Learning: is it through parts or whole?

There are two views on learning or construction of knowledge. One view is that, an organism, say human being, constructs knowledge by combining the bits of a whole thing, to be learned. The second one is that, humans construct knowledge of various areas as a whole, not through the bits.   Actually, what is the way of nature? Is it the first one or the second one? This is what we are analysing in this section.

1.        What is part learning?

Earlier learning theorists, especially, the behaviourists had the stand point that learning or construction of knowledge was happened through combining of bits of a whole. When the bits are combined the learner gets the whole.   We can take any number of examples to show as evidences for this principle of bit learning or part learning.

In language class, suppose, the teacher has a plan to teach writing of the alphabets of English. She would begin with the lower case ‘a’, then ‘b’, ‘c’ …..  After children’s repeated writing, teacher would give upper case ‘A’, then ‘B’ ‘C’ … These bits are given with a view that the child may combine and make the whole, i.e. the 26 letters of English alphabet.

In Arithmetic class, if the teacher had a plan to make number sense, she started it with 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, for the first week. After completing this bit of numerals, next bit of numerals from 6 to 10 would be taught. While teaching basic operations, like, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, there prevailed the slots for teaching bits.

In skill teaching too, this strategy of part teaching or teaching of bits exists. Suppose the drawing teacher gives the first lesson of pencil drawing, she demands the children to draw the semi-circle one hundred times. Only after completing the semi-circle, the teacher demands full circle. Only after getting evidences that the child can draw the circle, next bit of straight line would come.

2.             What is whole learning?

Even in the learning of musical instruments and dance this theory of part learning had been implemented. But all these attempts of part learning have been questioned on the background of natural learning process, i.e. where learning happens in real life settings.

For example, take the learning of Arabic of non-Muslim migrant labourers from India to Saudi Arabia.  Through interacting with the Arabic speaking natives these migrants speak Arabic somewhat comprehensibly with great amount of appropriateness or accuracy. There in Saudi Arabia these migrant labourers never attend any special Arabic teaching programme and there is no teachers who teaches parts of the language to them. The migrants are acquiring the language as a whole, not as bits like, letter, word, sentence or bits of morphology; singular, plural, tense, etc.

Children of street vendors, who are nomads and not enrolled any school too, can deal confidently in calculating the total amount of the two or three pieces of commodities that the customers buy and can give back the balance of amount in coins and currencies. These children acquired number sense and knowledge on basic operations not through part learning, but they were approaching Arithmetic as a whole, when problems encountered them.

If administered one by one, there would be chances for lots of part learning in cooking of food. But nobody waits for practice sessions of washing vegetables, cutting of vegetables, adding ingredients etc. as parts of the process of cooking curry.  If going for practising bits and becoming expert in those bits of actions, when will one become efficient in combining the parts and ready to undertake cooking of curry with confidence?

Learning of how to ride bicycle is happening not through practicing parts, like, rotating the pedal, balancing the body, applying the brake or ringing the bell, But through handling all these bits as a whole in a non-conscious way.

3.             Which one is acceptable? Why?

There is no dearth for examples to show that the mainstream learning paradigm or the way of learning that the nature has bestowed upon humans is whole learning, not part learning. Part learning has been emerged when concepts on teaching and modern schooling were emerged and where certain formalities were necessary in education process.

On comparison of part learning with whole learning, one can reach the following conclusions;

a)  The natural way of learning is whole learning, part learning has been emerged as a product of the theories on learning, schooling and education.

b)   While part learning addresses ‘the whole’ through combination of bits, whole learning addresses ‘the whole’ directly.

c)   Bits of a whole are not independent units of a whole knowledge, they are overlapping one another. That is why, in language class, teachers demand copy writing of strokes first, the letters, and after that words, and only after that sentences. The bits of strokes, letters, words and sentences are extended to and mutually dependant on other bits.

d)  Part learning is conscious, which is uninteresting too to the organism. There the learner has to behave like a machine who obeys the order. But how long can we treat human beings as ‘learning machines?’

e)    Whole learning is non-conscious, means that the organism is not directly sensitised; on what is to be learned or on what are the bits to be learned. As the organism is non-conscious of the matter to be learned, there is no question of repulsion of the matter to be learned by the organism.   

Where do we reach now? Shall we reach a stand point that the concept of whole learning is more reasonable than part learning? If so, what changes should be made in curriculum, classroom process, assessment and creation of materials like, text books and practise books? Think about that.