Pathing The Way, Do Cognitive Theories of Learning Facilitate Workplace Learning

Pathing the Way: Do Cognitive Theories Facilitate Workplace Learning?
Pathing the Way: Do Cognitive Theories Facilitate Workplace

Learning?
Mohammad Tariq SADAT
November, 2017
Table of Contents
Introduction: ..........................................................................................................................................3
1. The Insight Theory of Learning: ...............................................................................................5
2. The Field Theory of Learning: ...................................................................................................8
3. The Latent Theory of Learning: ............................................................................................. 10
4. The Information Processing Theory of Learning: ............................................................... 14
Implications of Cognitive Theories to HR Practitioners: ............................................................. 17
a) What is Knowledge? ........................................................................................................................................ 17
b) What is Learning?:............................................................................................................................................ 17
c) Learning Transferability: ............................................................................................................................. 18
Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 22
2
Introduction:
Knowledge and its acquisition have always fascinated humans and induced several theorists
to work in this field. However, the 20th century has witnessed the emergence of a substantial
number of learning theories (CLMS, 2012). Around the 1920s the behaviorist theories of
learning gained much popularity (Rachlin, 1991). According to them, learning was a
behavioral change through stimulus-response (Pavlov, 1927) by repetitive trial and error
(Thorndike, 1911) and in the presence of reinforcements (Skinner, 1938).
Obviously, this theory was consistent with the era of mass production (Fullerton, 1988;
Keith, 1986; D.G. Brian Jones & Alan J. Richardson, 2007; CLMS, 2012) which required
workers’ specialization and training in one particular set of tasks to ensure the highest levels
of speed and efficiency (S. D. Geet, A. D. Deshpande & Asmita A. Deshpande, 2009; Rao,
2010). Back then, the personnel departments were simply responsible to keep the labor fit for
the job (Storey, 1996; Bach, 2005; Storey, 1993).
Inversely, around 1950s the mass production has been gradually replaced by the demand-
driven production and service, leading to a considerable focus towards customer satisfaction
not only in the private sector (Brentani, 1991; John C. Narver & Stanley F. Slater, 1990;
Lengnick-Hall, 1996), but also in the public sector (Sandra Vandermerwe & Juan Rada,
1988; Fountain, 2001; Susan Whelan, Gary Davies, Margaret Walsh & Rita Bourke, 2010).
This, has significantly changed the expectations of the employers from their employees in
terms of their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) which in turn transformed the
previously operational role of the Human Resources (HR) within the organizations into a
more strategic one, not only regarding the employee training and development (Garavan,
3
1997; B. Hamlin & J. Stewart, 2011), but also in respect to the overall organizational
performance and profitability (Boxall, 1996).
Consequently, along with many other responsibilities, the HR departments were mandated to
provide, develop and maintain the required KSAs for their organizations (B. Hamlin & J.
Steward, 2011) which caused them to face questions such as; (1) What is knowledge? (2)
What is learning? (3) How learning is motivated and stored in the (memory)? (4) How
should it be ensured that learning has taken place (measurability)? and (5) How learning can
be transferred from one context to the next (transferability)?
To answer these questions the paper has only focused on four Cognitive Theories of
Learning (CTL). They are the insight theory of learning, the field theory of learning, the
latent theory of learning and the information processing theory of learning. The first two
theories have been developed by the European theorists while the other two by the American
Cognitive Psychologists (CLMS, 2012). In fact, the reason for choosing only four theories of
learning is that (CTL) cover a large portion of the learning literature so a thorough evaluation
of all (CTL) would be an ambitious project and out of the scope of this brief.
The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, a few terms are clarified. In the second
part, the main arguments of the selected cognitive theories of learning are presented and are
critically evaluated for their conceptual and theoretical validity while their practical
implications for human resources practitioners are explored. Finally, an overall evaluation of
these theories is provided and the final conclusions are made.
Before indulging into the main topic, some relevant terms have to be clarified. The word
4
cognition derived from the Latin Cognoscere means “to get to know” (Oxford Dictionaries,
2017) and technically cognition is “ the mental processing of knowing, acquisition,
organization, and use of knowledge” (Neisser, 2014). Thus, “the cognitive psychology is the
study of how people perceive, learn, remember and think about information” (Robert J.
Sternberg & Karin Sternber, 2012). Learning according to the Cognitivists is a relatively
permanent change in the learner’s cognitive structure (Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy J.
Newby, 1993). Furthermore, several researchers have classified learning into 4 elements
which are (1) the learner, (2) the learning process, (3) the learning context or the learning
environment and (4) the learning content or the undertaken learning task (A. Rogers & N.
Horrocks, 2010). The main argument is that most of the learning theories are focusing on
only one or two elements of learning.
Now that some of the most important terms have been clarified the four selected cognitive
theories of learning are critically evaluated pointing out their utility for the workplace
learning.
1. The Insight Theory of Learning:
Perhaps, Gestaltists were the first cognitive psychologists in Europe who have started to
challenge the behaviorist views. Along with several other theories, they have developed the
insight learning theory. According to this theory, insight learning occurs as a result of
problem-solving based on the learner’s prior experience (Kohler, 1999) or productive
thinking (Wertheimer, 1959) or perceptual changes (Koffka, 1999). Gestalt itself is a
German word meaning pattern, form, whole or configuration (Pillsbury, 1933; Ehrenfels,
1937; Wagemans, 2013; CLMS, 2012) while insight means a sudden understanding of the
relationships between the parts of a problem which leads to its solution (Sascha Topolinski &
5
Rolf Reber, 2010).
Productive thinking is the reorganization of the elements which construct the problem or it is
an unconventional form of thinking (J. Barton Cunningham & James N. Macgregor, 2014), it
may resemble lateral thinking (Bono, 1967) and the thinking out of the box (Adair, 2007), or
it is simply a combination of creativity and critical thinking (Hurson, 2008) while perceptual
changes are “the spontaneous restructuring of the traces of the memory inside the learner’s
brain to construct better gestalts” (CLMS, 2012).
In fact, the insight learning theory and its factors bear several implications for the workplace
learning, because arguably problem-solving is one of the most important functions in
numerous modern workplaces (CLMS, 2012), as for many organizations their success lies in
their ability in identifying problems in the society or in the existing services or products and
in offering the best solutions. Hence, contemporarily the organizational problem-solving (J.
Joseph Cronin, Michael K. Brady & Tomas M. Hult, 2000; Jackie, 2004; Laurette Dube, Leo
M. Renaghan & Jane M. Miller, 1994) has gained much prominence in the workplace.
Since, the role of the human capital in the organizational problem-solving cannot be ignored
(Dakhli Mourad & De Clercq Dirk, 2004; Matthew R. Marvel & G. T. Lumpkin, 2007;
Soumitra Dutta, Bruno Lanvin and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, 2014), therefore among other
skills, productive thinking, problem solving, creativity, (Richard W. Woodman, John E.
Sawyer & Ricky W. Griffin, 1993; Amabile, 1983; Hennessey, 2003) and strategic thinking
have become highly demanded skills in the job market (Halpern, 1998; Zhou Qin, Hirst Giles
& Shipton Helen, 2012; Bonn, 2001).
On the other hand, according to insight learning theory, learning is a product of problem-
solving while problem-solving requires productive thinking which in turn has to be learned
6
through problem-solving. The first problem with this theory is the circular reasoning where
problem-solving requires productive thinking while this in turn is in need of the problem-
solving. The second problem with the insight theory of learning is the difficulty in teaching
the productive thinking itself.
However, several researchers have confirmed teachability of productive thinking (Stewart,
1950; Donald J. Treffinger & Scott G. Isaksen, 2005; Gilmer, 1949) along with its
components such as; general problem solving (F. Reif, Jill H. Larkin and George C. Brackett,
1976), organizational problem-solving (Anthony P. Carnevale, Leila J. Cainer and An S.
Meltzer, 1990), creativity (Torance, 1972) and creative thinking (Hurson, 2008; John F.
Feldhusen, Susan J. Bahlke & Donald J. Treffinger, 1969), while in contrast, others have
suspected their teachability (Kathleen A. Harper, Richard J. Freuler and John T. Demel,
2007), because thinking by all its forms is abstract.
Another problem with that is the measurability of productive thinking as well as its
transferability. A group of researchers proposed mechanisms to test and measure the
problem-solving and productive thinking skills (Kim, 2011) while there are concerns about
the validity of these tests (CLMS, 2012). Alternatively, indirect methods of observation have
been proposed to measure workplace learning (Skule, 2004), but it has been rejected by
others for being unsatisfactorily measurable (Clarke, 2004).
Despite all, the theory still has some utility in a number of workplaces where the nature of
the work is based on productive thinking, creativity, and problem-solving (CLMS, 2012).
Indeed, its implications for HR practitioners may include preparation of a conducive work
environment to foster productive thinking and to improve creativity and critical thinking
skills in the workplace. Moreover, apart from “knowledge acquisition, workplace learning
7
occurs from the utilization of the existing knowledge in the new contexts or simply from
learning transferability” (Eraut, 2000) which is considered a prominent characteristic of
learning through problem-solving as argued by (Wertheimer, 1959).
Finally, this can be clearly noticed that insight learning puts much emphasis on the learner’s
problem-solving skills while ignoring the role of the context and that of the task in learning
through problem-solving. In addition to that, it does not provide sufficient explanation of the
learning process and does not cover all skills required at the workplace for instance;
communication skills, interpersonal skills and emotional skills (Blake E. Ashforth & Ronald
H. Humphrey, 1995). This limited scope of insight learning has forced the cognitive
psychologists to search for more inclusive theories of learning.
2. The Field Theory of Learning:
The Field Theory of learning, supposedly with a wider practical scope, was proposed by the
Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin. The theory maintains that changes in the behavior of an
individual occur as the result of the changes in his or her life space (Lewin, 1951). However,
“the positive goals, the negative circumstances, the barriers, and the pathways to the goals all
are interrelated forces which impinge the individual’s life space to change” (CLMS, 2012).
The field means the total psychological environment in which an individual is situated and
the life space contains those aspects of the environment which are perceived by the
individual at a given moment (Lewin, 1951; Lewin, 1998).
According to the theory, learning is simply the changes in the learners’ life space based on
their interaction with their own psychological environment. Lewin has put much emphasis on
the role of the individual differences on learning. Several other studies have also confirmed
the role of various components of the individual differences such as; personality (Howard J.
8
Klein & Sunhee Lee, 2006; Blickle, 1996), aptitude (Richard E. Snow & David F. Lohman,
1984), attitude (Siva R. Sankaran, Dalila Sankaran & Tung X. Bui, 2000), age (Ruch, 1934;
Owens, 1987) and gender (Camilla Benbow & Julian Cecil Stanley, 1980; Arbaugh, 2000)
on learning.
On the other side, the importance of individual differences at work (Furnham, 1992) and
their impact on the job performance (Stephan J. Motowidlo, Walter C. Borman & Mark J.
Schmit, 1997) have persuaded some employers to use psychometric tests in recruitment (A.
Wolf and A. Jenkins, 2002), despite of their questionable validity (CLMS, 2012; Outtz,
2002).
Moreover, certain researchers have differentiated between employee training and
development. As the first, having a greater emphasis on the standardization of the employee
skills by emphasizing on employees’ common skills, while the latter focusing more on
individual differences and the unique capacities of the employees. Therefore, the theory
might have wider utilization in employee development rather than employee training
(CLMS, 2012).
The field theory of learning, in spite of its remarkable stress on the learners and their
psychological environment, has neither been able to provide sufficient explanation regarding
the learning context and process nor about the learning task or the modalities based on which
the learning and development should take place (CLMS, 2012). Moreover, it can be argued
that the effects of the working environment such as; the peers (Barry J. Babin & James S.
Boles, 1996), the supervisors (Ajay K. Kohli, Tasadduq A. Shervani & Goutam N.
Challagalla, 1998; Beattie, 2006), the organizational culture (Badillo, 1998), the
organizational rules and regulations including the organizational structure, disregarded by the
9
theory can exert substantial impact on employee learning and performance.
Additionally, Gestaltists were criticized for being too qualitative, therefore, to remedy this,
Lewin tried to apply “mathematical rigor” (Lewin, 1999; Lewin, 1951; Lippitt, 1939) to his
theory “at the cost of its relevance and practical applicability” (Martin, 2003). The complex
mathematical model of his theory which was formulated to measure the intensity of the
current driving and constraining forces was not only rejected by the mathematicians (Garrett,
1939; London, 1944) but has also been criticized for being too impractical (Martin, 2003).
Despite that, the theory has still been applied to the fields of organizational change (Back,
1992; Robert C. Liden & John Antonakis, 2009; Eric B. Bent & Susan G. Goldberg, 1999),
leadership (Schwering, 2003), and conflict management (Luh Luh Lan & Jean Lee, 1997).
Later on, Kolb formulated his learning cycle theory based on Lewin’s life space to
emphasize on the learner’s previous experience on learning (Kolb, 1976), however his cycle
was criticized for its conceptual imprecision (H. Bergsteiner, G. Avery & R. Neumann,
2010) and for its limited applicability (CLMS, 2012).
Notwithstanding all, Lewin’s theory can be utilized in employee development which can be
achieved through identification of the forces in their life spaces and helping them to weaken
the undesired forces and strengthen the required ones to obtain their developmental goals
(Lewin, 1939).
3. The Latent Theory of Learning:
The American Cognitivists have also given due consideration to learning and have developed
numerous learning theories. Perhaps, the concept of latent learning first proposed by Simon
in 1924 (Thistlethwaite, 1951) and further researched by Blodgett (Blodgett, 1929) and
10
theorized by Tolman (Tolman, 1948) can be considered an earlier work of the American
Cognitivists in this field.
The Latent Learning Theory argues that “the learners during their interaction with the
environment develop cognitive maps in their brains resulting to learning without any
reinforcement which remains concealed unless it is required or stimulated” (Blodgett, 1929;
Tolman, 1948; Seward, 1949; Rebecca A. Singer, Benjamin D. Abroms & Thomas R.
Zentall, 2006). According to this theory the cognitive maps are an individual’s general
perception of the environment (Tolman, 1948) which might resemble schemata (Casson,
1983) or mental models (Hollay A. Taylor & Barbra Tversky, 1992) and cannot be restrained
merely to spatial orientation as perceived by some researchers (Susan Mohammed, Richard
Klimoski & Joan R. Rentsch, 2000).
Indeed, the practical application of the latent theory of learning has contained a number of
conceptual and theoretical challenges and critics. First of all, the concept of cognitive maps
was rejected by the behaviorists and was simply called a type of stimulus-response (M.M
Harawy, W.N Bailey & E.G. Maples, 1971; M.M Haraway, M.A Grimmett & E.G Maples,
1977). Additionally, the theory was criticized for being theorized and developed based on the
experiments on animals especially on rats so its results were doubted to be useful for human
learning.
However, further studies on latent learning have confirmed its existence in humans
(Stevenson, 1954; Jennifer Campanella and Rovee-Collier Carolyn, 2005; Javad Tajar and
Simin Akbari, 2011), but still many writers have confined the term to animal learning while
preferred other terms to be used for human’s concealed learning such as; random (Criana
Connal & Claude Sauvageot, 2005), unintentional (Matlay, 2000) implicit (Eraut, 2000) or
11
incidental learning (Victoria J Marsick & Karen E. Watkins, 1990).
The Cognitivists argued that the latent theory of learning or the implicit learning occurs
through “solving a problem” (Rogers, 2007), or “adaptation and self-correction” (English,
1999) which illustrates their focus on the leaner and the learning content. Conversely, several
studies have claimed that implicit learning can be generated through working on a project
(Baskett, 1993) or by “observing others and actively participating in the work” (Harry van
den Tillaart, Sjaak van den Berg & John Warmerdam, 1998), and via interaction with “ the
workplace rules and regulations” (Janice A. Leroux & Susan Lafleur, 1995) which confirms
the wider impact of the context on this type of learning.
Another major critic to the latent theory of learning was the one devised by the behaviorists
who had defined learning as the intersection of stimulus-response at the presence of
reinforcement (Hull, 1943; Grice, 1948; Marvin Evert Shaw & R.H. Waters, 1950).
Contrariwise, the latent theory contended that extrinsic motivation is not required for
learning, but only for the performance and since for the behaviorists the reinforcement was a
precondition for learning (Leeper, 1935; Hull, 1943), therefore, a long-lasting debate was
ignited between them (Postman, 1947; Thistlethwaite, 1951). Responding to that, Tolman
argued that too high extrinsic motivation and frustration or too low of them might lead to the
construction of narrow cognitive maps while without reinforcement the individuals would
construct broader cognitive maps which would not only facilitate the performance, but also
the transferability (Tolman, 1948).
In fact, the effects of both the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on the job performance are
widely confirmed (Locke, 1968; Lawler, 1973; Ackah, 2014; Onanda, 2015) and the studies
have also affirmed the role of motivation in “academic achievement” (Tella, 2007; M. Sani
12
Abdurrahman & I. Musa Garba, 2014), “self-regulated learning” (Pintrich, 1999) and in adult
learning (Oring, 2009; A. Rogers and N. Horrocks, 2010; Raymond J. Wlodsawski &
Margery B. Ginsberg., 2017), but again motivation of tacit learning remains a mystery
because of its intangibility.
Additionally, unintentional learning is also difficult to measure (Eraut, 2000), because it is
hidden and most of the time unrecognized (L. Ridoutt, R. Dutneall, K. Hummel & C. S.
Smith, 2002). Sometimes it is unreliable (Janice A. Leroux & Susan Lafleur, 1995) with
negative consequences (Dodge, 1998) and mostly depends on the learners themselves.
Considering all this, it would be very difficult for the HR practitioners to capture this type of
implicit learning optimally at the workplace.
However, Nonaka and Takeuchi proposed a model which can facilitate capturing the implicit
learning and transforming it to explicit learning and the vice versa (Ikukiro Nonaka &
Hirotaka Takeuchi, 1995) and some other researches have pointed out attempts such as; role
modeling (Annette F. Ford & Ray V. Harren:, 1993), team-work (Mealman, 1993), designing
office to increase social interaction (Jonh Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 2000) and
formulating cross-sectional teams which can foster the work environment to enhance
unintentional learning (Brookfield, 1986), but still the process of how implicit learning takes
place and how such learning can be captured by the mentioned methods are debatable.
Despite that, it can be assumed that understanding the process of implicit learning would
assist the HR Practitioners to help employees in building wider cognitive maps and
improving their interpersonal skills (Mealman, 1993; McFerrin, 1999), however, the exact
mental processes behind the learning activities remained unexplained.
13
4. The Information Processing Theory of Learning:
Apparently, the American cognitive psychologists proposed the information processing
theory of learning to unravel the exact cognitive processing of the human brain. Perhaps
among the numerous models developed under this theory, those concerning to human
memory, information processing and attention are more related to the workplace learning
and development.
Cherry concluded that “the human auditory system filters out all other stimulating sounds to
focus only on one conversation at a time, this, he called the cocktail party effect” (Cherry,
1953). Moreover, Miller argued that “the human memory has a minimum capacity of 5 and
a maximum of 9 words or chunks” (Miller, 1956) where a chunk can be a group of
meaningful words or phrases clustered together, but further studies only partially confirmed
the cocktail party effect (Moray, 1959; Noelle L. Wood & Nelson Cowan, 1995) and Miller’s
chunking was criticized for being significantly vague (Simon, 1974).
Yet, based on selective attention, Broadbent has proposed his filter model, arguing that “
stimuli are subjectively attended to and just the selected stimuli are transferred to the short
term memory (STM) where they are recognized and assigned meaning and moved to the
long term memory (LTM) where they are permanently stored to be retrieved as required”
(Broadbent, 1958). The model was criticized for its linear storing approach (Cowan, 1988),
and for its inability to explain the modality of comparison between the existing and the new
information (John R. Anderson & Gordon H. Bower, 1973). Finally, its sequential ordering
was refuted (Gordon H. Bower & Ernest R. Hilgard, 1981; Balota, 1983) which means that
only the processed information can move from one store to the other.
To remedy the limited memory capacity Atkinson & Shiffrin have introduced their model of
14
information processing, proposing rehearsal, coding, and imaging to enhance learning
process (Richard C. Atkinson & Richard M. Shiffrin, 1968). Rehearsal means adequate
repetition of the learning material, coding emphasizes on the learning context to be
meaningful and imaging means visual representation. The model was also criticized for its
proposed sequential processing and for its simplistic view towards learning (Baddeley,
1997). It has also been critiqued for its inability to formulate a mechanism to measure
learning (Schunk, 1991).
The Levels of Processing is another model proposed supposedly to deal with the problem of
sequential information processing which contends that information processing takes place in
three non-sequential levels; physical, auditory and semantic, while the depth of information
processing is not dependent on rehearsal at the same level (Fergus I. M. Craik & Robert S.
Lockhar, 1972). This means that abstract information is learned superficially at the physical
level, while meaningful information is learned deeply at the semantic level. However, the
opposing studies confirmed that rehearsal improves learning at all levels (Nelson, 1977;
Anderson, 2015) and that information processing at the semantic level is not always the
deepest (C. Donald Morris, John D. Bransford & Jeffery J. Franks, 1977), finally it was
criticized for failing to explain the learning process (Nelson, 1977; Baddeley, 1978).
In 1990, Anderson proposed his model of Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) as
a viable alternative to sequential information processing models, concluding that the human
memory can be divided into declarative memory containing facts, beliefs, and opinions and
procedural memory holding the knowledge of how to perform something such as; driving a
car or solving a problem. According to (ACT-R) the information is not sequentially
processed, but through activation spread which means that the propositions (the smallest
15
pieces of information) when stimulated, activate their neighboring propositions to spread the
message and produce the required behavior (Anderson, 2015). Although the model tried to
solve the problem of the previous models it was criticized for being nothing more than
another form of behaviorist stimulus-response association (Mayer, 1996).
Despite all the criticism, the information processing theory provides practical implications
for the workplace learning. Especially, understanding the human memory, attention and
information processing do not only enable the HR Practitioners to effectively facilitate
employee learning processes but is also utile in designing and evaluating the training and
development programs. In fact, some of the benefits of the information processing theory of
learning on workplace learning could be (1) the training material organized in “hierarchical
order appeals more to long term memory (LTM)” (Anderson, 2015), utilizing effective
“mnemonics (acronyms) make memorization and recall easier” (Matlin, 2009), and “double
encoding” which means combined verbal and visual representation produces better learning”
(Paivio, 1979), (2) “meaningless information can be retained, but meaningful information is
easily learned and recalled” (Harry L. Chiesi, George J. Spilich & James F. Voss, 1979;
Anderson, 2015), (3) “elaboration strengthens information processing and in turn learning”
(Allan M. Collins & Elizabeth F. Loftus, 1975) which means linking the material to the
employees’ preexisting knowledge facilitates learning and enhances performance (4) and
finally “sequencing activities are helpful in learning” (Richard P. Cooper & Tim Shallice,
2006) and boosts performance for example designing workflow charts and working manuals
can positively affect learning.
16
Implications of Cognitive Theories to HR Practitioners:
However, it should be pointed out that the four theories discussed are not the only theories of
learning developed by the Cognitivists, but they can provide adequate input to answer the
questions posed by the HR Practitioners at the beginning of the paper.
a) What is Knowledge?
In fact, based on the previous discussions it can be argued that knowledge according to
cognitive theories of learning is a “subjective reality” (Shuell, 1986) which “exists
independent of the human mind and is actively constructed by the learner’s cognitive
process” (Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy J. Newby, 1993). This view emphasizes on an
individualistic nature of knowledge and perceives “its acquisition to be an individual
attainment” (Billet, 2008) while it ignores the “collective essence of knowledge represented
by the organizational knowledge” (Batt, 2002) and also overlooks the “role of culture and
language in knowledge development” (Vygotsky, 1978).
b) What is Learning?:
Learning according to cognitive theories of learning is an active process (Kolb, 1984) of
information receipt, organization and retrieval (Terry M. Wildman & John K. Burton, 1981)
with a focus on an “active role of the learner” (Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy J. Newby, 1993)
and “emphasizing on problem solving and metacognition” [learning how to learn (Flavell,
1979)] (Thomas M. Duffy & David H. Jonassen, 1991). Of course, this view does not
provide sufficient explanation for the learning process. It also ignores the learning context
embedded in the real work settings (Vygotsky, 1978), and discounts the learning content
17
situated in the communities of practice (Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger, 1991). Moreover, it
has been also noticed that learning measurement for the Cognitivists has been problematic
because cognitive learning could not be directly measured.
On the other hand, the Cognitivists “in contrary to the behaviorists (Peggy A. Ertmer &
Timothy J. Newby, 1993)” emphasized on the role of the memory in learning. As discussed
earlier they have tried to provide a scientific explanation of the information processing and
learning. However, “their experimentations were criticized for lacking ecological validity”
(Neisser, 1976) as most of them were carried out in the laboratories, far from the
complexities of the real life and “their approach was questioned for being reductionist”
(Sklar, 1967) as trying to reduce the human behavior to a few cognitive processes, but still
some of their findings can serve as guidelines for HR practitioners in helping the employees
improve their learning styles (CLMS, 2012) and in designing and evaluating the contents of
the formal training programs and in employee development initiatives.
c) Learning Transferability:
Learning transferability according to behaviorists is a result of stimuli generalization
between the identical elements in the learning and the transfer situations (Robert S.
Woodworth & Edward L. Thorndike, 1901) which means that the learning can only be
transferred to considerably similar situations. In contrary, for Cognitivists the transfer is
relational (Schunk, 1991), which means that the exposure of the learners to all levels of the
problem facilitates better information processing and causes establishment of broader
cognitive maps (Tolman, 1948) or schemata (Bartlett, 1933) permitting the learners to utilize
their learning with a wider scope in new situations. This means that the employees’ cognitive
18
learning would not only facilitate higher levels of learning but also enable them to use their
knowledge in new situations. However, it should be noted that the learning context (D.
Beckett & P. Hager, 2002) and the learning task can also play an important role in learning
transfer (Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy J. Newby, 1993).
Furthermore, the Cognitivists claimed that the learners need to be intrinsically motivated
(Schunk, 1991), in contrast to behaviorists who argued that the learners should be reinforced
extrinsically (Skinner, 1968). According to the first, the employees need to set their learning
goals and motivate themselves to learn (Perry, 1999), while the latter denotes that learners
are required to be punished or rewarded to learn. However, it can be argued that learning
requires both the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, because employees need to set learning
targets to intrinsically encourage themselves to achieve them while they have to be
extrinsically rewarded by the knowledge community to foster their learning (Vygotsky,
1978).
Conclusions:
Four cognitive theories of learning were selected for critical evaluation and exploration of
their utility to HR practitioners in their efforts towards workplace learning and development.
The theories have been presented and critically evaluated and their implications for HR
practitioners have been pointed out. The results of these evaluations allowed for several
conclusions to be drawn.
First, the study shows that in spite of some differences between the theories developed by the
European and those by the American cognitive psychologists, their main focus still remains
on the problem-solving, the changes in the cognitive structures and on the information
19
processing. Second, it can be concluded that cognitive theories of learning perceive
knowledge as something to be outside of the learner with an individualistic nature. Learning
according to them occurs through problem-solving, information processing and as a result of
changes in the mental structures of the learner. Finally, these theories emphasize on the
learner’s memory, attention and intrinsic motivation in the learning process which means that
the better the information storage, the easier its retrieval and the wider its transferability to
the new contexts.
Third, cognitive theories of learning has faced a number of challenges and criticism
conceptually and theoretically. Conceptually many of their concepts were disproved, rejected
and questioned for being vague, complicated and unexplainable. Theoretically, their
experiments were judged to be ecologically invalid and practically not full-proof. Their
theories were criticized for being too qualitative which has obliged some of the Cognitivists
to intensify the quantitative nature of their theories causing them to lose the practical
relevance. Furthermore, these theories were criticized for putting too much emphasis on the
active role of the learner while disregarding the role of the learning context, the content and
the learning process.
Fourth, despite all the criticisms directed to cognitive theories of learning they can be utilized
in different areas of employee training and development. Especially, they can be applied in
the organizations with flatter structures and flexible arrangements. Moreover, some of their
concepts such as; information organization, coding, imaging, rehearsal, memory capacity,
and elaboration can not only be employed in assisting the employees to understand their
cognitive limitations and in trying to use different methods to effectively control and guide
20
their learning process, but also in developing training curricula, material and training
evaluation tools.
In addition, some of the concepts of cognitive theories of learning provide insight for the HR
practitioners in understanding the role of motivation in job performance as well as in guiding
employee development programs like job rotations and succession planning which most
often focus on the employees’ individual qualities. However, it should be noted that a great
deal of workplace learning is implicit, situational and occurs as the result of the learner’s
interaction with the workplace environment.
21
Works Cited
A. Rogers & N. Horrocks (2010) 'The Nature of Learning', in Teaching Adults, 4th edition,
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
A. Wolf and A. Jenkins (2002) 'The Growth of Psychometric Testing for Selection: Why Has
Test Use Increased, Will Growth Continue, and What Does This Mean for Education?', CEE
Discussion Paper No. 29, London.
Ackah, D. (2014) 'The Impact of Motivation on Employee Performance in the Manufacturing

Industry in Ghana', Global Journal of Management Studies and Research, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 291-
310.
Adair, J.E. (2007) Decision Making and Problem Solving Strategies, London: Kogan Page.
Ajay K. Kohli, Tasadduq A. Shervani & Goutam N. Challagalla (1998) 'Learning and
Performance Orientation of Salespeople: The Role of Supervisors ', Journal of Marketing
Research, vol. 35, no. 2, May, pp. 263-274.
Allan M. Collins & Elizabeth F. Loftus (1975) 'A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic
Processing', Psychological Review, vol. 82, no. 6, Nov, pp. 407-428.
Amabile, T.M. (1983) 'The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization',

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 357-376.
Anderson, J.R. (2015) Cognitive Psychology and its Implications, 8th edition, New York: Worth
Publications.
Annette F. Ford & Ray V. Harren: (1993) 'The Teaching of Work Ethics: Current Practices of
Work Program Coordinators in Georgia', American Vocational Association Convention,
Nashville.
Anthony P. Carnevale, Leila J. Cainer and An S. Meltzer (1990) Workplace Basics: The Essential
Skills Employers Want, San Francisco: Josey-Bas Inc.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000) 'An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Gender on Student Learning and
Class Participation in an Internet-Based MBA Course', Management Learning, vol. 31, no. 4,
Dec, pp. 503-519.
B. Hamlin & J. Steward (2011) 'What is HRD? A Definitional Review and Synthesis of the HRD
Domain', Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 199-220.
Bach, S. (2005) 'Personnel Management in Transition', in Bach, S. (ed.) Managing Human

Resources, 4th edition, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.
Back, K.W. (1992) 'This Business of Topology', Journal of Social Issues, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 51-
66.
Baddeley, A.D. (1978) 'The Trouble with Levels: A Reesamination of Craik and Lockhart's
Framework for Memory Research', Psychological Review, vol. 85, no. 3, May, pp. 139-152.
Baddeley, A. (1997) Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Hove: Psychology Press.
22
Badillo, R.D. (1998) 'The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Behavior and
Organizational Performance in the Customs Brokerage Companies in Metro Manila', Business
and Economics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-18.
Balota, D.A. (1983) 'Automatic Semantic Activation and Episodic Memory Encoding', Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 88-104.
Barry J. Babin & James S. Boles (1996) 'The Effects of Perceived Co-Worker Involvement and
Supervisor Support on Service Provider Role Stress, Performance and Job Satisfaction.', Journal
of Retailing, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 57-75.
Bartlett, F. (1933) 'Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology', Philosophy,

vol. 8, no. 31, Jul, pp. 374-376.
Baskett, H.K.M. (1993) 'Workplace Factors Wich Enhance Self-Directed Learning: A Report of a
Project on Self-Directed Learning in the Workplace', International Symposium on Self-Directed
Learning, Ottawa.
Batt, G.D. (2002) 'Management Strategies for Individual Knowledge and Organizational
Knowledge', Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 31-39.
Beattie, I.R. (2006) 'Line Managers and Workplace Learning: Learning for the Voluntary Sector',
Human Resources Development International , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 99-119.
Billet, S. (2008) 'Learning throughout Working Life: A Relational Interdependence between

Personal and Social Agency', British Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 39-58.
Blake E. Ashforth & Ronald H. Humphrey (1995) 'Emotion in the Workplace: A Reappraisal',
Human Relations, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 97-125.
Blickle, G. (1996) 'Personality Traits, Learning Strategies and Performance', European Journal of
Personality, vol. 10, no. 5, Dec, p. 337.
Blodgett, H.C. (1929) 'The Effect of the Introduction of Reward upon the Maze Performance of
Rats', University of California Publications in Psychology, pp. 113-134.
Bonn, I. (2001) 'Developing Strategic Thinking as a Core Competency', Management Decision,

vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 63-71.
Bono, E.d. (1967) The Use of Lateral Thinking, London: Jonathan Cape.
Boxall, P. (1996) 'The Strategic HRM Debate and the Resource-based View of the Firm', Human
Resources Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 59-75.
Brentani, U.d. (1991) 'Sucess Factors in Developing New Business Services', European Journal
of Marketing, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 33-59.
Broadbent, D.E. (1958) Perception and Communication, London: Pergamon Press Ltd.
Brookfield, S.D. (1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning, milton keynes: Open
University Press.
C. Donald Morris, John D. Bransford & Jeffery J. Franks (1977) 'Levels of Processing versus
Transfer Appropriate Processing', Journal of Verbal Leanring and Verbal Behavior, vol. 16, no.
5, Oct, pp. 519-533.
23
Camilla Benbow & Julian Cecil Stanley (1980) 'Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability: Fact or
Artifact?', Science, vol. 210, no. 4475, Dec, pp. 1262-1264.
Casson, R.W. (1983) 'Schemata in Cognitive Anthropology', Annual Review of Athropology, vol.
12, pp. 429-462.
Cherry, E.C. (1953) 'Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two
Ears ', The Journal of the Acoustical Society of the America, vol. 25, no. 5, Sep, pp. 975-979.
Clarke, N. (2004) 'HRD and the Challenges of Assessing Learning in the Workplace',
International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 140-156.
CLMS (2012) 'Employee Development and Workplace Learnig', Center for Labour Market
Studies.
Cowan, N. (1988) 'Evolving Conceptions of Memory Storage, Selective Attention and Their
Mutual Constraints with the Human Information Processing System', Psychological Bulletin, vol.
104, no. 2, pp. 163-191.
Criana Connal & Claude Sauvageot (2005) NFM-MIS Handbook: Developing a Sub-National
Non-Formal Education, UNESCO.
D. Beckett & P. Hager (2002) Life, Work and Learning: Practice in Postmodernity, London:
Rouledge.
D.G. Brian Jones & Alan J. Richardson (2007) 'The Myth of the Marketing Revolution', Journal
of Macromarketing, vol. 27, no. 1, March, pp. 15-24.
Dakhli Mourad & De Clercq Dirk (2004) 'Human Capital, Social Capital and Innovation: A
Multi-country Study', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 16, no. 2, Mar, pp. 107-
128.
Dodge, R.B. (1998) 'Unintentional Learning and the Occupational Health and Safety Experience',
Education + Training, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 109-114.
Donald J. Treffinger & Scott G. Isaksen (2005) 'Creative Problem Solving: The History,
Development, and Implications for Gifted Education and Talent Development', Gifted Child
Quarterly, Oct, pp. 342-353.
Ehrenfels, C.V. (1937) 'On Gestalt Qualities', Psychological Review, vol. 44, no. 6, p. 521.
English, L.M. (1999) 'Learning from Changes in Religious Leadership: A Study of Informal and
Incidental Learning at the Parish Level', International Journal of Lifelong Education , vol. 18, no.
5, Sep-Oct, pp. 385-394.
Eraut, M. (2000) 'Non-formal Learning and Tacit Knowledge in professional Work ', The British
Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 113-136.
Eric B. Bent & Susan G. Goldberg (1999) 'Challenging "Resistance to Change"', Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 25-41.
F. Reif, Jill H. Larkin and George C. Brackett (1976) 'Teaching General Learning and Problem-
solving Skills', American Journal of Physics, vol. 44, no. 3, Mar, pp. 412-217.
24
Fergus I. M. Craik & Robert S. Lockhar (1972) 'Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory
Research', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 671-684.
Flavell, J.H. (1979) 'Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-
Developmental Inquiry', American Psychologist, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 901-911.
Fountain, J.E. (2001) 'Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service', Governance: An

International Journal of Policy Administration, vol. 14, no. 1, Jan, pp. 55-72.
Fullerton, R.A. (1988) 'How Modern is Modern Marketing? Marketing's Evolution and the Myth
of the Production Era', Journal of Marketing, vol. 52, no. 1, Jan, pp. 108-125.
Furnham, A. (1992) Personality at Work: The Role of Individual Differences in the Workplace,
London: Routledge.
Garavan, T.N. (1997) 'Training, Development, Education and Learning: Different or the same?',
Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 39-50.
Garrett, H.E. (1939) 'Lewin's Topological Psychology: An Evaluation', Amercian Psychological

Association, vol. 46, no. 6, Nov, pp. 517-524.
Gilmer, B.V.H. (1949) 'Evaluating the Criteria for Higher Education', The Journal of Higher
Education, vol. 20, no. 9, Dec., pp. 473-479.
Gordon H. Bower & Ernest R. Hilgard (1981) Theories of Learning, Englewood: Prentice-Hall.
Grice, G.R. (1948) 'An Experimental Test of the Expectation Theory of Learning', Journal of
Comparative & Physiological Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 137-143.
H. Bergsteiner, G. Avery & R. Neumann (2010) 'Kolb's Experiential Learning Model: Critique
from a Modeling Perspective', Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 29-46.
Halpern, D.F. (1998) 'Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition,
Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring', American Psychologist, vol. 53, no. 4,
Apr, pp. 449-455.
Harry L. Chiesi, George J. Spilich & James F. Voss (1979) 'Acquisition of Domain-Related
Information in Relation to High and Low Domain Knowledge ', Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, vol. 18, no. 3, Jun, pp. 257-273.
Harry van den Tillaart, Sjaak van den Berg & John Warmerdam (1998) Work and Learning in
Micro-enterprises in the Printing Industry. A Comparative Research Study into the Relationship
between Technological and Organizational Developments and Training Activities in Micro-
enterprises in the Printing Industry in Four European Countries., Thesaloniki: European Center
for the Development of Vocational Training.
Hennessey, B.A. (2003) 'The Social Psychology of Creativity', Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 253-271.
Hollay A. Taylor & Barbra Tversky (1992) 'Spatial Mental Models Derived from Route and
Survey Information', Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 31, no. 2, Apr, pp. 261-292.
Howard J. Klein & Sunhee Lee (2006) 'The Effects of Personality on Learning: The Mediating
Role of Goal Setting', Human Performance, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 43-66.
25
Hull, C.L. (1943) Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory, New York:
Appleton Centry Crofts, Inc.
Hurson, T. (2008) Think Better: An Innovator's Guide to Productive Thinking, New York:
McGraw Hill Companies.
Ikukiro Nonaka & Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
J. Barton Cunningham & James N. Macgregor (2014) 'Productive and Re-producting Thinking in
Solving Insight Problems', The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 48, no. 1, March, pp. 44-63.
J. Joseph Cronin, Michael K. Brady & Tomas M. Hult (2000) 'Assessing the Effects of Quality,
Value and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments',
Journal of Retailing, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 193-217.
Jackie, T.L.M. (2004) 'Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality and Perceived Value: An
Integrative Model', Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 20, no. 7-8, pp. 897-917.
Janice A. Leroux & Susan Lafleur (1995) 'Employability Skills: The Demands of the Workplace',
The Vocational Aspect of Education, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 189-196.
Javad Tajar and Simin Akbari (2011) 'Cognitive Map and Latent Learning Tolmans Experiment
with the Retrial in Iranian Children', Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 5, no.
8, pp. 1554-1561.
Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation ,
Cambridge.
Jennifer Campanella and Rovee-Collier Carolyn (2005) 'Latent Learning and Deferred Imitation
at 3 Months', Infancy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 243-262.
John C. Narver & Stanley F. Slater (1990) 'The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business
Profitability', Journal of Marketing, vol. 54, no. 4, Oct, pp. 20-35.
John F. Feldhusen, Susan J. Bahlke & Donald J. Treffinger (1969) 'Teaching Creative Thinking',
The Elementry School Journal, vol. 70, no. 1, Oct, pp. 48-53.
John R. Anderson & Gordon H. Bower (1973) Human Associative Memory, New York: Halsted
Press.
Jonh Seely Brown & Paul Duguid (2000) The Social Life of Information , Cambridge: Harvard
Business School Press.
Kathleen A. Harper, Richard J. Freuler and John T. Demel (2007) 'Cultivating Problem Solving
Skills Via a New Problem Categorization Scheme', AIP Conference Proceedings, 141.
Keith, R.J. (1986) 'The Marketing Revolution', Journal of Marketing, vol. 24, no. 1, July.
Kim, K.H. (2011) 'The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking', Creative Research Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 285-295.
26
Koffka, K. (1999) The Growth of Mind: An Introduction to Child Psychology, London:

Routledge.
Kohler, W. (1999) The Mentality of Apes, 2nd edition, Abingdon: Routledge.
Kolb, D.A. (1976) The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual, Boston: McBer.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
L. Ridoutt, R. Dutneall, K. Hummel & C. S. Smith (2002) Factors Influencing the

Implementation of Training and Learning in the Workplace, Leadbrook: National Center for
Vocational Education Research.
Laurette Dube, Leo M. Renaghan & Jane M. Miller (1994) 'Measuring Customer Satisfaction for
Strategic Management', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , vol. 35, no.
1, Feb, pp. 39-47.
Lawler, E.E. (1973) Motivation in Work Organizations, Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.
Leeper, R. (1935) 'The Role of Motivation in Learning: A Study of the Phenomenon of

Differential Motivational Control of the Utilization of Habits', The Pedagogical Seminary and
Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol. 46, no. 1.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A. (1996) 'Customer Contributions to Quality: A Different View of the

Customer-Oriented Firm', The Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, no. 3, Jul., pp. 791-824.
Lewin, K. (1939) 'Field Theory and Expepriment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Methods',
American Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, no. 6, May, pp. 868-869.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Oxford: Harpers.
Lewin, M.A. (1998) 'Kurt Lewin: His Psychology and a Daughter's Recollections', in
Wertheimer, E.b.G.A.K.&.M. Portraits of Poineers in Psychology, Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lewin, K. (1999) The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, DC:
Amercian Psychological Association.
Lippitt, R. (1939) 'Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Autocratic and
Democratic Group Atmospheres', American Journal of Sociology, vol. 45, no. 1, Jul, pp. 26-49.
Locke, E.A. (1968) 'Towards a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives', Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 3, no. 2, May, pp. 157-189.
London, I.D. (1944) 'Psychologists Misuse of the Auxiliary Concepts of Physics and
Mathematics', Psychological Review, vol. 51, no. 5, Sep, pp. 226-291.
Luh Luh Lan & Jean Lee (1997) 'Force-Field Analysis on Policies Affecting Working Women in
Singapore', Journal of Management Development, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 43-52.
M. Sani Abdurrahman & I. Musa Garba (2014) 'The Impact of Motivation on Students' Academic
Achievement in Keebi State Junior Secondary School Mathematics', International Journal of
Advance Research, vol. 2, no. 12, Dec.
27
M.M Haraway, M.A Grimmett & E.G Maples (1977) 'Stimulus Adaptation and Latent Learning:
Type III', Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 44, pp. 1325-1326.
M.M Harawy, W.N Bailey & E.G. Maples (1971) 'Stimulus Adaptation as an Alternative to
Latent Learning', Psychological Reports, vol. 29, pp. 1067-1072.
Martin, J.L. (2003) 'What is Field Theory?', American Journal of Sociology, vol. 109, no. 1, Jul,
pp. 1-49.
Marvin Evert Shaw & R.H. Waters (1950) 'An Experimental Test of Latent Learning in a
Relatively Free-choice Situation', The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology,
vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 283-292.
Matlay, H. (2000) 'Organizational Learning in Small Learning Organizations: An Emprical

Overview', Education and Training, vol. 42, no. 4/5, pp. 202-211.
Matlin, M.W. (2009) Cognition, Danvers: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Matthew R. Marvel & G. T. Lumpkin (2007) 'Technology Entrepreneurs' Human Capital and Its
Effects on Innovation Radicalness', Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, vol. 31, no. 6, Nov,
pp. 807-828.
Mayer, R.E. (1996) 'Learners as Information Processors: Legacies and Limitations of Educational
Psychology’s Second Metaphor', Educational Psychologist, vol. 31, no. 3/4, pp. 151-161.
McFerrin, K.M. (1999) 'Incidental Learning in a Higher Education Asynchronous Online

Distance Education Course', Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, San Antonio.
Mealman, C.A. (1993) 'Incidental Learning by Adults in a Nontraditional Degree Program: Case
Study', Proceedings of the 12th Annual Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference, Ohio, 259-
264.
Miller, G.A. (1956) 'The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two Some Limits on Our
Capacity for Processing Information ', Psychological Review, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 343-352.
Moray, N. (1959) 'Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of
Instructions ', Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 11, no. 1, Nov, pp. 56-60.
Neisser, U. (1976) Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology,
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Neisser, U. (2014) Cognitive Psychology , Classic Edition edition, East Sussex: Psychology
Press: Taylor & Francis Group.
Nelson, T.O. (1977) 'Repetition and Depth of Processing', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 151-171.
Noelle L. Wood & Nelson Cowan (1995) 'The Cocktail Party Phenomenon Revisited: Attention
and Memory in the Classic Selective Listening Procedure of Cherry (1953) ', Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 243-262.
Onanda, B. (2015) 'The Effects of Motivation on Job Performance A Case Study of KCB Coast
Region', International Journal of Scientific Research Publications, vol. 5, no. 9, Sep.
28
Oring, G. (2009) 'Motivation and Adult Learning', Contemporary PNG Studies, vol. 10, May, pp.
17-25.
Outtz, J.L. (2002) 'The Role of Cognitive Ability Tests in Employment Selection', Human
Performance, vol. 15, no. 1/2, pp. 161-171.
Owens, R.D. (1987) 'Effects of age, Education and Attitudes on Learning by Older Adults from a
Documentary Progamme', Journal of Educational Television, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 95-113.
Oxford Dictionaries (2017), [Online], Available:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cognition [10 Sep 2017].
Paivio, A. (1979) Imagery and Verbal Processes, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Association,
Inc.
Pavlov, I.P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Cerebral Cortex, London:
Oxford University Press.
Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy J. Newby (1993) 'Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism

Coparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective ', Performance Improvement
Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 50-72.
Perry, W.G. (1999) Forms of Intellectural and Ethical Development in the College Years, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Wiley Company.
Pillsbury, W.B. (1933) 'The Units of Experience - Meaning or Gestalt', Psychological Review,
vol. 40, no. 6, Nov, pp. 481-497.
Pintrich, P.R. (1999) 'The Role of Motivation in Promoting and Sustaining Self-Regulated
Learning', International Journal of Education Research, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 459-470.
Postman, L. (1947) 'The History and Present Status of the Law of Effect', Psychological Bulletin,
vol. 44, no. 6, November, pp. 486-563.
Rachlin, H. (1991) Introduction to Modern Behaviorism, 3rd edition, New York: Freeman.
Rao, V.S.P. (2010) The Human Resources Management, New Delhi: Excel Books.
Raymond J. Wlodsawski & Margery B. Ginsberg. (2017) Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn:
A Comprehension Guide for Teaching All Adults, 4th edition, Danvers: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Rebecca A. Singer, Benjamin D. Abroms & Thomas R. Zentall (2006) 'Formation of a Simple
Cognitive Map by Rats', International Journal of Comparative Psychology, vol. 19, pp. 417-425.
Richard C. Atkinson & Richard M. Shiffrin (1968) 'Human Memory: A Proposed System and its
Control Processes', in Shiffrin, R.C.A.&.R.M. The Psychology of Learning and Motivatoin, New
York: Academic Press.
Richard E. Snow & David F. Lohman (1984) 'Toward a Theory of Cognitive Aptitude for
Learning Instruction', Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 347-376.
Richard P. Cooper & Tim Shallice (2006) 'Hierarchical Schemas and Goals in the Control of
Sequential Behavior', Psychological Review, vol. 113, no. 4, Oct, pp. 887-916.
29
Richard W. Woodman, John E. Sawyer & Ricky W. Griffin (1993) 'Toward a Theory of
Organizational Creativity', Academy of Management Review, vol. 18, no. 2, April, pp. 293-321.
Robert C. Liden & John Antonakis (2009) 'Considering Context in Psychological Leadership
Research', Human Relations, vol. 62, no. 11, September, pp. 1587-1605.
Robert J. Sternberg & Karin Sternber (2012) Cognitive Psychology, 6th edition, Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Robert S. Woodworth & Edward L. Thorndike (1901) 'The Influence of Improvement in One
Mental Function upon the Efficiency of Other Functions', Psychological Review, vol. 8, no. 3,
May, pp. 247-261.
Rogers, J. (2007) Adults Learning, 5th edition, Berkshire: McGraw Hill.

Ruch, F.L. (1934) 'The Differentiative Effects of Age upon Human Learning', Journal of General
Psychology, vol. 11, Jan, pp. 261-286.
S. D. Geet, A. D. Deshpande & Asmita A. Deshpande (2009) Human Resources Management,

Pune: Nirali Prakashan.
Sandra Vandermerwe & Juan Rada (1988) 'Servitization of Busienss: Adding Value by Adding
Services', European Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 314-323.
Sascha Topolinski & Rolf Reber (2010) 'Gaining Insight into the "Aha" Experience', Current
Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 19, no. 6, Dec, pp. 402-405.
Schunk, D.H. (1991) Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, New York: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Schwering, R.E. (2003) 'Focusing Leadership through Force Field Analysis: New Variations on a
Venrable Planning Tool', Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, vol. 24, no. 7, pp.
361-370.
Seward, J.P. (1949) 'An Experimental Analysis of Latent Learning', Journal of Experimental
Psychology, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 177.
Shuell, T.J. (1986) 'Cognitive Conceptions of Learning', Review of the Educational Research,
vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 411-436.
Simon, H.A. (1974) 'How Big is a Chunk? ', Science, vol. 183, no. 4124, Feb, pp. 482-488.
Siva R. Sankaran, Dalila Sankaran & Tung X. Bui (2000) 'Effect of Student Attitude to Course
Format on Learning Performance: An Empirical Study in Web vs. Lecture Instruction ', Journal
of Instructional Psychology, vol. 27, no. 1, Mar, p. 66.
Skinner, B.F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis , New York: D.
Appleton-Century Company, Inc.
Skinner, B.F. (1968) The Technology of Teaching, Des Moines: Meredith Corporation.
Sklar, L. (1967) 'Types of Inter-Theoretic Reduction', The British Journal for Philosophy of
Science , vol. 18, no. 2, Aug, pp. 109-124.
30
Skule, S. (2004) 'Learning Conditions at Work: A Framework to Understand and Assess Informal
Learning in the Workplace', International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 8, no. 1, pp.
8-20.
Soumitra Dutta, Bruno Lanvin and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2014) The Global Innovation Index
2014: The Human Factor in Innovation, 2nd edition, Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD and
WIPO.
Stephan J. Motowidlo, Walter C. Borman & Mark J. Schmit (1997) 'A Theory of Individual
Differences in Task and Contextual Performance', Human Performance, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 71-83.
Stevenson, H.W. (1954) 'Latent Learning in Children', Journal of Exprimental Psychology, vol.
47, no. 1, pp. 17-21.
Stewart, G.W. (1950) 'Can Productive Thinking Be Taught?', The Journal of Higher Education,
vol. 21, no. 8, Nov., pp. 411-414.
Storey, J. (1993) 'The Take-up of Human Resources Management by Mainstream Companies:

Key Lessons from Research', The International Journal of Human Resources Management, vol.
4, no. 3, pp. 529-553.
Storey, J. (1996) 'From Personnel Management to HRM: The Implications for Teaching', Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 33, no. 3, March, pp. 4-14.
Susan Mohammed, Richard Klimoski & Joan R. Rentsch (2000) 'The Measurement of the Team
Mental Model: We have No Shared Schema', Organizational Development Research, vol. 3, no.
2, Apr, pp. 123-165.
Susan Whelan, Gary Davies, Margaret Walsh & Rita Bourke (2010) 'Public Sector Corporate
Branding and Customer Orientation', Journal of Business Research, vol. 63, pp. 1164-1171.
Tella, A. (2007) 'The Impact of Motivation on Student’s Academic Achievement and Learning
Outcomes in Mathematics among Secondary School Students in Nigeria', Euraisa Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 149-156.
Terry M. Wildman & John K. Burton (1981) 'Integrating Learning Theory with Instructional
Design', Journal of Instructional Development, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 5-14.
Thistlethwaite, D. (1951) 'A Critical Review of Latent Learning and Related Experiments',
Psychological Bulletin, March, p. 101.
Thomas M. Duffy & David H. Jonassen (1991) 'Constructivism: New Implications for
Instructional Techonolgy?', Educational Technology, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 7-12.
Thorndike, E.L. (1911) Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies, New York: The Macillan
Company.
Tolman, E.C. (1948) 'Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men', Psychological Review, vol. 55, no. 4,
July, pp. 189-208.
Torance, P.E. (1972) 'Can We Teach Children to Think Creatively?', The Journal of Creative
Behavior, vol. 6, no. 2, June, pp. 114-143.
31
Victoria J Marsick & Karen E. Watkins (1990) Informal and Incidental Learning in the
Workplace, Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society, London: Harvard University Press.
Wagemans, J. (2013) Historical and Conceptual Background: Gestalt Thoery, New York:
Oxford Handbook and Perceptual Organization.
Wertheimer, M. (1959) Productive Thinking, Oxford: Harper.
Zhou Qin, Hirst Giles & Shipton Helen (2012) 'Promoting Creativity at Work: The Role of
Problem-Solving Demand', Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 61, no. 1, Jan, pp.
56-80.
32

Pathing The Way, Do Cognitive Theories of Learning Facilitate Workplace Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pathing The Way, Do Cognitive Theories of Learning Facilitate Workplace Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pathing the Way: Do Cognitive Theories Facilitate Workplace Learning?

Pathing the Way: Do Cognitive Theories Facilitate Workplace

Mohammad Tariq SADAT

(Thorndike, 1911) and in the presence of reinforcements (Skinner, 1938).

the job (Storey, 1996; Bach, 2005; Storey, 1993).

performance and profitability (Boxall, 1996).

be transferred from one context to the next (transferability)?

these theories is provided and the final conclusions are made.

2017) and technically cognition is “ the mental processing of knowing, acquisition,

only one or two elements of learning.

1. The Insight Theory of Learning:

problem-solving based on the learner’s prior experience (Kohler, 1999) or productive

thinking (Wertheimer, 1959) or perceptual changes (Koffka, 1999). Gestalt itself is a

Rolf Reber, 2010).

brain to construct better gestalts” (CLMS, 2012).

learning, because arguably problem-solving is one of the most important functions in

skills, productive thinking, problem solving, creativity, (Richard W. Woodman, John E.

& Shipton Helen, 2012; Bonn, 2001).

the productive thinking itself.

However, several researchers have confirmed teachability of productive thinking (Stewart,

1976), organizational problem-solving (Anthony P. Carnevale, Leila J. Cainer and An S.

2007), because thinking by all its forms is abstract.

transferability. A group of researchers proposed mechanisms to test and measure the

others for being unsatisfactorily measurable (Clarke, 2004).

learning transferability” (Eraut, 2000) which is considered a prominent characteristic of

learning through problem-solving as argued by (Wertheimer, 1959).

psychologists to search for more inclusive theories of learning.

2. The Field Theory of Learning:

individual at a given moment (Lewin, 1951; Lewin, 1998).

Moreover, certain researchers have differentiated between employee training and

theory can exert substantial impact on employee learning and performance.

2010) and for its limited applicability (CLMS, 2012).

3. The Latent Theory of Learning:

Cognitivists in this field.

reinforcement which remains concealed unless it is required or stimulated” (Blodgett, 1929;

merely to spatial orientation as perceived by some researchers (Susan Mohammed, Richard

Klimoski & Joan R. Rentsch, 2000).

incidental learning (Victoria J Marsick & Karen E. Watkins, 1990).

through “solving a problem” (Rogers, 2007), or “adaptation and self-correction” (English,

the wider impact of the context on this type of learning.

who had defined learning as the intersection of stimulus-response at the presence of

the transferability (Tolman, 1948).

because of its intangibility.

Additionally, unintentional learning is also difficult to measure (Eraut, 2000), because it is

implicit learning optimally at the workplace.

mental processes behind the learning activities remained unexplained.

4. The Information Processing Theory of Learning:

Apparently, the American cognitive psychologists proposed the information processing

a maximum of 9 words or chunks” (Miller, 1956) where a chunk can be a group of

chunking was criticized for being significantly vague (Simon, 1974).

information processing, proposing rehearsal, coding, and imaging to enhance learning

repetition of the learning material, coding emphasizes on the learning context to be

learning (Schunk, 1991).

In 1990, Anderson proposed his model of Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) as

car or solving a problem. According to (ACT-R) the information is not sequentially

another form of behaviorist stimulus-response association (Mayer, 1996).

information processing do not only enable the HR Practitioners to effectively facilitate

can positively affect learning.

Implications of Cognitive Theories to HR Practitioners:

questions posed by the HR Practitioners at the beginning of the paper.

cognitive theories of learning is a “subjective reality” (Shuell, 1986) which “exists

individualistic nature of knowledge and perceives “its acquisition to be an individual

language in knowledge development” (Vygotsky, 1978).