See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/381195970

What Is Learning?

Article · June 2024

CITATIONS READS

0 4,128

1 author:

Kaethe Schneider
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
29 PUBLICATIONS 271 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kaethe Schneider on 06 June 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology, 2024, 15, 779-799
https://www.scirp.org/journal/psych
ISSN Online: 2152-7199
ISSN Print: 2152-7180

What Is Learning?

Käthe Schneider

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany

How to cite this paper: Schneider, K. Abstract

(2024). What Is Learning? Psychology, 15,
779-799. Learning appears to be a basic concept in educational science and psychology.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2024.155047 In recent decades, the interest in learning has been growing in these discip-
Received: March 29, 2024 lines. However, despite its conceptual prevalence, a closer look at the litera-
Accepted: May 28, 2024 ture reveals the ambivalence of the learning concept. The main objective of
Published: May 31, 2024 this work is to contribute to the conceptual clarification of learning. Based on
a scoping review of learning definitions stemming from the disciplines of
Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. educational science, philosophy and psychology a constructive analysis of the
This work is licensed under the Creative concept of learning was made to systematically analyze the term from an in-
Commons Attribution International tegrative perspective of behavioral sciences and humanities. The enriched
License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ understanding of learning gained in this study has interesting implications
Open Access for learning research and practice of education: Promoting knowledge acqui-
sition by reasoning should be at the core of education.

Keywords
Learning, Behavior, Knowledge, Conceptual Analysis, Constructive Analysis,
Definition, Learning Theory, Cognitivism, Behaviorism, Constructivism,
Reasoning

1. Introduction
Research on learning has been of interest for a considerable period, ranging
from the last quarter of the 19th century with the early studies on learning and
memory conducted by German psychologist Ebbinghaus (1885), until the re-
cent contributions of the Dutch educational scientist Biesta (2018: p. 245) on the
learnification of educational language1. Learning is a phenomenon that is influ-
enced by a complex interplay of factors such as physiological, environmental,
cognitive, emotional, motivational, and social factors (Domsch, 2014).
As noted by the American psychologist Lachman (1997), and referred to by
The “learnification” of educational discourse makes it difficult to ask crucial educational questions.
1

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 May 31, 2024 779 Psychology

K. Schneider

the Belgian psychologists De Hower & Moors (2013), most textbook defini-
tions of learning describe learning as a change in behavior resulting from ex-
perience or practice. Thus, according to these types of functional definitions,
learning is an effect of experience on behavior (De Hower & Moors, 2013).
One of the most influential definitions of this type was developed by the
American psychologists Hilgard & Bower (1975: p. 17). “Learning refers to the
relatively permanent change in a subject’s behavior to a given situation
brought about by his (or her) repeated experiences in that situation, provided
that the behavior change cannot be explained on the basis of native response
tendencies, maturation, or temporary states of the subject (e.g., fatigue, drugs,
etc.)”. Guy Lefrancois (Lefrancois, 1986), a Canadian learning researcher, de-
fined learning as “all behavioral changes that come about as a result of experi-
ence. Such changes include not only the acquisition of new information, but
also changes in behavior whose causes are unknown” (Lefrancois, 1986: p. 3).
In this definition, “…changes (are) excluded that arise due to maturation
processes (genetically predetermined changes), artificial chemical changes
such as, e.g., consequences of drug consumption or temporary changes, e.g.,
due to fatigue” (Lefrancois, 1986: pp. 3f.).
In a recent response to Domjan (2010)’s and Lachman (1997)’s view that a
functional definition of learning is over-inclusive, De Hower & Moors (2013: p.
9) define learning “as changes in the behavior of an organism that are the result
of regularities in the environment of that organism” (italics in original—K.S.).
Like these definitions, Kolb & Whishaw (2014) define learning as a relatively
permanent change due to experience, and Mazur (2013: p. 6) “as a process of
change that occurs as a result of an individual’s experience”. In a similar direc-
tion is the definition by Rescorla (1988: p. 329): He states that learning “…is a
process by which an organism benefits from experience so that its future behav-
iour is better adapted to its environment”. In opposition to this normative defini-
tion, Hall (2003) defines the change caused by the process in a neutral manner:
Learning is a process “by which an animal (human or non-human) interacts with
its environment and becomes changed by this experience so that its subsequent
behaviour is modified” (Hall, 2003: p. 837).
Definitions that besides the change in behavior also characterize behavioral
potential are presented by American psychologist Zimbardo (1992), and Ander-
son (1995), for example: Zimbardo defines learning “as a process…, that leads to
relatively stable changes in behavior or in behavioral potential and builds on ex-
perience (Zimbardo, 1992: p. 227).” Anderson (1995)’s definition reads as fol-
lows; “something is learning if and only if it is a ‘process by which relatively
permanent changes occur in behavioral potential as a result of experience’”
(Anderson, 1995: pp. 4f.).
As a reaction to criticism of these functional definitions, the American psy-
chologist Domjan (2010) defines learning as “an enduring change in the me-
chanisms of behavior involving specific stimuli and/or responses that results

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 780 Psychology

 K. Schneider

from prior experience with similar stimuli and responses” (p. 27). In line with
this view of learning, which includes underlying behavioral mechanisms, Lach-
man (1997: p. 479) understands learning as “the process by which a relatively
stable modification in stimuli-response relations develops as a consequence of
functional environmental interaction via the senses”.
From the systems perspective, Langley & Simon (1981: p. 367) define learning
as “any process that modifies a system so as to improve, more or less irreversibly,
its subsequent performance of the same task or of tasks drawn from the same
population”. The system referred to is an individual’s information processing
system (Langley & Simon, 1981).
Following Meyer-Drawe (2003), who takes a phenomenological perspective
on learning, learning cannot be initiated by an intentional act. “Rather it proves
to be like a kind of awakening. To begin to see something in a different light is
an occurrence in which one is involved in the sense that it happens to or befalls
her (Meyer-Drawe, 2003: p. 505).”
In contrast to this view, the American philosopher of education Steiner (1988)
characterizes learning by consciousness and intentionality. Unintended learning
is a phenomenon in the physical and biological senses. If there is no con-
sciousness, learning is not a phenomenon in the human sense. Learning is de-
fined as the process of intentional change in a psychic state (Steiner, 1988).
Mezirow (2000: p. 5) who was a Professor of adult and continuing education
understands learning from a constructivist perspective “as the process of using a
prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning
of one’s experience as a guide to future action.”
Based on our initial presentation of learning definitions, it becomes clear that
the different definitions of learning are characterized by controversy, ambiguity,
and contradiction (Barron et al., 2015; Schaller, 2012): For example, learning is
understood as “learning as change in behavior”, “learning as change in behavior
or behavioral potential”, “learning as change in the behavioral mechanisms”,
“learning as change in the processing of information”, “learning as system
change”, “learning as construction”, “learning as a phenomenon” and “learning
as action”.
One result of the many different learning definitions is that quite a few au-
thors criticize the concept’s ambivalence (Meyer-Drawe, 2003). For example,
Meyer-Drawe (2003: p. 505) objects that the word learning is widely used, but
lacks a clear-cut meaning. Schaller (2012: p. 26) also regards the concept of
learning as a theory-dependent construct, and Barron et al. (2015) as discipline-
dependent.
The concept’s ambiguity is not only problematic from a scientific perspec-
tive, but also from the perspective of educational practice as it makes scientific
communication and evaluation of learning difficult. Despite more than 50
years of intensive research in the field of learning, only a few studies offer
conceptual analyses on the topic (Barron et al., 2015; Cason, 1937; De Hower

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 781 Psychology

K. Schneider

& Moors, 2013; Nedenskov Petersen, et al., 2016). However, as far as I know,
there are no scoping reviews that offer concept analyses of the term’s many
scientific uses.
With this study, I want to contribute to the research of defining the concept of
learning by systematically analyzing the term from an integrative perspective of
behavioral sciences and humanities. Following McClellan (1982: p. 92) “the
concept of ‘learning’ employed by psychology has been of limited utility in ad-
vancing the applied science of education”. The purpose of the present study is to
increase our understanding of learning. The research goal is to determine what
the concept of learning means.

2. Method
A scoping review is conducted in order to analyze the definitions of learning. As
part of the scoping review, the Constructive Analysis (Kosterec, 2016: p. 222) is
employed to clarify the concept of learning. By means of Constructive Analysis, I
postulate a new relation stating that “some already known relation holds among
previously unrelated parts of the language” (Kosterec, 2016: p. 222).
To conduct the scoping review, I used databases of the disciplines of educational
science and the related sciences of psychology and philosophy. I selected the ERIC
(https://eric.ed.gov), PubPsych https://pubpsych.de/), FID (Philosophie
https://philportal.de/), PhilPapers (https://philpapers.org) and EBSCO host
Library (www.ebescohost.com). For the EBSCO host library, I chose the data-
bases education, philosophy/religion, and psychology and sociology.
According to Kosterec (2016: p. 223), Constructive Analysis consists of the
following sub-processes:
 Specifying the initial conceptual background CB;
 Formulating the conceptual problem P;
 Stating the new conceptual relation R;
 Formulating tests T of the conceptual relation R within CB;
 Elaborating the new relation R by tests T respecting CB;
 If the relation R succeeds in tests, declaring it a part of CB.
Regarding the literature search, first, I specified the search in ERIC, PubPsych,
FID, PhilPapers and EBSCO host by setting the following search criteria: Search
within the title or the subject and find the search English terms “definition of
learning” or “concept of learning” in peer-reviewed literature. Second, I ex-
cluded from the results of the literature search: 1) duplicates; 2) articles with
reference to specific forms of learning, such as for example workplace learning;
3) articles that after reading the abstracts of the representative papers did not
include information about a higher-level concept of learning and the “diffe-
rentia specifica” or any other information about a definition of learning. In
ERIC, publications are listed since 2005. For PubPsych, I entered “all these
words”, for EBSCO host, I entered by using advanced search “word” and “word”
in the title, for FID, I selected in “title” and for PhilPapers, I entered the specific

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 782 Psychology

 K. Schneider

terms. Third, also articles or books that are listed in the bibliography of the
identified books resp. articles and that included any information about a defi-
nition of learning in the title were included. The search and exclusion processes
were conducted in November 2023 with these inclusion/exclusion criteria (see
Table 1).
The identified research material was published during the period from 1937
until 2022. The selected studies are mainly characterized by peer-reviewed jour-
nal articles published within the last 50 years.

3. Results
3.1. Specifying the Initial Conceptual Background (CB)
To specify the initial conceptual background CB a matrix is created (Nuoppo-
nen, 1998), including the higher-level concepts and the differentia specifica of
learning in the definitions.

Table 1. Literature and search procedure with databases.

Process Terms Databases/search engine Matches

Step 1

- definition of learning EBSCO Host - definition of learning (N = 255)

Search 1: Specific terms
- concept of learning Library databases - concept of learning (N = 2.843)

- definition of learning - definition of learning (N = 337)

Search 2: Specific terms ERIC
- concept of learning - concept of learning (N = 1.065)

- definition of learning - definition of learning (N = 33)

Search 3: Specific terms PubPsych
- concept of learning - concept of learning (N = 176)

- definition of learning - definition of learning (N = 7)

Search 4: Specific terms FID
- concept of learning - concept of learning (N = 12)

- definition of learning - definition of learning (N = 0)

Search 5: Specific terms PhilPapers
- concept of learning - concept of learning (N = 73)

Step 2

Search excluding
- exact duplicates
- specific forms of learnings
- lack of higher-level
concept of learning Total: N = 28
- lack of differentia specifica
- lack of any information
about a definition of
learning

Step 3

- definition of learning Bibliography of - definition of learning (N = 1)

Search 6: Specific terms
- concept of learning identified texts - concept of learning (N = 1)

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 783 Psychology

K. Schneider

According to sentences that might be spoken, written or thought by an Eng-

lish-speaking entity McClellan (1982: p. 87) identified five possible “completion
instances”:
- B learns “that”…”sentence” (“propositional knowledge”)
- B learns “how to”…“verb phrase” (“skills”)
- B learns “to” … “verb phrase” (“habits, attitudes”)
- B learns “a”/“the” …. “name” (“information, memory storage”)
- B learns “where, why, whether, who, how, when etc.” “noun clause or
phrase” (“reducible to one or more of the above by further specification”)
(McClellan, 1982: p. 87).
“The concept…is the set of all completion instances of L. (Learning—K.S.). A
completion instance is a sentence formed by providing suitable referring expres-
sions for ‘B’, grammatically tensed, mooded, voiced forms of ‘learn’, and suitable
fillers for ‘_____X’ (McClellan, 1982: p. 87).”
There are different types of learning objects, such as propositional knowledge,
skills, habits, attitudes, and memory storage: The learning of habits and attitudes
involves tendencies, while the learning of skills, procedures, and truth involves
capacities (Brown, 1972: p. 23), I can conclude that “learning to” presupposes
“learning how to” (McClellan, 1982) that presupposes “learning that” or “learn-
ing a/the” what on the other hand corresponds with the curriculum category of
propositional knowledge or stored information.
Table 2 shows the higher-level concepts and the respective characteristics of
the studied definitions.

3.2. Formulating the Conceptual Problem P

The overview of the categories of definitions confirms that there is no consensus
on the nature of the higher-level concept and the components of the word
“learning”. Although I can find some identical higher-order concepts, a range of
different higher-order concepts and characteristic features characterizes the cur-
rent state of research. The literature review also reveals that not all authors de-
fine the differentia specifica. Apart from the incompatible senses of learning,
some higher-order concepts have relations of logical super- and subordination
to one another. For example, this is true for “change” and “enduring change”.
Moreover, in some definitions, the causes of learning are mentioned. In terms of
the causes of learning, different causes are included. The analysis shows that the
concept of learning is ambivalent.
Below I analyze the existence of the respective conceptual relations in implicit
conceptual theory. The first two sections group together higher-level concepts
that understand learning as process vs. learning as product. The three remaining
sections discuss the function and the causes as constituents of a definition of
learning and the gaps of the definitions.
Analysis of the present literature reveals that the term “learning” is predomi-
nantly used to describe learning as a process or as a product.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 784 Psychology

 K. Schneider

Table 2. Synthesis of generic or higher-level concepts and differentia specifica of learning derived from studies in educational
science, philosophy and psychology.

Authors/Year Higher-level concept Characteristics

Psychology
Learning as establishment/strengthening of neural connections
“neural connections between stimulating processes and
Cason (1937) etablishment or strengthening of responding processes as a result of accompanying or
immediately preceding psychological acts”
Learning as change in behavior
Kellogg (1938) change “in activity”
of behavior “which results from the activity of the
Kellogg & Britt (1939) persisting change or modification organisms itself and which tends to adapt the organism to
its environment”
“…in a subject’s behavior to a given situation brought
about by his (or her) repeated experiences in that situation,
Hilgard & Bower (1975) relatively permanent change provided that the behavior change cannot be explained on
the basis of native response tendencies, maturation, or
temporary states of the subject (e.g., fatigue, drugs, etc.)”
“…by which an organism benefits from experience so that
Rescorla (1988) process
its future behaviour is better adapted to its environment”
Lefrancois (1986) change “in behavior resulting from experience”
“in which an animal (human or non-human) interacts with
Hall (2003) process its environment and becomes changed by this experience
so that its subsequent behaviour is modified”
“in the behavior of an organism resulting from regularities
De Hower & Moors (2013) changes
in the environment of that organism”
Kolb & Whishaw (2014) relatively permanent change “in behavior resulting from experience”
“of change that occurs as a result of an individual's
Mazur (2013) process
experience”
Learning as change in behavior or behavioral potential
“in behavior or behavioral potential resulting from
Zimbardo (1992) stable change
experience”
“…by which relatively permanent changes occur in
Anderson (1995) process
behavioral potential as a result of experience”
Learning as change in behavioral mechanisms
“…by which a relatively stable modification in
Lachman (1997) process stimuli–response relations is developed as a consequence
of functional environmental interaction via the senses
“in the mechanisms of behavior involving specific stimuli
Domjan (2010) enduring change and/or responses resulting from prior experience with
similar stimuli and responses”
Learning as change in the processing of information
“…involving the acquisition or reorganization of the
Good & Brophy (1990) active process cognitive structures through which humans process and
store information”

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 785 Psychology

K. Schneider

Continued

“in mental representations or associations as a result of

Omrod (2012) long-term change
experience”
Toulmin (1971) coming To know
Learning as system change
“…that modifies a system so as to improve, more or less
Langley & Simon (1981) process irreversibly, its subsequent performance of the same task
or of tasks drawn from the same population”
“of system properties based on the processing of new
Barron et al. (2015) structured updating
information”
Learning as change in view
Osborne (1985) change “in world-view”
Learning as an increase
Washburne (1936) increase “through experience, of problem-solving ability”
Educational science
Learning as constructing
“of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or
Mezirow (2000) process revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience
as a guide to future action”
Learning as a process

“of disequilibrum-equilibrum phases manifested by:

1) intellectual and psychological needs that instigate or
Harel & Koichu (2010) continuum result from these phases and
2) ways of understanding or ways of thinking that are
ultilized and newly constructed during these phases”

Philosophy
Learning as action
Steiner (1988) process “of an intentional change in the psychical state”
Learning as a process
of acquiring something “its character is… determined by
Brown (1972) rule-guided process
the results characteristic of it”
Learning as activity
Fleming (1980) activity “with its attempts and successes and failures”
Learning as development
Luntley (2005) development of insight
Learning as knowledge acquisition
White (1972) acquisition of knowledge “by the application of one’s present conceptual equipment”
Interdisciplinary
Learning as a process
“leading to an experience-dependent behavioral response
Jablonka & Ginsburg (2022) process
of a system”
Olteanu (2022) becoming conscious

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 786 Psychology

 K. Schneider

According to Langley & Simon (1981), Steiner (1988), Rescorla (1988), Good
& Brophy (1990), Anderson (1995), Lachman (1997), Hall (2003), Mazur (2013),
Barron et al. (2015) and Jablonka & Ginsburg (2022) the concept of learning re-
fers to a process. Following Langley & Simon (1981) learning is a “process that
modifies a system”, while Good & Brophy (1990) understand learning as an ac-
tive process “involving the acquisition of knowledge” or as a rule-guided process
(Brown, 1972). For Mazur (2013) learning is a process of change, while Ander-
son (1995) specifies the process as change in the behavioral potential. This view
is similar to Hall (2003)’s perspective who states that the process of change lies
in the behavior. Steiner (1988) specifies a process with “intentional change of a
psychic state”, while Lachman (1997) qualifies the process as a relatively stable
modification in stimulus–response relations that develops because of functional
environmental interaction via the senses. Regarding the psychic state, the con-
cept of the psyche comprises personality traits. These, however, are not easily
changeable. For Rescorla (1988) learning is a process “by which an organism
benefits from experience”. Barron et al. (2015: p. 406) offer an integrative pers-
pective on learning as a process to reconcile most of the definitions of learning
by reference to a common theoretical framework: Their definition of learning is
as follows: learning is “… a structured updating of system properties based on
the processing of new information” (Barron et al., 2015: p. 406).
Mezirow (2000) characterizes the process as an interpretation. Following
McClellan (1982: p. 102), learning “refers always and only to changing from one
state to another”. “At the behavioral level, it refers to the successive approxima-
tions that may intervene between B’s not knowing ___ X and B’s acquiring that
knowledge… At the neurophysiological level, ‘learning’ refers to the biochemical
processes that fix the path running from stimuli to response (McClellan, 1982: p.
102).”
For Brown (1972) the process of learning is rule-guided. If the process of
learning results in knowledge, Brown (1972: p. 24) asks the philosophical ques-
tion “whether there are any kinds of factor causally necessary to learning which
are derivable from the character of this result”. In terms of the propositional
knowledge, information, skills, habits and attitudes to be learned there must be a
rule “by which its behaviour is guided” (Brown, 1972: p. 27). In the case of
propositional knowledge, the information and skills “the rule by which its beha-
viour is guided must be a right rule” (Brown, 1972: p. 27), as it is “internal to the
operation itself” (Brown, 1972: p. 27) or must be a “rule by reference” (Brown,
1972: p. 33). In case of a habit, the rule is an external one. However, in “both
kind of cases an individual must be affected by some rule” (Brown, 1972: p. 31).
If the process is not rule-guided such as in the case of acquiring the habit of
blushing I am not inclined to say “that blushing is a learnt habit” (Brown, 1972:
p. 38).
DiClemente (2015) describes the course of the intentional change as “it is
filled with starts and stops, progression and regression, slips, lapses, relapse and,
more importantly, recycling” (p. 1225). Learning in the sense of a change is not a

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 787 Psychology

K. Schneider

singular event, but it is complex, dynamic, multi-dimensional and non-linear

like much of the human behavior (DiClemente, 2015). As the change is not a
singular event, there might be events within the learning process or sequences
such as “unproductive redoing which seemed a more fruitless endless cycle of
change attempts likely caused by unmet needs, complicating problems…or sig-
nificant impairment of basic self-control or self-regulatory processes” (DiCle-
mente, 2015: p. 1225).
The higher-level concepts that understand learning as a product are employed
by numerous authors in the sense of change because of a process (Domjan, 2010;
Edelmann, 2000; Hilgard & Bower, 1975; De Hower & Moors, 2013; Jablonka &
Ginsburg, 2022; Kolb & Whishaw, 2014; Lefrancois, 1986; Omrod, 2012; Zim-
bardo, 1992). According to Weidenmann (1989), “change [seems to be …] the
general explanandum of all learning theories” ((Weidenmann, 1989: p. 996) ital-
ics in original—K.S.). Change “can mean different things: New acquisition and
elimination (in everyday language: learning and unlearning or forgetting), adap-
tation and maladjustment (such as phobias […]), continually becoming different
and abrupt change (as in learning through insight)” (Weidenmann, 1989: p.
996). While (De Hower & Moors, 2013; Hilgard & Bower, 1975; Kolb & Whi-
shaw, 2014; Lefrancois, 1986; Zimbardo, 1992) see change in the area of beha-
vior, Domjan (2010) refers to change in the mechanisms of behavior, and
Omrod (2012) refers to changes in the processed information. In early defini-
tions, behavior has been characterized by the physical activities of an organism
that are observable. Today, behavior is considered to include not just externally
observable activities, but also experiential processes like feelings and thoughts. A
change of the psychic state (Steiner, 1988), and the mechanisms (Domjan, 2010)
are, in contrast, less often named.
Other higher-level concepts are an “increase” (Washburne, 1936), a “devel-
opment” (Luntley, 2005), as “establishment and strengthening of neural connec-
tions” (Cason, 1937), change in activity (Kellogg, 1938), and a “continuum”
(Harel & Koichu, 2010). Kellogg (1938) objected to the higher-level concept of
establishing and strengthening neural connections that it is difficult to prove
learning from the change of “neural connections”.
The analysis of the present definitions of learning shows that an overarching
function of learning is inherent in all the definitions examined here that under-
stand learning as a process or an action. It can be seen from the studies that the
function of learning is concerned with different objects of change. In most defi-
nitions, the function is the formation of associations, knowledge acquisition, and
knowledge construction, change of behavior, behavioral potential or a change or
acquisition of dispositions.
From the concept of knowledge I cannot derive any information “about the
way in which knowledge is acquired” (Brown, 1972: p. 25). Interestingly, from a
perspective of Chinese philosophy, the Buddhist concept of learning relies on
knowing how to practice and admonishes the “indulgence in ‘extensive know-
ledge’” (Wu, 2006: p. 501).

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 788 Psychology

 K. Schneider

Depending on the epistemological view, in some definitions, the concept of

learning is understood as the acquisition of knowledge (Good & Brophy, 1990),
the process of “coming to know” (Toulmin, 1971: p. 33f.) or the process of be-
coming conscious (Olteanu, 2022), but in others, learning is defined as a change
in view (Osborne, 1985) or as an interpretation (Mezirow, 2000). While the
concept of acquisition designates a gain in information, the concept of construc-
tion of knowledge focuses on assembling knowledge. A change in mental repre-
sentations or associations (Omrod, 2012) can be assigned to both the acquisition
and the construction of knowledge.
Buchinger & Scott (2010) state that for Niklas Luhmann who modelled learn-
ing within the framework of social systems theory cognitions as expectations are
disposed towards learning, and for Pask (1975), the processes of concept acquisi-
tion and conceptualization as internal and external dialogue are central to
learning. As for the acquisition of dispositions, following Splitter (2010: p. 224),
dispositions are the “triggers of our intentional and relatively stable behavior”
under certain background conditions.
Besides the function that is part of most process definitions, the causes of
learning are named in most of the product definitions. Among the causes re-
ferred to, experience predominates. Likewise, according to the educational psy-
chologist Weidenmann (1989), experience is a key concept in definitions of
learning. “Experience as a key concept shows that learning is bound to impres-
sions, content, information and thereby to the environment and the processing
of environmental perception. In principle, this does not exclude any psychologi-
cal category of interaction with the environment. Learning bound to experience
applies equally to cognitions, emotions, behavior (plans, regulation, and execu-
tion)” ((Weidenmann, 1989: p. 996) italics in original). “…whereas Anderson’s
definition reflects the very broad theoretical assumption that experience affects
behavioral potential, future research may allow us to say more precisely which of
our experiential psychological processes our research on learning should inves-
tigate” (Nedenskov Petersen et al., 2016: 34ff.).
With reference to the philosopher and pedagogue Bollnow (1974), the term
experience refers to “… what a man had to suffer in the hazards of the journey
and took home with him as a bitter memory” (Bollnow, 1974: p. 2). Experience
is not an activity, “… but rather a suffering. Man is delivered in experience to
what is coming at him. Experiences penetrate him. He cannot resist them”
(Bollnow, 1974: p. 2). In answer to the question of what knowledge acquisition
was, Hilgard & Bower (1975: p. 13) stated: “Typically, we suppose that the or-
ganism had some specific experience which caused or was in some way related to
the change in its knowledge state”. However, from a philosophical perspective
experience is seen in a negative sense, as painful (Bollnow, 1974; Gadamer,
1960). Etymologically, according to Bollnow (1974), the word “experience” is
associated not only with the spatial movement of travel but also with the word
for “danger”. “The experiences one has are always painful experiences. (…)
There are no pleasant experiences. That would be a contradictio in adjecto”

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 789 Psychology

K. Schneider

(Bollnow, 1974: p. 20). In contrast, in learning research, in the sense of empiric-

ism, experience is wrongly understood as a process “that we take up and process
any data (or information)” (Bollnow, 1974: p. 20). “If one speaks of having an
experience, one means that something did not go as one had expected (Bollnow,
1974: p. 20).”
In his book “learning through experience”, the British psychoanalyst Wilfred
Bion (1992) argues that thinking occurs due to the absence of objects: Bion ex-
plains: If there is no object such as the maternal breast, it can only be the absent
breast and the consequently felt hunger that causes the thought “no breast”. In
this fundamental case, for example, learning occurs through emotionally expe-
riencing the absence of an object.
In a few definitions, functional environmental interaction regularities are also
named as causes or, as in the case of Lachman (1997), functional environmental
interaction, because experience is not regarded as a sufficient cause for change.
In a similar way, I can argue, following Bollnow (1974)’s definition of expe-
rience, that suffering is not the only trigger for change. According to Italia
(2017), learning occurs for epistemic and non-epistemic reasons.
The analysis of definitions shows that it is not a trivial aspect to find the higher-
level concept of learning and its specific differences (Hilgard & Bower, 1975).
For theoretical concepts, it holds that depending on the theoretical perspective,
the theoretical presuppositions of the definition differ. A closer look at the lite-
rature reveals a number of gaps in the presented definitions:
Some of the definitions relating to learning (Barron et al., 2015; Langley &
Simon, 1981; Steiner, 1988; Lachman, 1997) are vague because it is unclear what
I should understand by more or less irreversibly, structured updating, relative,
relatively stable, psyche, open, new, equipment, and applying. Rescorla (1988)’s
process-related definition of learning is normative, as it does not imply any
changes of behavior that manifest a decrease in adaption to its environment.
As causes are implied in most of the product definitions, the concept of
learning as a product is above all a concept of effect (Brezinka, 1990). The defi-
nitions that imply a “change” refer to products, because the behavior or me-
chanisms of behavior have already changed. Also for a specific form of learning,
such as implicit learning, Frensch & Rünger (2003: p. 14) summarize that impli-
cit learning “is defined in terms of its product rather than the properties of the
learning process”.
Regarding the experience as a predominant cause of learning in the presented
product definitions, I can state that (1) the concept of experience is misunder-
stood as experience is always a disappointed expectation (Bollnow, 1974), and (2)
these definitions are tautological as to learn a lesson from the repeated disap-
pointments is inherently linked to the definition of experience (Bollnow, 1974).
Regarding the qualities of some higher-order concepts, I can state that in
some cases change is employed generally, while in other definitions it is speci-
fied, either, for example, with “enduring” or “stable”. In Mazur (2013)’s defini-
tion, it is not clear what the change is about. Langley & Simon (1981) relate

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 790 Psychology

 K. Schneider

learning to the performance of tasks. The concept of mechanism is vague be-

cause it is unclear which mechanisms are meant by the definition.

3.3. Stating the New Conceptual Relation R

To state a new conceptual relation of learning, the analysis is based on the logical
conceptual systems of Educational Science. For defining the concept of learning,
it is important that the concepts included in the definitions must be more ele-
mentary than the definiendum.
“Psychological verbs (are) characterized by the fact that the third person of the
present is to be verified by observation, the first person not (Wittgenstein, 1991:
p. 160). Following Boyum (2013: p. 497) the concept of learning does not typi-
cally function as a psychological verb, in Wittgenstein’s sense. Following the
Constructive Analysis, the new relation R is postulated” (Kosterec, 2016: p. 222).
(R) Learning is defined as the acquisition of knowledge by reasoning.

3.4. Formulating Tests T of the Conceptual Relation R within CB

To validate the proposed definition three tests are made:
 The linguistic usage for the proposed definition is analyzed.
 Analysis is made of whether the higher-level concept and the differentia spe-
cifica are substantively unambiguous.
 Analysis is made of whether: 1) the higher-level concepts are logically related
to other concepts on the same level and 2) the concepts on the level of the
differentia specifica are really coordinated and are thought to be coordinated.

3.5. Elaborating the Relation R by Tests T Respecting CB

Linguistic usage is examined for the proposed definition. Referring to natural
language usage, the concept of learning is a verb. The following examples under-
line this mode of usage: “B learns ‘that’… ‘sentence’ (‘propositional knowledge’),
B learns ‘how to’ … ‘verb phrase’ (‘skills’), B learns ‘to’… ‘verb phrase’ (‘habits,
attitudes’), B learns ‘a’/‘the’… ‘name’ (‘information, memory storage’), B learns
‘where, why, whether, who, how, when etc.’ ‘noun clause or phrase’ (‘reducible
to one or more of the above by further specification’)” (McClellan, 1982: p. 87).
The linguistic usage of learning shows that this concept is a product concept.
Thus, the identified relation that learning is a process is not compatible with the
central linguistic usage.
Following the central linguistic usage, I can specify the typical usage of learn-
ing as a change in behavior as a knowledge acquisition. The higher-level concept
of “knowledge acquisition” is derived from the Latin verb “acquisitio(n-)”. The
action verb “to acquire” represents a process of doing something to make some-
thing happen or to gain by effort. The acquisition of knowledge is the result of
the process of acquiring knowledge. Based on the etymology, the word “know-
ledge” was derived from the Middle English word “knoulechen”, which meant
“find out about” or “recognize, understand, come to recognize”. This meaning

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 791 Psychology

K. Schneider

corresponds with the etymologically derived basic meaning of learning which is

“I know” or “I have tracked down”.
From a logical point of view the product concept of learning is a concept of
effect. Thus, the cause of learning is a constituent part of the definition. Reason-
ing is regarded as the explaining factor of learning. The word “reason” comes
from Latin “ratio” which means “to reckon”, “to think” and “to put together”.
Etymological reconstruction produced the result that with the concept of
learning I mean that the subject “has gone the way” of thinking or putting to-
gether of knowledge, resulting in changes of knowing or of having tracked down.
If I search in any dictionary that reflects the common usage of language, a close
relationship between learning and knowing becomes obvious (Hilgard & Bower,
1975). There is a logical linkage between “learning” and “coming to know”
(McClellan, 1982) that holds in ordinary language.
In order to clarify the structure of the substantive conceptual system, I analyze
whether the higher-level concept and the differentia specifica are substantively
unambiguous. The higher-level concept of knowledge acquisition and the speci-
fica differentia, by reasoning, are substantively unambiguous.
For a better understanding of knowledge refer to Mittelstraß (1996)’s defini-
tion, which states that knowledge is a “term for generally available orientations
within the framework of everyday action and factual contexts (everyday know-
ledge—K.S.), in the narrower, philosophical and scientific sense in contrast to
opinion…and belief…for knowledge based on reasons and subject to strict veri-
fication postulates, institutionalized within the framework of science” (Mittel-
straß, 1996: p. 717f.). (Italics in original—K.S.).
Regarding the acquiring of knowledge, acquisition “refers basically to a
change in possession; at one time, the organism did not ‘possess’ a given bit of
knowledge; at a later time it did” ((Hilgard & Bower, 1975: p. 13) italics in origi-
nal).
Walton (1990: p. 403) defines reasoning as “the making or granting of as-
sumptions called premises (starting points) and the process of moving toward
conclusions (end points) from these assumptions by means of warrants. A war-
rant is a rule or frame that allows the move from one point to the next point in
the sequence of reasoning. The term ‘warrant’, used instead of the more familiar
(but narrower) term ‘rule’, is appropriate because of the existence of frame-
based, and other kinds of non-rule-based reasoning”. According to Walton
(1990: p. 402) “an inference links the premises to the conclusion, and it always
has a direction proceeding from the premises to the conclusion”. Valaris (2017),
however, challenges the view that reasoning is essentially a matter of following
rules. Consequently, reasoning is understood in the current study in the widest
sense as the “process of drawing conclusions” (Leighton, 2004: p. 3; Angeles,
1981).
The gain of a given bit of knowledge refers to the novel conclusion that is the
result of combining two isolated mental representations. Generally, following
Broome (2002), reasoning is understood as a process that starts from an existing

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 792 Psychology

 K. Schneider

mental state and concludes in a new state of mind.

In order to identify logical errors, I examined whether (1) higher-level con-
cepts are logically related to other concepts on the same level and (2) concepts
on the level of the differentia specifica thought to be coordinated actually are
coordinated.
What is the common ground between the kinds of objects I can learn (White,
1972: p. 43)? The commonality is the knowledge (White, 1972: p. 43) “All uses of
‘learning’…fundamentally imply the acquisition of knowledge” (White, 1972: p.
43). Acquisition of knowledge holds for learning in the sense of acquiring prop-
ositional knowledge, skills, habits, attitudes, and information as White (1972)
demonstrates. “At the core of the concept learning must imply knowing (White,
1972: p. 48).”
The higher-level concept of knowledge acquisition as a product is sufficiently
demarcated against the concept of the process of acquiring knowledge. In the
natural and social sciences, the concept of “process” is defined as a “directed se-
quence of an event” (Carrier & Wimmer, 1995: p. 385). According to White
(1972: p. 50) on the one hand, a process “can stand for a procedure that one fol-
lows in order to reach a certain result. (…) On the other…it refers simply to a
connected series of events which terminates at some endpoint, whether or not
anyone intends to bring this about”. White (1972: p. 50f.) argues, “that the con-
cept of a process may imply the concept of the result of that process even though
the process may not be completed. But if learning is not necessarily intentional,
it cannot be like this.” Following White (1972: p. 51) learning “implies know-
ledge not as an intended but always as an actual achievement.” For White (1972:
p. 51) learning “is not a process but an achievement.” He compares learning with
winning in order to demonstrate that a person is not engaged in a process but
has achieved something (White, 1972: p. 51). The achievement, here the know-
ledge acquisition, means “someone has come up to some mark” (White, 1972: p.
51). Besides the linguistic usage of “X has learnt Y”, I can also say “X is learning
Y”. While in the first statement, the achievement character is obvious, in the
second it relates to a connected series of achievements including future expecta-
tions (Fleming, 1980; White 1972).
I will argue that the concepts of knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge
acquisition by reasoning that are actually coordinated by knowledge gain can be
differentiated from each other. Relating to the philosopher Russell (1912) know-
ledge by acquaintance cannot be regarded as learning, as the occurrence does
not lead the individual to form an inference about the knowledge to be acquired.
Knowledge by acquaintance does not involve thought, intention, or judgment, or
application of concepts. In line with this argumentation, White (1972: p. 53)
demonstrates with an example that if I put a ladder away in the cellar of my
house I know that it is there because I have put it there. In this case, I acquired
knowledge that I did not previously possess. However, “it would be incorrect to
say that I have just learnt that the ladder is there”. Thus, I did not learn by ac-
quainting myself with knowledge although I acquired knowledge. Moreover,

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 793 Psychology

K. Schneider

rote-“learning” cannot be regarded as learning (White, 1972).

Similarly, Popper (1991: p. 175) argues regarding the concepts of forming as-
sociations2 in reflex theory and the related association theory, as are prevalent in
behaviorism, that people and animals adapt through activity (Popper, 1991: p.
175f.). Thus, Popper (1991: p. 176) concludes: “I am of the opinion that organ-
isms do not passively wait for the repetition of one or more events in order to
imprint or impose regularities or regular connections on their memory. Rather,
organisms quite actively try to impose suspected regularities (and thereby simi-
larities) on the world”. McClellan (1982) establishes that a learning claim stated
in behaviorism also “depends on prior knowledge claims” (p. 101), for example,
a creature came to the knowledge “to respond in just that fashion” (p. 101).
Alternatively, Brown (1972: p. 28) writes that “a rudimentary form of induc-
tive reasoning seems to be involved”. Even in the case of implicit learning which
can be modelled by the mechanisms of picked up “statistical dependencies en-
countered in the environment” that “generate highly specific knowledge repre-
sentations” (Frensch & Rünger, 2003: p. 17), it can be assumed that these know-
ledge representations are not an inevitable reaction to a stimulus, even if the in-
dividual is not (yet) aware of the learning process and result.
That the knowledge acquisition and the explaining factor of reasoning inte-
grate cognitive and behavioristic perspectives in this definition was made clear
not only through Popper’s already presented ideas but also through the follow-
ing reasoning of Hilgard & Bower (1975): They begin by explaining that beha-
viorism began from empiricism and is based on the premise that all knowledge is
gained through experience via the senses.3 In contrast, rationalism regards rea-
son as the primary source of knowledge4. Rationalism goes back to cognitive
psychology, whose forerunner from neo-behaviorism to cognitive learning
theory was the American psychologist Tolman (1932). However, referring to
epistemology and the question of how knowledge arises and the relationship
between experience and the organization of the mind, Hilgard & Bower (1975: p.
23) conclude that the cleavages between behaviorist and cognitivist theories are
found to be blurred. Even if, for example, different answers are given from the
side of both representatives about what is learned, namely “cognitive structures”
on the one and “habits” on the other side, “variable nonhabitual behavior would
force us to admit cognitive structures as part, at least, of what is learned. But the
stimulus-response psychologist is satisfied that he can deduce from the laws of
habit formation the behavior that the cognitive theorist believes supports his in-
terpretation” (p. 25).
Also for the habits, White (1972) could show that some cases of habit-learning
2
“All behavioristic theories of learning are also associationistic” (Hilgard & Bower, 1975: p. 12).
3
“Empiricism is the view that experience is the only source of knowledge. Special emphasis is given
to sensory experience, although some allowance is made too for knowledge derived from intellectual
reflections regarding relations among a number of experiences” (Hilgard & Bower, 1975: p. 3).
4
“Rationalism is the general philosophical position that reason is the prime source of knowledge”
(Hilgard & Bower, 1975: p. 7).

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 794 Psychology

 K. Schneider

are forms of skill-learning, others are forms of procedure-learning and some are
habit-learning as they represent the acquisition of known truths for morality.
“There is no reason to think that there must be some habit-learning which is not
the acquisition of knowledge” (White, 1972: p. 48).
Because the postulated relation R succeeded in the tests, it became part of the
conceptual background.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

The logical conceptual systems of educational science, philosophy and psychol-
ogy provide a basis from which I derived the new conceptual relation of learn-
ing: Learning is defined as the acquisition of knowledge by reasoning. The out-
come of this conceptual analysis is to provide a framework for the higher-order
concept and the differentia specifica of learning.
The higher-level concept of knowledge acquisition that denotes a change in
possession of a given bit of knowledge is distinguished by its explaining factor of
reasoning. Reasoning is understood in the widest sense of drawing conclusions.
This result corresponds with the etymological reconstruction that produced the
result that the concept of learning means that a subject has acquired knowledge
and tracked it down by going a way of reasoning.
The results I have summarized have interesting implications for theories of
learning from the perspective of educational science. First, as reasoning consti-
tutes learning it is essential to promote the ability to reason to contribute to ef-
fective learning. Based on the dual-process theories an implicit and intuitive sys-
tem of reasoning is distinguished from an explicit and rational system (Wilhelm,
2005). For promoting the ability to reason, the second system should be primar-
ily addressed to enhance for example the awareness of the meta-information on
reasoning. Therefore, there should be a major focus of research on reasoning.
Second, promoting knowledge acquisition should be at the core of lifelong edu-
cation.
Future-oriented research that investigates the dynamic patterns of reasoning
may expand the knowledge base of learning. Jonker & Treur (2003) could
show using the example of “reasoning by assumption” the dynamics of reason-
ing. For reasoning not only “content information” is important, but also
“(meta-)information” on the reasoning state such as assumptions, observations,
predictions and evaluations that have been made (Jonker & Treur, 2003). For
example, while some reasoning patterns show a transition from a reasoning state
without an assumption to a reasoning state with an assumption, others show a
transition from a reasoning state with a prediction to a reasoning state with an
observation (Jonker & Treur, 2003). It will be interesting to address in further
research the analysis of these micro processes that lead to knowledge acquisition
for others types of reasoning. A conceptual clarification of the concept of learn-
ing will enable us to develop a coherent research program based on an unambi-
guous and unified conceptual system.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 795 Psychology

K. Schneider

Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. Wiley.
Angeles, P. A. (1981). Reasoning. In P. A. Angeles (Ed.), Dictionnary of Philosophy (p.
240). Barnes & Noble.
Barron, A. B., Hebets, E. A., Cleland, T. A., Fitzpatrick, C. L., Hauber, M. E., & Stevens, J.
R. (2015). Embracing Multiple Definitions of Learning. Trends in Neurosciences, 7,
405-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.04.008
Biesta, G. J. J. (2018). Interrupting the Politics of Learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contempo-
rary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists…in Their Own Words (pp. 243-260).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147277-18
Bion, W. R. (1992). Lernen Durch Erfahrung. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verlag.
Bollnow, O. F. (1974). Was ist Erfahrung. Die Frage des Zusammenhangs wissenschaftlicher
und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung. In R.E. Vente (Ed.), Erfahrung und Erfah-
rungswissenschaft (pp. 19-29). Kohlhammer.
Boyum, S. (2013). Wittgenstein, Social Views and Intransitive Learning. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 3, 491-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12036
Brezinka, W. (1990). Grundbegriffe der Erziehungswissenschaft. Analyse, Kritik, Vorschläge
(5th ed.). Ernst Reinhardt Verlag. https://doi.org/10.2378/9783497011896
Broome, J. (2002). Practical Reasoning. In: J. L. Bermúdez, & A. Millar (Eds), Reason and
Nature: Essays in the Theory of Rationality (pp. 85-111). Oxford University Press.
Brown, S. C. (1972). Learning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volumes, 46, 19-39.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/46.1.19
Buchinger, E., & Scott, B. (2010). Comparing Conceptions of Learning: Pask and Luh-
mann. Constructivist Foundation, 3, 109-119.
Carrier, M., & Wimmer, R. (1995). Prozeß. In J. Mittelstraß (Ed.), Enzyklopädie
Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie (pp. 385-387). Metzler.
Cason, H. (1937). The concepts of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 44, 54-61.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054480
De Hower, J., & Moors, A. (2013). What Is Learning? On the Nature and Merits of a
Functional Definition of Learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 631-642.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0386-3
DiClemente, C. C. (2015). Change Is a Process Not a Product: Reflections on Pieces to the
Puzzle. Substance Use & Misuse, 50, 1225-1228.
https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2015.1042338
Domjan, M. (2010). Principles of Learning and Behavior (6th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage.
Domsch, H. (2014). Konzentration und Aufmerksamkeit. In A. Lohaus, & M. Glüer
(Eds.), Entwicklungsförderung im Kindesalter (pp. 63-82). Hogrefe.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen
Psychologie. Duncker & Humblot.
Edelmann, W. (2000). Lernpsychologie (6th. Ed.). Beltz.
Fleming, K. G. (1980). Citeria of Learning and Teaching. Journal of Philosophy of Educa-

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 796 Psychology

 K. Schneider

tion, 14, 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1980.tb00538.x

Frensch, P. A., & Rünger, D. (2003). Implicit Learning. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 12, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01213
Gadamer, H. G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen
Hermeneutik. Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG.
Good, T. I., & Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational Psychology: A Realistic Approach (4th.
ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Hall, G. (2003). Psychology of Learning. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive
Science (pp. 837-845). Nature Publishing Group.
Harel, G., & Koichu, B. (2010). An Operational Definition of Learning. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 29, 115-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.06.002
Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975). Theories of Learning (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Italia, S. (2017). A Janus-Faced Approach to Learning. A Critical Discussion of Haber-
mas‘ Pragmatic Approach. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51, 443-460.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12212
Jablonka, E., & Ginsburg, S. (2022). Learning and the Evolution of Conscious Agents.
Biosemitiocs, 15, 401-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09501-y
Jonker, C. M., & Treur, J. (2003). Modelling the Dynamics of Reasoning Processes: Rea-
soning by Assumption. Cognitive Systems Research, 4, 119-136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00102-X
Kellogg, W. N. (1938). Some Objections to Professor Cason’s Definition of Learning.
Psychological Review, 45, 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059731
Kellogg, W. N., & Britt, S. H. (1939). Structure or Function in the Definition of leaRning?
Psychological Review, 46, 186-197. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054179
Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2014). An Introduction to Brain and Behaviour. Worth Pub-
lishers.
Kosterec, M. (2016). Methods of Conceptual Analysis. Filozofia, 71, 220-230.
Lachman, S. J. (1997). Learning Is a Process: Toward an Improved Definition of Learning.
Journal of Psychology, 131, 477-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603535
Langley, P., & Simon, H. A. (1981). The Central Role of Learning in Cognition. In J. An-
derson (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition (pp. 361-381). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lefrancois, G. R. (1986). Psychologie des Lernens (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag.
Leighton, J. P. (2004). Defining and Describing Reason. In J. P. Leighton, & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.). The Nature of Reasoning (pp. 3-11). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818714.001
Luntley, M. (2005). The Character of Learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37,
689-704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00151.x
Mazur, J. (2013). Learning and Behavior (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
McClellan, J. E. (1982). The Concept of Learning: Once more with (Logical) Expression.
Synthese, 51, 87-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413850
Meyer-Drawe, K. (2003). Lernen als Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 6,
505-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-003-0054-x
Mezirow J. (2000). Learning to Think Like an Adult. Core Concepts of Transformation
Theory. In J. Mezirow et al. (Eds.), Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives
on a Theory in Progress (pp. 1-33). Ossey-Bass.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 797 Psychology

K. Schneider

Mittelstraß, J. (1996). Wissen. In J. Mittelstraß (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Philosophie und

Wissenschaftstheorie. Vol. 4: Sp-Z (pp. 717). J.B. Metzler.
Nedenskov Petersen, E., Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, C., & Hvidtfeldt, R. (2016). What
Should We Demand of a Definition of ‘Learning’ ? In A. Qvortrup, M. Wiberg, G.
Christensen, & M. Hansbol (Eds), On the Definition of Learning (pp. 21-39). Universi-
ty Press of Southern Denmark.
Nuopponen, A. (1998). Begriffsbeziehungen und Begriffssysteme. In C. Laurén, J. Myk-
ing, & H. Picht (Eds.) Terminologie unter der Lupe (pp. 164-185). TermNet.
Olteanu, A. (2022). Learning as Becoming Conscious: A Note on Jablonka and Ginsburg’s
Notion of Learning. Biosemiotics, 15, 457-467.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09510-x
Omrod, J. E. (2012). Human Learning. Pearson.
Osborne, J. (1985). Learning as a Change in World-View. Canadian Psychology, 26,
195-206. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080032
Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, Cognition and Learning: A Cybernetic Theory and Me-
thodology. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
Popper, K. R. (1991). Part 1. In: K. R. Popper, & J. C. Eccles (Eds.), Das Ich und sein
Gehirn (10th ed.). R.Piper & Co. Verlag.
Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Behavioral Studies of Pavlovian Conditioning. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 11, 329-352. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.11.030188.001553
Russell, B. (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. Williams & Norgate.
Schaller, F. (2012). Eine relationale Perspektive auf Lernen. Ontologische Hintergrun-
dannahmen in lerntheoretischen Konzeptualisierungen des Menschen und von
Sozialität. Budrich UniPress. https://doi.org/10.3224/86388007
Splitter, L. J. (2010). Dispositions in Education: Nonentities Worth Talking about. Educa-
tional Theory, 60, 203-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2010.00354.x
Steiner, E. (1988). Methodology of Theory Building. Educology Research Associates.
Tolman, E. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. The Century Co.
Toulmin, S. (1971). The Concept of Stages in Psychological Development. In T. Mischel
(Ed.), Cognitive Development and Epistemology (pp. 25-60). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-498640-4.50006-8
Valaris, M. (2017). What Reasoning Might Be. Synthese, 194, 2007-2024.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1034-z
Walton, D. N. (1990). What Is Reasoning? What Is an Argument? The Journal of Philos-
ophy, 87, 399-419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
Washburne, J. N. (1936). The Definition of Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
27, 603-611. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060154
Weidenmann, B. (1989). Lernen—Lerntheorie. In D. Lenzen (Ed.), Pädagogische Grund-
begriffe. Band 2: Jugend—Zeugnis (7th ed., pp. 996-1010). Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl.
White, J. P. (1972). Learning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volumes, 46, 41-58.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/46.1.19
Wilhelm, O. (2005). Measuring Reasoning Ability. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.),
Handbook of Understanding and Measuring Intelligence (pp. 373-392). Sage
Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233529.n21
Wittgenstein, L. (1991). Zettel (2nd. Ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 798 Psychology

 K. Schneider

Wu, J. (2006). Knowledge for What? The Buddhist Concept of Learning in the Śūraṃgama
Sūtra. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 33, 491-503.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15406253-03304004
Zimbardo, P. G. (1992). Psychologie (Springer-Lehrbuch). Verlag Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-22366-6

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.155047 799 Psychology

View publication stats