UNDERSTANDING: THE PURPOSE OF LEARNING
Gordon Wells and Tamara Ball
University of California, Santa Cruz
Introduction
Against the backdrop of education as typically practiced in the United States, this chapter proposes a conception of learning and teaching, rooted in Vygotsky’s (1987) theory of learning and development, that treats understanding as the goal of education. Through dialogic inquiry, students at all levels are challenged and assisted to engage collaboratively in a spiral of knowing with respect to the areas of life that are of interest and concern to them; the aim is that, through the development of individual understanding achieved in collective knowledge building, they will be empowered to act and think effectively and responsibly, both alone and in collaboration with others. We present two case studies of attempts to enact this model in practice at our own university and extrapolate from them to argue for the pivotal role of higher education in the life trajectories of individuals and in the development of society as a whole.
Learning for the Twenty-first Century
The last hundred years have seen radical changes in the demands of the workplace as well as in understanding about learning and development, but rather little change has occurred in the organization of schooling. In its early years, universal public education was, in large part, a response to a demand for semi-skilled workers on the assembly lines of industrial mass production and to the need to rapidly organize growing urban centers by imposing standardized procedures (Tyack, 1974). It also coincided with the increasing dominance of behaviorist theories of learning, the widespread acceptance of the construct of IQ, and the belief that individuals’ potential for learning is largely determined by their genetic inheritance (which was itself believed to be strongly determined by race and class) (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). For all these reasons, therefore, schools were organized on the model of an assembly line and on the belief that learning, to be activated, required sequentially organized training through compartmentalized instruction, drill and practice. To a large extent, this is still the basis on which most public schools are organized, but now with much more attention to “quality assessment” of the output (Oakes & Lipton 2003).
In the meantime, many of those assumptions about human development, learning and teaching have been challenged by both theoretical and empirical research, which has led to a very different conception of the ways in which they are interrelated (Case, 1996). Here, we want to focus on three. First is the active nature of learning. Far from being overwhelmed by a confusing barrage of sensory input, from the beginning the newborn infant actively works on constructing meaning of the events in which he or she is involved. These early efforts are largely accomplished through face to face interaction with a primary caregiver (Wells, 1986). Theorists vary in how far they attribute the meanings that are made – the concepts or schemata that are constructed – to the innate organization of the mind and brain, but all are agreed that the infant’s learning is dependent on acting into the world and gaining information through feedback that allows “hypotheses” to be tested and, when necessary, revised. Thus, central to this “constructivist” conception of learning (Piaget 1970) is the now very generally accepted recognition, that, because new learning necessarily builds on previous experience and understanding, no two individuals make sense of new information in exactly the same way.
The second change is the growing recognition that, despite the insights it has yielded, constructivism is inadequate as a basis for planning education, since it accords so little importance to the part played by teaching. Furthermore, it limits attention to the learner as an individual, with little concern for the embeddedness of her or his experiences in the particular social and cultural situations in which s/he is growing up (Nelson 2007). To understand the essentially social nature of human development, by contrast, we turn to the work of Vygotsky and his colleagues.
What makes humans different from all other species, they argued, is that their development is not simply a matter of biological maturation, including maturation of the brain; it is also necessarily cultural. From the beginning, human infants are enmeshed in an environment shaped by the continuing effect of the solutions that preceding generations have found to the problems of surviving and prospering in a particular ecological niche; their learning thus necessarily involves discovering and taking over these cultural solutions so that they can participate effectively in family and community. Unlike Piaget, therefore, Vygotsky (1978) argued that learning is not a matter of autonomous development but, instead, a kind of “cultural apprenticeship” in which, by taking part in activities with others, the learner encounters and appropriates the tools and practices of the community and, in the process, transforms them into personal resources for individual thinking, feeling and acting.
Two critical differences from other species underpin the unique nature of human development. The first is the infant’s innate predisposition to treat others as intentional agents and to seek to understand their intentions; this makes possible deliberate learning through imitation of others’ modeling (Tomasello 1999). The second is the emergence of speech, which makes possible the more precise coordination of intentions and shared reflection on the consequences of action. Together, these human characteristics account for the amazing cultural accumulation of skills, knowledge and values in every society and the manner in which their individual members’ development is shaped and fostered by the assistance they receive as they attempt to participate in community activities (Wells 1986).
This view of learning and development also helps to resolve the conundrum of the relationship between the individual and society, which can now be recognized as one of interdependence. Since society pre-exists individual learners, it is from society that they appropriate the values, practices and knowledgeable skills that shape who they become; conversely, it is equally the case that society is maintained and transformed over time through the active participation of its individual members. Nevertheless, the relationship between individual and society is never direct; rather, it is necessarily mediated by the situated, productive activities and interpersonal interactions with specific others, in which individuals participate on particular occasions. It is from this socially situated perspective that we need to think about the goals and means of education.
The third key understanding about learning that has emerged in the last century is the importance of interest and engagement (Herrera & Becht, this volume). When the task we are working on or the problem we are trying to solve is of real personal interest, learning becomes engaging and the desire to achieve one’s personally set goal provides the motivation to sustain that engagement. Ensuring the learner’s interest is thus of prime importance in the context of formal education. As Vygotsky (1978) wrote about teaching literacy, "teaching should be organized in such a way that reading and writing are necessary for something … Writing should be incorporated into a task that is relevant and necessary for life" (pp. 117-118).
Addressing this issue at about the same time from a similar perspective, Dewey (1938) argued that “inquiry” should be the driving force of education; this has led, in recent years, to the proposal that learning activities should take as their object significant and often problematic features of the students' experience and environment and have as their intended outcome a growth in the students' understanding, where this is taken to mean, not simply factual knowledge, but knowledge growing out of, and oriented to, socially relevant and productive action (Cohen, McLaughlin et al. 1993).
In figure 1, we have attempted to represent schematically the way in which we see the relationship between learning and teaching in the context of formal education.
Figure 1. A Model of the Relationship Between Learning and Teaching
(adapted from Wells, 1999)
Learning is at the center of the diagram. As Lave & Wenger (1991) point out, learning can occur without deliberate teaching – as is the case in people’s participation in the activities that make up family and community life and in many work situations. In most countries, however, it is considered important to make provision in schools and colleges for the more systematic, guided learning that is required to master the various disciplines that underpin activities in technologically advanced societies. In such formal educational contexts, where learning is an intended outcome of activity, teaching has two major functions: the first is to select and introduce the overall topic of inquiry, provide access to the necessary resources, and negotiate with the learners the challenges they will take on; the second is to monitor the progress of individuals and groups and to provide guidance and assistance as appropriate. This latter responsibility includes engaging individuals and the whole class in “metacognitively” reviewing the products and the processes of their learning in order that they may take greater control over, and responsibility for, their efforts to achieve understanding (Olson & Bruner, 1996).
At one level, a cycle through the four quadrants of the diagram represents what is involved in carrying out a single challenging activity. On such an occasion, one starts with a personal resource of interpreted past experience, which provides the initial orientation for making sense of what is new in the situation. The new is encountered as information, either through feedback from action into the world or from reading, viewing and listening to representations of the experiences, explanations and reflections of others. However, for this information to lead to an enhancement of understanding - which is the goal of all useful learning – it must be actively transformed and articulated with personal experience through knowledge building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Understanding is especially valuable in today’s globalized world in so far as it allows agents to engage more strategically, purposefully and collaboratively in complex activity.
Knowledge building can take a variety of forms but all are essentially social and interactional in nature. Most typically, it takes place through face-to-face oral discourse (which may, of course, include reference to artifacts present in the situation, such as material tools, diagrams, graphs and quotations from written texts of present or absent authors). The aim is to participate in a common, or shared knowledge building process to which all contribute, whether overtly or through responding internally to the contributions of others in the dialogue of inner speech. While knowledge building certainly occurs in problem-solving activities in everyday life, it is – or should be – a focal activity in formal educational contexts; thus, one of the teacher’s most important tasks is to help students to develop the skills required for participation and to use them in a sustained and focused manner. When this is achieved, Bereiter (1994) describes the resulting dialogue as “progressive,” arguing that, although the issue students are grappling with may already have been understood by experts elsewhere, the understandings that class members are generating are new to them and they recognize them as superior to their previous understanding. This accords well with Popper & Eccles’ statement:
We can grasp a theory only by trying to reinvent it or to reconstruct it, and by trying out, with the help of our imagination, all the consequences of the theory which seem to us to be interesting and important… One could say that the process of understanding and the process of the actual production or discovery are very much alike. (Popper & Eccles 1977)
As is implied by this quotation, knowledge building and understanding are, in an important sense, two faces of the same process, the first being other-directed and undertaken in collaboration with others, while the second is inner-directed in that the understanding collectively achieved is appropriated by the individual participants in the form of enhancement of their potential for future action.
So far, in explicating figure 1, we have focused on a single opportunity for learning. But the diagram can also be seen as a representation of the cumulative nature of learning. For, while insights are frequently achieved on particular occasions of knowledge building in relation to a particular problem or issue, a change in the situation and/or the introduction of new information may expose the limits of what one thought one understood and thus call for further knowledge building. At a second level, therefore, the diagram can be seen as a continuing spiral of learning over time as new challenges set in motion new cycles of knowing.
It is at this level that the “improvable object” takes on its full significance as both goal and outcome of inquiry activity. In everyday life, major developments in understanding typically occur when participants are faced by a challenge that requires the creation of a new artifact or practice or the improvement of an existing one. Indeed, the major developments in human history have occurred in precisely that way, for example, in the invention of the wheel as a means of transporting heavy objects or of writing as a means of preserving ideas for future development. In educational contexts, such an object can take many forms, ranging from a functioning model, or a symbolic representation (e.g. a map) to a work of art (e.g. a sculpture, poem or a musical performance) and from a scientific explanation to a geometric proof or diagram. Such an improvable object provides a clear focus for discussion, particularly if it is a representation of its creators’ current understanding and a rationale has to be given for proposing a change. It is also likely to motivate revision, since the effect of making a change to the object can readily be judged for the improvement it brings or fails to bring about. At this second level, then, figure 1. represents a spiral progression through many cycles of “coming to understand.”
Not represented in the diagram, but equally important, are the wider institutional and societal contexts within which all particular events occur. These create both affordances for, and constraints on, what can be achieved. Thus, the events that constitute both individual cycles and progressions through the spiral need to be viewed from multiple perspectives, including those of the individuals involved, the classroom community, and the wider society of which that community is a part (see Meier, this volume and Mathiasen, this volume). However, these perspectives are not so much alternatives as different foci on the same overall activity; all have to be taken into account in order to understand the full complexity of any classroom event (Rogoff, 2003). In sum, in this model, learning is envisaged as a continuing “spiral of knowing,” as learners continually traverse through the four quadrants of the cycle of knowing in particular places and times (Wells 1999).