A lot of discussion in education, especially on social media, revolves around learning. That makes sense; I think if there is one thing that I always want my students to do, then it would be a bit of learning, or, even better, “a lot” of it.

However, what exactly is learning?

A popular definition is taken from an article from 2006, which states that learning is a change in long-term memory (Kirschner, Sweller and Clark, 2006). The original article does not mention any additional references, so it’s unclear where the basis of this definition comes from.

From the perspective of the authors, perhaps this makes sense, as their underpinning theory revolves around limited working memory capacity and unlimited long-term memory capacity. But we should realise that it is quite a limited definition.

For example, if a change in long-term memory is learning, is that any change? Does duration matter? If you engage with a process but there is no change in long-term memory, has no learning taken place?

And then, another crucial question: how do we measure whether a change in long-term memory has taken place?

I think it’s this last point that, in my view, makes the definition limited, because in most cases this would be gauged with a test: if you did better on a test, the assumption might be that you had changed long-term memory - in other words, that you had learned something.

Such a view is in danger of mistaking “learning” with “performance”. As Soderstrom and Bjork (2015) have pointed out: measures do not necessarily tell us if learning has or hasn’t taken place.

In a blog, Daniel Willingham (2017) makes the point that when it comes to definitions of learning, they often need to be seen in the light of the underlying theory that is being used, and that there probably is no all-encompassing definition. There are, however, numerous elements that typically feature in “learning”. For example, many common definitions include the observation that learning is a relatively permanent change in behaviour brought about by practice or experience.

But there are problems here, too. Lachman (1997) criticised this because others tend to distinguish product (change in behaviour) from process. And what if a potential learner simply does not change his or her behaviour?

Lachman also flagged up the fact that the words “practice” and “experience” aren’t very precise. Then again, are teachers really helped with a definition like, “Learning is the process by which a relatively stable modification in stimulus-response relations is developed as a consequence of functional environmental interaction via the senses”?

Ultimately, like Barron et al. (2015), I think that there is a place for multiple definitions. They tabulate all kinds of definitions of learning, and appreciate commonalities but also the practical utility of different learning definitions in different contexts.

We can look at education, and learning in particular, in different ways. Embracing these different ways might well be the best way to prevent tunnel vision.

Christian Bokhove is associate professor in mathematics education at the University of Southampton

References

• Barron, AB, Hebets, EA, Cleland, TA, Fitzpatrick, CL, Hauber, ME, and Stevens, JR (2015). Embracing multiple definitions of learning. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(7), 405-407. See bit.ly/EHebets

• Kirschner, PA, Sweller, J, and Clark, RE (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

• Lachman, SJ (1997). Learning is a process: toward an improved definition of learning. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied. 131(5), 477-480.

• Soderstrom, NC, and Bjork, RA (2015). Learning versus performance: an integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2). See bit.ly/LearnPerform

• Willingham, DT (2017). On the definition of Learning... See bit.ly/DefLearn