can only provide knowledge obtained from reflection, to facilitate the initiation of different learning situations which can then be monitored and evaluated. A systemic-constructivist pedagogy is aware of the unavailability of learning and educational success. Nevertheless, it also knows from its centuries-old tradition that these outcomes are often far more likely when education can be structured as an encounter or relationship, which can be shared and experienced by means of a visible demonstration of mutual dealings in a value-based manner. The “systemic” is a manner of dealing with complexity, an observer’s perspective, and the uncertainties of effect and attributions of effect, which differs in many respects from the traditional image of expert pedagogic action. This point is discussed further over the course of this argument.
Self-reflection 3: How can a systemic-constructivist pedagogy be described as “moderate?” How does this “moderation” provide relief for educators and teachers?
3. Learning and Learning Theories
There are various learning concepts put forth in the current debate. For example, there is talk of informal, self-directed, and emotional learning. These terms are only used in a loose relationship to the learning theories that will be discussed below (behaviorist, cognitivist, constructivist, and subject-scientific learning theories).
3.1 Learning Concepts
Learning can be defined as a competency-building acquisition of knowledge, abilities, and skills.
Learning not only takes place deliberately (intentional learning), but also casually (functional or “en passant” learning); not only in the institutionalized context of school, training, university, etc. (formal learning), but also in practical life (informal learning) (cf. inter alia Garrik 1998, Jarvis 1987). Many international studies have found that informal learning makes up 60-80 percent of the total skills acquisition (e.g., OECD 1977). Learning is therefore not primarily an institutionalized practice, but rather a way of life.
Against this background, some of the learning theories presented in the following paragraphs are inadequate. Such learning theories as well as the interpretations and the guided learning culture grounded on them and practiced in many educational institutions actually fail to see many of the skill-building learning efforts and learning processes of young and adult learners. The study and theoretical interpretation of learning still have the “autodidactic” and the “facilitative turn” waiting for their remarks, i.e., they must start to devote more attention to the informal and self-directed everyday learning processes ongoing in professional life and daily living.
3.2 Overview of Learning Theories
In a rough differentiation, behaviorist, constructivist, and cognitive, as well as subject-scientific learning theories can be categorized. These theories are either more object-oriented (in view of what is to be acquired), or subject-oriented (in view of competence-building) and have different explanatory strengths for different complexity levels of learning. For example, easy language learning programs (e.g., vocabulary training) can be planned and designed to a large extent based on behaviorist learning theories, whereas these theories have a limited suitability for explaining the development of complex problem-solving skills or key qualifications.
a) The behaviorist learning theories assume that people can build and change their behavior patterns with stimulus-response conditioning: “Learning according to the principle of classical conditioning is based on contiguity (temporal coupling) by a definite and neutral stimulus” (Zimbardo/Gerring 1996, p. 212). This means that positive consequences (amplifiers, such as recognition or praise) lead to a consolidation of appropriated and exhibited behavior, while a lack of confirmation, or even negative consequences have reverse consequences. On closer examination, however, it becomes obvious that the behaviorist learning theory only has a limited explanatory value and that is also why it has only been attributed very limited practical relevance up until today (e.g., in the instructional design approaches of modern multimedia learning). Robert Gagne has already pointed out that the stimulus-response learning was only one of many forms of learning by which people acquire information and develop skills. He identified a total of 8 forms of learning: 1. signal learning, 2. stimulus-response learning, 3. learning motor chains, 4. learning linguistic chains, 5. learning of distinctions, 6. concept formation, 7. rule learning, and 8. Problem solving (cf. Gagne 1969).
b) Cognitive learning theories assume that learning should encompass the entire context of a series of behaviors. If “thinking” is seen as “the ordering of the doing” (Aebli 1980), then learning, through which problem solving-oriented knowledge and appropriate skills are developed, could also be understood as a comprehensive process in its planning, implementing and controlling sequence of actions. The cognitive learning theories emphasize problem-solving, insightful, and deductive learning and, are therefore particularly suitable for explaining more complex learning processes such as those found in vocational education (but also in higher education) in the development of comprehensive key qualifications. In these learning processes, learning not only takes place through the acquisition of the new (assimilation), but also by the application, restructuring, and further development of already existing cognitive structures (accommodation). The determining factor taken into consideration for learning and educational processes here is not only “the ratio of external stimulus to response (...), but also, the internal control mechanisms such as self-reflection, selective perception, cognitive strategies, ideas and desires.” This is the characterization of the cognitive framework by Baumgärtel, F. (1986, p. 470).
c) Constructivist learning theories assume that cognitive systems are closed autopoietic (self-organized) systems, which are self-referenced and autonomous. Learning cannot be understood as a process in which information can be transported “from outside to the inside,” it is seen much more “as a process of restructuring within a closed system” (Luhmann 1987, p. 60). Teaching can therefore not create stores of knowledge in others or develop skills, it can only initiate and enable restructuring or acquisition processes. In this sense, H. Siebert stated: “It cannot be externally controlled or determined, but only initiated and 'perturbed' (disturbed). Even the audience of a lecture cannot reproduce what has been heard – like a tape recorder – rather, the lecture initiates individual thoughts, associations, emotions, and considerations that are only loosely connected with the lecture” (Siebert 2001, p. 195). The constructivist learning theories are the expression of a changing trend in the psychology of learning: “Learning is no longer seen as an individual information acquisition and behavior change, but is involved in the complex relationships between biological factors, socio-cultural involvement and emotional and motivational processes. Under such a multi-perspective view, it presents itself more and more as “knowledge construction”: learning refers more to the development of knowledge and skills based on 'biological readiness', individual experiences, and existing knowledge structures, which are useful and usable in real situations. New information is linked with previous knowledge, interpreted based on the background of one's own experience and networked, which empowers action in specific situations” (ibid.).
This multi-perspective view directs the learning theory debate towards knowledge management in collaborative relationships. Sharing, further development, and updating of knowledge essentially presupposes that learning is placed, in the sense of involvement, in activity and application contexts. At the same time, sustained learning can result if the learning subjects play an active-interactive role in the learning process and contribute their own experiences, questions, and insights to the development of solutions to problems. Individual and organizational learning appear as the two mutually supporting sides of knowledge management.
d) Subject-scientific learning theories, in a certain sense, radicalize the constructivist view on learning, while still obligated to a highly individualized learning concept. In this case, learning is considered from the point
