Psychological theory and pedagogical effectiveness: the learning promotion potential framework

After a century of educational psychology, eminent commentators are still lamenting problems besetting the appropriate relating of psychological insights to teaching design, a situation not helped by the persistence of crude assumptions concerning the nature of pedagogical effectiveness.

To propose an analytical or meta-theoretical framework based on the concept of learning promotion potential (LPP) as a basis for understanding the basic relationship between psychological insights and teaching strategies, and to draw out implications for psychology-based pedagogical design, development and research.

This is a theoretical and meta-theoretical paper relying mainly on conceptual analysis, though also calling on psychological theory and research.

Since teaching consists essentially in activity designed to promote learning, it follows that a teaching strategy has the potential in principle to achieve particular kinds of learning gains (LPP) to the extent that it embodies or stimulates the relevant learning processes on the part of learners and enables the teacher's functions of on-line monitoring and assistance for such learning processes. Whether a teaching strategy actually does realize its LPP by way of achieving its intended learning goals depends also on the quality of its implementation, in conjunction with other factors in the situated interaction that teaching always involves. The core role of psychology is to provide well-grounded indication of the nature of such learning processes and the teaching functions that support them, rather than to directly generate particular ways of teaching. A critically eclectic stance towards potential sources of psychological insight is argued for. Applying this framework, the paper proposes five kinds of issue to be attended to in the design and evaluation of psychology-based pedagogy. Other work proposing comparable ideas is briefly reviewed, with particular attention to similarities and a key difference with the ideas of Oser and Baeriswyl (2001).