Psychological Foundations of Science Education-I: Unit 5

EduWorldPK.com BooksPro.net SEDiNFO.
NET
Unit 5
t
o .ne
Pr
PSYCHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
s
ok
OF SCIENCE EDUCATION-I
Bo
w.
ww
Written by: Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Ather Khan

Reviewed by: Dr. Saira
65
StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

EduWorldPK.com BooksPro.net SEDiNFO.NET
CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 67
Objectives................................................................................................................ 67
5.1 Ivan Petrovich Pavlov ............................................................................................. 68
5.2 Skinners Theory and Science Teaching .................................................................. 72
5.3 Contributions to Psychological Theory (Behaviorism and Radical Behaviorism ... 74
5.4 Gagnes hierarchy of Learning ................................................................................. 84
5.5 Gestalt Theory (Wertheimer) .................................................................................. 85
t
5.6 Jerome Seymour Theories ....................................................................................... 86
.ne
5.7 Ausubel’s Learning Theory..................................................................................... 90
5.8 Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamens Bloom: Theory ....................... 92
o
s Pr
ok
Bo
w.
ww
66

INTRODUCTION
A theoretical framework based on cognitive/developmental research is described.

It is argued that science learning is a gradual process during which initial
conceptual structures based on children's interpretations of everyday experience
are continuously enriched and restructured. Conceptual change also involves
increased metaconceptual awareness, cognitive flexibility, and theoretical
coherence. Some of the implications of this research for the development of
science curricula and for instruction are discussed. It is also argued that while
cognitive/developmental research can provide us with important information
about the process of learning science, it does not provide much information about
the external, environmental variables that can facilitate cognitive performance and
t
conceptual change. What is needed in the future is the development of a theory of
.ne
learning that bridges science education and cognitive/developmental research.
Such a theory should specify the mechanisms that can take an individual from one
level of cognitive performance to the next and relate them to situational and
o
cultural factors.
Pr
OBJECTIVES
s
ok
After reading this unit you will be able to:

1. understand the concepts of science and teaching.
2. know about learning theories of psychology in scientific perspective.
Bo
3. know the concepts of solo and B.Bloom taxonomy.

4. S&R Theories and science teaching.
w.
ww
67

5.1 IVAN PETROVICH PAVLOV

(Russian: Ива́н Петро́вич Па́влов; IPA: [ɪˈvan pʲɪˈtrovʲɪtɕ ˈpavləf] ( listen); 26
September [O.S. 14 September] 1849 – 27 February 1936) was a Russian physiologist
known primarily for his work in classical conditioning. From his childhood days Pavlov
demonstrated intellectual curiosity along with an unusual energy which he referred to as
"the instinct for research".[3] Inspired by the progressive ideas which D. I. Pisarev, the
most eminent of the Russian literary critics of the 1860s, and I. M. Sechenov, the father
of Russian physiology, were spreading, Pavlov abandoned his religious career and
devoted his life to science. In 1870 he enrolled in the physics and mathematics
department at the University of Saint Petersburg in order to study natural
science.[2] Pavlov won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1904,[3][4] becoming
the first Russian Nobel laureate. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in
2002, ranked Pavlov as the 24th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[5] Pavlov's
principles of classical conditioning have been found to operate across a variety of
t
experimental and clinical settings, including educational classrooms.
.ne
Education and Early Life
o
s Pr
ok
Bo
The Pavlov Memorial Museum, Ryazan: Pavlov's former home, built in the early 19th
w.
century[7]
ww
Ivan Pavlov, the eldest of eleven children,[8] was born in Ryazan, Russian Empire. His
father, Peter Dmitrievich Pavlov (1823–1899), was a village Russian
orthodox priest.[9] His mother, Varvara Ivanovna Uspenskaya (1826–1890), was a
devoted homemaker. As a child, Pavlov willingly participated in house duties such as
doing the dishes and taking care of his siblings. He loved to garden, ride his bicycle, row,
swim, and play gorodki; he devoted his summer vacations to these activities.[10] Although
able to read by the age of 7, Pavlov was seriously injured when he fell from a high wall
onto stone pavement;[11] he did not undergo formal schooling until he was 11 years old as
a result of his injuries.[8]
Pavlov attended and graduated from the Ryazan church school before entering the local
theological seminary. However, in 1870, Pavlov left the seminary without graduating to
attend the university at St. Petersburg where he enrolled in the physics and math
department and took natural science courses. In his fourth year, his first research project
68

on the physiology of the nerves of the pancreas[12] won him a prestigious university
award. In 1875, Pavlov completed his course with an outstanding record and received the
degree of Candidate of Natural Sciences. However, impelled by his overwhelming
interest in physiology, he decided to continue his studies and proceeded to the Imperial
Academy of Medical Surgery. While at the Academy of Medical Surgery, Pavlov became
an assistant to his former teacher, Tyson, but left the department when Tyson was
replaced by another instructor.
After some time, Pavlov obtained a position as a laboratory assistant to Professor

Ustimovich at the physiological department of the Veterinary Institute.[13] For two years,
Pavlov investigated the circulatory system for his medical dissertation.[8] In 1878,
Professor S.P. Botkin, a famous Russian clinician, invited the gifted young physiologist
to work in the physiological laboratory as the clinic's chief. In 1879, Pavlov graduated
from the Medical Military Academy with a gold medal award for his research work.
t
After a competitive examination, Pavlov won a fellowship at the Academy for
.ne
postgraduate work.[14] The fellowship and his position as Director of the Physiological
Laboratory at the clinic of the famous Russian clinician, S. P. Botkin enabled Pavlov to
continue his research work. In 1883, he presented his doctor's thesis on the subject of The
o
centrifugal nerves of the heart and posited the idea of nervism and the basic principles on
Pr
the trophic function of the nervous system. Additionally, his collaboration with the
Botkin clinic produced evidence of a basic pattern in the regulation of reflexes in the
activity of circulatory organs.
s
ok
Bo
w.
ww
Ivan Pavlov
Influences
He was inspired to forsake his Orthodox Christian background and pursue a scientific
career by D. I. Pisarev, a literary critique and natural science advocate of the time and I.
M. Sechenov, a Russian physiologist, whom Pavlov described as 'The father of
physiology'.[9]
69

After completing his doctorate, Pavlov went to Germany where he studied

in Leipzig with Carl Ludwig and Eimear Kelly in the Heidenhain laboratories in Breslau.
He remained there from 1884 to 1886. Heidenhain was studying digestion in dogs, using
an exteriorized section of the stomach. However, Pavlov perfected the technique by
overcoming the problem of maintaining the external nerve supply. The exteriorized
section became known as the Heidenhain or Pavlov pouch.[8] After two years (1884–
1886), Pavlov returned from Germany to look for a new position. His application for the
chair of physiology at the University of Saint Petersburg was rejected. Eventually, Pavlov
was given the chair of pharmacology at Tomsk University and then at the University of
Warsaw. However, he went to neither place. In 1890, he was appointed the role of
professor of Pharmacology at the Military Medical Academy and occupied the position
for 5 years.[15] In 1891, Pavlov was invited to the Imperial Institute of Experimental
Medicine in St. Petersburg to organize and direct the Department of Physiology.[16] Over
a 45-year period, under his direction it became one of the most important centers of
t
physiological research.[9] While Pavlov directed the Department of Physiology at the
.ne
Institute, he also transferred to the chair of physiology at the Medical Military Academy.
This change in positions at the Academy occurred in 1895. He headed the physiology
department at the Academy continuously for three decades.[15] Also, starting in 1901,
o
Pavlov was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for four successive
Pr
years. However, he did not win because his nominations were not specific to any
discovery and were based on a variety of laboratory findings.[17] In 1904, Pavlov was
awarded the Nobel Prize "in recognition of his work on the physiology of digestion,
s
through which knowledge on vital aspects of the subject has been transformed and
ok
enlarged".[4]
While at the Institute of Experimental Medicine he carried out his classical experiments
Bo
on the digestive glands which is how he eventually won the Nobel prize mentioned
above.[18] Pavlov investigated the gastric function of dogs, and later, children,[19] by
w.
externalizing a salivary gland so he could collect, measure, and analyze the saliva and
what response it had to food under different conditions. He noticed that the dogs tended
to salivate before food was actually delivered to their mouths, and set out to investigate
ww
this "psychic secretion", as he called it. Pavlov’s laboratory housed a full-scale kennel for
the experimental animals. Pavlov was interested in observing their long-term
physiological processes. This required keeping them alive and healthy in order to conduct
chronic experiments, as he called them. These were experiments over time, designed to
understand the normal functions of animals. This was a new kind of study, because
previously experiments had been “acute,” meaning that the dog went
through vivisection and was ultimately killed in the process.[17]
A 1921 article by S. Morgulis in the journal Science, came as a critique of Pavlov's work
in that it addressed concerns about the environment in which these experiments had been
performed. Based on a report from H. G. Wells, claiming that Pavlov grew potatoes and
carrots in his lab, the article stated, "It is gratifying to be assured that Professor Pavlov is
raising potatoes only as a pastime and still gives the best of his genius to scientific
investigation".[20] Also in 1921, Pavlov began holding laboratory meetings known as the
70

'Wednesday meetings' where he spoke bluntly on many topics, including his views on
psychology. These meetings lasted until he died in 1936.[17]
t
Pavlov in 1935, by Mikhail Nesterov
.ne
Pavlov was highly regarded by the Soviet government, and he was able to continue his
research until he reached a considerable age. He was praised by Lenin.[21] However,
o
despite the praise from the Soviet Union government, the money that poured out to
support his laboratory, and the honours he was given, Pavlov made no attempts to
Pr
conceal the disapproval and contempt in which he held Soviet Communism.[22] For
example, in 1923 he claimed that he would not sacrifice even the hind leg of a frog to the
s
type of social experiment that the regime was conducting in Russia. Also, in 1927, he
ok
wrote to Stalin protesting at what was being done to Russian intellectuals and saying he
was ashamed to be a Russian.[3] After the murder of Sergei Kirov in 1934, Pavlov wrote
several letters to Molotov criticizing the mass persecutions which followed and asking for
Bo
the reconsideration of cases pertaining to several people he knew personally.[3]
Conscious until his very last moment, Pavlov asked one of his students to sit beside his
w.
bed and to record the circumstances of his dying. He wanted to create unique evidence of
subjective experiences of this terminal phase of life.[23] Pavlov died of double
ww
pneumonia at the age of 86. He was given a grandiose funeral, and his study and
laboratory were preserved as a museum in his honour.[3
Pavlov contributed to many areas of physiology and neurological sciences. Most of his
work involved research in temperament,[citation needed] conditioning and involuntary reflex
actions. Pavlov performed and directed experiments on digestion, eventually
publishing The Work of the Digestive Glands in 1897, after 12 years of research. His
experiments earned him the 1904 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.[24] These
experiments included surgically extracting portions of the digestive system from animals,
severing nerve bundles to determine the effects, and implanting fistulas between digestive
organs and an external pouch to examine the organ's contents. This research served as a
base for broad research on the digestive system.
71

Further work on reflex actions involved involuntary reactions to stress and pain. Pavlov
extended the definitions of the four temperament types under study at the time:
phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine, and melancholic, updating the names to "the strong and
impetuous type, the strong equilibrated and quiet type, the strong equilibrated and lively
type, and the weak type." Pavlov and his researchers observed and began the study
of transmarginal inhibition (TMI), the body's natural response of shutting down when
exposed to overwhelming stress or pain by electric shock.[25] This research showed how
all temperament types responded to the stimuli the same way, but different temperaments
move through the responses at different times. He commented "that the most basic
inherited difference. .. was how soon they reached this shutdown point and that the quick-
to-shut-down have a fundamentally different type of nervous system."[26]
Pavlov on Education
The basics of Pavlov's classical conditioning serve as a historical backdrop for current
t
learning theories.[27] However, the Russian physiologist's initial interest in classical
.ne
conditioning occurred almost by accident during one of his experiments on digestion in
dogs.[28] Considering that Pavlov worked closely with animals throughout many of his
experiments, his early contributions were primarily about animal learning. However, the
o
fundamentals of classical conditioning have been examined across many different
organisms, including humans.[28] The basic underlying principles of Pavlov's classical
Pr
conditioning have extended to a variety of settings, such as classrooms and learning
environments.
s
ok
Classical conditioning focuses on using preceding conditions to alter behavioral

reactions. The principles underlying classical conditioning have influenced preventative
antecedent control strategies used in the classroom.[29] Classical conditioning set the
Bo
groundwork for the present day behavior modification practices, such as antecedent
control. Antecedent events and conditions are defined as those conditions occurring
before the behavior.[30] Pavlov's early experiments used manipulation of events or stimuli
w.
preceding behavior (i.e., a tone) to produce salivation in dogs much like teachers
manipulate instruction and learning environments to produce positive behaviors or
ww
decrease maladaptive behaviors. Although he did not refer to the tone as an antecedent,
Pavlov was one of the first scientists to demonstrate the relationship between
environmental stimuli and behavioral responses. Pavlov systematically presented and
withdrew stimuli to determine the antecedents that were eliciting responses, which is
similar to the ways in which educational professionals conduct functional behavior
assessments.[31] Antecedent strategies are supported by empirical evidence to operate
implicitly within classroom environments. Antecedent-based interventions are supported
by research to be preventative, and to produce immediate reductions in problem
behaviors.
5.2. Skinner’s Theory and Science Teaching

Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990), commonly known
as B. F. Skinner, was an American psychologist, behaviorist, author, inventor, and social
72

philosopher.[2][3][4][5] He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard

University from 1958 until his retirement in 1974.[6]
Skinner considered free will an illusion and human action dependent on consequences of
previous actions. If the consequences are bad, there is a high chance the action will not be
repeated; if the consequences are good, the actions that led to it being repeated become
more probable.[7] Skinner called this the principle of reinforcement.[8]
To strengthen behavior, Skinner used operant conditioning, and he considered the rate of
response to be the most effective measure of response strength. To study operant
conditioning he invented the operant conditioning chamber, also known as the Skinner
Box,[9] and to measure rate he invented the cumulative recorder. Using these tools, he
and C. B. Ferster produced his most influential experimental work, which appeared in the
book Schedules of Reinforcement.[10][11]
t
.ne
Skinner developed a philosophy of science that he called radical behaviorism,[12] and
founded a school of experimental research psychology—the experimental analysis of
behavior. He imagined the application of his ideas to the design of a human community
o
in his utopian novel, Walden Two,[13] and his analysis of human behavior culminated in
his work, Verbal Behavior.[14] Skinner was a prolific author who published 21 books and
Pr
180 articles.[15][16] Contemporary academia considers Skinner a pioneer of modern
behaviorism, along with John B. Watson and Ivan Pavlov. A June 2002 survey listed
s
Skinner as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century.[1
ok
 Biography
The gravestone of B.F. Skinner and his wife Eve at Mount Auburn Cemetery Skinner was
Bo
born in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, to Grace and William Skinner. His father was a
lawyer. He became an atheist after a Christian teacher tried to assuage his fear of the hell
that his grandmother described.[18] His brother Edward, two and a half years younger,
w.
died at age sixteen of a cerebral hemorrhage. He attended Hamilton College in New York
with the intention of becoming a writer. He found himself at a social disadvantage at
ww
Hamilton College because of his intellectual attitude.[19] While attending, he

joined Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity. He wrote for the school paper, but, as an atheist, he
was critical of the religious school he attended. After receiving his Bachelor of Arts in
English literature in 1926, he attended Harvard University, where he would later
research, teach, and eventually become a prestigious board member. While he was at
Harvard, a fellow student, Fred Keller, convinced Skinner that he could make
an experimental science from the study of behavior. This led Skinner to invent his
prototype for the Skinner Box and to join Keller in the creation of other tools for small
experiments.[19] After graduation, he unsuccessfully tried to write a great novel while he
lived with his parents, a period that he later called the Dark Years.[19] He became
disillusioned with his literary skills despite encouragement from the renowned
poet Robert Frost, concluding that he had little world experience and no strong personal
perspective from which to write. His encounter with John B. Watson's Behaviorism led
73

him into graduate study in psychology and to the development of his own version of
behaviorism.[20]
Skinner received a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1931, and remained there as a researcher until
1936. He then taught at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis and later at Indiana
University, where he was chair of the psychology department from 1946–1947, before
returning to Harvard as a tenured professor in 1948. He remained at Harvard for the rest
of his life. In 1973, Skinner was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto II.[21]
In 1936, Skinner married Yvonne (Eve) Blue. The couple had two daughters, Julie (m.
Vargas) and Deborah (m. Buzan).[22][23] Yvonne Skinner died in 1997,[24] and is buried
in Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, Massachusetts.[25]
Skinner continued to write and work until just before his death. Just a few days before his
t
death, he was given a lifetime achievement award by the American Psychological
.ne
Association, and delivered a 15-minute address concerning his work.[26]
A controversial figure, Skinner has been depicted in many different ways. He has been
o
widely revered for bringing a much-needed scientific approach to the study of human
Pr
behavior; he has also been vilified for attempting to apply findings based largely on
animal experiments to human behavior in real-life settings.
s
5.3. Contributions to Psychological Theory (Behaviorism and Radical Behaviorism)
ok
Skinner called his approach to the study of behavior radical behaviorism.[27] This
philosophy of behavioral science assumes that behavior is a consequence of
environmental histories of reinforcement, (see Applied behavior analysis). In contrast to
Bo
the approach of cognitive science, behaviorism does not accept private events such as
thinking, perceptions, and unobservable emotions as causes of an organism's behavior.
w.
However, in contrast to methodological behaviorism, Skinner's radical behaviorism did

accept thoughts, emotions, and other "private events" as responses subject to the same
rules as overt behavior. In his words:
ww
The position can be stated as follows: what is felt or introspectively observed is not some
nonphysical world of consciousness, mind, or mental life but the observer's own body.
This does not mean, as I shall show later, that introspection is a kind of psychological
research, nor does it mean (and this is the heart of the argument) that what are felt or
introspectively observed are the causes of the behavior. An organism behaves as it does
because of its current structure, but most of this is out of reach of introspection. At the
moment we must content ourselves, as the methodological behaviorist insists, with a
person's genetic and environment histories. What are introspectively observed are certain
collateral products of those histories...
In this way we repair the major damage wrought by mentalism. When what a person does
[is] attributed to what is going on inside him, investigation is brought to an end. Why
explain the explanation? For twenty five hundred years people have been preoccupied
74

with feelings and mental life, but only recently has any interest been shown in a more
precise analysis of the role of the environment. Ignorance of that role led in the first place
to mental fictions, and it has been perpetuated by the explanatory practices to which they
gave rise.[28]
Theoretical Structure
Skinner's behavioral theory was largely set forth in his first book, Behavior of
Organisms.[29] Here he gave a systematic description of the manner in which environmental
variables control behavior. He distinguished two sorts of behavior—respondent and
operant—which are controlled in different ways. Respondent behaviors are elicited by
stimuli, and may be modified through respondent conditioning, which is often called
"Pavlovian conditioning" or "classical conditioning", in which a neutral stimulus is paired
with an eliciting stimulus. Operant behaviors, in contrast, are "emitted", meaning that
initially they are not induced by any particular stimulus. They are strengthened through
t
operant conditioning, sometimes called "instrumental conditioning", in which the
.ne
occurrence of a response yields a reinforcer. Respondent behaviors might be measured by
their latency or strength, operant behaviors by their rate. Both of these sorts of behavior had
already been studied experimentally, for example, respondents by Pavlov,[30] and operants
o
by Thorndike.[31] Skinner's account differed in some ways from earlier ones,[32] and was one
Pr
of the first accounts to bring them under one roof.
The idea that behavior is strengthened or weakened by its consequences raises several
s
questions. Among the most important are these: (1) Operant responses are strengthened
ok
by reinforcement, but where do they come from in the first place? (2) Once it is in the
organism's repertoire, how is a response directed or controlled? (3) How can very
complex and seemingly novel behaviors be explained?[clarification needed]
Bo
Origin of Operant Behavior

w.
Skinner's answer to the first question was very much like Darwin's answer to the question
of the origin of a "new" bodily structure, namely, variation and selection. Similarly, the
behavior of an individual varies from moment to moment; a variation that is followed by
ww
reinforcement is strengthened and becomes prominent in that individual's behavioral

repertoire. "Shaping" was Skinner's term for the gradual modification of behavior by the
reinforcement of desired variations. As discussed later in this article, Skinner believed
that "superstitious" behavior can arise when a response[clarification needed] happens to be
followed by reinforcement to which it is actually unrelated.
Control of Operant Behavior

The second question, "how is operant behavior controlled?" arises because, to begin with,
the behavior is "emitted" without reference to any particular stimulus. Skinner answered
this question by saying that a stimulus comes to control an operant if it is present when
the response is reinforced and absent when it is not. For example, if lever-pressing only
brings food when a light is on, a rat, or a child, will learn to press the lever only when the
light is on. Skinner summarized this relationship by saying that a discriminative stimulus
(e.g. light) sets the occasion for the reinforcement (food) of the operant (lever-press).
75

This "three-term contingency" (stimulus-response-reinforcer) is one of Skinner's most

important concepts, and sets his theory apart from theories that use only pair-wise
associations.[32]
Explaining Complex Behavior

Most behavior of humans cannot easily be described in terms of individual responses
reinforced one by one, and Skinner devoted a great deal of effort to the problem of
behavioral complexity. Some complex behavior can be seen as a sequence of relatively
simple responses, and here Skinner invoked the idea of "chaining." Chaining is based on
the fact, experimentally demonstrated, that a discriminative stimulus not only sets the
occasion for subsequent behavior, but it can also reinforce a behavior that precedes it. That
is, a discriminative stimulus is also a "conditioned reinforcer." For example, the light that
sets the occasion for lever pressing may also be used to reinforce "turning around" in the
presence of a noise. This results in the sequence "noise - turn-around - light - press lever -
t
food." Much longer chains can be built by adding more stimuli and responses.
.ne
However, Skinner recognized that a great deal of behavior, especially human behavior,
cannot be accounted for by gradual shaping or the construction of response
o
sequences.[33] Complex behavior often appears suddenly in its final form, as when a
Pr
person first finds his way to the elevator by following instructions given at the front desk.
To account for such behavior, Skinner introduced the concept of rule-governed behavior.
First, relatively simple behaviors come under the control of verbal stimuli: the child
s
learns to "jump", "open the book", and so on. After a large number of responses come
ok
under such verbal control, a sequence of verbal stimuli can evoke an almost unlimited
variety of complex responses.[33]
Bo
Reinforcement
Reinforcement, a key concept of behaviorism, is the primary process that shapes and
w.
controls behavior, and occurs in two ways, "positive" and "negative." In The Behavior of
Organisms (1938), Skinner defined "negative reinforcement" to be synonymous
with punishment, that is, the presentation of an aversive stimulus. Subsequently, in Science
ww
and Human Behavior (1953), Skinner redefined negative reinforcement. In what has now
become the standard set of definitions, positive reinforcement is the strengthening of
behavior by the occurrence of some event (e.g., praise after some behavior is performed),
whereas negative reinforcement is the strengthening of behavior by the removal or
avoidance of some aversive event (e.g., opening and raising an umbrella over your head on
a rainy day is reinforced by the cessation of rain falling on you).
Both types of reinforcement strengthen behavior, or increase the probability of a behavior

reoccurring; the difference is in whether the reinforcing event is something applied
(positive reinforcement) or something removed or avoided (negative reinforcement).
Punishment is the application of an aversive stimulus/event (positive punishment or
punishment by contingent stimulation) or the removal of a desirable stimulus (negative
punishment or punishment by contingent withdrawal). Though punishment is often used
to suppress behavior, Skinner argued that this suppression is temporary and has a number
76

of other, often unwanted, consequences.[34] Extinction is the absence of a rewarding

stimulus, which weakens behavior.
Writing in 1981, Skinner pointed out that Darwinian natural selection is, like reinforced
behavior, "selection by consequences." Though, as he said, natural selection has now
"made its case", he regretted that essentially the same process, "reinforcement", was less
widely accepted as underlying human behavior.[35]
Schedules of Reinforcement
Skinner recognized that behavior is typically reinforced more than once, and, together
with C. B. Ferster, he did an extensive analysis of the various ways in which
reinforcements could be arranged over time, which he called "schedules of
reinforcement."[36]
t
The most notable schedules of reinforcement studied by Skinner were continuous,
.ne
interval (fixed or variable), and ratio (fixed or variable). All are methods used in operant
conditioning.
 Continuous reinforcement (CRF) — each time a specific action is performed the
o
subject receives a reinforcement. This method is effective when teaching a new
Pr
behavior because it quickly establishes an association between the target behavior
and the reinforcer.[37]
 Interval Schedules — based on the time intervals between reinforcements[38]
s
 Fixed Interval Schedule (FI): A procedure in which reinforcements are presented
ok
at fixed time periods, provided that the appropriate response is made. This schedule
yields a response rate that is low just after reinforcement and becomes rapid just
before the next reinforcement is scheduled.
Bo
 Variable Interval Schedule (VI): A procedure in which behaviour is reinforced

after random time durations following the last reinforcement. This schedule yields
w.
steady responding at a rate that varies with the average frequency of reinforcement.
 Ratio Schedules — based on the ratio of responses to reinforcements[38]
 Fixed Ratio Schedule (FR): A procedure in which reinforcement is delivered after
ww
a specific number of responses have been made.

 Variable Ratio Schedule (VR): A procedure in which reinforcement comes after a
number of responses that is randomized from one reinforcement to the next (ex.
slot machines). The lower the number of responses required, the higher the
response rate tends to be. Ratio schedules tend to produce very rapid responding,
often with breaks of no responding just after reinforcement if a large number of
responses is required for reinforcement.[39]
Operant Conditioning Chamber

An operant conditioning chamber (also known as a Skinner Box) is a laboratory apparatus
used in the experimental analysis of animal behavior. It was invented by Skinner while he
was a graduate student at Harvard University. As used by Skinner, the box had a lever
(for rats), or a disk in one wall (for pigeons). A press on this "manipulandum" could
deliver food to the animal through an opening in the wall, and responses reinforced in this
77

way increased in frequency. By controlling this reinforcement together with

discriminative stimuli such as lights and tones, or punishments such as electric shocks,
experimenters have used the operant box to study a wide variety of topics, including
schedules of reinforcement, discriminative control, delayed response ("memory"),
punishment, and so on. By channeling research in these directions, the operant
conditioning chamber has had a huge influence on course of research in animal learning
and its applications. It enabled great progress on problems that could be studied by
measuring the rate, probability, or force of a simple, repeatable response. However, it
discouraged the study of behavioral processes not easily conceptualized in such terms—
spatial learning, in particular, which is now studied in quite different ways, for example,
by the use of the water maze.[32]
Cumulative Recorder
The cumulative recorder makes a pen-and-ink record of simple repeated responses. Skinner
t
designed it for use with the Operant chamber as a convenient way to record and view the
.ne
rate of responses such as a lever press or a key peck. In this device, a sheet of paper
gradually unrolls over a cylinder. Each response steps a small pen across the paper, starting
at one edge; when the pen reaches the other edge, it quickly resets to the initial side. The
o
slope of the resulting ink line graphically displays the rate of the response; for example,
Pr
rapid responses yield a steeply sloping line on the paper, slow responding yields a line of
low slope. The cumulative recorder was a key tool used by Skinner in his analysis of
behavior, and it was very widely adopted by other experimenters, gradually falling out of
s
use with the advent of the laboratory computer.[citation needed] Skinner's major experimental
ok
exploration of response rates, presented in his book with C. B. Ferster, Schedules of

Reinforcement, is full of cumulative records produced by this device.[36]
Bo
Air Crib
The air crib is an easily cleaned, temperature- and humidity-controlled enclosure intended
to replace the standard infant crib.[40] Skinner invented the device to help his wife cope
w.
with the day-to-day tasks of child rearing. It was designed to make early childcare
simpler (by reducing laundry, diaper rash, cradle cap, etc.), while allowing the baby to be
ww
more mobile and comfortable, and less prone to cry. Reportedly it had some success in
these goals.[41]
The air crib was a controversial invention. It was popularly mischaracterized as a cruel
pen, and it was often compared to Skinner's operant conditioning chamber, commonly
called the "Skinner Box." This association with laboratory animal experimentation
discouraged its commercial success, though several companies attempted
production.[41][42]
A 2004 book by Lauren Slater, entitled Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychology
Experiments of the Twentieth Century[43] caused a stir by mentioning the rumors that
Skinner had used his baby daughter, Deborah, in some of his experiments, and that she
had subsequently committed suicide. Although Slater's book stated that the rumors were
false, a reviewer in The Observer in March 2004 misquoted Slater's book as supporting
78

the rumors. This review was read by Deborah Skinner (now Deborah Buzan, an artist and
writer living in London) who wrote a vehement riposte in The Guardian.[44]
Teaching Machine
t
The teaching machine, a mechanical invention to automate the task of programmed learning.
.ne
The teaching machine was a mechanical device whose purpose was to administer a
curriculum of programmed learning. The machine embodies key elements of Skinner’s
theory of learning and had important implications for education in general and classroom
o
instruction in particular. In one incarnation, the machine was a box that housed a list of
Pr
questions that could be viewed one at a time through a small window. (See picture).
There was also a mechanism through which the learner could respond to each question.
Upon delivering a correct answer, the learner would be rewardedSkinner advocated the
s
use of teaching machines for a broad range of students (e.g., preschool aged to adult) and
ok
instructional purposes (e.g., reading and music). For example, one machine that he
envisioned could teach rhythm. He wrote:
Bo
A relatively simple device supplies the necessary contingencies. The student taps a
rhythmic pattern in unison with the device. "Unison" is specified very loosely at first (the
w.
student can be a little early or late at each tap) but the specifications are slowly
sharpened. The process is repeated for various speeds and patterns. In another
arrangement, the student echoes rhythmic patterns sounded by the machine, though not in
ww
unison, and again the specifications for an accurate reproduction are progressively
sharpened. Rhythmic patterns can also be brought under the control of a printed score.[47]
The instructional potential of the teaching machine stemmed from several factors: it
provided automatic, immediate and regular reinforcement without the use of aversive
control; the material presented was coherent, yet varied and novel; the pace of learning
could be adjusted to suit the individual. As a result, students were interested, attentive,
and learned efficiently by producing the desired behavior, "learning by doing." Teaching
machines, though perhaps rudimentary, were not rigid instruments of instruction. They
could be adjusted and improved based upon the students' performance. For example, if a
student made many incorrect responses, the machine could be reprogrammed to provide
less advanced prompts or questions—the idea being that students acquire behaviors most
efficiently if they make few errors. Multiple-choice formats were not well-suited for
teaching machines because they tended to increase student mistakes, and the
contingencies of reinforcement were relatively uncontrolled.
79

Not only useful in teaching explicit skills, machines could also promote the development
of a repertoire of behaviors that Skinner called self-management. Effective self-
management means attending to stimuli appropriate to a task, avoiding distractions,
reducing the opportunity of reward for competing behaviors, and so on. For example,
machines encourage students to pay attention before receiving a reward. Skinner
contrasted this with the common classroom practice of initially capturing students’
attention (e.g., with a lively video) and delivering a reward (e.g., entertainment) before
the students have actually performed any relevant behavior. This practice fails to
reinforce correct behavior and actually counters the development of self-management.
Skinner pioneered the use of teaching machines in the classroom, especially at the
primary level. Today computers run software that performs similar teaching tasks, and
there has been a resurgence of interest in the topic related to the development of adaptive
learning systems.[49]
t
Pigeon-guided Missile
.ne
During World War II, the US Navy required a weapon effective against surface ships,
such as the German Bismarck class battleships. Although missile and TV technology
existed, the size of the primitive guidance systems available rendered automatic guidance
o
impractical. To solve this problem, Skinner initiated Project Pigeon,[50][51] which was
Pr
intended to provide a simple and effective guidance system. This system divided the nose
cone of a missile into three compartments, with a pigeon placed in each. Lenses projected
an image of distant objects onto a screen in front of each bird. Thus, when the missile
s
was launched from an aircraft within sight of an enemy ship, an image of the ship would
ok
appear on the screen. The screen was hinged, such that pecks at the image of the ship
would guide the missile toward the ship.[52]
Bo
Despite an effective demonstration the project was abandoned, and eventually more
conventional solutions, such as those based on radar, became available. Skinner complained
that "our problem was no one would take us seriously."[53] It seemed that few people would
w.
trust pigeons to guide a missile, no matter how reliable the system appeared to be.[54]
ww
Verbal Summator
Early in his career Skinner became interested in "latent speech" and experimented with a
device he called the "verbal summator."[55] This device can be thought of as an auditory
version of the Rorschach inkblots.[55] When using the device, human participants listened
to incomprehensible auditory "garbage" but often read meaning into what they heard.
Thus, as with the Rorschach blots, the device was intended to yield overt behavior that
projected subconscious thoughts. Skinner's interest in projective testing was brief, but he
later used observations with the summator in creating his theory of verbal behavior. The
device also led other researchers to invent new tests such as the tautophone test, the
auditory apperception test, and the Azzageddi[when defined as?] test.[56]
80

Verbal Behavior
Challenged by Alfred North Whitehead during a casual discussion while at Harvard to
provide an account of a randomly provided piece of verbal behavior,[57]Skinner set about
attempting to extend his then-new functional, inductive approach to the complexity of
human verbal behavior.[58] Developed over two decades, his work appeared in the
book Verbal Behavior. Although Noam Chomsky was highly critical of Verbal Behavior,
he conceded that Skinner's "S-R psychology" was worth a review. (Behavior analysts
reject the "S-R" characterization: operant conditioning involves the emission of a
response which then becomes more or less likely depending upon its consequence–see
above.). Verbal Behavior had an uncharacteristically cool reception, partly as a result of
Chomsky's review, partly because of Skinner's failure to address or rebut any of
Chomsky's criticisms.[60] Skinner's peers may have been slow to adopt the ideas presented
in Verbal Behavior because of the absence of experimental evidence—unlike the
empirical density that marked Skinner's experimental work.[61] However, in applied
t
settings there has been a resurgence of interest in Skinner's functional analysis of verbal
.ne
behavior. Skinner's views influenced education as well as psychology. Skinner argued
that education has two major purposes: (1) to teach repertoires of both verbal and
nonverbal behavior; and (2) to interest students in learning. He recommended bringing
o
students’ behavior under appropriate control by providing reinforcement only in the
Pr
presence of stimuli relevant to the learning task. Because he believed that human
behavior can be affected by small consequences, something as simple as "the opportunity
to move forward after completing one stage of an activity" can be an effective reinforcer
s
(Skinner, 1961, p. 380). Skinner was convinced that, to learn, a student must engage in
ok
behavior, and not just passively receive information. (Skinner, 1961, p. 389).
Skinner believed that effective teaching must be based on positive reinforcement which
Bo
is, he argued, more effective at changing and establishing behavior than punishment. He
suggested that the main thing people learn from being punished is how to avoid
w.
punishment. For example, if a child is forced to practice playing an instrument, the child
comes to associate practicing with punishment and thus learns to hate and avoid
practicing the instrument. This view had obvious implications for the then widespread
ww
practice of rote learning and punitive discipline in education. The use of educational
activities as punishment may induce rebellious behavior such as vandalism or absence.[63]
Because teachers are primarily responsible for modifying student behavior, Skinner
argued that teachers must learn effective ways of teaching. In The Technology of
Teaching, Skinner has a chapter on why teachers fail (pages 93–113): He says that
teachers have not been given an in-depth understanding of teaching and learning. Without
knowing the science underpinning teaching, teachers fall back on procedures that work
poorly or not at all, such as:
 using aversive techniques (which produce escape and avoidance and undesirable
emotional effects);
 relying on telling and explaining ("Unfortunately, a student does not learn simply
when he is shown or told." p. 103);
 failing to adapt learning tasks to the student's current level;
 failing to provide positive reinforcement frequently enough.
81

Skinner suggests that any age-appropriate skill can be taught. The steps are
1. Clearly specify the action or performance the student is to learn.
2. Break down the task into small achievable steps, going from simple to complex.
3. Let the student perform each step, reinforcing correct actions.
4. Adjust so that the student is always successful until finally the goal is reached.
5. Shift to intermittent reinforcement to maintain the student's performance.
Skinner's views on education are extensively presented in his book The Technology of
Teaching. They are also reflected in Fred S. Keller's Personalized System of
Instruction and Ogden R. Lindsley's Precision Teaching.
Skinner is popularly known mainly for his books Walden Two and Beyond Freedom and
Dignity, (for which he made the cover of TIME Magazine).[64] The former describes a
fictional "experimental community"[65] in 1940s United States. The productivity and
t
happiness of citizens in this community is far greater than in the outside world because
.ne
the residents practice scientific social planning and use operant conditioning in raising
their children.
o
Walden Two, like Thoreau's Walden, champions a lifestyle that does not support war, or
Pr
foster competition and social strife. It encourages a lifestyle of minimal consumption,
rich social relationships, personal happiness, satisfying work, and leisure.[66] In 1967, Kat
Kinkade founded the Twin Oaks Community, using Walden Two as a blueprint. The
s
community still exists and continues to use the Planner-Manager system and other
ok
aspects described in Skinner's book.
In Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner suggests that a technology of behavior could help
Bo
to make a better society. We would, however, have to accept that an autonomous agent is
not the driving force of our actions. Skinner offers alternatives to punishment, and
w.
challenges his readers to use science and modern technology to construct a better society.
Political Views
ww
Skinner's political writings emphasized his hopes that an effective and human science of
behavioral control – a technology of human behavior – could help with problems as yet
unsolved and often aggravated by advances in technology such as the atomic bomb.
Indeed, one of Skinner's goals was to prevent humanity from destroying itself.[67] He saw
political activity as the use of aversive or non-aversive means to control a population.
Skinner favored the use of positive reinforcement as a means of control, citing Jean-
Jacques Rousseau's novel Emile: or, On Education as an example of literature that "did
not fear the power of positive reinforcement."[3]
Skinner's book, Walden Two, presents a vision of a decentralized, localized society,

which applies a practical, scientific approach and behavioral expertise to deal peacefully
with social problems. (For example, his views led him to oppose corporal punishment in
schools, and he wrote a letter to the California Senate that helped lead it to a ban on
spanking.[68]) Skinner's utopia is both a thought experiment and a rhetorical piece.
82

In Walden Two, Skinner answers the problem that exists in many utopian novels – "What
is the Good Life?" The book's answer is a life of friendship, health, art, a healthy balance
between work and leisure, a minimum of unpleasantness, and a feeling that one has made
worthwhile contributions to a society in which resources are ensured, in part, by
minimizing consumption. If the world is to save any part of its resources for the future, it
must reduce not only consumption but the number of consumers.
Skinner described his novel as "my New Atlantis", in reference to Bacon's utopia.[69]
When Milton's Satan falls from heaven, he ends in hell. And what does he say to reassure
himself? 'Here, at least, we shall be free.' And that, I think, is the fate of the old-fashioned
liberal. He's going to be free, but he's going to find himself in hell.
One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his
t
favorite experimental animals, the pigeon. Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a
.ne
cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular
intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the
pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been
o
performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these
same actions.[70]
Pr
One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three
s
turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper
ok
corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath
an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the
head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left
Bo
with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.[71][72]

w.
Skinner suggested that the pigeons behaved as if they were influencing the automatic
mechanism with their "rituals", and that this experiment shed light on human behavior:
ww
The experiment might be said to demonstrate a sort of superstition. The bird behaves as if
there were a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although
such a relation is lacking. There are many analogies in human behavior. Rituals for
changing one's fortune at cards are good examples. A few accidental connections
between a ritual and favorable consequences suffice to set up and maintain the behavior
in spite of many unreinforced instances. The bowler who has released a ball down the
alley but continues to behave as if she were controlling it by twisting and turning her arm
and shoulder is another case in point. These behaviors have, of course, no real effect upon
one's luck or upon a ball half way down an alley, just as in the present case the food
would appear as often if the pigeon did nothing—or, more strictly speaking, did
something else.[71]
Modern behavioral psychologists have disputed Skinner's "superstition" explanation for

the behaviors he recorded. Subsequent research (e.g. Staddon and Simmelhag, 1971),
83

while finding similar behavior, failed to find support for Skinner's "adventitious
reinforcement" explanation for it. By looking at the timing of different behaviors within
the interval, Staddon and Simmelhag were able to distinguish two classes of behavior:
the terminal response,, which occurred in anticipation of food, and interim responses
responses, that
occurred earlier in the interfood interval and were rarely contiguous with food. Terminal
responses seem to reflect classical (as opposed to operant) conditioning,
conditioning, rather than
adventitious reinforcement, guided by a process like that observed in 1968 by Brown and
Jenkins in their "autoshaping" procedures. The causation of interim activities (such as the
schedule-induced polydipsia seen in a similar situation with rats) also cannot be traced to
adventitious reinforcement and its details are still obscure (Staddon, 1977)
5.4. Gagné's Hierarchy of Learning

In 1956, the American educational psychologist Robert M. Gagné proposed a system of
classifying different types of learning in terms of the degree of complexity of the mental
t
processes involved. He identified eight basic types, and arranged these in the hihierarchy
.ne
shown in Figure 1. According to Gagné, the higher orders of learning in this hierarchy
build upon the lower levels, requiring progressively greater amounts of previous learning
for their success. The lowest four orders tend to focus on the more behavioural
behavioural aspects of
o
learning, while the highest four focus on the more cognitive aspects.
Pr
s
ok
increasing complexity
Bo
w.
ww
Gagné's hierarchy of learning:

Let us now take a closer look at Gagné's eight categories of learning.
1. Signal Learning.. This is the simplest form of learning, and consists essentially of
the classical conditioning first described by the behavioral psychologist Pavlov. In
this, the subject is 'conditioned' to emit a desired response as a result of a stimulus
that would not normally produce that response. This is done by first exposing the
subject to the chosen stimulus (known as the conditioned stimulus)) along with
another stimulus (known as the unconditioned stimulus)) which produces the
desired response naturally; after a certain number of repetitions of the double
stimulus, it is found that the subject emits the desired response when exposed to the
conditioned stimulus on its own. The applications of classical conditioning in
facilitating human learning are, however, very limited.
2. Stimulus-response learning. This somewhat more sophisticated form of learning,
response learning.
which is also known as operant conditioning,, was originally developed by
84

Skinner. It involves developing desired stimulus-response bonds in the subject

through a carefully-planned reinforcement schedule based on the use of 'rewards'
and 'punishments'. Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning in that
the reinforcing agent (the 'reward' or 'punishment') is presented after the response.
It is this type of conditioning that forms the basis of programmed learning in all
its various manifestations.
3. Chaining. This is a more advanced form of learning in which the subject develops
the ability to connect two or more previously-learned stimulus-response bonds into
a linked sequence. It is the process whereby most complex psychomotor skills (e.g.
riding a bicycle or playing the piano) are learned.
4. Verbal association. This is a form of chaining in which the links between the
items being connected are verbal in nature. Verbal association is one of the key
processes in the development of language skills.
5. Discrimination learning. This involves developing the ability to make appropriate
t
(different) responses to a series of similar stimuli that differ in a systematic way.
.ne
The process is made more complex (and hence more difficult) by the phenomenon
of interference, whereby one piece of learning inhibits another. Interference is
thought to be one of the main causes of forgetting.
o
6. Concept learning. This involves developing the ability to make a consistent
Pr
response to different stimuli that form a common class or category of some sort. It
forms the basis of the ability to generalize, classify etc.
7. Rule learning. This is a very-high-level cognitive process that involves being able
s
to learn relationships between concepts and apply these relationships in different
ok
situations, including situations not previously encountered. It forms the basis of the
learning of general rules, procedures, etc.
8. Problem solving. This is the highest level of cognitive process according to
Bo
Gagné. It involves developing the ability to invent a complex rule, algorithm or

procedure for the purpose of solving one particular problem, and then using the
w.
method to solve other problems of a similar nature.
5.5. Gestalt Theory (Wertheimer)

ww
Along with Kohler and Kafka, Max Wertheimer was one of the principal proponents of
Gestalt theory which emphasized higher-order cognitive processes in the midst of
behaviorism. The focus of Gestalt theory was the idea of “grouping”, i.e., characteristics
of stimuli causes us to structure or interpret a visual field or problem in a certain way
(Wertheimer, 1922). The primary factors that determine grouping were: (1) proximity -
elements tend to be grouped together according to their nearness, (2) similarity - items
similar in some respect tend to be grouped together, (3) closure - items are grouped
together if they tend to complete some entity, and (4) simplicity - items will be organized
into simple figures according to symmetry, regularity, and smoothness. These factors
were called the laws of organization and were explained in the context of perception and
problem-solving.
Wertheimer was especially concerned with problem-solving. Wertheimer (1959) provides

a Gestalt interpretation of problem-solving episodes of famous scientists (e.g., Galileo,
85

Einstein) as well as children presented with mathematical problems. The essence of

successful problem-solving behavior according to Wertheimer is being able to see the
overall structure of the problem: "A certain region in the field becomes crucial, is
focused; but it does not become isolated. A new, deeper structural view of the situation
develops, involving changes in functional meaning, the grouping, etc. of the items.
Directed by what is required by the structure of a situation for a crucial region, one is led
to a reasonable prediction, which like the other parts of the structure, calls for
verification, direct or indirect. Two directions are involved: getting a whole consistent
picture, and seeing what the structure of the whole requires for the parts." (p 212).
Application
Gestalt theory applies to all aspects of human learning, although it applies most directly
to perception and problem-solving. The work of Gibson was strongly influenced by
Gestalt theory.
t
.ne
Example
The classic example of Gestalt principles provided by Wertheimer is children finding the
area of parallelograms. As long as the parallelograms are regular figures, a standard
o
procedure can be applied (making lines perpendicular from the corners of the base).
Pr
However, if a parallelogram with a novel shape or orientation is provided, the standard
procedure will not work and children are forced to solve the problem by understanding
the true structure of a parallelogram (i.e., the figure can be bisected anywhere if the ends
s
are joined).
ok
Principles
1. The learner should be encouraged to discover the underlying nature of a topic or
Bo
problem (i.e., the relationship among the elements).

2. Gaps, incongruities, or disturbances are an important stimulus for learning
w.
Instruction should be based upon the laws of organization: proximity, closure, similarity
and simplicity
ww
5.6. Jerome Seymour Bruner Theory

(October 1, 1915 – June 5, 2016) was an American psychologist who made significant
contributions to human cognitive psychology and cognitive learning theory in educational
psychology. Bruner was a senior research fellow at the New York University School of
Law.[1] He received a B.A. in 1937 from Duke University and a Ph.D. from Harvard
University in 1941.[2][3][4][5] A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002,
ranked Bruner as the 28th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.
Education and Early Life

Bruner was born blind (due to cataracts) on October 1, 1915 in New York City, to
Herman and Rose Bruner, who were Polish Jewish immigrants.[7][8] An operation at age 2
restored his vision. He received a bachelor's degree in psychology, in 1937 from Duke,
and went on to earn a master's degree in psychology in 1939 and then a doctorate in
86

psychology in 1941 from Harvard.[2] In 1939, Bruner published his first psychological
article on the effect of thymus extract on the sexual behavior of the female rat.[9] During
World War II, Bruner served on the Psychological Warfare Division of the Supreme
Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force committee under General Dwight D.
Eisenhower, researching social psychological phenomena.[7][10]
Career and Research

In 1945 Bruner returned to Harvard as a psychology professor and was heavily involved
in research relating to cognitive psychology and educational psychology. In 1970 Bruner
left Harvard to teach at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. He returned to
the United States in 1980 to continue his research in developmental psychology. In 1991
Bruner joined the faculty at New York University.
As an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law, Bruner studied how psychology affects
t
legal practice. During his career, Bruner was awarded honorary doctorates from Yale
.ne
University, Columbia University, the Sorbonne, the ISPA Institute Universitário, as well
as colleges and universities in such locations as Berlin and Rome, and was a Fellow of
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[5] He turned 100 in October 2015[11] and
o
died on June 5, 2016.[4][12] Pr
Cognitive Psychology
s
Main article: Cognitive Psychology
ok
Bruner is one of the pioneers of cognitive psychology in the United States, which began
through his own early research on sensation and perception as being active, rather than
passive processes.
Bo
In 1947 Bruner published his study Value and Need as Organizing Factors in Perception,
w.
in which poor and rich children were asked to estimate the size of coins or wooden disks
the size of American pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters and half-dollars. The results
showed that the value and need the poor and rich children associated with coins caused
ww
them to significantly overestimate the size of the coins, especially when compared to
their more accurate estimations of the same size disks.[13]
Similarly, another study conducted by Bruner and Leo Postman showed slower reaction
times and less accurate answers when a deck of playing cards reversed the color of
the suit symbol for some cards (e.g. red spades and black hearts).[14] These series
of experiments issued in what some called the 'New Look' psychology, which challenged
psychologists to study not just an organism's response to a stimulus, but also its internal
interpretation.[7] After these experiments on perception, Bruner turned his attention to the
actual cognitions that he had indirectly studied in his perception studies.
In 1956 Bruner published the book A Study of Thinking, which formally initiated the
study of cognitive psychology. Soon afterwards Bruner helped found the Harvard Center
of Cognitive Studies. After a time, Bruner began to research other topics in psychology,
87

but in 1990 he returned to the subject and gave a series of lectures, later compiled into the
book Acts of Meaning. In these lectures, Bruner refuted the computer model for studying
the mind, advocating a more holistic understanding of the mind and its cognitions.
Developmental Psychology
Beginning around 1967 Bruner turned his attention to the subject of developmental
psychology and studied the way children learn. He coined the term "scaffolding" to
describe the way children often build on the information they have already mastered. In
his research on the development of children (1966) Bruner proposed three modes of
representation: enactive representation (action-based), iconic representation (image-
based), and symbolic representation (language-based). Rather than neatly delineated
stages, the modes of representation are integrated and only loosely sequential as they
"translate" into each other. Symbolic representation remains the ultimate mode, for it "is
clearly the most mysterious of the three."
t
.ne
Bruner's theory suggests it is efficacious, when faced with new material, to follow a
progression from enactive to iconic to symbolic representation; this holds true even for
adult learners. A true instructional designer, Bruner's work also suggests that a learner
o
(even of a very young age) is capable of learning any material so long as the instruction is
Pr
organized appropriately, in sharp contrast to the beliefs of Piaget and other stage
theorists. (Driscoll, Marcy). Like Bloom's Taxonomy, Bruner suggests a system of
coding in which people form a hierarchical arrangement of related categories. Each
s
successively higher level of categories becomes more specific, echoing Benjamin
ok
Bloom's understanding of knowledge acquisition as well as the related idea

of instructional scaffolding.
Bo
In accordance with this understanding of learning, Bruner proposed the spiral curriculum, a
teaching approach in which each subject or skill area is revisited at intervals, at a more
w.
sophisticated level each time. First there is basic knowledge of a subject, then more
sophistication is added, reinforcing principles that were first discussed. This system is used
in China and India. Bruner's spiral curriculum, however, draws heavily from evolution to
ww
explain how to learn better and thus it drew criticism from conservatives. In the United
States classes are split by grade—life sciences in 9th grade, chemistry in 10th, physics in
11th. The spiral teaches life sciences, chem., physics all in one year, then two subjects, then
one, then all three again to understand how they mold together.[15] Bruner also believes
learning should be spurred by interest in the material rather than tests or punishment, since
one learns best when they find the knowledge they are obtaining appealing.
Educational Psychology
While Bruner was at Harvard he published a series of works about his assessment of
current educational systems and ways that education could be improved. In 1961 he
published the book Process of Education. Bruner also served as a member of the
Educational Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee during the presidencies
of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Referencing his overall view that education
should not focus merely on memorizing facts, Bruner wrote in Process of Education that
88

"knowing how something is put together is worth a thousand facts about it." From 1964–
1996 Bruner sought to develop a complete curriculum for the educational system that
would meet the needs of students in three main areas which he called Man: A Course of
Study. Bruner wanted to create an educational environment that would focus on (1) what
was uniquely human about human beings, (2) how humans got that way and (3) how
humans could become more so.[9] In 1966 Bruner published another book relevant to
education, Towards a Theory of Instruction, and then in 1973, another book, The
Relevance of Education. Finally, in 1996, in The Culture of Education, Bruner reassessed
the state of educational practices three decades after he had begun his educational
research. Bruner was also credited with helping found the Head Start early childcare
program.[16] Bruner was deeply impressed by his 1995 visit to the preschools of Reggio
Emilia and has established a collaborative relationship with them to improve educational
systems internationally. Equally important was the relationship with the Italian Ministry
of Education which officially recognized the value of this innovative experience.
t
.ne
Language Development
In 1972 Bruner was appointed Watts Professor of Experimental Psychology at
the University of Oxford, where he remained until 1980. In his Oxford years Bruner
o
focused on early language development. Rejecting the natives account of language
Pr
acquisition proposed by Noam Chomsky, Bruner offered an alternative in the form of
an integrationist or social integrationist theory of language development. In this
approach, the social and interpersonal nature of language was emphasized, appealing to
s
the work of philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, John L. Austin and John
ok
Searle for theoretical grounding.[citation needed] Following Lev Vygotsky the Russian
theoretician of socio-cultural development, Bruner proposed that social interaction plays
a fundamental role in the development of cognition in general and of language in
Bo
particular. He emphasized that children learn language in order to communicate, and, at

the same time, they also learn the linguistic code. Meaningful language is acquired in the
w.
context of meaningful parent-infant interaction, learning “scaffolded” or supported by the

child’s Language Acquisition Support System (LASS).
ww
At Oxford Bruner worked with a large group of graduate students and post-doctoral
fellows to understand how young children manage to crack the linguistic code, among
them Alison Garton, Alison Gopnik, Magda Kalmar (hu:Kalmár Magda
(pszichológus)), Alan Leslie, Andrew Meltzoff, Anat Ninio, Roy Pea, Susan Sugar-
man,[17] Michael Scarify, Marian Sigmund,[18] Kathy Sylva and many others. Much
emphasis was placed on employing the then-revolutionary method of videotaped home-
observations, Bruner showing the way to a new wave of researchers to get out of the
laboratory and take on the complexities of naturally occurring events in a child’s life.
This work was published in a large number of journal articles, and in 1983 Bruner
published a summary in the book Child’s talk: Learning to Use Language.
This decade of research established Bruner at the helm of the integrationist approach to
language development, exploring such themes as the acquisition of communicative
intents and the development of their linguistic expression, the interactive context of
89

language use in early childhood, and the role of parental input and scaffolding behavior
in the acquisition of linguistic forms. This work rests on the assumptions of a social
constructivist theory of meaning according to which meaningful participation in the
social life of a group as well as meaningful use of language involve an interpersonal,
intersubjective, collaborative process of creating shared meaning. The elucidation of this
process became the focus of Bruner’s next period of work.
Narrative Construction of Reality

In 1980 Bruner returned to the United States, taking up the position of professor at
the New School for Social Research in New York City in 1981. For the next decade, he
worked on the development of a theory of the narrative construction of reality,
culminating in several seminal publications. His book Actual Minds, Possible Worlds has
been cited by over 16,100 scholarly publications, making it one of the most influential
works of the 20th century.
t
.ne
Legal Psychology.
In 1991 Bruner arrived at NYU as a visiting professor to do research and to found the
Colloquium on the Theory of Legal Practice. The goal of this institution is to "study how
o
law is practiced and how its practice can be understood by using tools developed in
Pr
anthropology, psychology, linguistics, and literary theory.
s
5.7. Ausubel's Learning Theory
David Paul Ausubel was an American psychologist who’s most significant
ok
contribution to the fields of educational psychology, cognitive science, and science

education. Ausubel believed that understanding concepts, principles, and ideas are
Bo
achieved through deductive reasoning. Similarly, he believed in the idea of

meaningful learning as opposed to rote memorization. The most important single
factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. This led Ausubel to
w.
develop an interesting theory of meaningful learning and advance organizers.

ww
Learning Theory
Ausubel's believes that learning of new knowledge relies on what is already known.
That is, construction of knowledge begins with our observation and recognition of
events and objects through concepts we already have. We learn by constructing a
network of concepts and adding to them.
Ausubel also stresses the importance of reception rather than discovery learning, and
meaningful rather than rote learning. He declares that his theory applies only to
reception learning in school settings. He didn’t say, however, that discovery learning
doesn’t work; but rather that it was not efficient. In other words, Ausubel believed
that understanding concepts, principles, and ideas are achieved through deductive
reasoning
90

Ausubel was influenced by the teachings of Jean Piaget. Similar to Piaget’s ideas of
conceptual schemes, Ausubel related this to his explanation of how people acquire
knowledge.
Meaningful learning
Ausebel’s theory also focuses on meaningful learning. According to his theory, to
learn meaningfully, individuals must relate new knowledge to relevant concepts they
already know. New knowledge must interact with the learner’s knowledge structure.
Meaningful learning can be contrasted with rote learning. he believed in the idea of
meaningful learning as opposed to rote memorization. The latter can also incorporate
new information into the pre-existing knowledge structure but without interaction.
Rote memory is used to recall sequences of objects, such as phone numbers.
However, it is of no use to the learner in understanding the relationships between the
t
objects. 2
.ne
Because meaningful learning involves recognition of the links between concepts, it
has the privilege of being transferred to long-term memory. The most crucial element
in meaningful learning is how the new information is integrated into the old
o
knowledge structure. Accordingly, Ausubel believes that knowledge is hierarchically
organized; that new information is meaningful to the extent that it can be related
Pr
(attached, anchored) to what is already known.
s
The rote-meaningful learning continuum showing the requirements of
ok
meaningful learning
Bo
Advance Organizers
Ausubel advocates the use of advance organizers as a mechanism to help to link new
learning material with existing related ideas. Advance organizers are helpful in the
w.
way that they help the process of learning when difficult and complex material is
introduced. This is satisfied through two conditions:
ww
1. The student must process and understand the information presented in the
organizer-- this increases the effectiveness of the organizer itself. 3
2. The organizer must indicate the relations among the basic concepts and terms
that will be used
Ausubel’s theory of advance organizers fall into two categories: comparative and
expository
Comparative Organizers
The main goal of comparative organizers is to activate existing schemas and is used
as reminders to bring into the working memory of what you may not realize are
relevant. A comparative Organizer is also used both to integrate as well as
discriminate. It “integrates new ideas with basically similar concepts in cognitive
91

structure, as well as increase discriminability between new and existing ideas which
are essentially different but confusable similar”
Expository Organizers
“In contrast, expository organizers provide new knowledge that students will need to
understand the upcoming information”. Expository organizers are often used when
the new learning material is unfamiliar to the learner. They often relate what the
learner already knows with the new and unfamiliar material—this in turn is aimed to
make the unfamiliar material more plausible to the learner.
Ausubel Learning Model

Ausubel believed that learning proceeds in a top-down or deductive manner.
Ausubel's theory consists of three phases. The main elements of ausubel teaching
t
method are shown below in the table
.ne
Ausubel’s Model of Meaningful Learning
o
Phase One Phase Two Phase Three
Advance Organizer Presentation of Learning task or
Pr Strengthening Cognitive
Material Organization
Clarify aim of the lesson Make the organization of the new Relate new information
s
material explicit to advance organizer
Present the lesson Make logical order of learning Promote active reception
ok
material explicit learning.

Relate organizer to students’ prior knowledge Present material in terms of basic similarities
and differences by using
Bo
examples, and engage students in meaningful

learning activities
w.
5.8. Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory

Although much recent attention has focused on gaps in the achievement of different
ww
groups of students, the problem has been with us for decades. This paper presents the
problem as one of reducing variation in students’ achievement, and reviews the work of
renowned educator Benjamin Bloom on this problem. Bloom argued that to reduce
variation in students’ achievement and to have all students learn well, we must increase
variation in instructional approaches and learning time. The key element in this effort was
well constructed, formative classroom assessments. Bloom outlined a specific strategy for
using formative classroom assessments to guide teachers in differentiating their
instruction and labeled it “mastery learning.” This paper describes Bloom’s work,
presents the essential elements of mastery learning, explains common misinterpretations,
and describes the results of research on its effects.
Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory

Achievement gaps among different groups of students have concerned government and
educational leaders for many years. In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on
92

Poverty” focused directly on inequalities in the educational achievement of economically

disadvantaged students and their more advantaged counterparts. The Economic
Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964, which established the Head Start program, and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which created the Title I and
Follow Through programs, were specific attempts to address these gaps in educational
attainment.
More recently, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (U.S. Congress, 2001)
revived these concerns. The law requires schools to report achievement results separately
for various poverty, ethnicity, language, and disability subgroups. Not only must schools
identify any achievement gaps among these different student subgroups, they also must
take specific steps to close them.
Over the years educational researchers have learned a lot about reducing these
t
achievement disparities. Yet because of our tendency in education today to focus only on
.ne
“what’s new,” a lot of that important knowledge is being neglected. Instead of building
on what we already know, many modern proposals for closing achievement gaps simply
rename well-established principles, adding to the tangled thicket of terminology that
o
confounds progress in education. To succeed in our efforts to close achievement gaps and
Pr
to reach our goal of helping all students learn well, we need instead to recognize and
extend this hard-earned knowledge base.
s
Researchers’ Views
ok
Researchers do their best to view problems in their simplest and most basic form. From a
researcher’s perspective, therefore, achievement gaps are simply matters of “variation”:
students vary in their levels of achievement. Some students learn excellently in school
Bo
and reach high levels of achievement, while others learn less well and attain only modest
levels. Whenever we measure two or more students’ achievement, we also measure this
w.
“variation.”
Researchers design studies to “explain” variation. They make educated guesses, called
ww
“hypotheses,” about what factors contribute to the differences among individuals. Then
they manipulate those factors in carefully planned investigations to determine the effects.
When they find a relationship between the factors that they manipulate and differences in
outcomes, they succeed in their efforts to “explain” variation.
One of the early researchers concerned with explaining variation in student achievement
was Benjamin S. Bloom. In the early 1960s, Bloom’s studies focused on individual
differences, especially in students’ school learning. While he recognized that many
factors outside of school affect student learning (Bloom, 1964), his investigations showed
that teachers have potentially strong influence as well. In his observations of classrooms,
Bloom noted that most teachers included little variation in their instructional practices.
The majority taught all students in much the same way and provided all with the same
amount of time to learn. The few students for whom the instructional methods and time
were ideal learned excellently. The largest number of students for whom the methods and
93

time were only moderately appropriate learned less well. And students for whom the
instruction and time were inappropriate due to differences in their backgrounds or
learning styles, learned very little. In other words, little variation in the teaching resulted
in great variation in student learning. Under these conditions the pattern of student
achievement was similar to the normal curve distribution shown in Figure 1. Distribution
of Achievement in Traditional Classrooms
To attain better results and reduce this variation in student achievement, Bloom reasoned
that we would have to increase variation in the teaching. That is, because students varied
in their learning styles and aptitudes, we must diversify and differentiate instruction to
better meet their individual learning needs. The challenge was to find practical ways to
do this within the constraints of group-based classrooms so that all students learn well.
In searching for such a strategy, Bloom drew primarily from two sources of evidence.
t
First he considered the ideal teaching and learning situation in which an excellent tutor
.ne
is paired with each student. He was particularly influenced by the work of early
pioneers in individualized instruction, especially Washburn (1922) and his Winnetka
Plan, and Morrison (1926) and his University of Chicago Laboratory School
o
experiments. In examining this evidence, Bloom tried to determine what critical
Pr
elements in one-to-one tutoring and individualized instruction could be transferred to
group-based classroom settings.
s
Second, Bloom looked at studies of the learning strategies of academically successful
ok
students, especially the work of Dollard and Miller (1950). From this research he tried to
identify the activities of high achieving students in group-based classrooms that
distinguish them from their less successful classmates. Bloom believed it was reasonable
Bo
for teachers to organize the concepts and skills they wanted students to learn into
instructional units. He also considered valuable for teachers to assess student learning at
w.
the end of each unit. But he found that most teachers’ classroom assessments did little
more than show for whom their initial instruction was and was not appropriate.
ww
A far better approach, according to Bloom, would be for teachers to use their classroom
assessments as learning tools, and then to follow those assessments with a feedback and
corrective procedure. In other words, instead of using assessments only as evaluation
devices that mark the end of each unit, Bloom recommended using them as part of the
instructional process to diagnose individual learning difficulties (feedback) and to
prescribe remediation procedures (correctives).
This is precisely what takes place when an excellent tutor works with an individual
student. If the student makes an error, the tutor first points out the error (feedback), and
then follows up with further explanation and clarification (correctives) to ensure the
student’s understanding. Similarly, academically successful students typically follow up
the mistakes they make on quizzes and assessments. They ask the teacher about the items
they missed, look up the answer in the textbook or other resources, or rework the problem
or task so that errors are not repeated.
94

Bloom’s Mastery Learning

Benjamin Bloom then outlined a specific instructional strategy to make use of this
feedback and corrective procedure, labeling it “learning for mastery” (Bloom, 1968), and
later shortening the name to simply “mastery learning” (Bloom, 1971). With this strategy,
teachers first organize the concepts and skills they want students to learn into
instructional units that typically involve about a week or two of instructional time.
Following initial instruction on the unit, teachers administer a brief “formative”
assessment based on the unit’s learning goals. Instead of signifying the end of the unit,
however, this formative assessment’s purpose is to give students information, or
feedback, on their learning. It helps students identify what they have learned well to that
point and what they need to learn better (Bloom, Hastings, & Madams, 1971).
Paired with each formative assessment are specific “corrective” activities for students to
use in correcting their learning difficulties. Most teachers match these “correctives” to
t
each item or set of prompts within the assessment so that students need work on only
.ne
those concepts or skills not yet mastered. In other words, the correctives are
“individualized.” They may point out additional sources of information on a particular
topic, such as page numbers in the textbook or workbook where the topic is discussed.
o
They may identify alternative learning resources such as different textbooks, learning
Pr
kits, alternative materials, CDs, videos, or computerized instructional lessons. Or they
may simply suggest sources of additional practice, such as study guides, independent or
guided practice activities, or collaborative group activities.
s
ok
With the feedback and corrective information gained from a formative assessment, each
student has a detailed prescription of what more needs to be done to master the concepts
or skills from the unit. This “just-in-time” correction prevents minor learning difficulties
Bo
from accumulating and becoming major learning problems. It also gives teachers a
practical means to vary and differentiate their instruction in order to better meet students’
w.
individual learning needs. As a result, many more students learn well, master the
important learning goals in each unit, and gain the necessary prerequisites for success in
subsequent units (Bloom, Madams, & Hastings, 1981).
ww
When students complete their corrective activities after a class period or two, Bloom
recommended they take a second formative assessment. This second, “parallel”
assessment covers the same concepts and skills as the first, but is composed of slightly
different problems or questions, and serves two important purposes. First, it verifies
whether or not the correctives were successful in helping students overcome their
individual learning difficulties. Second, it offers students a second chance at success and,
hence, has powerful motivational value.
Some students, of course, will perform well on the first assessment, demonstrating that
they’ve mastered the unit concepts and skills. The teacher’s initial instruction was highly
appropriate for these students and they have no need of corrective work. To ensure their
continued learning progress, Bloom recommended these students be provided with
special “enrichment” or “extension” activities to broaden their learning experiences. Such
95

activities often are self-selected by students and might involve special projects or reports,
academic games, or a variety of complex, problem-solving tasks. Figure 2 illustrates this
instructional sequence.
The Mastery Learning Instructional Process Through this process of formative classroom
assessment, combined with the systematic correction of individual learning difficulties,
Bloom believed all students could be provided with a more appropriate quality of
instruction than is possible under more traditional approaches to teaching. As a result,
nearly all might be expected to learn well and truly master the unit concepts or learning
goals (Bloom, 1976). This, in turn, would drastically reduce the variation in students’
achievement levels, eliminate achievement gaps, and yield a distribution of achievement.
t
o .ne
s Pr
ok
Bo
w.
ww
96

Psychological Foundations of Science Education-I: Unit 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Foundations of Science Education-I: Unit 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Foundations of Science Education-I: Unit 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EduWorldPK.com BooksPro.net SEDiNFO.

Written by: Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Ather Khan

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

A theoretical framework based on cognitive/developmental research is described.

After reading this unit you will be able to:

3. know the concepts of solo and B.Bloom taxonomy.

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

5.1 IVAN PETROVICH PAVLOV

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

After some time, Pavlov obtained a position as a laboratory assistant to Professor

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

After completing his doctorate, Pavlov went to Germany where he studied

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

the reconsideration of cases pertaining to several people he knew personally.[3]

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

Classical conditioning focuses on using preceding conditions to alter behavioral

5.2. Skinner’s Theory and Science Teaching

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

philosopher.[2][3][4][5] He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard

Hamilton College because of his intellectual attitude.[19] While attending, he

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

However, in contrast to methodological behaviorism, Skinner's radical behaviorism did

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

Origin of Operant Behavior

reinforcement is strengthened and becomes prominent in that individual's behavioral

Control of Operant Behavior

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

This "three-term contingency" (stimulus-response-reinforcer) is one of Skinner's most

Explaining Complex Behavior

Both types of reinforcement strengthen behavior, or increase the probability of a behavior

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

of other, often unwanted, consequences.[34] Extinction is the absence of a rewarding

 Variable Interval Schedule (VI): A procedure in which behaviour is reinforced

a specific number of responses have been made.

Operant Conditioning Chamber

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

way increased in frequency. By controlling this reinforcement together with

exploration of response rates, presented in his book with C. B. Ferster, Schedules of

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

aspects described in Skinner's book.

Skinner's book, Walden Two, presents a vision of a decentralized, localized society,

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his

with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.[71][72]

Modern behavioral psychologists have disputed Skinner's "superstition" explanation for

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

5.4. Gagné's Hierarchy of Learning

Gagné's hierarchy of learning:

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net

Skinner. It involves developing desired stimulus-response bonds in the subject

Gagné. It involves developing the ability to invent a complex rule, algorithm or

method to solve other problems of a similar nature.

5.5. Gestalt Theory (Wertheimer)

Wertheimer was especially concerned with problem-solving. Wertheimer (1959) provides

StudyNowPK.com BooksPro.net ProPK.net