RUNNING HEAD: Learning Theories 1

Learning Theories

A Paper

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For NURS 5327

In the College of Nursing

The University of Texas at Tyler

By

Lori Acosta, RN BSN, Annika Conaway, RN BSN, Cassandra Moffitt, RN BSN, Theresa

Roberts, RN BSN, and Allison Younger, RN BSN

Learning Theories 2

Learning Theories

Students process information in many formats. As educators it is vital to understand the

way the human brain processes information in order to create the most meaningful learning

environment. Before technology evolved, scientists developed learning theories to best describe

the learning process. These theories provide a look into human behavior and how changes in

that behavior define learning. Presented are six major learning theories: behaviorism,

cognitivism, social cognitivism, humanism, constructivism, and brain-based learning. Each

theory arose from direct observation and provides the educator with an understanding of the

different strategies to engage students’ learning needs and their motivations to learn.

Behaviorism

Behaviorism is a learning theory that focuses on the presence of environmental factors to

influence behavior. McLeod (2016) writes that behaviorists subscribe to the idea that only

external observable behavior can be scientifically and objectively measured, while internal

events, such as thinking, cannot be measured in such a way. Behaviorism encompasses a

collection of learning theories, including classical conditioning and operant conditioning.

Weaknesses of behaviorism include the ideas that it is no longer a dominating

educational context (Pettigrew, 2015), and that students who are forced to abandon their

traditional learning behavior may show non-compliance with this learning method (Kantar,

2013). However, Hawks (2014) describes the use of the behavioral learning theory emerging

with the flipped classroom (FC) concept. In the FC, the information delivery is accomplished

before students come to class, allowing valuable class time for important learning experiences

(Hawks, 2014). The resurgence of this educational method is due to pressure from scholars,

policymakers, and patient care advocates ensuring provider competency through healthcare
Learning Theories 3

education (Hawks, 2014). Hawks (2014) also reports that nursing students and faculty believe

this method promotes a positive graduate nursing education experience. Educators can measure

whether learning is taking place by evaluating the level of student discussion during class

(Kantar, 2013).

Cognitivism

Cognitivism theorizes that learning is a semi-permanent change in thought processes and

associations (Pettigrew, 2015). Cognitivism does not mandate a visible demonstration of

learning, but instead concentrates on the internal processes and connections, such as perception,

attention, language, and memory, that occur during learning (McLeod, 2008). Cognitivists

believe that learning is not a change in behavior; it is a change in mental structures through the

organization and construction of knowledge (Pettigrew, 2015). The cognitive growth theory and

the information processing theory are two learning styles associated with cognitivism.

There are notable strengths and weaknesses of the cognitivism theory, as applied to

nursing education. Cognitive development is the result of interactive learning environments, and

over time there is a continuous and dramatic increase in understanding as spiraled learning

facilitates enhanced individual development (Johnson, 2014). A weakness of cognitivism in

nursing education is that learning outcomes are dependent on the student’s individual innate

developmental processes (Johnson, 2014).

Social Cognitivism

Lev Vygotsky is credited with the development of the social cognitivism theory, an

expansion of Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory. It draws heavily on the use of

socialization and psychology to give meaning to learning of concepts (Shepardson and Britsch,

2015), and focuses on the inclusion of social and cultural knowledge (Pettigrew, 2015). Social
Learning Theories 4

learning and language assist learners in bridging gaps in knowledge by relating with the

knowledge and experience of fellow learners (Pettigrew, 2015).

Utilization of social cognitivism is evident in demonstration and return demonstration,

observational learning, role modeling, and scaffolding. Each of these methods involves a

demonstration by someone experienced in the subject, followed by an attempt by the learner to

reciprocate the concept that was initially modeled (Pettigrew, 2015). This theory works well in a

group setting, such as an on-campus classroom, where learner and teacher have direct access to

one another. This model may not be ideal in an online environment, where teacher and learner

often do not have access to one another in real-time. Additionally, this theory may not be ideal

for students who have difficulty learning in large groups or have social or interpersonal anxieties.

Humanism

Humanism has long been considered integral to medical education. The theory’s basic

principle is that learning is a personal act necessary to achieve full potential, and is therefore an

expansion of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Humanism is collaborative and consists of learners

and instructors bargaining objectives, methods, and evaluative criteria. As humanism is based on

self-fulfillment, it facilitates intensely personal learning experiences that create a drive in

professionalism. While many learning objectives are explicitly defined, humanism states the

learners are responsible for their own learning and realized their full potential. A common

example of humanism learning in healthcare is the obtainment of continuing education units, or

the pursuit of advanced certifications and degrees (Rostami and Khadjooi, 2010).

Humanism promotes individualized growth and exercising autonomy. However, this

learning model may prove problematic for students who need concrete objectives and guidance,

or for novice learners who may be unsure of available opportunities or desires.

Learning Theories 5

Constructivism

In constructivism the learner is an active participant constructing knowledge through

prior personal experiences and reflection upon those experiences. Testing hypotheses about the

environment through social interactions builds on previous information (Pettigrew, 2015).

Constructivists have generally agreed on the common theme that learning is best understood,

stored, and applied when learners develop their own mental models of the information and

construct their own personal learning experiences (Vogel-Walcutt, Gebrim, Bowers, Carper &

Nicholson, 2011). Teaching strategies are interactive. An ideal example of constructivism is

simulation-based learning in a skills lab where students play the role of the nurse and experience

critical decision-making, skills practice, and reflection methods. The student nurses are actively

involved in the learning process, increasing their ability to effectively acquire and apply

conceptual knowledge (Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2011). A weakness of constructivism is that self-

directed learning may result in acquisition of erroneous information as a new learner attempts to

determine what information is valid and which is extraneous (Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2011). The

strength of constructivism as used in experiential learning is that real-life scenarios and skills can

be practiced as well as critical thinking, clinical decision-making and role definition as the

student nurses integrate all of these components with their own previous experiences (Gore &

Thomson, 2016).

Brain-Based Learning

Brain-based learning is purposefully choosing teaching and learning strategies that come

from an understanding of the brain and how it is wired based on recent brain research. Research

by cognitive neuroscientists has shown that learning changes the brain (Pettigrew, 2015).

Meaningful learning is an essential goal of brain-based learning. According to Gozuyesil and

Learning Theories 6

Dikici (2014) there are several components that make learning meaningful and permanent.

Relaxed alertness, orchestrated immersion, and active processing are the three main components

of this theory. An example of brain-based learning is creating a relaxed learning environment by

offering a day in the lab for skills practice without grading or return demonstrations, and peers

can offer support to each other with non-threatening feedback from the teachers. An ideal brain-

based learning situation is to maintain a variety of teaching methods that meets the different

learning styles of a diverse group of students (Pettigrew, 2015). A weakness of brain-based

learning is that attempting to determine and meet the different learning styles of each individual

student is difficult and time consuming. The strength of brain-based learning is being able to

develop teaching strategies based on evidence-based research of the brain. According to a recent

meta-analytical study, brain-based learning leads to greater academic achievement than

traditional teaching methods (Gozuyesil & Dikici, 2014).

Summary

Nursing education is not a “cookie-cutter” program that is taught using only one method

of teaching. As nursing educators, content is taught in the classroom, simulation lab, nursing

skills lab, and clinical setting. In addition, student demographics in the classroom are now more

diverse than ever before. Educators must utilize different theories at different times to teach to

this new 21st century classroom. An instructor may use teaching methods based in

constructivism during simulation lab; teaching strategies from both behaviorism and brain-based

learning in a classroom lecture; or teaching methods based on social cognitivism in a nursing

skill lab. All theories help to explain the way a student learns and the motivation for learning.

Today’s challenge is to engage all students and have active participation from everyone.
Learning Theories 7

References

Gore, T. & Thomson, W. (2016). Use of simulation in undergraduate and graduate education.

AACN Advanced Critical Care, 27(1), 86-95.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2016329

Gozuyesil, E. & Dikici, A. (2014). The effect of brain-based learning on academic achievement:

A meta-analytical study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(2), 642-648.

doi: 10.12738/estp.2014.2.2103

Hawks, S. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: Now or never? AANA Journal 82(4): 264-269.

Retrieved from: http://www.eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uttyler.edu

Johnson, G. M. (2014). The ecology of interactive learning environments: Situating traditional

theory. Interactive Learning Environments 22(3): 298-303. doi: 10.1080/

10494820.2011.649768

Kantar, L. D. (2013). Demystifying instructional innovation: The case of teaching with case

studies. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13(2): 101-115. Retrieved

from: http://www.eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uttyler.edu

McLeod, S. A. (2008). Bruner. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html

McLeod, S. A. (2014). Classical conditioning. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/

classical-conditioning.html

McLeod, S. A. (2016). Behaviorist approach. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/

behaviorism.html

Pettigrew, A. C. (2015). Learning and students. In M. H. Oermann (Ed.), Teaching in nursing

and role of the educator (pp.15-33). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.
Learning Theories 8

Rostami, K., & Khadjooi, K. (2010). The implications of Behaviorism and Humanism theories in

medical education. Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench,3(2), 65-70.

Retrieved January 25, 2017.

Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. (2015). Mediating meaning in the social world of the science

classroom. Electronic Journal of Science Education ,19(4), 1-13. Retrieved January 25,

2017.

Vogel-Walcutt, J., Gebrim, J., Bowers, C., Carper, T. & Nicholson, D. (2011). Cognitive load

theory vs constructivist approaches: which best leads to efficient, deep learning? Journal

of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 133-145.

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00381.x