How Children Learn

Sean MacBlain

• Éditeur: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Année: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781473904040
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Éducation
• Sous-sujet: Éducation de la petite enfance

Understanding How Children Learn is a vital part of working with children. Every child is unique and understanding differences in learning helps all to benefit.

This book goes beyond simply understanding the work of key theorists and the various theories of learning to recognise what learning actually looks like and how it is best facilitated in any setting.

Each chapter includes:

• Exercises to help you evaluate your understanding and practice
• Examples taken from real experiences to illustrate concepts beyond the theory
• Summaries to help you take the key messages from each chapter
• Suggestions for further reading to help push your own learning further.

Looking at key topics such as brain development, technology in childhood and barriers to learning, this book will explain what learning really is. Why not also have a look at the companion title Learning Theories in Childhoodto explore the key learning theories?

Sean MacBlain is Reader in Child Development and Disability at the University of St. Mark & St. John, Plymouth.

WHAT IS LEARNING?

This chapter aims to:

• highlight the importance of practitioners critically engaging with ideas and changing philosophical perspectives that frame their practice

• explore the influence that a number of celebrated philosophers, theorists and practitioners have had on our understanding of learning and how different approaches over the generations have contributed to current practice

• increase awareness of the need for practitioners working with children to have a clear understanding of the terms learning and childhood and in doing so explore how this can inform their practice.

INTRODUCTION

To critically engage in developing a fuller understanding of learning in the 21st century not only requires knowledge of the historical and cultural influences that have taken us to where we are today but also a recognition that current thinking and practice will change radically in the future. It is, perhaps more than ever before, the case that practitioners working with children need to critically evaluate their own thinking and practice and recognize that what they do is not only bound in time but has its origins in the ideas of a number of key historical thinkers who have laid down the foundations of current practice. Having greater knowledge and understanding of their ideas will assist greatly with the process of critical reflection and evaluation.

This chapter introduces a number of celebrated philosophers and theorists whose ideas, though located in their own times, have influenced the course of our thinking with regard to how children learn. To begin, however, we must try and conceptualize what we mean by the term learning in preparation for a fuller analysis of this concept in Chapter 2. We start with a rather challenging proposition offered by Howe (1999, p. 2) some two decades ago that, ‘The fact that the single term “learning” refers to a variety of mental events makes it impossible to have a single precise definition of learning’.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY LEARNING?

It is important at the outset to emphasize that learning is not simply the act of acquiring new information and knowledge within the classroom. The concept of learning is far more complex, and readers will be invited throughout this text to consider learning not only in terms of its complexity but also in terms of the multitude of views that exist in regard to what the term actually means. Jarvis (2005, pp. 2–3), for example, has emphasized the complexity of this term as follows:

... when we pause and try to define learning in depth, we cannot help but be struck by the awesome breadth and complexity of the concept ... Does learning take place within an individual or is it an interpersonal process? Should we think of it as a set of cognitive mechanisms or rather as an emotional, social and motivational experience ... What should be the focus of learning, facts or skills?

It can be suggested that a key difficulty in defining learning is that much of the research in this area has been undertaken within the field of psychology, which, as Jarvis (2005, p. 3) points out:

... is not a unified body of knowledge and understanding but instead depends on a number of alternative theoretical perspectives or paradigms. Each psychological paradigm has the potential to offer a different vision of the nature of the learner ...

Students attempting to explore the nature of learning can, therefore, be left with more questions than answers about this very complex and challenging construct. However, this is not a bad thing.

In approaching our understanding of learning a useful starting point can be found in the work of Smith et al. (2003, p. 34) who have defined learning in the following way:

Learning refers to the influence of specific environmental information on behaviour. Within a wide range of variation, the way an animal behaves depends on what it learns from the environment. Thus, individuals of a species may differ considerably in their learnt behaviour patterns.

It is of particular note that Smith et al. use the words ‘environmental’ and ‘species’ in their definition. Also of note is the fact that they use the terms ‘behaviour’ and ‘behaviour patterns’. They also appear to liken humans to animals in their use of the term ‘species’. Employing these terms to refer to humans, and to learning, is very much in keeping with the Behaviourist tradition discussed later in Chapter 2 in that it places particular emphasis upon the notion that changes in behaviour are central to how we understand and define learning. More importantly, perhaps, Smith et al.’s definition directs us towards the notion proposed by the Behaviourists that learning can be adequately explained purely in terms of stimuli and responses, reinforcement and observable behaviours.

In an attempt to offer greater clarity regarding what we mean by the term learning, Fontana (1995, p. 145) has suggested that we give consideration to the notion of ‘descriptions’ of learning. In doing so, he offers an important distinction between the Behaviourist tradition (more directly, the notion of Operant Conditioning) and the Cognitive tradition (more directly, the notion of Instrumental Conceptualism):

This somewhat intimidating title (Instrumental Conceptualism) is used by Bruner to define one of the most coherent and consistent cognitive descriptions of learning and still one of the most useful for teachers … Learning … is not something that happens to individuals, as in the operant conditioning model, but something which they themselves make happen by the manner in which they handle incoming information and put it to use.

This distinction is vital and introduces us to the notion that learning in children is an active process. Having greater clarity in our understanding and descriptions of learning, therefore, is very important, and particularly in relation to how we understand those underlying cognitive processes that drive behaviour. Unlike Behaviourist theories, Constructivist theories of learning such as those of Piaget and Vygotsky (discussed in Chapter 2) view learning in terms of the child constructing meaning through experiences gained from interacting with their environments. In particular, they see learning as an active, dynamic process in which the child generates new understanding through linking their existing knowledge to new incoming information.

We now turn our attention to childhood when the foundations of learning are laid down, and when most individuals experience the majority of their formal education. However, whilst the term childhood appears at face value to be one that is popularly agreed and understood, it nevertheless poses major difficulties for those trying to define it. These difficulties have been acknowledged for generations, as witnessed, for example, by the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who some two centuries ago proposed that, ‘Childhood is unknown. Starting from the false idea one has of it, the further one goes, the more one loses one’s way…’ (Rousseau, 1911).

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY CHILDHOOD?

Definitions of childhood abound. Jenks (1996, p. 6), for example, has described childhood as a, ‘… community that at some time has everybody as its member’. Less than 10 years before, Article 1 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child had stated that, ‘A child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier’ (UNCRC, 1989, p. 314). A decade later James and Prout (1997, p. 245) suggested that, ‘In everyday life age is used as a dividing line to legally exclude children from all kinds of “adult” spaces’, whilst Buckingham (2000, p. 6) offered the following:

The meaning of ‘childhood’ is subject to a constant process of struggle and negotiation, both in public discourse (for example, in the media, in the academy or in social policy) and in interpersonal relationships, among peers and in the family.

Others, such as Boyden (1997, p. 190) have viewed childhood as a stage and suggest that children are ‘… demarcated from adults by biological or psychological factors rather than social characteristics’. This notion of stages can be clearly located in the work of the theorist Jean Piaget (discussed later in Chapter 2), but viewing childhood as a stage brings problems and suggests, for example, that in doing so we may consciously or otherwise define this time in the lives of individuals in terms of dependency and lack of maturity, or, as Archard (1993, p. 30) has proposed, a ‘… state of incompetence relative to adulthood’. Any idea of childhood as a state of incompetence relative to adulthood, however, requires closer examination. One particular problem with this lies in the fact that we may, mistakenly, lower our expectations of children’s abilities, and more importantly, their potential. Children develop differently and at vastly different rates, with some even demonstrating very sophisticated thinking and mature behaviours well beyond their age. Advocates of the notion of stages such as James and Prout (1997, p. 10) view childhood as biologically based and, therefore, ‘… essentially an evolutionary model’, whereby, ‘… the child developing into an adult represents a progression from simplicity to complexity of thought, from irrationality to rational behaviour’.

It is certainly clear that the nature of childhood is changing dramatically with increased accessibility to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and the media, and a substantial growth in materialism. Having established a starting position with regard to the complex nature of childhood as well as that of learning we now turn to the ideas of key thinkers who have influenced practice over the generations and who continue to do so. In particular, we focus predominantly upon a number of figures whose contributions to our understanding of learning have led to a much greater appreciation of those most important features of cognition and social and emotional development. We now begin three centuries ago with one of the major thinkers of his time whose ideas continue to inform practice in the 21st century.

Exercise

Consider the benefits to teachers and Early Years practitioners of having a clearer understanding of the concepts of learning and childhood. Why might this be especially important in the 21st century?

KEY PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEORETICAL INFLUENCES IN OUR UNDERSTANDING AND PRACTICE WITHIN THE FIELD OF LEARNING

Early Influences

John Locke (1632–1704)

Born into a world characterized by superstition, ignorance and religious intolerance, John Locke is considered to be one of our most enlightened thinkers. Locke believed that our knowledge and understanding of the world is achieved through sensory experience. In taking such a view Locke can be described as belonging to those philosophers who have come to be known as the Empiricists. Central to Empiricism was the idea of ‘empirical thinking’, which lies at the very heart of the ‘sciences’ and in which we observe, gather and quantify data. Locke took the view that individuals should apply reason to their interpretations of the world in which they live and the events that they encounter and should resist accepting what they were told by authorities without question. In many respects he was reacting to the beliefs of the time, many of which were grounded in superstition and fear. Locke believed that when we are born we begin our lives as if we were a ‘blank slate’ (often referred to in the literature as Tabula Rasa), and it is upon this blank slate that our life experiences, gained through our senses, are written. Locke saw this process as being at the very core of learning and the manner in which all individuals acquired knowledge. Locke believed that our knowledge of the world and how we understand our world is achieved through sensory experience.

During the years between the first and second World Wars, Empiricism or the notion that we come to understand our experiences through observation and subsequent analysis of our behaviours, which result from our responses to external sensory stimuli, grew. This view developed particularly within the discipline of Psychology and contributed greatly to what became known as the Behaviourist tradition (see Chapter 2). In effect, Empiricism offered psychology, and in particular Behaviourism, a methodology at the heart of which was the observation, recording and measurement of behaviours (Gross, 1992; Smith et al., 2003). It is important to note that the Empiricist view is different from the Nativist view, which asserts that we inherit abilities.

Locke saw the primary purpose of education as being that of instilling within children a real and important understanding of the need for virtue, a consideration that currently lies at the heart of much of the thinking around social reform in the UK. Locke was also far ahead of his time in that he saw that learning should be enjoyable and that children benefit from being encouraged to learn how to learn. He also recognized the important role that language played in learning. Indeed, it can be said with confidence that Locke set out many of the basic foundations upon which our current understanding of learning has been built. Indeed, others such as Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey and Montessori who followed Locke shared much of his thinking.

We now turn to the work of another influential philosopher who, in challenging the thinking of his time, saw the importance of acknowledging the individuality of children and the potential they bring with them when they are born. In doing so, he not only advanced our understanding of learning but introduced us to new ways of conceptualizing childhood as that most important of times when individuals grow and develop socially and emotionally.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)

Despite being born generations ago, Rousseau’s ideas still hold credence today. The dominant thinking of the time in which Rousseau lived was that we are born with ‘original sin’ and a primary function of education was to purge children of this sin and the associated guilt that went with it. In contrast, however, Rousseau believed that we are all born ‘good’ and that we inherit much of what makes up our individual potential. Nevertheless, he recognized that society also played an important role in influencing children as they develop. In particular, he recognized the potential harm that aspects of society could have on children in terms of perverting their thinking and behaviours.

Rousseau set out his ideas on education in his celebrated book Emile (1911) in which he introduces us to the life of a young boy named Emile as he progresses from infancy through to adulthood. At the time of writing Emile it was popularly believed that children were born with internal drives, needs and impulses, which if not addressed could lead to ‘wickedness’. For Rousseau, a central feature of education, and especially the role of a child’s tutor was to channel these drives, needs and impulses in a positive and purposeful way. He believed that the process of formal education should endeavour to follow the natural growth of the child as opposed to demands made by society. Rousseau viewed the role of ...