Introduction: Learning Theories

Learning is a process of acquisition, depending on experience, thanks to which certain activities/behaviours are formed or modified under the influence of repetitive and variable world conditions. Learning is a human-specific evolutionary process, consisting in acquiring the experience of life. Schools have an important role in promoting learning, introducing us to the secrets of knowledge.

Questions like ‘Why does learning take place?’ or ‘How does learning take place?’, led to theories and models of instruction (learning). ‘The theory explains the process, and the model describes it’, says Biggs and Tang (2007). The first question is answered by explaining the deep mechanisms of the learning process and its causal determinations. As regards the second question, Chye et al. (2008), for example, finds that learning is associated with several knowledge paradigms, one of which, relevant here, advances the idea that school learning is a process of shaping the subjectivity of the learner, thus shaping his/her awareness and conduct, regardless of his/her choices.

The following six questions illustrate the kinds of problems that are the subject of learning theories amenable to the above-mentioned paradigm:

  1. 1.

    Which are the limits of learning?

    This raises the question of intra- and inter-species individual differences in learning ability, whether persistent or changeable because of changes in the capacity of assimilation due to age.

  2. 2.

    How does the practice contribute to the process of learning?

    The old saying that ‘practice perfects’ has its reason. Obviously, we learn to skate only by practising.

  3. 3.

    How are the impulse, incentive, reward or sanction important?

    Everyone knows that, in general, the efficiency of learning is ensured by means of reward or sanction or that it is easier to learn what is interesting than what bores you.

  4. 4.

    What is the place of understanding and intuition (insight)?

    Some issues are easier to learn if we know what they are about. For example, we feel better as tourists if we can understand a map or a schedule and we are helpless in front of a differential equation if we do not understand its symbols and rules for using them. We can speak vowels easily without knowing how to move our tongue and we can read without being aware of the movements that the eye muscles make. It seems that we assimilate certain issues automatically, while for others we have to fight hard, first to understand them and only then to master them.

  5. 5.

    Does learning in a field become a support for learning in another?

    This is a problem of the formative virtue of a discipline or a problem of transfer in learning.

  6. 6.

    What actually happens in the process of memorization and in the process of forgetting?

    The facts of memory are usually quite unknown, but in connection with remembering and forgetting, strange things can often occur. Some facts we want to remember are easily forgotten, and those we want to forget are troubling our minds. In cases of amnesia, memory lapses on older or newer events often occur.

E. Hilgard and G. H. Bower (2014) believed that the many theories of learning developed in psychology could be divided into three major groups. The first group includes stimulus-reaction theories (Pavlov, Thorndike, Guthrie, Skinner, Hull). I. P. Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, discovered that the body can respond not only to innate, unconditional reflexes caused by absolute stimuli, but also to stimuli that occur before or simultaneously with them, known as conditioned reflexes. By repeatedly pairing a signal (such as a bell) with the presentation of food to a dog at certain intervals, Pavlov observed that the dog began to salivate at the sound of the bell, even without the presence of food (known as a conditional response). According to Pavlov, such conditioning demonstrates that the animal can create an association between the stimulus, initially neutral (the sound of the bell did not produce salivation at first) and a behavioural response (salivation). For the production of the conditioned response it is necessary to have temporal contiguity between the two stimuli (conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus), and, at each association, the conditioned stimulus must precede the unconditioned stimulus. Pavlov warned of the danger of the system being frozen at some unproductive reductionist level, in which there would be no discrimination between human learning and animal learning.

The process of classical conditioning described by Pavlov was used by Watson (2004) to demonstrate how emotional responses develop. A study was conducted involving a 1.5-year-old boy named Albert, who learned to develop a fear of a white rat through repetitive association of the rat's presence with a loud noise. Later, to achieve the unlearning of the conditioned fear, Watson placed the animal at some distance from Albert, while offering chocolate to the child. Gradually the rat was moved closer and closer to the child, until he managed to tolerate the animal’s nearness. Learning theorists believe that this classical learning mechanism could be responsible for the occurrence of several phobias (towards snakes, dogs, etc.).

E. Thorndike, an American psychologist who lived from 1874 to 1949, formulated a learning model based on trial and error. Through animal experiments, he posited that a learner is confronted with a problem situation that can be resolved by choosing the correct answer from several possible options. At first, Thorndike used ‘problem cages’: a hungry cat was locked in such a cage, and a piece of fish would be nearby; the cage could be opened by pressing a lever. The cat moved about the cage attempting to reach the food until, by chance, it pressed the lever that opens the door and thus reached the food. On this basis, the American psychologist established that learning involves a succession of trials and errors; successful attempts are retained, and those followed by negative consequences begin to occur less frequently. For example, a student will better remember those activities in which he was appreciated and praised, experiencing satisfaction.

The second group includes cognitive theories (Tolman, Osgood, Koffka, Wertheimer). Based on experimental work, M. Wertheimer, W. Kohler and K. Koffka argued in favour of the pre-eminence of the whole over the parts in psychic activity. Wertheimer developed the theory of productive learning and Kohler the theory of learning based on understanding. The postulates of perceptual theory, formulated by Wertheimer, are as follows (Baeten et al., 2016; Grave et al., 2004; Hung et al., 2008; Jaques, 2003; Walsh, 2010):

  • The perception is structured from the beginning;

  • The whole is perceived before the parts;

  • There are no distinctions between perceptions and sensations;

  • The organization of stimuli in all perceptions is not done by chance.

Kohler’s research to discover the mechanisms of learning, which later laid the foundations of the theory of ‘intuitive learning’, was done on anthropoid monkeys, by creating increasingly complicated problem-situations. For example, a monkey’s route to food (banana) was not direct, but required finding solutions through complex problem-solving actions. The monkey could find that a primary configuration (‘hand – banana’) that had been proven to work in the past, was no longer suitable to a new situation. The monkey would wait until it could capture the existing situation in a new perceptual configuration, for example ‘hand – arm – banana – mouth’. This new configuration, says Kohler, is not developed through ‘trial and error’, but through sudden enlightenment that leads to an understanding of the new perceptual situation.

E. C. Tolman (1886–1959) proposed that in learning we must also consider the ‘intermediate variables’ between stimulus and response and highlighted the importance of a form of cognitive learning which he called ‘slow learning’. He argued that something can be learned without an apparent change in behaviour, the learned element remaining in a latent state until its activity is necessary.

The third group consists of action theories (Piaget, Bruner, Gagne, Galperin, etc.). The Russian psychologist, P. I. Galperin, developed the operational theory of human activity and the orientation of the types of cognitive–reflective and action activities. Galperin regarded notions as the result of the crystallization of mental actions: ‘some idea – as a psychological phenomenon – is nothing more than an objective action transposed in the mental plane and then passed into inner language’. At the higher mental level, what was material action turns into an intellectual operation, that is, into the learning of knowledge and the formation of appropriate operations.

J. Piaget understands learning in a general sense, as information assimilation followed by accommodation or operational restructuring. Mental operations result from the internalization of actions and, in contradistinction to perceptual preservations, are characterized by reversibility. Due to systems of reversible transformations, conceptual invariations are preserved (as stable cognitive structures), abstraction and generalization occur, and the higher level of intelligence reaches capacity for propositional operations.

As regards the learning–development relationship, Piaget supports the idea that learning is subordinated to development. Intellectual development is seen in a staged succession of the evolution of thought, each stage being characterized by a structure in which the higher level encompasses the lower. The child progresses through each of these stages sequentially and at varying rates of speed. The stages include sensory-motor intelligence (0–2 years), preoperative intelligence (2–7 years), concrete operations (7–12 years) and formal operations (11/12–15/16 years). Piaget’s theory has the merit of demonstrating how intelligence evolves, that it has its origin in the sensorimotor interactions of children with the environment even before the acquisition of language.

J. Bruner's theory of training argues that the development of the intellect is dependent on the tools used, education being called upon to ensure the development of mental processes and training through specific activities. The American psychologist formulated what has sometimes been regarded as a shocking idea: any child, at any age, can be successfully taught any educational object, provided that it is translated into one of the systems of representation of reality: action, imagistic (iconic) and symbolic. This led to a conception of learning as discovery, as production and creation of knowledge.

The theory of cumulative-hierarchical learning was developed by R. Gagné and stipulates that human development appears as an effect, as a long-term change, produced by both learning and growth. The process of learning is founded on a sequential and cumulative series of skills, evaluated based on the standard of gradually progressing from acquiring basic abilities to more intricate ones. Learning theories fulfil several functions, highlighted in Table 1. As can be seen here, learning theories cover a wide range of aspects of the learning process. However, the learning process is greatly affected by the teaching methods employed. Teachers who have been trained in traditional teaching schools tend to overestimate the impact of spoken instruction on their students—‘taught means learned’. This perspective is quite common in secondary education, where teachers often face a curriculum full of a large volume of complex information. Hence, it may be tempting to adopt the quickest and most efficient teaching method of lecturing by the instructor and passive listening by the students. However, can the students learn by just listening to the lectures? Did all students comprehend what the teacher intended to teach them? So teaching may not be the same as learning.

Table 1 Functions of learning theories
Full size table

Learning is a personalized process where students construct their own systems of knowledge. They link the new information with what they already comprehend and recognize, utilizing concepts, generating ideas, making evaluations based on their evolving experience, etc. Students seek meaning and logic behind what they learn, and they determine what is significant and memorable. A ‘traditional’ teacher should be aware that in the minds of his students there exist as many versions of the lecture as the number of students present, versions that are produced and integrated into each student’s meaning systems and cognitive structures. Therefore, one student may perceive the lecture’s content as new information, while in another student’s perception the lecture contains errors or misunderstandings that need to be corrected. In a constructive frame of mind, we must expect the occurrence of mistakes of logic and thinking, as well as the possibility of misunderstanding information, to be the rule, not the exception—not only in the minds of our students, but also in our own minds.

Reconstructing our cognitive structures is a more intricate process than just replacing old information with new information. In actuality, learning is a prolonged process where contradictory sets of thoughts and notions contend with each other, and it is the students who make effort to deconstruct them, not the teacher. Teachers who attempt to rectify the errors of their students will realize that simply informing them about what is accurate is frequently insufficient. These issues are familiar to all teachers. However, constructive learning alone is inadequate to overcome them. Students must engage in activities that involve the application of their newfound knowledge, as simply learning is not enough. For a teacher, this means, for example (Neville, 1999):

  1. 1.

    No lecture without a subsequent workload;

  2. 2.

    Listening to the students’ contributions, for example presentations, to evaluate their learning process and achievements;

  3. 3.

    Empowering students to pursue self-development, for example through task-based learning;

  4. 4.

    Listening to students' feedback, for example ‘what I found to be especially important was…, I learn best when…’, etc.

The responsibility of the teacher is to furnish appropriate learning prospects for their pupils and to assess and converse with them about what is effective and what is not. Constructive learning, which involves deconstruction and subsequent implementation tasks, requires a significant amount of time. Therefore, the teacher, perhaps in collaboration with the students, must decide which topics are worth investing time in, and follow the principle of ‘doing less, but doing well’. The Problem-Based Learning (PBL) approach offers an alternative to conventional teaching methods and has been employed across various fields such as medicine, biology, physiology, psychology, engineering, social work education, etc. The four fundamental elements of PBL teaching are circumstances, problems, students and teachers. The teaching process revolves around circumstances and problems as its central components. Students should work to understand or solve problems, and teachers are the students’ partners or organizers. In the process of implementing PBL, first, appropriate settings should be carefully created and clearly introduced to the students. Then, the students should be divided into several groups, each consisting of 5–10 students. The students should develop the curriculum and monitor the process stages on their own. In order to solve practical problems, students will naturally draw upon their prior knowledge and actively seek out new knowledge. Once results are obtained, reflection and evaluation will follow (Dahms, 2014; Hattie and Yates, 2014). There are many differences between traditional learning and PBL learning. First, traditional learning aims to provide systematic, comprehensive and in-depth information to students, while PBL pays more attention to the practical part of knowledge acquisition. The traditional approach relies mostly on textbooks, whereas the modern approach emphasizes the use of practical materials. In the traditional method, the presentation of the materials starts with smaller parts then proceeds to integrate them into wholes, while in the modern PBL approach, the presentation of the materials starts with the whole, then focuses on the parts where identification of the problem by the student is required. The traditional methods emphasize fundamental skills, while the PBL method concentrates on significant concepts but in practical applications. In traditional teaching, assessment is seen as a separate activity and takes place through testing, while with the modern PBL teaching method assessment is seen as an activity integrated with teaching and learning, and takes place through portfolios and observations. In addition, PBL offers students the chance to self-assess. When making the transition to PBL teaching, one of the biggest obstacles for many teachers is the need to give up a certain degree of control over the class and to trust their students. This certainly does not mean that teachers do not teach in a PBL class. Many traditional practices remain, but are being reshaped. In PBL teaching, other information delivery techniques are applied. Students should discuss the issues related to what they learn, mobilizing their previous knowledge. Using their prior knowledge, each student or group is encouraged to propose a hypothesis or working statement that may evolve as they gather more information through research. Students will tackle a list of questions that need to be answered in order to solve the problem at hand, namely: What do I know? What do I need to know? How can I find out? (Biggs, 2011).

For example, at the beginning, students are given an unstructured problem. Even if a problem is poorly structured or unstructured, it is still considered a defined problem, except that it has only a few elements. However, these elements are sufficient to stimulate an investigative process. The problem presented to the students should not be easily solvable with their prior knowledge alone. Additionally, the problem should have multiple acceptable solutions, as the answer is likely to evolve as new information is gathered and integrated. Additionally, the problem should be meaningful to the students, and they should be able to connect with the topics and concerns that the problem raises. This way they will be more motivated to solve the problem and will store the information they find. A second difference between traditional learning and PBL relates to the fact that in traditional course-based teaching, teachers play the lead role in the classroom. Teachers pass on knowledge to their students, and they passively receive information. By contrast, in PBL students play an active role. In a problem-based learning setting, the teacher's role undergoes a transformation, which may require some time for adaptation. The teacher is no longer the sole source of knowledge in the class, and the traditional reliance on textbooks is reduced. Instead, the teacher acts as a coach or guide to facilitate learning. In a PBL class, it is unrealistic to expect students to come up with optimal solutions right away. Because learning to solve problems is one of the main goals of PBL, students will need to be guided through the search and solving process. Therefore, it is important for the teacher to allow students to ask different questions about things. The differences between the role of the teacher in traditional education and the PBL system can be summarized as shown in Table 2. (Duch and Groh, 2001). Thus, the traditional method of teaching involves guiding students to learn through memorization and recitation techniques, so that they do not develop critical problem-solving thinking and decision-making skills, while PBL involves teaching based on identifying information required to solve a problem. Here, the students learn as a team, as the main actors of the problem in question, while the teacher is the director-mediator, who directs the whole process. The PBL principles are Constructive learning, Collaborative learning, Contextual learning and Self-directed learning.

Table 2 Differences between traditional teaching and PBL
Full size table

Learning Is Constructive

Learning is easier and knowledge is stored for longer when what is new to learn can be linked to the learner's previous knowledge and experiences. Thus, teaching must start from what those we teach already know and propose a way to integrate new knowledge into the already existing mental structures of the learner.

Learning Is Collaborative

Learning is easier when learners are stimulated to interact and learn from each other. Through collaboration, sharing ideas and providing support and feedback, students understand better the subject being studied. Thus, teaching should provide various opportunities to collaborate, to work in a team to solve various tasks, to ask each other questions, to hear how others think about the topics, and to say how one in turn thinks about the topics.

Learning Is Contextual

Learning is easier when what is to be learned is exemplified by locating the topics in a reality-based context relevant to the learner. Thus, teaching must propose from the outset tasks related to the students’ choice of their future job/specialization, using relevant examples from the media, professional practice and/or relevant everyday situations.

Learning Is Self-Directed

Learning occurs more easily when the learner's mind is active, when the learner plans, monitors and evaluates her/his own learning, and when s/he acknowledges that s/he is primarily responsible for her/his own learning. Thus, teaching must be based on the learner's knowledge and provide her/him with opportunities to plan, self-evaluate and reflect on her/his own learning.

Tables 3 and 4 summarize the advantages and disadvantages of PBL. Table 5 lists some of the conflict situations that may arise within the PBL tutorial group.

Table 3 Advantages of PB
Full size table
Table 4 Disadvantages of PBL
Full size table
Table 5 Possible types of conflict situations that may arise within the PBL tutorial group and with the proposed modalities of action
Full size table

Stimulating the Involvement of Educators in the PBL Approach

Constructive alignment of assessment with learning objectives and learning activities (Biggs & Tang, 2011) starts from the fact that a teaching process is considered effective if we develop the design of the activity by combining in a constructive way the following elements: goals, activities learning and assessment tasks. Constructive alignment is a way of designing a course or way of learning based on what learners should know and should be able to demonstrate at the end of the course. Learning objectives, assessment methods and learning/learning facilitation activities are intentionally ‘aligned’ so that learning outcomes are as good as possible (Kurt, 2020).

Our education is focused on skills. Their relevance is that, since we aim to develop skills (general, specific) in students, assessment is an organic component of the learning process. Hence, assessment must also be incorporated into, or ‘aligned’ with, the learning process (Biggs & Tang, 2011). I need to establish, as a trainer, how I will assess learning and include those opportunities to demonstrate the competencies pursued in the design of the learning process. In other words, learning tasks and assessment tasks are basically one and the same thing. Implication: the paradigm of the three distinct moments (design–teaching–evaluation) must be taken seriously. While ‘teaching’, that is, while facilitating the learning process, I have to evaluate. Moreover, before I think about how I will facilitate learning, I have to decide what and how I will evaluate, because—since assessment tasks are learning tasks—it makes sense that I have to design these tasks first.

So: I establish which are the relevant observable behaviours based on which I can conclude that the student has acquired a (specific) competence, I describe the behaviour in the clearest possible terms to understand how s/he can demonstrate it (what to do, what to say, what to produce, etc.) and then I think about opportunities to manifest the behaviours I have to engender, i.e. the learning-assessment tasks.

The conclusion is that if learners understand what desirable behaviour looks like, they will strive to manifest it. That is why it is important that the assessment indicators are clear and objectively verifiable. When we pursue the development of skills, assessment design precedes learning design and learning tasks are at the same time assessment tasks. My checklist would include the following questions:

  • What are the objectives of the course? (What will students know at the end of the course and be able to apply in practice?)

  • What is the form of organizing the course? (lecture, discussions, teamwork)

  • What is the ultimate goal of the activities? (What are the skills and attitudes developed?)

  • What are the preconditions and conditions for promoting the course?

  • What is the purpose of the test? (understanding, capacity for synthesis, application of knowledge in a new context)

  • What are the assessment methods meant to help the student learn?

  • What are the recommended bibliographic references for students?

Specific Assessment Methods to Test the Acquisition of Both Knowledge and Skills and Abilities

This will include the list of questions that students will have to answer, the structure of the presentation or project they are going to support or the list of requirements that the practical work must satisfy if necessary. Depending on the specificity of each course, this part can include any type of assessment that the teacher considers appropriate for testing the acquisitions accumulated during the course.

The products of the problem-based learning process are:

  1. 1.

    Report;

  2. 2.

    Presentation;

  3. 3.

    Annexes of each report (minutes, concept maps, summaries, reported projects).

The evaluation should focus on two directions:

  1. 1.

    Product component and,

  2. 2.

    The component of the process.

Therefore, the on-going assessment should not be something ‘appended’ to the learning process at the end, but should also take place during the learning process. The report evaluation forms and the evaluation scale for the group report can be used in the assessment. At the end of each project, the study group will be required to submit one of the following documents: a poster, report, oral presentation, web page, drawing or a constructed device. The precise format will be determined during the initial phase. Each individual in the group will be evaluated according to how well they succeed on the following levels:

  • Analysis of the problem;

  • Innovation of possible solutions;

  • Critical evaluation of the group's suggestions;

  • Demonstration of both previous and newly acquired knowledge by participating in the case study;

  • Using practical skills in solving the problem.

Their position as a team member will also be assessed, including how well they have fulfilled their role of:

  • Leader of the discussion;

  • Writing/content producer;

  • Time administrator;

  • Member of the group.

One of the weaknesses of the PBL system is the lack of a formal evaluation because it is often missing or not aligned with the objectives of the PBL. Although there is much written work on student assessment, these assessment methods are not often applied in PBL groups (Alessi, 2001; Capon, 2004; Guerra, 2017; Newby, 1996; Savin-Baden, 2004). However, the strength of the PBL evaluation is that the evaluation criteria include assessments of process component as well as product component. Below are included guidelines for assessment scales:

  1. 1.

    Individual Work

For 2 points:

  • Increased interest in identifying the advantages and disadvantages of using lab tools (EEG, behavioural questionnaires, etc.).

  • Follow the instructions and use the instruments available in the laboratory.

  • Is able to face difficulties in finding criteria to increase the effectiveness of available equipment.

For 1 point:

  • Interest in conducting experimental tests.

  • Does not always follow instructions and use available equipment.

  • Is not always able to face difficulties in finding advantages, and disadvantages specific to particular devices.

For 0 points:

  • Low interest in conducting experimental tests.

  • Does not follow instructions and use available equipment.

  • Cannot face difficulties encountered along the way.

  1. 2.

    Team Work (students are divided into teams of 5–6)

For 2 points:

  • Excellent collaborative work.

  • Able to reach consensus and complete tasks on time.

For 1 point:

  • Difficult collaboration relationships.

  • Limited consensus and does not always complete tasks on time.

For 0 points:

  • Low interest in working in a team and collaborating with other colleagues.

  • Inability to reach consensus and complete tasks on time.

  1. 3.

    Use of Resources

For 2 points:

  • Excellent interest in implementing resources and laboratory guidance information.

For 1 point:

  • Good interest in implementing resources and guidelines.

For 0 points:

  • Low interest in implementing resources (including tutorials) and guidance information.

  1. 4.

    Quality of Information

For 2 points:

  • Precise information, clearly presented and sufficient details on the correct choice of advantages/disadvantages of using particular equipment, the correct follow-up of a ‘red thread’ of the experimental steps, correct collection and interpretation of data.

For 1 point:

  • Less accurate information, yet clearly presented in sufficient detail.

For 0 points:

  • Little accurate information, presented in an obscure manner and in insufficient detail.

  1. 5.

    Fulfilment of Tasks (Score Awarded by Team Mates)

For 2 points:

  • All tasks received within the team are completed.

For 1 point:

  • Almost all tasks received within the team are completed.

For 0 points:

  • Few or none of the tasks received within the team have been completed.

The Final Grade is calculated by summing the scores obtained on each evaluation scale in one evaluation out of three.