Daniel Willingham puts his finger on the problem of defining 'learning' - efforts to do so are usually circular. He offers three examples, each of which is illustrative of the idea that the definition of learning will be in terms of this or that theory. And as he suggests there hasn't been much interest in the field in finding a common definition of the term. I'm inclined to agree with him. My own definition - 'learning is the formation of connections between entities in a network' - is rooted in my own theory. It's unlikely an instructionist or a behaviourist would be willing to agree to my terms. But it raises the question of whether there are core concepts we can agree on which would allow us to distingish between and weigh the merits of different theories.
Today: 4 Total: 89 [Direct link] [Share]
