Educattonal

Psychologist
Official Publication of the
Division of Educational Psychology of the
American Psychological Association
Copyright O 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Volume 44, Number 3, July-September 2009

Why kachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward Students and How They Can Become
MoreAutonomySupportive... ..159
JOHNMARSHALL REEVE

Whatis LearningAnyway? ATbpographicalPerspectiveConsidered..... .....176

PATRICIA A. ALEXANDER, DIANE L. SCHALLERT, AND RALPH E. REYNOLDS

Cognitive Scientísts Prefer Theories and Testable Principles With Teeth. ... ... .193
ARTHUR C. GRAESSER

TheWhy of Learning ....198

DAVID C. GEARY

Learning, Theories of Learning, and Units of Analysis in Research . . . . .202

ROGER SÁLJÓ

An Atlas Has More Than One Map: A Reply to Our Commentators. ... .209
RALPH E. REYNOLDS, DIANE L. SCHALLERI. AND PATRICIA A. ALEXANDER

Instructions to Authors ... . Inside back cover

 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGTST, 44(3),
Copyright O Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
17 6-192' 2009
l)\
fi
Routledge
Taylor&Francis GrouP
ISSN: 0046-1520 prínt I 1532-6985 online
DOI: 1 0. 1 080/00 461 520903029006

What Is Learning Anyway? A Topographical

Perspective Considered
Patricia A. Alexander
Department of Human DeveloPment
UniversitY of Maryland

Diane L. Schallert
Department of Educational P sychology
UniversitY of Texas at Austin

Ralph E. ReYnolds
Department of Educational P sychology
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The overarching purpose of this treatise was to develop a means by which to describe and
evaluate existing perspectives on learning and to guide future explorations in this domain.
theo-
Specifically, using the metaphor of a river system, we advance a framework into which
. I retical perspectivis and empirical investigations oflearning can be positioned' We began by
#' y articulatingnine principles of learning shared by diverse theoretic¿l griealellgns. The primary
óf fuárning (i.e., the what,where,
-focus of oir analysis was a frame*orkwith tóüidimensions
l
who, and when) in continual interaction constituting the products and processes of learning.
Based on these commdri principl*Añ-d the interactive dimensions, we offered a definition
of learning. Finally, we used th¡ee cases drawn from real-life experiences, and representing
different configurations of the what, where, who, and when dimensions, to illuminate the
llr, comprehensiveness and utility ofthe topographical perspective on learning forwarded'

lli
.In the book, Califtrnia Rivers and Streams, Jeffrey Mount to understand the true nature of a rivefsystEñ wftffÚcruí'
(1995) described the nature of rivers, chronicled the pro- derstanding the continual interactions of all its elements at a
cesses contributing to their birth and development, and ana- time and over time, one cannot begin to understand the true
lyzed the dynamic and reciprocal relation between the ever- nature of human learning without embracing its interactional
moving and transforming river and its surrounding environs' complexity.
For example, extrusions of igneous rock or uplift in the land More specifically, it is not enough to proffer a working def-
i,.ll
inition of learning or even to provide a detailed accounting of
cause the river to go in a particular direction or limit its move-
ment. In other cases, the river overflows its banks carrying any one ofits constituent parts (e.g., learner characteristics)'
sediment and debris, scouring the landscape and creating Rather, what is required" and what we seek to accomplish
canyons and meander pools. Mount's description of the in- here, is a mapping of what we see as criterial dimensions of
terplay between the river and the landscape in river systems learning una u acs".ption of the comltai iiiiéractións among
seems to echo many aspects of the ever-changing interac- tliáaiiñcTisionsthat form the basis of a learning system' Not
ll tions among learner characteristics, what is to be learned, only does the metaphor of a river system bring to light the
I the context anETituatlo-ñlJfilñññ I earriiii g o¡¿ñs;?ñTtñ'é concept ofcomplex interactions as it relates to learning, but
*alfiáVl preséiritóffi it also allows us to envision the dynamic nature of learning,
iéñeñCé"6fTi11rc:Tust"s6fié'6áñnot begin
' "" - -^:-"''¡---'-*;r-::;1x::'r::L=:r*:*' which like the river system is in continual flux' Thus, as we
il
engaged in this undertaking, we did so with the overarching
Cor¡espondence should be addressed to Patricia A. Alexander, Depart-
intention to lay out criteria against which the viability and
ment of Human Development, Universiry of Maryland, Benjamin Bldg',
RM. 3304F, College Park, MD 20742-\131. E-mail: palexand@umd edu comorehensiveness of theoretical perspectives and empirical
.i
I
:i
 LEARNINGTOPOGRAPHY 177

investigations of learning could be judged (Cobb, 200g). In specific position in the learning landscape and the vista on
our use of the term theoretical perspective, w-e,"are learning that each position affords. This is not to say that
-acknowl-
S{gilg thut broad orientations to learning are instantiáted all such perspectives are equally defensible. Rather, we at-
by pártióular models and the.ories offering-rnechanisms of tempt to demonstrate that their differences may arise from de-
- learning. Our focus is most often on how the broad cat- fending quite different locales within the learning landscape.
egories, ot perspectives, fare in the criterial evaluation to Such views as espoused by cognitive contextualists (Ander-
which we put them. son, 1977; Bransford 1979; Piaget, 1926; Spiro, Vispoel,
The accomplishment of our overarching intention was Schmitz, Samarapungavan, & Boerger, 1987),socioculturai-
predicated on the completion offour specific and interrelated ists (Anderson et al., 2001; Schoultz, Sáljó, & Wyndhamn,
tasks. Therefo..re,-we first articulate principles of learning, ac- 2001;Vygotsky, 1978;Wertsch & Kanner, 1992), cognitive-
ceptable to itroié-nA¿ing ímiltiple: theoréfióát"iieisp'ffi"r, evolutionist researchers (Donald, 1991; Geary, 2005; Pinkea
and basic to a viable conceptualization oflearning. Second, 2002; Plotkin, 1998), and situativists (Cobb, 1994; Cole &
"
we position four dimensions of learning within an interactlve Engstróm, 1993; Greeno & van de Sande, 2007), among
framework that can serve as a basis for judging*ffié*üom- others, give us an invaluable but limited view of learning's
"
prehensiveness and potential viability of c,rrÁnia.rt"futor" landscape. Specifically, our approach is to propose a topo-
theoretical perspectives and empirical investigations.' Third" graphical framework for the learning system that allows us to
having considered these common principles and iñrcractive pinpoint more accurately contemporary theories and models
dimensions, we forward a working definition of learning. on the basrs o-fthtif áttenfióñ tiiéssential diiñéñsióñs of learn-
Last, we present three exemplars to illustrate the way in which ln!. Orióe positioned within this multidimensionai spaie, we
the interactive dimensions of learning dynamically unfold in canthen undertake a more thoughtful analysis of the theories
everyday instances of human learning. and models not only in terms of their conceptualization of
It is important to consider the value of this endeavor be- learning but also their ability to capture particular facets of
fore we initiate these tasks. One apparent value is to bring the the learning system in valid and reliable ways.
notion oflearning into the realm ofexplicit discourse so that
we may contemplate the construct more deeply. Although it
wouldbe convenient if the nature of learning were well estab- FINDING COMMON GROUND
lished thereby requiring no detailed explication, we contend
t|!lJ[g{.e is .n9 sugh -c-lea,1 consensus and that a thoughtful, When the three of us began our analysis, we were aware that
cirlfqql
-log\.4t the very nature of learning is beriéficial, both through a long history of involvement in this domain, almost
{t2¡J[osajust enterin€.fhe field and for those more deeply a century cumulatively, we had developed affinities for theo-
l¡ , invested in the domain. In this article, we want to highlight retical perspectives that perceive learning from diverse, and
KL how conceptualizations of learning, whether expressed or sometimes even seemingly incommensurate, vantage points.
not, shape everyday decisions that have import in our lives. Despite good intentions to set aside personal agendas and
In addition, it is easy to read the researóh'literature as theoretical perspectives and to achieve a shared understand-
¡ implying that each professed view on learning is fully ade- ing, we found that differences in. gur concepfualizations of
quate and thus requires no further justification. Such views, learning quickly asserted themselves and became barriers to
progress, even threatening to scuttle the enterprise. For that
and led to a disregard for competing notions and to a frac- reason, we determined that any hope for success required that
, turing of the community along theoretical fault lines. Such we first seek common ground, a basis from which subsequent
parochialism and fracturing can contribute to a balkanization delineations could emerge. In essence, we sought consilience,
, of the field, aa unproductive breakdown in willingness to en- a term introduced by Whewell (1840) and used by Wilson
, tertain alternative frameworks beyond the level of caricature. (1998) to describe unity of knowledge across varied disci-
, This lack of theoretical comity within education and psychol- plines. We appropriated the term to refer to our efforts to
ogy as to the nature oflearning has been noted (Alexander, find commonality across varied perspectives on learning in
1997; EiSner, 1997;Mayer,2001; Reynolds, Sinatra, & Jet- the same field. Throughout, we focused expressly on human
ton, 1996; Schallert & Martin, 2003). lndeed" contrasting and , learning, acknowledging that aspects of the common ground
.11¡-

contentious views oflearning dot the educational landscape we were seeking might well apply to other living organisms.
and hinder progress in this domain for researchers and practi- A surpriging by-product of this initial theoretical compact
tioners alike. Nonetheless, because learning remains core to was that the common ground we sought took the form of
: educational and psychological (e.g., cognitive, motivational, principles and, more important, principles foundational to
' and emotional) endeavors despite its problematic and eluslve the nature of human iearning. We appreciate that the sim-
nature, we consider it worthwhile to search for a way to frame plicity of the language we use and the brevity of the points
the problem differently. expressed may unintentionally mask the significance of the
Our proposal is that the seemingiy irreconcilable differ- principles we forward. It is conceivable that those long en-
: ences among theoretical perspectives arise largely from therr gaged in the study of learning may be tempted to dismiss

t,.
jl
178 ALEXANDER,SCHALLERT,REYNOLDS

this collection of principles as givens, or as commonsense ceptible, or immediate or gradual, exerts a reciprocal effect
or well-established axioms of learning. However, we would on the learner's surroundinss.
counter that temptation on several grounds. First, for all our
years and investment in this domain, we are not aware of
Principle 2: Learning ls Inevitable, Essential,
any explication ofthe nature oflearning that captures all the
and Ubiquitous
points articulated herein. Further, what may seem common-
sense to experts in learning and learning theory cannot be Being alive means being a learner. Being alive for humans
treated as such by those who a¡e either new to the domain brings with it the inevitability of learning, as well as its ne-
or whose expertise does not fall directly under the banner of cessity. In effect, one cannot prevent learning from occurring
learning. Finally, to those who would see our principles as (inevitable), nor can one hope to survive unless learning hap-
self-evident, we point to the late Nate Gage's (1991) seminal pens (essential). Moreover, learning is not relegated to any
essay titled "The Obviousness of Social and Educational Re- singular physical or cultural environment, but unfolds wher-
search Results," in which such impressions were frequently .everhumans move in the world (ubiquitous). Indeed learning
shown to be untrustworthy.
"ii'i Ulotoglcal inipérative for hümari beinls; so much so that
With this caveat in place, we now turn to the resulting nine most of learning fuppcns automatically and is not under the
principles: conscious control of-iñéTeáiñéi (Baigh & Chartrand, 1 999 ;
Norman, 1968; Reber, 1989). In his commentary on human
o Principle I Learningis change memory, Flavell (1971) asserted that children do not need to
t Principle 2 Learning is inevitable, essential, and ubiqui- be taught how to remember; memory happens. So it is with
tout. learning. Humans are evolved learners, and through matu-
o Prínciple 3 Learning can be resisted ration and experience, certain aspects of learning become
o Principle 4 Learningmay be disadvantageous i,-seemingly effortless and below the level of consciousness,
¡ Principle 5 Learning can be tacit and incidental as well {'whereas other aspects become more complex, differentiated,
as conscious and intentíonal {and demand conscious effort (Braasford" Brown, & Cocking,
t Principle 6 Learning is framed by our humanness {tggg). Although educational researchers and practitioners
o Principle 7 Learning refers to both a process and a prod- (
regularly invest attention on forms of higher order learning,
uct it is important to remember that learning also encompasses
o Principle 8 Learning is dffirent at dffirent points in time these less apparent, yet critical, forms of learning (Reynolds,
o Principle 9 Learning is interactional
Of course, learning is not unique to humans. Although
the learning of nonhuman animals has received much atten-
Principle 1: Learning ls Change tion from researchers, particularly in the first halfofthe 20th
A fundamental characteristic of what it means for humans century, it is not difficult to gain consensus on the point that
to learn is thatS!.ange happens. This notion of change ap- humans are fascinating examples of learning systems (es-
plies whether thé ñ;ñ*ñ;ñ simpler learning of physical pecially to other humans). What makes humans fascinating
movements (e.g., skipping on one foot) or more complex as learners is that they enter the world in such a helpless
learning of abstract principles (e,g., understanding the al- state but possess innate abilities that avail them of the op-
legorical nature of the American classic Moby-Dick). For portunity to acquire understandings and procedures over a
instance, change may be seen as the development'g-f..t"Sfi"f relatively short period. Such innate capacities coupled with
piáéiicés in'iridividuals or gr<iups, or change may be regarded environmental and contextual affordances permit humans to
'as'alté¡éd navigate even arduous social and physical terrains. Further,
concéptions thai-arise from pérsorf€ñür-fdnrnent
"iniéi:ábíióiis. Alternatively, charig'e might be Tñlerstood' as lmman learning continues over the lifespan.
'á-nlffiñm the evolved, innate prodessing capacities of the Learning is ubiquitous, applying in all sorts of situations
hüman brain/mind and the adaptive nature inherent in human and in all sorts of environments. Even though we are prone
beings or as being driven by stages of physiological matu- to conceive of learning as nested in schools and associate
ration. Indeed there are no current conceptions of learning it with foimal educational systems and procedures, learning
that do not inclüdé'the'ñ'ótion of change, either expliciily or will not be so delimited. The processes of learning are in
implicitly. Embedded in this conception of change are three operation whenever and wherever humans are situated.
'?oióllaiiés. First, the change that happens can range from the
d¡amatic to the' áliiiósT'im¡ibiceptibie. Seóón4' ihánge can
Principle 3: Learning Can Be Resisted
a¿órñÑ"r infinité Á.ui"s of ti-é; lt cán occur in an instant
or transpire over expanses of time. Thir4 chañge is-*;'.,"'
inváIi- As inevitable, essential, and ubiquitous as learning is. a curi-
':':'*- ' ^:...-*-.-,*-* ol tne ous corollary is that there are instances when humans resist
abry systemrc. ln ettect, Just as a nver sculpts aspects
landscape, even as aspects ofthe landscape shape the river, learning (and the change it implies), even finding it painful.
change that happens in the learner, be it dramatic or imper- Resistance does not make us immune to learning. ln fact,
 LEARNINGTOPOGRAPHY 179

there are many times when we learn in spite of ourselves. occurred, how learning happened, or how they were changed.
Why might that be? Why are we sometimes so reluctant to Even in the classroom where academic development is the
engage in the effort required to learn a new way of thinking business at hand much of learning lives in the water table be-
' ; or acting even when the goal is desirable? It could well be low the surface. What proportion of learning is tacit remains
, ,:'.that the effort required is judged as too great, or the rewards open to debate; Bargh and Chartrand (1999) suggested that
i' l,too small (Kahneman, 1973; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), or
lthe likelihood of success deemed too risky for learning to be
as much as 90Yo of all learning is implicit. Whatever the pro-
portion is, we would agree that, just as in the physical world
pursued. Or it is possible that the attainment of the desired there is much below the surface of learning's landscape.
goal might create dissonance within the individual or par- For example, a student learning the concept ofsolving for
ticular social system that cannot be tolerated. Thus, it often an unknown in an algebraic equation is learning mathemat-
happens that opportunities for changing deeply held or ha- ical ideas, and we would say this is the student's intentional
bitual ways of interacting with the world are sometimes, at task. However, at the same time, the student is learning the
least initially, circumvented resisted or denied. Conceived in language of algebra with its peculiar vocabulary, symbolic
this manner, this principle of learning embraces much of the representations, and syntactic constructions, as well as the
=
theoretical and empirical work within the literatures on con- social practices that this algebra classroom prefers, such as
': ceptual change (e.g., Vosniadou, 2003) and epistemic beliefs how solutions should look on paper or how homework pages
i (e.g., Murphy & Mason, 2006). should be stapled. Türning to out-of-school examples, we
want to point to the largely unconscious and incidental na-
ture of first language acquisition and of motor development,
Principle 4: Learning May Be Disadvantageous
where in both domains the interaction of environment and in-
It seems clear that learning results in changes that are not nate human wiring results in particularly suitable outcomes
always advantageous to selfor others. Yet, because the con- (Chomsky, 19 5l ; Clark, 1 994; Wells, I 987). Moreover, even
struct of learning has such positive connotations, it may be when acquisition was initially effortful and conscious, subse-
important to make this principle explicit. We cannot limit quent use ofthat learning can be unconscious and automatic.
learning only to what is valued, accepted, or acceptable. The Language is again a great example as when individuals auto-
construct of learning applies as readily to the student who has matically deploy what they know about words and the syntax
learned to disrupt a teacher's lecture as to the student who oftheir language even as their conscious focus is on how to
has learned to be respectful and well behaved, to learning a express what they want to say.
concept incorrectly as to learning it correctly, to the person 'i
who has learned to be helpless when confronted with a new or
Principle 6: Learning ls Framed by Our
challenging task as to the person who responds strategically
Humanness
and efficaciously, or to the learning of unacceptable attitudes
and behaviors as to the learning ofvalued attitudes and be- Our humanness plays a critical role in how we learn and
haviors (e.g., the ways of a gang as seen from the perspective what we learn. Here we are primarily referring to the contri-
of the broader society or a gang member, respectively). bution of the particular neurobiological architecture humans
Here we must clarify that the notion of advantageous have developed. To paraphrase Star Trek's Mr. Spock, we
or disadvantageous that we posit has two valid interpreta- are "carbon-based" life-forms whose neurological structures
tions. On one hand" there is the learning that happens when shape the nature ofhow the world is experienced and whose
someone has learned something that he or she wishes had senses are conduits for interacting with the world and with
never been learned (e.g., smoking or how páté de foie gras others who populate that world. Those senses are particu-
is made). On the other hand, there is the learning that is utile lar in structure for our species and limited in range. Their
and satisfying to the person (and perhaps a group of like- evolved structure and the environment that has surrounded
minded individuals), but disadvantageous and undesirable to them across time restrict our senses and cognitive processes.
some broader social group (e.g., excessive online gaming). Consequently, the colors we see, the tones we hear, the smells
Although the more positive and advantageous outcomes of we can detect, and the nature'of our reasoning are all con-
learning are what may be sought, the learning system does strained by our evolved biology.
not discriminate. It is not just that our neurologicaland biological bases
frame the processes and products of learning. Even within
the range of human possibilities, there is variability with
Principle 5: Learning Can Be Tacit and Incidental
which we must contend. Just as some of us are taller or
as Well as Conscious and Intentional
faster than others, some of us have greater visual acuiry
Much (perhaps most) learning happens outside the realm of or memory capacíty, or facility with language than others.
conscious control or intentionality (Epstein, 2001; Polanyi, Indeed there can be significant differences among individ-
1966); hence, much of learning is tacit and incidentai. Often uais with regard to any cognitive or noncognitive factor. In
iearners cannot give an explicit rendering of when learning essence, these physiological differences set upper or lower
 180 ALEXANDER,SCHALLERT,REYNOLDS

boundaries within which learning may be constrained in the This phenomenon occurs in part because of the recursive
human system. Thus, just as our evolved biology-that which and iterative nature of learning; processes result in prod-
makes us human-must be embraced in any model or theory ucts that in turn influence subsequent processes. An often-
of iearning, so too must the differences that manifest at the cited example can be found in the Matthew effect (Stanovich,
level ofthe individual be recognized. 1986), which, simply stated, refers to when a learning prod-
uct (e.g., graphophonemic knowledge that underlies rapid
and accurate word recognition) interacts with the process of
Principle 7: Learning Refers to Both a Process learning (e.g., comprehending), what Stanovich called a re'
and a Product cíprocal causation effect. Those with decoding facility read
Descriptions of learning frequently toggle between portray- more and hence acquire more background knowledge, which
ing learning as a process, as a set ofoperations progressing in turn leads to better understanding of future information
through time, and depicting it as an end-product of that pro- and more reading, and so on.
cess, much like a chemical substance is produced when ele-
ments are combined. When we think of learning as a process, Principle 9: Learning ls Interactional
we are focusing on the time course of operations resulting
in relatively durable changes. When we consider learning When we assert that learning is interactional, we are high-
-t lighting that learning engages an intermutual sequence ofop-
i as product, we are referring to the relatively durable change
,' that results when learning has occurred" as when new ideas or erations that are shaped by human culture and biology' among
: procedures have been internalized or memories accumulated a host of such influences, and by how humans act and react
.- as a result of experiences in the physical world or in the world
to a dynamically changing world. Al1 serious discussions of
, of the mind. learning would agree that the world "out there" matters to
Where learning as process refers to the change as it is how learning takes place, although there might be debate in
taking place, learying- as-groduct refers to the outcome of how to construe that world (Bereiter, 1994; Stanovich, 2000).
that pro-c-e.ss. Form'al measures6-fle-arningare-ámost always Moreover, any postbehaviorist learning perspective includes
aUout iéárnmg- as product-the consequences of learning' in its description ofthe interactive nature oflearning, the iter-
Although it is perhaps unfortunate that the same word refers ative coinfluences between current and past constructions or
to a progressive action and a gerundial noun and may lead representations. In this interactional mix, continual change
to misinterpretations that pivot exactly on this difference, it occurs not only to learners, but to the context in which learn-
is our contention that any comprehensive rendering oflearn- ing is embedded as well. Learners are influenced by, and at
ing must regard this construct as both process and product' the same time push back, take from, change, control, and
Indee4 research in which the focus is only on learning as create the environment in which learning is situated.
a product may oversimplifr our conception of the learning
process. The same applies to research in which process is all
that is considered. FRAMING THE NATURE OF LEARNING

Embedded in the nine principles of learning are characteris-

Principle 8: Learning ls Different at Different tics that stand as salient attributes of this complex but elu-
Points in Time sive construct. The careful definition of core constructs is
Because learning is a process, change transpires in time and certainly a necessary step in any effort to formulate theory,
over time, and leads one to focus on the dynamic flux of build models, or conduct investigations; yet more is required'
factors affecting the beginning, middle, and late stages of In theory and research, conceptualization and operationaliza-
learning. The learning process itselfis affectedby where the tion must go hand and hand. Thus, although the principles
learner is in a progression to increasing expertise and acqui- of learning help us answer the question "What is learning,"
sition of knowledge in a domain. This developmental view they cannot help us answer the question of whether an ex-
oflearning is tied in part to the neurological and biological isting perspective of learning is fully specified or of whether
changes that come with age (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002)' a particular attempt to engineer learning represents a viable

We learn differently at different ages, and the process of operationalization of the construct' What is also required
learning changes, reflecting the accumulation of experiences are criteria that will allow us to judge the manner in which
that give rise to more complex understandings and more intri- core constructs are theorized, modeled or empirically inves-
cate relationships among individuals or the relations between tigated. Toward that end" we offer the dimensions of learning
person and environment (Bereiter, 2002;Wentzel, 1999)' As as components in an interactive framework'

mature individuals, we cannot draw aside the veil of iife ex- Specificaliy, we assert that any comprehensive theoretical
periences to see the world as we did in our childhood' We perspective of learning should be constituted of at least four
may seek to "remember" what we thought or felt, but those dimensions that are continuously interwoven and interactive,
memories are never replications or dupiications' represented by tlte what, where, who, and when of learníng'
 LEARNINGTOPOGRAPHY 181

As we seek to demonstrate, although there may well be other

features to the learning system that merit consideration in
a specific instantiation of learning, these four dimensions
SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS AND
should be viewed as primary (i.e., necessary). Although we PRACTICES
describe each dimension separately, the interactional per-
spective represented by Principle t holds that learning in-
volves the continual interplay of multiple dimensions at any
point or under any circumstance. Indeed, we describe our
rendering of this emergent framework for learning as topo-
graphícal precisely because we think the interplay among SPONTANEOUS CONCEPTS
AND ACTIONS
these four dimensions results in a shape to learning that is
fluid and dynamic, but that also gives rise to discernible and
predictable patterns that are multiply determined.
We acknowledge that current contrasting views of learn-
ing attend to one or more of these dimensions, however tac-
ACQUII{ED HABITS AND
itly. Yet it is also our contention that no existing perspective CONDITTONINGS

of which we are aware has explicitly addressed all four of

these dimensions in any systemic manner. Rather, what we
have determined is that current theoretical orientations cen-
ter on certain dimensions, such as the who and what or the
who and where dimensions. without due consideration for
other equally important facets. Certainly, extant theoretical
perspectives on learning have not dealt with the time di- FIGUR-E I A representation ofinteractive complexification as per-
taining to the what oflearning.
mension, the when, in the innovative way that we do. We
support this contention by demonstrating how seemingly op-
positional views can be subsumed within our broader four- world to scientific concepts and practices that are often the
dimensional framework largely because they are seeking to result of formal education, as illustrated in Figure 1.
explain learning from different vantage points within this These levels are formed from the interplay of various fac-
multidimensional space. tors implicated in the learning process. Those factors, which
Moreover, because much of the emphases within existing can systemically vary in degree (e.g., intensiry frequency, or
theoretical perspectives resides at the juncture of person- magnitude), include but are not limited to the degree to which
environment (i.e., the who-where connection), we have cho- enculturation into a particular social practice is required or
sen to begin discussion with the what of learning and con- the degree to which conscious effort is needed, or the degree
clude with the when of learning, dimensions of seemingly of abstraction or complexity involved. What distinguishes
less import in extant accounts. In our presentation of the the levels of learning to which we refer is üe extent to which
interactive framework, we consider how distinctions among their attainment depends on a particular interplay of these
orientations that might be seen as incommensurate outside salient factors. Because we feared that using an existing term
the purview of our topographical framework can more accu- from the field might carry with it inappropriate connotations,
rately be depicted as differential positions within the vector we coined the term interactive complexification to refer to the
space created by the what,where,who, andwhen diriensions. confluence offactors that give rise to the increasing intricacy
of any given aspect of the products or processes (i.e., the
whats) of learning.
We appreciate that there may be other systems of clas-
Dimension 1: The What of Learning
sifying the what of learning that rely on other features or
A comprehensive rendering oflearning must give due consid- mechanisms than our own interactive complexification; wit-
eration to the objects or foci of that dynamic system (Gius- ness Spiro's (with Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992)
sani, 1995). Th919_ ig atways a what that is being insightful identification of important differences between
igqfr.¿
or that is in the p.o..r, oi ei,áng.. purttiá., iirere is am- well-structured and ill-structured dorlains. We do not view
ple eviifrm:e-ihet ffié objeóis of léaining are distinguishable these alternatives as problematic, provided that they arejus-
and classifiable, and that those differences are significant tified and defensible. Rather, our critical point here is that
in how the process of learning unfoids. For our purposes, theoretical perspectives must take account of the differing
we propose that the whats of learning can be well repre- objects of learning in some manner and not treat learning as
sented as different levels ranging from acquired habits and a unitary process or outcome. For instance, it is not our goal
cbnditioned re sponses, to spontaneous coirta¡ií alá-action to support or refute behaviorism as a theory of learning but
sequences learned in everyday informal interactions with the rather to argue that certain premises underlying a behavior
 182 ALEXANDER,SCHALLERT.REyNOLDS

theory perspective are easier to understand and apply ifone or a food science expert. The role of spontaneous concepts
stays within the realm of acquired habits. When behaviorism and actions is very evident in early literacy deveiopment,
meanders away fron.r this farniliar terrain, it is far iess sustain- as when children begin to acquire print concepts and read-
able, as the history ofpsychology has so clearly demonstrated ing conventions through interactions with those that populate
(Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999). Of course, the same ar- their environment or as a consequence of focused effort.
gument can be directed toward any other theory of learning. When it comes to the third level of the il,izat dimension,
Our contention is that certain conflicts between stances on our choice of the tern scientific concept follows usage in-
learning rest on their disregard ofthis very concern. troduced by Vygotsky (193411986) not to represent concepts
Given this understanding and prior to describing attributes about science as a discipline (or not only about science) but
and characteristics ofthe first level, acquired habits and con- to refer to "languaged" ideas that have become abstracted or
ditionings, we want to acknowledge that all learning has as its generaiized from human interactions and aligned with forrnal
foundation a biological and neurological basis (as represented disciplines or communities of practice. Thus, scientific con-
by the base ofthe irelix in Figure 1 ). Inborn reflexes, abilities, cepts are often associated with intentional learning or formal
and capacities are initiating points for future physical, cog- knowledge (Gardner, 1991), in contrast to spontaneous con-
nitive, and psychosocial development. Whereas such inborn cepts that are, in effect, less formalized understandings often
reflexes, abilities, and capacities are not themselves learned, acquired from everyday experiences (Vygotsky, 193411986)
they represent the primordial matter from which learning and often associated with unintended or incidental learning
emerges over time and space and in fact, remain influential (Reber, 1989; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1984). Thus, as one ex-
across the levels. This continuing influence is depicted as the amines the interactive complexification ofthe "what" dimen-
axis of the helix in Figure 1. sion, there is an increased need for the support and guidance
Consider, for example, what might qualify as inborn re- of others to assist in one's learning (Anderson et a1.,2001;
flexes, abilities, and capacities for the domain of reading-a Cobb, Wood, & Yackel, 1991). We represent this aspect by
domain with which we are intimately familiar. For one, we the enculturation strand ofthe helix in Figure 1.
might regard certain perceptual and visual processes, such In addition, as the learning progresses across levels, there
as the ability to discriminate light and dark areas or to dis- is the real possibility that a successful outcome will neces-
cern objects in the visual field (Gibson, 1966), as among the sitate greater effort exerted across time and place (the effort
hard-wired abilities that support children's later literacy de- strand). Because reading development continues across the
velopment. The ability to see light and dark or shapes comes lifespan, there are many scientific concepts and practices that
with the human system and is, clearly, not reading in itself. corre as individuals engage in increasingly demanding, spe-
Still, developing reading is reliant on these human capacities. cralized, and potentially more abstract print-related activities.
Similarly, the human capacity to find commonalities across For instance, scientific concepts and practices come into play
experiences, to form categories out ofwhat is perceived, and as individuals encounter technical or domain-specific texts
to make cause and effect judgments supports and interacts or are introduced to new genres or new ways of analyzing a
with learning at all levels of interactive complexification. variety of traditional and nontraditional texts.
The first level of the "what" dimension comprises ac- Overall, Figure 1 represents our attempt to portray how
quired habits and conditionings representing simpler learned certain factors irrplicated in learning operate at varying de-
responses to the world that are often more concrete, are less grees and how their changing nature individually and in con-
socialized and may require conscious awareness for a shorter cert (what we call interactive complexificatior) with other
period than other levels. Returning to our literacy example, signifi cant factors constitute distinguishable levels of learn-
within a matter of months, most infants gain the ability to hear ing's objects or foci. As we suggested, we contend that these
and pronounce arange ofphonernes representative ofthe lan- leveis and the interplay of factors they represent encom-
guage around them, even as they learn to hold a book, grasp pass the foci of a rauge of learning perspectives that might
the corner of a page, and turn to the next. These acquired otherwise appear at odds. For instance, the whats that gar-
habits and conditionings will continue to support reading ner much attention frorn behavior theorists would fit well
even as lt progresses across levels. within the acquired habits and conditionings level of our de-
At the next level of the u¡hat model are the spontaneous piction, whereas the interests of sociocultural theorists may
concepts that humans acquire fi'om the extraordinary num- more often nest themselves at the level of scientific con-
ber ofdifferent learning opportunities they encounter, infor- cepts and practices. What developmental theorists might em-
mally or incidentally, over the course of a lifetime-fror¡ phasize in their research, by comparison, is not the u,hats
dressing one's self to engaging in appropriate conversalion, that fall at any one level of our representation, but rather
from cooking a meal to learning how to parent. Such sponta- the process by which individuals progress within and across
neous concepts, with their associated actions and emotions, those levels. Cognitive-evolutionary theorists, like develop-
can acquire the status of scientific concepts and practices, mental theorists, might be drawn to movement across levels,
the rrext level, as when one realizes a love for and interest especially as it pertains to the ever-present influence ofhu-
in cooking and takes up the preparation ofbecoming a chef mans' inborn reflexes, abilities, and capacities on the nature

¡
 LEARNINGTOPOGRAPHY 183

a river system, there are physical elements and tangibles in

the iearning ecology that shape the flow of learning. As well,
there are social and cultural influences that emerge from the
cultural practices and social dynamics in which the learning
is taking place, especially as learning progresses toward the
ievel ofscientific concepts and practices.
Consider, for example, a 1-year-old who has discovered
the wonders of banging a spoon on a highchair tray. At this
point, banging requires a coordination of movement that may
have begun accidentally but quickly developed into a rhyth-
mic movement with its attendant cacopirony of sounds. The
physical context impinging on learning may involve the pro-
cessing of the distance between hand and tray and of how
THE
the spoon fits in the child's hand for maximum effect. At
LEARN
?OF this point, the social/cultural context may include how adults
RNING in the family interpret, react to, and iabel the child's bang-
ing and the particular kind ofhighchair and spoon that have
come to be used in that home. As the child grows older,
the context surrounding drumming may develop to include
what it means to learn to play the drums musically, with
all its related cultural practices. Reading musical notation,
knowing when to quiet a drumhead, and responding to a con-
ductor's subtle direction become contextual features to which
the budding percussionist must appropriately respond, even
as our learner reacts conceptually, motivationally, and emo-
tionally to the degree to which this new skill is appreciated
by the local culture. Moreover, as learning proceeds, what the
learner takes the context to be changes. This ever-changing
interpretation of what exactly is salient and relevant about
the contextual ecology influences the process and products
of learning.
One of many domains in which contextual influences
have been studied is reading. Context has come to mean
FIGURE 2 A model of the interactive nature of the what. where. many things within this domain. It sometimes pertains to the
and who dimensions of learning at time and across time (i.e., the
texts themselves, including their organization, structure, and
when dimension).
features (Chambliss & Calfee, 1998; Meyer & Poon, 2001;
Schallert, 1976). Context can also refer to the physical place
of learning. Further, just as these individual strands contin- in which the reading occurs, such as in the home (Purcell-
ually interact with each other to give the what dtnension Gates, 2007), in the classroom (e.g., reading class or other
its character, so too does the what dimension interact with content domains; Jetton & Alexander, 2004), or ir out-of-
the where, who, and when dimertsions to give learning its school environments (e.g., libraries, museums, or everyday
character, as we will see shortly (see Figure 2). locales; Moje & O'Brien, 200 1). Or it can relate to the mode
or medium of delivery. (e.g., online or hypermedia environ-
ments; Leu et al., 2007). Also, the where of reading can focus
on the human resources that are present and that may serve
Dimension 2: The Where of Learning
to facilitate or inhibit the learning process or its outcomes
Learning does not happen in a vacuum. The where of learn- (Allington, 2001 ; Almasi, 1995).
gjological conrext in which learning occurs.
ing refers to thq_-__+ Finally, as with the other learning dimensions, the where
-ió-fuch "as-
By eco ogi cal co n r eilFáidTéTlriilg
I pri m ary of learning interacts with the u,hat, who, and when (see
pects as the physical environment and the social and cultural Figure 2). To explore just one of these interactions, we want to
milieu that are intertwined and interdependent in their influ- highlight how a learner's relation with context changes over
ence on learning. An interesting characteristic ofthis ecoiogy time. When one is learning something new, the particuiar
is that there is an intermingling of the more concrete with physical environment and social/cultural setting are critical
the more abstract, and of the more physical wit!-úq-rr-fo.fs to how the learning proceeds. In fact, these details ofcontext
social, influencing the learning process at every turn. As in are so critical that often one's initial steDs in learnine will
184 ALEXANDER,SCHALLERT,REYNOLDS

incorporate them as essential components of the learning, the text, combined with their working memory capacity and
leading to learning that seems tied to the situation. Theorists their skill at producing the desired sounds and expressions
of a certain persuasion might claim that all iearning is like apace.
this, situated in particular contexts of practice (Greeno & Another source of influence on learning is represented
van de Sande, 2007). However, exactly because contexts are by learners' motives, intentions, and general psychoiogical
themselves always changing, the learuer must continue to ad- traits. What are learners in a particular learniug situation
just, adapt, and broaden the application ofwhat was learned consciously or unconsciously seeking to accomplish? How
and to respond appropriately to contextual cues in the here do their psychological propensities foster or frustrate those
and now that are close enough but slightly different from the intentions? Much attention has been paid to motivational
context that was in place when learning "began." i and emotional differences among learners. As this,litera-
i ture reminds us, individuals not only manifest different goals
,i for learning, but also ascribe different values_ to learning,
Dimension 3: The Who of Learning ' have varied expectations for success (Linnenbrink & Pin-
With the n,/zo dimension, we are pointing to how learning is trich, 2003; Pintrich & Schrauben,1992; Wigfield & Eccles,
influenced by characteristics ofthe learner along biological, 2000), and experience different emotions during the pro-
cognitive, experiential (including individual and cultural ex- cess (Damasio, 2005; Pekrun, Goetz,Titz, &Petry,2002)'
perience), and affective (motivation/emotion) lines. Furthe¡ Different psychological traits (e.g., persistence or extrover-
we acknowledge that the particulars of all that a learnerbrings sion) influence the learning of individuals even when they
to a situation critically influence the process and product of find themselves more or less in the same physical context
learning. Indee{ over time humans have evolved a number confronting the same cognitive task (Matthews, Zeidner, &
of innate learning capacities that have helped them become Roberts. 2006).
more efficient and effective learners, thus enabling them to The motives, intentions, emotiqnal states, and interests of
survive and prosper in their ecological niche. For example, readers háVe'!áinered increasin!-attention in the last decade
humans appear to have a capacity to distinguish between a (Guthrie & Cox, 2001 ; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). This grow-
temporal string of nonrelated stimuli and a similarly appear- ing presence has illustrated that those who perform well at
ing string that displays a series ofcause and effect relations a given reading task or who manifest a positive learning
(Bj orklund & Pellegrini, 2002; Kant, 17 81 I 1963). trajectory in the domain have more than the neurophysio-
As we begin to explicate this dimension, we are aware logical basics. They also have a reported interest in read-
that a frequent interpretation of learner characteristics aligns ing generally or in the particular domain or topic of the
itself with measuring individual differences in achievement text (Wade, 2001). They are more likely to report an orien-
or performance on high-stakes exams. Because our focus is tation toward learning about the domain/topic than toward
on learning, we want to make explicit the distinction be- simply doing adequately on the task (Hidi & Harackiewicz,
tween learning and achievement, concepts that we think have 2000). They are also more apt to hold beliefs about them-
been conflated in the educational and psychological litera- .selves as readers and about reading that will sustain them
tures (Alexander & Riconscente, 2005). Because achieve- ,,., ánd promote their cognitive and affective engagement (Dai &
ment test scores measure performance and not learning per
: Wanga,2007).
se, they include measures of factors not representative of r' Another examole of learner characteristics that come into
learning either as process or product. play in descriptions oflearning is individuals' previous learn-
The kinds of learner-ctaracteristics that we consider im- ing, the relevant knowledge they have acquired that they bring
portant are several. First, there are the biophysic4l charac- to bear in a particular learning situation (Anderson, Reynolds,
teristics. We acknowle-{ge that simply by virfúé of evolved Schallert, & Goetz, 1977).lMe point to the extremely prolific
biology and how humans are wired" who the learner is plays a research on how prior knowledge influences learning. The
criticai role in the learning process. The embodied conscious- particular interface between what one knows and what one
ness that represents the human learner cannot help but shape is learning intirnately influences what is understood from the
the learning process (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Also, there interaction and what one takes away from it.
are cognitive y*iili:"1 for nearly svery human characteris- In an interesting study that combined two of these ways of
rlc-Igr bxample, atfhougÉ it is trighty uniiiiéty-f6fñd?pérson differentiating learners, Walker (1981) compared army en-
with more than three times the normal working memory ca- listed personnel who were either high or low in aptitude to
pacity, there is always variation in working memory across learn (based on scores on a standardized ability measure) and
humans, as well as in the capacities of the brain to process high or low in knowledge ofbaseball (based on responses to
information effrciently, These differences can be detected in factual questions about the game) on how well they remem-
both the processes and products of learning. Take reading bered an oral play-by-play of a half inning of a fictitious
' basebail game. Results indicated that participants with high
as a case in point. There has been great interest in fluency
'baseball knowledge did better than those with low baseball
within recent reading research. Readers' fluency is associ-
ated in part with the graphophonemic abilities they bring to ; knor,iledge
whether they came from the high- or low-ability
 LEARNINGTOPOGRAPHY 185

groups. In fact, within the high-knowledge groups, low- the course of time that is of importance can be millemia or
ability recruits recalled as much of the piay-by-piay account eras, as their primary concern is the mental adaptation and
as high-ability learners, and the low-ability/high-knowledge the consequent development of the human species as a result
group outperformed the high-ability/low-knowledge group. of mutation and natural selection. Thus, one might study
Walker's study is interesting in the context of our con- aspects of learning that are biologically primary (numeracy)
sideration of the importance of learner characteristics be- or secondary (reading) or the role of evolved adaptation in
cause it juxtaposed two different ways of thinking of how human development (Ellis & Bjorklund 2005; Geary, 2005;
learners can differ from one another. There are many other Pinke¡ 2002; Reynolds & Sinatra, 2005).
studies, some to which we have been intimately connected From sociocultural perspectives, time is framed by the his-
that have demonstrated the clear impact that prior knowledge tory of a particular group, which could encompass months,
can have on learning something new (Alexander & Murphy, years, or even centuries. Thus, one might study the cookie-
1998; Anderson et al., 1977' Goetz, Schallert, Reynolds, & selling practices of Girl Scouts (Rogoff, 1990), the ways in
Radin, 1983; Reynolds, Taylor, Steffensen, Shirey, & Ander- which graduate students come to adopt the proper stances,
son, 1982). In a review ofthe theoretical and empirical liter- idiom, and understandings of a discipline (Fox, I 994), or the
ature on knowledge, Alexander, Schallert, and Hare (1991) meaning and import of literacy to individuals born at different
offered a synthesis of the myriad of constructs associated points in the 20th century (Brandt,2001). The time perspec-
with prior knowledge and showed how these interacted with tive of developmental psychologists, by comparison, is the
each other. human life span and the predictable neurobiological, motor,
We close our discussion of this dimension with a point we cognitive, socioemotional changes that come with matura-
have made in our descriptions of the what andwhere dimen- tion and experience. The characteristics ofyoung children as
sions. As we depict in Figure 2, the who dimension interacts learners may be compared to those of older children, ado-
with all other dimensions so that particular characteristics lescents, or adults. By comparison, theoretical perspectives
ofthe learner are emphasized or deemphasized through in- concerned with learning in sifu appear more concentrated on
teraction with what is being learned, in what context, and at the immediate temporal unfolding and on how words, ac-
different points in time. In effect, because people as learners tions, or cultural artifacts are plied by individuals or groups
differ greatly, different facets of the who are instantiated or j' around shared problems or tasks. Time plays another role
become more salient as the particulars of the what andwhen in certain orientations when learning is attributed to the fre-
of learning unfold in time and space. quency with which individuals encounter certain conditions
or are embedded in particular experiences. Here, it is not time
itself that matters but the flow of experiences or the avail-
Dimension 4: The When of Learning
ability of human and nonhuman resources that come with the
Others have recognized, in their way, the what, who, and flow of time.
where dimensions of human learning (Jenkins, 1974). How- The intersection of these time orientations with the what,
ever, the fourth dimension in our topography has received who, and where dimensions of learning can be well illus-
less consideration especially in interaction with the afore- trated in the study of expertise development within complex
mentioned learning dimensions. Yet just as learning does not domains (Alexande¡ 2003; Spiro et al.,1992). For one, the
occur in a vacuum, there is always a temporal nature to learn- ability of individuals to move out of a state of acclimation or
ing. As humans, our movements in the world are inevitably naiveté in any field is predicated in part on their level ofneu-
constrained both by time and space. With each impercepti- rological and biological development; that is, the mind and
ble moment, the frame for learning has shifted" nót merely body must be at some sufflcient level of maturation or expe-
because the place itself has changed (e.g., light refractions rience to benefit from any potentially educative event. Also,
or creature movements), but because the learner himself or there are characteristics of the learner (the who) that become
herself has changed, however inconspicuously, from Time I relevant in such development in that individuals may be more
to Time 2. Thus, a learning moment can never be duplicated, or less predisposed to the neurobiological, physical, cogni-
only approximated. It is precisely because of the invasiveness tive, social, and motivational demands associated with any
of time throughout this topography that we conceive of it as particular domain. That is why individuals can be positioned
a force that must be addressed. at significantly different points in expertise development for
We find that different renderings have in their purview, each and every complex domain. The same person may well
though rarely explicitly, many iterations and variations on the be acclimated in physics, competent in statistics, but expert
dimension of time, each representing different gradations in in linguistics.
the span of time considered or the distributions of events or Moreover, the human and nonhuman resources that in-
the number of relevant experiences within a given interval of dividuals will require will shift as they gain facility in the
time. Consider the time frames of evolutionary theories vis- domain and as central principles of the domain become part
á-vis sociocultural, cognitive-contextual, developmental, and of their knowledge core. Of course, it is also assumed that the
situated perspectives on learning. For evolutionary theorists, journey toward expertise means that the objects of learning
I
I

f
i
f
t
 186 ALEXANDER,SCHALLERT,REYNoLDS

become increasingly more complex and that the processes cornplexities that a real learning situation would bring with
and products of learning mirror that growing complexity. it. Learning is often so associated with formal instructional
Also, it is well documented that the attainment of expertise settings that it is easy to forget how ubiquitous it is. Testing
in any complex domain requires an extended period many our developing notions about learning against different kinds
thousands of relevant exposures, and the tapping into the of real-world situations challenges us to see whether our
knowledge of others (either with or without their explicit views are broad, comprehensive, and justifiable. The three
support and guidance) who have likewise attained expertise exarnples we chose involve different kinds oflearners, each
in that domain (Ericsson & Smith, 1991). learning something at different levels and in different places
and times. For each case, we attempt to establish why it
represents learning and how it sits at the nexus of the primary
LEARNING DEFINED dimensions within our topographical framework.

Now with the principles and dimensions of learning in place,

Case 1 : Biting Into a Cherry
we are ready to propose a definition oflearning that operates
inconcertwiththoseprinciplesanddimensions. When Diane's son, Robbie, was barely 2years ol4 he had
acquired some degree of experience with eating an array of
{' Learning is a multidimensional process that results in a rel- "adult" foods. One might even say that he was skilled at
atively enduring change in a person or persons, and conse- bringing a spoon up to his mouth and swallowing yogurt
i quently how that person or persons will perceive the world or cereal he had scooped onto it from a bowl. Yet it often
and reciprocally respond to its affordances physically,psy- happened that he would face some new substance and would
r lholo.eiSlly, its
and socially. The process of learning has as have to learn about it, not only whether it was edible but also
..- foundation the systemic, dynamic, and interactive relation such characteristics as how it looked, how one should hold it
, learn-
between the nature of the learner and the object of the
to eat it, what to do with it in the mouth, and how it tasted.
', well
ing as ecologically situated in a given time and place as
ón a particul ar day,Robbie grabbed a cherry as his mother
{ as over time.
\ looked on, popped it into his mouth, and bit down. What
within formal logic, it is considered essential.not just to -"t":r:Tilr;.üff:::?"":1il#:t_':*1:ffi;*iljs|;
establish what a thing is' but also to note what it is not (i'e',
oi ri,*p surprise he displayed
as his teeth met the pit of the
antinomy)' Similarly' we think that our definition of learn- shaight on. It was clear that he had not .predicted,, a
ing would be inadequate if we were unable to speci$r some "rr"ro
aspects of what learning is not' The principles that we pre-
,i"..y pit and that he did not, in some essential way, know
rro* to eat a cherry. where an adult carefu[y, albeit often
viously proffered serve us in this endeavor because t:ttT
automaticatty, negotiates the teeth around the center of the
characteristics of "not learning" are implicitly or explicitly
and squeezes down making sure that the juice of the
stated within those principles' First, all innate capacities, "ir.r.y
aui, ,,uy, inside the lips, Robbie had bit hard into the center
those genetically and biologically programmed inborn as-
oith" and had made bright red juice spurt out down
pects of our humanness' influence learning but are in. and "t "..y
the front of his Tshirt. Even by his second cherry he was
of themselves outside the parameters of learning as we have
conceptualized it' second' and related to the issue,ofinnate- -ár" in biting, more careful about the mess of the
juice, "uutio.rs
ana more eager to reproduce the taste ofthe fruit. He
ness' the biological/neurological maturation of the human
iu¿ t"urn"¿ how to eat cherries, or more accuratery, how not
organism in and of itself does not constitute learning' Third,
io ,h"., adjusting his teeth and lips so as to avoid painful
the simple recall of that which was previously learned does "u,
not constitute learning per se; only when recall results in "ff.",r.
some new connguration or change does it
T".15_t.::] "r,ff::1Ht-:""ffi1:x'J[:l1ffX,Tl;ü:ff,:ff,*H:
of learning' Finally' although as sensory beings, humans are
tá the of the punishing stimulation coming from the
I in continual physical contact with the world.aroundthem, "ffect
puin orbiting into a hard substance and of spoiling his fa-
' gnly wfien those experiences leave some relatively enduring íJlr" T-shirt with red cherry 1uice. what he had to learn in
footprint do they fall within the realm of learning as we have .
' I rr.';, ,ituution-how to chew and how to position his mouth
defined it'
L*ith this new food---could not easily be acquired by imitation
f as most of what needed to be discovered was hidden from
- ¡ view. Yet his own physical sensations could..teach', him what
TOUCHSTONE CASES \ ,o do in this case.
-
rt is easy when deaiing with tundamental construcrs that .",.T:xT,t:X?;m::T1Hl"1H:iiffiJj:J:J:i;
describe human functioning to remain at an abstract level picnic table on the family patio, the p."r.nr" of his mom and
that does not allow for a valid test ofnotions against the dad,thesmellsandtastesofthefood,orthepainofhavine
 LEARNINGTOPOGRAPHY 187

bit into it wrong) and the social/cultural context (e.9., that would stop the traffic, immediately ascertaining that there
his family loved cherries, that they saw them as a treat, or were none in sight. Next, he looked for a corner from which
that they ate them directly out of a bowl) influenced whether to cross, only to discover that, although some corners did in-
he would want to have a cherry again, let alone know how to deed have pedestrian crossing markings, the people driving
eat it. His learning was shaped by who he was as a learner of the cars seemed to pay no attention to them, never stopping
cherry eating, his motives and likes, his ability to figure out or even reducing speed. Hesitating as to what to do next,
how to position body parts so as to avoid pain and gain tasty he noticed that the native Romans were crossing the street,
sensations, his current level of maturation and knowledge albeit quickly and with great agility, by simply wading into
development about this small domain, his favored status in the traffic, crossing one lane at a time whenever even the
his indulgent parents' eyes, and a host of other characteris- smallest traffic gap occurred, standing on the lane marker
tics that made him learn as he did on that particular occasion. when their progress stalled" and moving ahead when another
Finally, because of his age and the number of times he had opening came. The only people stuck on the curb seemed to
previously eaten a cherry, a trajectory to his learning could be tourists. He watched for another minute, iaunched into the
be envisioned even then. Now at the age of 30, Robbie can traffic crossing as the natives had crossed" and soon found
eat cherries with the best of them. himself on the other side of the street.
The acquired habit and conditioned response this chiid Some of the same well-learned motor and sensory-
had learned would be immediately understood by a learning perceptual skills acquired as part of his American street-
theorist coming from a behaviorist perspective, although the crossing schema had served him well. However, Ralph had
details ofcontext, personal motives, and interpretations ofthe learned a host ofnew things about crossing a street from his
experience would likely be seen as unnecessary and distract- experience in Rome, changes in how he should propel him-
ing. Such a view might even downplay the importance of the self, staccato-style, across the street, attitudes about stepping
maturational level of the learner even as it placed emphasis into traffic, signs that it was acceptable to force himself into
on the feedback loop created by the pain sensations (and in traffic in this way, and appreciation of the drivers' intentions
less restrictive versions ofthe theory the frustration ofhav- to maneuver aroundpedestrians. In this new context, fhe how
ing spoiled a favorite shirt) on the acquisition ofthe proper ofcrossing the street certainly had been changed. The speed
behavioral production routines. By contrast, a sociocultural with which he had learned the new procedure was remark-
view might emphasize the meaning of a family picnic as a able, reflecting some of his abilities as an athlete and his
context to a child being introduced to a new food while over- sangfroid in a new situation. By the time his wife, Bonnie,
looking, perhaps, the working out of the proper lip, teeth, joined him from the States a few days later, he had become
and tongue movements required in eating a cherry properly. extremely adept at crossing the street and was surprised at
A cognitive-constructivist, on the other hand, might employ her reluctance when he tried to take her hand and help her
this case to illustrate the manner in which Robbie's lack of cross the street, Roman style. She reacted by pulling her
experience and his still emerging schema for fruiteating led hand out of his with a look of alarm and resolutely remained
to the undesired event and how this particular experience stuck to the curb watching him show offhis newly acquired
would likely add salient information to his mental model for skill. With all the differences between them relative to this
cherry consumption. particular learning occasion, it is perhaps not surprising that
Bonnie resisted somewhat longer in adopting the "Roman"
street-crossing routine, but soon came to see this response as
Case 2: Crossing the Via dei Fori lmperiali necessary and not as life-threatening as she initially thought.
in Rome To us, this case is a useful illustration of learning for
In the second case, we describe what happened when Ralph, multiple reasons. We see that the what of the learning has
on a first visit to Rome, had the occasion to cross one of the many of the features of spontaneous concepts and actions
major streets in Rome. Taking off on foot from his hotel, he discussed earlier. Being nested in the current physical and
had already spent several hours navigating the ruins ofthe old cultural context of Rome and heeding the movements and
Forum when he decided to visit the Piazza Campo de Fiori behaviors of those around him proved sufficient for Ralph-
designed by Michelangelo. Nothing particularly remarkable an experienced traveler-to master the art of Roman street
happened as he crossed several smaller streets on his way crossing. No
but then he came to an extremely large street, Via dei Fori and none was required. In terms of the where dimension, it
Imperiali, six lanes wide with vehicles crowding every lane is@ pedestrian conventions were not
and moving at a daunting rate of speed. broadly generalizable but rather more closely tied to a given
Although critical elements of Ralph's well-learne{ Amer- local context. Ralph and Bonnie knew immediately that to
ican street-crossing schema did not seem to apply, they did try crossing a street in Los Angeles, New York, or London
guide his attention in the search for a solution, a process that in the Roman way wouid lead to the disaster anticipated by
in this rendering may seem much more protracted and analyt- Bonnie on her first attempt in Rome. Still, there is every
ical than it actually was. First, he looked for a streetlight that reason to assume that Ralph and Bonnie will not soon forget
 188 ALEXANDER.SCHALLERT,REYNOLDS

the routine they had acquired and this durability is further tion in the editorial process. Students learn the imperative
evidence that learning had, indeed, taken place. of meeting all editorial and production deadlines, the value
Different aspects of this case would likely be appealing of conceptual precision and writing clarity in their own and
to those holding to diverse perspectives on learning. For in- others' manuscripts, and the importance of using appropri-
stance, situated cognitivists would find intriguing Ralph's ate methodological treatments of data. Even lst-year students
reading of the immediate context and of the affordances it learn as they apprentice in the process, and they gain the finer
provided and would focus on how and why Ralph responded nuances of these general practices as they advance in their
as he did at that given moment. Conversely, a sociocultur- studies and participate in discussion, critique, and production
alist might be drawn to the street crossing routine that a cycles.
"foreigner" might need to adopt in order to function within We included this case because the learning involved is
this environment, focusing on the coregulations occurring different from that described in the first two cases, cases that
between walkers and drivers navigating the Via dei Fori Im- dealt with learning at the levels of acquired habits and con-
periali at the same time. A cognitive-constructivist might ditionings and of spontaneous concepts and actions. In the
be interested in the knowledge that Ralph and Bonnie ac- cherry pit and crossing the street cases, the learning occurred
quired from this experience, and how each of their existing rather quickly, was more concrete than abstract, and required
conceptions ofstreet crossing interacted with the new expe- conscious effort for only a short to moderate duration. The
rience and was changed, either moderately or radically, as a learning described in this case fits best into our third learning
result of this memorable occasion. A cognitive-evolutionist, level, scientific concepts and practices. Hence, it illustrates
by comparison, might be fascinated with the way in which learning that occurs over a long period requires considerable
Ralph, as representative ofhis species, had the capability to effort and involves a relatively high level of abstraction. Also,
deal with the myriad of stimuli bombarding him in this mod- whereas learning in the first two cases could be viewed as
ern urban setting, to discern a sophisticated pattern within primarily individual and experiential, this level of learning is
that myriad of stimuli, and to respond adroitly to the causal best accomplished with the involvement of more knowledge-
implications suggested by the emerging pattern in a manner able others who can mentor the beginner across what may at
that ensured his survival and achieved his eoals. times be very large gaps in knowledge.
What Patricia's students experience in the Disciplined
Reading and Disciplined Learning Research Laboratory the
' Case 3: Learning to Write an Academic Paper in
ways that emerging scholars learn to write for their disci-
a New Discipline
plinary communiry has in fact been described frequently in
In our third case, we focus on a critical task that students face the composition literature. For example, in a classic piece,
when admitted to graduate school, learning how to write in Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988) described the
ways deemed acceptable to the field. Patricia's office at the history of a doctoral student as he experienced the sometimes
University of Maryland is normally full of activity, with stu- painful transformation of losing the style of his English lit-
dents and colleagues dropping by frequently to ask questions erature undergraduate major and acquiring appropriate ways
and share observations and insights. The atmosphere is gen- of conceiving of evidence and presenting it adequately for
erally upbeat and highly interactive. However, this apparent a social science academic journal. As the student reported
informality belies the serious nature of the learning taking there was a period during that lst year of his academic stud-
place. Like many doctoral students elsewhere, Patricia's stu- ies when he felt that he was losing himself even as he was
dents must learn to write forpublication in their field and, for learning what to attend to and how to write about it that made
those involved more closely in assisting her in her editorial up his new discipline.
duties, they must develop the skills and insights about aca- Similarly, reporting on years of intensive observation and
demic writing that come from being involved in the complex disciplined analysis, Fox (1994) delineated the difficulties
role of editorial assistant. that international students experienced as they learned not
What Patricia's students are required to master include the only to adopt the style appropriate to their discipline but
syntactic and stylistic conventions and regulations of pub- also the ways that feedback about writing was provided in
lishing in their field (i.e., APA style). Learning to write for this country, self-assured, direct, even abrupt. Prior (1995)
these doctoral students takes the form of frequent interac- documented the processes in which a new graduate student
tions around issues of publication, writing, and the selec- engaged as she learned to write a conference proposal with
tion of appropriate publication outlets in an interactive cy- her major advisor, at first simply taking every suggestion
cle ofgenerating ideas, interpreting research findings, draft- as a sign that her advisor knew so much more than she did
ing manuscripts, jointly critiquing and editing papers, and about what to say and how to say it in the proposal. Slowly
producing publication-ready manuscripts. This cycle reoc- as she continued to work with her advisor, she acquired the
curs frequently as Patricia's students learn the skills and knowledge of current issues in the field the language ap-
concepts necessary to help her in her editorial enterprises. propriate to their expression, and the confidence to resist at
Learning in this situation is the product of active participa- least some of the advisor's suggestions as she came to know
 LEARNrNGropocRApHy 189

and care more about what was being said and how it was to offer a criterial framework against which theoretical per-
being said. spectives and empirical investigations on learning can be as-
We consider this progression in graduate students to be sessed. Throughout the discussion, we adopted the metaphor
learning because students' abilities to write are significantly of a river system as a clear reminder that learning, like the
transformed over the span of a few years. Learning seems rive¡ operates as part of a dynamic system that is continu-
clearly evident when graduate students move from turning ously and reciprocally transformed through the interactions
in their first course paper to the point of writing a first- of its constituent parts. Thus, understanding the essence of
authored or sole-authored publication. When they graduate, human learning demands a consideration of its primary di-
they eventually find they can use the knowledge they liave mensions not as independent contributors to the products and
acquired in graduate school to guide their own students in processes of learning but as inseparable aspects of an intri-
the process of academic writing even as they continue to cate and fluid system. We represented our understanding of
learn their craft. What it is that a graduate student is learning the human learning in a topographical framework, a quad-
about writing includes some aspects that may be relatively rangulation based on the convergence of the what, where,
simple to master (e.g., style of citation format) as well as who, andwhen dimensions of learning. Along with these in-
more subtle and difficult conventions for deciding how to teractive dimensions, our topographical mapping has as its
frame an argument, whom to cite when doing so, which legend nine principles oflearning that are arguably core to all
stance to indicate vis-á-vis a particular finding, and when to manner ofperspectives, even those that consider distinct lev-
deem any particular section ofa paper as "done." In essence, els of learning (the whats) for diverse individuals (the who)
Patricia's students have to learn how to deploy the scientific learning at markedly different places (the where) and times
concepts and practices of their field in their own writing. (the when).
These practices reflect historically situated and continually A value of our framework is that it disturbs existing
evolving conventions and standards for scholarly writings. views of learning, which remains a fundamental construct
It is hard to imagine what facets of our third case a behav- within educational theory and practice. The multidimen-
iorist would find informative or appealing, except perhaps to sional framework we have advanced offers a different ap-
focus on the relation between the feedback students receive proach to considering the views and assumptions of existing,
and the accolades given (e.g., coauthorship) as critical rein- even competing, perspectives on learning. It does so by al-
forcement that would sustain their efforts over the years. To a lowing us to position more precisely the purviews of these
cognitive-contextualist, a student's journey toward expertise varied perspectives and thus appreciate better what they do
as a writer would prove especially compelling, particularly in and do not address about the nature of learning. Moreover,
terms of the transformations in knowledge, problem solving, our criterial framework allows us to understand that argu-
and motivations that would unfold over the developmental ments among different theoretical perspectives may often
course. A socioculturalist would be interested in describing reflect their theoretical geopositioning and, thus, their inabil-
how students had appropriated the cultural practices of the ity to see learning from the vantage point of rival "camps."
field (i.e., became enculturated), even as they changed not Thus, one perspective may be particularly helpful at describ-
only the local culture of the program but also, eventually, ing the acquisition of scientific concepts in children new to
the wider culture as they achieved greater status within their the cultural setting of school by means of the rich interplay
field. Perhaps for the social-constructivist, the scaffolding with more knowledgeable, sometimes more powerful, others
invited by students and provided by Patricia and more ad- in the setting (sociocultural views). By contrast, another per-
vanced students during the graduate school experience would spective may prove more informative about the manner in
be the point ofanalysis in this learning case. To the iognitive- which individuals acquire habits and conditionings through
evolutionist, areas of interest would include students'ability their interaction with the given environment and the stimuli
to adapt productively to this new situation, to set viable goals, it affords (behavior theory).
and engage in activities to achieve them, to use background As stated, our intention was not simply to illustrate how
knowledge and innate capacities to understand and instanti- varied and contrasting views of learning can coexist within
ate what they are learning. Of course, the outcomes of this the multidimensional map we constructed. Rather, we see
learning and their success in their new field would enhance the resulting framework as serving an evaluative function as
their ability to procure the necessities of survival, within a well. What the criterial framework reminds us is that existing
suitable academic institution. perspectives differentially attend to the what, u,here, who,
and when dimensions of learning. Further, to be regarded as
comprehensive, we hold that some consideration of each of
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS these dimensions is warranted. Should the whaf dimension
be overlooked or the when dimension disregarded, then we
Our overarching intention in this anaiysis was to consider would consider that perspective to be underspecified and po-
deeply the notion of learning and in so doing, to advance tentialiy, nonviable. What the criterial framework also serves
a fresh perspective on this foundational construct as well as to remind us it that no "grand theory" of learning exists and
190 ALExANDER,ScHALLERI-,REYNoLDS

that any effort to formulate such a grand theory must not oniy ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
incorporate each and every dimension, but must also encom-
pass all levels or variations of those dimensions. To explain We acknowledge the contributions of Paul E. Cobb and
only acquired habits at the expense ofscientific concepts, or Richard C. Anderson for their comments on an earlier ver-
to disregard the role of innate capacities in learners' subse- sion of this article. We also thank Daniel Dinsmore, Emily
quent development is, in effect, to relegate a perspective to Fox, Lily Fountain, Liiiana Maggioni, and Fielding Winters
only a particular corner of learning's vast and complex land- at the University of Maryland" and Marilla Svinicki, Daniel
scape. We appreciate that there are even more fine-grained Robinson, Michelle Jordan, An Chih (Janne) Chang, and
analyses required if one seeks to judge the viability of learn- Ayshegul Mussallam at the University of Texas at Austin for
ing theories and models that are subsumed in the broader their thoushts and recommendations on this work.
theoretical families we have targeted here. Nonetheless, we
contend that our theoretical framework represents a critical
first step. REFERENCES
A final contribution of our framework is that it includes
attention to dimensions that have often been underempha- Alexande¡ P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain
sized in other conceptions of learning. For example, the par- learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces.
In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
ticular strands that make up our own approach to the what
achievement (Vol. 10, pp.213150). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
dimension, the increasing complexification along continua Alexander, P A. (2003). The development of expertise: The joumey from
ofenculturation, effort, and abstraction, represent, we think, acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researchea 3 2(8), 10-1 4.
a potentially generative way to differentiate the objects of Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The research base for APA's
learning. Also, the when dimension, we assert, has not been learner-centered principles. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.),
Isntes ín school reform: A sampler of psychological perspectives on
previously elaborated to the level we advance here. What fol-
learner-centered schools (pp.25-60). Washington, DC: American Psy-
lows from having represented learning to this level ofspeci- chological Association.
ficity is that heretofore overlooked quadrants ofthe learning Alexande¡ P. A., & Riconscente, M. M. (2005) A matter of proof: Why
landscape may now be fruitfully incorporated in future con- achievement I learning. In J. S. Ca¡lson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Zfte No
siderations. Our claim is that were we to mark where in our Child Left Behind, legíslation: Educatíonal research and federal funding
(pp. 27-36). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
framework current and past explorations have proliferated"
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V C. (1991). Coming to terms:
we would at the same time identify the "dark lands," the un- How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of
chartered territory at the nexus of the four dimensions that Educational Research. 6 l. 3 15143.
merit attention by the research community. Allington, R. (2001). Llrhat really matters for struggling readers.New York:
There were many reasons why the three of us first em- Addison-Wesley.
Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature offourth graders'sociocognitive conflict
barked on this challenging and uncertain expedition to map
in peerJed and teacher-led discussions of literatu¡e. Reading Research
learning's landscape. As we noted at the outset, the con-
Quarte rly, 3 0, 3 | 4-35 1.
struct oflearning has been comfortable territory for each of Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion ofschemata and the educational enter-
us for decades. Yet we thought that there was much about prise. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling
learning that we had come to take for granted or that we and the acquisition of lvtowledge (pp. al5-a3l). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim,
simply had overlooked, sidestepped, or even avoided in the
S.-Y., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of
course of our work. By embarking with those who viewed ways oftalking and ways ofthinking across groups ofchildren. Cognition
the terrain differently, we hoped that we could be prompted and Instruction, 19, 146.
to see what we had individually overlooked or be urged to Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert,D.L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977).
visit empirical and theoretical places that were too daunting Frameworks for comprehending discourse. Atnerican Educational Re-
search Journal, I 4, 367 -381.
to visit alone. On the whole, we think that the resulting to-
Bargh, J. ,A.., & Chartrand T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of
pographical map has much to offer, as the prior discussion being. American Psychologist, 54, 462479.
suggests. Yet, for all the exertion, we recognize that the re- Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's World
sulting charting is but a starting point, as first mappings must 3. Educational Researcher, 2 3(7), 2l-23.
be. What becomes of our charting is dependent on factors Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and ntind in the knowledge age. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
that are well outside our control, such as whether others, es-
Berkenkotte¡ C., Huckin, T. N., & Ackerman, J. ( I 988). Conventions, con-
pecially those who perceive the landscape differently, find versations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D.
our conception of the principles and dimensions useful in program. Research in the kaching of English, 22(1),941 .
theirjourneys into the terrain of learning, or whether others Bjorklund. D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). The origins of human na-
will feel the wanderlust we experienced and similarly em- Íure : Evr¡lutionar), developmental psychologt,. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
bark on such a mapping expedition, or whether the tools and
Brandt, D. (20O1). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
equipment required to probe wider and deeper into the learn- University Press.
ing landscape are currently available or will be forged in the Bransford, J. D (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding, and
near future. remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
 LEARNINGTOPOGRAPHY 191

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. ( 1999). I1ow people learn: Jetton, T. L, & Alexande¡ P A. (2004). Domains, pedagog¡ and literacy. In
Brain, núnd, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.),,4 dolescent literucy research and practice
Press. (pp. l5-39). New York: Guilford.
Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooksfor leaning: Nurturing Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and efforr. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: prentice-
childrenb minds. Oxforl UK: Blackwell. Hall.
Chomsky, N. ( I 957 ). Svntactic structures. TheHague, Netherlands: Mouton. Kant, I. (1963). Critiqtte of pure reason. (N Kemp Smith, trans.) London:
Clark, J. E. ( 1994). Motor development. In V S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Ency Macmillan. (Original work published 1787)
clopedia of human behavior (Yol.3, pp.245-255). New York: Academic Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philo,sophy in thefesh: The embodied
Press. mind and its challenge to Western thought.New York: HarperCollins.
Cobb, P (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural per- Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y,
spectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 2 3(7 ), et al. (2007). What is new about the new literacies of onhne reading
t3-20. comprehension? In L. Rush, J. Eakle, & A. Berger (Eds.). Secondary
Cobb, P (2008, March) Commentary. In P. A. Alexander (Chair), What is school lilerac),: What research reveals for classroom practices (pp.37-
learning arylilay? Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the 68). Urbana, IL: National Council ofTeachers ofEnglish.
American Educational Research Association, New York. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs
Cobb, P, Wood, T., & \'ackel, E. (1991). Analogies from the philosophy and in student engagement and learning in the classroom . Reading and llriting
sociology ofscience for understanding classroom life. Science Education, Quarterly, I 9, 119-137.
75(1),2344. Matthews, G., Zeidne¡ M., & Richards, R. D. (2006). Models of personality
Cole, M., & Engestróm, Y (1993). A cultural-historical approach to dis- and affect for education: A review and synthesis. In P. A. Alexander &
tributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed,.), Distributed cognitíon: Psycho- P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psl,chology (2nd ed., pp.
logical and educational considerations (pp. l-46). Cambridge, England: 163-186). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Resisting the assault on science: The case for evidence-
,pai, D. Y, & Wanga, X. (2007). The role of need for cognition and reader based reasoning in educational ¡esearch. Educational Researcher, 30(7),
.",.beliefs
in text comprehension and interest development. Contemporary 29-30.
Educational Psychology, 3 2, 332-347 . Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L., W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training
Damasio, A. (2005). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
órain. New York: Penguin Group. 141-159.
Donal4 M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution Moje, E. 8., & O'Brien, D. G. (Eds.). (2001). Constructions of literacy:
of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Studies ofliteracy teaching and learning in and out ofsecondaü, schools.
Eisner, E. V¿ (1997). The promise and perils ofalternative forms ofdata Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
representation. Educational Researchea 2 6(6), 4-10. Mount, J. F. (1995). California rivers and streams: The confict between
Ellis, B. J., & Bjorklund, D. F (Eds.). (2005). Origins of the social mind: fit:ial process and land use. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Evohrtionary psychology and child development. New York: Guilford. Murphy, P K., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and changing
Epstein, S. (2001). The rationality debate from the perspective ofcognitive- beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
experiential self+heory. Behavioral and Brain Science, 23, 6'71- psychology (2nd ed,.,pp.305-324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6'73. Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psycho-
Ericsson, K.A.., & Smith, J. (199I). Toward a general theory ofexpertise: Iogical Review, 7 5, 522-536.
Prospects and limits. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions
Fiavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant's comments: What is memory devel- in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of
opment the development of! Huntan Development, 14,272-278. qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 3 7, 91-
Fox,H. (1994).'Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. l 05.
Urbana, IL: National Council ofTeachers ofEnglish. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought ofthe child. New York: Kegan
Gage, N. L. (1991). The obviousness of social and educational research Paul.
rcsults. E duc a t i o na I Re s e a rc he r, 2 0(1 ), | 0-1 6. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial ofhuman nature.New
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. NewYo¡k: Basic Books. York: Viking.
Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin ofntind: Evolution ofbrain, cognitíon, and Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben,B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and
general intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychologlcal Associa- their cognitive engagement in classroom tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece
tron. (Eds.), Sfudent perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The sen.ses considereel as perceptual q)sfems. Boston: (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Houghton-Miffiin. Plotkin, H. C. (1998). Evolution in mind: An inh'oduction to evolutionay
Giussani, L. (1995). The risk <tfeducation: Discovering our ultimate destiny. psychologt,. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
New Yotk: Crossroad. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Radin, D. I. (1983). Reading Prior, P (l 995). Tracing authoritative and internally persuasive discourses: A
in perspective: What real cops and pretend burglars look for in a story case study ofresponse, revision, and disciplinary enculturation. Reseurch
Journul oJ Educational Ps1,cholog1,, ZJ, 500-5I0. in the Teaching ofEnglish, 29,288-325.
Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding ofcon- Purcell-Gates, V (Ed.). (2007). Cultural pactices o.fliteracy: Case studies
ceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, of language, literac¡,, 5sgisl pracfice, and pou,e¡: Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.9-23. Rebeq A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge Journal ofEx-
Guthrie, J. T.. & Cox, K. E. (2001 ). Classroom conditions for motivation and perinrental Psvcholog¡,: General, I I 8, 219-235.
engagement in reading. E d c a t io na I P s v c h o I og-,- Rev i ew, I 3, 283 -302.
Lt Reynolds, R. E. (2000). Attentional resource emancipation: Toward under-
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating tlre academically un- standing the interaction of word identification and comprehension pro-
motivated: A critical issue for the 2lst centüry. Review of Educational cesses in reading. Scientifc Studies ofReading, 4,169-195
Research, 70, l5l-179. Reynolds, R. E.. & Sinatra, G. M. (2005). Epistemological roots and impact
Jenkins, J. J. (197 4). Remember that old theory of memory? Well, forget it! on reading research. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), The cognitive revolution on
Anrcrica.n Psvchologist, 2 5, 7 85-7 95. educational psl,chology @p. 13-41). New York: lnformation Age.
152 ALEXANDER,SCHALLERT,REYNoLDS

Reynolds, R. E., Sinatra, G. M., & Jetton, T L. (1996). Views of knowledge Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Pt ogress in understanding reading: Scientific foun-
acquisition and representation: A continuum from experience centered to dations and new.fiontiers. New York: Guilford.
mind centered. Educational Psychologist, 3 l,93-104. Vosniadou, S. E. (2003). Exploring the relationships between concep-
Reynolds, R. 8., Taylor, M. A., Steffensen, M. S., Shirey, L. L., & Anderson, tual change and intentional learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pin-
R. C. (1982). Cultural schemata and reading comprehension, Reading trich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp.377406). Mahwah, NJ:
Reseorch Quarterly, I 7, 353-366. Erlbaum.
Robins. R. W., Gosling, S. D., & Craik, K. H. (1999). An empirical analysis Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Miwl in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
oftrends in psychology. American Psychz¡of¡tr, 54, l17-128. sity Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprcnticeship in thinking: Cognitive developmenf in Vygotskl, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Canr-
social context. New York: Oxford University Press. bridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
Schallert, D. L. (19'76).Improving memory for prose: The relationship be- Wade, S. E. (2001). Research on importance and interest: Implications for
tween depth of processing and context. Journal of Verbal Learning and curriculum development and future research. Educational Psychology
Verbal Behavior I 5. 621-632. Revieu,. l3-243-261.
Schallert, D. L., & Martin, D. B. (2003). A psychological analysis of what Walker, C. H. ( 1987). Relative importance of donain knowledge and overall
teachers and students do in the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, aptitude on acquisition of domain-related information. Cognition and
D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on Instruction,4,2542.
teaching the Englísh language arts (pp. 3l-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wells, G. ( 1987). The negotiation of meaning: Talking and learning at home
Schoultz, J., Sáljó, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Conceptual knowledge and at school. In B. Fillion, C. N. Headley, & E. C. DiMartino (Eds.),
in talk and text: What does it take to understand a science question? Home and school: Early language and reading (pp.3-25). Norwood, NJ:
I nstructional Sc ience. 2 9. 213-23 6. Ablex.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, V¿ (1984). Automatic and controlled process- Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal re-
ing revisited. Psychological Review, 9 l, 26917 6. lationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). oJ Educational Psychology, 9 l, 7 6-97.
Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access in- Wertsch, J. V, & Kanner, B. G. (1992). A sociocultural approach to intel-
struction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In lectual development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual
T. M. Dufr & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Construct¡vism and the technology d ev e I op nt e n t (pp. 328-3 49). Cambridge, En gland: Cambridge University
of ínstruction: A conversation (pp. 57-75). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.
University Press. Whewell, W. (l 840). The philosophy ofinductive sciences. London: Parker.
Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W L., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerge¡ Wigfield,4., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory ofachieve-
A. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexi- ment motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-
bility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. C. Britton & 81.
S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes (pp. l7'7-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (Eds.). (1997). Motivation for reading: Indi-
Erlbaum. vidual, home, textual, and classroom perspectives [Special issue]. Eda-
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences cational Psychologist, 3 2(2)
ofindividual differences in the acquisition ofliteracy. Reading Research Wilson, E. O. (i998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York:
Quarterly,2l,360407. Knoof.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGTST. 4 4(3), I 98-20 l, 2009
Copyright O Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0046-1 520 print / 1532-6985 online
f;)
fi\
Routledge
Taylor&FrancisCroup
DOI: 1 0. I 080/00461520903029014

The Why of Learning

David C. Geary
D ep artment of P sy c ho I ogi c al Scienc e s
University of Missouri

Alexander, schallert, and Reynoids's (2009/this issue) wftar, where,who,andwhen framework

situates different perspectives on learning in different places in this multidimensional space
and by doing so helps us to better understand seemingly disparate approaches to learning. The
framework is in need of a fifth, wfty dimension. The why dimension helps to place learning
within an evolutionary and cultural perspective and to better understand students' motivation
to learn and their preferences for what, where, and how to learn.

P. A. Alexander, Schallert, and Reynolds (2009/this issue) reading) in the modern school and workplace (Geary, 2007).
have made an important contribution by organizing the core An evolutionary perspective helps to frame Alexander et al.'s
principles of learning and placing them in the context of a (2009/this issue) wh at, where, wh o, and w h e n of learning and
what, where, who, and when multídimensional framework. points to the importance of the why of learníng.
They are correct in stating that many seemingly disparate Why do children learn easily and with little effort in some
approaches to learning, from behaviorism to constructivism, domains, such as language, and often with difficulty and
differ not because they are necessarily incompatible but be- sometimes not at all in others, such as reading? Why do we
cause they occupy different locations in this multidimen- ask children to learn in many of the latter domains? Why
sional space. Moving forward requires acknowledging this are children (and adults) motivated to learn about their peers
and understanding the relations among the different perspec- (e.g., through gossip) and why are these activities valued
tives on learning. The Alexander et al. framework is a critical more highly than learning in many other areas, such as math-
step forward. At the same time, I was surprised that the why ematics? Why do humans have an extended development
of learning was not incorporated into the framework. In this period that allows for evolutionarily novel learning?
commentary, I provide a rationale for including this fifth The why of learning is the functional component that
dimension of learning and place this dimension within the ties the what, where, who, and when dímensions to vari-
broader framework of evolution. ous sources of motivation, from evolutionary to cultural to
interindividual. In other words, what children learn (e.g.,
reading vs. language), where they learn it (e.g., school vs.
THE WHY OF LEARNING social discourse), who needs to learn it (e.g., all children
in modern societies but few if any in traditional ones), and
Evolutionary development psychology is the study of the so- when they learn it (e.g., kindergarten vs. adulthood) depends
cial, psychological, cognitive and neural traits that are com- on why they need to learn it. Children in traditional societies
mon to all human beings, and the study of the genetic and today and during nearly all of our evolutionary history did
experiential mechanisms that shape the developmental ex- not need to learn how to read, because their later success
pression ofthese traits so they are adapted to local conditions in culturally important activities was not dependent on this
(Geary & Bjorklund, 2000). Evolutionary educational psy- competence. Children in modern societies must learn how to
chology is the study ofthe relation between evolved cogni- read to function socially and occupationally in adulthood and
tive systems and accompanying motivational and behavioral must learn to read early in their schooling because reading is
biases (e.g., play) and the learning of evolutionarily novel critical for learning in many content domains, from biology
information (e.g., natural selection) and competencies (e.g., to history. These cultural differences, as well as historical
.@fff$T9I-'añennFd
Correspondence should be addressed to David C. Geary Departrnent to learn one competence and nor another anct an évótutióñ-
of Psychological Sciences, University of Missoun, 210 McAlester Hall, ary perópeCtivelielps-u-s to fiame why the learning of some
Columbia, MO 652I I-2500. E-mail: GearyD@missouri.edu diiiñpétéiic i ás ñ;ásf iór thl I dren and others are d i ffi c ul t.

¡
l:'
 WHY OF LEARNING 1 99

From an evo luti on ary p ersp e c t iv e, t!t4¿ 4_{*_tl"_t--t!t g

vide the advantage of reducing physical aggression, in this
survival and reproductive functions bf.the-trait. Evolved example, but also come at a cost to behavioral flexibility.
functions must-bé"éi1iiésieO by means of some combina- The ability to vary behavior and cope with social dynam-
tion of proximate brain, perceptual, cognitive, and behav- ics in nonroutine ways can provide a competitive advantage.
ioral mechanisms. The operation of these mechanisms can In comparison to monkeys. the social behavior of great apes,
result in inherent, reflexive behaviors that do not require such as chimpanzees (Pan troglodyes), is less ritualized and
learning per se, as defined by Alexander et al. (2009/this thus less predictable from one social encounter to the next
issue). These can range from the unconditioned-stimulus- (Parker, 2003). Our own species is extreme in this regard: To
unconditioned-response relations of classical conditioning be sure, there are common cross-cultural features of human
(Timberlake, 1994) to bounded rationality and decision mak- social behavior (e.g., attachment, reciprocity in friendships;
ing (Simon, 1956; Gigerenzer & Selten, 2001). The latter in- Bugental, 2000) but the specifics ofthese dynamics can vary
clude fast and automatic emotional and behavioral responses considerably from one culture and encounter to the next. So-
to information that has been of significance during human cial flexibility and to some extent unpredictabiiity likely pro-
evolution, for example, selective attention to and processing vided our ancestors, and us, with an evolutionary advantage.
ofangry facial expressions and corresponding emotional and Stated differently, individuals who can vary their approaches
behavioral reactions (Óhman, 2002). The combination recre- to resolving social conflict and who can predict the strate-
ates the stimulus-response relations that led to the evolution gies and counter strategies of others are at a competitive
of these systems. The why of this bounded rationalily can advantage in comparison to their less flexible peers. Once
be found in the adaptive advantages to the ability to quickly an advantage to the creation ofvariable and less predictable
identify and respond to opportunity and threat; specifically, social and behavioral strategies began to evolve, the poten-
opportunities (e.g., to develop a relationship) or th.reats tial for a within-species arms race emerged. The details are
(e.g., an angry facial expression) that covaried with survival beyond the scope of this commentary, but this type of arms
and reproductive prospects during our species' evolutionary race appears to have occurred during our evolutionary his-
history. tory (see R. D. Alexander, 1989; Geary, 2005; Flinn, Geary,
Although these relations would not count as learning us- & Ward 2005). Moreover, as populations of our ancestors
ing Alexander et al.'s (2009/this issue) definition, there are increased in size and as they expanded into various regions
other features of evolved systems that would count. As an ex- of the world, social competition became more intense and the
ample, inherent constraints on the range and types ofsounds ecologies in which they were situated (e.g., seasonal weather
processed by the auditory system-whether these are shared change) less stable. The combination ofsocial and ecological
with other species-combined with hearing one's native lan- changes resulted in further advantages to the ability to cope
guage result in changes in phoneme perception in the lst with highly variable social dynamics and with evolutionarily
year of life that in turn is part of natural language learning novel ecologies.
(Doupe & Kuhl, 1999; Kuhl et al., 1997). These are evolved These types ofselection pressures are predicted to result
systems that are modified by experience, that is, the changes in increases in the ability to adapt to novelty and change and
in these systems represent some form of learning as defined thereby an ability to learn new things. The threefold increase
by Alexander et al. But why are some aspects of the evolved in brain size during human evolution and the near doubling
mind and brain subject to learning-related change and others of the length of the developmental period are consistent with
not? this prediction (Bailey & Geary, 2009; Bogin, 1999). The
I have suggested that the key to understanding plasticity in latter includes a long childhood-the period of slow growth
evolved systems is variations in selective pressures across- from 6 to I I years of age-and an extended adolescence. It
and within- lifetimes (Geary, 2005). There are some com- is during this time that children and adolescents learn about
ponents ofsocial relationships, such as processing the basic the nuances oftheir local social group and the ecologies in
architecture of the human face, that are the same from one which they are situated. They learn cultural myths, customs,
generation to the next and during an individual lifetime, but and how to achieve success in their group as well as how to
other aspects of social life are highly variable; the dynamics get resources from the ecology; in some ecologies, for in-
of dyadic and intergroup relationships, as examples, are not stance, it takes 20 years to master hunting (e.g., Kaplan, Hill,
entirely predictable. The invariance of the former is predicted Lancaster, & Hurtado, 2000; Palmer, Ellsworth, & Stead-
to result in stable, modular brain and cognitive mechanisms man, 2009). In short, there are evolved systems that allow us
and corresponding stimulus-response relations, as described to learn evolutionarily novel information and to create new
above. These fast and automatic stimulus-response relations ways of doing culturally important activities.
are common in our species and in other species. Social behav- Across traditional societies, most of the variation in what
ior of many species of monkey is highly stereotypical, such children learn from one culture to the next will be organized
that, for example, the evolved behavioral interactions of dom- around the domains of folk psychoiogy, folk biology, and folk
inant and submissive individuals is ritualized (Parker, 2003). physics. These respective constellations of abilities support
These types offast and automatic behavioral sequences pro- social relationships and the ability to use other species for
 200 cEARY

food and medicine and to navigate and use tools. For chil- the demands of living in a modern'socjety, not the demands
dren and adolescents to learn about the nuances oftheir social atlivilg in a traditional one. The why of much of secondary
groups and ecologies, there must be accompanying motiva- learning is ngtg!allohlüqf:o-g{lqle¡, or even many adults.
tional and behavioral biases that result in the experiences This is the reason children and adolescents would prefer to
that support this type of learning (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, í spend time with peers than doing mathematics homework,
2002; Scar¡ 1992). These child-initiated activities include i despite the fact that the latter activities lay the groundwork
social play ririth peers, exploration of the ecology, and im- -' for many modern occupations (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter,
itation of adults and older children, among other activities. );2003). A why dimension of learning helps us to better un-
The experiences are predicted to result in learning, specifi- derstand these motivational differences, and why learning in
cally, changes in folk systems and knowledge that prepares some domains is more difficult for children than learning
the child for adult life in their culture. in others, and why children prefer some ways of learning
I have proposed that there has been a coevolving change (e.g., peer group discussions) over others (e.g., mathematics
in the brain (e.g., dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and cogni- worksheets).
tive (e.g., working memory, attentional control) systems that
operate on folk domains such that we can now create highly
novel knowledge (e.g., Newtonian physics) and abilities (e.g.,
CONCLUSION
reading) that go well beyond the variation in folk knowledge
Alexa¡der et al.'s (2009/this issue) what, where, who, and
found across traditional culfures (Geary, 2005, 2007, 2008).
when multidimensional framework helps us to put different
I call this evolutionarily novel knowledge and abilities bio-
theories of learning into perspective and to understand that
logically secondary; as contrasted with biologically primary
disagreements are not necessarily the result of incompati-
folk knowledge. Over the last several millennia, the cross-
generational accumulation of secondary cultural knowledge
bility of one theory of learning or another but sometimes
because the theories occupy different places in this multidi-
and artifacts, such as books, has occurred at such a rapid
mensional space and thus address diflerent questions. Incor-
pace that the attentional and cognitive biases that facilitate
porating a why dimension into Alexander et al.'s framework
the fleshing out of folk abilities during children's natural
activities do not have evolved counterparts to facilitate the
will allow us to better understanding why students prefer
some methods of learning (e.g., in peer groups) over others
learning of secondary knowledge and abilities.
(e.g., worksheet practice), their motivation or lack thereof
The evolution of human childhood and adolescence might
have been to facilitate the learning of culturally important
for engaging in some forms of learning, and will help us
to better situate the where (classrooms vs. peer groups) and
skills and about social dynamics in their culture, but with the
when (e.g., based on dictates of a multigrade curriculum) of
rapid accumulation of secondary knowledge and the emer-
learning historically and cross-culturally.
gence of modern economies, technologies and so forth, the
From an evolutionary perspective, the why oflearning has
what of learrting has changed dramatically, ashas the where
shifted from implicit to explicit. The motivation to engage in
(modern schools, not peer groups) and the when (e.g.,leam-
the activities (e.g., social play) that promote folk learning is
ing whole number arithmetic before fractions) of learning.
built into evolved folk domains and thus there is no reason to
The why of learning has also changed and must be acknowl-
articulatethewhy of learning to children. In modern societies,
edeed in any multidimensional framework for learnins. Peo-
the why of learning is more strongly related to historically
! p I é= readily iearh about trre' pl anié' ?iiri án ímáii-ifi ft i"r r ocar
recent cultural changes and technological and scientific in-
ecology and important aspects of their "essence" (e.g., their
novations than to our evolutionary history, and thus the why
behavioral tendencies; Atran, 1998) but have many miscon-
ceptions about how natural selection operates on these same
of learning will not be obvious to students and thus their
motivation to engage in the associated activities may wane.
species (Shtulman, 2006). There are many other mismatches
An explicit understanding of the why of learning in modern
between peoples' folk intuitions about the social, biologi-
schools may be important for understanding how to address
cal, and physical worlds and scientific knowledge in these
these motivational issues and for theory builders to under-
domains.
stand why some students have these motivational issues.
There is no need to motivate children and adolescents to
engage in various fypes of social, exploratory and object
play, because these are the inherent mechanisms that create REFERENCES
the experiences needed to adapt skeletal folk knowledge to
local conditions. This ts the why of these motivational bi- Alexander, P A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009/this issue). What
ases, awhy that does not need to be explicitly articulated for is learning anylvay? A topological perspective considered. Educational
Psycho logist, 44, 17 6-192
children to engage in these activities. Biologically secondary
Alexander, R. D. (1989). Evolution of the human psyche. In P Mellars &
and historically recent innovations and knowledge are a dif- C. Stringer (Eds.), The human revolution: Behavioural and biological
ferent matter. Tlp yyJty.h1s more to do with our cultural than perspectives on the origins ofmodern huntans (¿tp.455-513). Princeton,
our evoiutionary history and the need to learn it is'áiñ?l NJ: Princeton University Press.
 I4¡HY OF LEARNING 201

Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology ofscience: Cognitive Geary, D. C., & Bjorklund" D. F. (2000). Evolutionary developmental psy-
universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, chology. Child Development, 7 l, 57-65.
547-609. Gigerenze¡ G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). BotLnded rutionali,,: The adap-
Bailey, D. H, & Geary, D. C. (2009). Hominid brain evolution: Testing five toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
climatic, ecological, and social competition models Human Nature, 20, Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of hu-
67-79. man life history evolution: Diet, intelligence, and Iongevity. Evolutionary
Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). The origins of human na- Anthropolog,, 9, 1 56-185.
ture : Evolutionary developmenlal psychology. Washington, DC: Ameri- Kuhl, P K., Andruski, J. 8., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A.,
can Psychological Association. Kozhevnikova, E. V, Ryskina, V L .,etal. (1997). Cross-language analysis
Bogin, B. (1999). Patterns ofhuman growth (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: ofphonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science, 277,684-686.
Cambridge University Press. Óhman, A. (2002). Automaticity and the amygdala: Nonconscious responses
Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A to emotional faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, I 1,62-
domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, I 26, l8'7-219. 66.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: Palme¡ C. T., Ellsworth, R. &, Steadman, L. B. (2009). Talk and tradi-
The uses of experience sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 185- tion: Why the least interesting components of religion may be the most
r99. evolutionarily important. In E. Voland & W Schiefenhvel (Eds..¡, Zie
Doupe, A. J., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). Birdsong and human speech: Com- biological evolution ofreligious mind and behatior (pp. 105-1 16). New
mon themes and mechanisms. Annual Review ofNeuroscience, 22,567- York: Springer-Verlag.
631 . Parke¡ S. T. (2003). The cognitive complexity of socral organization and
Flinn, M. V, Geary D. C., & War4 C. V (2005). Ecological dominance, socialization in wild baboons and chimpanzees: Guided participation,
social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved socializing interactions, and event representation. In A. E. Russon & D.
extraordinary intelligence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26,1H6. R. Begun (Eds.), The evolution of thought: Evolutionary origins of great
Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin ofmind: Eyolution ofbraín, cognition, and ape intelligence (pp. 45-60). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
general inte lligezce. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa- Press.
tion. Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories ofthe 1990s: Developmental and
Geary D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1-19.
fo¡ an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific
(Eds.), Educating the evolved mind: VoL 2. Psychological perspectives on theories of evolutíon. Cognitive Psl,cholog!, 52, 170-194.
contemporary educational issues (pp. l-99). Greenwich, CT: Information Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment.
Age. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
Geary D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educa- Timberlake, W. (1994). Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian
tional Psychologist, 4 3, 27 9-29 5. conditioning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review I, 405420.

"I¿.