“Maybe we should live our lives in a constant state of expectation, always curious and excited about the possibilities that could unfold in front of us. Maybe it is our sense of vision that colors our reality” (Fallon, 2013).
For centuries, educational innovators have sought the ideal formula connecting teaching and learning. How do individuals truly learn? What sparks the innate curiosity that drives questioning, even without guaranteed answers? How should education be structured to best facilitate learning? Is the key to unlocking effective education rooted in a well-defined teaching philosophy, a robust philosophy of learning, or perhaps a harmonious blend of both? As Albert Pike (n.d.) wisely stated, “philosophy is a kind of journey, ever learning yet never arriving at the ideal perfection of truth.” Through extensive research and personal reflection, it becomes clear that our philosophies of learning form the bedrock of effective teaching. And by effective teaching, we mean guiding learners to awaken and cultivate their own “inner teacher.”
Each of us possesses the inherent capacity to be both teacher and learner. The crucial step is granting ourselves permission to embrace both roles fully. While we will delve into various established learning philosophies recognized by global theorists, it’s vital to acknowledge the rapid transformations our world is undergoing, driven by technology and its unprecedented access to information. There isn’t a single, magical philosophy of learning that will serve as a universal solution. Instead, a balanced approach, drawing from multiple perspectives, is essential to address the diverse and unique needs of all learners. Furthermore, we should anticipate the emergence of new theories as technology continues to accelerate information accessibility and reshape how we learn.
Understanding Diverse Learner Needs: A Unique Educational Context
My current role presents a unique set of challenges and opportunities, serving a student population navigating incredibly difficult circumstances. I work within a school located inside a shelter, providing education to children and families escaping domestic violence or sexual abuse. We also support students under the care of Child Protective Services residing at a care facility. The transient nature of their situations, with stays ranging from a single day to potentially years, results in a constantly shifting classroom roster. Flexibility and adaptability are paramount in structuring the learning environment.
The needs of these learners are profoundly distinct from those in typical public schools. My role has evolved from teaching Kindergarten-2nd grade across all subjects, to 3rd-5th grade, and now encompasses Kindergarten-5th grade within a single classroom setting. I have dedicated myself to researching and implementing best practices to support students grappling with trauma, aiming to foster meaningful connections and facilitate learning amidst adversity. A significant portion of our daily focus is on building social-emotional skills and self-regulation strategies. There is a notable gap in research specifically tailored to educators in similar settings, seeking to help learners like mine truly thrive academically. Their young minds are often operating in survival mode, constantly reacting to fight or flight triggers, making abstract thought and traditional learning approaches incredibly challenging. This realization propelled me to pursue a graduate degree in education, seeking access to in-depth research and practical strategies that I can apply to create truly authentic and impactful learning experiences for my students. Our recent focus has been on the critical role of developing a personal philosophy of learning to guide the planning and creation of a significant learning environment tailored to these unique needs.
Exploring Core Learning Theories: Foundations of Learning Philosophies
While definitive definitions of “learning” may vary among experts, a comprehensive perspective defines learning as “a persisting change in human performance or performance potential which must come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world” (Driscoll, 2000, p. 11). This definition provides a strong foundation for examining the primary learning theories that attempt to bridge the gap between theoretical research and practical application in education. Learning theories offer scientific insights into how individuals acquire knowledge and learn, while a learning philosophy reflects our personal beliefs and values regarding which theories resonate most deeply with our understanding of the learning process.
The connection between learning research and educational practice has been a subject of ongoing discussion for centuries. John Dewey, the influential American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, advocated for the development of a “linking science” to effectively translate theory into practical application within education (cited in Reigeluth, 1983; Ertmer & Newby, 2013). The effectiveness of designing instruction and creating significant learning environments for 21st-century learners hinges on our ability to effectively bridge the gap between established learning theories and proactive, innovative practice. George Siemens (2004) emphasizes this point:
Learning theories are concerned with the actual process of learning, not with the value or what is being learned. The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins. When knowledge is subject to paucity, the process of assessing worthiness is assumed to be intrinsic to learning. When knowledge is abundant, the rapid evaluation of knowledge is important. The ability to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns is a valuable skill.
According to the Berkeley Graduate Division (2016), three fundamental categories of learning theory exist: behaviorism, cognitive constructivism, and social constructivism.
Behaviorism: Learning Through Observable Behavior
John Watson (1924), the founder of Behaviorism, defined it as “a natural science that takes the whole field of human adjustments as its own” (p. ix). Saul McLeod provides a concise summary of behaviorism’s core tenets:
All behavior is learned from the environment; behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to internal events like thinking and emotion; there is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals; and behavior is the result of stimulus-response (2017).
While behaviorist principles hold some appeal, the premise that all behavior is solely derived from the external environment, neglecting intrinsic motivation and emotions, doesn’t fully align with my personal philosophy of learning. I find myself leaning more towards a constructivist perspective. While acknowledging the influence of external stimuli on behavior, I also believe that internal thought processes and emotional triggers play a significant role in shaping actions. Furthermore, I struggle to accept the notion of minimal difference between human and animal learning, given our capacity for complex reasoning and in-depth analysis.
In designing my own significant learning environment, I will consider research on the strategic use of stimuli to enhance learner engagement and intrinsic motivation. My belief is that a learning environment that prioritizes choice, ownership, and voice will foster authentic engagement and deeper learning outcomes.
Constructivism: Building Knowledge Through Experience
Constructivism, in contrast to behaviorism, emphasizes the active role of the learner in constructing knowledge. It encompasses two major branches: cognitive constructivism and social constructivism.
Cognitive Constructivism: Individual Knowledge Construction
Cognitive constructivism was significantly shaped by Jean Piaget’s theory of intellectual development, emerging in the early 1930s (Clark, 2010). Piaget argued that “humans cannot be given information, in which they immediately understand and use. Instead, learners must construct their own knowledge” (Clark, 2010). Constructivists like Biggs (1996) and Piaget (1968, 1983) emphasize that learners actively engage in the learning process by organizing and constructing knowledge through both individual and collaborative activities. Knowledge, according to Piaget (1964), is intrinsically linked to action; to know something is to operate on it. Learner agency and ownership of the problem are crucial, as they foster responsibility in developing solutions (Jonassen, 1999). Both cognitive and social constructivism are intrinsically motivating, encouraging learners to set their own goals and drive their own learning (Berkeley Graduate Division, 2016). Cognitive constructivism specifically posits that learning is most effectively facilitated through personal engagement within a resource-rich environment.
Social Constructivism: Collaborative Knowledge Building
Social constructivism, while sharing core principles with cognitive constructivism, highlights the social and collaborative dimensions of learning. It emphasizes that learning is a collaborative endeavor where students learn through interaction and engagement with one another as a collective (Thomas and Brown, 2011). Both perspectives recognize that learners enter a learning environment with existing tacit knowledge—knowledge gained through experience and interaction (Thomas and Brown, 2011, p. 74)—and utilize these prior experiences to make meaningful connections to new concepts (Otto, 2018). Dr. Dwayne Harapnuik aptly describes this process: “learning is an active and dynamic process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The making of meaningful connections is key to learning and knowing” (n.d.).
My Personal Philosophy of Learning: Embracing Constructivism and Connectivism
My personal philosophy of learning strongly aligns with the constructivist model, mirroring my own learning style. I believe constructivist theories naturally support inquiry-based learning methods, driven by the cycle of meaningful questions that arise from engaging in exploration and discovery. From a young age, I have been driven by curiosity and a vivid imagination. My relentless questioning, exploration, and constant “why” likely contributed to my parents’ exhaustion. I was always determined to uncover answers, or at least formulate my own understanding through persistent inquiry.
Recently, I’ve embraced the hobby of recording, mixing, and producing music using various software and equipment. Adopting a constructivist approach, I bring my years of experience in singing and songwriting to this new endeavor, seeking to expand my skills to produce and share my passion with a wider audience. The technical challenges arise when manipulating software to achieve balance in harmonies, instruments, and dynamics to create a truly impactful listening experience. When faced with unfamiliar aspects of the equipment or software, I actively seek resources for guidance, researching best practices. These resources include YouTube tutorials, online communities and forums of fellow recording artists, my husband, and friends with recording experience. This journey of learning new equipment and techniques, combined with the ability to utilize my voice and own both the process and the final product, has been incredibly rewarding. I aspire to inspire my students next year by designing projects that ignite their own passions and empower them to take ownership of their learning.
My beliefs about learning, my personal learning style, and my understanding of how others learn will profoundly influence how my students and I co-create our learning environment. I believe a balanced approach incorporating both cognitive and social constructivist principles perfectly complements my innovation proposal, which will be implemented in the coming academic year. My plan follows a proposal to integrate project-based learning, an inquiry-driven methodology that engages learners through meaningful experiences. My students will learn the true meaning of being part of a collective (Thomas and Brown, 2011), challenging each other with questions that reflect their individual perspectives and unique learning journeys. Thomas and Brown (2011) articulate this distinction: “in communities, people learn in order to belong. In a collective, people belong in order to learn” (p. 52). L. Dee Fink (2004), in his book Creating Significant Learning Experiences, emphasizes the power of reflection: “when the act of reflection is linked to the human need to make meaning, the enormous significance of this activity becomes clear. Only then do we become meaning-making beings, rather than simply meaning-receiving beings” (p. 106). We will celebrate collective successes and learn that embracing “failing forward” (Dweck, 2012) is essential for developing the 21st-century skills necessary for navigating life beyond formal education.
My ultimate goal is for my learners to forge connections—connections with each other, connections to their evolving experiences, and connections that cultivate a lifelong curiosity to apply their learning to future decisions. Karen Stephenson eloquently states:
Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge. ‘I store my knowledge in my friends’ is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people (n.d.).
George Siemens (2004) connects constructivism to the concept of “connectivism.” He argues that the very process of making decisions is a learning process in itself. This highlights the imperative to commit to lifelong learning, as our current knowledge is insufficient to navigate an unpredictable future. We must learn how to learn and guide our students to develop this crucial meta-skill as well.
Annotated Bibliography
Clark, D. (2010, September 26). Constructivism. Retrieved June 11, 2019 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/constructivism.html
Clark provides a simplified yet detailed overview of constructivism, outlining the core principles of various constructivist theories and highlighting key figures like Vygotsky, Piaget, and Sophocles. He effectively contrasts Piaget’s cognitive constructivist view, emphasizing individual knowledge construction, with Vygotsky’s social constructivist perspective, focusing on learning as a social process influenced by collective experiences.
Dewey, J (1902) The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL & London, England: The University of Chicago Press.
Dewey’s work emphasizes the critical differences between child and adult perspectives on learning. He underscores children’s natural inclination towards social interaction and play, contrasting it with adult emphasis on structure and rules. Dewey advocates for educators to consider the child’s viewpoint when designing curriculum and learning experiences.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Driscoll explores optimal learning environments, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and social interaction for deeper learning and engagement. Her definition of learning, focusing on changes in human performance resulting from experience and interaction, significantly influenced my constructivist learning philosophy. She highlights how intelligence is shaped by both external and internal world interactions.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Dweck’s seminal work on mindset has profoundly impacted my understanding of both personal and student learning. She reframes failure as a valuable part of the learning process and promotes a growth mindset. Her emphasis on the power of “yet” reinforces the idea that learning is an ongoing journey, not a fixed destination.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Ertmer & Newby provide a detailed comparative analysis of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism in the context of instructional design. Their research-backed exploration of each theory, presented through thought-provoking questions and answers, aided in formulating my own questions and solidifying my personal learning philosophy. They offer a clear and organized framework for understanding and applying these theories in educational planning.
Fallon, A. (2013). Packing light: Thoughts on living light with less baggage. Chicago, IL. Moody Publishers.
Allison Fallon’s book (published under her former name, Allison Vesterfelt) explores the benefits of simplifying life by letting go of emotional and physical clutter. Her insightful writing style resonates deeply, helping readers articulate their own internal struggles. Her quote, used to open this article, underscores the importance of curiosity, discovery, and passion as intrinsic human experiences, and the need to create opportunities for these in education.
Fink, J. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
Fink’s human-centered approach to course design emphasizes creating significant learning environments. He provides frameworks and diagrams to organize complex research and information. He advocates for holistic learning approaches as essential for authentic learning. Fink comprehensively explores dimensions of teaching and learning, bridging theory and practice. His framework for course goals—foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn—is particularly insightful and a valuable resource for future planning.
GSI Teaching and Resource Center. (2016). Overview of learning theories. Retrieved from https://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-contents/learning-theory-research/learning-overview/
This resource offers a concise and highly useful breakdown of learning theories, facilitating comparison and contrast. Its clear, column-based format summarizes each theory’s core principles without overwhelming detail. This diagram served as a frequent point of reference for clarifying and solidifying my personal learning philosophy.
Harapnuik, D. (n.d.). Learning philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.harapnuik.org/?page_id=95
Dr. Harapnuik provides valuable insights into how personal learning philosophies shape educational practices. He argues that clarifying one’s own philosophy of learning is crucial for creating effective learning environments and authentic experiences. He suggests that educators should focus on creating environments that inspire learners to make their own connections for deeper engagement and inquiry. His ePortfolio is highly recommended for further exploration of creating significant learning environments through choice, ownership, and voice.
Otto, D. (2018, October) Using virtual mobility and digital storytelling in blended learning: Analysing students’ experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE. ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 19 Number: 4. Article 5. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/1772-published.pdf
Otto’s article explores effective learning in digitally enhanced environments, highlighting how students thrive in collaborative, digitally connected settings. It presents research on student engagement and connection within learning networks, including a case study on digital storytelling as a valuable pedagogical tool.
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.
This seminal work by Piaget, the originator of cognitive constructivism, offers in-depth insights into children’s cognitive development. He meticulously explains constructivist theory with examples from his research and case studies. Piaget’s work has been a major influence on my personal learning philosophy. Further relevant works by Piaget, supporting inquiry-based constructivist methods, are included in my Literature Review.
Pike, A. (n.d.). Albert pike quotes. Retrieved June 11, 2019 from https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_pike_386739
Albert Pike, a multifaceted figure as a journalist, author, poet, and lawyer, is quoted to highlight the dynamic nature of philosophy. His quote emphasizes that a philosophy of learning is not a static endpoint but an evolving journey, requiring continuous reflection and refinement to maximize impact on both personal and student learning.
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, volume 2, number 1. Retrieved from: http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm
Siemens provides a crucial perspective on the need to adapt learning theories to our rapidly evolving digital age. He argues that the abundance of information necessitates a re-evaluation of traditional learning approaches. His concept of “connectivism” builds upon constructivism, emphasizing collaboration and meaningful connection-making as vital for future learning. Connectivism focuses on equipping learners with the ability to learn effectively in a rapidly changing, digitally driven society.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Thomas & Brown advocate for reimagining learning environments to better suit 21st-century learners. Drawing on research, they encourage educators to shift from traditional instructor roles to guides and co-learners. They promote significant learning environments incorporating project-based learning, peer collaboration, collectives (distinct from communities), play-based learning, and even gamification. Further insights inspired by this book are available on my blog post about Significant Learning Environments.
