<p>There have been many eminent psychologists', philosophers and educators theorizing and making experiments to understand learning, both in humans and animals. Some appearing in most books are Pavlov, Skinner and Watson; Froebel; Piaget, Vygotsky; Montessori; Bruner, Bandura and Bronfenbrenner.</p>
<p>If instead one looks at frameworks, it seems that as for the process of learning, environmental factors of multiple kinds are very important: relation of the individual to parents, role models and imitation, the cultural and economical influences, the influence of the actual learning environment (lighting, distractions, colours, material etc.)</p>
<p>However, I'm more interested in a more nuclear understanding of learning from an &quot;idealised individual&quot;, not necessarily a Western individual learning science, but a child or young adult that grows without constant threats and basic worries, and it's motivated to an extent.</p>
<p>Given the right kinds of activities and environmental factors, <em>What are the present-day theories to think and model the process of learning and understanding?</em> Maybe new theories need by default to include neuroscience, and aren't being developed as much in behavioural interpretation, or most likely they consider both (behaviour and some landmark neural responses.)</p>
<p>There are many constructivism spin offs like Papert's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theory)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Constructionism</a>, being specific interpretations of constructivism. Or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ausubel" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ausubel</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D._Novak" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Novak</a>, quite in the vein of constructivism, but with some radical differences to what Piaget would consider it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Actual examination of the research literature allegedly supportive of learning by discovery reveals that valid evidence of this nature is virtually nonexistent. It appears that the various enthusiasts of the discovery method have been supporting each other research-wise by taking in each other's laundry, so to speak, that is, by citing each other's opinions and assertions as evidence and by generalizing wildly from equivocal and even negative findings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm aware of neuroscientists like stanislas dehaene, but somehow those scientists aren't making holistic theories (but focused on the idealised individual described above.), maybe because it's not possible.</p>
<ul>
<li>Is learning a multi-faceted concept that does not allow for a single unified theory? The closest I find is still Piaget's model.</li>
</ul>
<p>They seem to have developed some engineering solutions to learning (and evaluating learning) like Mental Maps (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">although not new</a>) and so on.</p>
<p>But it's not clear to me:</p>
<ul>
<li>Where is the &quot;consensus&quot; on theories and frameworks of understanding how learning occurs</li>
<li>What are the current most promising candidates, both standardised and on research</li>
</ul>
<p>In other words, What are some recent theories and theoreticians developing on the topic of learning ?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T14:22:13.697Z
I think you are getting the correct impression that the field is not really settled on any wholistic theory of learning and rather current understanding appreciates that "learning" encompasses a very wide range of processes with numerous influential dimensions that are not well described by any single theory. Unfortunately, that makes your question rather difficult to answer in the scope of a StackExchange answer.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T14:33:16.963Z
@BryanKrause should I remove the post?
ignoramus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-30T14:35:44.293Z
I don't know, maybe someone will attempt an answer anyways, and you've done a far better than average job of contextualizing your question with background. I guess I would leave it up for now, but maybe as you continue reading consider also asking a more focused question.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-12T15:05:07.390Z
Based on the names you've mentioned in the question it sounds like you might enjoy 'what babies know' by spelke and 'the scientist in the crib' by Alison Gopnik. The second one is a little dated now but if that bothers you you can jump from there to the more recent work of the authors mentioned, many (including Gopnik herself) are still pushing these ideas forward today. Friston's book 'active inference' has a pretty strong claim to the kind of universality you seem to be looking for, but the contrast between that stuff and the dev psych is wild, very different worlds. so yeah, open question
steveLangsford
<cognitive-psychology><learning>
Current research on the understanding of learning?
ignoramus
# Current research on the understanding of learning?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-10-30)

There have been many eminent psychologists', philosophers and educators theorizing and making experiments to understand learning, both in humans and animals. Some appearing in most books are Pavlov, Skinner and Watson; Froebel; Piaget, Vygotsky; Montessori; Bruner, Bandura and Bronfenbrenner.

If instead one looks at frameworks, it seems that as for the process of learning, environmental factors of multiple kinds are very important: relation of the individual to parents, role models and imitation, the cultural and economical influences, the influence of the actual learning environment (lighting, distractions, colours, material etc.)

However, I'm more interested in a more nuclear understanding of learning from an "idealised individual", not necessarily a Western individual learning science, but a child or young adult that grows without constant threats and basic worries, and it's motivated to an extent.

Given the right kinds of activities and environmental factors, *What are the present-day theories to think and model the process of learning and understanding?* Maybe new theories need by default to include neuroscience, and aren't being developed as much in behavioural interpretation, or most likely they consider both (behaviour and some landmark neural responses.)

There are many constructivism spin offs like Papert's [Constructionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theory)), being specific interpretations of constructivism. Or [Ausubel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ausubel) and [Novak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D._Novak), quite in the vein of constructivism, but with some radical differences to what Piaget would consider it:

> Actual examination of the research literature allegedly supportive of learning by discovery reveals that valid evidence of this nature is virtually nonexistent. It appears that the various enthusiasts of the discovery method have been supporting each other research-wise by taking in each other's laundry, so to speak, that is, by citing each other's opinions and assertions as evidence and by generalizing wildly from equivocal and even negative findings.

I'm aware of neuroscientists like stanislas dehaene, but somehow those scientists aren't making holistic theories (but focused on the idealised individual described above.), maybe because it's not possible.

* Is learning a multi-faceted concept that does not allow for a single unified theory? The closest I find is still Piaget's model.

They seem to have developed some engineering solutions to learning (and evaluating learning) like Mental Maps ([although not new](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher))) and so on.

But it's not clear to me:

* Where is the "consensus" on theories and frameworks of understanding how learning occurs
* What are the current most promising candidates, both standardised and on research

In other words, What are some recent theories and theoreticians developing on the topic of learning ?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, learning

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think you are getting the correct impression that the field is not really settled on any wholistic theory of learning and rather current understanding appreciates that "learning" encompasses a very wide range of processes with numerous influential dimensions that are not well described by any single theory. Unfortunately, that makes your question rather difficult to answer in the scope of a StackExchange answer.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause should I remove the post?  
> **username_1**: I don't know, maybe someone will attempt an answer anyways, and you've done a far better than average job of contextualizing your question with background. I guess I would leave it up for now, but maybe as you continue reading consider also asking a more focused question.  
> **username_2**: Based on the names you've mentioned in the question it sounds like you might enjoy 'what babies know' by spelke and 'the scientist in the crib' by Alison Gopnik. The second one is a little dated now but if that bothers you you can jump from there to the more recent work of the authors mentioned, many (including Gopnik herself) are still pushing these ideas forward today. Friston's book 'active inference' has a pretty strong claim to the kind of universality you seem to be looking for, but the contrast between that stuff and the dev psych is wild, very different worlds. so yeah, open question  

---

## 0 answers

