Model OverviewThis WPW Learning Model goes beyond the present holistic, behavioristic, whole–part, and part–whole learning models. The WPW Learning Model purports that there is a natural whole–part–whole rhythm to learning. The basic WPW Learning Model is seen in Figure 13.1.

Figure 13.1 Basic Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model

Through the first whole, the model introduces new content to learners by forming in their minds the organizational framework required to effectively and efficiently absorb the forthcoming concepts into their cognitive capabilities. The supporting cognitive capabilities and component behaviors are then developed in the classical behavioristic style of instruction found in the “part,” or several parts, aspect of the WPW Learning Model. After the learner has successfully achieved the performance criteria for the individual “parts” or components within the whole, the instructor links these parts together, thus forming the “second whole.” The whole–part–whole learning experience provides the learner with the complete understanding of the content at various levels of performance and even allows for higher order cognitive development to the levels of improvement and invention (Swanson, 1991).

The WPW Learning Model can be considered systematic on several counts. One is that the model can be used all the way from program design to real-time instructional adjustments during a live presentation. The following review of the literature supports both the psychological foundations of whole–part–whole instruction and its systemic nature.

Beyond the superficial rhetoric of broad purpose and goals, most education and training thrives on the parts—the details of knowledge, expertise, and activity (Skinner, 1954, 1968). Even though this behaviorist perspective on learning has been under intellectual attack, the pragmatic requirements of education and training in our culture see to it that the parts and the mastery of the parts are as strong as ever. Without diminishing the behavioral stronghold on educational and training practices, it is the gestalt psychology concept that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts that is being more fully explored through this treatise. The approach is not to attack behaviorism. Behaviorism (the parts) is seen as a critical aspect of the WPW Learning Model. Instead, the focus is on the first whole and second whole that envelope the “parts.”

The First Whole of the Whole–Part–Whole Learning ModelThere are two main purposes of the first whole. One is to provide a mental scaffolding through advance organizers and schemata alignment to prepare learners for the new instruction they will receive. The other main purpose of the first whole is to provide motivation for the participant to want to learn by making the content meaningful and connecting it to the learner.

Advance organizersThe concept of an advance organizer was originally introduced by Ausubel (1968) as a technique for helping students learn and retrieve information by making it meaningful and familiar. This is accomplished by introducing the basic concepts of the new material, from which the students are able to organize the more specific information that will follow (Luiten et al., 1980).

The need for advance organizers comes from the psychological principle that previous knowledge and experiences form their own mental structures at a given level of development (Di Vesta, 1982). These individual structures are called schemata. “We have schemata for eating in restaurants, attending hockey games, and visiting our grandmothers. The knowledge associated with each of these activities is our schema for the activity” (Gage and Berliner, 1988, p. 293). The participant’s orientations that encompass the previous consequences and their interpretations of experiences represent that person’s current world view (Di Vesta, 1982).

Understanding that differences in individuals are present is important for an instructor. For example, an instructor giving a lecture on quality management in industry to 30 students is in the room with 30 different schemata, or mental structures, of what quality management in industry means. A unified concept in the classroom between the instructor and each of the students becomes an essential foundation for the instruction that follows.

A simple and powerful example of a unifying concept can be the editorial cartoon found in most daily newspapers. The effective editorial cartoon presents a clear concept to thousands of readers, each having their own personal schemata regarding that topic. Through the cartoon, readers have a common starting point from which to discuss the concepts with other readers, whether they agree with the original cartoon or not. Other examples of creating a unifying concept are video productions, literature (in the forms of essays, articles, or research), pictures, diagrams, and even music. All of these could be used in an instructional setting for the purpose of schemata alignment among students.

The act of creating a basic construct and/or framework for the learner at the beginning of instruction is a way to focus the learner and to introduce the content. These ideas are supported by Hilgard and Bower (1966) and Knowles (1988). The organization of knowledge should be an essential concern of the teacher or educational planner so that the direction from simple to complex is not from arbitrary, meaningless parts to meaningful wholes, but instead from simplified wholes to more complex wholes (Knowles, 1988).

Organization of knowledge in the beginning stages of instruction also serves the even larger purpose of memory retention and retrieval upon completion of instruction. “We have made it appear probable that association depends upon organization, because an association is the after-effect of an organized process. . . . Learning amounts to association, and association is the after-effect of organization” (Kohler, 1947, pp. 163–164).

Motivating the learnerMotivation on the part of the learner is an important aspect of the WPW Learning Model due to the fact that without learners valuing the new content that is being taught, there is little hope for retention or transfer to the workplace. However, many instructors leave student motivation in the hands of the students as their own responsibility. Support for the idea that motivation should be incorporated into a structured and systematic form of instruction came first from Lewin (1951). “Learning occurs as a result of change in cognitive structures produced by changes in two types of forces: (1) change in the structure of the cognitive field itself, or (2) change in the internal needs or motivation of the individual” (Knowles, 1988, p. 23).

The potential for change in the motivation of an individual is possible due to the fact that human behavior is goal oriented. One of the distinguishable characteristics of human behavior is its purposeful, goal-directed nature (Gage and Berliner, 1988). Lindeman (1926b), as cited by Knowles, gives a key assumption about adult learning that has been supported by later research. “Adults are motivated to learn as they experience needs and interests that learning will satisfy” (Knowles, 1988, p. 31).

Clearly, the opportunity to motivate the student comes from capitalizing on the learner’s own internal desire for goal attainment and personal achievement. “Perseverance can be increased by increasing the expectation of reward and the bad consequences of failure” (Gage and Berliner, 1988, p. 334).

Motivation is also attained through clearly stated learning objectives at the beginning of instruction. Although much has been written about the value of clear, student-oriented terminal objectives for the purpose of evaluation, they also aid in motivation. Research done by Bandura in 1982 identifies the following two instructional motivational variables: “These two cognitive variables are self-efficacy (one’s belief that one can execute a given behavior in a given setting) and outcome expectancies (one’s belief that the given outcome will occur if one engages in the behavior)” (Latham, 1989, p. 265).

Clarifying instructional objectives for the instruction and the overall terminal objective meshes with the first component of motivation. By clarifying the purpose and rationale for instruction as it relates to the learner, then by detailing the how, what, and why of the instruction through clear objectives, the learner is fundamentally prepared for the instruction to follow.

To summarize, the importance of the first whole is found in the preparation of the learner for the instructional events to follow. This preparation will prove instrumental in the learners’ recognition and recall on which the second whole is based (Kohler, 1947).

The Second Whole of the Whole–Part–Whole Learning ModelWhile it is true of any system that each element within the system is critical to the success of the system, in the Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model, the second whole must be considered the major component. Based on gestalt psychology that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, it is here, in the second whole, that we contend that complete understanding occurs.

The second whole links the individual parts back together to form the complete whole, for it is not only the mastery of each individual part of instruction that is important but also the relationship between those parts through the second whole that provides the learner with the complete understanding of the content.

Wolfgang Kohler, in his book Gestalt Psychology (1947), provides the basis for the second whole in his writings on association and recall. Kohler, using research done with animals, explains that because of the large amount of information that must be processed and stored, a simplification effect occurs. Simplification of large quantities of stimulus is narrowed down to only the outstanding features of the original stimuli. These outstanding features remain only as traces of the original stimulus. “Hence, only some effect of the first process (part) can remain when the process (part) itself has subsided. . . . All sound theories of memory, habit and so forth must contain hypothesis about memory traces as psychological facts” (Kohler, 1947, p. 149).

Knowing this about the cognitive capabilities of an individual, whole–part instruction becomes illogical. Ending instruction upon the completion of the final part leaves the learners with unorganized and vague traces of the preceding parts. The learners are also faced with the difficult task of organizing those parts into a whole on their own in order for the new knowledge to become useful. Kohler (1947) said of the organization of traces: “They must be organized in a way which resembles the organization of the original process. With this organization they take part in processes of recall” (p. 150).

The organization of the traces should be facilitated by the instructor, thus aiding the student in a comprehensive recall of the instructional material. Kohler (1947) speaks of the interrelationship between the organized traces (or parts): “When the members of a series are well associated, they prove to have characteristics which depend upon their position in the whole series— just as tones acquire certain characteristics when heard within a melody” (p. 158).

To summarize, the interrelationship between the parts of the content begins with the realization that only traces from the full amount of instructional material will remain upon completion of instruction. It is essential, therefore, for the instructor to go back and strengthen those traces by forming the instructional whole (for example, whole concept, whole definition). Upon the formation of the instructional whole, the parts of instruction take on new meaning within the whole just as the tones acquire certain characteristics within the melody.

After the formation of the cognitive whole, the instructor must pursue the transfer of this new knowledge from short-term memory/working memory into the long-term memory. Information that is rehearsed is encoded for storage in the long-term memory (Gage and Berliner, 1988). Instructors can support this rehearsal by incorporating active learning (Gage and Berliner, 1988) into the second whole. Active learning, in which learners take a participative role rather than a passive role, is incorporated in the parts instruction to aid in the mastery of the individual components. Furthermore, using active learning in the second whole will allow students to practice all of their skills in one continuous procedure. Production facilitates both learning and retention (Campbell, 1988; Perry and Downs, 1985).

Repetitive practice of the whole procedure not only aids in the transfer to long-term memory but it also provides the learner with a sense of comfort and eventually a relaxation with the procedure as a whole. Just as driving an automobile for the first time was a nervous collection of individual part performance, after a number of times behind the wheel, driving an automobile became a single procedure.

It is at this stage that the next step in the second whole may be pursued.

The successful attempts by the learner on the complete procedure create in the learner a readiness for further understanding that until now was not available. According to Rosenshine (1986), further cognitive development can take place after automaticity, which he explains as follows: After substantial practice, students achieve an automatic stage where they are successful, and rapid, and no longer have to think through each step. The advantage of automaticity is that the students who reach it now can give their full attention to comprehension and application. The full attention that the learners are now able to give provides the instructor with the opportunity and the responsibility to develop the instructional whole further through the introduction of a higher level cognition that the learners are now ready for. The learner who has become successful at driving an automobile is now ready for further development with such topics as driving in poor weather, night driving, and the dangers of speeding. Previous to automaticity, this would not have been as effective. Instructors are ethically responsible for pursuing this further development of learning. For just as the driving instructor knows that operation of an automobile does not only occur on dry pavements during the daytime, successful practice in the classroom is not an automatic guarantee of success in the workplace.

A pattern will not often be repeated in precisely the environment in which it occurred when the association was formed. Now, quite apart from the cruder obstacles that have been considered above, even a slight change of the surrounding field may make a given pattern unable to cause recall of associated items. This is because the change introduces a new organization in which the experiences corresponding to that pattern are no longer present (Kohler, 1947).

Kohler (1947) argues that instructors should prepare the learners for the differing applications through the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (see Bloom, 1956) procedures or at least to the troubleshooting stage of comprehension (see Swanson, 1991). By developing the learner to this point, the instructor has not only formed the complete content whole in the learner’s mind but has also provided a deeper understanding of that content whole upon which the learner can keep adding to and refining as experiences dictate. The second whole provides the opportunity to delight both the instructor and the learner by moving from knowledge to wisdom. Dewey (1933) and others see this reflection as a major prerequisite to wisdom.

The Parts of the Whole–Part–Whole Learning ModelThe parts component of the Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model relies on the standard systematic and behavioristic approach to instruction. Thousands of books and articles have been written regarding the effectiveness of this approach to teaching specific, structured material. To argue for what has already been established would be redundant. There are, however, some important points that should be addressed regarding this component of the WPW Learning Model. The first is that the learner must attain mastery of each part in order for the second whole to be effective. If the learner does not understand one of the parts, there cannot be the full understanding of the whole. Next, each part within the WPW Learning Model can (and should) be structured in a whole–part–whole fashion. Thus, within the larger whole–part–whole instructional program design, there are subset whole–part–whole unit designs being created. This provides the learner with the same benefits in the individual lesson that the larger program design provides.

Summary

The Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model provides a systematic design framework for the instructor to follow. It lends itself to the practical work of designing education and training programs while holding on fiercely to learning theory and research. It provides a general whole–part–whole learning template. This learning template can be used at both the program design and lesson design levels. From a systems perspective, each of the program segments, whether they are classified as a part or a whole, can then constitute a subsystem. In curricular language, each program segment is a lesson. The initial lesson would therefore be focused on establishing the first whole. Succeeding lessons would then take on the logical part(s) and the concluding second whole functions. Each of the program lessons (or subsystems) is then designed to use the same whole–part–whole template (see Figure 13.2).

Figure 13.2 Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model applied to program and lesson design

The general program design of whole–part–whole lessons has been applied to the practical problem of differentiating between three types of training: management, motivational, and technical training. Through a series of structured observations of good training practices, general whole–part–whole program design templates were developed for these three types of training. Figure 13.3 illustrates the general program template of lessons.

It is interesting to note the unique roles of the first whole among the three types of training programs. Most technical training is focused on closed systems that are external to the learner. These learners typically understand and accept the fact that work systems get revised and/or replaced. In contrast, most management training is an attempt to alter the personal internal systems by which managers operate and which they often resist changing. Thus, dealing with program objectives and purpose becomes the critical role of the first whole for management training, while overviewing the new system is more typical of technical training. In motivational training (efforts at altering basic values and beliefs), the first whole addresses the critical need to accept the group and/or individuals. The templates and their proposed elements provide a logical springboard for establishing the specific whole–part–whole lessons that make up a particular learning program.

Figure 13.3 General program design templates using the Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model

As noted in the introduction, the Whole–Part–Whole Learning Model goes beyond the present holistic, behavioristic, whole–part, and part–whole learning models. The WPW Learning Model purports that there is a natural whole–part–whole rhythm to learning. The WPW Learning Model is an effort to acknowledge and use theory and best practices to design sound learning programs.