TJ - The Publication for Learning and Development

One more time: what is learning to learn?

By Peter Honey (April 2005 Issue)
0 Comments Comments
Article Rating:

Poor Best

Email to a friend | Print Version

For many years I have extolled the virtues of learning to learn by making sweeping claims such as ‘Learning is a skill which, like any other, you can develop and improve’ and ‘Learning to learn is your ultimate life skill’. I even have my own definition:

Learning to learn is a process of discovery where you experiment with different approaches to learning in order to: increase your understanding of the principles of effective learning; continuously improve your learning skills; and expand your learning repertoire.

In ‘A declaration on learning’ (now five years old, but I stand by every word),1 learning to learn gets three explicit mentions (and plenty of implicit ones).

* National policy makers must make learning to learn one of the fundamental goals of education and training, and reduce the excessive focus on knowledge and skills that can quickly become obsolete.
* Teachers, trainers and developers must ensure that everyone has the opportunity to learn how to learn effectively.
* For individuals, learning to learn is the key to effective learning.

I, together with my learning declaration colleagues, am not alone in plugging the importance of learning to learn (L2L). The Campaign for Learning2 is busy running an exciting action learning project on L2L in 32 schools. The campaign embarked on this because it felt confident (to quote from its website) that ‘a better understanding of L2L by teachers and pupils could be the catalyst for massive further improvements in schools’. The project is designed to deepen understanding of L2L and explore the impact of different L2L approaches in a variety of schools.

In a delightful booklet he has written for the National Primary Trust, Professor Guy Claxton begins by saying: ‘Learning is cool. Everywhere you go, people are talking about “improving learning”, “lifelong learning”, the “learning society”, “learning to learn”, and so on.’3 He sees steady progress from the development of study skills to an understanding of characteristic ways of learning (for example, multiple intelligences), to a focus on how students can be helped to help themselves. He then goes on to pose the question: What exactly is it that everyone is so enthusiastic about?

Of course, L2L is not just an issue in schools. If learning is a learnable skill, then every organisation in the land would benefit from knowing how to foster it and help people continuously to improve their learning methods. There is a snag, however; understanding the precise nature of L2L and being clear what to do to promote it is proving contentious and far from straightforward. Here are just two of many puzzles muddying the water.

1. Is there a difference between learning and L2L?
Enthusiasts say yes, but plenty of people struggle with this. The ‘yes’ argument is that you could learn to know and/or do something without necessarily having learned how to learn. The ‘how’ is significant here; straightforward learning is more about what is learned, whereas L2L is more about the hows of learning. The notion is similar to (but not the same as) Chris Argyris’s single- and double-loop learning. Single-loop learners use learning strategies without questioning them. Double-loop learners turn learning in on itself, subject their learning strategies to scrutiny and seek to modify/improve them.

Fundamentally, the answer to this question depends on whether you regard learning as both a process and an outcome. The outcomes of learning are certainly easier to grasp than the processes that led to the outcome; someone can demonstrate, in their behaviour, that they have acquired knowledge and/or skills. By contrast, the processes are shadowy and far harder to pin down.

I am definitely of the opinion that learning is a dual-meaning word – both a process and an outcome – and that L2L is essentially a process improvement activity.

2. Is L2L a higher order process or a body of techniques?
My answer is that it is a body of techniques, but I am very conscious of the argument that, somehow, L2L is on an altogether higher plain. Guy Claxton, for example, says: ‘Techniques are useful, but they achieve a qualitatively different kind of effect when they are being used, developed and examined within an inquisitive L2L climate.’4 He thinks of a technique as something that is relatively straightforward to understand and relatively simple to put into practice. However, my dictionary says that a technique is ‘the entire body of procedures and methods of a science, art or craft; skill in these procedures and methods’.5

When it comes to examining L2L practices, they look to me as if they are a collection of techniques – admirable techniques that should certainly be fostered. Here, for example, are some of the L2L practices (techniques?) that Claxton recommends in his booklet:

* being more methodical in checking what works
* asking ‘How can I help them become better learners?’ instead of ‘How can I help them learn better?’
* treating content and process as ‘ands’ not ‘either/ors’
* fostering, strengthening and deepening useful learning habits
* modelling learning behaviour through the way you talk and act
* shifting your language from ‘what is’ to ‘what could be’
* sharing innovative practices with colleagues.

I admit there is a bit of me that hankers after L2L practices that are more than techniques, but I can’t quite envisage what they are. My pragmatic-behaviourist blinkers are in the way! In fact, don’t we always start with techniques that, when practised and ‘joined-up’, eventually deliver a skilful, apparently effortless, performance?

Blinkered though I am, lifting the L2L stone is endlessly fascinating. It might even count as the ultimate L2L activity.

References
1. ‘A Declaration on Learning’ can be downloaded free of charge from my website www.peterhoney.com
2. Visit the Campaign for Learning website at www.campaignforlearning.org.uk
3. Guy Claxton, Teaching Children to Learn, issue no. 11, National Primary Trust, 2004.
4. Ibid.
5. Longman Modern English Dictionary, Longman, 1976.


Dr Peter Honey, FRSA, FCIPD, FIMC is a Chartered Psychologist and founder of Peter Honey Publications. He can be contacted on +44 (0) 1628 633946, at peterhoney@peterhoney.com or visit www.peterhoney.com

Back to top | Current TJ

 

Readers Comment

Comment on this story here >

Be the first to comment on this news story