Learning Theory and Research (Study of Learning)

Theory and research are integral components in the study of learning. This section shall delineate certain general functions inherent to theory, alongside key aspects appertaining to the research process.

A theory constitutes a scientifically acceptable assemblage of principles proffered to elucidate a phenomenon. Theories furnish frameworks for the interpretation of environmental observations and serve as conduits between research and education (Suppes, 1974). Research findings may be organised and systematically linked to extant theories. Absent theories, individuals might regard research findings as a disorganised collection of data, given that researchers and practitioners would be bereft of overarching frameworks to which the data might be connected. Even when researchers procure findings that do not appear to be directly associated with theories, they are nonetheless compelled to make sense of the data and ascertain whether the data lend credence to theoretical predictions.

Theories mirror environmental phenomena and engender novel research via hypotheses, or assumptions, that are amenable to empirical testing. Hypotheses can often be articulated as conditional statements: “If one performs X, then Y ought to transpire,” wherein X and Y might represent events such as “commending students for their advancement in learning” and “elevating their self-assurance and attainment,” respectively. Ergo, one might assay the hypothesis, “If students are commended when they demonstrate progress in learning, then they ought to exhibit superior self-assurance and attainment compared to students who are not commended for their progress.” A theory gains corroboration when hypotheses are sustained by data. Theories may necessitate revision should data fail to uphold hypotheses.

Researchers frequently explore domains wherein there exists scant theory to proffer guidance. In such instances, they formulate research objectives or questions to be addressed. Irrespective of whether researchers are testing hypotheses or exploring questions, they must delineate the research conditions with the utmost precision. Given that research underpins theory development and holds substantial implications for pedagogy, the subsequent section shall scrutinise types of research and the process of conducting research.

Introduction

To delineate the conditions of our inquiries, it behoves us to address such posers as: Who shall partake in the investigation? Where shall the study be enacted? What procedures shall be employed? What variables and outcomes are to be assessed?

It is imperative that we define with precision the phenomena under scrutiny. We furnish conceptual definitions of said phenomena, and, furthermore, define them operationally, that is, in terms of the operations, instruments, and procedures we employ to gauge the phenomena. For instance, we might define self-efficacy conceptually as one's perceived capabilities for learning or performing a task, and operationally by specifying the manner in which we assess self-efficacy in our study (e.g., one's score on a questionnaire comprising 30 items). Beyond operationally defining the phenomena under investigation, we must also exhibit precision in the procedure we adhere to. Ideally, we specify conditions with such exactitude that, upon perusal of the description, another researcher could replicate our study.

Research studies that explore learning employ various paradigms (models). The paragraphs which follow will describe the correlational, experimental, and qualitative paradigms, succeeded by a discussion of laboratory and field studies.

Correlational Research.

Correlational research concerns itself with the exploration of relations existing between variables. A researcher might posit that self-efficacy is positively correlated with (related to) achievement, such that the higher the students' self-efficacy, the greater their attainment. To assay this relation, the researcher might measure students' self-efficacy in solving mathematical problems, and then assess their actual proficiency in solving said problems. The researcher could then statistically correlate the self-efficacy and achievement scores to ascertain the direction of the relation (positive, negative) and its strength (high, medium, low).

Correlational research serves to elucidate relations amongst variables. Correlational findings often suggest avenues for further inquiry. Should the researcher obtain a high positive correlation between self-efficacy and achievement, the ensuing study might be an experiment endeavouring to elevate students' self-efficacy for learning, and determining whether such an increase yields higher achievement.

A limitation inherent in correlational research is its inability to identify cause and effect. A positive correlation between self-efficacy and achievement could signify that (a) self-efficacy influences achievement, (b) achievement influences self-efficacy, (c) self-efficacy and achievement influence one another, or (d) self-efficacy and achievement are influenced by other, unmeasured variables (e.g., parents, teachers). To ascertain cause and effect, an experimental study is requisite.

Experimental Research.

In experimental research, the researcher manipulates one or more (independent) variables and determines the effects upon other (dependent) variables. The experimental researcher might constitute two groups of students, systematically augment self-efficacy beliefs amongst students in one group, whilst refraining from doing so in the other, and assess achievement in both groups. Should the first group perform superiorly, the researcher might infer that self-efficacy influences achievement. Whilst the researcher alters variables to determine their effects on outcomes, he or she must maintain constancy in other variables that potentially could affect said outcomes (e.g., learning conditions).

Experimental research can elucidate cause-effect relations, thereby assisting us in understanding the nature of learning. Concomitantly, experimental research often is narrow in scope. Researchers typically study but a few variables, and strive to minimise effects of others, which is arduous to achieve, and frequently unrealistic. Classrooms and other learning environments are complex locales wherein numerous factors operate simultaneously. To assert that one or two variables cause outcomes may overemphasise their import. It is necessary to replicate experiments, and to examine other variables to better comprehend effects.

Qualitative Research.

The qualitative research paradigm is characterised by intensive study, descriptions of events, and interpretation of meanings. The theories and methods employed are referred to under sundry labels, including qualitative, ethnographic, participant observation, phenomenological, constructivist, and interpretative (Erickson, 1986).

Qualitative research proves especially valuable when researchers are concerned with the structure of events rather than their overall distributions, when the meanings and perspectives of individuals are of import, when actual experiments are impractical or unethical, and when there exists a desire to search for new potential causal linkages hitherto undiscovered by experimental methods (Erickson, 1986). Research is varied, and can range from analyses of verbal and nonverbal interactions within single lessons to in-depth observations and interviews spanning extended periods. Methods may encompass observations, utilisation of existing records, interviews, and think-aloud protocols (i.e., participants verbalise their thoughts whilst performing tasks). It is not the choice of method that characterises this approach—for all the aforementioned methods could be employed in correlational or experimental studies—but rather the depth and quality of data analysis and interpretation.

The qualitative researcher might evince curiosity regarding how self-efficacy contributes to the development of skills over time. He or she might collaborate with a small cohort of students for several months. Through observations, interviews, and other forms of data collection, the researcher might examine how students' self-efficacy for learning changes in relation to skill refinement in reading, writing, and mathematics.

Qualitative research yields copious sources of data, which are more intensive and thorough than those typically obtained in correlational or experimental research. This model also can raise new questions and fresh perspectives on old questions, oft overlooked by traditional methods. A potential limitation lies in the fact that qualitative studies typically encompass but a few participants, who may not be representative of a larger population of students or teachers. This constrains the generalisation of findings beyond the research context. Another limitation is that data collection, analysis, and interpretation can be time-consuming, and therefore impractical for students aspiring to graduate, and professors wishing to augment their publication records! Nonetheless, as a research model, this paradigm offers a useful approach for obtaining data typically not collected with other methods.

Laboratory and Field Research.

Laboratory research is conducted in controlled settings, whereas field research is conducted where participants reside, labour, or attend school. During the forepart of the twentieth century, most learning research was conducted on animals in laboratories. Today, most learning research is conducted with people, and much is done in field settings. Any of the preceding research models (experimental, correlational, qualitative) can be applied in the laboratory or the field.

Laboratories offer a high degree of control over extraneous factors that can affect results, such as the ringing of telephones, the exchange of conversations, windows affording distractions, and the presence of other persons in the room not participating in the study. Light, sound, and temperature can be regulated. Laboratories also permit researchers to leave their equipment established over extended periods, and to have all materials at their immediate disposal.

Such control is not feasible in the field. Schools are noisy, and it is oft difficult to secure space to work. Numerous distractions abound: Students and teachers traverse the halls, bells toll, public announcements resound, and fire drills are conducted. Rooms may be overly illuminated or dimly lit, cold or warm, and utilised for other purposes, necessitating researchers to set up equipment each time they work. Interpreting results in light of these distractions can prove problematic.

An advantage of field research is that results exhibit a high degree of generalisability to other similar settings, as studies are conducted where people typically learn. Conversely, generalisation of laboratory findings to the field is undertaken with less confidence. Laboratory research has yielded many important insights on learning, and researchers often attempt to replicate laboratory findings in the field.

Whether we opt for the laboratory or the field depends on such factors as the purpose of the research, availability of participants, costs, and how we shall utilise the results. Should we elect the laboratory, we gain control, but forfeit some generalisability, and vice versa if we select the field. In the field, researchers endeavour to minimise extraneous influences, so that they can be more confident that their results are attributable to the factors they are studying.