Saint Louis College

City of San Fernando, La Union

SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES

EDUC 258 (Analysis of Teaching and Educational Supervision)

The Learning Process
What is learning?
❖ Learning is about a change: the change brought about by developing a new skill,
understanding a scientific law, changing an attitude. The change is not merely
incidental or natural in the way that our appearance changes as we get older.
Learning is a relatively permanent change, usually brought about intentionally.
When we attend a course, search through a book, or read a discussion paper, we set
out to learn. Other learning can take place without planning, for example by
experience. Generally, with all learning there is an element within us of wishing to
remember and understand why something happens and to do it better next time
(Sequeira, 2012).
❖ Learning is a cardinal factor that a teacher must consider while teaching students
(Munna & Kalam, 2021).
❖ Empirical research on how people learn, how the mind and brain develop, how
interests form, and how people differ in all these has expanded tremendously. This
science of learning underscores the importance of “rethinking what is taught, how it
is taught, and how learning is assessed” (Groff, 2010).
❖ Learning is the change in knowledge, behavior, or understanding that occurs when
people make connections between new information and their existing knowledge
(Saunders & Wong, 2020).
Influential Views on How People Learn
Guillaume (2015) provides the following notes and citations on the influential views on how
people learn.

Behaviorist Approaches
➢ Hold that learning occurs continuously and can be intentional or unintentional.
➢ Focus on observable behaviors and shaping them through rewards and
punishments, or consequences.
➢ Reinforcers include grades, praise, and tangible items. Punishment can take the
form of time-outs, detentions, and names on the board for misbehavior.
➢ Theorists include Skinner (1971), and, more recently, Bandura

Information Processing Approaches

➢ Focus on how information is selectively perceived, stored in memory, and
retrieved.
➢ Liken the brain to a computer, a system with limited capacity that processes
information according to logic and rules. Information is received through the
senses and then is perceived by the mind. It enters short-term memory either from
 the process of sensation or from long-term memory. Concepts are stored through
schemata (systems of linked concepts).
➢ Teachers should be systematic in their instruction to enhance learning. Some
important activities are gaining students’ attention, accessing background
knowledge, focusing on organization of ideas, providing feedback, and supplying
meaningful practice.
➢ Theorists include Gagne (1985) and Miller (Miller, 1956; Miller, Galanter, &
Pribam, 1960).

Constructivist Approaches
➢ Focus on processes by which students build knowledge rather than receive it.
➢ Hold that we continually check new information against our mental rules in order to
internalize and act on information.
➢ Purport that learning is social, and “disequilibration,” or cognitively unsettling
experiences, cause learners to reorganize cognition at higher levels.
➢ Students should confront their current thinking by actively testing and refining
their ideas. Heterogeneous groups provide opportunities for students to challenge
and support each other’s thinking.
➢ Theorists and researchers include Bruner (1986), Driver (1989a, 1989b), Piaget
(1952), and Vygotsky (1978).

Multiple Intelligence Theory

➢ Challenges the notion that intelligence is a single construct and suggests instead
that people can be smart in many different ways.
➢ Holds that intelligences are many and currently include (1) logical or
mathematical, (2) linguistic, (3) musical, (4) spatial, (5) bodily or kinesthetic, (6)
interpersonal, (7) intrapersonal, and (8) naturalist intelligences.
➢ Urges schools and teachers to broaden the kinds of experiences offered to
children.
➢ Practitioners find the theory powerful for questioning the assumption that a certain
level of performance in one area is necessarily associated with a similar level of
performance in another area.
➢ Developed by Howard Gardner, first in 1983, and explored more fully in recent
works (including Gardner, 1999, 2006).

Brain-Based Research
➢ Draws from neuroscience and suggests that the brain functions holistically,
processing many kinds of information (such as emotions and facts) at once.
➢ Holds that the search for meaning and pattern making is innate.
➢ School experiences should be directly guided by how the brain functions by
providing numerous complex and concrete experiences that are rich in sensory
stimulation and embedded within human contexts.
➢ Some writers (Bruer, 1997), including proponents (Jensen, 2000), caution against
making large inferential leaps to classroom contexts. Research is new and limited.
➢ Popular proponents include Caine and Caine (1994; Caine, Caine, McClintic, &
Klimek, 2005) and Jensen (2005).
 The 7 Principles of Learning
These seven transversal “principles” were created as synthesis on the project which
explored the nature of learning through the perspectives of cognition, emotion, and biology,
with analyses of the implications for different types of application in learning environments
(Groff, 2010).
1. Learners at the center
➢ The learning environment recognizes the learners as its core participants,
encourages their active engagement and develops in them an understanding of
their own activity as learners.
• This calls for a mix of pedagogies, which include guided and action
approaches, as well as co-operative, inquiry-based, and service
learning.
• The environment aims to develop “self-regulated” learners, who:
▪ develop meta-cognitive skills
▪ monitor, evaluate and optimize the acquisition and use of
knowledge
▪ regulate their emotions and motivations during the learning
process
▪ manage study time well
▪ set higher specific and personal goals, and are able to monitor
them

2. The social nature of learning

➢ The learning environment is founded on the social nature of learning and actively
encourages well-organized co-operative learning.
➢ Neuroscience confirms that we learn through social interaction – the
organization of learning should be highly social.
➢ Co-operative group work, appropriately organized and structured, has
demonstrated very clear benefits for achievement as well as for behavioral and
affective outcomes. Co-operative methods work for all types of students because,
done well, they push learners of all abilities.
➢ Personal research and self-study are naturally also important, and the
opportunities for autonomous learning should also grow as students mature.

3. Emotions are integral to learning

➢ The learning professionals within the learning environment are highly attuned to
the learners’ motivations and the key role of emotions in achievement.
➢ Learning results from the dynamic interplay of emotion, motivation and
cognition, and these are inextricably intertwined.

4. Recognizing individual differences

➢ The learning environment is acutely sensitive to the individual difference among
the learners in it, including their prior learning.
➢ Students differ in many ways fundamental to learning: prior knowledge, ability,
conceptions of learning, learning styles and strategies, interest, motivation,
 self-efficacy beliefs and emotion; they differ also in socio-environmental terms
such as linguistic, cultural, and social backgrounds.
➢ Moving away from “one size fits all” may well be a challenge.

5. Stretching all students

➢ The learning environment devises programs that demand hard work and
challenge from all without excessive overload.
➢ High-achieving students can help lower-achieving students, which helps stretch
all learners.
➢ This underscores the need to avoid overload and de-motivating regimes based
in grind, fear, and excessive pressure – not just for humanistic reasons but
because these are not consistent with the cognitive and motivational evidence on
effective learning.

6. Assessment for learning

➢ The learning environment operates with clarity of expectations using
assessment strategies consistent with these expectations; there is a strong
emphasis on formative feedback to support learning.
➢ The learning environment needs to be very clear about what is expected, what
learners are doing and why.
➢ Formative assessment should be substantial, regular and provide meaningful
feedback; as we as feeding back to individual learners, this knowledge
should be used constantly to shape direction and practice in the learning
environment.

7. Building horizontal connections

➢ The learning environment strongly promotes “horizontal connectedness”
across areas of knowledge and subjects as well as to the community and the
wider world.
➢ The ability for learners to see connections and “horizontal connectedness” is
also important between the formal learning environment and the wider
environment and society. The “authentic learning” this promotes also fosters
deeper understanding.
Learning in the 21St Century
21st Century Learning Outcomes
Some organizations have specified standards for 21st century learners. The Partnership for
21st Century Learning’s (www.p21.org.) provides ideas about essential skills for the 21st
century. The four major student outcomes (Guillaume, 2015):
1. Core subjects (such as mathematics) and 21st century themes (such as global
awareness and health literacy)
2. Learning and innovation skills
3. Information, media, and technology skills
4. Life and career skills
 Do schools have the technology tools to meet 21st century challenges? Do teachers have
the preparation, skills and competencies to develop these skills among the learners? Do
schools provide the needed supports to meet the learning needs of students in the 21st
century?

Key Shifts in the 21st Century (Groff, 2010)

1. Far-reaching technological change
➢ The information revolution is transforming how we work, play, read, and
think; it is changing the nature of our economies and societies from the most
personal level up to the global.
➢ We are living in an era of incredible invention and growth in information and
communication technologies. This has far-reaching consequences.
➢ Today’s students are thus often considered digital natives (Prensky 2001,
2012) who have grown up wired.

2. Profound transformation from ‘industrial’ to ‘knowledge’ economies

➢ Knowledge is now the central driving force for economic activity, with
innovation critical.
➢ The relocation of economic activities to other countries and world regions is
forcing the “re-skilling” of our societies.
➢ As knowledge has become so fundamental then so as learning.

3. Self-directed, lifelong learning

➢ The ability to continuously learn and apply/integrate new knowledge and
skills has never been more essential.
➢ The ability to continuously learn is fundamental in developing adaptive
expertise – i.e., the ability to apply meaningfully learned knowledge and
skills flexibly and creatively in a variety of contexts and situations.
➢ Lifelong learning, 21st century skills, and “adaptive expertise” are critical
in a world that is constantly shifting and demanding higher cognitive capacity.
The higher-order skills increasingly prioritized in workplaces and in society
as a whole include the capacities to:
• generate, process and sort complex information
• think systematically and critically
• make decisions weighing different forms of evidence
• ask meaningful questions about different subjects
• de adaptable and flexible to new information
• be creative
• be able to justify and solve real-world problems
• acquire a deep understanding of complex concepts
• media literacy
• teamwork, social and communication skills

How are our Filipino students performing?

It is worthwhile to ponder on the PISA 2018, Philippine National Report by the Department of
Education.
The Department of Education (DepEd), mandated to ensure access to quality basic
education for all Filipinos, is committed to engage in various national and international
system assessments to guide its efforts to address the challenge of improving the quality of
basic education.

Towards this end, DepEd participated in the 2018 cycle of the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA), a triennial international assessment administered to 15-year old
learners, who are near the end of their compulsory basic education. Implemented by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA specifically looks
into the learners’ ability to apply the knowledge they have gained in formal education to
everyday situations. The PISA results can provide relevant insights on student performance
and inform policy decisions of the Department.

For 2018, Reading Literacy was assessed as major domain, and Mathematical Literacy and
Scientific Literacy of the students were assessed as minor domains. Global Competence was
also included as an innovative assessment.

Some of the key findings in each domain are summarized below:

Reading Literacy
• Filipino students obtained an average score of 340 points in Overall Reading
Literacy, which was significantly lower than the OECD average of 487 points.
• Only 1 out of 5 Filipino students (19.4%) achieved at least the minimum proficiency
level (Level 2) in Overall Reading Literacy.
• Among the participating ASEAN countries, Filipino students performed closest to but
significantly behind Indonesian students by 31 points in Overall Reading Literacy.
• Among the Process tasks, Filipino students obtained the highest mean scores in
Locate Information (343 points)
• Between the two reading source subscales, Filipino students attained a higher
average score in Source - Multiple (341 points).
• In the Philippines, female students performed significantly better than male students
in Overall Reading Literacy with a 27-point difference.
• Majority of male students (84.82%) and female students (76.90%) did not obtain the
minimum proficiency level (Level 2) in Overall Reading Literacy.
• Filipino students from private schools averaged 390 points, which was significantly
higher than public school students who averaged 328 points.
• The mean Reading Literacy score of SHS students (428 points) was significantly
higher than that of JHS students (339 points).
• The National Capital Region (NCR), Region 7 (Central Visayas), and Region 11
(Southern Mindanao) achieved the highest Overall Reading Literacy average
performance for their respective island groups.
• The mean Reading Literacy score of students residing in urban communities (355
points) was significantly higher than the mean score of those living in rural
communities (313 points).

Mathematical Literacy
• Filipino students achieved an average score of 353 points in Mathematical Literacy,
which was significantly lower than the OECD average of 489 points.
 • Only 1 out of 5 Filipino students (19.7%) attained at least the minimum proficiency
level (Level 2) in Mathematical Literacy.
• Among the participating ASEAN countries, Filipino students performed closest to but
significantly behind Indonesian students by 26 points in Mathematical Literacy.
• The average Mathematical Literacy score of female students (358 points) was
significantly higher than that of male students (346 points).
• The average Mathematical Literacy score of students in private schools (395 points)
was significantly higher than the average score of those in public schools (343
points).
• SHS students performed significantly better than JHS students with a 96-point
difference.
• The National Capital Region (NCR) achieved the highest Mathematical Literacy
average score across all the administrative regions with 385 points.
• Region 7 (Central Visayas) garnered the top average Mathematical Literacy score in
the Visayas group of islands, while Region 11 (Southern Mindanao) attained the
highest in Mindanao.
• Among the administrative regions, Region 6 (Western Visayas) had the highest
percentage (2.74%) of Level 4 proficient students in Mathematical Literacy.
• The mean Mathematical Literacy score of students in urban areas (365 points) was
significantly higher than that of students in rural areas (329 points).

Scientific Literacy
• Filipino students attained an average score of 357 points in Scientific Literacy, which
was significantly lower than the OECD average of 489 points.
• Female students obtained an average score of 359 points for Scientific Literacy,
which was slightly higher but not significantly different from the average score of
male students (355 points).
• Students from private schools scored an average of 399 points in Scientific Literacy,
which was significantly higher than that of public school students who averaged at
347 points.
• SHS students (439 points) performed significantly better than JHS students (356
points).
• The National Capital Region (NCR) achieved the highest Scientific Literacy scores
across all the administrative regions included in the study.
• Region 7 (Central Visayas) obtained the top average score for Scientific Literacy in
the Visayas group of islands, while Region 11 (Southern Mindanao) had the highest in
Mindanao.
• The average performance of students in urban areas for Scientific Literacy was 370
points, which was significantly greater than the average performance of those in rural
areas (333 points).

The PISA 2018 results reflect the urgency of improving the quality of basic education in the
Philippines. The Department will lead this national effort through “Sulong EduKalidad”,
whereby it will implement aggressive reforms in four key areas:
(1) Upskilling teachers and school leaders through a transformed professional
development program;
(2) Review and updating of curriculum;
(3) Continuous improvement of the learning environment; and
(4) Multi-stakeholder cooperation.
References:
Groff, J. (2010). The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice. OECD.
Guillaume, A. M. (2015). K-12 Classroom Teaching: A Primer for New Professionals (All
Inclusive), 4th Edition. 2-21. Pearson Higher Education.
Department of Education. (2019). PISA 2018 National Report of the Philippines. Pasig City,
Philippines.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), 3-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816.
Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century
education. Corwin.
Munna, A. S. & Kalam, M.A. (2021). Teaching and learning process to enhance teaching
effectiveness: A literature review. International Journal of Humanities and Innovation
(IJHI), 4(1). 1-4.
Saunders, L. & Wong, M.A. (2020). Learning theories: Understanding how people learn. In
Instruction in Libraries and Information Centers: An Introduction. Illinois: Windsor &
Downs Press. https://doi.org/10.21900/wd.12.
Sequeira, A. H. (2012). Introduction to the concepts of teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic
Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2150166.