Learning theories are often presented as competing explanations of how learning happens. At first glance, the existence of several theories can therefore appear problematic.
If learning is one thing, why are there so many explanations of it? The answer is that most learning theories are not attempting to explain the entirety of human learning. They are directing attention towards different aspects of it. This is both their value and their limitation.
Different Questions Produce Different Answers
A useful way of understanding learning theories is to ask what question each theory is trying to answer.
Cognitivism asks how information is processed, organised, stored, and retrieved. Constructivism asks how learners develop understanding through interpretation and experience. Social learning theory examines how observation, participation, and interaction influence learning. Behaviourism is primarily interested in how behaviour changes.
These are not necessarily competing explanations. Many exist because they are looking at different parts of the same phenomenon. The difficulty arises when the theory being used determines which aspects of a situation receive attention while others move into the background.
Behaviour and Observable Performance
Behaviourism directs attention towards observable behaviour and the conditions that influence it.
From a behaviourist perspective, questions tend to revolve around practice, repetition, reinforcement, feedback, and performance. If learners are not doing the desired thing, attention naturally turns towards what behaviours are being encouraged, rewarded, discouraged, or overlooked.
Many forms of learning require practice. Performance often improves when expectations are clear, feedback is timely, and opportunities for repetition exist. Learning designers regularly rely on these principles, whether they explicitly identify them as behaviourist or not.
The internal experience of the learner is less visible through the lens of behaviourism. A learner may perform successfully without fully understanding and they may comply without meaningful engagement. They may also demonstrate a desired behaviour while holding misconceptions that remain hidden beneath surface performance.
Behaviourism is often strongest when educational goals involve observable actions but it becomes less complete when deeper questions of understanding, interpretation, motivation, or meaning become central.
Cognition and Information Processing
Cognitivism shifts attention towards mental processes. Questions emerge about memory, attention, cognitive load, schema formation, retrieval, and understanding.
Cognitive concerns are already embedded in familiar practices such as signalling, worked examples, retrieval practice, and spacing. Understanding and the organisation of information matters.
Learners are not simply responding to stimuli. They are actively processing, connecting, storing, and retrieving information. The limitation is that cognition is not the whole story. A learner may understand something perfectly while failing to apply it, and social influences may shape learning opportunities. Institutional conditions may support or prevent participation.
Motivation, identity, confidence, power, and belonging can all influence outcomes despite receiving comparatively little attention within many cognitive models. Cognitivism explains a great deal but it does not explain everything.
Meaning, Experience and Interpretation
Constructivism begins from a different premise. Rather than focusing primarily on behaviour or information processing, it directs attention towards meaning. Learners are understood as active participants in constructing understanding rather than passive recipients of information. This perspective highlights the importance of prior knowledge, context, experience, reflection, dialogue, and interpretation.
Constructivist assumptions are visible in problem-based learning, authentic tasks, reflective activity, and collaborative meaning-making. It reminds practitioners that learning is rarely a simple transfer process. Different learners may encounter the same information and interpret it differently. Prior experience and context matter, yet constructivism can sometimes make other concerns less visible.
Questions about efficiency, explicit guidance, structure, and cognitive support may receive less attention. In some situations, learners benefit from direct explanation, modelling, and carefully structured pathways rather than open-ended exploration. The value of a constructivist interpretation therefore depends partly on whether learners have sufficient knowledge, structure, and support to benefit from exploration.
Learning Through Participation and Observation
Social learning theory introduces another dimension. Through this lens, learning is not viewed solely as an individual activity. Attention turns towards modelling, observation, participation, communities, relationships, and social context.
This can help explain why people often learn effectively from colleagues, why group norms matter, why professional cultures influence behaviour, and why exposure to examples can be as important as formal instruction. Many workplace learning situations become easier to understand when viewed through this lens.
At the same time, social explanations cannot fully account for every learning challenge. A learner may have access to supportive communities while still struggling with understanding. Social opportunities do not automatically produce learning in the absence of structure, feedback, or relevant knowledge.
Social learning is powerful where participation, modelling and community matter. It becomes less complete when those influences are not the primary source of difficulty.
Why Theories Appear to Disagree
Theories often seem to conflict precisely because they draw attention towards different influences on learning. A learner struggling with a task can illustrate this clearly.
A behaviourist explanation may focus on insufficient practice or reinforcement. A cognitivist explanation may focus on cognitive overload or weaknesses in knowledge organisation. A constructivist explanation may focus on meaning-making, prior knowledge, or context. And a social learning explanation may focus on opportunities for modelling, participation, or observation.
These interpretations do not need to be mutually exclusive because the learner may be experiencing all of them simultaneously. The challenge for the designer or educator is in deciding which explanation is most useful for the problem at hand.
The intervention changes with the explanation. More practice may help where performance has not yet become secure. Reducing cognitive load may help where working memory is overwhelmed. A more contextualised task may help where learners cannot connect new ideas to existing understanding. Modelling and participation may help where the capability is socially situated. Choosing between these responses requires more than identifying a theoretically plausible account. It requires evidence about what is happening in this particular situation.
Partial Explanations Are Not Failed Explanations
Educational environments are shaped by cognition, behaviour, meaning-making, relationships, accessibility, institutions, technology, resources, and wider social conditions. Any framework that attempts to explain all of these simultaneously risks becoming so broad that it loses explanatory power. This tendency to evaluate learning theories as though they are attempting to provide complete explanations of learning is one reason why discussions about learning theories can become unproductive.
A theory’s usefulness and its limitations often arise from the same focus. What a theory helps make visible is often inseparable from what it leaves outside its frame.
The More Interesting Question
For learning designers, the most useful question is rarely ‘Which learning theory is correct?’ Instead, it may be ‘Which explanation is most useful for understanding the problem currently being faced?’.
A theory helps organise attention. It helps practitioners notice patterns that might otherwise remain hidden and provides language for discussing a problem and identifying possible responses. What it does not do is determine which response should be chosen. That decision requires the practitioner to weigh the available evidence, the educational purpose, learner variability, and the conditions in which the response must work.
The choice of explanation also affects which learners become easiest to understand. A theory centred on observable performance may interpret the same experience differently from one that foregrounds prior knowledge, social participation, or the conditions required for access.
Different theories can produce different, yet entirely defensible, interpretations of the same situation. The challenge is deciding what each theory reveals, what it obscures, and what remains unresolved once its explanation has been considered. That responsibility remains with the practitioner. And that responsibility becomes particularly important the moment different theories begin pointing in different directions.
Leave a Reply