Conditions of Learning: Gagne's Nine Levels of Learning

The nine steps of Gagne's "Events of Instruction" 

Gagn's theory contains elements that can be viewed as disadvantages or limitations, which I shall discuss in this essay. There are drawbacks to theories of this type, which consider learning as a series of experiences and are reliant on accumulation. 

Other, slightly more particular disadvantages emerge during implementation by teachers who find difficulty using Gagn's method. I will summarize its levels of learning, nine "phases" or "categories," and cognitive processes before delving into the theory's shortcomings, in my opinion.

According to Gagn, there are various types or levels of learning, and each type requires a distinct form of instruction. Gagn divides learning into five categories: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills, and attitudes. Each learning style demands a distinct set of internal and external elements. 

For example, for kids to learn cognitive methods, we must allow them to experience inventing new solutions to problems and developing attitudes. We must present a reliable sample or convincing reasons to the student.

Furthermore, his theory describes nine "phases" or "categories" and the cognitive processes associated with them:

• Gaining Attention (Reception) 

• Informing Learners of the Objective (Expectancy) 

• Stimulating Recall of Prior Learning (Retrieval) 

• Presenting the Stimulus (Selective Perception)

• providing learning guidance (semantic encoding)

• Eliciting performance (responding)

• Providing feedback (reinforcement)

• Assessing performance (retrieval)

• Enhancing retention and transfer (generalization).

Robert Gagn based his theory on the assumption of various types of learning outcomes and that particular conditions, whether internal or external, are required to stimulate each type. He assumes that learning events have a cumulative impact and require specific triggers to elicit the individual's foundation of knowledge.

From an application perspective, I can see that Gagn's theory has some limitations:

• The content analysis focuses on the parts rather than the whole: As a result, students can pass the exams but may struggle to apply their information in a broader context.

• It makes only a few recommendations to ensure knowledge acquisition: There is also no clear relationship between the organization of the course and the structuring of the contents.

• Failing to combine the phases of instruction development: the outcome of each instruction event serves as the input for the next. It employs separate tools and expertise for each level, with no consideration given to how modifications made in one affect the development of the following phases.

• Passively oriented Instruction: because it bases the educational process on information display rather than interaction. The learner does not have to exert much mental effort most of the time.

Although this is a generalization of the limitations I could identify, I observe several more specific disadvantages when applying the method. Adapting educational events to diverse sorts of school contexts could be difficult. Gagn's theory emphasizes that most lessons must follow the sequence of instructional events, also suggests that this order is not fixed, that it can be adjusted, and that not all events can be applied.

As a result, the theory, which is strict in its implementation rules, is relaxed for this case without providing a specification of what criteria to used to change the order or decide which events to use. Let alone the implications for learning that this would entail, which would confuse teachers when designing each lesson.

Finally, the theory shows that each instructional experience generates the accumulation of learning in the person, implying that these events are independent of one another. This is an obvious disadvantage since it does not consider the process, but leaves the work of integration to the accumulation process, which is considered being inherent in the individual.