Relation of Learning and Instruction (Study of Learning)

We have hitherto observed how theories and researches serve to advance the field of learning. Their ultimate contribution, however, must needs be the betterment of teaching, so as to foster learning. Albeit it may seem peculiar, historically there existed but scant overlap between the fields of learning and instruction (Shuell, 1988). One reason for this dearth of integration may have been that these fields were traditionally dominated by individuals with disparate interests. The majority of learning theorists and researchers have been psychologists, and much early learning research employed non-human species. Whilst animal research possesses certain benefits, it doth not allow for a proper exploration of instructional processes. Conversely, instruction was the domain of educators, who were primarily concerned with the direct application of teaching methods to classrooms and other learning environments. This applied focus has not always lent itself well to exploring how learning processes are affected by instructional variations.

A second reason for the want of integration of learning with instruction originates from the common belief that teaching is an art, rather than a science such as psychology. As Highet (1950) hath written: '[This book] is called The Art of Teaching because I believe that teaching is an art, not a science. It seemeth to me most perilous to apply the aims and methods of science to human beings as individuals' (p. vii). Highet stated, however, that teaching is inseparable from learning. Good teachers continue to learn about their subject areas and ways to encourage student learning.

Gage (1978) noted that the use of 'art' in reference to teaching is a metaphor. As a way to understand and improve teaching, the 'art of teaching' hath received inadequate attention. Teaching as an art can become the object of the same type of scrutiny and scientific investigation as any other type of art, including drawing, painting, and musical composition. Thus, teaching can be improved through scientific study.

A third possible reason stems from the idea that different theoretical principles may govern the two domains. Sternberg (1986) contended that cognition (or learning) and instruction require separate theories. This may be true for learning and instruction by themselves, but as Shuell (1988) noted: 'Learning from instruction differs from traditional conceptions of learning and teaching considered separately' (p. 282). Learning from instruction involves an interaction between learners and contexts (e.g., teachers, materials, setting), whereas much psychological learning research is less context-dependent. The sequencing of material, for example, affects learners' cognitive organizations and the development of memory structures. In turn, how these structures develop affects what teachers do. Teachers who realise that their instruction is not being comprehended will alter their approach; conversely, when students understand material that is being presented, teachers are apt to continue with their present approach.

Fourth, traditional research methods may be inadequate to study instruction and learning simultaneously. Process–product research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s related changes in teaching processes (such as number and type of questions asked, amount of warmth and enthusiasm displayed) to student products or outcomes (e.g., achievement, attitudes; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Albeit this research paradigm produced many useful results, it neglected the important roles of teacher and student thoughts. Thus, we might know which type of questions produce higher student achievement, but not why they do so (i.e., how questions change students' thinking). Process–product research also focused primarily on student achievement at the expense of other outcomes relevant to learning (e.g., expectations, values). In short, a process–product model is not well designed to examine how students learn.

At the same time, much learning research hath used experimental methods in which some conditions are varied and changes in outcomes are determined. Teaching methods are often held constant across changes in variables, which negates the potential effects of the former.

Fortunately, the situation hath changed. Researchers increasingly are viewing teaching as the creation of learning environments that assist students in executing the cognitive activities necessary to develop skills and reasoning abilities (Floden, 2001). Researchers are examining student learning by observing teaching during content instruction, especially in schools and other places where people typically learn (Pellegrino, Baxter, & Glaser, 1999; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Researchers today are more concerned with analysing teaching patterns rather than discrete teaching behaviours (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Children's learning hath received increased attention (Siegler, 2000, 2005), and more research is being devoted to how what is learned in school is related to what skills are important outside of school (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996). Researchers of different traditions accept the idea that instruction and learning interact and are best studied in concert. Instructional research can have a profound impact on learning theories and their applications to promote student learning (Glaser, 1990; Glaser & Bassok, 1989; Pianta & Hamre, 2009).

Irrespective of theoretical proclivity, most doctrines of pedagogy share certain fundamental tenets posited to augment the efficacy of instruction. A cardinal principle lies in the observation that learners traverse distinct stages or phases in their acquisition of knowledge, discernible through various metrics, such as progressive levels of adeptness: neophyte, advanced beginner, competent practitioner, proficient individual, and ultimately, the expert (Shuell, 1990). Processes and behaviours typically employed in such classifications encompass the velocity and manner of cognitive operations, the capacity to recognise established problem structures, competence in managing emergent difficulties, the organisation and profundity of knowledge structures, and the faculty to superintend performance and judiciously select strategies contingent upon both individual and contextual determinants.

Instructional principles common to diverse learning theories.

• Learners progress through stages/phases
• Material should be organized and presented in small steps
• Learners require practice, feedback, and review
• Social models facilitate learning and motivation
• Motivational and contextual factors influence learning

Teaching and erudition underscore various factors as pivotal in the acquisition of skills, strategies, and characteristic behaviours. These encompass the systematic organisation of material slated for instruction, the methodical presentation of content in incremental steps (small units amenable to cognitive processing), ample opportunities for practical application, the provision of remedial feedback, and the incorporation of frequent review sessions (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Shuell, 1988, 1990).

The function of practice assumes particular significance. Thorndike, alongside other proponents of behaviourism, maintained that practice serves to forge connections or associations between stimuli and responses. Conversely, cognitive perspectives on learning emphasise practice as a means of cultivating associations between concepts and propositions within the architecture of memory (Anderson, 1990).

Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993) observed that deliberate practice entails activities specifically designed to elevate the current level of performance. The cultivation of skill necessitates the learner's investment of time and assiduous effort, coupled with access to pertinent instructional materials, competent instructors, and appropriate facilities. Parents or other responsible adults frequently allocate financial resources, time, and sustained effort to foster the development of their progeny's skill sets (e.g., procuring the services of tutors, facilitating transportation to practice sessions and competitions).

Research substantiates that a regimen of deliberate practice not only enhances the proficiency of performance but also mitigates the constraints of memory and limitations in cognitive processing capabilities (Ericsson & Charness, 1994). Albeit inherent abilities and natural endowments are undoubtedly influential, only protracted and intensive training within a given domain can engender expert performance.

Many juvenile individuals evince a disinclination toward dedicating extended hours to the refinement of skills. Parental encouragement of consistent and regular practice proves pivotal (Ericsson et al., 1993). Parents and other guiding adults can serve as exemplars by engaging in the practice of their own skills, providing children with judicious feedback concerning their progress, and arranging opportunities for children to engage in practice and receive expert evaluation (i.e., from qualified instructors and coaches).

Most perspectives on learning and instruction underscore the salience of learner motivational determinants, encompassing the perceived value of learning, self-efficacy, sanguine expectations regarding outcomes, and attributions that accentuate ability, conscientious effort, and the astute application of strategies (Stipek, 1996; Chapter 8). Furthermore, scholarly investigations reveal that environmental factors exert an influence on the pedagogical approaches adopted by teachers and the learning modalities employed by students (Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Shuell, 1996).

A primary aspiration of this volume is to facilitate the comprehension of how scholastic theory and pedagogical praxis mutually enhance one another. Learning theory constitutes no surrogate for experiential acquisition. Theoretical constructs devoid of experiential grounding may prove fallacious, potentially underestimating the consequentiality of situational determinants. When judiciously employed, theory furnishes a structural framework for informed educational decision-making.

Conversely, experiential learning unaccompanied by theoretical underpinnings may frequently prove prodigal and potentially deleterious. The absence of a guiding theoretical framework necessitates the treatment of each situation as sui generis, rendering decision-making contingent upon a process of trial and error until an efficacious solution is identified. The acquisition of pedagogical proficiency necessitates the discernment of appropriate actions within specific circumstantial contexts.

Theory and praxis exert reciprocal influence. Many theoretical advancements are ultimately implemented within scholastic environments. Contemporary educational methodologies—such as cooperative learning, reciprocal instruction, and the differentiation of instruction for individual learners—possess robust theoretical foundations and empirical validation.

Educational praxis also exerts influence upon theoretical development. Experiential observation may either corroborate theoretical predictions or suggest avenues for revision. Theories undergo modification when empirical research and experiential evidence present conflicting data or indicate the inclusion of supplementary factors. Primordial information processing theories lacked direct applicability to scholastic learning due to their omission of factors beyond those pertaining to the processing of knowledge. Subsequent to cognitive psychologists' engagement with the study of scholastic content, theories were revised to incorporate personal and situational determinants.

Educational professionals should endeavour to integrate theory, research, and praxis. We must needs enquire how learning principles and research findings might be pertinently applied both within and beyond the confines of the schoolhouse. Conversely, we ought to strive to augment our theoretical knowledge through the outcomes of informed teaching practice.