (2000) defines this predisposition to knowledge as privileged domain. Of course, Bransford et al., (2000) reminds us this domain must be nurtured through experience and practice so to further cultivate and reinforce what they know intuitively.

By considering how to promote structure in learning, cognitive psychologists have made great strides in understanding ways to present material to children. Bransford et al., (2003) posits caregivers and educators are charged with offering learning structures, often referred to as “scaffolding” P104, to children (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 104). These intentional learning strategies are introduced so to facilitate competent performance and transfer of knowledge between contexts. By building on what they already know and identifying their own strengths and weaknesses, children must learn to reflect on their own learning. Educational theorists refer to this capacity as meta-cognition. Meta-cognitive strategies lay the foundation for the more formalized learning that takes place in the classroom. Bransford et al.2000, p. 104 writes that meta-cognitive learning calls upon the use of categorizing, clustering, rehearsal, elaboration and summarization to assist children in making sense of new information.

Goleman (1995) points to Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, where it is theorized every child has an innate, dominant type of intelligence. Whether it be linguistic, logical or musical, for instance, each child has an individualized predisposition to learning. As each individual has multiple intelligences information must be exchanged in a way that is palatable to the students’ particular learning style. With this in mind, curriculum of all types can be presented in a number of different ways “using several modes of representing key concepts and a variety of ways in which students can demonstrate their understandings” (Daniel Goleman, 1995, p. 101).

Learning and understanding of ones world must be supported socially and culturally. In writing about the ecological factors involved in supporting a child’s learning, Bransford et al., (2003) says a child’s’ natural abilities and understanding of the world is “shaped by environmental experiences and the individuals who care for them” (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 112). Ultimately, “children’s curiosity and persistence are supported by adults who direct their attention, structure their experiences, support their learning attempts and regulate the complexity and difficulty levels of information for them” (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 112).

In summary, whether self-directed or other-directed, learning requires the synergistic employment of biological, ecological and psychological forces. Acquiring strengths and skills, identifying weakness, finding support in ones community, knowing ones own style of learning and strategizing ways to structure learning are some important keys to understanding how children learn.

Adopting Experiential Learning and Multiple Intelligence Theory to Support a Learner-Centered Approach to Education

There are many different philosophies of teaching. In developing ones own philosophy, it is reasonable to incorporate elements from two or more accepted theories in the field. Experiential learning and multiple intelligence theory, combined with a learner-centered approach, make up the foundation of this researchers educational philosophy. The student-centered approach is derived from constructivist theories originating from the work of Jerome Bruner. According to Bruner, education “is an active process, in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge” (Constructivist, n. d.). In their article, Rong Liu & Yingliang Liu (1997) note, learner-centered teaching is called for by researchers and administrators in higher education but that teacher-centered teaching is still predominant. While there is no clear explanation for this dichotomy, a student-centered approach is, at least, acceptable in the realm of higher education and preferred for the purposes of this applied research. The learner-centered approach addresses the needs of the “individual learner rather than the body of information is the focus of teaching” (Rong Liu & Yingliang Liu, 1997). Citing Dupin-Bryant, (2004), Rong Liu & Yingliang Liu (1997) defines learner-centered teaching as “a style of instruction that is responsive, collaborative, problem-centered, and democratic in which both students and the instructor decide how, what, and when learning occurs” (Rong Liu & Yingliang Liu, 1997).

Consider, for instance, the Adapted Principles of Adult Learning Styles (APALS). APALS offers seven principles to incorporate into ones teaching style when employing a student-centered approach to teaching. These include, “learner-centered activities, personalizing instruction, relating to experience, assessing student needs, climate building and participation in the learning process” (Rong Liu & Yingliang Liu, 1997) Furthermore, rather than “content being at the core of the learning objectives, the way information is processed and used is most important” (Comparing, 2004). Of course, these principles must be placed into a larger philosophical context of teaching.

Experiential Education

To some extent, creating a learning environment that mirrors the clinical process can be very beneficial. For instance, if building a strong alliance with a client is part of clinical treatment, it makes sense to model the power of alliance building with the students. In this way, clients will experience the impact of such interactions, rather than simply learn of them from the abstraction of lecture or discussion. At the forefront of the experiential teaching movement is Carl Rogers. Smith, (1997, 2004) writes, while primarily known for his client –centered approach to psychoptherapy, the theories of Rogers have been extrapolated to be employed in student-centered learning within the educational setting. Rogers brought together theories from various sources and experiences, promoting certain basic ideas, such as the importance of empathy and personal genuineness in he field of education.

According to Smith (1997, 2004), Rogers promoted the notion of teachers as facilitators who emphasizing an engaging environment for the sharing of information. Experiential Learning Theory has, of course, developed since it was brought to the fore by Carl Roger’s in the 1950’s. David Kolb (1999) describes “experiential learning as "the process whereby knowledge is created through the combination of grasping and transforming experience" (Department of, 1999) one might argue, this can be done by reading the directions on how to build a toy and then actually acting on the knowledge and building it. Experiential learning theory, as described by Kolb (1999), points to four paired but dialectically opposed processes that clarify what is meant by grasping and transforming. Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC) are ways in which one acquires information. Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE) bring meaning to that which is acquired. “The learner must continually choose which set of learning abilities he or she will use in a specific learning situation” (Department of, 1999)

Integrating student-centered principles with experiential education involves teachers working more as facilitators than as primary providers of knowledge. A facilitator, indeed, does more than mediate conversations or guide students to resources. The student-centered facilitator creates an environment where students feel free to explore new thoughts and ideas, connecting them with past, present and future experiences through active engagement of activities that imbue the new information with personal meaning.

Multiple Intelligences

“Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand" (Dr. Roger Greenway, 2007) As far back as 450 BC, Confucius identified his dominant, personal learning style. Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University, posits “the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited” (Dr. Armstrong, 1997/2000). “The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) suggests that there are a number of distinct forms of intelligence that each individual possesses in varying degrees” (Multiple, n. d.) These intelligences include,

o Linguistic intelligence ("word smart")

o Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")

o Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")

o Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")

o Musical intelligence ("music smart")

o Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")

o Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")

o Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

Developing a curriculum that presents material in ways that incorporates various intelligences, affords students a better chance of engaging their dominant intellectual prowess than if, for instance, the material was presented only linguistically. For example, if one is studying role-lay as a form of exposure therapy, they might read about it (linguistic), study statistics regarding effectiveness (logical-mathematical), examine a graphic chart that illustrates the principles (spatial), examine the nature of the original trauma (naturalist) and the impact the disorder is having on the client’s life (interpersonal), examine the bio-physiological impact (bodily-kinesthetic and intrapersonal), and even listen to a song that describes the symptoms of the disorder (perhaps Hendrix’s Manic Depression).

In 1994, Gardner expanded on his intelligence theories by considering the inclusion of sexual, spiritual, digital and emotional intelligence. Furthermore, he examined the inter-relationship of ones multiple intelligences. Combining the theories of experiential education and multiple intelligences will support each student’s unique process of actively cultivating their intellectual and educational goals. MI theory asserts “people have a unique blend of intelligences” (Howard Gardner,, n. d.) that can be engaged in the classroom. Multiple intelligence theory is also compatible with learner-centered principles. To that end, Gardner proposes “instructional activities should appeal to different forms of intelligence” (Multiple, n. d.). While any given lesson plan is not likely to present material using all intelligences, curriculum that integrates experiential education theory with MI theory may be more likely to reach students with diverse intelligence types, making for a richer learning experience. Furthermore, Gardner argues, “assessment of learning should measure multiple forms of intelligence” (Multiple, n. d.).

Experiential education, multiple intelligence theory and student-centered teaching are particularly suited to teaching clinicians about role-play as a form of exposure therapy. Trauma is experienced in a multi-sensory fashion and so, in the same way, it must be treated by engaging ones multiple intelligences. Treating PTSD requires a mind-body approach to treatment. By experiencing a learner-centered, experiential approach to engaging ones multiple-intelligences, clinicians will be best prepared to offer client-centered, experiential treatment that will impact patients in a way that goes beyond the standard linguistic interventions of traditional talk therapy.

Addressing Adult Learning Characteristics in the Classroom

Considering adult education in the 21st century, many theorists and educators have contributed to what is practiced today. For the purpose of this paper, we will examine the noteworthy contributions of researcher Malcolm Knowles and the basic theories of constructivism, cognitivism and behaviorism. St. Clair (2002) defines androgogy, a term coined by Knowls, as the teacher’s role in the classroom, imbuing adult education with a learner-centered approach. In many cases, the adult learner arrives to the classroom with important insights and resources. The theories constructivism, cognitivism and behaviorism examine how and why people learn. It is beyond the breadth of this paper to review these theories in depth. Suffice it to say that behaviorism seeks to work with tangible and measurable phenomenon. For instance, behaviorists seek to harness ways to optimize the potential for reward as a motivator to learn. “The behaviorist view of instructional design is often summed up with the ADDIE model; analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation” (Isman, 2005. p. 2). Constructivists are more focused on ones internal motivations. Constructivism focuses on “the construction of new knowledge, unique to each person and the importance of the environment in determining the meaning of reality” (Isman, 2005. p. 3). Constructivism and cognitivism go hand in hand as learners are engaged cognitively in order to assist them in organizing material, so it fits with ones past experience and vision for their future. It is reasonable to suppose that drawing aspects of each could be seen as an effective way to fashion an eclectic approach to understanding how to deliver information to adult learners.

Cognitive and Meta-cognitive Factors

Nature of the learning process
Goals of the learning process
Construction of knowledge
Strategic thinking
Thinking about thinking
Context of learning

Motivational and Affective Factors
Motivational and emotional influences on learning
Intrinsic motivation to learn
Effects of motivation on effort

Developmental and Social Factors

Developmental influences on learning

Social influences on learning

Individual Differences Factors
Individual differences in learning
Learning and diversity
Standards and assessment

The theories constructivism, cognitivism and behaviorism examine how and why people learn. It is beyond the breadth of this paper to review these theories in depth. Suffice it to say that behaviorism seeks to work with tangible and measurable phenomenon. For instance, behaviorists seek to harness ways to optimize the potential for reward as a motivator to learn. “The behaviorist view of instructional design is often summed up with the ADDIE model; analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation” (Isman, 2005. p. 2). Constructivists are more focused on ones internal motivations. Constructivism focuses on “the construction of new knowledge, unique to each person and the importance of the environment in determining the meaning of reality” (Isman, 2005. p. 3). Constructivism and cognitivism go hand in hand as learners are engaged cognitively in order to assist them in organizing material, so it fits with ones past experience and vision for their future. It is reasonable to suppose that drawing aspects of each could be seen as an effective way to fashion an eclectic approach to understanding how to deliver information to adult learners.

References and Resources

  1. American Psychological Association. (1997, November). LEARNER-CENTERED PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES: A Framework for School Reform & Redesign (Prepared by the Learner-Centered Principles Work Group of the American Psychological Association's Board of Educational Affairs (BEA)). Washington, D.C: Center for Psychology in Schools and Education; APA Education Directorate.
  3. Armstrong. (2000). Multiple Intelligences. . (Original work published 1997) Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Dr. Thomas Armstong Web site: http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm
  4. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  6. Bransford et al. (2000). How People Learn (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  7. Burgess, G.H., Sternberger, L.G., Sanchez-Sosa, J.J., Lunt I., Shealy C.N., Ritchie P. (2004). Development of a global curriculum for professional psychology: implications of the Combined-Integrated model of doctoral training. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(10), 1027-49.
  9. Cloud, H. (2006). The Three Essentals. In Integrity (1st ed). New York: Collins.
  11. Comparing Traditional Teaching And Student Centered, Collaborative Learning. (2004). Retrieved December 4, 2007, from www.enhancelearning.ca Web site: http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/collaborative.html
  13. Constructivist Theory, J Bruner. (n. d.). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html
  15. Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University. (1999, August 31).
  16. Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. Cleveland, OH: David A. Kolb, Richard E. Boyatzis, Charalampos Mainemelis.
  18. Department of Organizational Behavior; Case Western Reserve University. (1999, October 26). Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility: Testing Experiential Learning Theory (Working Paper Series). Cleveland Heights, OH: Charalampos Mainemelis, Richard Boyatzis, David A. Kolb.
  20. Experiential Learning in Adult Education: An Overview of Orientations. (1998). Retrieved December 13, 2007, from The Ohio State University, College of Education and Human Ecology, Center on Education and Training for Employment Web site: http://www.cete.org/acve/docs/fenwick/fenwick2.pdf
  22. Formative vs. Summative Evaluation. (2008). Retrieved February 2, 2007, from Northern Arizona University's College of Education Web site: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/edtech/etc667/proposal/evaluation/summative_vs._formative.htm
  24. Gardner, H. (2006). Changing Minds: The Art And Science of Changing Our Own And Other People's Minds (1st ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
  26. Gardner, H. Multiple Intelligences and Education. (n. d.). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.infed.org Web site: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
  28. Gardner, H. (2003). American Educational Research Association. In Multiple Intelligences After Twenty Years (p. 7). Chicago: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
  30. Gibbs (1988). (2001). Learning by Doing, A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods (Claire Andrew, Ed.). (Original work published 1988) Retrieved October 4, 2007, from The Geography Discipline Network Web site: http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/gibbs/ch2.htm
  32. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence (1st ed.). New York City, NY: Bantam Books.
  34. Greenway, R. (2007). Experiential Learning articles and critiques of David Kolb's theory. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from The active reviewing guide to dynamic experiential learning Web site: http://www.reviewing.co.uk/research/experiential.learning.htm#1
  36. Isman, Cagla. (2005). A New Model for the World of Instructional Design. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 1303-6521.
  38. Kevin R. Kelly. (2001). Concurrent Validity of the Online Version of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(1), 49-59.
  40. Kearsley. (2007). Multiple Intelligences (H. Gardner). . (Original work published 1994) Retrieved December 8, 2007, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http:/?/?tip.psychology.org/?gardner.html
  42. Kearsley. (2007). Constructivist Theory (J. Bruner). . (Original work published 1994) Retrieved December 6, 2007, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http:/?/?tip.psychology.org/?bruner.html
  44. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential
  45. learning in higher education. Unpublished master's thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Heights, OH.
  47. Kouri & Winn. (2006). Lexical learning in sung and spoken story script contexts. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22(3), 293–313.
  49. Liu & Liu. (2006). A Paradigm shift of learner-centered teaching style: Reality of Illusion/. The Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 13, 77-87.
  51. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, E. J. (2005). Practical Research, Planning and Design (8th ed.) . Columbus, OH: Pearson - Merrill, Prentice Hall.
  53. Learning Style Results for Eric Rutberg. (2008). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from Abiator's Learning Styles, The Visual Modality Web site: http://www.berghuis.co.nz/abiator/lsi/lsivisstra.html
  55. McGothlin, J. (2001). Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs; An evaluation of the Perceived Benefit of Core Curriculum Standards to Professional Practice (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts.
  57. Multiple Intelligence Test Results: Eric Rutberg. (2008). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from Businessballs.com Web site: http://www.businessballs.com/howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm
  59. Multiple Intelligences (H. Gardner). (n. d.). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/gardner.html
  61. Rong Liu, Xiaomei Qiao., & Yingliang Liu. (1997). A PARADIGM SHIFT OF LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING STYLE: REALITY OR ILLUSION? (Vol. 13) [Arizona Working Papers in SLAT]. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from Second Language Acquisition and Teaching at the University of AZ Web site: http://w3.coh.arizona.edu/awp/AWP13/AWP13%5BLiu%5D.pdf
  63. Smith, M. K. (2001). david a. kolb on experiential learning. . (Original work published 1996) Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.infed.org Web site: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm
  65. Smith, M. K. (1997, 2004) 'Carl Rogers and informal education', the encyclopaedia of informal
  66. education. [www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm. Last update: December 04, 2007]
  68. St. Clair, R. (2002). Androgogy Revisited: Theory for the 21st Century. Myths and realities (Office of Educational and Research Inprovement). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  70. Stein & Steeves. (2001). Teaching Styles Self Evaluation. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from On-line Teaching Web site: http://members.shaw.ca/mdde615/tchstylsquiz7.htm
  72. Teaching Styles. (2001). . (Original work published 1999) Retrieved January 23, 2008, from The National Teaching and Learning Forum Web site: http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/faq/ts-indiana.htm
  73. --Dr. Rutberg (discuss • contribs) 03:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_Foundations&oldid=2139548"