I came across an article written from a brain-based model of learning that makes the point I have also made many times. A model of how learning happens is not intended as a recipe for instruction. To me, a description of how learning happens covers the ways in which we learn – period. We learn from external circumstances that fit many different approaches based on our internal behavior as learners. The learning theory is about the internal behaviors or structures enabling learning and the method of instruction is about the external circumstances. Educators can manipulate the external circumstances. Learners can manipulate both the external circumstances and sometimes the internal processes.
My training was as a cognitive psychologist and while I assume that the models cognitive psychologists proposed for how learning happens must somehow be based in biology I don’t see inconsistencies in these approaches. I find the cognitive model more complete and useful and hence a better way to propose specific interpretations of learning struggles and a better guide for designing external activities more likely to encourage effective internal processes. Constructs such as the limitations of working memory, metacognitive recognition of cognitive failures that can be used to adjust processing activities, the use of existing knowledge to offer meaning (whether accurate or note) to new experience, etc. seem a useful framework. Learners don’t have or recognize existing knowledge (information or structures) – provide experiences or help learners recognize. Learners can’t meet the processing demands because the tasks that are expected overload working memory – find ways to off load tasks, slow the input of new demands, Learners are unable to identify their own failures as they occur in real time – find ways to provide external feedback. These fixes are difficult to make work. Often, one fix creates another problem (e.g., an external task designed to fix one problem increases processing demands, developing background knowledge and structures that allow understanding take time that may seem impractical within a group-based approach), but this is the reality of accomplishing difficult things.
Perhaps cognitive models of learning might be considered a short hand or higher level language (to use a technologuy analogy) for biological explanations. This is where I think we may end up when our understanding of brain biology becomes more sophisticated.
The issue of whether brain-based or cognitive models of mental activity are most useful is not really the issue here. The issue raised in the article I cite and in my personal experience is the misrepresentation of what models of learning are. As the author of the article notes – constructivism as a model of learning does not equate to the promotion of hands-on learning activities. Constructivism, cognitive models, or brain based models have to be able explain how learning happens via a variety of life experiences. Educators and those who prepare and support educators need to understand this difference.
I would make one further suggestion – research on the effectiveness of specific learning experiences does not really require an underlying learning theory. The learning experiences work or not or more accurately are more or less effective than a contrasting learning experience. The models of learning are valuable when it comes to proposing learning experiences to be tested and sometimes to debug less than ideal outcomes resulting from a specific experience – this has to happen and this seems a way to encourage this to happen or this did not seem to work and this may be why.