Wolfgang Kohler was a theorist who, like E.L. Thorndike, observed animals and developed theories of learning based on what he saw. However, Kohler took issue with Thorndike's methods. He felt that Thorndike's imprisonment of cats in an empty box gave them no opportunity to act intelligently. Kohler developed a series of problems for chimps that included several tools for the chimps to physically manipulate in order to retrieve a banana that lay outside of their cage. His observations led Kohler to determine that learning takes place when insight occurs; in other words, when the learner is able to mentally or even physically manipulate elements, he or she will see the connections between those elements or ideas and eventually there is an Aha! moment (insight!). Thus, the status update.
Kohler's rejection of Thorndike's experimental outcomes naturally creates the foundation for the disagreements in the above conversation. As a behaviorist, Thorndike argues that it was the reward of the banana that made the chimps act as they did. Based on the reading I have done on their experiments, I would say there is little validity in his claim. In his experiments, the cats knew nothing of the reward and fought only to escape their imprisonment in the box. The reward was given only when they got out; therefore, the learning that occurred was the knowledge that if they escaped, they got a treat. In Kohler's experiments, however, the chimps saw the banana and were given visible access to the tools needed to help them solve the problem. In this case, the learning that occurred demonstrated more about the animal's ability to synthesize the options into a conclusive solution of the problem. No wonder the two could not agree!
John Locke makes a brief appearance in the conversation exclaiming his excitement over the emergence of some prewired (now unlocked) knowledge that came to Kohler. When he asks Kohler "Tell me, what happened to you that helped unlock this knowledge?", it demonstrates Locke's beliefs that learning was something that happens TO you. Kohler's response that nothing happened to him but that he (like his chimps) worked through it demonstrates a major difference between these two theorists. Locke was of the mindset that learners should be passive and that learning was something that happened to you whereas Kohler believed that learning happened because there was a mental and physical manipulation of objects and ideas. In other words, learners must be active to effectively learn.
My focus in this conversation was on the argument between the Piagetians and the Behaviorists. In my mind, if the social constructivists had to choose a side, they would choose the side of the Piagetian. Thus, Vygotsky sides with Piaget in this conversation.
Jean Piaget gained a great following when he began to share his views as a developmentalist. Piaget believed that as a child developed, he or she went through four main stages of development. He argued that children were busy developing cognitive structures during each stage and could only move to the next stage if he or she were engaged in the proper experiences to facilitate this movement. Not only were experiences important to Piaget, it was equally important that children were active participants in their learning. It is important to note that Piaget was not strictly limiting his theory to academic learning. These stages pertain to environmental and social learning as well. It is these beliefs that have Piaget yielding the statement in his status that opens this conversation. Later in the conversation as Piaget objects to Thorndike's methods in observing learning behaviors, we see another of his core beliefs reflected. Piaget believed that it was important for learning to occur in natural settings to make context of learning more meaningful.
Lev Vygotsky, although he recognized the validity of a developmentalist approach to learning, struggled with Piaget's defined stages. The reason was that he felt these stages were limited to the independent level of the child and left out the child's potential for learning. His belief in the significance of this potential is evident in his invented notion of the Zone of Proximal (or potential) Development (ZPD). Vygotsky argued that you should first assess the child's independent learning level and then assess how the child would fare with assistance from an adult. Although he had issues with Piaget's theories, in the above conversation we see him begin to argue with Piaget's status but switch to a debate with Thorndike over his behaviorist views. To really illustrate the difference between Piaget and Vygotsky, he makes the statement that while he agrees with Piaget's notion of the natural environment, he would take it one step further and focus on the social constructivist idea that most of what we learn happens when we are learning with others.
E.L. Thorndike was a behaviorist and, true to the theory of a behaviorist, takes issue with Vygotsky and Piaget because of their "lack of evidence". Behaviorist study often focused on the observable- the input to the learner and the output. Thorndike was known for his work with the imprisonment of cats in a box and the use of positive reinforcement when the cat escaped. While we know that education today relies on the behaviorist theory as much as any other (evidenced by positive reinforcement systems used in classroom management), Thorndike perseverates on the idea that you can't observe stages or potential development in any scientific form. His statement of "I like my charts and graphs" was a demonstration of his need for concrete data and was meant to illustrate that this notion is what separates him from the other two theorists. Piaget and Vygotsky criticize Thorndike's use of cat imprisonment to develop his learning theories to demonstrate (as I mentioned above) their beliefs in the importance of the natural physical and social environment in learning.
Conversation 1: Plato, John Dewey and B.F. SkinnerAs I began this conversation, I thought about how Plato would feel about delivering a lecture to a classroom full of students that was followed up with a negative result on a learning measurement. He is seemingly frustrated with this as he posts to his social network and asks for suggestions.
John Dewey gives a very social constructivist response and offers a suggestion that reflects his belief that students should be active participants in their learning. Later in the conversation, he repeats the suggestion to illustrate how adamant he is about his beliefs in the social nature of learning. Although Plato begins to give merit to Dewey's idea as he acknowledges the glazing stares of his passive students, he unfortunately stays true to form and reminds himself that his failure is due more to their lack of innate knowledge than his instructional strategies. This, of course, frustrates Dewey and causes him to create an impulse post of "Oh dear".
B.F. Skinner attempts to help a lost Plato by suggesting he follow Skinner's five principles for effective teaching and a controlled learning environment. Skinner was of the idea that instruction could and should be managed by learning measures. In other words, Skinner was suggesting that Plato should reflect on his instruction since the learning measure was less than desirable. Skinner disliked rote learning and punishment for students and I believe he would have seen a failed quiz as a punishment for students. As I said above, Plato reverts to his classic belief and, alas, our friends Skinner and Dewey tried in vain.
Special thanks to Phillips and Soltis' Perspectives on Learning for providing insight into the theories of these thinkers over the course of this semester.
No comments:
Post a Comment