Learning. Does anybody actually know what this word means?
We need to stop saying "Learning is X" and embrace the fact that it is *multidimensional*
3 quick things before we dive in to the learning lasagna
Assuming you read this when it goes out as an email on Saturday morning, I will be speaking with Will Mercer on Teachers Talk Radio this morning from 10.30-12 noon UK time, talking about a project I’ve been doing with Welsh government recently around learner effectiveness and personal development. I am super excited about this work - I really think this is what all schools need to be focusing on - and I’m keen to shout it from the mountaintops. Tune in live here. And if you can’t join us. live, you can listen back later.
I was recently on the Impact Wales podcast talking mainly about Making Change Stick, with a side salad of learner effectiveness. You can catch up here.
Tina Farr, headteacher and recent pod guest, is running a 2h workshop for school leaders and aspiring leaders on April 24th called ‘Towards a Culture of Joy and Belonging’ (£). Find out more here.
OK. Let’s do this…
Learning. Does anybody actually know what this word means?
Definitions matter. If we can't be clear about the words we use, we should stop using them and find better ones. Yet even the simplest concepts can be frustratingly difficult to define.
We all know a chair when we see one. But try defining the word to a Devil’s Advocate:
Person A: A chair is something you sit on.
Devil’s Advocate: Is my bottom a chair?
PA: No, it needs to be a raised object with a backrest.
DA: Like a sofa?
PA: No, it’s for one person.
DA: How about this bar stool?
PA: A chair usually has four legs.
DA: So an office chair isn’t a chair?
PA: …I see where this is going.
If defining an everyday object like a chair is this tricky, how much harder is it to pin down something as abstract as learning?
Five bold statements about learning
In recent years, many educators and researchers have offered bold statements about what learning is. Here are five examples :
“Learning happens when people have to think hard.” (Coe)
“I define learning as the long-term retention of knowledge and skills and the ability to transfer between contexts.” (Didau)
“Learning is impossible without extended practice.” (Kirby, citing Willingham)
“If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned.” (Kirschner, Sweller and Clarke)
“Learning and memory are closely related concepts. Learning is the acquisition of skill or knowledge, while memory is the expression of what you’ve acquired. Another difference is the speed with which the two things happen. If you acquire the new skill or knowledge slowly and laboriously, that’s learning. If acquisition occurs instantly, that’s making a memory.” (American Psychological Association)
Each of these statements is made with a sense of absolute certainty - "Learning is X", or “Learning is not Y”. But do any of them adequately capture the full picture?
If learning only happens when people think hard (Statement 1), how do we explain the effortless recall of song lyrics we never meant to memorise, for example?
If learning is just about retention (Statement 2), what about temporary insights and understandings that shape our thinking but fade over time? And if learning has to involve transfer (also Statement 2), what about useless trivia? Is it true to say that we have not learned such things?
If extended practice is essential (Statement 3), what about moments of sudden insight where an understanding just suddenly ‘clicks’? What about those mysterious creatures who can recall people’s names many years after meeting them only once? If those names were not learned, how else should we describe this process of acquisition, retention and recall?
If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned (Statement 4), does that mean we haven't learned something if we later forget it?
It’s clear that Statement 5 is trying to resolve the distinction between instant learning and practised learning, but the idea that memory is an expression of learning is questionable. What about memories that are stored but never recalled? And if memory is merely an expression of learning, how does that align with the claim that "making a memory" does not constitute learning? This seems kind of inconsistent. And if learning must happen “slowly and laboriously”, WHAT EXACTLY ARE FAST LEARNERS DOING?
I’m getting a bit exasperated here as you can see.
Perhaps dictionaries and encyclopaedias can help shine a light on the situation. Let’s look at two examples:
“The acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.” (Oxford Dictionary)
“Learning is the process of acquiring new understanding, knowledge, behaviours, skills, values, attitudes, and preferences.” (Wikipedia)
At first glance, these definitions seem more balanced. They each emphasise acquisition as well as retention, and there is an acknowledgement that learning can happen through experience (rather than just study or practice or ‘thinking hard’).
But even these definitions fail to mention critical aspects of learning. For example, there is no mention of things like attention, motivation, intentionality, rehearsal, retrieval, metacognition, cognitive load, chunking, elicitation, or schema - to name just a few - all of which play a crucial role in how we learn.
Nine dimensions of learning
If neither educational experts nor dictionary definitions can adequately capture the essence of learning, where do we go from here?
Well, I suggest that we might start by embracing the fact that learning is multidimensional!
Rather than trying to define learning in a single sentence, I believe we should embrace its complexity.
Here are nine dimensions that help to capture different aspects of learning in all of its richness.
1. Learning as retention
If we think of learning as the retention of information in memory, it exists on a spectrum. At one end, some things are forgotten almost instantly. At the other, some knowledge and skills become so ingrained that they feel automatic—like knowing your own name or where you live.
But even within the realm of memory, there are more things to consider than mere retention. The next three dimensions of learning relate to aspects of memory:
2. Implicit vs explicit memory
Implicit memory is sometimes referred to as automatic or unconscious memory, which may be expressed in the absence of deliberate recollection: the ability to ride a bike, button a shirt, play the piano. These particular examples are also examples of procedural memory; however, implicit memory does not have to be procedural. For example, a student "guessing" the answer to a question because they do actually know the answer but they don't realise that they know it would also be classified as implicit memory. Implicit memory can also include behaviours such as locking the door as you leave the house, or associations such as those related to smells.
Explicit memory (also known as declarative memory or direct memory), on the other hand, involves the conscious, intentional remembering of information. Remembering your bank details is an example of explicit memory.
3. Semantic vs episodic memory
Explicit (declarative, direct) memory is divided into two further types. Semantic memory is the recall of general facts, while episodic memory is recall of personal experiences. Remembering the capitals of countries is an example of semantic memory, whereas being able to recall what happened on the way to school is an example of episodic memory. Episodic memory necessarily involves the ability to perform mental time-travel.
4. Recall vs recognition
Psychologists distinguish between two types of memory retrieval. Recognition refers to our ability to, er, recognise an event or piece of information as having been experienced in the past. This is the kind of memory that students are required to use in a multiple choice test.
Recall, on the other hand, requires the production of information. The educational equivalent of this would be writing an essay. Recall is generally considered to require a greater depth of information processing, storage, and retrieval than recognition; however, this may not always be the case.
However, memory is not the only game in town as far as learning is concerned. Here are 5 more dimensions of learning:
5. Naturally occurring vs elicited learning
Some things we learn can be considered naturally occurring: your siblings’ names, say, or the names for common foods. Other things we learn are elicited: you go out of your way to learn it. At the ‘elicited’ end of the spectrum, we find the autodidact. At the opposite end, the incurious drifter who takes life as it comes.
6. Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation
Compare these two statements: “I am learning to solve a Rubik’s cube because I enjoy the challenge.” “I am learning to solve a Rubik’s cube so I can show off to my friends.” Each of these intrinsic or extrinsic motivations to learn may be strong or weak, and we may hold several such positions simultaneously.
7. Classical vs operant conditioning
Classical conditioning is defined as “a learning process that occurs when two stimuli are repeatedly paired: a response which is at first elicited by the second stimulus is eventually elicited by the first stimulus alone” (Oxford Dictionary). Classical conditioning forms the basis of much animal training, where treats are used to elicit desirable behaviours. However, classical conditioning may also feature in certain types of school-based learning, such as training students to tidy up by playing a particular sound or piece of music.
Operant conditioning is defined as “a type of learning in which a behaviour is strengthened (meaning, it will occur more frequently) when it's followed by reinforcement, and weakened (will happen less frequently) when followed by punishment” (Oxford Dictionary). This idea underpins many schools' behaviour management systems.
8. Inductive vs deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is essentially a “bottom up” approach to learning. For example, students may be presented with several examples of a phenomenon (e.g. photographs with examples of specific animal adaptations) and they are required to identify general patterns or “rules” (e.g. camouflage, body size, ear shape).
Deductive reasoning is a “top-down” approach to learning. In the example above, students may be taught types of adaptations first, and then these “rules” are tested with particular examples (e.g. the photos of animal adaptations).
9. Significant vs less significant learning
Carl Rogers once wrote: “It seems to me that anything that can be taught to another is relatively inconsequential and has little or no significant influence on behaviour. I realise increasingly that I am only interested in learnings which significantly influence behaviour.”
It is worth noting that Rogers was a psychotherapist, and not a teacher. Also, significance is rather a subjective notion. Nevertheless, since almost all students ask the question “Why do I need to learn this?” at some point or other in their school career – understandably, some might say – the question of significance remains worthy of reflection.
Why does this matter?
I do not suggest that the nine dimensions listed above are the only dimensions of learning. Far from it, in fact.
But reflecting on all of the above, I can only conclude that as far as educators are concerned, the word ‘learning’ is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. We might think of 'learning' as an umbrella term at best, taken to mean something like "the thing we want students to do". Beyond that, we need to roll our sleeves up and start talking about the specific kinds and features of learning that we're interested in.
What kind of learning are we discussing?
Which dimensions of learning matter in this context?
How do these different dimensions interact?
Next time…
To help navigate this complexity, my next post will propose a glossary of learning terms - a practical tool for understanding and discussing learning with a little more granularity…
An earlier version of this article appeared on the Learning Scientists.
Perhaps Learning can be considered a little like Coaching (the practice of activities that deliver the desired purpose of the practice)). Coaches of professional athletes are hired because they can put together a Training Programme to develop the athlete to win, this is somewhat like why I am hired by my school because I can put together a Teaching Programme to develop the student to succeed. All good so far.
The point is that both of us, coach and teacher, have a clear idea what we are preparing our charges for.
The coach knows if the athlete is a footballer, tennis player, rick climber or snooker player. They know the purpose of the training. Therefore they build a Coaching programme around this goal.
The teacher also knows their job. It is to get students through an exam which demands the recollection of facts and the articulation of ideas. So we work to that goal and build a Learning programme around it. So that is what our definition of learning has become.
Were the goal of education to be the production of communities of activists that would be committed to doing (not just talking or writing about) planetary wholeness then learning (the practice of activities that deliver the desired purpose of the practice) would be defined differently.
I agree that learning is a vague term. But teachers can and do see learning happening and successful students learn each day. I wonder if we need a succinct definition of learning? Learning happens regardless of this.