Personal Philosophy of Learning
During my undergrad at the University of Colorado Boulder, I took a class called Teaching and Learning Chemistry; a semester-long exploration of inquiry-based teaching in chemistry. To enroll in the class, you needed to have completed four semesters of college-level chemistry and be part of the school of education. On the very first day, our professor had us read a procedure and predict the reaction that would occur. Then, we conducted the experiment—and the results were completely different from what we expected! Given that we all fancied ourselves chemists, we were stumped and completely hooked. She asked us to articulate the questions the experiment, and its unexpected results, raised and suggest tests we could perform to find the answers. This process continued for two weeks, with her guiding us to discover the answer ourselves through experimentation and the strategic delivery of small pieces of information. To me, this is the “holy grail” of learning. It was constructivist learning at its finest: a beautiful, captivating process that profoundly shaped my view of education.
Learning is a complex, biological process that is highly personal and context dependent. It is the creation of new, or strengthening of established, neural connections that results in a change in thinking, understanding, or behavior. It is constructed via interactions with people, materials, or environments. It is a universal process; everyone can - and does - learn.
Even though I believe that learning can be distilled down to just synaptic changes, doing so flattens it. My theory of learning draws from two lenses: the neuroscientific lens of labs and researchers and the constructivist lens of schools and educators. Despite the theoretical differences between the two, learning is a creation or strengthening of neural connections (neuroscientific) that result in a change in thinking or understanding (constructivist) which often results in changes in behavior.
Through the neuroscientific lens, learning can be understood as changed wiring in the brain (Gallistel & Matzel, 2013). This perspective allows us to explore the biological mechanisms that underpin how we acquire, retain, and apply knowledge, providing a bridge between abstract concepts and physical changes in the brain. During the process of learning or performing a task, neurons activate and transmit signals across the brain and body. Despite the common notion suggested by the term “wired,” neurons do not actually make direct physical contact. Instead, they communicate through tiny gaps called synapses, which are only 20–40 nanometers wide (Dana Foundation, 2023)—comparable to the amount your fingernail grows in 20 seconds (National Nanotechnology Institute, n.d.). These synapses allow neurons to send chemical messengers, known as neurotransmitters, to trigger further electrical and chemical activity in the receiving cell, known as the postsynaptic neuron. When a neural connection strengthens, the sending neuron (presynaptic) gains greater influence over the receiving neuron (postsynaptic). The more frequently these neurons interact, the stronger their connection becomes (Dana Foundation, 2023). Repeated exposure to, and interaction with, content, regardless of what it is, results in a changed landscape in the brain. The change is not only changes in “wiring,” be it strengthening or depression of pathways, but also changes in the strength of neurotransmitter expression (Gallistel & Matzel, 2013). These changes are learning.
Given that the capacity for neural rewiring is an intrinsic ability, just like digestion or cellular respiration, I believe that everyone can learn. People have been learning since our species evolved and our increased learning ability compared to other species is what has led to our relative evolutionary success. Learning does not require schools or intentional learning experiences, but school and formatted learning environments do support new synaptic connections. Through novel interactions with people, material, or environment, humans’ brains change.
Life experience clearly shows that learning can happen in a myriad of settings. However, I believe that some of these settings result in higher quality brain changes than others. By higher quality I mean brain changes that enable learners to solve unfamiliar problems, analyze new situations, or create unique products, as opposed to repeating what they have learned verbatim.structivism:
To create high-quality brain changes, learners need to be a part of the learning process, as opposed to just a receiver of information. When learners actively construct and deepen their understanding of the world, they are enacting the constructivist idea that learning is a dynamic process, continuously refined through interaction and experience (Harel & Papert, 1991; Ültanır, 2012). Learning occurs when we actively create, construct, and interact with the world around us. Scholars such as Hare and Papert (1991) and Dewey (1938) emphasized that learning is most effective when grounded in real-life experiences, where the process is both active and experiential. These experiences foster high-quality brain changes.
As a constructivist, I believe learning fundamentally depends on interaction with others or the environment; without external stimuli or social engagement, learning stagnates. A person isolated without exposure to nature, people, new situations, or media, would never gain new understanding beyond what they already know because they lack the content exposure required to rewire the brain. Educational psychologists and constructivist theorists emphasized how new evidence and experiences expand understanding (Piaget, 1952), advocated for the role of exposure to diverse perspectives in fostering learning (Bruner, 1960), and explored how observation, imitation, and modeling are central to the learning process (Bandura, 1986). Together, these theories underscore the critical role of social and environmental engagement in learning.
Learning, when explored through constructivism and neuroscience, emerges as an intricate biological process, and a universal experience. At its core, learning is a biological phenomenon—the rewiring of our brains through neural connections. However, this definition alone oversimplifies what is inherently a rich and context-dependent experience. Through constructivist experimentation, interaction with our environments, or internal reflection, high quality learning is shaped by individual contexts and experiences. It is in these moments, when we wrestle with uncertainty, revise our understanding, and create something new, that neurons forge connections capable of driving creativity, critical thinking, and personal growth. True learning isn’t simply about knowing; it’s about transforming our understanding in ways that empower us to solve problems, adapt to the unfamiliar, and continuously grow.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090108
Dana Foundation. (2023, September 16). Neurotransmission: The synapse. https://dana.org/resources/neurotransmission-the-synapse/
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Gallistel, C. R., & Matzel, L. D. (2013). The neuroscience of learning: Beyond the Hebbian synapse. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143807
Halo Neuroscience. (2019, February 19). The neuroscience of learning [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/_nWMP68DqHE?si=HeQ1ic3VbIeuz17U
Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. E. Harel & S. E. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Ablex Publishing.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
National Nanotechnology Institute. (n.d.). Size of the nanoscale. National Nanotechnology Initiative. https://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/what/nano-size
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/11494-000
Ültanır, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 195–212.
