Theories and Principles of Enabling Learning

Reece and Walker (2008) State that learning is about change and can either be intentional or unintentional. Within an educational establishment learning is intentional and will be delivered using “sensory input” (Petty, 2004,p.141) in a variety of ways taking in to consideration the learners themselves and an appropriate delivery mechanism, which would fall into either the psychomotor, cognitive or affective domain.

The subject matter may pre-determine the domain used, but this may also be reinforced by using additional domains as required. Consequently the psychomotor domain would be used to “do” things, the cognitive domain would promote the knowledge of the subject, and the affective domain would focus on the attitudes required. Indeed it can be argued that in any given scenario there will be an expectation to use more than one domain, if not all three. “One way of answering this question is to consider the skills in Bloom’s taxonomy” (Petty, 2004, p.8), where he suggests that the more difficult the task the more domains are used, Petty (2004).
The theories of learning can generally be sub divided into the behaviourist, humanist and cognitive domains. Reece and Walker (2008) are clearly of the opinion that each can be linked to deep and surface learning, when the concept of learning is linked to motivation. Furthermore Curzon (2007) states that surface learning is extrinsically motivated whilst deep learning is intrinsically motivated. These theories will also fall into the pedagogical and andragogical models of learning, although there is in actual fact little difference between the two, (Conner on line)
A behaviourist approach which was initially developed to provide a means of self analysis of mental processes (this was generally termed introspection), was further developed by Pavlov and Watson when they developed an observable process which focused on the use of stimuli and response. (Glassman on line).

This approach could be best suited to learning...