ABSTRACT
The distinction between learning and development is intimately tied up with questions about nativism. For the extreme empiricist, all mental development is learning. From antiquity, three assumptions have framed philosophical debates about the nature of learning and development. The first is that the unit of analysis is the person, not some higher or lower level unit. The second assumption is factors contributing to learning and development can be classified as either “innate” or “environmental.” The final assumption is that there are two types of learning: explicit learning of declarative, propositional knowledge to which the learner has conscious access. Many contemporary theories of learning and development, however, depart from one or both of the canonical positions. There are many levels below the level of the organism that have been taken either as levels of explanation or units of analysis in theories of development and learning. Systematic observation has also been widely used to study development and learning.
