Is learning (just) deliberately getting better at stuff?

The "learning is a change in long term memory" definition causes discomfort in some parts of UK education with various attempts being made to modify, extend, clarify or otherwise adjust it. The criticisms seem to be the following 1) it doesn't include physical changes such as holding a pen 2) It confuses the verb "to learn" with the noun "learning". To put it another way, if learning is a change in long term memory then that's the result of some action. The result and the action causing the result aren't the same things. 3) It's completely true that learning is a change in long term memory but not helpful because "everything" I do in my day to day life involves a change in long term memory. The definition doesn't distinguish between the academic process of acquiring knowledge and skills from say, the fact that I remember having a really nice Bratwurst last month. I don't think I learned about me having a really nice bratwurst as I was eating it but evidently, there was a change in long-term memory. 

Here's an alternative definition of learning... learning is getting better at whatever it is that you are deliberately and intentionally trying to get better at. Failing to get better or indeed getting worse, means no learning is happening (take note Theresa May). If you learn a lot, you will get a lot better at whatever you have learned about. If you are not being deliberate about it, you are not learning and if as a result of the deliberate attempt to improve you don't improve then you are also not learning. This could be Maths, it could be English or it could be chatting up girls or snowboarding. The job of a teacher is to teach students what those students need to be better at the subject. If you are taught by somebody and don't improve then you didn't learn anything. This could be because what you were taught was wrong or it could be because you didn't deliberately and or intentionally try to get better. Another point, if you get better at something then you aren't able to sustain this level of performance later then you have unlearned it. 

This definition started off as kind of a joke however now I quite like it and have been hard pressed to find many exceptions. If I have learned my phone number then what have I got better at? The answer is being able to remember my phone number when I need to. If when push comes to shove I forget the number, I am not better at being able to recall my phone number in certain circumstances. In school, the more I learn, the more successful I will be at life. 

Are there cases of learning where I actually get worse at whatever it is I am deliberately trying to learn about and can those cases rightfully be called learning? One example might be that in my teacher training I learned that I should say 5 positive things for every negative thing to deal with behaviour management. As I was deliberately trying to get better at managing behaviour from people who knew more than me I took this advice quite to heart. I learned it and applied it in the classroom and as a result, I was better. Looking back on it, I now don't give this advice to my teachers because I have learned more and as a result don't think it's such helpful advice. I have improved as a result of deliberately trying to improve. I have learned more and in so doing unlearned other things. 

Are there cases of learning when you get worse as a result of deliberately trying to get better at something? This is a sticky one. Some musicians report that over practising can actually make them regress. Similarly, we can re-read some text and seem to understand less and less. Well, in these cases it's not hard to say we simply are not learning. That's the point of including the concept of improvement within the definition.

If I learn that 2+2 = 7 and then I perform poorly on a maths test I might want to say I learned it incorrectly but what's wrong with just saying you didn't learn anything? I might have a true belief about something but if it's incorrect then it can't count as knowledge. If the belief is erroneous it will also lead to worse performance so it's not learning. 

What about if I learn something that is true but which hinders performance? Take the following example. If I get a flat tyre and I sit down to watch a Youtube video about how to change tyres on my bike then put it into practice by changing the tyre, only to find that it doesn't work because the video was about another type of tyre. The information contained within the youtube video was true and I learned it but it was not applicable to my immediate circumstances so I didn't improve as a result of trying to get deliberately better at changing a tyre. Here's where the idea of feedback comes in. Attempting to apply what I had learned in this way did, in fact, help me get better. The old adage of "knowing one more way it doesn't work" applies. I am actually better at changing tyres because I discovered a way in which my tyre cannot be changed. I also probably learnt something about the importance of different types of tyres. Within every failed experience there is "improvement" if there is no improvement within the failed experience then there is no learning. 

One benefit of the definition is that it does stave off some of the more nebulous versions of "thinking skills" without removing completely the idea that you could become a more skilful thinker.  Complex "skills" cannot be measured and involve synthesising or evaluating, powers of mind which are then transferred to other contexts. Under this definition this could still be learning, however, the burden of proof is on those who claim that such powers can, in fact, be developed independently of a change in long term memory. You would need to demonstrate that by "thinking" about something you really have improved overall thinking and not simply claim that you have done it and say it can't be measured. 

If a student deliberately tries to get better then they are learning however if they then fail to improve by some measure then that learning has been a failure. I might have learned things that are wrong, for example. If I have a history test on Henry the VII and I read all about Henry the VIII then I perform worse on the test, I will still have "gotten better" at history. This would be evidenced by the fact that if I needed to I could talk or write with a greater level of competence about history than I would about this knowledge. However, if I read about football or check WhatsApp whilst trying to learn about history then I am not learning because my competence at history will not have increased. Maybe I have deliberately improved my ability to have interesting conversations about Liverpool football club however because this was not what I was deliberately trying to get better at, it doesn't count.

Deliberately getting better at stuff also has the benefit of applying to behaviour. Often I talk about a kids progress in terms of their behaviour, the kid is more committed, he's putting more effort in, he's getting along better with peers. This is learning, he's learning to be a better person and a more productive focused individual through deliberate and conscious effort. If there is no improvement no learning has taken place. The evidence for this is that his behaviour is getting better as a result of his deliberate and conscious effort to improve. If you are, like me, inclined towards a more progressive view on overall "human spiritual and ethical development" you could also design some metrics to measure improvement in socio-emotional learning. You could design surveys to ask students anonymously about school climate, substance abuse or their overall levels of wellbeing and then measure changes. More changes mean they are learning and less change means they would not be learning. This would only work if you were actually consciously and deliberately teaching them to be better, happier people.

So there you go - love to hear your thoughts!