Introducing systematic approaches

Triangles are often used to represent relationships in a plain and easy way, and education is no exception in this respect. In fact, one of the most com-mon figures in education is the so-called didactic triangle (see Figure 1). It represents a quite general relationship between the learner, the teacher, and the issue. The model, of course, has undergone several alterations; recent concepts in particular emphasise the fact that the various relationships within the model are not of the same type. For example, according to a more andra-gogical concept, the teacher is a mere moderator of the relationship between the other two instances. We will refer to that later when discussing relational didactics (see Chapter 3).

Figure 1: Didactic triangle

Source: Arnold & Pätzold, 2007, p. 95

Although the didactic triangle focuses on the three main structural entities in the learning-teaching-process, the learning triangle we will discuss in the fol-lowing section is related to the learner (see Figure 2). Conceptualised by the

Danish educational scientist Knud Illeris, the learning triangle, too, has under-gone several changes, but the core concept has remained the same. Basically, Illeris (2003, 2004, 2006) addresses three issues related to the learning of an individual:

• Learning takes place in a socio-cultural context.

• Learning has a cognitive dimension.

• Learning has an emotional (or psychodynamic) dimension.

Keyword: Socio-cultural context

Any learning activity is influenced by the fact that the learner is situa-ted in some kind of context. This context consists of other persons as well as of a variety of cultural influences such as convictions, habits, rules, and so forth. In brief, the socio-cultural context can be defined as the various social and cultural factors that influence a particular learn-ing process. (Obviously, it is not an easy task to identify those influ-ences. It is all the more important, therefore, not to abstract from the socio-cultural context when discussing learning.)

Although the first issue is frequently considered in theories of social learning, it tends to be underestimated in more psychologically oriented contributions to learning theory (see Schäffter, 2010, p. 297). The second and third issues resemble the concept of cognitive and affective learning goals, which were first addressed in the second half of the twentieth century. What is important to point out here is that Illeris rejects the idea of separating cognitive learning processes on the one hand from affective or emotional ones on the other.

When it comes to learning, emotions and cognition rather are two sides of the same coin. They are always affected simultaneously, regardless of whether the subject matter is intended to affect one side more than the other. How-ever, they serve different functions: Whereas the cognitive side leads to knowledge and skills, enabling the individual to ‘function’ (Illeris, 2004, p.

94), the emotional or psychodynamic side (Illeris uses both terms) serves to maintain a balance between inner and outer world and therefore to establish sensitivity (ibid.) – that is, the ability to react to external stimuli in nuanced and adequate ways with regard to emotions.

Figure 2: Illeris’s learning triangle

Source: Illeris, 2004, p. 95

The social dimension is characterised by our aim to integrate ourselves into certain social contexts. Although learning may be seen as an individual pro-cess of balancing emotional and cognitive aspects, it is always in some way related to the environment. Therefore, the process of learning consists of two simultaneous processes: a process of interaction, in which learning mediates between the individual and his or her social environment (cf. Geulen & Hur-relmann, 1980, p. 51), and a process of acquiring knowledge and skills as an evolution of cognitive and emotional perspectives towards the subject matter.

From the perspective of systems theory, we may now ask about the pre-cise nature of the individual that Illeris places in opposition to its social envi-ronment. Niklas Luhmann describes this interaction as a process that can be observed in the social world, yet the relationship between interaction and in-dividual is a matter of different kinds of observation and attribution (cf.

Luhmann, 1995, p. 256). Moreover, the rather psychological terms of emo-tion and cogniemo-tion raise the quesemo-tion of whether the body of the individual may already be regarded as some type of environmental condition (ibid, p.

262). Generally, this question draws our attention to the fact that the body is not a main focus in Illeris’s concept. But we may, for the moment, translate

individual freely with person and come back to that point later, especially as Illeris claims to cover the concept of personal development (Illeris, 2006, p.

30) within his approach. With that in mind, his theory already prepares us for dealing with the conceptual framework designed by Jarvis (see Chapter 5.1), who emphasises that it is ‘the person who learns’ (Jarvis, 2006, p. 32). The person learns within a social world, however, and Illeris introduces the notion of sociality to point out that this social world shall offer desirable prospects.

The process of acquisition is an interplay between the poles of cognition and emotion. Illeris uses these terms in a rather metaphorical way. The cog-nitive dimension means that the individual develops the ability to construct meaning (of things, facts, or situations) and therefore to function as a person.

Note that ‘functioning’ in this context does not mean subordinating oneself to foreign purposes, but being able to think and act according to one’s own goals. The emotional dimension relates to an individual’s feelings, which ac-company any learning process. Again, Illeris refers to the whole psycho-dynamic dimension (Illeris, 2006, p. 31) – that is, ‘mental energy, feelings, and motivations’ (ibid.).

From an analytical point of view, it may seem useful to separate the in-ternal process of acquisition from the social process of interaction between individual and environment. Yet, for a comprehensive picture of learning, both of them have to be considered simultaneously. They serve as a kind of scaffolding for describing a learning process or a learning episode. For ex-ample, if we explore the role of motivation (which is part of the emotional pole in Illeris’s model) within the theory of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000), it seems that motivation depends considerably on the extent to which a particular environment offers opportunities to experience autonomy.