The Aeffectual Learning Theory: Part I
A radical new definition of learning and a new learning theory.
The word “learning” has been used to mean “the process of gaining knowledge” for over 700 years. In this time the world has undergone monumental transitions in development, scientific understanding, philosophy, and cultural values. These changes have been reflected in the way we use words and by shifts in their meaning. And yet, the definition of learning has somehow remained the same.
I suggest that it is time for learning to be redefined.
I propose the following definition:
Learning is the responsive interaction between an entity and its environment.
More specifically: Learning is the responsive interaction between an entity and its environment that continuously facilitates the maintenance or change of emotions, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and environmental conditions.
This new definition of learning is a radical change from an ambiguous “getting knowledge.” It pushes the boundaries of learning, positioning it as the synergic interaction between an entity and the environment. Now, learning doesn't just apply to knowledge- it encompasses a range of interconnected and interdependent domains that affect how we interact with the world around us.
The learner and environment act upon one another. The environment provides space and opportunity for learning, while being directly shaped by learners during the process. The new definition of learning doesn't just account for gains in our emotions, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors -but the maintenance and loss of skills within these domains- and environmental conditions. We actively create the world as much as it creates us.
These differences are perhaps subtle, but have profound implications: Each act of learning is grounded in a time, place, history, culture, and need. Each moment of learning is a deeply personal experience, as well as a profoundly communal one. What we learn, what we think, what we do, is ultimately based on what is useful to us (individually or collectively) in any given situation.
This is important not just for explaining the reasoning behind how and why we learn, but for explaining the reasoning behind how and why we act. Learning is ultimately responsible for all of our experiences. There is no “failing to learn,” only the progression from one experience to another. Something is always being learned. Like Dr. A. P. K. Abdul Kalam implied with the popular quote: “If you fail, never give up because F.A.I.L means First Attempt In Learning” -every experience arms a learner with more information to use when making future decisions.
Since learning is always occurring it's no longer appropriate to ask "Did a given student learn?" Rather, we must ask “What did the given student learn in this situation?” Changing our question removes a significant burden from students and, in a way, changes the dogma of education. Knowledge loss and behavior stagnation move from being the failure to learn, to a normal part of the learning process. Our histories, moods, and desires matter. The usefulness of our emotions, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors all matter. These factors cannot be ignored or "set aside" for the purpose of schooling; they necessitate attention and reflection. As such, I propose a new learning theory to accompany this new definition of learning.
I call this learning theory the Aeffectual Theory of Learning, or Aeffectuism.1
In the following posts I will discuss this theory further- building on the science, and the language, of the previous learning theories (behaviorism, cognitive learning theories, constructivism, socio-cultural learning theory, connectivism, etc.).
References:
Etymonline (n.d) Learning(n.).
In Online Etymology Dictionary, Retrieved June 03, 2024, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/learning#etymonline_v_43302
I have named this theory The Aeffectual Theory of Learning, or Aeffectualism. I chose this name in reference to the combination of affect and effect that occurs during the process of learning. That is, affect for the action of the interaction between an entity and its environment, and effect for the results of that action on both the entity and environment. I could have simply used effect, referring to the use of the word as a verb; however, I thought that would make things unnecessarily confusing. Modifying the spelling as “aeffectual” sets the distinction and emphasizes the action