Professional Documents
Culture Documents
general and with leaning theory in particular because they have not been
paying off" in terms of improving educational practice. Part of the leason for
writing this book is to show how representative learning theories call or
cannot be expected to result in prescriptions for the educator whereas they
may not readily provide prescriptions for educational practice, nonetheless
practically all learning theories can be of value to educators in that they
provide systematic ways for conceptualizing what is happening in both
practical situations and theoretical research situations. in part, the discussion
of learning theories will focus on the main concepts and principles which have
been developed to conceptualilze learning processcs
Educators Applications of Psychological Principles
Scientific methods have been advocated for use in education almost as long
as in psychology, but educators traditionally have looked to psychology as a
source of information concerning how and why people act as they do. In a
sense, educators have viewed psychology as their science of man from which
they could draw hypotheses or prescriptions for the practice of education. But
they seem to have overlooked the fact that many psychologists have basic
rather than applied interests and they have assumed that learning theories
will provide educational prescriptions.. In this text we will examine some of the
different relationships which have existed between theory and educational
practice during the past century. We will examine these not only for their
historical value but, more importantly, because they help us to understand
the range of options and the kinds of patterns and relationships which
continue to exist. Let's consider for a moment a question which has been
raised in critiques about relationships between learning theory and
educational practice. As you will learn later in this text, various spokesmen
have questioned whether psychological learning theory, derived from
research involving specially designed laboratory tasks frequently conducted
with animal subjects, can have any relevance for practical educational
situations. That is, they have raised serious questions as to whether
laboratory learning research could have any practical value for educators. Of
course one will always find skeptics no matter what issue might be involved.
however, what we are concerned with here is a tendency for educators at
different points in history to be quite skeptical about the applicability of
laboratory learning research conclusions.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider differences between
"government laws," which may not be consistently applied, and "laws of
nature," which are merely discovered by scientists and which in a sense
"apply themselves" whether or not man is aware of their existence. It seems
that the question of applying laws of learning carries an implicit expectation
Definitions of Learning:
When a man has learned anything he is, for a time at least, changed in his
readiness to deal with this or that in hi environment. He has become, with
respect to certain things, events, meanings, as the mse may be, differently
sensitive, differently percipient, differently disposed as to the forms of his
responsive behavior, whether in action, ill. understanding, or in feeling.
(Eaton, 1938, p. 196)
This is understandable and in many ways useful since it delimits what the
term "learning" has to cover.
For example, it is commonly accepted that learning is not meant to include
temporary changes resulting from fatigue, effects of drugs, or those changes
which are specifically due to maturation. What do we have, then, as a
definition of learning?
First of all, it would seem that all definitions of learning include the term
change. This "change" is usually meant to include the acquisition or
modification of some behavior and must be at least permanent enough to be
noticeable by some observer.
It is clear in some of the definitions. that the term change refers to an internal
event or process, but it is also clear that all the definitions by necessity
confound learning with performance. That is to say, "learning" is always
inferred by the ability of an organism to "perform" in a inanner that is different
from the way it previously could. Strictly speaking, learning is not necessarily
a "relatively permanent change in a behavioral tendency" (Kimble & Garmezy,
1963) but is instead inferred from such a change. The semantic distinction is
not considered crucial in most definitions of learning but is considered crucial
in certain theories of learning. In addition, there is agdement that this change
must have occurred through practice and must not be due to a temporary
state of the organism
Have we gained anything by this definition? The most that can be said for this
definition is that it tells us a few things to exclude. It does not tell us what
leaning is except in an extremely broad sense. As such, this definition says
both too much and too little at the same time too little because the definition
does not really tell us anything about the nature of learning, too much
because it includes events that we probably do not want to discuss under the
rubric of learning. To take an extreme example of how this definition cou!d be
too inclusive, imagine the following example: if you roll a perfectly round clay
ball down an inclined plane which at the bottom forms a Y the original
probability of the ball taking either the right or the left am of this Y will be
equal. If you perform this act several times, however, each time making sure
that the ball is put back . in exactly the same position you will find that
gradually the ball will begin to go consistently to the right or to the left and that
eventually it will always go right or left. By the definition given above, does
this not qualify as learning?
It is a relatively permanent change that has occurred through practice. If a rat
had performed this feat, choosing the right arm each trial to obtain food, there
would be no question that the rat had learned. Are we willing to say that the
clay ball has learned? Probably not, indicating that our minimal definition of
learning is so loosely stated that it has not really given us very much. Rather
than attempt to amve at a definition of learning that would be more
satisfactory let us instead simply state what such a definition should and
should not include: (1) Any adequate definition of learning must be able to
account for the behavior of a wide range of species. There is no doubt that
men can learn, and that children can learn, and that monkeys and rats can
learn. There is also fairly conclusive evidence that very simple organisms can
learn. For example, there are reported studies of paramecia being taught to
choose the correct section of simple two-choice mazes. Whatever definition of
learning is used will have to include the behavior of this vast variety of
organisms. (2) Any defiaition of learning must be able to encompass a range
of behavicr from the most simple to the most complex. It will have to cover
such . diverse changes of learning to turn right in a two-choice maze and the
act of learning differential calculus. (3) If the process underlying a piece of
behavior is not modifiable or controllable ( either by the organism or by an
external agent), it will not be considered under the rubric of learning. This
would seem to encompass all the separate processes (maturation, drug
states, fatigue, etc.) that are usually excluded from a definition of learning. As
an example of this, consider the case of imprinting. in certain species (geese,
foi example), the young of the species will follow a moving object if this
movement occurs within a specified range of time after the organism is born.
This is an automatic act that is characteristic of all members of the species,
thus indicating that it results from heredity rather than from learning. The
behavior itself can be modified (as for example, the fact that stimuli different
from the natcral stimulus can be made to elicit the behavior; a young goose
can be imprinted on a man as well as on a mother goose), but an external
agent does not and cannot cause an organism to imprint if such a process is
not in its genetic makeup. Any such behavior (sometimes called prewired or
instinctual) will not be called learning even though it does involve a change in
behavior and even though it may seem that experience has played a role. As
we will see in reviewing the various theories of learning that have been
formulated, the issue of defining learning has not been a crucial one as long
as there is no asumption made in the definitions set forward concerning the
essential nature of learning. The behavioral facts of learning are not in
question; the theoretical explanation of learning most certainly is. These
theories and what they can tell us about learning are a major concern of this
book.