My Learning Philosophy

For instance, a twelve year old may be an automobile aficionado.  He may know everything about cars such as the specs, the value, and the performance.  He may also watch Youtube videos about how to drive a car for beginners so that he will be ready to drive when his chance comes.  He may know all about engines, mechanics, fuel injection, and essentially every aspect that makes a car work all from reading books, pouring over diagrams, and watching videos.  By all accounts, he may imagine that he actually knows how to drive.  Yet, for all of this information, as helpful as it may be, the reality is that he still does not know how to drive a car.  He only knows about it.   The same way that a Swiftie fanatic may know everything there is to know about Taylor, but at the end of the day, the fan does not know Taylor Swift.  This understanding of learning is consistent with Kolb and Kolb’s (2005) experiential learning theory, which views learning as a process in which knowledge develops through experience.

This is one of my core convictions about knowledge itself, and it has implications for what I believe about learning.  I believe that learning is active and not passive; learners construct knowledge, they don’t simply receive it.  This reflects a constructivist view of learning in which learners actively build understanding rather than simply receive knowledge transmitted by another person (Piaget, 1973; Harapnuik, 2021).  Learning happens by doing, yet information is still a necessary component.  Learning is the combination of information and experience.  Learning is far more effective in a community or a collective where there is social interaction and modeling that propels the learner to bridge gaps that would otherwise remain void if faced alone.  Vygotsky (1978) argued that cognitive development is fundamentally social, and that interaction with others is critical for the learning process.

Teaching is an action performed by the educator, but just because there is teaching going on does not mean that there is learning going on.  A teacher can complete the lesson, give directions, read the book, run the center, and administer the activity.  Yet, at the same time it is possible for very little meaningful learning to occur.  My responsibility is not to determine whether teaching occurred. My responsibility is to create conditions in which learning is increasingly likely to occur and to look for evidence that it did.  Harapnuik (2021) makes a similar distinction, arguing that a learning facilitator focuses less on delivering knowledge and more on creating a significant learning environment.  I see myself primarily as a designer and facilitator of learning.  Like Harapnuik (2021), I am more comfortable thinking of myself as a learning facilitator than simply as a teacher.  Teaching is one of the tools I use, but learning is my goal.  My role changes depending on what the learner needs.  Sometimes I might explicitly teach because there is a need for it, but other times I might coach or facilitate.

Learning Theory Influence

As a Pre-K teacher I was originally trained in a method called “High Scope,” which is heavily influenced by Piaget and Vygotsky.  High Scope emphasizes active learning with the perspective that students actively construct meaning about their world through hands-on learning experiences.  Play based centers are called “work time,” which reflects Piaget’s (1973) view of children as active constructors of knowledge through their interaction with the environment.  These ideas have become core convictions of mine.  I am convinced that children construct meaning through hands-on experiences such as play, and that the teacher’s role is to recognize and enhance that learning. Piaget’s work helped establish the view of children as active participants in their own cognitive development rather than passive recipients of information (Piaget, 1973).  

There are two things that I often emphasize with my teachers.  One is the importance of play as the avenue by which children learn, and the second is the importance of good student-teacher interactions.  The value I place on play is consistent with NAEYC’s (2020) position that play supports development and learning across cognitive, physical, social, and emotional domains and can promote inquiry, discovery, symbolic thinking, communication, and problem solving.  Nonetheless, many teachers struggle with play-based centers because they have a hard time believing that this is one of the most beneficial ways for children to learn.

Teachers that do not value play-based centers, which is usually a one hour block of time in the AM and another hour in the PM, will tend to find other ways to occupy their time.  They will pull small groups or work one on one with students so that they feel more productive and like they’re “at least” helping some students learn.  In the worst case scenario, they might even check their email or use the time to prep or catch up on administrative duties while the children play.  This all occurs because the teacher does not value these critical two hours of learning, which in turn causes them to neglect the learning environment.  They are less likely to intentionally build an environment that has learning experience options that will engage the children based on their interests.  The environment will tend to become stagnant, unguided, and even boring.  This ends up creating a self fulfilling prophecy.  The materials don’t get changed out or added to, the environment stagnates, the kids get bored, then behavior problems start to erupt.  These teachers then say, “well this is what happens when you just let children play.”  Yet, based on my experience, what really happened was that the children became bored with the same materials and the lack of choices, which increased the likelihood of misbehavior.  In essence, the teacher actually choked out the play environment and once the wells ran dry she blamed the kids for it.

Furthermore, the second thing that I emphasize with my teachers is good student-teacher interactions.  In the context of play-based centers it is critical that teachers intentionally engage the students, which is difficult for many adults to learn how to do.  Essentially the adult needs to learn how to enter into play with students. Research on guided play suggests that effective adult involvement is neither complete withdrawal nor control of the activity; rather, the adult provides purposeful guidance while allowing the child meaningful autonomy within the play experience (Skene et al., 2022).  Sometimes this can be done by being silent and observing just in order to understand what the student is doing.  If the adult stands near the child she can wait to see if the child will invite her into his play, which usually happens.  If this doesn’t happen the adult can parallel play with the child which will usually evoke conversation eventually.  The purpose of engaging students in their play is to create the zone of proximal development through interactions.  “Guidance by a supportive adult extends the scope for learning beyond what the child might achieve on their own” (Skene et al., 2022, p. 1163).  The teacher is able to scaffold student language simply by engaging with them through play. The teacher's role is to provide support that enables the student to accomplish something that would initially be beyond independent performance, gradually adjusting that support as competence develops (Wood et al., 1976).  Oral language and vocabulary is a critical part of child development, and children build this knowledge base through hands-on experiences and through interactions with adults who help elevate student vocabulary simply by infusing their interactions with a broad range of words that the children otherwise might not know.

Ultimately, in terms of learning theories, while my beliefs align broadly with constructivism, Vygotsky's social constructivist perspective most closely reflects my understanding of learning because it recognizes that learning is both an individual process of meaning-making and a social process shaped by language, relationships, and interaction. His view that development moves from socially shared activity toward individual understanding helps explain why I see relationships, language, and interaction as integral to learning (Vygotsky, 1978).  However, I am not exclusively a constructivist because I also use cognitivist ideas.  I activate prior knowledge, organize information, chunk material, explicitly teach vocabulary, use recall practice, and help learners make conceptual connections.  These principles also shape my practice because meaningful learning involves selecting relevant information, organizing it, and integrating it with prior knowledge (Mayer, 2024).  I would also say that behaviorism has a place, too.  For example, immediate feedback, practice, reinforcement, and classroom routines are also very important.  Behaviorist principles remain useful for certain dimensions of learning. Behaviorism, for example, emphasizes the instructional value of immediate feedback and reinforcement.  Yet, I do not see these processes as sufficient for deep learning.  Behaviorist and cognitivist strategies can support learning but social constructivism best describes what I believe meaningful learning ultimately requires.

I am always looking for ways to make connections with what I already know and particularly with what I am interested in.  I enjoy assignments that give me freedom to be flexible with content, and I enjoy researching ideas.  I also enjoy looking for patterns and connections between ideas that on the surface would not seem to be related.  When I encounter an idea I like, I wrestle with it, I connect it to my work, I create something with it, and I will revise my thinking based on further research or feedback.  The ADL program has been a perfect example of the way I like to learn.  From the outset we were able to choose an innovation plan that is relevant to our workplace, which was highly motivating for me.  The combination of choice and authenticity lit a fire in me because I had permission to pursue things that I really believe are important.  My experience also reflects research on self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000) describe autonomy, competence, and relatedness as important psychological needs associated with motivation and self-regulation.  I have sought to integrate as much of my program work into my innovation plan or other areas of need at my workplace.  Rather than looking at each assignment as random, I have been able to make connections between all of my assignments so that it feels like I am working on one big project as opposed to a huge checklist of random unrelated tasks.  I have also sought to integrate early childhood research into my ADL program.  I really debated whether I should get a masters in Early Childhood education or in Applied Digital Learning, but I quickly realized that I can integrate both.  That has made my experience even more rewarding, which makes me realize that I really value being able to learn about things that I am passionate about.  For me passion has been the place where choice and authenticity meet.  The connection I have experienced between choice, ownership, and authentic work is consistent with research emphasizing autonomy as an important part of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

In differentiating between a teaching philosophy and a learning philosophy, I would say that a teaching philosophy is about what I believe my role is as an educator and the instructional practices I should use.  Whereas, a learning philosophy is what I believe about how human beings come to know, understand, develop, and change.  I think that my teaching practices should flow from my beliefs about learning rather than the other way around.  It only makes sense to conform my teaching practices to meet the needs of my students.

“W” stands for “wired to learn,” which is a core idea that I believe about how students learn.  They are inherently wired to learn and construct meaning.  “I” stands for individualized and student centered learning, but it is also about what is developmentally appropriate as well as asking the question, “how is this student wired?  What motivates them?  What is relevant to them?  “R” stands for relevant experiences where learning connects to purpose, context, and real world application.  “E” stands for empowering learners so that students develop agency, voice, and confidence in their capacity to learn.  “D” stands for deliberate design because the learning environment should be intentionally structured to align with how students grow and thrive.  Although “WIRED” is my own framework, its emphasis on authentic learning, learner agency, and deliberate design draws from constructivist and learner-centered perspectives as well as research on autonomy and cognitive processing (Harapnuik, 2021; Mayer, 2024; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

When I think of my learning philosophy, my mind always goes straight to four year olds, yet I believe these same principles apply to any age with simple modifications.  There are four core ideas that stand out to me:  play, language, relationships, and intentionality.

• Play: children construct understanding through meaningful activity rather than simply receiving information.

• Language:  thinking develops through interaction, conversation, questioning, and vocabulary.

• Relationships:  learning is profoundly social.  Intentionality:  a play-based classroom isn’t an unstructured classroom.  The teacher observes, responds, scaffolds, extends, assesses, and adjusts. 

• Intentionality:  teachers must intentionally design their learning environment and pursue cultivating genuine interactions with students.

These four principles also intersect with broader learning theory: play supports exploration and meaning-making, language and relationships mediate learning socially, and intentional environments create conditions in which learners can extend their thinking (NAEYC, 2020; Thomas & Brown, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978).  Thomas and Brown (2011) similarly emphasize play, imagination, experimentation, and participation in a collective as important features of a new culture of learning.   “Play, questioning, and—perhaps most important—imagination lie at the very heart of arc-of-life learning” (Thomas & Brown, 2011, p. 19).

Finally, I do not want to give the impression that I have finally figured out how learning works.  My philosophy is an evolving work in progress.  As I grow and experience more, I am open to revising my ideas.  At this point, I believe meaningful learning requires more than exposure to information.  It requires the learner to do something with it – to question it, connect it, test it, discuss it, and make it their own.  In this sense, learning is both experiential and constructive: learners transform experience into knowledge and experiment with ideas rather than passively accepting them (Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Thomas & Brown, 2011).  In other words, learners have to play with the content for themselves so that they construct their own knowledge.

Annotated Bibliography

The sources in this annotated bibliography represent several perspectives that have influenced my philosophy of learning. They include foundational works on constructivism, social constructivism, experiential learning, and behaviorism.  They also include more recent research related to cognition, motivation, play, and developmentally appropriate practice. Together, these sources support my belief that meaningful learning is active, experiential, social, and intentionally designed.

Harapnuik, D. (2021, November). Learning philosophy. It’s About Learning. https://www.harapnuik.org/?page_id=95

Harapnuik distinguishes between simply teaching content and creating an environment where learning can occur.  He describes himself more as a learning facilitator than someone whose primary role is to transfer knowledge.  This connects closely to my belief that teaching can occur without meaningful learning taking place.  My responsibility is not simply to deliver instruction but to intentionally create conditions that make learning more likely.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.

Kolb and Kolb describe experiential learning as a process whereknowledge develops through experience. Their work connects strongly to my belief that information alone is not the same thing as knowledge. Students need opportunities to apply and make meaning from what they know. This work allows to back up my belief that meaningful learning requires both information and experience.

Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1

Mayer explains how learners select, organize, and connect new information with prior knowledge.  His work helps me understand why cognitivist strategies have a place within my mostly constructivist philosophy.  I regularly activate prior knowledge, organize information, teach vocabulary, and help learners make connections.  These strategies can support learners as they construct deeper understanding.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice: A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap

NAEYC describes developmentally appropriate practice as both play-based and intentional.  The position statement emphasizes relationships, active engagement, meaningful learning experiences, and responsive teaching.  These ideas align closely with the four areas I emphasize in my learning philosophy:  play, language, relationships, and intentionality.  This source also connects learning theory to the actual practices I believe should occur in early childhood classrooms.

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman Publishers.

Piaget presents learners as active participants who develop understanding through discovery and experience.   I found his book on Open Library Internet Archive.  His work supports my belief that learners construct knowledge rather than simply receive it from a teacher.  This is especially relevant to early childhood, where children learn through hands-on experiences and especially play.  Piaget provides an important foundation for the constructivist perspective that shapes my learning philosophy.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan and Deci examine motivation through the ideas of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.  Their work helps explain why choice and ownership have been so important to me as a learner.  I am more motivated when learning is authentic and connected to something that matters to me.  This also supports my belief that learners should have opportunities for independence and agency.

Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C. M., Byrne, E. M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E. C., & Ramchandani, P. G. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 93(4), 1162–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13730

Skene and colleagues examine how adult guidance during play can support children’s learning while still allowing children to maintain agency.  Their findings help support my belief that play-based learning does not mean the teacher becomes passive and allows play to be altogether unguided.  Adults can observe, respond, introduce language, and extend thinking without taking control of the play.  This research connects Vygotsky’s ideas about social learning with the kind of teacher-child interaction I value in Pre-K classrooms.

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Thomas and Brown challenge the idea that learning is simply the transfer of information.  They emphasize play, imagination, experimentation, and participation in a collective.  Their ideas connect strongly to my belief that students need opportunities to explore and do something active with information.  I especially connect with their view of play as a way of engaging with ideas and constructing understanding.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky emphasizes the social nature of learning and the importance of language, relationships, and interaction.  His concept of the Zone of Proximal Development explains how support from another person can help a learner move beyond what they could accomplish alone.  This closely reflects my belief that learning is both an individual and social process.  His work also helps explain why I place so much importance on intentional teacher-child interactions during play.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wood, Bruner, and Ross describe how an adult can provide temporary support that helps a learner accomplish something that would initially be beyond their independent ability. This idea of scaffolding connects closely to my belief that teachers should support learning without taking control.  In a Pre-K classroom, this might mean observing children during play and then using language, questions, modeling, or materials to help extend their thinking.  The goal is to provide enough support for the child to move forward without the adult doing the work for them.