The Nature of Learning

Learning is a fundamental process of life as the ultimate point of learning is to allow an individual to function effectively. It allows the individual to adapt behaviour to the social and cultural norms of the community. The definition of the concept has been a matter of philosophical discussions from the time of Socrates. All human activities and achievements manifest the result of learning. Whether we regard life in terms of the race, or of community, or the individual, we are faced on every side by the pervasive effects of learning. Since learning is such a fundamental process of life, it has been the prey of philosophers whose essential activity is to question the accepted ‘truths’ and received wisdom.

Vessey (1964) defines learning as ‘the acquisition of something by a process other than maturation’ and maturation as ‘the developing of readiness’ to perform certain actions without being taught. This is psychological rather than philosophical definition. However, one way of knowing whether learning has taken place is that the individual is able to demonstrate the possession of appropriate knowledge. Yet, philosophically, the question: ‘What is knowledge?’ remains problematic (Magee 1987). It is clear however that the process of learning involves what Hilgarde (cited by Langford 1969) regards as originating in the individual reacting to an encountered situation. Piaget (1970) affirms that, an individual from childhood builds mental maps/concepts/schemes for understanding and responding to the physical experience in his environment.

Thus, in reacting to our daily experiences, learning plays a crucial role in ensuring appropriate responses. For this to happen, it is clear that what we need is flexible rather than fixed habits. (figure 1) Hence learning must enable the individual to be in command of a repertoire of procedures or behaviours, each of which may be employed smoothly, habitually and efficiently.

Figure 1

As with all philosophical questions, the nature of learning itself requires careful thought in order to obtain a clear understanding of the concept. Hardie (1962) states ‘the only source of true learning is direct experience of nature through our own sense impression’. But the term ‘nature’ is capable of a number of interpretations. The French philosopher Rousseau (1712 – 1778) was reputed to have used it in no less than three different ways as noted by Langford (1969). Consequently, as Langford argues, until its precise meaning has been determined, it is impossible to decide whether the nature of learning has meaning or is merely a catch phrase or emotional ‘rallying point’.

However, the most important of Rousseau’s interpretation of the concept ‘nature’ means to use his own words, ‘the internal development of our senses’ which is more than the psychologists mean when they use the term ‘maturation’ or ‘readiness to perform certain acts without prior teaching’. Hardie (1962) states that ‘learning ought to enable a child to develop according to the laws of his own nature’. It could be argued that this means a child should be able to grow mentally and physically. Thus if this natural process of mental and physical development is maturation, then learning must not only allow it to occur but it must facilitate it.

An important philosophical question in this regard is the relationship between mind and learning. Can mind give clarity and substance for a better understanding of learning? Mind is generally conceived as being characterised by awareness of thinking. In psychological terms it is cognitive in that it engages in complex processing of thinking. It is also interpretive in that it takes input from the outside world into the conscious mind and transforms it into functional units of belief and understanding at different levels in the mind. If the conscious mind is responsible for thought then it could be argued that learning could only occur in the waking state.

All such questions raise difficult philosophical issues. If learning is part of the thinking process, then the notion of learning itself must not be taken for granted. As Wittgenstein is said to have warned: ‘don’t just take it for granted, but think’ (Magee 1987).

For example, can learning occur during the unconscious state, as during the unaware period of sleep? Or is it just sensations and feelings in the mind of past experiences or a form of reinforcement from the awake period of learning? These are important philosophical questions. Locke (cited Russell 1961) argues that the mind at birth maybe considered like a white paper void of all characteristics (tabula rasa). He, therefore, wondered how it could be furnished with endless variety of all the materials of reason and knowledge. His celebrated answer to the question is ‘open experience’. That is all our knowledge is found on and ultimately derived from experience. (figure 2)

In general, it is argued that our ideas are derived from two sources, that of sensation and the perception of the operation of our mind. The latter may be called our ‘internal senses’. Since we can only think by means of ideas, and since all ideas come from experience, it is evident that none of our knowledge can ante-date experience. The fundamental question is whether man is born with a mental structure that influences his perception right from the beginning or with a mind that is essentially as what Locke argued, ‘a open tabula rasa’. It should be noted that Russell in ‘An Inquiry in Meaning and Truth’ (1973) argued that the word ‘perception’ is inappropriate to describe our beliefs because it is suggested that such beliefs are true. Locke argued that we should describe them instead as ‘experience’ as Russell notes. ‘Thus whenever I think I can see a cat, I have the perceptive experience of ‘seeing a cat’, even if, on this occasion no physical cat is present.’

Figure 2

The view that reasoning or thought is a central factor in learning is known as ‘rationalism’. Rationalists are of the opinion that the raw data of sensation must be organised by the mind into meaningful patterns before anything worthy of the name learning is used. What the individual knows are meaningful ideas, conceptions and principles. Moreover, if thought is a central factor in learning then it would seem reasonable to suppose that thought alone would be the source of important aspects of learning. The more controversial aspect of rationalism, however, has to do with the meaning of the expression ‘thought’ apart from the sense experience.

In philosophical terminology, the question is usually posed as, what is the ‘nature of prior learning?’ This is important because, traditionally, prior learning was said to be gained, by reasoning from self-evident principles without dependence of anything gained from sense experience. It was set, in contrast to later learning which, is attained by reasoning from the impressions gained through observation or other sense experience. The view that all knowledge comes through the senses is known as ‘empiricism’. Locke and before him, Descartes are acknowledged empiricists in philosophy (Ayers in Magee 1987). These views are given further credibility by our increasing knowledge of neuroscience as the nervous system with the brain, are the physical foundations of the process of learning. Neuroscience links cognitive behaviour with the physical processes that support such behaviour. The importance of prior learning and memory is confirmed by the finding that brain changes with use throughout the lifetime. Memory is formed, by strengthening certain patterns of neuro-connections, as we use our brains. This makes it easier to create connections the next time. So learning is about promoting complex thinking and growth of the brain. (Sylwester 1993)

It may be that the term learning is being applied to more than one thing, but that it is treated as if it were one thing? In education, learning is invariably used as a ‘blank term’. Lewin (cited by Moore 1974) describes learning as four types of activities.

The first is cognitive when we become aware of the facts and information at an intellectual level. In this, we gain knowledge and understanding. The second he sees as, motivational when we change to the level of goals and values. The third is ideological and is not unlike the second but more at the level of values and attitudes. Finally, the fourth has to do with body control such as acquiring a skill, which involves physical manipulation which highlights the genetic nature of learning and links it to maturation.

It would seem, therefore, that real learning is the sum of all the activities that are operating in any specific situation. Thus learning is more than the sum of our cognitive, affective and behavioural activities. Real learning occurs when the learner exercises and realises the potential activity of the cognitive, affective or emotional behavioural levels. When these activities take place in interactive individual or group situation, then the resultant activity or change will represent learning. It can be said that learning is a three dimensional phenomenon having real significance only when it operates in these three dimensions.

Traditionally the formal learning in educational institutions emphasises on cognitive and psychomotor skills learning. Academic success is based on intelligence measured by IQ using standardised tests. However, the use of this is limited within the workplace. Recent researches emphasise on a need to develop and focus on affective learning, that is, emotional intelligence. Emotional health is fundamental to effective learning according to research into brain based learning, for happy people are more apt to retain information and do so more effectively than unhappy people.

Emotional intelligence becomes even more vital as knowledge is rapidly expanding and this leads to change in all spheres of life. Individuals have to be therefore able to learn and adapt equally rapidly. For Goleman (1998, pp 4) states that ‘the concept of a ‘job’ is rapidly being replaced by ‘portable skills’ for they ‘are prime qualities that make and keep us employable’. So success in life is no longer ensured by just possessing knowledge but by the ability to learn, by understanding how to learn.