Although learning is a natural part of human growth and development from the moment of birth, its exact definition and component processes remain somewhat ill-defined and controversial. Psychologists argue about what specific manifestations of the human experience constitute learning and the precise nature of the transformations that result from the learning process. Psychologists adhering to different theoretical perspectives offer differing views on the concept of learning based upon the tenets of their respective orientations. From these divergent viewpoints, psychologists explain, interpret and predict the behavior changes associated with learning in ways that correspond to the basic assumptions of their perspectives.
Various definitions of learning refer to a relatively permanent change in an individual’s knowledge or behavior that is brought about through experience and interaction between the individual and his/her environment (Ormrod, 2004; Eggen & Kauchak, 2003; Woolfolk, 2003). These definitions have in common the premise that learning constitutes a change due to experience as opposed to the relatively automatic changes associated with development and maturation or other temporary states of being. The definitions diverge, however, with respect to the exact nature of the change that occurs.
Behaviorists espouse one of the oldest and most developed theories of learning. This perspective focuses on the changes involved in learning that manifest through observable responses and the effects of external events on the tangible actions and reactions of the individual interacting in the environment. Behaviorism encompasses three types of learning: contiguity – simple stimulus-response learning; classical conditioning – emotional and physiological responses to stimuli; and operant conditioning – changes that result from behavioral consequences. In general, learners are viewed as relatively passive recipients of information and learning is conceptualized as hierarchical, with the mastery of prerequisite skills necessary before more advanced ones (Ormrod, 2004; Eggen & Kauchak, 2003). Notably absent from consideration in the behaviorist perspective are the purely mental aspects of consciousness. Behaviorism argues that only phenomena that is directly observable is scientifically relevant, thus disregarding the relevance of such concepts as thought, feelings or motives in the learning process. The goal of learning experiences, according to this theory, is to successfully demonstrate a desired behavior (Ormrod, 2004; Eggen & Kauchak, 2003; Woolfolk, 2003).
As with any theory, there are strengths and weaknesses, and supporters and dissenters of the behaviorist perspective. On the one hand, behaviorism is criticized as being overly reductionistic and inadequate in explaining higher-order mental functions such as language. However, it is also commonly believed, and in fact much of civilized society is based upon the notion that behavior is affected by incidences of reward and punishment. In practical application, behaviorist principles have been effectively employed in the acquisition of psychomotor skills and professional development programs incorporating behavior modeling. Additionally, behaviorist theories of learning have been incorporated in the development of programmed learning, teaching machines, computer-based instruction and interactive video (Cheetham & Chivers, 2001a).
The principal criticism of behaviorism is that through its mechanization of behavior it has dehumanized the human animal. Critics point out that humans possess awareness, that feeling is very much a part of behaving, and that surely human interaction with the environment is more than simply a matter of stimuli and responses. Some critics additionally contend that conditioning, in all of its varieties, leaves much human behavior unexplained, while others react negatively to the use of animals in studies whose results are then generalized to human behavior.
In contrast to the behaviorism, the cognitive orientation focuses on the internal thought processes involved in learning that are not readily observable. Specifically, this perspective defines learning as “the changes in the mental structures and representations that provide the capacity to demonstrate behaviors” (Eggen & Kauchak, 2003, p. 216). According to this theory, behavior is observed in order to make inferences about the internal processes and the goals of learning experiences are the formation of meaningful ideas, understanding and problem solving. The cognitive approach examines how individuals respond to information from the environment, sort it mentally and apply it to their situation. It involves mental processes and constructs including, memory, concept formation, language and the use of symbols (Ormrod, 2004; Eggen & Kauchak, 2003; Woolfolk, 2003). As such, it has practical application in professional development and training scenarios where there is a high didactic element and/or complex fact-based content (Cheetham & Chivers, 2001a).
While the cognitive perspective seems intuitively sound, it has been criticized for the difficulties involved in obtaining experimental evidence in support of its concepts. By their very nature, cognitive processes do not readily lend themselves to direct observation or observable manipulation. Thus, indirect measurements must be employed, giving rise to the potential for invalid results and/or conflicting interpretations.
The critics of cognitive approaches to human learning base many of their objections on the cognitivists’ sometimes less precise and more subjective approach to information gathering and to theorizing. The extensive use of jargon by many contemporary cognitivists and the seeming lack of agreement among different positions has also been the source of some confusion and criticism.
Clearly, the cognitive and behavioral approaches differ in their definition, measurement and application of learning. However, these two perspectives converge on two general fundamental points. Both theories argue that learning depends upon experience and that learning is strongly influenced by feedback. As detailed above, they diverge significantly with respect to how each of these concepts is involved in the learning process (Ormrod, 2004; Eggen & Kauchak, 2003).
Both the cognitive and behavioral perspectives are supported by strong clinical and experimental evidence, indicating the relevance and validity of their tenets with regard to the processes and mechanisms of learning. Likewise, both theories have weaknesses and shortcomings. Along these lines, in speaking about their research and its practical implications, psychologists Cheetheam & Chivers (2001b, p. 285) concluded, “This shows up the limitations of any single theoretical perspective in fully explaining the complexities of learning. It counters against too rigid adherence to particular theoretical approaches and the development practices they may have spawned.” Certainly, their caution is warranted given that psychology has seemingly uncovered merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg known as human learning.
REFERENCES
Cheetham, G. & Chivers, G. (2001a). Part I - How professionals learn – the theory! Journal of European Industrial Training, 25, 248-269.
Cheetham, G. & Chivers, G. (2001b). Part II - How professionals learn – the practice! What the empirical research found. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25, 270-291.
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2003). Educational psychology: Windows on our classrooms (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Woolfolk, A. (2003). Educational psychology. (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.