What we do not know about learning!
Learning theories & inquiry paradigms
It was in 1910 when psychologists began to become captivated by learning concepts and learning theories. The 1930s and 1940s are sometimes called the golden age of learning theory; learning became the heart and soul of psychology. About the conceptualization, another interesting approach is an in-depth comprehension of learning theories.
In the business administration area (higher education), I have not come across any course that deals with learning theories & inquiry paradigms with theoretical elaboration and their applications. This article briefly encapsulates the learning theories and inquiry paradigms.
If research is a quest for learning, the question is, how many of us are familiar with learning theories — maybe very few! We learn, unlearn and relearn; however, we are seldom introduced to the learning theories. In research, going through conceptual ambiguity is quite common. Hence, understanding learning theories & inquiry paradigms brings clarity to the conceptualization. Moreover, inquiry paradigms are our perceptual or observational habits.
The picture depicts the central idea of each of the learning theories and paradigms, such as cognitivism refers to the ‘truth’ while subjectivism refers to ‘belief.’ My last two articles focused on the conceptualization dilemma, in continuation — this article tries to reinforce the idea of conceptualization through learning theories. Numerous research paradigms evolved from the learning theories such as cognitivism, behaviourism, constructivism, and subjectivism. Here is a quick elaboration of learning theories:
- Cognitivism
This learning theory focuses on the processes involved in learning rather than on the observed behaviour. Cognitivism contends that the black box of the mind should be opened and understood. The learner is viewed as an information processor. Knowledge is seen as symbolic mental constructions or maps, and learning is defined as the change in a learner’s schemata. In 1885, Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist worked on ‘how memory works.’ It is popularly known as the “forgetting curve theory.” Furthermore, other cognitive theories were developed in Germany in the early 1900s, such as Gestalt psychology by Wolfgang Kohler, Schema theory by F C Bartlett, Bloom’s taxonomy, etc.
2. Behaviourism
Behaviourism states that the idea of knowledge is independent and exists on the exterior of the learner. Behaviourism involves repeated actions, verbal reinforcement, and incentives to take part. It is great for establishing rules, especially for behaviour management. It revolves around the ‘stimulus-response model’. In 1897, Ivan Pavlov's classical conditioning theory focused on behaviourism. There are a few more viz., Thorndike’s Law of effect and Law of exercise, Watson’s methodological behaviourism, B. F Skinner’s radical behaviourism, and so on.
3. Constructivism
Constructivism sees learning as a process in which the learner earnestly constructs or develops new ideas or concepts based on current and past knowledge or experience. Piaget called these systems of knowledge schemata. Since its evolution, Jean Piaget’s theory of constructivist learning has remarkably influenced learning theories and teaching methods in education. John Dewey is often referred to as the philosophical founder of this approach. Ausubel, Bruner, and Piaget are considered the prime theorists among the cognitive constructionists, while Vygotsky is the major theorist among the social constructionists.
4. Subjectivism
Subjectivism is largely a part of the epistemological viewpoint. However, I refer to it under the learning theory due to Rene Descartes and Bishop Berkeley’s core notion of subjectivism. The subjectivist approach derived from Max Weber’s interpretation method, Alfred Schutz’s phenomenology, Peter Berger, and Thomas Luckmann’s sociology of knowledge to comprehend economic and social phenomena. Descartes proposed that the mind is distinct from the body and world; and is a realm of its own.
Berkeley expressed this in his classic statement — “the world is as I see it. My perception does not represent the world. Rather, the world is an expression of my subjectivity. The processes and principles of my subjectivity determine how I see the world; the world does not influence my perception of it. The direction is entirely from inside my mind to the outside world”.
Therefore, the knowledge schemata are primarily impacted by the individual’s or learner’s degree of subjectivity. An integrated and cohesive understanding of self and the world is a prerequisite to embarking on the journey of knowledge.
Now, the important question is — what do we know about learning! As a researcher, what is our structure of thinking? In my experience, the unique contribution to the field of knowledge comes from the inquiry paradigms.
One of my students asked me, “Once I know my topic, from where should I begin my story of research” I answered with the “logic of inquiry.” This means strategizing the research study and the related process. It begins with ontology — ontological claims are concerned with what we believe constitutes a social reality, and epistemology is possible to gain knowledge of social reality. Within this context, it is essential to understand the alternatives of inquiry paradigms. The components of inquiry paradigms are positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism (I will elaborate on the inquiry paradigms in forthcoming articles).
I have often observed scholars obsessed with contemporary and innovative research methods (So am I, at times!). Many times, the majority of scholars focus on using innovative methods with little understanding of their actual needs and compatibility with research objectives. It is more a fascination for using less or rarely used methods; and sometimes the peer pressure to publish the research article! (This is based on my personal experience. Not making any remarks on scholars’ choice). However, This notion can be quite subjective and depends on the research scholars. Nevertheless, I personally do not subscribe to this approach; aligning the research objectives with intended research methods is more sophisticated with sound research methodologies (philosophies) — which involves the researcher’s mental monologue. A kind of researcher’s “me time.”
Once we are familiar with the fundamentals of learning theories and inquiry paradigms of research, we know how to structure, strategize and execute the research study. I recommend that when you plan your research design, ask a question, what do you know about learning!! As we know, research is a “quest,” and learning is its “outcome.”
Happy reading :)
