SIMILARITY. AND PROMPTING. EFFECTS IN RETROACTIVE FACILITATION'iOF, MEANINGFUL LEARNING " V Thesis forthe Degree of Ph. D. ‘ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' MARTIN RANDOLPH WONG 1.969 ml . ‘_I IIIII IIIIIIIII I‘Loz III III III III IIII IIIIIIIII ! This is to certify that the thesis entitled Similarity and Prompting Effects in Retroactive Facilitation of Meaningful Learning presented by Martin Randolph Wong has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M— degree inEdECgti on mefi can Major professorU Date July 18, 1969 0-169 ABSTRACT SIMILARITY AND PROMPTING EFFECTS IN RETROACTIVE FACILITATION OF MEANINGFUL LEARNING By Martin Randolph Wong Experiments investigating retroactive inhibition tra~ ditionally take the form of: (1) learn original learning; (2) learn interpolated learning; (3) test retention of original learning. The effects of similarity between orig- inal learning and interpolated learning on the retention of rotely-learned original material have been fairly consistent. Experimental evidence indicates that similarity that deviates more than slightly from identity tends to result in retro— active inhibition. There is conflicting evidence with re— gard to the effect of similarity between original learning and interpolated learning in the retention of meaningfully- learned prose materials. Some recent studies have shown facilitation rather than the expected inhibition. This study investigated the effects of similarity on retention of meaningfully-learned prose materials and attempted to: (1) specify the similarity dimension by designing materials that: were highly similar in organizational structure; used identical stimulus components in the body of the materials with similar but conflicting response components; and (2) explore the effects of variations in the retention interval on either facilitation or inhibition. A 3 x 5 analysis of covariance design was employed with four treatments and one control group [(E-1) Compare and Contrast group; 3-2) Prompting group; (E-3) Similarity group; (E-4) Overlearning group; (0-5) Control-Irrelevant group] and three retention intervals between original learning and test of original learning [(R—l) nine days; (h-2) four days; (3-3) three days]. Additional control groups were used to test for possible facilitative effects of interpolated learning. Results failed to show statistically significant evi— dence for facilitation or inhibition except when interpo- lated learning was identical to original learning. Highly consistent trends existed, however, in the direction of retroactive inhibition. Additionally, the separate control groups not receiving original learning showed large differ- ences in interpolated learning group effects. These findings are discussed in relation to the eventual possibility of identifying retroactive inhibition as a significant contri- butor to the forgetting of meaningfully—learned prose mater- ials and the possibility of an interaction between degree of original learning and strength of retroactive inhibition in retention of meaningfully—learned prose materials. SIMILARITY AND PROMPTING EFFECTS IN RETROACTIVE FACILITATION OF MEANINGFUL LEARNING By Martin Randolph Wong A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1969 To Joyce and our budding life. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to a great number of people who helped with time and advice over the past few months in the car- rying out of this study. To mention but a few who con- tributed heavily: Dr. Robert Craig, for his advice and faith; Dr. Don Freeman and all of the Ed. 200 instructors for their cooperation and time; James Molineux, for his time and expertise in programming the analyses; and es- pecially Joyce for typing, proofing, for sticking to her guns and for keeping me going. MRW 7/19/1969 iii CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, THEORY AND PURPOSE Interference Theories . . . . . . . Forgetting of Meaningful Learning . Retroactive Facilitation . . . . . . Theory of Meaningful Verbal Learning Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addendum to Literature Review . . . METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Design . . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning Materials . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . Proportional Adjustments . . . . . . Results Relevant to Hypotheses . . . Results not Specifically Relevant to HyPOtheses O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv PAGE 10 13 l8 19 21 21 23 26 29 3O 31 33 34 35 35 45 CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS . BIBLIOGRAPHY . Retroactive Inhibition Versus Facilitation. 58 Retention Interval Effects Effects of Foil Differences . Control—Interpolated Learning Groups Implications for Further Research LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . GENERAL REFERENCES . . . . . APPENDICES A WUOW VERBAL AND SLIDE PROJECTED INSTRUCTIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES AND ANALYSES LEARNING MATERIALS . . . RETENTION TEST . . . . . RETENTION TEST STATISTICS PAGE . 58 . 62 . 63 . 64 . 68 . 73 . 73 . 76 . 8O . 8O . 86 . IOO . 156 . 170 TABLE 1. 2. 3. 4. IO. 11. LIST OF TABLES PAGE Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . 24 DESign sequence 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O 25 Unadjusted Cell and Marginal Means and Standard Deviations for Total-Test Scores 36 Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for Total- Test Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Analysis of Covariance Table for Total- Test Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Pairwise Sheffe Contrasts on Adjusted Group Means for Total-Test . . . . . . . 38 Unadjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Total-Test Responses to Cognitively- Oriented Foils .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for Total- Test Responses to Cognitively-Oriented Foils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Analysis of Covariance Table for Total-Test Responses to Cognitively-Oriented Foils 48 Unadjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Responses to Totally-Incorrect Foils 49 Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for Re- sponses to Totally Incorrect Foils 50 (TOtal-TeSt) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 vi TABLE 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. Analysis of Covariance Table Based on Responses to Foils Which Were Totally Incorrect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unadjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Control-Interpolated Learning Groups (C-IL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjusted Treatment Means for Control-Inter- polated Learning (C-IL) Groups . . . . . Analysis of Covariance of Control-Interpo- lated Learning (C-IL) Groups . . . . . . Pairwise Sheffé Contrasts on Adjusted Treat- ment Group Means for Control-Interpolated (C-IL) Learning Groups . . . . . . . . . Proportional Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for Specific Subsection (l-l2) . . . . . . . Analysis of Covariance Table for Specific Subsection (1-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for General SUbseCtion (13-36) 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Analysis of Covariance Table for General SUbseCtion (13-36) a o o o o o o o o o o Pairwise Sheffé'Contrasts on Adjusted Treat- ment Group Means for Specific and General Subsections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii PAGE 50 53 54 54 55 86 87 87 88 88 89 TABLE 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Pairwise Sheffe Contrasts on Adjusted Treatment Group Means for Responses to Error Foils . . . Analysis of Incorrect Response Types Expressed as Means and Average Percentages of Incorrect Responses Within Treatment Group . . . . . . . Analysis of Responses to Types of Foils Expressed as Means and Average Percentages of Total Response Within Treatment Group . . . Mean Responses and Average Percentages of Response to Foil Types by Test Subsection for No—Treatment Control Group (C—Test) . . . Cell N's and Means by High—Low CQT Groups (Median Split) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cell and Marginal Means for Total-Test Scores (Unproportionalized Data). . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Covariance Table for Total-Test Scores (Unproportionalized Data) . . . . . . . Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for Specific Subsection (1-12) (UnprOportionalized Data). . Analysis of Covariance Table for Specific Sub- section (l-l2) (Unproportionalized Data) . . . Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for General Sub— section (13-36) (Unproportionalized Data). . . Analysis of Covariance Table for General Sub- section (13-36) (Unproportionalized Data). . . viii PAGE 90 91 92 93 94 95 \0 \f‘. 96 96 97 97 TABLE PAGE 34. Adjusted Cell and Marginal Means for Total-test Responses to Cognitively-Oriented Foils (Unproportionalized Data) . . . . . . . . . . . 98 35. Analysis of Covariance Table for Total-test Responses to Cognitively-Oriented Foils (Unproportionalized Data) . . . . . . . . . . . 98 36. Cell and Marginal Means for Responses to Totally Incorrect Foils (Total-test) (Unproportionalized Data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 37. Analysis of Covariance Table Based on Responses To Foils Which Were Totally Incorrect (Unproportionalized Data) . . . . . . . . . . . 99 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Ancova cell means by treatment groups. . . . 42 2. Ancova treatment means. . . . . . . . . 43 3. Treatment means by high—low CQT groupings . . 44 4. Mean responses by foils (total—test) . . . . bl 5. Ancova treatment means of interpolated . 56 learning (C—IL) control groups . CHAPTER I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, THEORY, AND PURPOSE Interference Theories Interference theories of one kind or another have long been among the most popular of theoretical approaches attempting to explain the process of forgetting. While the two most important interference theory constructs have changed places in their relative degree of importance to the forgetting process---"proactive inhibition" supplanting "retroactive inhibition" as the main source of interfer- ence—~—since Underwood's (1957) reanalysis of a large quan- tity of the relevant data, the theory itself has not been seriously challenged as an explanation of the process of forgetting of rotc memorization of verbal learning. Excellent reviews exist documenting the growth and decline of various interference theories (Swenson, 1941; Slamecka and Ceraso, 1960; Postman, 196l; Underwood and Eckstrand, 1966). Information contained therein will not be repeated here except as required to make speCific points. In general, the basic tenets of the interference theory of forgetting presume that specific reaponses become unavailable because competing responses learned previous to them (proactive inhibition) or afterwards (retroactive in- hibition) compete with them, or block them, or crowd them 1 out (ceraso, 1967). In a sense, the response with the greatest relative strength wins out. Degree of forgetting caused by retroactive inhibition has been shown in many studies to be directly related to amount and similarity of activities interpolated during the interval between origi- nal learning and recall---the greater the similarity and/or the greater the amount of interpolated learning, the greater the retroactive inhibition (RI). The details of interference theory are supported by large amounts of empirically—gathered data. There is little question that the mechanisms of the theory can adequately handle most forgetting of rotely learned verbal Some kinds of learning, however, which appear materials. stickily to require solely rote memorization processes, refuse to be subsumed under the interference theory umbrella (Underwood and Eckstrand, 1966). Egrgetting of Meaningful Learning All of the experiments providing unequivocably supportive data for the interference theory of forgetting have one thing in common, they represent findings of highly—controlled, laboratory studies of the forgetting Process. As a matter of course, most of these investiga— tions have used variations on rote-verbatim memory tasks. Only one study could be found in the literature dealing with the learning of meaningful materials in a meaningful way (Newman, 1939). The preceding comments require some qualification. 3 For the purposes of this paper, the definition of "mean- ingful learning" will come from Ausubel's (1963) theory of meaningful verbal learning. Meaningful verbal learning is defined as a process in which potentially meaningful material is substantively related to (or subsumed under) an individual's existing knowledge in a non-arbitrary and non-verbatim fashion, so that new meanings are acquired and made more available (Ausubel, 1968, p. 218). Note that this definition presupposes that (l) the material to be learned be potentially meaningful, i.e., substantively re- latable in a non—arbitrary fashion; and (2) the learner employs a meaningful learning set to "relate substantive (as opposed to verbatim) aspects of new concepts, infor~ mation or situations to relevant components of [his] existing cognitive structure in various ways that make possible the incorporation of derivative, elaborative, correlative, supportive, qualifying or representational relationships" (Ausubel, 1963, p. 22). While the mass of data supportive of the interference theory of forgetting can hardly be challenged within the area of rote verbal learning, it is in this more directly applicable area of meaningful learning that the otherwise incontrovertible evidence breaks down. Most of the studies using "meaningful materials" and "meaningful learning" in attempts to extend the interference paradigm to more meaningful learning do not qualify as meaningful learning given the above definition. Nevertheless, with a rare 4 exception, they fail to demonstrate retroactive inhibition. McGeoch and McKinney (1934a, 1934b) attempted to demon— strate retroactive inhibition with materials more meaningful than the usual nonsense syllables. They found that only when they used rote memorization of a short section of poetry were they able to demonstrate retroactive inhibition. On the other hand, they found no decrement in performance with prose materials even though they were using memoriza- tion as the learning procedure. Newman (1939) in the only study found using truly meaningful learning and retention, demonstrated retroactive inhibition only for portions of the prose passages learned that were factual, quite speci— fic, and non-essential (i.e., non-meaningful) to the content and task at hand. Retroactive inhibition again failed to be in evidence in the meaningful areas of the learning. Hall (1955) had his subjects memorize sentences and then tested them on retention at two intervals. He used different types of interpolated learning (IL) materials ranging from some that were highly similar to the origi- nal learning (0L) to others that were essentially irrele- vant. DeSpite the fact that this was not totally meaning- ful learning, he was unable to demonstrate retroactive inhibition. Heise (1956) used passages at varying levels of Miller and Selfridge's (1950) orders of approximation to English. He had 58 memorize material at one level (first order) and varied the level of interpolated learning. In \n s was a way of varying the levels of similarity a sense, thi g to original learning the of interpolated learnin t had so y caused differences in ore traditional nonsense indisputabl retroactive inhibition when investigators used the m He was able to demo erpolated learning was a of approximation nstrate retroactive inhibi— syllables. t zero and first tion only when int word lists) er (virtually nonsensical lowed this up varying and Cofer (1960) fol n both original learning and ord to English. King order of approximation 1 interpolated learning. They were not able to show any con- sistent results with regard to the function of differences in similarity of interpolated learning to original learning. g short passages of nonsensical orders In any case, memorizin of approximation to English could hardly be considered meaningful learning. Entwisle and Huggins (1964 ition using circuit theo Mahler and Miller (l964) ) were able to demonstrate retroactive inhib ry equations with first year engineering students. had 53 memorize sentences. Interpolated learning consisted ities of meaning (as judg efined by the language of variations in similar ed by judges) larities in syntax (as d f transformational gramm and in simi ar). No retro- organizational rules 0 nhibition'was demonstrated for semantic content. peared that could be i active i nterpreted as In fact, evidence ap Supportive of a retroactive facilitation phenomenon when rning materials varied only in syntax. interpolated lea n syntax could be viewed as a However, since variations i rewarding of the original material, facilitation may not be a surprising finding. d Ceraso (1960) in a survey nt out that "ordinary prose or Slamecka an of findings on retroactive inhibition poi d discourse had been until recently, unusually strable interference effects " (p. 549). methodological connects resistant to demon They go on to attribute this resistance to whole presentation, un- problems such as group testing, he like. They limited recall times, recognition tests and t "connected discourse was p rial list, using the point out that when resented in anner as the traditional se the same m memory drum p ethod, [e.g., resentation] serial anticipation m significant retroactive inhi- with individually tested Ss, ained and it was shown clearly to be a bition was obt function of degree of original learning as well as of similarity of subject matter" (p. 459). the above definition m the perspective of Viewed fro what they seem to be saying is that of meaningful learning, entially meaningful verbal material is dissected presented in an when pot unnatural way, into its component parts, d to learn it by rote, ible to demonstrate retro- and the learner is force WOTd'bY‘ word memorization, it is then poss active inhibition. Retroactive Facilitatiqg it appears that to date, retroactive In summation, r been demonstrated with meaningful inhibition has neve On the other hand, materials learned in a meaningful way. there does seem to be a small and contradictory body of evidence to indicate that with meaningful materials and tasks, the traditional retroactive inhibition transfer paradigm does not usually produce retroactive inhibition but may in fact result in "retroactive facilitation"-—— that is the facilitation of original learning---in certain manipulations of degree and kind of similarity of inter- polated learning materials to original learning materials (Ausubel, Robbins, and Blake, 1957; Ausubel, Stager, and Gaite, 1968). In one case, (Ausubel, Robbins, and Blake, 195?) mean scores of 83 suggest that receiving interpolated learning similar in content to original learning were higher than mean scores of Ss who restudied the original passage. In this study, Ss who had read original learning material consisting of the basic tenets of Buddhism, and subsequently read a passage comparing Christianity with Buddhism did significantly better on a seven-day retention test when compared with control 53 who did not undergo any interpolated learning. A comparison of means between the experimental group and a control group which restudied the original passage did not achieve statistical significance. A major problem blocking clear-cut interpretation of the results of this study was that no attempt was made to con- trol for possible facilitative effects of the interpolated learning when the original learning was not involved. The second study (Ausubel, Stager, and Gaite, 1968) showed statistically significant facilitation of original learning when topically similar interpolated learning was learned in two separate conditions. Again, however, no attempt was made to control for the possible facilitative influences of interpolated learning. Katona (1940) in a large number of experiments, demonstrates quite effectively the advantages of meaning- ful learning in retention, application, and flexibility of transfer, and points out that "fortunately material which cannot be learned by understanding but only by memorizing is rather limited except in the psychological laboratory" (p. 234). lost of Katona's results have been adequately repli- cated and supported by other investigators (Hilgard, Irvine, and Whipple, 1953; Hilgard, Edgren, and Irvine, 1954). Au— subel (1968, p. 111) reviewed many other studies, in various areas, that document the superiority of meaningful learning over rote learning when measured by speed of learning and length and amount of retention. An unfortunate paradox surfaces when these results are viewed in relation to educational research and practice today. The advantages of the meaningful learning process seem hardly debatable. learning seems to indicate that much of what could be Yet observation of classroom learned meaningfully is still learned in a less effective fashion-~«i.e., through rote memorization processes. The applied discipline of educational psychology has as its primary concern the facilitation of teaching, learning, retention, and applicability of information. It seems only reasonable that a primary focus for educational psychologists should be the delineation of those tasks that can be learned meaningfully, and the exploration and the delineation of the optimum conditions—--the optimal manipulation of content, structure, sequencing, methods of studying, etc.---that will lead to the maximum of meaningful learning. Nevertheless, most research con— ducted on the forgetting process has centered around rote learning tasks. Results from these experiments have been extrapolated for application to the classroom learning situation, where it appears they were never wholly appli— cable. It may be that there are those learning experiences that can be best and most efficiently mastered, retained and later applied when learned in a rote, association- connecting fashion, but they are certainly in the minority. As Katona (1940) pointed out, much of what is today learned by "senseless connections" is capable of being learned in a meaningful way. Bartlett (1932) pointed out many of the pitfalls in— herent in performing studies on supposedly "pure" (because they appear to be nonsense semantically) nonsense syllables and subsequently attempting to extrapolate from this un- usual brand of learning to more normal meaningful verbal learning. Katona (1940) wagged his finger at this type of exercise, theorizing that the archetype of learning is not to be found in the rote memorization process but in 10 the meaningful learning process. Perhaps it is worthy that educational psychologists should look more closely at the classroom and the kind of learning that takes place outside of the psychological laboratory, in attempt- ing to gain information that will further the educational process. Theory of Meaningful Verbal Learning One theory of verbal learning that will readily handle both retroactive interference of rotely learned materials and retroactive facilitation of meaningfully learned verbal materials is Ausubel's (1963) theory of meaningful verbal learning. At the center of the theory is a model of cog— nitive organization———a cognitive structure---that is "hierarchically organized in terms of highly inclusive conceptual traces, under which are subsumed traces of less inclusive sub-concepts as well as traces of specific in- formation data" (ibid. 1963, p. 24). Progressive differ— entiation from regions of greater to lesser inclusiveness is the major organizational principle. According to Ausubel, meaningful learning occurs only when potentially meaningful material enters the cognitive field and interacts with and is appropriately subsumed under a relevant and more inclusive conceptual system. To be meaningful, the material must be subsumable in a non-arbitrary, non-verbatim fashion---i.e., relatable to stable elements in cognitive structure. ll The cognitive learning process, subsumption, secondarily provides the basic mechanism for forgetting. "Obliterative subsumption" is the process of "memorial reduction to the least common denominator capable of representing cumulative prior experience" (1963, p. 26) "...the gradual loss of dissociability strength through a process of obliterative assimilation" (1968, p. 106). In other words, the retention process is one guided by economical considerations in that the more inclusive, more stable and more established anchoring concepts are remembered more readily. "...new ideas become spon- taneously and progressively less dissociable from their anchoring ideas as entities in their own right until they are no longer available and are said to be forgotten" (1968. p. 93). Rote learning tasks are only relatable to cognitive structure in an arbitrary, verbatim fashion. Thus they should be far more susceptible to the effects of interfer- ence, be it proactive (from existing previously acquired cognitive structure) or retroactive (from meanings acquired subsequently). In meaningful learning, the important mechanisms in— volved are: (l) "the achievement of appropriate relational anchorage within a relevant ideational system and (2) re- tention of the identifiability (dissociability) of the newly learned material" (1968, p. 109)- The maintenance of availability (dissociability) of a __.—___——-—-— _.—~. ‘r L) (D ’1 ) (‘I (W In 12 particular idea in memory then, depends to a great degree on its discriminability in cognitive structure. Enhance- ment of availability can be brought about in many ways~-- some more or less traumatic than others. Theoretically, one post hoc way of facilitating discriminability and hence retention of previous learning (henceforth to be referred to as "original learning") would be to provide other relevant ideational materials with which the learner can actively interact in making relational comparisons. If these ideational materials are already established in cognitive structure, cognitive manipulations in which original learning and this "interpolated learning" interact should serve to make elements of both more discriminable and stable thus increasing learning and subsequent reten- tion. If these interpolated learning materials are not already in cognitive structure, then providing them to the learner after the new learning would provide ideational material that the learner could use retroactively in cog- nitive manipulations such as setting up relational struc- tures, drawing comparisons and contrasts and the like, which should serve to retroactively work on the clarity and stability of original learning and thus facilitate its retention. As has already been mentioned, meaningful learning Presupposes that (l) the material to be learned be poten- tially meaningful and (2) the learner employ a meaningful learning set to substantively relate learning materials 13 to each other and to relevant components of his existing cognitive structure during the incorporation of new learning. According to Ausubel, it cannot be presupposed by teachers that students automatically approach the learning situation in this manner. In fact to facilitate learning he suggests that all possible methods be employed by the instructor to get the student to learn meaningfully (Ausubel, 1968). He suggested that meaningful learning can be facilitated by sequencing material so that sub— stantively relatable material be learned in juxtaposition; that students be instructed to approach material in mean- ingful ways; and that material might even be structured according to the principles of "integrative reconciliation" that is, with relevant relationships, comparisons and con- trasts drawn for the student. §tatement of Purpose The present experiment was designed to investigate the possibility of facilitation of meaningful learning based on some of these precepts. Following the tradi- tional retroactive inhibition paradigm, it was prOposed to: (l) have all Ss learn a set of original learning verbal materials; (2) have Ss learn a second, different set of interpolated learning verbal materials; (3) test 83 on the original learning material to determine the effects of interpolated learning on retention of original learning. The potential significance of the study lay in the possibility of either replicating the findings of Ausubel, 14 et. a1. (1968) indicating retroactive facilitation or in providing evidence for the workings of an interference mechanism in the forgetting of prose materials. In regard to the former, Ausubel, et. al. (1957, 1968) are the only investigators who have ever reported data indicative of retroactive facilitation. 0n the other hand, no investi— gations using truly meaningful learning have reported statistically significant interference effects. Specification of Similarity Dimension. Since degree of similarity between original and interpolated learning has been shown to correlate highly with amount of subse- quent inhibition of rotely learned verbal materials, it was felt that tighter specification of this dimension, beyond what Ausubel et. al. (1957) refer to as "confusably similar" would be advisable. This was accomplished by writing two essays to be used as original and interpolated learning materials (Appendix C) that: (1) covered a confusably similar area of subject matter; (2) were con- flicting in content in that they discussed two different theoretical explanations of the same phenomena; (3) fol- lowed virtually identical organizational structure; (4) had identifiable stimulus elements in the form of paragraph headings that were identical in both. These stimulus elements were followed by response elements (i.e. paragraphs) that were conflicting in that they were each written to the point of view of the particular psycho- logical theory being discussed. It was felt that this 15 tight specification of the similarity and the conflicting nature of the two learning passages employed would maximize possibilities for retroactive interference were it to occur. Treatment Conditions. Experimental treatments intro- duced into the interpolated learning phase were chosen to represent four possible classroom learning conditions: (E-l, Compare and Contrast group) 85 were provided with the similar interpolated learning essay and were guided to make appropriate comparisons and contrasts by occasion— al paragraphs inserted into the essay that made reference to both points of view and their differences and similar- ities. This follows Ausubel‘s principle of integrative reconciliation and is similar to the comparison and con- trast treatment given in Ausubel et. al. (1957, 1968); (E-2, Prompting group) 83 were provided with the similar interpolated learning essay and were prompted to relate its content with the previously learned original learning. This was accomplished by inserting into the essay occa- sional set-off comments suggesting and reminding Ss to compare and contrast some of the information with that learned in the original learning. No content information directly relevant to original learning was given in this condition; (E-3, Similar group) 88 were merely given the similar interpolated learning passage to study. No refer- ence was made to the original learning essay previously studied; (E-4, Overlearning group) Ss were allowed to reread the original learning passage. In the control 16 group (0-5, Irrelevant group) 88 read an essay discussing the pros and cons of team teaching. This passage was of similar length but dissimilar in content to the original and the interpolated learning materials. These five treatments were felt to represent five different potential learning sequences that conceivably could be employed in classroom learning. Thus it was anti- cipated that results might point toward possible applica- tions in curriculum design. E-l, E-2, and E-3 represent three different degrees of guidance given with respect to the cognitive manipula- tion of the information being learned. It is this hypo- thesized cognitive manipulating and structuring that pro- vides Ausubel with the central mechanism in his theory of meaningful verbal learning. As mentioned earlier, his theory of meaningful verbal learning posits cognitive structures organized hierarchically on the principle of progressive differentiation from most inclusive concepts to least inclusive. Ausubel uses the hypothesized cog- nitive manipulations required in the organizing of these structures to predict and explain improvement in retention of learned information due to similar interpolated learning. According to Ausubel the most efficient way of promoting the performance of these cognitive manipulations is not to leave it up to the learner to perform them spontaneously, but to guide him in making them and/or to make them for him. Thus, if the learner can be guided, prompted, or even l7 trained to perform these manipulations in his studying, facilitation of retention should result. Retention of General Versus Specific Information. Since retained information is theoretically structured and stored on the basis of progressive differentiation, Ausubel pre— dicts that less inclusive concepts will be subsumed under more inclusive concepts and obliterated (i.e., forgotten) over time. In the present study, an attempt was made to investigate this difference in retainability by constructing the retention test in two subsections: (1) a specific- factual subsection (items 1-12) that dealt with closely specified factual material; (2) a more general subsection (items 13-36) made up of questions that dealt more with higher order types of learning such as analysis and appli- cation. If the test instrument effectively discriminated between these two types of questions, Ausubel's theory would predict greater forgetting over time of the more specific-factual types of questions. Three retention intervals were set up to look more closely at this possibil- ity: R-l (9 days); R-2 (4 days); R-3 (3 days). Control Groups. As facilitation found in earlier studies could be explained by reference to possible facil- itative effects of interpolated learning materials, an attempt was made to measure the effects of the interpolated learning materials themselves by introducing a separate interpolated-learning only control group("Control-Interpo- lated Learning" [C-ILJ). A test-only ("Control-Test") 18 control group was also set up to check on the base level performance of subjects on the test instrument. Learning Ability. It was anticipated that College Qualification Test scores could be used both as a covariate measure to gain greater precision, and in detecting possible differential effects of treatments due to learning ability. Ausubel and Fitzgerald (1962) report that Ss of lower learn— ing ability responded to interpolated materials guiding them to draw appropriate relationships, with greater facilitation than did 88 of higher learning ability. They proposed that higher ability 83 performed some of the appropriate manipu— lations without being directed to do so. hypotheses 0n the basis of the foregoing, the following hypothe— ses were established: 1. All E groups will perform better on a retention test than the control group provided only with irrelevant interpolated learning material (C-S). 2. Interpolated learning that provides, points out, or prompts similarities and differences between interpolated learning and original learning (E-l, E-Z, E-3) will be more effective in facilitating retention than a rereading of the original learning passage (E-4). 3. Interpolated learning that guides or prompts Ss to make comparisons between original and interpolated learning (E-l, E¢2) will be more effective than interpolated learning that merely provides the potentially comparable 19 information (E-3). 4. Specific-factual material (items 1-12) will be retained better over the longer retention interval (R-l) by groups receiving similar interpolated learning (E-l, E—2, E—3) than by groups receiving identical or irrelevant interpolated learning material. 5. Conceptual material (items 13—36) will show a higher degree of resistance to forgetting than will specific-factual material (items 1-12) across the three retention periods. 6. 38 from lower learning ability groups will per- form better under conditions where comparisons and con- trasts are explicitly drawn and pointed out (E-l) than they will in groups requiring more self-structuring of material (E-2, E-3). Addendum to Literature Review* In an attempt to replicate their findings indicating retroactive facilitation (Ausubel, Stager, and Gaite, 1968), Ausubel, Stager, and Gaite.(l969) performed another experiment attempting to get at possible effects of pro- active facilitation. In a 3 x 2 design, experimental group 88 first studied or overlearned a passage on Buddhism, later studied a "confusably similar" passage on Zen Buddhism. 7“ Since the original design and execution of this experi- ment, three studies have been reported that are similar to and have a direct bearing on it. The results of these are summarized in this section and also will be further dis- cussed in relation to current findings in chapter four. 20 All 83 were later tested on Zen Buddhism at two retention intervals. Results indicated neither proactive facilita— tion nor inhibition of either the one-study group or the overlearning group when they were compared with a control group which had first studied only an irrelevant passage on drug addiction before studying the tested passage on Zen Buddhism. In another direct attempt to replicate and extend the apparent retroactive facilitation effects found earlier (Ausubel, Stager, and Gaite, 1968), Gaite, Ausubel, and Stager (1969) performed two additional experiments. The first varied the time between original learning and inter- polated learning, holding retention interval constant. The second used the same materials in a matched group design. Neither study indicated either inhibition or facilitation. The third study prompted by the apparent results of Ausubel et. a1. (1968) indicating retroactive facilitation, was Shuell and Hapkiewicz (1969). They attempted to tighten up on control for possible facilitative effects of interpolated learning. The lack of control of this factor in the Ausubel et. a1. (1968) study had led Shuell and Hapkiewicz to hypothesize that it was confounding possible retroactive inhibition effects. Secondarily, they also investigated the effects of instructing 88 to compare and contrast the interpolated learning to the original learning. No significant effects were obtained in any condition. CHAPTER II METHOD This chapter contains explications of the following: the characteristics of the sample of subjects used; the experi- mental design; the procedures followed in the carrying out of the study; the actual treatments administered, the makeup of the learning materials and test instrument; and the dependent variables used in the analyses. Each is treated in turn. Sample A potential universe of approximately 1,150 subjects was made available for the experiment by the School of Teacher Education, Michigan State University. This represented the full winter term enrollment of the basic sophomore course in Educational Psychology required of all undergraduate Educa- tion major (Education 200). The 1,150 students were distri- buted alphabetically into 33 recitation sections taught by 17 instructors. The policy of the course was to require participation by students in a research project to a maximum of three hours outside of class. Participation in this study was easily justifiable as a learning experience as the learning materials were highly relevant to the course content. Because participation in the experiment represented a learning experience that was highly relevant to the course 21 22 and its examinations, it was felt to be necessary to offer the opportunity to take part to all 1,150 students. Control of student participation was left up to each individual recitation instructor. The final percentage of participation in the experiment varied from section to section from about 75% to 95% of the students enrolled. The variation was caused by many factors not the least of which were the enthusiasm of the particular instructor, reward and punishment contingencies set up by the instruc- tor for participation, students' class conflicts with scheduled study sessions etc. Of the approximately 1,150 potential subjects, 988 ultimately signed up and took part to some degree. Data from 98 was discarded for failure to attend all sessions. Data from 16 was discarded because scores on the covariate (College Qualification Test) were not available. Usable data were obtained from 874 subjects: 748 of these took part in the five experimental conditions; 74 took part in an extra-control condition attempting to control for possible facilitory effects of the interpolated learning; 52 took part in a no-treatment condition attempting to establish baseline performance on the retention test. As Education 200 is a sophomore level course, it could not be assumed that 83 were naive to the subject matter to be learned in the experiment. In fact, it was anticipated that since most Education 200 students had previously taken an introductory psychology course, some minimum level of knowledge was expected. 23 Experimental Design Main Design. A 3 x 5 analysis of covariance design was used with each subject's College Qualification Test score (a Michigan State University entrance requirement) used as the covariate (Table 1). The usual retroactive inhibition paradigm (c.f. Deese and Rules, 1958, p. 400) was used in which all subjects receive the same original learning, in this case a 2,100 word essay on the basic ideas of stimulus-response learning theory (Appendix C). The five interpolated learning treatments consisted of three variations of an essay of similar length giving the basic ideas of cognitively-oriented learning theory (E-l, E-2, E—3), a second Opportunity to study the original learning (E-4), and a 2,900 word passage dealing with the advantages and disadvantages of team teaching (0-5). Three retention intervals between original learning and test of original learning were crossed with the five treatments: R-l = 9 days; R-2 = 4 days; R—3 = 3 days. Table 2 provides the entire design sequence including signup. Control Groups. A set of five control groups outside of the basic design were used to attempt to assess possible facilitory effects of each of the five interpolated treat- ments. Sessions for this Control-Interpolated Learning group met on the same days as did the R-2 group. During the original learning session these Ss took the Terman Concept Mastery Test. At their interpolated learning hfiso hflso mane mace haze :psm>m was .ummaeaoo 0H1w H: =sammasm>o; zaeaasam; =msapdsosm; ems mnmdsoo= mas muo .sno ago 4. 2 :psm>mawaaH; :sammaam>o: :amaaafim; :msfipasoam: :wmmspsoo was mamaaoo: @mpmaogampsH wmpmHOQAmpsH wepmaomsmpsw ampmaomampsH Umemaomampsm mco elm mam mam Ham Aam>ampsfi soapsmpmh aesssv denunco wnfiflhmmq wepmaomampsH Aam>hmpaw soapsmpmh seenmv mam Aam>hmp2a soapscpwa amenvv wlm Afim>hmpafl Compasses amenmv Him 9}}EIBnD 939110097] sistxanog isey uotie [ ZOHme A¢Bzm2HmmmNm H mqm¢w 25 Apcwapwmrwu. OHMV pmme A%HC0 MQHCmeH umpmaoapmpsHv paws AflwimeCH sme-mv same AHMZQPCH mmolvv pace AHwPLmPGH hmvlmv pmme m a mm vm Ha OH AH 36 mm AH 9H mm go Hm .I \HH ¥** \ omampsH 1 mafichmwg chmH a H n 9209 x pace hampmma vmmoaoo smaama same I Hoapsoo 9209 t oapsoo wsasamma nmpmaoaaman H #8208 . m asocu eoapsmpmm m macho soapsmpmm go go a macaw soapcmwmm tetAH at man 2 m m m as a as a uncapocm Cowpmpaomm a“ as sash a as as as nasam «a-» lawman has ON 3 m amnadz hen mOZMDOmm onmmn N mqm: ”.10.. I015 older memory and compare this new bit of information to the old memory; he can use it to make a decision and act upon the environment in accordance with his decision. This theoretical perspective provides us with a view of man as an active (rather than reactive) organism, in the center of his environment, responding to it, taking in information from it, constructing plans and strategies based on the in- formation, and acting on his environment in accordance with his information. Basic Questions about Learning Because of the basic difference in viewpoint between the two groups, there is a great deal of controversy between them over fact, interpretation, and the explana- tion of the "how” in learning. Each group answers basic questions about learning according to its own view. Some of the basic questions that a theory of learning should be able to ex- plain adequately are listed below. Following that, each of them is considered individually, and the Stimulus-Response Connectionist viewpoint is discussed. 1. What is learned? 2. How is sequential behavior, such as ongoing movement or thought, explained? Does learning one thing help you in learninggsomething else? When we forget? 4. What happens when we remember? 5. How important is reward to learning? 6. What is the role of practice in learning? What is the place of understanding and insight in learning? 8. What are the limits.(the capacities) of learning? (1) What is learned? Stimulus-Response Connectionist theorists assert that man learns connections (associations, habits). Each time a response occurs, (be it a thought or an overt 104 action)* in connection with or because of a stimulus (or combination of stimuli), a connection has been learned. It is through the maze of interconnections that are built up by an individual continually reacting to his environment, that his behavior is explained. (2) How is sequential behavior, such as ongoing movement or thought explained? S-R Connectionist theorists rely on sequences, or "chains” of associations a) One association, having been acted upon, calls up another explain ongoing behavior. association, one of a large complex of possible associations. In this way, sequen- tial behavior is carried out. It is theorized that one response acts as the stimUlus for the next response. For example, a typist, seeing the word ”the" calls up that S-R chain and types out ”t-h-e". If we look more closely at the experienced typist, the response of typing the ”t" may act as the stimulus for the typing of the "h", and the typing of the "h” may act as the stimulus for the typing of the ”e", and so on. Or, for another example, a man learning a golf swing learns a long sequence of muscle movements that are chained together. These S-R-S-R-S-R chains, precisely learned, to the exclusion of distractions, allow the expert golfer to reproduce ins swing almost precisely the same each time he does it. In contrast, the less expert golfer, whose swing is made up of less refined, less precise, and more dis- tractable S-R chains, has a more erratic and less predictable swing. To explain thinking, which is far more complex a skill than simple muscle nmvements, it is necessary to consider the complex array of associations built up hithe mind. These are inter-associated in multitudinous ways and are grouped tOEBCher to make up more inclusive entities, such as concepts, principles, and Strategies. These larger entities with their connected associations, make up thought. M *A response is any form of behavior. tangible behavior and covert mental thought. The term behavior includes both overt, - 4 _ ‘1! 105' As always, the basic unit of learning is the association—-the connection of a particular stimulus to a particular response. The more complex the skill (for example, creative thinking) the more complex the inter-associations and chains of associations that go into making up the behavior. (3) Does learning one thing help you to learn somethingfielse? If all learning is made up of more or less complex combinations of associa- dons, then it seems reasonable to assume that learning one thing should help you in learning something else if the two things are similar enough. If two skills are similar, they must use some of the same associations. For example, it seems reasonable that a baseball player who learns a good, even, swing, may subsequently find it easier to learn to swing a tennis racquet. If he becomes a switch-hitter in baseball, this might help him with his backhand in tennis. If this principle applies at this rather simple level, why shouldn't it apply at a more complex level? S-R theorists say that it does-to the extent that the basic units (i.e. S—R associations) needed for subsequent learning were previously learned as part of the original learning. The following seemingly foolish and simplistic example may help to explain. Ifit us say that a particular bit of learning requires 200 associations, and a second bit of learning that is to be learned later also requires 200 associations. If fifty of those to be learned for the second bit of learning are the same as fifty of those learned in the original 200, then the individual who had mastered the original skill would have fewer associations to learn in mastering the second Skill. Thus,to the degree that the two skills require the same sub-components (i.e. S-R Connections), learning the first skill will help in learning the second. .Efl_ What happens when we remember? When we forget? Remembering, to the S-R Associationist, is the result of the maintenance of 5.431 Ll ,1... .q.‘ ‘6».. 106 sufficient strength of the stimulus-response connections. Since it was a response connected to a stimulus that represented the learning, if it is to be remembered, the connection must remain, strongly enough to be recallable out of the maze of associations in memory. Forgetting then is merely the result of losing the strength of the S-R connections that made the learning recallable. Many theories attempt to explain why the connections become weakened over time. The most popular theory currently espoused by Associationists, uses the interference caused by previous learning and by subsequent learning to explain forgetting. To explain further, since all learning is represented by connections between stimuli and responses, these inter-connections become very complex. More than one stimuli can come to evoke the same response, and more than one response can be evoked by the same stimulus. For example, the response ”hunger" can be evoked inn (1) an empty stomach; (2) the time at which you usually eat; (3) a sign stating "Pizza" which stimulates fond memories associated with pizza; (4) etc. (hxthe other hand, one stimulus, for example the "Pizza" sign, can stimulate any number of responses which may have become associated with it, including a warm nmntal image of the waitress, or unhappy memories of an upset stomach. So you see, even at this very simple level, the interconnections among associations become very complex. It seems reasonable then, that one reason why we forget is that a competing response has been learned (connected to) the same stimulus and that this connection hwerferes with the connection we want to remember. All of the individual associa- tions gain and lose strength relative to each other as we go through life experiencing and learning. If the association we want to remember is strong enough relative to the Other associations around it, we will remember it. If it is too weak, we will not be able to remember it and say that we ”forgot" it. A..- nut.‘:-A.Al¢*‘ I . . D . .1 1‘ l A: .V. . .\ r a . .I. 1 ll ‘\ v .. .. L e .bli r H . A A. x . . 1).. . .vx 1.. run 7.. . .A. y u. . I: a: u. 1 u|d .r. \ls .u. . r'I r ) I .‘u L» .(A .. . 1;. Wk 107 CD How important is reward to learning? To most S-R Connectionists, learning takes place best when some form of reward occurs. (Remember that reward can take the form of the achievement of something desirable or the avoidance of something undesirable.) While reward may not be altogether necessary, most S~R theorists feel that reward strengthens associative connections and makes them more resistant to interference. Naturally, reward can take many forms; it can be tangible, or merely an internal feeling of satisfaction or of relief. In any case, when the reward is appropriate to the task, and seen as a reward by the learner, it should always act to increase the likelihood of learning taking place. _Q0 What is the role of practice in learning? Most S-R Associationists feel that practice is not a sufficient condition for learning to occur. Repetition of a response adds little to the strength of the S-R connection unless the response is followed by some form of reward. Practice is important though, especially for more complex learning, as it allows for more chance of continued reward of success, thus increasing learning. (7) What is the place of understanding and insight in learnipg? S-R Connectionists minimize the role of understanding on the part of the learner. ln.fact, one can learn some associations (e.g. reflexes and phobias) without any understanding. How well, or how much one understands, is dependent on the number and strength of associative connections. The best way to gain understanding is to (mild a body of associative connections appropriate to that understanding. "insight” is not even recognized as a phenomenon of learning except as it may happen to grow out of the application of earlier learned habits (connections) to the new task . 77 5.1 ‘._.. “a~§ ‘0 .0 ‘x. I ’I: In”; N .. .. ”I .0 m: the much: i: refle Tuecti L log (8) What are the limits (capacity) of learning? To the S-R Associationist, the obvious answer is that learning capacity depends upon the number of connections and their availability. People differ in their capacity for associations. This difference is predominantly quantitative in that it reflects that capacity of the individual system to form and maintain S—R connections. Conclusion S-R theorists build their theories around a picture of man as a mechanistic responder, who learns by associating (connecting) stimuli to responses. Every explanation of the system is built from the one basic unit of behavior, the stimulus-response associative connection. All learning is represented by combina- tions of these associations. It is the complexity and strength of these associa— tions that determine much of the ”how" and "why” of learning. In, ”Hip—‘2‘)“.v'” (. < \ I , "‘ .I..‘——-nfl tr“: ' it... Edna lean. Part (Please do not open booklet until requested to do so) (C & C) Name Student Number Date Instructor's name Education 200 Learning Laboratory ‘ l c?‘% Part Two: COGNITIVELY—ORIENTED LEARNING THEORIES Instructions: Enclosed is Part Two of the Learning Laboratory Exercise. In our first session, we learned about the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory of how learning takes place. Another major group of learning theorists is one that we call the Cognitively-Oriented group. Today you will be studying how this group looks at man, and the process of human learning. Very brief comparisons with the Stimulus-Response Connectionist viewpoint which you studied earlier will also be made where appropriate. The material should serve to introduce some lecture sessions scheduled for later in the course. When the instructor tells you to begin, you will have 45 minutes to read and study the attached passage. Take your time. Learn the information well. At a later date you will be tested on this as well as on the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory. Make any marks, notes, underlining, or highlighting that will help you to learn the material. When this class is over, the booklets will be collected. However, they will be returned to you when the laboratory exercise is over. (0‘! .- _-r-vQ-' A!“ a”; I 1 IL __-s.== “‘1‘. v- 9 . :4 :03 3 :m A“ ‘1 I i l no Cognitively-Oriented theorists view man as a purposive, willful organism, who directs his behavior toward the achievement of goals. While he is not always seen as dominating his environment, he is at least in interaction with it, and has the potential to dominate it-—to manipulate it-—in achieving his goals. The learner, viewed from the perspective of the Cognitivist, takes in information and stores it in mental "cognitive structures." He has the potential to cognitively manipulate it and devise plans and strategies based on it. For example: he can accept it as true or reject it as false; he can store it in his mind in the same form as he perceived it, or change it a little to suit his value and informational system; he can recall an older memory, and compare this new bit of information to the old memory; he can use it to make a decision and act upon the environment in accordance with his decision. ‘Learning is defined by psychologists as a relatively permanent change that takes place in an organism (and thus potentially in his behavior). Changes in behavior to the Cognitivist, occur as the result of changes in mental ppgpigiyg structures-—i.e. changes in the way the organism cognitively structures the information he has at his disposal-—and changes in his goals. It is the learner‘s Perception of his environment (the way his cognitive system has interpreted the sensory information that he has received), seen in relation to his goals and the aCtivity of his muscles and glands that determines his behavior. In summary, this theoretical perspective provides us with a View of man as an active organism, in the center of his environment, responding to it, taking in information from it, constructing plans and strategies based on his information abOUt it, and acting purposefully on his environment in accordance with his ° ° to these 1nfOrmation. The term "cognitive" refers to mental processes. It is . r covers Processes-—the manner in which man manipulates, transforms, stores and e 19PUt sensory information-—that Cognitively—Oriented theorists direct their attention. IN (This basic difference from the Stimulus-Response Connectionist viewpoint in the way of looking at man's relationship with his environment, underlies virtually all of the differences in the theoretical explanations of the two groups. S-R theorists view man as more of a reacting organism who is prodded along by external and internal stimuli, building up behavior patterns based on S-R connections, which determine his potential behavior.) Basic Questions about Learning Cited below are eight basic questions that a theory of learning should be able to explain adequately. Following the list, each question is considered individually, and the viewpoint of the Cognitively-Oriented group of theorists is discussed. Brief references will also be made to the viewpoint of the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theorists. 1. What is learned? How is seguential behavior, such as ongoing movement or thought explained? 2. 3. Does learning one thing help you in learning something else? 4. What happens when we remember? When we forget? 5. How important is reward to learning? 6. What is the role of practice in learning? What is the place of understanding and insight in learning? 8. What are the limits (the capacities) of learning? (1) What is learned? The Cognitively-Oriented theorist feels that learning is the incorporation into "cognitive structures" of some new bit of sensory-perceptual information. With each new bit received and stored, the cognitive structure of the individual Changes Slightly: the information is added on to the structure or introduced into the learner's organizational pattern in a relevant position; relationships between the new information and previously stored information may be set up; successful strategies (plans of action) are also learned and incorporated into Stored in these cognitive structures is what the -2- the cognitive structures. . -.-z-' .u‘ _-.-.-ar u‘?:' Vouc expi m) M “A 'w' III— learner was born with plus the composite of all the learning that he has built up during his lifetime of experiences. No one theory exists of the organization of these cognitive structures, but it is certain that in order to explain varying aspects of human thinking, different kinds of relationships must be present in them. One system of cognitive .J organization would have to be spatial. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain our uncanny ability to mentally understand and picture space relationships without experiencing them firsthand. For example, even though you may never . . have been to or seen Erickson Hall, if a friend told you that it was across the 1‘— ci—m' -fimu-u‘r‘.-- A‘U‘.\.—._—_ ‘ street from Shaw Dormitory bus stop and beside the river on Farm Lane, you could probably pinpoint its location in your mind, and find it with no difficulty. Another organizational system would have to be temporal. Otherwise we would have trouble understanding relationships in time without actually experiencing them. For example, even though you have probably never recited or memorized the sequence of our more recent presidents, most of you would have little trouble in putting "Roosevelt, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman" in the correct order with a little thought. In summary, to the Cognitivist, what are learned are skills ideas, meanings, concepts, principles, and the like. The information is kept stored in organized cognitive structures. These structures are continually added to as learning PrOgresses. Much of the information is incorporated in meaningful relationships with other material already hicognitive structures. (This differs from the S—R view that man learns associations, connections. These associations, inter-connected in multitudinous ways are the S-R group's basis for all behavior. It is their view- point that man cannot willfully build new behavior unless an associative connection has already been learned that is at least similar to the new behavior.) US' It: I13 (2) How is sequential behavior,* such as ongoing movement or thought explained? Cognitively-Oriented theorists see man as a purposive, goal—directed organism. In light of the learner's motivation to achieve a goal, ongoing sequential behavior is easily explained by inferring central brain processes such as expectations and memories, which integrate and guide his goal-seeking behavior. In other words, the organism learns to expect certain positive or ' ".4.ng _ v -' .Q ILW negative results from various actions that he might take, and these guide his planning and his behavior in getting toward his goal and in getting away from ‘ a“,- whatever he may wish to avoid. n. ‘;" An individual's potential behavior is based on, but not rigidly determined , by the information and skills he has learned. He can use the information in new plans and new behavior, but he is not limited to exact replicas of the behavior patterns that are contained in his cognitive structures. Behavior always has the potential of being creative and constructive-of willfully using and going beyond what is in cognitive structures. (In contrast, the S-R theorist holds that man's behavior is dependent on the S-R connections that he has built up in his past. Sequential behavior is explained by sequences of these S-R connections, chained together.) 12) Does learning one thingyhelp in learning something else? Learning, if it is to be maximally retained and usable, is not just stored randomly. It should be related to (eg. compared and contrasted to) other learning, and stored apprOpriately in relation to other material in cognitive Structures. Thus it is very helpful if new learning has the benefit of previous * Remember, the term "behavior" can refer to overt, tangible acts, or to covert mental processes. . '5? a. the .163 hi m‘ learning to help "anchor" it—-to make it more retainable. If this is true, then learning one thing will aid subsequent learning as long as the cognitive skills learned previously can be applied, and as long as the content of both is similar enough to allow the learner to relate one to the other, thereby increasing understanding. Crucial to aiding learning is that the learner comes to understand the essential relationships in the learning task. Since Cognitivists hold that part of learning is the acquisition of learning strategies (plans of attack), if the pattern of relationships is similar from one learning situation to the next, effective transfer of learning can be expected if the individual applies his earlier learning. This may occur consciously or spontaneously. If the relationships are well understood by the learner, the applicability of the learning to new but similar situations is increased. (In comparison, the S-R Connectionist viewpoint, has much more stringent requirements. The effect of older learning upon new learning is limited to the number of S-R connections previously established that are usable in the new learning.) 13) What happens when we remember? When we forget? Cognitive structures represent the sum total of an individual's learning at any given time. Information is stored in these structures. It can be drawn upon and recalled when needed as long as the individual elements of the material maintain sufficient strength so that they can be discriminated from Other elements in cognitive structure and brought out for use. Cognitive theorists do not totally agree on why we forge . Generally it is assumed to be caused by: (l) the processes of decay (or fading) over time; (2) the assimilation of the more discrete and Specific elements into the larger, more inclusive concepts; and (3) the competition of alternative memories. All . -‘ ”-5-- A...‘A-..' ‘-tn uh- Alt-I. .. ,-.. m: a." //$“' of these processes are affected by how well the information was learned in the first place. For example, if in learning informational material, logical and meaningul relationships within the material itself and between the material and other material are learned, the information will be more resistant to forgetting than it would be if it were rotely learned in a verbatim manner. Other factors can also influence forgetting. For example, we learn and remember what we wish to believe more readily than what we wish to disregard. (In comparison, remembering to the S-R Connectionist depends on the maintainance of sufficient strength of the stimulus- reSponse connections. Forgetting is usually thought to be caused primarily by interference caused by other connections.) (j) How important is reward to learning? Reward is seen by Cognitive theorists as important as a regulator of behavior. (Remember, reward can take the form of the achievement of something desirable or the avoidance of something undersiable.) The expectation of reward or of punishment guides behavior. Very little would be accomplished were it not for the anticipation of some kind of reward. This reward can take many forms——for example, food from the killing of an animal, or more indirectly, a well-developed intellect and a good-paying job as a reward for a few years of study in a college. Cognitivists emphasize internal sources of reward as being more satisfactory than tangible rewards. For example, the satisfaction brought by success, has more ongoing and far-reaching effects than would an increase in pay. Successful completion of a task and the satisfaction thereby experienced, leads to a further striving for more success experiences. It tends to raise the learner‘s self-confidence, to encourage him to try again in later tasks, and to increase the attractiveness of later learning tasks as possible success experiences. While tangible rewards certainly perform some of the above functions, their effects are seen as less central to the learning situation, and shorter-lived. [lb (S-R Connectionist theorists see reward as much more central and much more direct in its effects on learning. Some would even infer that little or no learning will take place without reward. This group holds that reward acts directly on the S-R connection to strengthen the bond. This effect of reward takes place with or without the learner's understanding.) (6) What is the role of practice in learning? Learning refers to relatively permanent changes in the cognitive structure, as the learner experiences initial and successive attempts at a learning task. Although much learning may take place in the first attempt on a task, practice is necessary in order to maximize learning, retention, and later application of learning. Practice increases the clarity and stability of new learning in the cognitive structure, thus making it more resistant to forgetting. This is particularly true if the learner attempts to relate the material to what he already has learned and stored in c0gnitive structures. (Most S-R theorists would agree that practice is a necessary part of learning. However, practice without reward is usually considered to be of little help to learning.) 1]) What is the place of understanding and insight in learning? Understanding is at the center of cognitive explanations of the learning process. Sensible learning requires that the learner understand the structure 0f the taskr-that he attempt to perceive the relationships between the whole task, and its various sub-parts. Moreover, since learning is goal-directed, it is best accomplished when the learner perceives the means-ends relationships in the problem-that is, where he is going, and how best to get there. He can then reason out sensible approaches to the problem. Through the sensible structuring of the problem itself, and of his approach to the problem, the learner increases the possibility of insightful experiences. lgeighg is the "see the light", "Eureka" experience that occurs when one manipulates the facets of the problem correctly making clearer the relationships between the goal and the steps necessary in getting there. -7- H? (In direct contrast, while understanding is central to cognitive explanations of learning, S—R theorists minimize its role. Associations can be learned without understanding. Insight, if it exists at all, is only due to previously learned associations.) (Q) What are the limits (the capacities) of learning? Capacities for learning are the result of the limitations set by genetics on one individual as compared with another. It must be assumed that heredity sets some absolute limits on the growth of individual cOgnitive structures and it is also probable that the environment may have some irreversible effects on these limitations during the deve10pment of the individual. However, most cognitivists would hold that the idea of a fixed capacity or limit on learning is relatively unimportant as it is assumed that most individuals Operate at a level far below capacity. (The S-R Connectionist view is more mechanistic. Capacity refers to the quantity of associations that can be learned and maintained by an individual.) Conclusion Cognitively-Oriented theorists View man as a goal-seeking, dynamic organism. Learning, is the building up of cognitive structures storing learned information and skills. It is the size, the degree of differentiation, and the clarity of the learning represented in these cognitive structures, along with the learner's goals and the current state of the learner‘s environment that will determine his behavior. (To the S-R Connectionist, the goals of the individual play little part in determining his behavior. It is the number and kind of connections that he has built up that will determine his behavior.) (If you have time, review this material trying to understand the whole position and how the separate parts fit together-) (Please do not open booklet until requested to do so) (P) Name Student Number Date Instructor's name Education 200 Learning Laboratory “30930 Part Two: COGNITIVELY-ORIENTED LEARNING THEORIES Instructions: Enclosed is Part Two of the Learning Laboratory Exercise. In our first session, we learned about the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory of how learning takes place. Another major group of learning theorists is one that we call the Cognitively-Oriented group. Today you will be studying how this group looks at man, and the Process of human learning. The material should serve to introduce some lecture sessions scheduled for later in the course. When the instructor tells you to begin, you will have 45 minutes to read and study the attached passage. Take your time. Learn the information well. At a later date you will be tested on this as well as on the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory. While you are reading, it would be a good idea if you spent some of your time thinking and comparing this vieWpoint with the ideas of the Stimulus- Response Connectionist theories that you studied a few days ago. Make any marks, notes, underlining, or highlighting that will help you to learn the material. When this class is over, the booklets will be collected. However, they will be returned to you when the laboratory exercise is over. It? ,- Iv u u HQ Cognitively-Oriented theorists view man as a purposive, willful, organism, who directs his behavior toward the achievement of goals. While he is not always seen as dominating his environment, he is at least in interaction with it, and has the potential to dominate it-—to manipulate it-—in achieving his goals. (Compare this with the S-R Connectionist View of man in relation to his environment.) The learner, viewed from the perspective of the Cognitivist, takes in information and stores it in mental "cognitive structures." He has the potential to cognitively manipulate it and devise plans and strategies based on it. For example: he can accept it as true, or reject it as false; he can store it in his mind in the same form as he perceived it, or change it a little to suit his value and informational system; he can recall an older menory, and compare this new bit of information to the old memory; he can use it to make a decision and act upon the environment in accordance with his decision. (S-R theorists differ radically on this point.) Learning is defined by psychologists as a relatively permanent change that takes place in an organism (and thus potentially in his behavior). Changes in behavior to the Cognitivist, occur as the result of changes in mental cognitive structures—~i.e. changes in the way the organism cognitively structures the information he has at his disposal——and changes in his goals. It is the learner's Perception of his environment (the way his cognitive system has interpreted the sensory information that he has received), seen in relation to his goals and the activity of his muscles and glands that determines his behavior. (HOW do S-R theorists view "goals"?) In summary, this theoretical perspective provides us with a view of man as an active organism, in the center of his environment, reaponding to it, taking in -1- I21D information from it, constructing plans and strategies based on his information about it, and acting purposefully on his environment in accordance with his information. The term "cognitive” refers to mental processes. It is to these processes-—the manner in which man manipulates, transforms, stores, and recovers input sensory information-that Cognitively-Oriented theorists direct their attention. (This basic difference from the Stimulus-Response Connectionist viewpoint in the way of looking at man's relationship with his environment, underlies virtually all of the differences in the theoretical explanations of the two groups. Try to under- stand it, and use it to compare the positions of the two groups.) Basic Questions About Learning Cited below are eight basic questions that a theory of learning should be able to explain adequately. Following the list, each question is considered individually, and the viewpoint of the Cognitively-Oriented group of theorists is discussed. (Compare the explanations expressed below with the explanations of the S-R theorists you have studied earlier.) 1. What is learned? 2. How is segpential behavior, such as ongoing movement or thought explained? 3. Does learning one thing help you in learning something else? 4. What happens when we remember? When we forget? 5. How important is reward to learning? 6. What is the role of practice in learning? 7. What is the place of understanding and insight in learning? 8. What are the limits (the capacities) lf learning? 11) What is learned? The Cognitively-Oriented theorist feels that learning is the incorporation into "cognitive structures" of some new bit of sensory-perceptual information. -2- Kit the . 19.! SUI tn: pr With each new hit received and stored, the cognitive structure of the individual changes slightly: the information is added on to the structure or introduced into the learner's organizational pattern in a relevant position; relationships between the new information and previously stored information may be set up; successful strategies (plans of action) are also learned and incorporated into the cognitive structures. Stored in these cognitive structures is what the learner was born with plus the composite of all the learning that he has built up during his lifetime of experiences. (What and how do S—R theorists say man learns?) No one theory exists of the organization of these cognitive structures, but it is certain that in order to explain varying aSpects of human thinking, different kinds of relationships must be present in them. One system of cognitive organization would have to be spatial. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain our uncanny ability to mentally understand and picture Space relation- ships without experiencing them firsthand. For example, even though you may never have been to or seen Erickson Hall, if a friend told you that it was across the street from Shaw Dormitory bus stOp and beside the river on Farm Lane, you could probably pinpoint its location in your mind, and find it with no difficulty. Another organizational system would have to be temporal. Otherwise we would have trouble understanding relationships in time without actually experienceing them. For example, even though you have probably never recited or memorized the Sequence of our more recent presidents, most of you would have little trouble in putting "Roosevelt, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman" in the correct order with a little thought. In summary, to the Cognitivist, what are learned are skills, ideas, meanings, concepts, principles, and the like. The information is kept stored in organized frag _A“ -3 ‘1 A __ “—— -__, (1\ CH 56! su« be' lit ’t.’ /22. cognitive structures. These structures are continually added to as learning progresses. Much of the information is incorporated in meaningful relationships with other material already in cognitive structures. (Compare this view with the way S-R theorists explain learning.) (2) How is sequential behavior,* such as ongoinggmovement or thought explained? Cognitively—Oriented theorists see man as a purposive, goal-directed organism. In light of the learner's motivation to achieve a goal, ongoing sequential behavior is easily explained by inferring central brain processes such as expectations, and memories, which integrate and guide his goal-seeking behavior. In other words, the organism learns to expect certain positive or negative results from various actions that he might take, and these guide his planning and his behavior in getting toward his goal and in getting away from whatever he may wish to avoid. An individual's potential behavior is based on, but not rigidly determined by the information and skills he has learned. He can use the information in new plans and new behavior, but he is not limited to exact replicas of the behavior patterns that are contained in his cognitive structures. Behavior always has the potential of being creative and constructive-of willfully using and going beyond what is in cognitive structures. (This differs radically with what you learned about S-R theories of learning.) *Remember, the term "behavior" can refer to overt, tangible acts, or to covert mental processes. m...- _— q...— ._,. l _.__.._...— SI! lea 1 , IE: .62 ‘1". Cr.‘ C] pa I23 (3) Does learning one thing help in learning something else? Learning, if it is to be maximally retained and usable, is not just stored randomly. It should be related to (eg. compared and contrasted to) other learning, and stored appropriately in relation to other material in cognitive structures. Thus it is very helpful if new learning has the benefit of previous learning to help ”anchor" it-—to make it more retainable. If this is true, then learning one thing will aid subsequent learning as long as the cognitive skills learned previously can be applied, and as long as the content of both is similar enough to allow the learner to relate one to the other, thereby increasing understanding. Crucial to aiding learning is that the learner comes to understand the essential relationships in the learning task. Since Cognitivists hold that part of learning is the acquisition of learning strategies (plans of attack), if the pattern of relationships is similar from one learning situation to the next, effective transfer of learning can be expected if the individual applies his earlier learning. This may occur consciously or spontaneously. If the relation- ships are well understood by the learner, the applicability of the learning to new but similar situations is increased. (S-R Connectionist theorists also feel that learning one thing can help in learning a second. Compare their explanation with this one.) 19) What happens when we remember? When we forget? COgnitive structures represent the sum total of an individual's learning at any given time. Information is stored in these structures. It can be drawn upon and recalled when needed as long as the individual elements of the material maintain sufficient strength so that they can be discriminated from other elements in cognitive structure and brought out for use. 355 the an ‘ . bVa re. 0E Pr DN 11" I29 Cognitive theorists do not totally agree on why we forge . Generally it is assumed to be caused by: (l) the processes of decay (or fading) over tjnmn (2) the assimilation of the more discrete and specific elements into the larger, more inclusive concepts; and (3) the competition of alternative memories. All of these processes are affected by how well the information was learned in the first place. For example, if in learning informational material, logical and meaningful relationships within the material itself and between the material and other material are learned, the information will be more resistant to forgetting than it would be if it were rotely learned in a verbatim manner. Other factors can also influence forgetting. For example, we learn and remember what we wish to believe more readily than what we wish to disregard. (S-R theories are more precise in dealing with remembering and forgetting. Can you compare them?) ié) How important is reward to learning? Reward is seen by Cognitive theorists as important as a regulator of behavior. (Remember, reward can take the form of the achievement of something desirable or the avoidance of something undesirable.) The expectation of reward or of punishment guides behavior. Very little would be accomplished were it not for the anticipation of some kind of reward. This reward can take many forms-for example, food from the killing of an animal, or more indirectly, a well-developed intellect and a good-paying job as a reward for a few years of study in a college. COgnitivists emphasize internal sources of reward as being more satisfactory than tangible rewards. For example, the satisfaction brought by success, has more OngOing and far-reaching effects than would an increase in pay. Successful completion of a task and the satisfaction thereby experienced, leads to a further a . - striving for more success experiences. It tends to raise the learner 5 self confidence, to encourage him to try again in later tasks, and to increase the I n 3» IA “ID! I25 attractiveness of later learning tasks as possible success experiences. While tangible rewards certainly perform some of the above functions, their effects are seen as less central to thelearning situation, and shorter-lived. (Do S-R theorists agree or disagree there? Which position seems most tenable?) (Q) What is the role of practice in learning? Learning refers to relatively permanent changes in the cognitive structure, as the learner experiences initial and successive attempts at a learning task. Although much learning may take place in the first attempt on a task, practice is necessary in order to maximize learning, retention, and later application of learning. Practice increases the clarity and stability of new learning in the cognitive structure, thus making it more resistant to forgetting. This is particularly true if the learner attempts to relate the material to what he already has learned and stored in cognitive structures. (Try to relate the preceding ideas concerning practice and reward to S-R explanations.) 11) What is the place of understanding and insight in learning? Understanding is at the center of cognitive explanations of the learning Process. Sensible learning requires that the learner understand the structure 0f the task-—that he attempt to perceive the relationships between the whole task, and its various sub-parts. Moreover, since learning is goal-directed, it is best accomplished when the learner perceives the means-ends relationships in the problem—-that is, where he is going, and how best to get there. He can then reason out sensible approaches to the problem. and of his approach Through the sensible structuring of the problem itself, . . . . . . s. to the Problem, the learner increases the pOSSibility of in31ghtful experience r—u-Onfl-R e'" ' ‘l bu [20' Insight is the "see the light", "Eureka" experience that occurs when one manipulates the facets of the problem correctly making clearer the relationships between the goal and the steps necessary ingetting there. (The basic difference in philosoPhical viewpoint between Cognitivists and S-R theorists is emphasized by their differences in explanations on this point. Why do they contrast?) (8) What are the limits (the capacities) of learning? Capacities for learning are the result of the limitations set by genetics on one individual as compared with another. It must be assumed that heredity sets some absolute limits on the growth of individual cognitive structures,and it is also probable that the environment may have some irreversible effects on L» these limitations during the development of the individual. However, most Cognitivists would hold that the idea of a fixed capacity or limit on learning is relatively unimportant as it is assumed that most individuals Operate at a level far below capacity. (There is a difference from the S-R view here. Do the two positions conflict?) Conclusion Cognitively-Oriented theorists view man as a goal-seeking, dynamic organism. Learning, is the building up of cognitive structures storing learned information and skills. It is the size, the degree of differentiation, and the clarity of the learning represented in these cognitive structures, along with the learner's goals and the current state of the learner's environment that will determine his behavior. (If you have time, review this material, trying to understand the whole position and how the separate parts fit together. Try to see in what ways it is similar tO/or different from the S-R view.) ____— (Please do not open booklet until requested to do so) (S) Name Student Number Date Instructor's name Education 200 (7c) '93" c§u & Learning Laboratory Part Two: COGNITIVELY-ORIENTED LEARNING THEORIES Instructions: Enclosed is Part Two of the Learning Laboratory Exercise. In our first session, we learned about the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory of how learning takes place. Another major group of learning theorists is one that we call the Cognitively-Oriented group. Today you will be studying how this group looks at man, and the process of human learning. The material should serve to introduce some lecture sessions scheduled for later in the course. When the instructor tells you to begin, you will have 45 minutes to read and study the attached passage. Take your time. Learn the information well. At a later date you will be tested on this as well as on the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory. Make any marks, notes, underlining, or highlighting that will help you to learn the material. When this class is over, the booklets will be collected. However, they will be returned to you when the laboratory exercise is over. [27 smgi' "i—l“ - n’.7~ ‘. alv. and inf t0 I18 Cognitively-Oriented theorists view man as a purposive, willful, organism, who directs his behavior toward the achievement of goals. While he is not always seen as dominating his environment, he is at least in interaction with it, and has the potential to dominate it-—to manipulate it-in achieving his goals. The learner, viewed from the perspective of the Cognitivist, takes in information and stores it in mental ”cognitive structures." He has the potential to cognitively manipulate it and devise plans and strategies based on it. For example: he can accept it as true, or reject it as false; he can store it in his mind in the same form as he perceived it, or change it a little to suit his value and informational system; he can recall an older memory, and compare this new bit of information to the old memory; he can use it to make a decision and act upon the environment in accordance with his decision. Learning is defined by psychologists as a relatively permanent change that takes place in an organism (and thus potentially in his behavior). Changes in behavior to the Cognitivist, occur as the result of changes in mental cognitive structures-i.e. changes in the way the organism cognitively structures the information he has at his disposal-and changes in his goals. It is the learner's perception of his environment (the way his cognitive system has interpreted the sensory information that he has received), seen in relation to his goals and the activity of his muscles and glands that determines his behavior. In summary, this theoretical perspective provides us with a view of man as an active organism, in the center of his environment, responding to it, taking in information from it, constructing plans and strategies based on his information about it, and acting purposefully on his environment in accordance with his information. The term ”cognitive” refers to mental processes. It is to these Processes—-the manner in which man manipulates, transforms, stores, and recovers -1- - 'a‘_‘~9 ‘ 7 c- ....‘.y. ~ . ." -._-.u~ x 1 ..._..._.l" am ind is a I29 input sensory information-~that Cognitively-Oriented theorists direct their attention. Basic Questions About Learning Cited below are eight basic questions that a theory of learning should be able to explain adequately. Following the list, each question is considered individually, and the viewpoint of the Cognitively-Oriented group of theorists is discussed. 1. What is learned? 2. How is sequential behavior, such as ongoing movement or thought explained? 3. Does learning one thing help you in learning something else? 4. What happens when we remember? When we forget? 5. How important is reward to learning? 6. What is the role of practice in learning? 7. What is the place of understanding and insight in learning? 8. What are the limits (the capacities) of learning? 11) What is learned? The Cognitively-Oriented theorist feels that learning is the incorporation into "cognitive structures” of some new hit of sensory-perceptual information. With each new bit received and stored, the cognitive structure of the individual changes slightly: the information is added on to the structure or introduced into the learner's organizational pattern in a relevant position; relationships between the new information and previously stored information may be set up; successful strategies (plans of action) are also learned and incorporated into the cognitive structures. Stored in these cognitive structures is what the learner was born with plus the composite of all the learning that he has built -2- lip( it fer :51 C0 [30 up during his lifetime of experiences. No one theory exists of the organization of these cognitive structures, but it is certain that in order to explain varying aspects of human thinking, dif- ferent kinds of relationships must be present in them. One system of cognitive organization would have to be spatial. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain our uncanny ability to mentally understand and picture space relation- 3 u ships without experiencing them firsthand. For example, even though you may never have been to or seen Erickson Hall, if a friend told you that it was across ‘ 'rn‘--~ u‘redfl». the street from Shaw Dormitory bus stop and beside the river on Farm Lane, you i could probably pinpoint its location in your mind, and find it with no difficulty. Another organizational system would have to be temporal. Otherwise we would have trouble understanding relationships in time without actually experiencing them. For example, even though you have probably never recited or memorized the sequence of our more recent presidents, most of you would have little trouble in putting "Roosevelt, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman" in the correct order with a little thought. In summary, to the Cognitivist, what are learned are skills, ideas, meanings, concepts, principles, and the like. The information is kept stored in organized cognitive structures. These structures are continually added to as learning progresses. Much of the information is incorporated in meaningful relationships with other material already in cognitive structures. {2) How is sequential behaviorgfi such as ongoing movement or thought explained? Cognitively-Oriented theorists see man as a purposive, goal-directed Organism. In light of the learner's motivation to achieve a goal, ongoing *Remember, the term "behavior" can refer to overt, tangible acts, or to covert mental processes. via I; I?! sequential behavior is easily explained by inferring central brain processes such as expectations, and memories, which integrate and guide his goal-seeking behavior. In other words, the organism learns to expect certain positive or negative results from various actions that he might take, and these guide his planning and his behavior in getting toward his goal and in getting away from whatever he may wish to avoid. -. -.- _-‘n An individual's potential behavior is based on, but not rigidly determined . by the information and skills he has learned. He can use the information in new plans and new behavior, but he is not limited to exact replicas of the behavior patterns that are contained in his cognitive structures. Behavior always has F““—"—‘§—.—’"' t. the potential of being creative and constructive——of willfully using and going beyond what is in cognitive structures. 13) Does learning one thing help in learning something else? Learning, if it is to be maximally retained and usable, is not just stored randomly. It should be related to (eg. compared and contrasted to) other learning, and stored appropriately in relation to other material in cognitive structures. Thus it is very helpful if new learning has the benefit of previous learning to help "anchor" it-—to make it more retainable. If this is true, than learning one thing will aid subsequent learning as long as the cognitive skills learned previously can be applied, and as long as the content of both is similar enough to allow the learner to relate one to the other, thereby increasing understanding. Crucial to aiding learning is that the learner comes to understand the essential relationships in the learning task. Since Cognitivists hold that part Of learning is the acquisition of learning strategies (plans of attack), if the 318‘; f .4 ’1? '3 I31 pattern of relationships is similar from one learning situation to the next, effective transfer of learning can be expected if the individual applies his earlier learning. This may occur consciously or spontaneously. If the relation- ships are well understood by the learner, the applicability of the learning to new but similar situations is increased. (A) What happens when we remember? When we fogget? ! Cognitive structures represent the sum total of an individual's learning at any given time. Information is stored in these structures. It can be drawn upon and recalled when needed as long as the individual elements of the material a! maintain sufficient strength so that they can be discriminated from other elements in cognitive structure and brought out for use. Cognitive theorists do not totally agree on why we forget. Generally it is assumed to be caused by: (l) the processes of decay (or fading) over time; (2) the assimilation of the more discrete and specific elements into the larger, more inclusive concepts: and (3) the competition of alternative memories. All of these processes are affected by how well the information was learned in the first place. For example, if in learning informational material, logical and meaningful relationships within the material itself and between the material and other material are learned, the information will be more resistant to forgetting than it would be if it were rotely learned in a verbatim manner. Other factors can also influence forgetting. For example, we learn and remember what we wish to believe more readily than what we wish to disregard. 12) How important is reward to learning? Reward is seen by Cognitive theorists as important as a regulator of behavior. (33 (Remember, reward can take the form of the achievement of something desirable or the avoidance of something undesirable.) The expectation of reward or of punish- ment guides behavior. Very little would be accomplished were it not for the anticipation of some kind of reward. This reward can take many forms-for example, food from the killing of an animal, or more indirectly, a well-developed intellect and a good-paying job as a reward for a few years of study in a college. Cognitivists emphasize internal sources of reward as being more satisfactory than tangible rewards. For example, the satisfaction brought by success, has more ongoing and far-reaching effects than would an increase in pay. Successful completion of a task and the satisfaction thereby experienced, leads to a further striving for more success experiences. It tends to raise the learner’s self- confidence, to encourage him to try again in later tasks, and to increase the attractiveness of later learning tasks as possible success experiences. While tangible rewards certainly perform some of the above functions, their effects are seen as less central to the learning situation, and shorter-lived. Lé) What is the role ofgpractice in learning? Learning refers to relatively permanent changes in the cognitive structure, as the learner experiences initial and successive attempts at a learning task. Although much learning may take place in the first attempt on a task, practice is necessary in order to maximize learning, retention, and later application of learning. Practice increases the clarity and stability of new learning in the cognitive structure, thus making it more resistant to forgetting. This is particularly true if the learner attempts to relate the material to what he already has learned and stored in cognitive structures. - .i , .- cm” ._.‘ ._“.M“ . -' -‘ ,_ . __.__..,._ m. f‘ t- (34 (7), What is the Place of understanding and insight in learning? Understanding is at the center of cognitive explanations of the learning process. Sensible learning requires that the learner understand the structure of the task-that he attempt to perceive the relationships between the whole task, and its various sub-parts. Moreover, since learning is goal-directed, it is best accomplished when the learner perceives the means-ends relationships in the problem-—that is, where he is going, and how best to get there. He can then reason out sensible approaches to the problem. Through the sensible structuring of the problem itself, and of his approach to the problem, the learner increases the possibility of insightful experiences. Insight is the "see the light", "Eureka" experience that occurs when one manipulates the facets of the problem correctly making clearer the relationships between the goal and the steps necessary in getting there. 15) ‘What are the limits (the cgpacities) of learning? Capacities for learning are the result of the limitations set by genetics on one individual as compared with another. It must be assumed that heredity sets some absolute limits on the growth of individual cognitive structures, and it is also probable that the environment may have some irreversible effects on these limitations during the development of the individual. However, most Cognitivists would hold that the idea of a fixed capacity or limit on learning is relatively unimportant as it is assumed that most individuals operate at a level far below capacitY- Conclusion Cognitively-Oriented theorists view man as a goal-seeking dynamic organism. ., _ L'x—‘fl- +-_-“ - Auk-i. "' - __ .\ ‘1‘.” .. t'~_' 871C {31! an: Rf Learning, is the building up of cognitive structures storing learned information and skills. It is the size, the degree of differentiation, and the clarity of the learning represented in these cognitive structures, along with the learner's goals and the current state of the learner's environment that will determine his behavior. (If you have time, review this material, trying to understand the whole position and how the separate parts fit together.) () 0.! Lean Par: Est: one: .ear: ca: late: (Please do not open booklet until requested to do so.) (20L) Name Student Number Date Instructor's name 63W Learning Laboratory . (3 Education 200 Part Two: STIMULUS-RESPONSE CONNECTIONIST LEARNING THEORIES Instructions: For Part Two of the Learning Laboratory, you will have an 3 opportunity to re-study the article about Stimulus-Response-Connectionist $’ learning theories that you studied before. Try to learn it as well as you can. These theories will also be discussed in a number of lecture sessions later in the course. When the instructor tells you to begin, you will have 45 minutes to read and study. Take your time. Learn the information well. At a later date you will be tested on the information. Make any marks, notes, underlining, or highlighting that will help you to learn the material. When this class is over, the booklets will be collected. However, they will be returned to you when the laboratory exercise is over. /36 --Z‘“Am“"‘ ir. a: iistzn Ei‘se :ften t131M ticni .311; 137 Learning, put very simply, is a relatively permanent change that takes place in an organism and its potential behavior, that cannot be attributed to maturation, instinct, or temporary states of the organism due to fatigue, drugs, etc. This process, called learning, is a phenomenon that has been discussed by philoaOphers for centuries. The scientific study of learning began in the 1880's when psychologists began to use systematic and empirical methods attempting to fir § 1 discover how and why it occurs. 3' l Just as there were many philosophical viewpoints, differing in the way they F chose to explain learning, so there are today many psychological ViEWPOintS that E often follow directly from them. While each psychological theory of learning may 5; have its differences from each of the others, it is possible to group most of the theories into two large groups: the Stimulus-Response Connectionist (or Associa- tionist) group; and the Cognitively-Oriented group. Philosophical Differences These two groups clearly differ in their philosophical view of man and his relationship to his environment.* If we consider the learner and his environment to be separate, a basic question on which these two groups hold contrasting view- Points is, "which has precedence over the other”-—"which is dominant over the other?" This basic difference underlies virtually all of the differences between the theoretical ideas of the two gIOUps. Sthmdus-Response Connectionist Viewpoint Stimulus-Response (S-R) Connectionist theorists see man as being dominated by his environment, Man is a passive reactor to his environment—~he responds to stimuli from the environment. Each response becomes connected to the stimuli that M *The term environment is used here to include all of the influences on the individual. These may be internal, or external, tangible, or intangible. For example, hunger pangs at lunch time, and anxiety over a forthcoming test, are as "WC? 8 part of the environment as is Erickson Hall, your parents, or the rain on the roo , 1. CU 1" . at e e E . . s «1-5 1 r b u . . i .I\. 'l AIV r Ind, i lulu until. .c a an ,. S , .. .51 W1. 5‘- Ar... .11. n. F» e o . 7.. ru .. a 1!.» but i .v 6 nl at I v a» .4 .n u .qle n. I Av. 1| . FA . ,. nlb . It. cl... 0 u S nl. n. u t u' it» 5.. . I . .z . s. . . . in». I38 evoked it. Each of these individual stimulus-response connections (which will also be referred to as associations or habits) is a unit of learning—~it represents a piece of learning. The total complex of all of these stimulus-response connections represents the stored and usable learning of the individual. These individual stimulus-response connections are built up, piece-by-piece, habit-by-habit as man comes to learn and know. The foregoing conception of man is that of a somewhat mechanical responding machine; connections are made between stimulus events and units of behavior. It is the long history of associations (connections) built up in the individual's contact with and reaction to his constantly changing environment, that determine with each new stimulus event, how the individual will respond. In summary, the broad view held by this group is of man, dominated by his environment, responding to his environment, building up associative connections in greater and more complex interconnected sequences, in a receptive, mechanical way. ngnitively-Oriented Viewpoint In contrast to the S-R Associationist view, those theories that may be loosely classified under the heading "Cognitively-Oriented” generally give man more dominance in his interaction with his environment. According to this line of thought, man not only reacts to his environmental stimuli, but also acts upon- or at least acts in interaction with-—his environment. The term ”cognitive" refers to mental processes. It is to these processes—- the manner in which man manipulates, transforms, stores and recovers input sensory information—~that Cognitively-Oriented theorists direct their attention. Seen from this perspective, the learner takes in information, and has the POtential to act upon it in some way. For example: he can accept it as true, or reject it as false; he can store it in his mind in the same form as he perceived it, or change it a little to suit his value and informational system; he can recall an q | 3;:er 3 ,‘bra LL '0' c EYEI v "0" at u ECCOI I37 older memory and compare this new hit of information to the old memory; he can use it to make a decision and act upon the environment in accordance with his decision. This theoretical perspective provides us with a view of man as an active (rather than reactive) organism, in the center of his environment, responding to it, taking in information from it, constructing plans and strategies based on the in- formation, and acting on his environment in accordance with his information. “4? he” Basic Questions about Learning Because of the basic difference in viewpoint between the two groups, there is u—.—.— “uh-u---“ — - - a great deal of controversy between them over fact, interpretation, and the explana- m-” -- ’3".- tion of the "how” in learning. Each group answers basic questions about learning according to its own view. Some of the basic questions that a theory of learning should be able to ex- plain adequately are listed below. Following that, each of them is considered individually, and the Stimulus-Response Connectionist viewpoint is discussed. 1. Whgg is learned? 2. How is seguential behavior, such as ongoing movement or thought, explained? 3. Does learning one thing help you in learning something else? 4. What happens when we remember? When we forget? 5. How important is reward to learning? 6. What is the role of practice in learning? 7. What is the place of understanding and insight in learning? 8. What are the limits (the capacities) of learning? 11) What is learned? Stimulus-Response Connectionist theorists assert that man learns connections (associations, habits). Each time a response occurs, (be it a thought or an overt ”s. «.- A‘ ubbsv 2'3” V v . klh 14" action)* in connection with or because of a stimulus (or combination of stimuli), a connection has been learned. It is through the maze of interconnections that are built up by an individual continually reacting to his environment, that his behavior is explained. (2) How is sequential behavior, such as ongoinggmovement or thought explained? S-R Connectionist theorists rely on seguences, or "chains" of associations u) 3' explain ongoing behavior. One association, having been acted upon, calls up another association, one of a large complex of possible associations. In this way, sequen- tial behavior is carried out. It is theorized that one response acts as the stimulus for the next response. For example, a typist, seeing the word "the" Fr..—-.-v . -q-..———a-—.-..w—.—o.‘._. . _-_‘ ‘ ‘- calls up that S-R chain and types out "t-h-e". If we look more closely at the experienced typist, the response of typing the "t" may act as the stimulus for the typing of the ”h", and the typing of the "h” may act as the stimulus for the typing of the "e", and so on. Or, for another example, a man learning a golf swing learns a long sequence of muscle movements that are chained together. These S~R-S-R-S-R chains, precisely learned, to the exclusion of distractions, allow the expert golfer to reproduce his swing almost precisely the same each time he does it. In contrast, the less expert golfer, whose swing is made up of less refined, less precise, and more dis- tractable S-R chains, has a more erratic and less predictable swing. To explain thinking, which is far more complex a skill than simple muscle movements, it is necessary to consider the complex array of associations built up in the mind. These are inter-associated in multitudinous ways and are grouped together to make up more inclusive entities, such as concepts, principles, and strategies. These larger entities with their connected associations, make up thought. *A response is any form of behavior. The term behavior includes both overt, tangible behavior and covert mental thought. «'9' (I) . . iear: NI As always, the basic unit of learning is the association-the connection of a particular stimulus to a particular response. The more complex the skill (for example, creative thinking) the more complex the inter-associations and chains of associations that go into making up the behavior. (3)_Does learning one thing helppyou to learn something else? If all learning is made up of more or less complex combinations of associa— :1 dons, then it seems reasonable to assume that learning one thing should help you in learning something else if the two things are similar enough. If two skills are similar, they must use some of the same associations. For example, it seems ana- _o—-.-I:" ,p- 1.5-x! '..‘I. .- n 1"“ reasonable that a baseball player who learns a good, even, swing, may subsequently find it easier to learn to swing a tennis racquet. If he becomes a switch-hitter in baseball, this might help him with his backhand in tennis. If this principle applies at this rather simple level, why shouldn't it apply at a more complex level? S-R theorists say that it does-to the extent that the basic units (i.e. S-R associations) needed for subsequent learning were previously learned as part of the original learning. The following seemingly foolish and simplistic example may help to explain. Let us say that a particular bit of learning requires 200 associations, and a second bit of learning that is to be learned later also requires 200 associations. If fifty of those to be learned for the second bit of learning are the same as fifty of those learned in the original 200, then the individual who had mastered the original skill would have fewer associations to learn in mastering the second skill. Thus,to the degree that the two skills require the same sub-components (1‘8. S-R Connections), learning the first skill will help in learning the second. Lfil_ What happens when we remember? When we forget? Remembering, to the S—R Associationist, is the result of the maintenance of v54 .5» YA .,' ‘ 1%.. ..(_.‘ :4» sufficient strength of the stimulus-response connections. Since it was a response connected to a stimulus that represented the learning, if it is to be remembered, the connection must remain, strongly enough to be recallable out of the maze of associations in memory. Forgetting then is merely the result of losing the strength of the S-R connections that made the learning recallable. Many theories attempt to explain why the connections become weakened over time. The most popular theory currently espoused by Associationists, uses the interference caused by previous learning and by subsequent learning to explain forgetting. To explain further, since all learning is represented by connections between stimuli and responses, these inter-connections become very complex. More than one stimuli can come to evoke the same response, and more than one response can be evoked by the same stimulus. For example, the reaponse ”hunger” can be evoked inn (1) an empty stomach; (2) the time at which you usually eat; (3) a sign stating "Pizza” which stimulates fond memories associated with pizza: (4) etc. On the other hand, one stimulus, for example the "Pizza" sign, can stimulate any number of responses which may have become associated with it, including a warm mental image of the waitress, or unhappy memories of an upset stomach. So you see, even at this very simple level, the interconnections among associations become very complex. It seems reasonable then, that one reason why we forget is that a competing reSponse has been learned (connected to) the same stimulus and that this connection interferes with the connection we want to remember. All of the individual associa- tions gain and lose strength relative to each other as we go through life experiencing and learning. If the association we want to remember is strong enough relative to the other associations around it, we will remember it. If it is too weak, we will not be able to remember it and say that we "forgot” it. -n... " -:' a. n+"'" l. S a .c C . . . r V: . t. e ’5‘ n . . vi .1 s a . .t \ . a v.5 v a . \| A 5 .5 s u i 1a rd..- .\ .,\~ .5. A at» .-u v i .1 if» ‘1 1 i . .. u .I r . i . .. .fl- . . . N3 (5) How important is reward to learning? To most S-R Connectionists, learning takes place best when some form of reward occurs. (Remember that reward can take the form of the achievement of something desirable or the avoidance of something undesirable.) While reward may not be altogether necessary, most S-R theorists feel that reward strengthens associative connections and makes them more resistant to interference. Naturally, reward can take many forms; it can be tangible, or merely an internal feeling of satisfaction or of relief. In any case, when the reward is appropriate to the task, and seen as a reward by the learner, it should always act to increase the likelihood of learning taking place. f w? ‘7'- . -j-.-_-‘ ”is“. A...“ _‘ —n? (b) What is the role of_practice in learnigg? Most S-R Associationists feel that practice is not a sufficient condition for learning to occur. Repetition of a response adds little to the strength of the S-R connection unless the response is followed by some form of reward. Practice is important though, especially for more complex learning, as it allows for more chance of continued reward of success, thus increasing learning. 11) What is thegplace of understanding and insight in learning? S-R Connectionists minimize the role of understanding on the part of the learner. In fact, one can learn some associations (e.g. reflexes and phobias) without any Understanding. How well, or how much one understands, is dependent on the number and strength of associative connections. The best way to gain understanding is to build a body of associative connections appropriate to that understanding. ”insight" is not even recognized as a phenomenon of learning except as it may happen to grow out of the application of earlier learned habits (connections) to the new task. (I) J i IN (8) What are the limits (capacity) of learning? To the S-R Associationist, the obvious answer is that learning capacity depends upon the number of connections and their availability. People differ in their capacity for associations. This difference is predominantly quantitative in that it reflects that capacity of the individual system to form and maintain S-R connections. Conclusion S-R theorists build their theories around a picture of man as a mechanistic responder, who learns by associating (connecting) stimuli to responses. Every :r-zr——--~—---~f§z explanation of the system is built from the one basic unit of behavior, the tra ' 2“ . stimulus-response associative connection. All learning is represented by combina- tions of these associations. It is the complexity and strength of these associa- tions that determine much of the "how" and "why" of learning. .Wu I a Le Pa Ti;— OOII (Please do not open booklet until requested to do so) (I) Name Student Number Date Instructor's name Education 200 Learning Laboratory 9 --- - n—v Part Two: cl-‘ l. G" TEAM TEACHING 9‘79 * Instructions: Enclosed is Part Two of the Learning Laboratory Exercise. In our first session, we learned about the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory of how learning takes place. Today you will be studying about team teaching. The material should serve to help introduce a lecture session scheduled for later in the course. When the instructor tells you to begin, you will have 45 minutes to read and study the attached passage. Take your time. Learn the information well. At a later date you will be tested on this as well as on the Stimulus-Response Connectionist theory. Make any marks, notes, underlining, or highlighting that will help you to learn the material. When this class is over, the booklets will be collected. However, they will be returned to you when the laboratory exercise is over. NS’ 1% Team teaching is another of the important innovations in instruction during recent years. Most innovations spur discussions regarding their value, and in this article nine "advantages" consistently associated with the team teaching concept are cited in terms of an explicit set of assumptions. As with any idea which involves one person working with one or more other people, what may make the difference, so far as success is concerned, is not so much whether the idea is good, but whether the relationship between the people involved is. How about yourself? What do you think would make the difference as to whether or not you could work in a team-teaching situation? At the moment, it appears likely that in hundreds of secondary schools and in many elementary schools the instructional staffs are doing something which they call team teaching. What types of team teaching are reported by school systems? What are characteristics of present developments? What advantages are claimed for team teaching, and what problems are inherent in the structures already adopted? Types of Team Teachigg The education profession has suffered for years because it has lacked precise terminology. Team teaching is another example-—the term already has almost as many meanings as there are school systems doing something with it. At present, there appear to be at least the following fiyg_types of team teaching in various stages of development and/or experimentation. Variations from these types are, of course, myriad. 11), A hierarchy of teaching assignment Several school systems (see Anderson, Johnson, Stone) have attempted to “~ ' . tee pe1 (#7 develop instructional teams which are based upon a specified hierarchy of teaching assignments. At the top of the hierarchy is a team leader who is a person with superior educational preparation, several years of teaching exper- ience, and leadership qualities. The team leader often is given a lighter teaching load and a salary commensurate with the leadership responsibilities he is asked to assume. The team, in school systems developing hierarchal assignments, usually also consists of senior teachers (who receive extra pay, but not as much as that received by the team leader), regular teachers (often those without previous experience or those new to the system), part-time ' -‘-Dc-- wa.o—_..__-___ ‘. , teaching assistants, and clerical aides. In order to cover the costs of the increased salaries for leadership and for clerical help, additional pupils are assigned to the team-—usually at least one extra class section for three or four certified teachers. (2) Coordinate— or co-teachigg In school systems using this approach, teachers are assigned to a large group of pupils (usually a multiple of the number the teachers would have under more traditional assignments; e.g., two teachers to 60 youngsters, three teachers to 90) and they plan together as peers how best to provide for the pupils for whom they are responsible. As in the previously described "hierarchy" plan, sometimes instruction is provided to the entire group by one teacher. Sometimes one teacher works with most of the youngsters in the group while the other works with a small group of the gifted or with those needing remedial instruction. Sometimes each of the teachers has a "normal-sized" group of about 30 pupils each. Attempts are made in the planning to utilize to the fullest extent the strengths of each teacher. Such plans usually have been described as existing within established departments at secondary school levels or at grade levels in elementary schools. [48 (3), Team teaching across departmental lines In several junior and senior high schools attempts have been made to improve the program, and hopefully to improve learning, by devising schedules for instructional teams which provide a two- or three-period block of related content (e.g., American history, American literature). Students have, normally, one period with the social studies teacher, followed by one period with the English teacher (or the reverse). Often, when desirable, the two groups are combined for the double period-as for a field trip, orientation to a new unit, lecture by an outstanding resource person, visual aids, and the like. The teachers have at least one free period at the same hour so that joint planning is possible. 15) Part- or full-time helpers Many descriptions of team teaching indicate a fairly standard teaching role for the regularly certificated teacher, but seek to improve his teaching effectiveness by providing additional help of various kinds, including instruc- tional secretaries, theme or paper correctors, laboratory assistants, learning materials coordinators, and audio-visual experts. To employ the additional personnel without substantial increases in instructional costs, teachers usually are asked to accept responsibility for a larger number of learners than normal (usually 35 to 40). The teacher retains active control of the planning and most instructional phases of teaching, utilizing the helpers on the team for particular tasks of a more routine nature. 12) Trading groups In an informal way this method of capitalizing on the particular strengths of teachers has been utilized for years by elementary school teachers. The ”Sit—I' 4h. n .._‘-o ~u~.—.._‘.._ ¥‘.L‘ nllr v I—‘A’. . a :EECTE socia' schoo studi 14‘! teachers have said, in essence, "If you'll take my art-~you're good in it and I‘m not-~I'll take your music,” or "If you take my science, I'll take your social studies." Until recently, such "trading" was rare at the secondary school level, but it may be growing now as a result of the staff utilization studies. Several reports indicate that two or three teachers of a particular sub- ject, such as general science, plan their work so that they trade groups for particular units of content. The trading is done, ostensibly, to make certain that the groups receive instruction from the best-qualified teacher of the team, and also to ensure that the teachers have an opportunity to provide instruction geared to their own interests and competencies. An Assessment Any attempt at assessment of educational practices is, of necessity, made from a value base. In most previously published reports, an attempt has been made to assess practices in team teaching by utilizing three types of data: achievement as measured by standardized or by locally-constructed tests, teacher opinions (sometimes buttressed by student and parent opinions), and per-pupil costs. The data collected and reported generally indicate: (a) Students do as well or perhaps a little better on standardized tests when taught by teaching teams of the various types described. Usually the obtained differences are not significant when fairly sophisticated statistical measures are employed to analyze the data. (b) Teachers, generally, are willing to continue the team approach, although there are numerous indications that not all teachers make good team members. Increasingly, reports indicate that differences among teachers need W3— ~ ISO to be recognized equally as much as do variations among learners (see Hanvey and Tenenberg, Weiss). The reports seem to show a feeling of, "We are working on the frontier-trying to find a better way of proceeding," which undoubtedly has positive value for heightened morale. The increased workloads (meetings, meetings, meetings!) seem to have been shouldered with enthusiasm by the participants. In the long pull, better ways of equalizing instructional loads probably will need to be developed or morale may slip. (c) Students and their parents generally favor what has been tried. Many learners are at first skeptical or negative, but as teachers gain con- fidence and competence in their changed roles, reports from them indicate positive support for the team approach. (d) Costs rise slightly. The extent of the increased costs usually is not specifically reported. Three ways of bearing the increased costs have been utilized: increased local appropria- tions, employing fewer qualified teachers and increasing the pupil-teacher ratio, and support from foundations. Many of the additional costs have been the result of improved instructional resources-—books, films, overhead pro- jectors, and the like. While these criteria of achievement, opinion, and cost are measurable, to some extent at least, they do not necessarily provide good bases for assess- ment unless one subscribes to the following premises: (a) that education is best which results in highest achievement as measured by tests, standardized or otherwise; (b) that education is best which results in expressed teacher satisfaction with administrative practices (and perhaps student and parent approval also); (c) that education is best which increases present per-pupil costs only slightly and may in time tend to lower costs. These premises seem to be questionable as criteria for a profession to use in assessing the worth of an innovation. ,5! The assessment which follows, also made from a value base, is developed to the extent possible on the following assumptions: (a) learning of high quality requires interaction between the teacher and the learner and between the learner and other learners; (b) learning of high quality is more likely‘ to occur when teachers are patient, understanding, intellectually alert, and free to make decisions based upon their best professional judgment; (c) what is learned must be used (more functionally than on an examination) or before long it will not be known. These assumptions obviously eliminate EEEE as a function of quality (although most administrators at present must consider the cost-quality factor) because the writer assumes that this nation can afford instruction of high quality for its children and youth. The assumptions also eliminate teacher Opinions as expressed on questionnaires or verbally to members of the administrative and supervisory staffs. What is essential for effective learning is not necessarily highly correlated with what teachers prefer. To state the assumption another way, what teachers consider to be good teaching may not result in the most effective learning. The spotlight should be focused on the learning process rather than on teaching. These assumptions also eliminate achievement as measured by tests. Teachers know what most achievement tests contain or are likely to contain. Using almost any organizational structure, they can, therefore, make sure that the learners make about average gains in achievement. Obviously, any structure which results in marked improvement on standardized tests should be seriously considered. Whether the instructional technique or structure should be adopted widely, even if better test results are obtained, is another matter—-a matter for professional judgment. Students who score higher on and f0] 'in '1‘! ‘li || lit- standardized tests, in other words, are not necessarily better educated. What assessment can be made of the various types of team teaching using the value assumption that good learning results from the interaction of learner and learners with patient, understanding, intellectually alert, free teachers who see that what is learned is used? Nine "advantages" consistently reported for team teaching are given below. In each instance, some comments based upon the value orientation of the writer follow in regular type. (I) Few pupils are limited to the instructional competence of a single teacher at a grade level or in a department at the secondary level. As a result, few teachers in this arrangement get to know individual pupils as well as in traditional arrangements. Interaction between the superior teachers and the learners (especially in the hierarchal plan) is minimal. Personal contacts of learners with teachers tend to be limited to teachers of lesser competence and experience. 12) Persons most highly qualified provide instruction to large groups, thus saving much time for the total staff which can be used for more effective plgnning and for instruction in smaller-than-averggeAgrogps. Questions learners have during the lecture must be deferred until a later time. Moreover, what the teacher wants to teach is not necessarily what the pupil needs or wants to learn. The learner may, in fact, already know what is being presented to a large group. The same problem exists, of course, when teachers lecture to normal-sized groups. May there not be a better way to teach? (3) In presentations to large_grousz better use is made of visual aids because more time can be devoted to the preparation of needed materials by specially- pro tel \Vve I let ef: (:3 qualified team members. Substituting a picture of a magnet on an overhead projector as a lecturer explains how it works (as was shown recently in the television report, "The Influential Americans") may result in undesirable verbalization not sufficiently based on real, firsthand experiences by the learners themselves. Skillful presentations do not necessarily result in effective learning experiences. (é) Most uniformity in instruction is achieved because all students are taught, both in the large_gropps and the small, by the same teachers. Sections pupils are assigned to thus make less difference than in traditionally organized schools. Uniformity in instruction is not necessarily desirable. The degree of desirability depends largely upon how much flexibility is provided for the very bright students and the slow learners. Individualization of instruction, whether in traditional or team approaches to teaching, is a valid and desirable goal. To the degree that attention to individual differences is provided (this varies in different team teaching plans), the learning is likely to be effective. 12) Less repetition is required of teachers, eppecially at the secondary level where several sections of the same class have been traditionally assigned. Repeating a lecture to several sections of the same class probably is wasteful- but getting to know the pupil is essential for interaction. Almost all reports indicate that less discussion occurs as team teaching is undertaken. Perhaps more "ground” can be covered, but that is no guarantee that more learning has taken place. LE) Teacher competencies are better utilized. Instruction tends to become more formal, less Spontaneous. In the hierarchal plan, young, inexperienced C88 the ‘ o \ 311’ Wild 7‘] fl. ‘5 ml teachers undoubtedly have more opportunity to learn from team leaders, but the conception is supported that superior teachers lecture to large groups while teachers drawing lower salaries and with less teaching experience work with smaller groups. Learners, as a result, get individual help from teachers who probably are least qualified to give it. These weaknesses, it should be noted, are not apparent in the coordinate and interdepartmental plans where teachers Operate BS peers. (Z) Better provisions are made for helpers-librarians¢,audio-visual experts, clerksggand the like-—to do routine tasks. A definite boon to the profession! The only problem which should be noted: effective coordination of such helpers takes time. In the Opinion of this analyst, such help should and could be provided regardless of the structure for teaching developed by the school system. (8) Group size is clearly related to function. Lagge groups are formed for activities which are effective with largeggroups and vice versa. This concept makes sense. In the judgment of this assessor, the "coordinate" and the "across departmental lines" teams have the greatest possibility of built-in flexibility at this point. The "hierarchal plan," because of the specified roles, probably has the least likelihood of achieving flexibility in grouping. (9) Of necessityj students assume more responsibility for their own learning. As more and more instruction is provided in large groups,ia_greater share of Ehg school day is given to independent study on thegpart of learners. If education is effective, the more mature the learner, the more able to guide and direct his own learning endeavors he should be. Generally, then, this claimed advantage of team teaching is desirable. Perhaps even a greater measure of independence could be achieved other ways, however. val SE8 de: a 1n u SC ‘ 11.1I [ST Conclusion The worth of attempts at team teaching are not proven to date. The main value of the attempts which have been made thus far undoubtedly lies in the staff growth which has occurred as a result of the experimentation. Experimentation should be continued. Much more sophisticated research designs should be used, so that variables in the situations can be more care- fully controlled. While team teaching is being tested more carefully, some school systems (perhaps the same ones) should also be testing other approaches to improvement of learning, such as: assigning not more than 20 pupils to a teacher, shortening the teacher—directed part of the school day and lengthening the pupil-directed portions of the day, utilizing more programmed materials as these become available, basing more instruction on the ”workshop way of learning,” orienting in-service education programs for teachers more toward intellectual growth, providing better learning materials centers and instructional secretaries in every school, and lengthening the school year for a larger number of teachers so that more time for planning and preparation is available. (If you have time, review this material, trying to understand the whole position and how the separate parts fit together.) -10- APPENDIX D RETENTION TEST (Please do not open booklet until requested to do so.) Name Student Number Instructor's Name Education 200 Learning Laboratory EVALUATION Instructions: 1. This is a test; no talking please. 2. Please sit in alternate seats. 3. Fill in your answer sheets with (a) your name, (b) your student number and code it on the right, (c) your sex, and (d) your instructor's name. 4. Fill in the information asked for on this booklet. 5. When requested to do so, open the booklet and begin answering the questions. Inside are a number of multiple-choice questions that have relevance to the material you studied in the first two sessions of the Learning Laboratory. The first 36 questions are about learning theories. Answer them all from the point of view of the Stimulus-Response Connectionist learning theorists, by choosing the best alternative from among those offered. Questions 37-40 are only for those people who studied the article on "team teaching." Those who did not read this article need not bother answering them. This booklet and the correct answers to the questions will be returned to you in Your recitation sections. If you wish to remember the answers you selected, you Should key them somehow in the booklet, possibly by circling your choices. When leaving, please turn in your pencil, your question booklet, and your answer form. . 0 Make sure your name, your student number, and your instructor s name are on your booklet. Kb U ”H- H m , Qirections: Answer questions 1-36 from the point of view of the Stimulus— ._______ Response Connectionigg learning theorists. (l) Learning is defined as: Q) Changes in the environment that cause maturation. Maturation. Changes in instinct not due to traumatic experiences. Changes that take place in an organism's mental structures and its potential behavior that are relatively permanent and not due to instinct or maturation. Changes that take place in an organism and its potential behavior that are relatively permanent and not due to maturation and instinct. Philosophical position. What is the basic philos0phical position of the Stimulus-Response Connectionist group of theorists. 1. 2. 5. Man is a passive tool of his environment which willfully manipulates him. Man is dominated by his environment; a passive reactor who learns each time he reacts and his reactions become associated with the environmental stimulfl that evoked them. Each man is a unique individual whose behavior is determined uniquely by the manner and degree of differentiation of his phenomenological field. Man interacts with his environment, responding to its stimulation, but also creatively initiating behavior that will help him reach his goals. Man is outside of his environment and operates independently of it. What is learned? 1. Associations. Emotions. Habits. Ideas. Meanings. / 5-8 a (3) How is squgntial behavior such as ongoing movement or thought expkfinmfl 1. By reference to the relationships in the individual's experflnmes. 2. By reference to chains of habits built up by the individual. 3. By reference to the goals of the individual and his perceptnxioftmesuu of his environment. 4. By reference to the learner's perception of the state of hisemvhmmmm. 5. By reference to the information the learner has built-up and sUned. (b) Does learning one thing helpgyou to learn something else? 1. If the learner understands the structure of the learning taskznm Hm way its sub-parts relate to each other and to his experiences. 2. If the content of the earlier learning experience is not too Shulartoma of the current learning experience. 3. If the two tasks share a number of the same or similar associathnm. 4. If previous learning has provided contrasting anchorage for Unzsdr sequent learning. 5. If the learner has a suitable and well-differentiated perceptioncfi Hm problem. (6) What happens when we remember? l. 5. Remembering is the result of the maintenance of sufficient stnflgthof the learned association, relative to other learned associations,tm8t will enable it to be recallable out of memory. Remembering is the result of maintenance of sufficient "strengdf'of elements in storage 50 that they can be discriminated frmncnherelmmMS in mental structures. Remembering is the result of the maintenance of stability and chndtyof cognitive strategies. Remembering is the reSUIt of the actuation of positively chargedrwunmfi which fire, creating a memory. Remembering is the result of the development of a sufficientiummerofSle ulus response connections each lending strength to the others. IS"! ;3 (1) What happens when we forget? 1. Individual connections decay or fade over time. 2. Individual memories are subsumed into larger, more inclusive concepts, or they fade over time. 3. Individual associations are repressed by unconscious or sometimes con- scious desires to forget. 4. Individual responses connected to the same stimulus, compete with each other causing interference. 5. Individual elements merge with other more stable elements and are obliterated before they can achieve identity of their own. (8) How important is reward to learning? 1. The anticipation of reward or punishment is a regulator of behavior. 2. Reward is an important device with the training of animals, but has little to do with the education of humans. 3. Reward tends to automatically produce greater stability and clarity to 235 elements in cognitive structure. 4. Tangible rewards are important to children while more internal rewards have more effect with adults. 5. Learning takes place best when some form of reward occurs. (2) What is the role of practice in learning? 1. Practice beyond the initial attempt at a task is necessary to learning. 2. Practice seldom results in an increase of learning. 3. Practice is often not a sufficient condition for much learning to occur. 4. Practice renders learning less resistant to interference. 5. Practice increases the stability and clarity of learning in storage. «no ‘i (10) What is the place of understanding in learning? 1. Without understanding there can be no later application of szlaunMg 2. Reward will not operate to strengthen learning unless the haunerumhn stands what he is doing. 3. Understanding is not necessary with routine tasks. 4. Understanding is not a necessary condition for learning to ocmn; 5. An understanding of the relationships inherent within a task mulbehmm it and other learning is often important in facilitating optimallemnmg (11) What is the place of insight in learnipg? 1. Insight into the structure of a task is necessary to sensible haunts and is important if the learning is going to later be mathfllyemph- cable to similar tasks. 2. Insight is not recognized as a phenomenon that occurs in the leanung process. 3. Insight Operates sporadically if at all, and has unpredictabhacommqmme. 4. The concept "insight" serves to help explain certain behavionsexhflumd by animals used in experiments, init it is not a useful term whenimedwuh regard to humans. 5. Insight occurs when an individual, after struggling unsuccessfidlyto solve a problem,is given a hint which aids him enormously. (12) What are the limits (papacities) of learning? 1. Learning capacity is relatively unimportant as it seems apparenttmat most individuals never operate anywhere near capacity. 2. An individual's capacity for learning is limited by the numbercfi associative bonds that he can form and maintain. 3. Learning capacity is determined by the number of learning experhchstm individual undergoes. 4, Capacity is amenable to great change through environmental enridmmntas the individual matures. 5. Capacities are the result of the limitations set by genetics oncxw individual's cognitive growth as compared with another. (13) (14) (15) m 5 Bill, who was a poor student when in school, always walks faster than normal when he is going by his old alma-mater. He has been graduated for five years and is a successful Operator of a gasoline station. Bill says that he still feels uneasy when he visits the school grounds. S-R Connectionists would say that: He learned the habit of walking fast at school. He doesn't want to see any of his old friends. School is associated with unhappy experiences, which have not lost their strength. He has learned to eXpect unhappy experiences at school. Attending school was rewarding to him. Behavior is explained by S-R Connectionists by reference to: 1. 2. The organism's goals and what he has stored in cognitive structures. Understanding the means-ends relationships in a given situation. The inherited intelligence and capacity of the individual. The inherited intelligence, modified by the capacity of the individual. The myriad complex of associations that the individual has built up in his backlog of experiences. "Practice makes perfect.” This is a proverb that we have all heard at one time or another. S-R theorists would say that: 1. 2. It is not necessarily true unless practice is rewarded. It is true especially if the learner understands the relationships in the task he is attempting to learn. It is not true because practice tends to decrease the clarity and stability of new learning, by mixing up elements. It is true because practice regulates behavior. It is not necessarily true when the learner is too highly motivated. m 6 (16) A teacher who is well founded in the S-R principles of learningvanShm students to learn how to multiply properly. Which of the folhwdngisa consideration he might deem to be most important: (17) (18) 1. 2. That the students understand the relationships in the learning. That the students practice with blocks, and other kinds of mannndaumh aids before going into the more abstract aspects of multiplicafion. That the students get insight from the teacher into the more cmmflexiwa of negative numbers and'tarrying‘in addition. That the students first learn well the skills involved in additnnn That the period for the learning of multiplication comes just beflne recess. According to S—R Connectionist theorists, what is it that is leanmm? Relationships between anticipations and actions. Relationships between objects and meanings. Relationships between stimuli and rewards. Relationships between goals and ends. Relationships between events and reactions. To the S-R theorists, which of the following would be most helpfulin learning how to solve a mathematical problem: 1. 2. Understanding the inter-relationships of the structure of the pnflflmm A great deal of experience in solving many other problems each shfilarbm slightly different from the current problem. Memorizing the fundamentals of mathematics eg. addition, subtractum, multiplication, the laws of associativity, transitivity, etc. A creative approach to the problem which would lead the learner U>mmw divergent paths to the goal, A large number of inter-connections related to mathematics. W3 I7 4:5,. (19) People who are familiar with more than one foreign language often comment 1%- that sometimes when they desire to speak a word in one language, it comes out in another, and for a few moments it is difficult for them to think of the correct word. S-R theorists believe that this is because: 1. Associations have gotten mixed up. 2. Memories are competing in mental structures. air, 3. One of the words is interfering with the memory of the other. 4. The individual learned the languages in a rote, senseless way. 5. One or the other of the languages was not stored in a well structured way. (20) When Genese was four years old, she was riding in a car which was involved in a severe automobile accident. Although she was not hurt, she says that she can remember that moment of fear with a clarity that makes it seem as though it were yesterday, although it was 25 years ago. S-R theorists would maintain that: 1. The associations made at that moment in her life have maintained their strength. 2. We often remember bothersome thoughts even though we don't want to. 3. The trauma connected with the incident gave it a great deal of clarity and stability in her memory. 4. She is likely to experience trepidation when she rides in automobiles for the rest of her life. 5. A psychologist could help her forget by taking her mentally back to that moment to re—live it thus easing the strain on her libido. (21) One way to stop smoking might be to chemically treat cigarettes in some way so as to make them taste badly. If this method worked, S-R theorists would say that: 1. Bad tastes are unpleasant to smokers. 2. The smoker soon understood that smoking led to a bad taste in the mouth. 3. The smoker connected the chemical to the bad taste. 4. Cigarette smoking no longer had good connections. 5. The sight of a Cigarette became associated with an unpleasant taste in the mouth. lb“)- (.X.) (22) Fran loves to watch ”I Love Lucy” but her school marks are not may gmi If her father believes in the S-R theories of behavior and wiflum tohew her improve her school grades, he should: 1. Wait until she is watching ”I Love Lucy” and then tell her to gastmh her schoolwork. 2. Have her study early before ”I Love Lucy.” 3. Tell her to study before "I Love Lucy" and that if she shows hhntmatsm has studied well, she will then be able to watch "I Love Lucy." 4. Try to help her to understand the relationships present in herlumewnkam how they may relate to situations on the ”I Love Lucy” show. 5. Tbll her that she will not be allowed to watch "I Love Lucy”\nmilafiu her next report card, and if it doesn't improve she'll be grounmuh (23) Ralph worked very hard in the first and second grades. Neverthelesslm min received mostly C's, D's and a few F's. An S-R psychologist wouldrmeMIt that unless there is some change in his school situation, he willckcpout of school as soon as he gets a chance to, because: 1. Practice without reward does not maximize learning. 2. Failure experiences will cause him to come to anticipate failurezm MmWL 3. Schools have a tendency to weed out those who are less able. 4. Teachers frown on under-achievers. 5. School will become associated with noxious and punishing experhumessuw as failure and humiliation. (24) Don had worked far into the night on a number of algebra problemszfimigwdas homework, but the answer to one of them had evaded him for over anlxmr. M, be rested a minute over a snack thinking about the problem, a new Unsttotm problem came to him and he quickly solved the problem. S—R theorishswmfld say that: l. The moment of relaxation cut down on interference. 2. The idea came because While snacking and thinking, he thought ofrmw associations which helped him in solving the problem. 3. While snacking, he experienced insight into the problem. 4. New sensory—perceptual cues aided him when he changed his set. 5. He changed his phenomenological field. N'S (25) The best way to gain understanding into a problem is to: (26) (27) 5. Practice the task over and over. Attempt to perceive your relationship with the task. Attempt to perceive the relationships within the task and the relationships between the task and other similar tasks. Build up a body of associative connections appropriate to the desired understanding. Try to step outside yourself and understand the task objectively. From the moment of birth until he dies, man is in an almost constant state of activity-—mental and physical. An adequate theory of learning must account for this behavior. S-R theorists would say that: 1. Man begins life with habit patterns, but soon learns to determine his goals and plan methods of attaining them. Man takes in information and changes it to suit his desires and his perception of the environment. Man builds up habit patterns by reacting to the prodding of his environ- ment and it is the relative strength of these habits that determine his behavior. Most of the possible responses that a given individual will have at his dis- posal at adulthood are ”wired in" at birth, and mature as the individual develops. Each man's behavior is unique, both to himself and to each unique situation in which he finds himself. the S-R conception of forgetting is true, then: It should be possible to learn meaningfully and reduce forgetting to an inconsequential minimum. Man forgets primarily because his capacity is limited. The more stable informational anchorage a person retains, the less he will have a tendency to forget. Serums and other drugs will soon aid psychologists in combatting forgetting. The more a person learns, especially of material that is similar, the more he is liable to forget. "D" ’0 (28) Learning is built up: 1. As individual elements are added to and related to cognitiwastrmXums 2. As an individual's reactions become associated with stimulusenmnnm 3. The learner incorporates information and randomly stores it. 4. The environment structures learning experiences for the indivimxd. 5. Each generation of man adds to the universal conscious. (29) The broad S-R philosophical perspective of man in relation to hisenwinm- ment is: 1. Man as a creator of behavior. 2. Man as a reacter. 3. Man as a planner. 4. Man deciding his relations with the environment. 5. Man as a willful connector of associations. (30) Each time an individual responds in some way: 1. New information is incorporated but it does not effect behaviorimlmmit is understood well. 2. The environment responds. 3. He meets with renewed challenges. 4. His expectations are confirmed or altered. 5. A connection is made and learning occurs. (31) To an S-R theorist, the process of thinking is explained as the remfltcfit 1. The arrangement of each man's conmflxu<.array of learned associathnm hKO larger, interconnected entities such as concepts, principles, pnfiflemfiOUW‘ strategies, and the like. 2. The manipulation Of Stored information, through the use of haunedinhn mation processing strategies. 3. An instinctual Process that is inherited by the learner. . . . . . . itth 4. The coordination of all previously learned information into a phnmed~~ on the problem. 5. The firing of nerve endings which actuate neurones. (32) (33) (34) M I I When they got their new car with an automatic transmission, Fred's wife Zoe found that she kept on pressing the floor with her left foot when it seemed like it was time to shift. S-R psychologists would say that: 1. 2. Her foot operated independently of her brain. The associative chain that she had built up in driving a stick shift car was still strong enough to evoke maladaptive behavior. Her cognitive structures contained the skill needed to help her in driving a stick shift car, and although it was no longer needed, her behavior planner continued to call it up when it seemed appropriate. To most effectively "stamp out" the reSponse, she should sit on her foot. It would be a while before her earlier learned associations were completely cut off. S-R learning theorists Speculate that forgetting might be caused by: The desire to repress unhappy experiences. Fading and distortion in brain structures. A poorly developed brain mass. Interference by environmental stimuli. The competition of responses connected to the same stimuli. High grades in school are considered to be given as rewards for effort and good work. Fully one-third of the students in the public schools hardly ever receive a grade higher than ”C". S-R theorists would say that it is under- standable why close to one-third of our students never finish high school because: 1. Many students do not have the capacity necessary to learn enough to complete high school requirements. Schools fail to provide the right stimuli for many students. A's and B's are continually given to the same people. People learn to avoid situations where punishment and little or no reward has been experienced. or punishment and they tend to plan their People can anticipate reward . d and minimize unpleasant experiences. lives so as to maximize rewar r—w lb, (35) Jenny knocked over and broke her mother's favorite lamp. Sheluww hpm past experience that her mother would spank her if she found out. anhu mother came home, she told her that the dog had broken the lamp. HermMfiu believed her, and dismissed the incident. According to the S-R view, when she is in another similar situation, she will lie again. This dmmmsnams what basic S-R principle: 1. Interference. 2. Learned behavior strategies. 3. Stimulus-controlled response. 4. Reward. 5. Insight. (36) .anH a college sophomore, complains that he is ”just not goodzu:anykhm of math.” An S-R psychologist would speculate that perhaps: 1. John's past experience did not include enough correct, rewardedrmadam in the area of mathematics. 2. John's capacity for math associations is small. 3. If John's past teachers in math had carefully followed S-R leanung principles, he would probably excell in math today. 4. John lacks a secure grounding in and understanding of the basicrnimfimm involved in mathematics. 5. John's associational network involves too many interfering comumtnms 7':v'cv'cv‘c'kv'cicvlcw'cv‘vv‘c:‘c‘kski:*****7’